The Logic Of The Mormon Atonement.

[elguanteloko]

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.

Oh, I definitely don't agree with this. Both are important, IMO. Without theory (which is another word for explanation, btw) you can't understand either the atonement nor appreciate its value if you are a believer. With theory and without the atonement (the "fact") then you have just a mere idea with no effect.

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.jrganymed...u-need-justice/

I agree there are other views but I'm criticizing a specific one.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ahab]

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.

No, not quite. With Christ the "repentance" factor comes into play, along with a few other conditions that we must meet to receive forgiveness, while before that there was only the idea that if we messed up there would be consequences as a result of our actions, or actually Adam's actions which placed us in the situation that we are still trying to get out of.

Our Father told Adam he would die if he ate the fruit of a particular tree, and Adam ate it.. There was no "repentance" factor in what our Father told Adam, so now we need Christ to get us out of that death sentence.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ahab

[CV75]

...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?

The basic explanation was provided as background to the point I was making (bold-type below with further clarification).

I also explained that Christ functions under the direction of the Father. He has made it clear that it is the Father doing the forgiving (Luke 23:34).

The Father is just in forgiving us our sins if we repent and turn from them and turn to Christ because the penalty (sacrifice) has been paid by Christ (it would be unjust otherwise). I explained why the Father could not forgive without the sacrifice: “…the atonement had to be accomplished by Christ, a mortal god on earth …under the direction of the Father, an exalted god in eternity …The reason the atonement has to be accomplished by a mortal god [on earth, suffering as a mortal, and not by the exalted God suffering in heaven as an immortal] is because mortality is the time, place, condition, etc. in which the laws were broken” and is therefore the requisite place, time, condition, etc. for just reparation to occur. The Father is not in the position to atone, but Christ was. No forgiveness can be offered without someone paying the price, whether it be us in eternity or Christ in Gethsemane.

[CV75]

That's EXACTLY what God the Father could have done without any need of a sacrifice!

No, because forgiving sins simply on the basis of repentance is exactly what the Father could not or would not have done—there was no sacrifice, penalty paid, reparation, etc. on which to base His forgiveness. Forgiveness happens only when the penalty is paid. Even when it is waived, the penalty is “paid” by the forgiving party by absorbing the cost, which isn’t a “fair” or “just” way to forgive.

It was just for Christ to pay the penalty for the reasons mentioned in my first post’s explanation.

[elguanteloko]

there was no sacrifice, penalty paid, reparation, etc. on which to base His forgiveness. Forgiveness happens only when the penalty is paid.

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” in Luke 23:34 is not a petition to the Father after any reparation or sacrifice or penalty was paid. None of those were there for Christ to ask the Father for their forgiveness. What you just said is completely foreign to me.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

With Christ the "repentance" factor comes into play, along with a few other conditions that we must meet to receive forgiveness,

Which is something I completely agree with. My point is that there isn't any difference between the Father doing it and Christ doing it since Christ forgives anyways and it isn't an "injustice". This use of "injustice" is what is said prevented the Father from just forgiving us or asking for repentance and rites for forgiveness (which is what Christ does).

[cdowis]

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” in Luke 23:34 is not a petition to the Father after any reparation or sacrifice or penalty was paid. None of those were there for Christ to ask the Father for their forgiveness.

This is not the forgiveness that we are talking about. This was a one-time event that Christ plead that they be excused for this terrible event because they (the soldiers) were just doing their duty. This is in contrast to Judas who did it knowingly and became a son of perdition.

There are may kingdoms in the afterlife, and the soldiers, who were just doing their duty, should not be held to the same burden of guilt as Judas.

What you just said is completely foreign to me.

Now, you can chose to go according to the light of your own understanding, or to follow the insights that the modern prophets have given us. You have crossed over the basic simplicity of the Atonement, and gone over the mark. Trying to probe and argue over the (relatively) minor details of the Plan of Salvation.

You are just digging a very deep hole for yourself. Learn the basics first. Milk before meat.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[cinepro]

These threads discusses a similar topic and are worth checking out:

Edited July 6, 2011 by cinepro

[mrmandias]

Oh, I definitely don't agree with this. Both are important, IMO. Without theory (which is another word for explanation, btw) you can't understand either the atonement nor appreciate its value if you are a believer. With theory and without the atonement (the "fact") then you have just a mere idea with no effect.

Men cooked meat and warmed their hearths centuries before they could balance a chemical equation for combustion. I'm not saying theory is bootless. I'm saying that time spent at the foot of the cross is prior to and more important than time spent studying its schematics. That's partly why I don't see any reason to insist on a comprehensive theory of the atonement that accommodates every scripture, meets every logical demand, satisfies every question, fills every felt need, and rings true with every intuition. I am content with multiple partial explanations.

