The Logic Of The Mormon Atonement.

[Kevin Christensen]

For other approaches to the atonement, see Lorin K. Hansen Dialogue vol 27 n1 (Spring 1994) as “The Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation.” After surveying the various interpretations, he noted that he could divide them into “Objective” theories and “Subjective” theories, that is, “The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Christian Orthodoxy were predominantly objective interpretations: man and woman, according to these views were, are redeemed by God’s works, not their own works, for they are morally incapable of contributing to their own redemption. And the Moral-Influence theory (the predominant example of a “moral” theory of the Atonement) was a subjective interpretation; that is, man and woman are morally autonomous and are redeemed through their own initiative, responding to the moral example of Jesus Christ. So the polarization in Christian theology is primarily one of moral-subjective interpretation versus transactional objective interpretations.” (Hansen, 201)

So he made the case that the Book of Mormon uniquely includes both objective and and subjective atonement. (Hansen, 209). It’s a provocative piece that I’ve thought deserves more attention.

I'm also fond of Nibley’s “The Meaning of the Atonement,” Ostler’s “Com-passion Theory,” Eugene England’s “Shakespeare and the At-One-ment of Christ”. Truman Madsen’s “The Olive Press.”

I’d also have to add in helpful non-LDS perspectives including Margaret Barker’s “Atonement: The Rite of Healing” and And more recently, anthropologist Rene Girard’s important book, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mrmandias]

Like Kevin Christensen notes, there are lots of different theories about the atonement. And its the atonement that matters, not the theories we have about them.

The theory you are asking about is usually called the substitutionary atonement theory, where we owe a debt to God because of our sin and Christ pays the debt for us. Another common theory is the ransom theory, where, crudely put, we owe a debt to Satan (i.e., we have put ourselves in his power) and in justice God simply cannot cancel those debts, because they are not owed to Him and because we contracted them voluntarily. But Christ buys off Satan by suffering in our stead. Maybe that's a theory that will make sense to you. Like many atonement theories, you can find LDS scripture that supports it.

Here is another explanation for why God can't just forgive you: God wants your choices to be meaningful, but if your bad choices don't have bad consequences for somebody (Christ, for example), then they aren't meaningful. See a more thorough discussion here:

http://www.jrganymede.com/2010/08/17/you-want-justice-you-need-justice/

[mrmandias]

"The wages of sin is death" talks about spiritual death, not physical death since Mormons do NOT believe in original sin. If this wasn't the case (that is, if that verse talked about physical death also) then babies either wouldn't be able to die (because they haven't sinned) OR they would be born in sin (thus, the doctrine of original sin). Since it is neither of those then it is consistent with LDS teachings since Mormons believe neither in original sin nor that babies are not able to die because they have not sinned. Then, this quote can ONLY mean spiritual death, NOT physical death (thus speaking ONLY of the atonement, NOT of the resurrection).

Technically not true, in my opinion. You can make a case for that position, but I think the more scriptural case is that redemption from 'original sin' is one of the universal effects of the atonement in Mormon belief, just like redemption from physical death.

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6.54?lang=eng#53

[Rivers]

I don't fully understand the science behind why the atonement is necessary, but it is certainly a fascinating concept.

The history of the world is full of different civilizations giving sacrifices to their deities for the purpose of demonstrating their love and devotion.

With the atonement, things are backwards. Instead of us making a sacrifice to our god, God is making a sacrifice for us. The atonement is evidence of how precious we are to God. Perhaps the Father could have simply forgiven us on grounds that we are human and can't be expected to be perfect. But with the atonement, God is letting us know just how much he cares about us.

Also, in mormon theology, the atonement accomplished more than the forgiveness of sins. The atonement includes the resurrection and allows us all to live again. It also provides some kind of power that allows are hearts to change and become more like Christ.

