Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[LeSellers]

I think it is a balance between justice and mercy. If he left sin unpunished there would be no justice. So by giving his life for us he satisfies justice and at the same time shows his love for us.

True enough, and it is good LDS doctrine.

But it does not answer the question.

Why doesn't He just save us (since you all claim the only reason for our existence is His glory), rather than condemn most of us (the vast majority from what I read) to an eternity of suffering, agony, pain, anguish, misery, torment, etc?

If He can do anything He chooses, then there must be a reason He doesn't want to do save us. The only reason I can imagine is that He (all according to your misunderstanding of the Gospel) either wants or needs that suffering. Otherwise, He'd destroy the "lake of fire and brimstone".

He is not bound, according to your warped view of eternity, to either mercy or justice, so there is no need, by your lights, for either.

Lehi

[cinepro]

That we have to keep all the commandments of God.

The problem should be obvious.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In the parable, could the original creditor have just worked out an alternate payment schedule on his own? Why is there a need for a mediator?

The flaw in the parable is the assumption that there can be a punishment that somehow accounts for a crime or infraction. In some cases, this may be possible (if someone steals money, they can repay the money). But in other cases, damage is done that cannot be undone. A murderer or rapist may be sent to prison or put to death, but that in no way corrects for the damage they have done. This is a limitation of the human experience, where it is impossible to undo what has been done. These punishments try to serve some small purpose as a deterrent to others, a means to stop the person from doing it again, and a way to just make the criminal miserable.

The idea of the "atonement" extrapolates this earthly idea to a supernatural realm, where we must introduce a series of interesting assumptions.

First, we must assume that there is some supernatural force above God and more powerful than God (since God had to learn these rules Himself, and must abide by them). This force is a divine "Scale of Justice" that is aware of human morality, and has an internal reckoning for commensurate punishments for ethical or moral breaches in human behavior for every culture and people in the history of the universe. For example, this divine Scale knows that a 9-year-old stealing a candy bar isn't as bad as a serial killer. How it has learned this, I don't know.

Scale apparently knows punishments that can be inflicted upon spiritual beings that are commensurate with their infractions. For example, there is some form of spiritual punishment that can be inflicted upon a 9-year-old thief that restores balance to the force universe, and this is assumingly different than the punishment due to the serial killer. What form this punishment takes, we don't really know. But we might ask what spiritual form could this punishment take to satisfy Scale? Pain? Isolation? Something else? And in an eternal sense, how does it make sense that inflicting spiritual pain to a spirit who stole a candy bar as a 9-year-old somehow restores balance to the universe? What would be the state of the universe if this pain were not inflicted?

Now, accepting that there is some amount of pain or punishment that can be inflicted upon spiritual beings to make them pay for the bad things they've done, we need to theorize that Scale will actually allow people to take the punishment for the crimes of others. There is a loophole in this divine, all powerful law that says that the punishment can be transferred to another person. According to Christian doctrine, this person must not have any crimes of their own. But how can that matter? Why does Scale care whether or not the person taking the punishment for another has committed any crimes of their own? He just does.

So in the case of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we theorize that Scale was able to take the preemptive punishment for all the sins of humanity and place them upon Jesus in one night. This would mean that Scale (not God) had ultimate control over the fates of mankind, but Jesus was able to bargain, in exchange for the Punishment, he would then get control over our fates. So the responsibility of determining our eternal punishments was shifted from Scale to Jesus, and now Scale is powerless, because all that divine punishment has equalized all of our sins. And Jesus can do whatever he likes with us.

Turns out, what Jesus wants to do with us is to have us get the reward that we would have gotten if we had been sinless and perfect (like him). So now Scale must sit and watch humans who have sinned and committed crimes get the same reward they would have gotten if they hadn't sinned. And we get to do so without suffering the punishment Scale would have given us, because of the deal he made with Jesus.

This raises the question of whether or not we could pay the price for our own sins.

Theoretically, it should be possible.

Since Christ was able to complete the infinite atonement in a day or two, it means that the punishment for sins is of a finite duration. And we know that it can be endured by an immortal being. Once we are resurrected*, we will be immortal eternal beings, so we would all have infinite time to pay the price for our sins. Assuming an average "sinfulness" through the ages, our payment would be only a billionth of a fraction of what Christ endured. While it may be uncomfortable, is there a logical reason Scale couldn't be appeased this way?

Would it be each person writhing in pain for a billion years or so for their stolen candy bars and porn addictions, and then entering the Celestial Kingdom having paid the price? We hear a lot about Jesus's/God's plan and Satan's Plan, but were there other options?

*We would still need Jesus to get us resurrected, assuming the theory that Jesus getting resurrected somehow gives all of us the privilege of rising from the dead one day. Why this would be so according to the laws of the universe, I'm not sure. But that's another thread.

[Uncertain]

No, i don't think our justice system should adopted such a practice.

Hi Bluebell,

The problem of course is I see little difference between my example and the penal substitution theory of the atonement. Just like it is unjust for an innocent to suffer the consequences of a criminal breaking the law. It is unjust for an innocent Christ to pay the punishment for my breaking of eternal law.

However, my point was that, this is only an issue if the 'debt' is a form of punishment. That means that it's only unjust for the Savior to have paid our 'debt' if we are getting out of some kind of punishment that we deserved by Him doing that.

Well of course we deserve punishment for the breaking of eternal laws. If we did not deserve punishment then punishing the wicked (unrepentant breakers of law) is an unjust concept. Because the wicked would not deserve punishment for breaking eternal laws.

If, instead of Him taking our punishment upon Him, He is paying a fine we don't have the money to pay, then it IS just for Him to do so.

LIke others have said (and you pointed out)-this is just one way to apply the Atonement and it's certainly not the only angle to study it from, nor is it a complete understanding in and of itself, but if your points are a concern for you in understanding the Atonement, then i thought it would be important to suggest that you might be applying it in a way that it doesn't necessarily have to be applied.

Well if I break a law then my punishment is deserved assuming of course the law was just in the first place. Therefore having an innocent suffer in my place is unjust. Furthermore the atonement was not a painless process like my parents writing a check to cover my credit card debt. Christ suffered unimaginable in the garden of gethsemane. Again how is it justified for an innocent to suffer for the deserved consequences of the guilty who have broken eternal laws?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[LifeOnaPlate]

I know I am getting here a little late, but I would just like to second LOAP's recommendation to check out Geoff's blog post which describes some of the basics of various atonement theories before diving into a discussion like this. I would also agree with the notion that contrary to certain assertions, atonement theory -- like much theology in the LDS faith -- has not been systematized. Parables are not meant to provide a complete exposition of doctrine, and are by their very nature, subject to the limitations of their narrative. They are intended to distill complicated topics to a basic level, and there is nothing wrong with discussing their limitations.

From an LDS point of view, in addition to what LOAP already mentioned about the lack of prevenient grace (and original sin), another weakness seems to be the arbitrary business transaction nature of the arrangement. First, in the parable, the businessman is operating based on arbitrary rules of debt and repayment. In other words, there is no overrriding reason other than those arbitrary rules why he could not be merciful and just forgive the debt, and the suffering itself does not appear justified. In our LDS faith, it is apparent that God operates based on fixed laws of the cosmos which apparently were not and could not be created (ref. for example scriptures which state God would cease to be God were he to do such and such...). Thus, while God is our judge, he is not an arbitrary judge, and our fate is not an arbitrary fate, and God could not be who he is and violate those laws to allow uncleanliness into his presence. By the same token, as another poster alluded to earlier, we physically cannot enter his presence without some sort of transformative action. At the same timne, God is not required to draw us into his presence, but chooses to do so because of his love for us. Further, we are taught that those entering into the highest kingdom are "just men, made perfect" through Jesus Christ, our being set right before God, not only involves some sort of debt restitution but a transformative action which is not entirely under our control.

Next, in the parable, justice serves the creditor at the expense of the debtor, however, it is unclear what the creditor actually obtains. In the parable it is money and potentially the satisfaction of placing a bad debtor in jail. To me, it is unclear how this translates into eternal principles of salvation. What sort of eternal "currency" are we talking about?

This is an interesting topic, and I hope we can see some more good comments and keep the vitriol to a minimum.

groove, do you ever hang and NCT?

[LifeOnaPlate]

First, I am most certainly not a Calvinist, as John Calvin was a heretic and a fool. The idea that a loving God has already decided who is saved and who is damned and there is nothing that you can do to change that is repulsive on so many levels; my vocabulary cannot even address it.

Well, say what you will about Calvin, but I simply don't think this is the right way to disagree. Do you think Calvin did the best he could with what he understood? I disagree with much of Calvin's conclusions, but I wouldn't (when I am trying to be my best self) call him a fool.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would also just add that I am currently a big fan of Blake Ostler's compassion theory of atonement. It is certainly a somewhat different take on atonement theory, and I am certainly not wedded to it. However, it strikes a good chord with me, and seems to be a good fit in the sense that it appears to fall in character with the type of God described by our scriptures and our leaders. I'm not sure if there are any links to good web explanations of this version of things.

They also discuss Ostler's "Compassion Theory" of the atonement here.

[groove]

I have been a lurker on NCT for quite some time. I think it is a gem of a blog because they avoid so much of the pervasive rancor you see everywhere on the net and occasionally somehow manage to have some genuinely spiritual conversations. I haven't contributed because frankly I feel a little inadequate with the likes of those guys. But they have some incredibly insightful discussions.

Edit... thanks for the link. I knew it was on there somewhere.

[LifeOnaPlate]

cinepro- some good thoughts on the atonement and implications of belief therein. Hence the discussions to which I linked earlier in the thread. One of them (the Jacob J) talks about various implications, definitions, and assumptions that guide conversations on the atonement.

The atonement is the central element of the gospel, and as such, it gets its doctrinal tentacles into nearly everything. The result is that a theory of atonement needs to answer a lot of questions, and many of them feel pretty â??central.â? The following list provides a good start:

Why was the atonement necessary?

Why was Christ the only one who could perform the atonement?

Why would we have been hopelessly lost without the atonement?

What caused Christ to suffer?

What did Christ suffer?

What did Christâ??s suffering accomplish?

What is the meaning of justice and mercy?

What is the nature of sin and sinfulness?

How does the atonement satisfy justice?

How did the atonement bring about the resurrection?

How is the atonement related to forgiveness?

How is the atonement related to repentance?

How do we account for the various things scriptures say about the atonement?

How was the atonement efficacious before it was performed?

How is the atonement related to the fall?

How did the atonement make us free?

[bluebell]

Well of course we deserve punishment for the breaking of eternal laws.

We deserve consequences, for sure, but the question then becomes, are the consequence that come from breaking eternal laws a punishment as you describe it?

If we did not deserve punishment then punishing the wicked (unrepentant breakers of law) is an unjust concept. Because the wicked would not deserve punishment for breaking eternal laws.

Again though, is it a punishment, or a consequence?

The consequence of taking out a loan, for example, is paying the loan back according to whatever terms we agreed to. The re-payment of the money owed, and even the payment of the interest we agreed to, is not a punishment.

There's an important distinction to be made between punishment and consequences.

To illustrate it further, it's interesting to note that punishment is incapable of repaying a 'debt'. If a person murder's another person, and their punishment is life in prison-them spending their lives in prison does not make the person alive again. Punishment has little or even nothing to do with restitution.

Perhaps the Atonement is not about Christ taking our 'punishment' for our sins, because He being punished for them would not restore the law to the unbroken state. The Atonement could be described as being about Christ taking upon Himself the consequences of our sins, in that through it the law is restored, as if it had never been broken in the first place.

Now of course, consequences could be looked at as being the same thing as punishement. Sometimes the words can be used interchangably. The biggest difference between the two words is probably the meaning a person is prescribing to them. If the punishment WAS the consequence for example.

Again, i'm really not trying to break down the Atonement using semantics-i wouldn't even attempt to try such thing with such a complicated and immense concept. I'm only pointing out that your way of understanding it, is not the only way it can be understood. You've kind of put it in a box that maybe it was never meant to go in.

Furthermore the atonement was not a painless process like my parents writing a check to cover my credit card debt. Christ suffered unimaginable in the garden of gethsemane. Again how is it justified for an innocent to suffer for the deserved consequences of the guilty who have broken eternal laws?

All the Best,

Uncertain

I don't think it is imaginable. We are dealing with eternal laws that we really don't understand. We don't know WHY they exist, why God must, being God, abide by them. We don't know WHY the shedding of blood and mortal death and pain would be a payment for them being broken.

Really, all we know about them is what God has taught us. If we accept that they exist and that breaking them incures a penalty a sinful person cannot pay, based solely upon God's word that that's the way it works, then there is little reason not to accept what God has said about the justice of another paying the debt for us.

Why trust part of what our only source teaches about something that we know absolutely nothing about and then reject other information that comes from the exact same source?

[consiglieri]

Would this be a bad time to question the fundamental assumption that the purpose of life is to learn how to perfectly obey God's commandments?

As long as this is held to be the purpose of mortality, I think we will go round and round on the issue of the atonement.

Other possibilities exist which may make the atonement more explicable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

We deserve consequences, for sure, but the question then becomes, are the consequence that come from breaking eternal laws a punishment as you describe it?Again though, is it a punishment, or a consequence?The consequence of taking out a loan, for example, is paying the loan back according to whatever terms we agreed to. The re-payment of the money owed, and even the payment of the interest we agreed to, is not a punishment.There's an important distinction to be made between punishment and consequences.

Hi bluebell, I am not sure I see the distinction between consequences and punishment. If a person murders someone and is sentenced to prision. Confinement is both a consequence of and a punishment for their actions. If you want to call negative results of breaking eternal laws a consequence instead of a punishment I am fine with the shift in terminology. But I do not see how this changes the underlying logic. If a consequence of me breaking eternal law(s) is negative result X. How is it justified for an innocent to suffer result X instead of me?

I would also add scripture does indeed refer to punishing the wicked.

See:

2 Peter 2:9

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

"Leviticus 26:18

"And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

Isaiah 13:11

"And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."

(bold added by me)

Again, i'm really not trying to break down the Atonement using semantics-i wouldn't even attempt to try such thing with such a complicated and immense concept. I'm only pointing out that your way of understanding it, is not the only way it can be understood. You've kind of put it in a box that maybe it was never meant to go in.

I am not arguing there is no atonement. I am stating why I find the penal substitution model unconvincing. So no I do not understand the atonement in terms of Christ taking the punishment for our sins. This does not necessarily mean I do not believe there is such a thing as the atonement. I am undecided.

Really, all we know about them is what God has taught us. If we accept that they exist and that breaking them incures a penalty a sinful person cannot pay, based solely upon God's word that that's the way it works, then there is little reason not to accept what God has said about the justice of another paying the debt for us.Why trust part of what our only source teaches about something that we know absolutely nothing about and then reject other information that comes from the exact same source?

Well this is a good point. There are many cases in which the scriptures do seem to teach the penal substitution method. This is probably why it is so popular in LDS circles. However I do think the scriptures can be interpreted otherwise. Hence the various different models linked to in this thread. In any case thank you for the discussion.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Billy]

Second, What God hated was the fact that Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Hate in this case would be better translated "disfavor". You know "Hate the sin, love the sinner".

The text does not say that God hated Esau because he sold his birthright. And hate is not better translated "disfavor", ask Joseph Smith in his JST. Also notice that it states that God elects not based on works.

JST

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

[Billy]

If He can do anything He chooses,

You don't think that God can do anything He chooses?

Who makes the rules up for God?

[consiglieri]

You don't think that God can do anything He chooses?

Who makes the rules up for God?

You have hit the nail on the head, Billy.

This is the fundamental problem with any theory that holds that God is not himself subject to law; a position held only by Mormons, to my knowledge.

If God really can do anything he wants, then you are forced to the unsavory conclusion that God chooses to make a bloody sacrifice of his own Son rather than just forgive people when they say they are sorry.

This is the elephant in the evangelical living room, mi amigo.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Would this be a bad time to question the fundamental assumption that the purpose of life is to learn how to perfectly obey God's commandments?

As long as this is held to be the purpose of mortality, I think we will go round and round on the issue of the atonement.

Other possibilities exist which may make the atonement more explicable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Apparently gaining a physical body is a big part of it. Exercising agency apparently could be done before we came here and will be possible after we die, so it seems learning in that regard happened, happens, and will happen, aye?

[Billy]

You have hit the nail on the head, Billy.

This is the fundamental problem with any theory that holds that God is not himself subject to law; a position held only by Mormons, to my knowledge.

If God really can do anything he wants, then you are forced to the unsavory conclusion that God chooses to make a bloody sacrifice of his own Son rather than just forgive people when they say they are sorry.

This is the elephant in the evangelical living room, mi amigo.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

mi amigo, es muy importante to answer the question for me por favor. Who gives the LDS God his rules?

[LifeOnaPlate]

The text does not say that God hated Esau because he sold his birthright. And hate is not better translated "disfavor", ask Joseph Smith in his JST. Also notice that it states that God elects not based on works.

JST

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Methinks you misunderstand the purpose of the JST.

[LifeOnaPlate]

mi amigo, es muy importante to answer the question for me por favor. Who gives the LDS God his rules?

For the time being, does it even matter, as long as we agree He is perfectly capable of keeping the "rules"?

[bluebell]

Who gives the LDS God his rules?

If the laws are eternal, then that would seem to imply that they exist outside of anyone creating or implementing them.

[Billy]

Methinks you misunderstand the purpose of the JST.

That Joseph Smith is NOT a prophet, seer, and revelator?

For the time being, does it even matter, as long as we agree He is perfectly capable of keeping the "rules"?

It matters to me, because that means that my God is bigger than your God who is subject to someone else's rules and regulations.

[consiglieri]

Apparently gaining a physical body is a big part of it. Exercising agency apparently could be done before we came here and will be possible after we die, so it seems learning in that regard happened, happens, and will happen, aye?

Here is what I think (for what it is worth):

HERESY ALERT!

We could have gotten bodies in any of a myriad different ways limited only to God's imagination. I think Mormons often get too hung up on the body thing because it is such an easy and definitive answer.

The other thing that is taught by the missionaries, together with gaining a body, is "gaining experience" which we need to grow and learn. The missionary discussions, however, are loathe to actually set forth what that "experience" is that we are supposed to "gain."

I suggest that we are not here to be perfect. Quite the opposite in fact.

We are here to sin.

Before you start throwing things, think about it for a second. If we are not here to sin, why has God set up absolutely everything such that we have no choice but to sin? If God doesn't want us to sin, he is doing a pretty poor job of constructing the obstacle course.

In fact, if anybody says they don't sin, or aren't a sinner, they are a liar, according to the scripture.

Now, if we can accept, just for argument's sake, the supposition that we are here to sin, where does that take us?

It takes us to a point where we can perhaps see that this entire obstacle course was perfectly constructed if the goal is for us to sin; and to learn the consequences of sin; in such a state that we do not have to live eternally with those consequences. This is the probationary state; the time to learn the sweetness of good specifically by tasting the evil, for it is only through experiencing the evil that we can know to choose the good because it is preferable.

It is in this way that Adam and Eve gained their knowledge of good and evil. And when they did so, it was the Gods who said that the man had become as one of them, to know good and evil.

How did the Gods come to be Gods, then? By experiencing a mortal probation such as we are now and learning the consequences of sinning without having to live forever with those consequences.

This is why the Savior is essential.

This is why the Atonement was provided.

So that we could fulfill the purpose of mortality by learning through sinning that which is necessary to become as the Gods are, and yet be forgiven our trespasses so that we, too, can become Gods ourselves.

Just a thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Who gives the LDS God his rules?

It doesn't matter.

You are seeking to divert the question away from the fundamental flaw in your theology.

You believe in a God who would rather make a blood sacrifice of his own Son than just forgive people when they say they are sorry.

Once you admit that, you will feel better about yourself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

If the laws are eternal, then that would seem to imply that they exist outside of anyone creating or implementing them.

Maybe I am missing something here, but where do you read that the laws are eternal, and that God is subject to these rules? And who made up these eternal laws or rules?

[consiglieri]

Maybe I am missing something here, but where do you read that the laws are eternal, and that God is subject to these rules? And who made up these eternal laws or rules?

Billy, you keep trying to divert attention away from the crack in the foundation of your theology.

Do you, or do you not, believe in a God who could just forgive us when we say we are sorry, but instead chooses to make a needless bloody sacrifice of his own Son?

There is only one way out of this quagmire; and it is the Mormons who hold the key.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It matters to me, because that means that my God is bigger than your God who is subject to someone else's rules and regulations.

Yes, it does.

The downside is that your God who is not subject to someone else's rules and regulations becomes upon closer inspection a bloodthirsty tyrant.

If your God would make a bloody sacrifice of his own Son, what might he have in store for you, hmm?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

Yes, it does.

The downside is that your God who is not subject to someone else's rules and regulations becomes upon closer inspection a bloodthirsty tyrant.

If your God would make a bloody sacrifice of his own Son, what might he have in store for you, hmm?

So what you are saying is that Jesus was predestined to come to earth and give himself as a sacrifice, he really had no choice in the matter despite the so called counsel in heaven? Just like his father did before him?

The downside is that your God who is not subject to someone else's rules and regulations becomes upon closer inspection a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Who made the rules and regulations that required the bloody sacrifice of Jesus? Doesn't the person who made the rules up that required the sacrifice of Jesus also qualify as what you say a "a bloodthirsty tyrant".