I agree there are other views but I'm criticizing a specific one.

The second paragraph I wrote, to which you gave this response, is a way of salvaging the substitutionary atonement theory from what chafes you about it. In my opinion, of course.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

One of the principal reasons for the justifications given for Christs suffering in the Atonement given in Mormonism is that Christ had to pay for the debt of sin we contracted with the Father. It is said, and analogies often go in these lines, that Christ paid for that debt to free us from Father's justice with His (Christ's) mercy and that all he asked from us was repentance and acceptance of his sacrifice and of who he was (what one does after accepting those terms like temple rituals and the like won't matter for this).

Now a few questions:

Why didn't the Father just forgive us from our sins with similar terms stipulated by Jesus Christ after he sacrificed his life? In other words, why didn't the Father just forgive us in the same way Christ forgives us?

The terms for forgiveness aren't exactly congruent with the terms for salvation or exaltation.

The terms for salvation are the same as they always were. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[webbles]

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?

Just a thought, maybe it is because the forgiver must be either of this planet or generation?

[Mike Richards]

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.

Doesn't Alma 34: 11-12 address this very issue?

11Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

The only reason the atonement works at all is because it is infinite--it satisfies every demand of justice. How it does so and who is actually demanding justice is what the theories try to get at. So far, it seems to me, the answers to these questions, along with many others dealing with the atonement, haven't been revealed.

[Chris Smith]

And its the atonement that matters, not the theories we have about them.

How can people be expected to accept a "gospel" whose central concept is vague or unarticulated?

Frankly, if all of the theories about the atonement are incoherent, then the very concept of atonement must be considered suspect.

[Log]

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

As I already said, "Calling something unjust does not prove that it is unjust."

[elguanteloko]

As I already said, "Calling something unjust does not prove that it is unjust."

No one here is trying to "prove" anything. Proofs are reserved for logic and mathematics, not for ethics. That what I mentioned definitely smells unjust, and for all practical purposes appears unjust... then that is the best explanation. Saying it isn't 'proved' is like saying Quantum Mechanics isn't "proved": it isn't (nothing in science can 'prove') but it's the best we have.

No one should care what anyone thinks is the case but we should care what the best accounts indicate is the better justified position.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

That what I mentioned definitely looks unjust, smells unjust, and by all best accounts is unjust... then that is the best explanation.

I don't think it looks unjust, smells unjust, and have only got you, an admitted apostate, and Ostler, who say otherwise (that would be 2 accounts (quality thereof of questionable value; Ostler's account of the Atonement is anti-scriptural), and you and Ostler are certainly not all best accounts - so sorry). As you say, why should I care?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

Doesn't Alma 34: 11-12 address this very issue?

11Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

It most definitely talks about it but hardly contributes anything of relevance.

The only reason the atonement works at all is because it is infinite--it satisfies every demand of justice.

Saying it is "infinite" so as to say it isn't unjust anymore (when "finite" meant it was unjust) is meaningless. I don't mean "meaningless" to say this is silly or anything... it literally doesn't have meaning. "I stole this car but my brother payed for my crime. His sacrifice was infinite, however, so it now became just and fair that he suffered for me" simply makes no sense.

This "infinite" simply has no meaning.

How it does so and who is actually demanding justice is what the theories try to get at. So far, it seems to me, the answers to these questions, along with many others dealing with the atonement, haven't been revealed.

I don't understand, then, why you quote Alma in the first place. If you admit this explanation of the atonement (the one that's most "official" in Mormonism) doesn't work, why say Christ's sacrifice was 'infinite' as if this meant something or contributed in any way?

[elguanteloko]

I don't think it looks unjust, smells unjust,

You know, I think we should expect a little bit more. Please, explain yourself.

and have only got you, an admitted apostate, and Ostler, who say otherwise (that would be 2 accounts (quality thereof of questionable value; Ostler's account of the Atonement is anti-scriptural), and you and Ostler are certainly not all best accounts - so sorry). As you say, why should I care?

Log, by "best accounts" I don't mean persons at all; I mean better reasons. An "account" is not a person.To say our accounts are not good you have to attack the reasoning, not the person.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

You know, I think we should expect a little bit more. Please, explain yourself.

It was pretty straightforward english, I thought. Dictionary.com?

Log, by "best accounts" I don't mean persons at all; I mean better reasons. An "account" is not a person.

An account promulgated by a person may be referred to via that person. Hence, when I referred to you and Ostler, I was implicitly referring to your (actually, only Ostler's, since you actually haven't proposed an account, except for Ostler's, and apparently only to counter my - and by my, I mean Skousen's - account) accounts.