According to mormon theology, we are not only concerned about receiving a forgiveness of sins and becoming saved. Our purpose in life is to grow and develop into something greater. Somehow the atonement helps with this process.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Rivers

[TAO]

According to mormon theology, we are not only concerned about receiving a forgiveness of sins and becoming saved Our purpose in life is to grow and develop into something greater. Somehow the atonement helps with this process.

This is the part that is really important to me =). It is why I tried, and eventually gained a testimony in the church.

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[Rivers]

delete

Edited July 5, 2011 by Rivers

[Ahab]

It may be argued that this was because justice wouldn't have been served otherwise but I find this as a very unsatisfactory answer because of the following: when you forgive a debt, it isn't unjust to do so.

It can be unjust to do so if you don't have some way of satisfying justice when you forgive. Mercy shouldn't rob justice.

When Christ's forgives our debt of sin it isn't unjust...

It isn't unjust when Christ forgives because when he forgives the recipient of his forgiveness has satisfied his terms for forgiveness.

...and it isn't unjust for us to forgive other people's debts when we see fit to do so.

You and I may forgive someone just because we feel like we want to forgive, but God and Christ aren't so arbitrary with their forgiveness.

Our Father's forgiveness is based upon our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior, and unless we do that our Father will not forgive us.

Christ's forgiveness is based upon our repentance of all of our sins, and unless we do that Christ will not forgive us.

You could forgive someone of something and not forgive someone else for doing the same exact thing, just because you like one person more than another, but neither our Father or Christ are respecters of persons, in that sense, and they apply their judgment equally to everybody.

Why is it, then, said that the Father forgiving something (but not Christ or us) is an offense to justice?

What I already said above should help you understand that.

Let's say (just to put a number) that our debt of sin was 500,000 atoms (an atom is a unit of sin... just to put it a number, again). When Christ came he paid the 500,000 atoms of sin but the obvious thing is that we NOW owe 500,000 atoms to Christ. Christ forgave us from what he payed and asked us to do other things than to atone for our own sins (i.e. repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, follow His commandments and repent when we fail.

Christ paid the debt for all of our sins but whether or not he will forgive us remains to be seen. The test isn't quite over yet so don't be so sure of yourself.

That is why it is said we will never repay (nor can repay) Christ for what He did for us.

True enough.

Let me know what you think... but please, PLEASE try to understand what I'm saying here first. I will gladly answer any questions about it.

I understood what you said and you didn't seem to understand how it works. Hopefully what I said will help to get you on the right track.

[elguanteloko]

I don't see that Ostler's objection has any hold over Skousen's scriptural explanation.

Huh? From what I posted Ostler said:

However, the theory [(Skousen's)] doesn’t account for the scriptural data that must be explained by a theory of

atonement. It doesn’t connect with the scriptural sense in which Christ actually bears our sins. According to

scripture, the pain that Christ suffers arises from taking our sins upon himself and indeed into his own person.

(See 1 Peter 2:21-24) My sins don’t seem to be involved in anything that Christ does because the intelligences

were persuaded to give up their unjust demands 2,000 years ago. What I do in the here and now seems totally

disconnected from this explanation for atonement.

An incomplete explanation that ignores some of the fundamental ideas exposed in the scriptures seems like a rather bad explanation. That's Ostler's objection to Skousen. Ostler also said:

Moreover, the scriptural

warrant for this view is obviously questionable. Alma’s discussion of the “demands of justice” in Alma 34 and

42 rather clearly has nothing to do with the demands of intelligences for someone to pay the price of violation

of the law.

What part of this isn't clear, Log?

Maybe you can explain it better, but I'm guessing not, since I've asked Ostler himself and he declined to. Calling something unjust doesn't make it so, and that's the end of that.

Are you talking here about the "intelligences' demand for justice"? If that is so, that is unjust simply because of the following:

Let's say you are a judge and it is your responsibility as such to condemn me when it has been shown that I committed a serious crime. The fact here is that you have to punish ME, not my mother if she volunteers to pay the sentence for me, not my father if he tries to do the same, not a neighbor, not anyone else. To accept such a thing and punish the innocent even if they offer themselves is unjust.

[elguanteloko]

God is in perfect alignment with eternal laws and so does not short-circuit the laws governing human perfection. Our agency and its consequences are governed by these laws. At some point along our trajectory to perfection, we choose to fall out of alignment and suffer the consequences. Using our own resources to get back on track results in a net shortfall of total wherewithal required to reach perfection.

God does not ignore, waive or forgive that shortfall because that would get Him out of alignment with the laws that govern eternal progress. By covenant with the Father, Christ does not ignore, waive or forgive that shortfall and provides the resources necessary to get us back on track. He does this in perfect alignment with those eternal laws that govern the actions of a pre-mortal God who enters mortality. Because the Son does on earth what He sees the Father do in eternity (John 5), it could be said that it is as difficult for the Father to give the world His Only Begotten Son as it is for the Son to perform the atonement, or that it is a mutual undertaking, not one instead of the other.

Because we haven’t the resources and wherewithal to return to the path and finish the course, the atonement had to be accomplished by Christ, a mortal god on earth (more intelligent than us all, Abraham 3) under the direction of the Father, an exalted god in eternity (who is more intelligent than they all) in order to bring heaven and earth together. The reason the atonement has to be accomplished by a mortal god is because mortality is time, place, condition, etc. in which the laws were broken.

It could be said that the Fall was did not occur in the mortal world,. The atonement covers this as well in that Christ had the power make Himself immortal through the choice of obedience in answer or opposition to Adam having the power to make himself mortal through the choice of disobedience.

...O.K.... I wasn't really looking for a basic explanation on the atonement but I appreciate the effort.

The whole point, CV75, is that Christ's atonement only seems to have placed the forgiveness the Father could have given us, in Christ; that's it. Here's the thing: We sinned against the Father and we couldn't make up for it. Christ comes in and "pays" or makes up for what we did; at this point we are "free criminals" (in a manner of speaking) since we didn't get our 'deserved' punishment at all. We owe the price of our sins to Christ, now, and we also can't repay him nor make up for it (we do NOT atone for our own sins). However, Christ forgives our sins IF we repent and do other things (but we do NOT atone for our sins).

Then, just put Christ in place of the Father and you can see the point I'm trying to make. Christ is someone who forgives our sins (which we aren't able to pay in full anyways) if we repent and turn from them and turn to Christ. That's EXACTLY what God the Father could have done without any need of a sacrifice! Why is Christ forgiving us said to NOT be unjust but God the Father forgiving us is unjust?

[TAO]

...O.K.... I wasn't really looking for a basic explanation on the atonement but I appreciate the effort.

The whole point, CV75, is that Christ's atonement only seems to have placed the forgiveness the Father could have given us, in Christ; that's it. Here's the thing: We sinned against the Father and we couldn't make up for it. Christ comes in and "pays" or makes up for what we did; at this point we are "free criminals" (in a manner of speaking) since we didn't get our 'deserved' punishment at all. We owe the price of our sins to Christ, now, and we also can't repay him nor make up for it (we do NOT atone for our own sins). However, Christ forgives our sins IF we repent and do other things (but we do NOT atone for our sins).

Then, just put Christ in place of the Father and you can see the point I'm trying to make. Christ is someone who forgives our sins (which we aren't able to pay in full anyways) if we repent and turn from them and turn to Christ. That's EXACTLY what God the Father could have done without any need of a sacrifice! Why is Christ forgiving us said to NOT be unjust but God the Father forgiving us is unjust?

El, that's because Jesus Christ is not bound by the same laws that Heavenly Father is. They can have the laws of mercy, but Father himself must send Christ to actually do the job, according to the laws he agreed to to become who he is, sorta =). It is all planned, and it is all necessary, I trust Father and Christ on that =).

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

Christ's resurrection was part of the Atonement.

OK, you are right. That's the official view but I reject it as making even less sense than other options. If Christ had the power to give His life (which just means leave His body at will and take it back whenever he wanted to) then that doesn't seem to be much of a sacrifice at all. Plus, Christ made it sound like he didn't like to be among his disciples much. Pain, on the other hand, does seem like a sacrifice, but not leaving your body when it isn't taken from you, when you will stop suffering when you leave it, and when you can take it when you decide to in as much health and vigor as you want even to immortality.

Edited July 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mrmandias]

...O.K.... I wasn't really looking for a basic explanation on the atonement but I appreciate the effort.

The whole point, CV75, is that Christ's atonement only seems to have placed the forgiveness the Father could have given us, in Christ; that's it. Here's the thing: We sinned against the Father and we couldn't make up for it. Christ comes in and "pays" or makes up for what we did; at this point we are "free criminals" (in a manner of speaking) since we didn't get our 'deserved' punishment at all. We owe the price of our sins to Christ, now, and we also can't repay him nor make up for it (we do NOT atone for our own sins). However, Christ forgives our sins IF we repent and do other things (but we do NOT atone for our sins).

Then, just put Christ in place of the Father and you can see the point I'm trying to make. Christ is someone who forgives our sins (which we aren't able to pay in full anyways) if we repent and turn from them and turn to Christ. That's EXACTLY what God the Father could have done without any need of a sacrifice! Why is Christ forgiving us said to NOT be unjust but God the Father forgiving us is unjust?

I don't read this board often enough to know, but are you trolling? The regulars certainly aren't responding to you as if you are. But you keep responding to people who miss your question without engaging with the folks who've answered it.

[elguanteloko]

CV75, that's because Jesus Christ is not bound by the same laws that Heavenly Father is. They can have the laws of mercy, but Father himself must send Christ to actually do the job, according to the laws he agreed to to become who he is, sorta =). It is all planned, and it is all necessary, I trust Father and Christ on that =).

TAO, "I trust Father and Christ in that it was necessary" isn't the type of answers I'm looking for. That's a brave admission, I'll give you that, but that isn't a rational response.

[mrmandias]

OK, you are right. That's the official view but I reject it as making even less sense than other options. If Christ had the power to give His life (which just means leave His body at will and take it back whenever he wanted to) then that doesn't seem to be much of a sacrifice at all. Plus, Christ made it sound like he didn't like to be among his disciples much. Pain, on the other hand, does seem like a sacrifice, but not leaving your body when it isn't taken from you and when you can take it when you decide to.

Two things wrong with this. First, I would dispute that Christ *decided* to die. He decided to let his killers have their way with him, but that's not the same thing. Second, who says that the atonement has to all be painful or sacrificial? The atonement is what Christ does to overcome the gap that separates man from God and/or the evils of the mortal condition. In LDS belief, the resurrection is logically part of that.

[elguanteloko]

For other approaches to the atonement, see Lorin K. Hansen Dialogue vol 27 n1 (Spring 1994) as “The Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation.” After surveying the various interpretations, he noted that he could divide them into “Objective” theories and “Subjective” theories, that is, “The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Christian Orthodoxy were predominantly objective interpretations: man and woman, according to these views were, are redeemed by God’s works, not their own works, for they are morally incapable of contributing to their own redemption. And the Moral-Influence theory (the predominant example of a “moral” theory of the Atonement) was a subjective interpretation; that is, man and woman are morally autonomous and are redeemed through their own initiative, responding to the moral example of Jesus Christ. So the polarization in Christian theology is primarily one of moral-subjective interpretation versus transactional objective interpretations.” (Hansen, 201)

So he made the case that the Book of Mormon uniquely includes both objective and and subjective atonement. (Hansen, 209). It’s a provocative piece that I’ve thought deserves more attention.

I'm also fond of Nibley’s “The Meaning of the Atonement,” Ostler’s “Com-passion Theory,” Eugene England’s “Shakespeare and the At-One-ment of Christ”. Truman Madsen’s “The Olive Press.”

I’d also have to add in helpful non-LDS perspectives including Margaret Barker’s “Atonement: The Rite of Healing” and And more recently, anthropologist Rene Girard’s important book, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Hey, I'm all for different interpretations on the atonement! I think that's always fun. I'll be checking some of your recommendations for sure; thanks a lot for providing them, Kevin.

...however, should I take this as an admission that the most common interpretation doesn't work? I agree there are other interpretations much more interesting, convincing, and, IMO, uplifting to believers and nonbelievers alike; but, after all and I'm NOT saying you are off-topic here, the thread is about a specific interpretation of it.

Make sure to let me know what you think, I would appreciate your insight.

Edited July 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Mark Beesley]

The parable of the debtor may not be the best analogy to compare it with. It is more instructive to think of it in terms of a court of law. If you committed a serious crime, and were brought before a court of law, and you were convicted and were found guilty, the judge has to execute the law and impose the penalty. If for example you were convicted of theft, and it carries a mandatory sentence of minimum three months in jail, then the judge has to carry out the sentence and impose the penalty. He can't say, "Okay now, tell me that you have repented, and I will forgive you, and you can go home." The sentence has to be carried out. Jesus by virtue of the Atonement was able to override that sentence on the condition of our faith and repentance. It is not revealed how he was able to do this, because in human law it doesn't work that way; but with divine law apparently it does.

Perhaps you will now say, It is God who made the law, therefore why can't He override His own law? The answer is that He can't. He is bound by His own law. If He expects us to be bound by it, then it is requisite that He must be bound by it too. The only way that it can be overridden is by means of an atonement: "this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance" (Alma 34:15).

The only issue I would have with this explanation is the assertion that God is bound by His own law, i.e. that the the laws that we transgress, the penalty for which Christ suffered, are laws that God made. I believe that the laws exist independent of God, and are self-executing. God is God because He has a perfect knowledge of those laws, and knows how to manipulate them. One of those manipulations involves offerering up a proxy sacrifice to satisfiy certain transgressions of the law. Skousen's theory about intelligences out there that need to be satisfied, placated into loyalty, reminded about payment, etc., really complicates the issue needlessly.

[elguanteloko]

Two things wrong with this. First, I would dispute that Christ *decided* to die. He decided to let his killers have their way with him, but that's not the same thing.

I don't see any practical or relevant difference there, really. But, anyways, from lds.org : "Only He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. From His mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to die. From His immortal Father, He inherited the power to overcome death. He declared, "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26)." (from http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=968539b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD )

Second, who says that the atonement has to all be painful or sacrificial?

The scriptures are quite explicit that a sacrifice was necessary. I can't conceive of any sacrifice which doesn't take some sort of "pain" and a sacrifice that covers ALL of the sins of humanity since Adam to the end seems to require some pretty serious pain.

The atonement is what Christ does to overcome the gap that separates man from God and/or the evils of the mortal condition. In LDS belief, the resurrection is logically part of that.

OK sure but this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of Christ's sacrifice; and resurrecting at will in a perfect body and giving up your body at will don't sound to me like any type of sacrifice. Please, let's move on. This is not really relevant to the issue at hand.

[mrmandias]

OK sure but this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of Christ's sacrifice; and resurrecting at will in a perfect body and giving up your body at will don't sound to me like any type of sacrifice. Please, let's move on. This is not really relevant to the issue at hand.

Move on? I already answered your question and you refused to engage. So did Log, and you moved the goalposts. So did whoever linked Ostler, and Kevin Christensen, by showing that what you presented as *the* theory of the Atonement was only one among several traditional approaches.

[TAO]

TAO, "I trust Father and Christ in that it was necessary" isn't the type of answers I'm looking for. That's a brave admission, I'll give you that, but that isn't a rational response.

CFR that it's not rational =).

Do you trust your wife? Under the circumstance, that wouldn't be rational either.

Nah, what I am saying is I know they are bound by laws, and I know that they said there is no other way, thus, I assume those laws are what is binding them. An assumption yes, but a rather safe one. Safer than dealing with mortal human beings, actually =).

EDIT: Lol, I called you CV75 there... was blurring through it and didn't think, srryz

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[zerinus]

The only issue I would have with this explanation is the assertion that God is bound by His own law, i.e. that the the laws that we transgress, the penalty for which Christ suffered, are laws that God made. I believe that the laws exist independent of God, and are self-executing.

I don't agree. The laws by which we are bound are made by God:

D&C 132

:

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

And God is bound by that law, which is His word:

D&C 82

:

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

God is God because He has a perfect knowledge of those laws, and knows how to manipulate them. One of those manipulations involves offerering up a proxy sacrifice to satisfiy certain transgressions of the law. Skousen's theory about intelligences out there that need to be satisfied, placated into loyalty, reminded about payment, etc., really complicates the issue needlessly.

Skousen's "theory" more than just "complicates the issue". It is false.

[Mark Beesley]

I don't agree. The laws by which we are bound are made by God:

D&C 132

:

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

And God is bound by that law, which is His word:

D&C 82

:

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

The fact that the Lord reveals laws to us, and adopts them as His own does not mean He created the laws.

The fact that laws exist independent of God does not mean He cannot add to those laws, laws of His own as He sees fit, so long as they are harmonious with the independent laws.

The only theory, in my mind, which makes sense of the atonement, is one which allows for self-executing laws to exist independent of God and to which He is subject.

[Log]

Skousen's "theory" more than just "complicates the issue". It is false.

It makes perfect sense to me; the alternates make no sense to me at all - not a single one either A) works, or B ) is compatible with the scriptures.

[elguanteloko]

It makes perfect sense to me; the alternates make no sense to me at all - not a single one either A) works, or B ) is compatible with the scriptures.

Why? How do you answer Ostler's objections to Skousen's view?

(Skousen's view is a little bit besides the point but I'm so cool that I have no problem with that. )

[elguanteloko]

Move on? I already answered your question and you refused to engage.

Ops! You are right, I just saw your post. Well, you aren't right since I didn't "refuse" since I didn't even see it. I'll respond to it.

So did Log, and you moved the goalposts. So did whoever linked Ostler, and Kevin Christensen, by showing that what you presented as *the* theory of the Atonement was only one among several traditional approaches.

mr, I never even implied there weren't other interpretations of the atonement AT ALL. Most mormons I've seen, however, ascribe to the explanation I presented (even Ostler seems to point out this observation) and I think it relevant enough to point it out. I even dare to call it the "Mormon Atonement" because it is even preached from the pulpit at General Conferences, lds.org, etc. ANY interpretation can be called a "tradition" so calling it that way doesn't make it any less relevant to Mormonism today. If 20 years from now the approach changes then that new approach could be called the "Mormon Atonement" for the same reasons. Look, mr, just take it easy, please. I'm not maliciously rejecting your first post which I just saw and neither am I ignoring what Log wrote (I've actually responded to him).

[zerinus]

The fact that the Lord reveals laws to us, and adopts them as His own does not mean He created the laws.

The fact that laws exist independent of God does not mean He cannot add to those laws, laws of His own as He sees fit, so long as they are harmonious with the independent laws.

The only theory, in my mind, which makes sense of the atonement, is one which allows for self-executing laws to exist independent of God and to which He is subject.

I believe that certain juridical concepts may have an independent existence—concepts like justice, judgement, mercy, and love. If God is "just"—and the scriptures teach that He is—then there must be an independent concept or standard of justice by which God's actions can be determined to be such. But that is a different thing from saying that laws themselves that are enacted on the basis of those concepts exist independent of God. God makes laws that are just, and conform to the eternal standards of justice, judgement, and mercy; but that doesn't mean that the laws themselves exist independent of God.

Edited July 6, 2011 by zerinus