And I deny that Ostler's account is better in either reasoning or closeness to reality or conformity with scripture. Since your account is actually his, that would also mean I don't think your account is of very high quality in reasoning either.

But of course you knew that.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

It was pretty straightforward english, I thought. Dictionary.com?

Nothing in Dictionary.com says why you, Log, don't think what I said is unjust is not unjust. So, are you going to explain or not?

An account promulgated by a person may be referred to via that person. Hence, when I refer to you and Ostler, I was implicitly referring to your (actually, only Ostler's, since you actually haven't proposed an account, except for Ostler's, and apparently only to counter my - and by my, I mean Skousen's - account) accounts.

"Via that person" is not that person any more than your account is you. Seriously, Log, get serious here.

"and you and Ostler are certainly not all best accounts" (what you said) is a clear case of an ad hominem.

And I deny that Ostler's account is better in either reasoning or closeness to reality or conformity with scripture. Since your account is actually his, that would also mean I don't think your account is of very high quality in reasoning either.

But of course you knew that.

Again, we expect reasons here. If you are not going to provide them, have a nice day, then.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

Nothing in Dictionary.com says why you, Log, don't think what I said is unjust is not unjust. So, are you going to explain or not?

I haven't got a reason to. If you likewise said "I think blue is red," I would say "blue is blue." I would not feel any need to justify this statement.

Ostler likewise never said why, in his opinion, Skousen's account of intelligences, who had always obeyed all of God's laws, desiring, or even insisting, that all should obey the same in order to dwell with them, portrayed these intelligences as unjust. Likewise, neither have you. It is, to me, a clear case of someone calling blue red.

"and you and Ostler are certainly not all best accounts" (what you said) is a clear case of an ad hominem.

Really?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Log

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Which is something I completely agree with. My point is that there isn't any difference between the Father doing it and Christ doing it since Christ forgives anyways and it isn't an "injustice". This use of "injustice" is what is said prevented the Father from just forgiving us or asking for repentance and rites for forgiveness (which is what Christ does).

Are you saying that Jesus had the power to forgive sins without the law of justice ever having to be satisfied? What makes you think this?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

Are you saying that Jesus had the power to forgive sins without the law of justice ever having to be satisfied? What makes you think this?

I don't know what you specifically mean by the "law of justice being satisfied."

What I'm saying is that Jesus is in fact forgiving us since we will NOT pay for our own sins to Him (God doesn't come in the picture here since He was already "payed" by Christ so there's no problem with the Father). Why couldn't the Father do the same thing? Unless you think Christ is being unjust for not making us atone for our own sins, then i don't think the Father would have been unjust at all by forgiving our sins (repentance aside; no amount of repentance would have made a difference).

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I don't know what you specifically mean by the "law of justice being satisfied."

What I'm saying is that Jesus is in fact forgiving us since we will NOT pay for our own sins to Him (God doesn't come in the picture here since He was already "payed" by Christ so there's no problem with the Father). Why couldn't the Father do the same thing? Unless you think Christ is being unjust for not making us atone for our own sins, then i don't think the Father would have been unjust at all by forgiving our sins (repentance aside; no amount of repentance would have made a difference).

But Jesus could only forgive BECAUSE he atoned for the sins of the person he is forgiving. The atonement satisfies the Father because a perfect being (such as the Father) cannot willy-nilly forgive sins while ignoring the demands of justice. Jesus also (being perfect), could not forgive sins without the demands of justice being satisfied by some way or another.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

I haven't got a reason to. If you likewise said "I think blue is red," I would say "blue is blue." I would not feel any need to justify this statement.

You don't have to justify that because that is a tautology. The statement "blue is blue" is true no matter what. If I said "blue is red" then I would be saying a contradiction which is false no matter what. No wonder you think you don't have to justify your assertion.

Ostler likewise never said why, in his opinion, Skousen's account of intelligences, who had always obeyed all of God's laws, desiring, or even insisting, that all should obey the same in order to dwell with them, portrayed these intelligences as unjust. Likewise, neither have you. It is, to me, a clear case of someone calling blue red.

He actually did say:

The intelligences demand that someone must suffer for the wrongs

that have been committed. To satisfy the demand for justice, God sends his own Son because the intelligences

respect and trust the Son as much as they do God. However, when they see the suffering of a person who is

entirely innocent and without sin whom they love, they are revolted by their own demand for justice. They see,

in effect, that their demand for justice is itself a form of injustice and refusal to forgive.

(from http://blakeostler.c...rmonThought.pdf )

This is Ostler summarizing Skousen, btw, which means (obviously), unless you want to dispute his summary of Skousen's view, that he attributes this doctrine to Skousen himself. Then it follows that "intelligences being unfair" is not only an Ostler's idea but also from Skousen himself.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko