The Logic Of The Mormon Atonement.

[Chris Smith]

For people who have personally experienced the transformative and healing power of the atonement, this argument is akin to listening to someone reject the concept of gravity because no has provided them a coherent theory of how it works.

In the case of something like fire and gravity, everyone can at least observe and describe the effects, even if they can't pinpoint the underlying mechanism. In the case of atonement, people can't even agree on that much. Your NDE example is a case in point. You seem to take "atonement" to mean "mystical union," an interpretation (based on an English pun) far removed from the classical and scriptural meaning of the term.

Sociologically speaking, people rarely "experience" the power of a theological concept until they've made a commitment to it or at least have some concept of what it is. So the task of articulating it in a coherent manner is still an essential one for a missionary religion that expects to be able to convert people people like me.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

In the case of something like fire and gravity, everyone can at least observe and describe the effects, even if they can't pinpoint the underlying mechanism. In the case of atonement, people can't even agree on that much. Your NDE example is a case in point. You seem to take "atonement" to mean "mystical union," an interpretation (based on an English pun) far removed from the classical and scriptural meaning of the term.

Sociologically speaking, people rarely "experience" the power of a theological concept until they've made a commitment to it or at least have some concept of what it is. So the task of articulating it in a coherent manner is still an essential one for a missionary religion that expects to be able to convert people people like me.

You seem to be asking for physical observability for a spiritual power. It would help to allow yourself to open your spiritual observation avenues when you want to fully understand a spiritual power.

[Chris Smith]

I think I've also explained that the condition never actually existed where the Father was faced with the option of forgiving us without the atonement. Since before the creation, even in the spirit world, the Father forgave us our sins BECAUSE OF THE ATONEMENT. That is why D&C 93:38 says what it says about man being innocent in the beginning.

Are you saying that God never had a choice in the matter? That because the atonement was retroactive/pre-determined, God never had the option to refrain from sending his Son?

[Chris Smith]

You seem to be asking for physical observability for a spiritual power.

No, I'm just asking for a concept that's clear enough to know it when I feel it, and persuasive enough to generate the kind of spiritual attitude required to have such an experience.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Are you saying that God never had a choice in the matter? That because the atonement was retroactive/pre-determined, God never had the option to refrain from sending his Son?

Before the world was, God asked "whom shall I send?" This, because forgiveness would not have been possible without a Savior in place.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No, I'm just asking for a concept that's clear enough to know it when I feel it, and persuasive enough to generate the kind of spiritual attitude required to have such an experience.

I don't know of anyone who really understood it until after they felt it.

[Ahab]

No, I'm just asking for a concept that's clear enough to know it when I feel it, and persuasive enough to generate the kind of spiritual attitude required to have such an experience.

If I understand you correctly, you're asking for a description of what it feels like when you know or feel sure you are saved... the feeling of having an assurance that you are "at one" with God.

To me, it feels like peace, and/or acceptance. A feeling that not only assures me that God loves me, and I am his son, but that he is "well pleased" with me... maybe not as much as he is "well pleased" with others, I don't know exactly how far it goes, but he's definitely letting me know that he likes me.

That's a very basic and yet accurate description of that feeling. I think you need to experience it yourself, though, to really know what it feels like.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ahab

[Chris Smith]

I don't know of anyone who really understood it until after they felt it.

Be that as it may, it's a truism that the raw materials of spiritual experience are mainly things that are already known and accepted. Crop circles and alien abductions happen mainly to people who believe in aliens, visions of the Virgin happen mainly to Catholics, mystical union happens mainly to mystics, remembrance of past lives happens mainly to reincarnation-believers, and speaking in tongues happens mainly to Pentecostals. All of these experiences undoubtedly give more substance to the concepts behind them, but the experiences also stem from the concepts.

[Bernard Gui]

Sociologically speaking, people rarely "experience" the power of a theological concept until they've made a commitment to it or at least have some concept of what it is. So the task of articulating it in a coherent manner is still an essential one for a missionary religion that expects to be able to convert people people like me.

A person finds a copy of the Book of Mormon and reads it. This person has never heard of the LDS Church and does not know any Mormons. The non-translated materials had been removed from the book, so the person has no way of associating it with an organized religion. After reading Moroni 4, he puts it to the test and receives a witness of the Spirit that it is true.

Is this a legitimate test?

Bernard

[Chris Smith]

If I understand you correctly, you're asking for a description of what it feels like when you know or feel sure you are saved...

No, not really. "Atonement" is a more specific concept than salvation, assurance, or acceptance. "Atonement" usually refers to an idea about how salvation is effected (and why it was necessary in the first place).

Back when I was an evangelical, I often had experiences of peace and acceptance by God. But when I contemplated Christ dying for my sins, that was something else entirely. I usually managed to work up some tears (in good Pentecostal fashion), but it always felt like I was forcing it. Christ's death for my sins was supposed to reveal the grace of God, but to me it seemed to imply that God was irrational and legalistic.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Chris Smith

[LeSellers]

Christ's death for my sins was supposed to reveal the grace of God, but to me it seemed to imply that God was irrational and legalistic.

"Irrational", I can't accept, but why is it such a problem that He'd be "legalistic"? He is.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

A person finds a copy of the Book of Mormon and reads it. This person has never heard of the LDS Church and does not know any Mormons. The non-translated materials had been removed from the book, so the person has no way of associating it with an organized religion. After reading Moroni 4, he puts it to the test and receives a witness of the Spirit that it is true.

Is this a legitimate test?

My friend Don Bradley presented a paper at a conference titled "Making Witnesses," in which he argued,

To a significant degree, the Book of Mormon produces these effects [i.e. the "testimony" experience] by presenting and re-presenting to its audience a simple but compelling model of religious behavior. ... Through its stories and messages, it evokes a culture of witness—teaching and modeling on multiple levels the pattern of obtaining, and thereby becoming, a witness. Given the human propensity to model ourselves on others, especially ideal others, the repeated presentation of this pattern in the lives and teachings of the book’s protagonists prompts the receptive reader to adopt their pattern. And this pattern, adopted explicitly and implicitly, shapes the reader’s actions with respect to the book and also his or her experience of the divine in connection with the book. ... Zeezrom’s transformation from unbeliever and sinner to witness is not exceptional among Book of Mormon conversion narratives. In the spiritual world of the Book of Mormon, genuine conversion is always accompanied by the reception of spiritual knowledge—of a witness, and thus always turns one into a witness. ... Through the book’s narrative conversion pattern one is encouraged to receive the Book of Mormon in the same way that many of its characters received the message of Christ.

In other words, Mormon testimonies are little different from other spiritual experiences in the sense that they're invoked by prior concepts, commitments, and ideal models, even when they occur outside an institutional context. That's not to say that they're unreal or invalid, but it is to say that for Mormons as well as for other religious groups, spiritual experience must be preceded by a certain amount of persuasion and socialization.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited July 6, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

"Irrational", I can't accept, but why is it such a problem that He'd be "legalistic"? He is.

Why? What purpose does such legalism serve?

Legalism for its own sake is irrational.

[Bernard Gui]

My friend Don Bradley presented a paper at a conference titled "Making Witnesses," in which he argued,

In other words, Mormon testimonies are little different from other spiritual experiences in the sense that they're invoked by prior concepts, commitments, and ideal models.

In other words, by reading the BoM, one becomes predisposed to accept the message?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898887,00.html

Bernard

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[LeSellers]

Why? What purpose does such legalism serve?

Legalism for its own sake is irrational.

As to the purpose of legalism, we Saints believe that the laws of God are eternal, that Father did not invent them, and that they may be or are independent of Him. Father is God because He obeys them.

You added "for its own sake", and we reject that premise.

Lehi

[cdowis]

In the case of something like fire and gravity, everyone can at least observe and describe the effects, even if they can't pinpoint the underlying mechanism. In the case of atonement, people can't even agree on that much. Your NDE example is a case in point. You seem to take "atonement" to mean "mystical union," an interpretation (based on an English pun) far removed from the classical and scriptural meaning of the term.

I think a better example is quantum mechanics. Very few can observe its effects, but it is there. You need specialized instruments and knowledge.

The atonement can and has been observed by those who are prepared. And we cannot observe the underlying mechanics of QM, and the same thing with the atonement -- both are observable but we do not understand the mechanics.

Sociologically speaking, people rarely "experience" the power of a theological concept until they've made a commitment to it or at least have some concept of what it is. So the task of articulating it in a coherent manner is still an essential one for a missionary religion that expects to be able to convert people people like me.

Thanks for your advice on how to conduct missionary work. If we can get around to proving God intellectually, you will be the first on our contact list for this new program.

But for now the conversion process is between yourself and the Lord. He is the one doing the converting.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[Chris Smith]

In other words, by reading the BoM, one becomes predisposed to accept the message?

Yes.

As to the purpose of legalism, we Saints believe that the laws of God are eternal, that Father did not invent them, and that they may be or are independent of Him. Father is God because He obeys them.

I don't mind the idea that God must operate under the constraints of prior "laws of nature". The science of Game Theory, for example, suggests that human social interactions have an underlying logical structure, and because of this structure there are certain social "strategies" that work better than others. For example, the strategy of reciprocity (hurting someone who has hurt you) teaches people not to mess with you. The emotion of anger is evolution's way of ensuring that when people slight us, we respond in kind. Our concepts of justice and revenge are social mechanisms for the same purpose. So the idea of a "law of justice" or a "law of reciprocity," I think, makes a lot of sense. Reciprocity is indeed built into the very fabric of human social life.

Viewed from this perspective, it's understandable that God wouldn't want to just forgive us without any consequences, since that would just encourage us to continue our current patterns of behavior. But the alternative God chooses is just bizarre. To respond to a perceived slight by killing a third party is to entirely miss the point of reciprocity (or justice). It suggests that God is "acting out"-- lashing out at someone who has done him no wrong. There's a reason that most cultures consider scapegoating to be a miscarriage of justice: because scapegoating is not a rational response to wrong, but rather just an emotionally cathartic one. The American justice system would never allow someone to serve a prison sentence on someone else's behalf.

[Chris Smith]

One other thing, LeSellers. The "law of reciprocity" in Game Theory doesn't just apply to slights, but also to positive interactions such as gifts. We reward people who treat us well by responding in kind, and therefore encourage them to continue to do so in the future. Christianity, including (to a lesser degree) Mormonism, tends to exaggerate sin while virtually ignoring virtue. The person who commits any sin automatically deserves eternal death (a ridiculously disproportionate response) but his "good works" are considered worthless refuse. This is a seriously distorted and disturbingly negative approach to justice. It's hard to work up an appreciation for God's grace when the consequences he's graciously "saving" us from are completely out of proportion to the wrongs we've committed.

If we can get around to proving God intellectually, you will be the first on our contact list for this new program.

But for now the conversion process is between yourself and the Lord. He is the one doing the converting.

Too bad. He's not very good at it.

[Ahab]

No, not really. "Atonement" is a more specific concept than salvation, assurance, or acceptance. "Atonement" usually refers to an idea about how salvation is effected (and why it was necessary in the first place).

Or as I would say, how Christ made it possible for us to be "at one" with God. Is that would you'd like somebody to provide an explanation for? I don't know if any of us mortals fully understand that. We simply know (or feel sure) that Christ did it, somehow, by the way he both lived and died to help us. Seems to me that you already understand why it was supposedly necessary.

Back when I was an evangelical, I often had experiences of peace and acceptance by God. But when I contemplated Christ dying for my sins, that was something else entirely. I usually managed to work up some tears (in good Pentecostal fashion), but it always felt like I was forcing it. Christ's death for my sins was supposed to reveal the grace of God, but to me it seemed to imply that God was irrational and legalistic.

Do you think you might be able to understand it better if Jesus didn't have to "die" for our sins? The way I see it, the only reason he died was because people killed him, which they were able to do because he was mortal, like us. I know he could have escaped from those men, or blown them to smitherines, but that would have required him performing some type of a miracle, or our Father and/or some angels coming to the rescue to save him. Jesus didn't want to perform a miracle to prevent himself from dying, though, and he also didn't want anyone else to save him from death, because he knew he would be able to come back to life even after his death and he was ready to move on to the next step.

Other than the "death" part of his atonement, including the restraint he showed in the midst of a bunch of bullies, the way he lived his life makes perfect sense to me.

His life is the perfect example of the way I would expect the best kind of person to act.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ahab

[cinepro]

As I've said before...

In Packer's "Creditor" 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.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cinepro

[Ahab]

As I've said before...

In Packer's "Creditor" parable, could the original creditor have just worked out an alternate payment schedule on his own?

Sure, he could have, but what about the original contract?

Do you expect the creditor to say soemthing like: Pfft, you can forget about that. I didn't really mean what I said. Let's make another contract now, and if that doesn't work out with you paying me on these new terms, we'll just forget about this contract too and just come up with another contract until we finally figure out a contract which you can uphold. Hey, I'm flexible.

The problem with that is that it makes God a man who really doesn't mean what he says.

Why is there a need for a mediator?

So both parties can be satisfied without having to make any compromises on the original deal.

In our contract (covenant) with God, for example, God gets someone who is perfectly obedient to his will (which is what he really wants) while we get to repent when we violate his commandments until we become perfectly obedient, ourselves... with Christ taking up the slack until then.

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.

Every law of God has a penalty attached to it, and as long as somebody pays the penalty, then the law/penalty arrangement works out without any injustice. An injustice would occur only if there was a law with no penalty, or vice versa.

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

The atonement would still work even if there was nothing supernatural about it. It's simply about someone paying the penalty for a law that was broken... because somebody had to pay it... while providing the blessing for keeping the law... because the one who paid it has earned the blessing.

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).

Right, but he only offers that to those who keep his terms of the deal.

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.

I don't know who this "Scale" person is that you mention, but given the fact that we all have agency, he really doesn't have to sit and watch anything.

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

The price for our own sins is the price we would have paid to honor the original deal... .which is obedience to God, mainly.

For example, God says do this, and we don't do it. At that point we've already messed up the whole deal. Now what we need to happen is for somebody else to come along and pay the terms of the original deal so the person who offered the deal can be satisfied.... because the person who agreed to the deal in the first place didn't uphold it... and while still offering us the benefits of the original deal.

In Boyd's example, the time to repay the loan had come, and the person who borrowed the money couldn't repay it. To pay the price for that sin, the borrower would have to pay the debt back when it was due, but he didn't have enough money to do that... which is why someone else who could pay it was necessary.

Theoretically, it should be possible.

If you were the borrower and you had the money to pay it, sure, but not if you couldn't repay it. To "pay the debt" you have to actually pay it, and our Father's original plan (as far as it had been revealed) didn't include anything about a "repentance" factor... which means no other chance to try to pay it. The loan had to be paid on a certain date for the loan to be honored.

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.

The atonement was paid by the entire life of Jesus Christ. It didn't happen only at the moment of his death, or during the moments he suffered in the garden. He had to be a "perfect" sacrifice, and if he had messed up anytime previous to that day or two you're thinking of then he would have blown the entire deal.

You get into some other areas that I would like to explore with you a little more, but right now I need to get back to some other work. I hope I've helped at least a little bit, though.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ahab

[Chris Smith]

His life is the perfect example of the way I would expect the best kind of person to act.

Using Christ as a moral example is fine with me.

But one then wonders what distinguishes him from many other inspiring moral examples throughout history, who have suffered and died in equally self-sacrificial ways.

[cdowis]

The contract was constructed when we decided to come to the earth. There is no negotiating the terms. The Plan was presented and accepted by two thirds majority. Satan presented another plan and he and those who agreed with him were left behind.

Everyone participating on this forum agreed to those terms, so we can follow those terms or not. We can accept the atonement of Christ to pay for those sins, or pay for them ourselves. And it is not a simple one-day ordeal. That is wishful thinking.

Anyway, I know Chris enough to know that he is jerking our chain.... very dry humor. That last post was a classic.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

But one then wonders what distinguishes [Christ] from many other inspiring moral examples throughout history, who have suffered and died in equally self-sacrificial ways.

First, there have not been "[any] other inspiring moral examples ... who have suffered and died in equally self-sacrificial ways.". They all had to die; He did not. He was immortal (due to His Father's genes) with the possiblity of dying nonetheless (due to His mother's genes).

As self-sacrificing as any of the peole you allude to may have been, they did not have the power to call down legions of angels to keep them from suffering, they did not have the powert to forestall death eternally. He did, yet He did not do the easy thing—He did the right thing.

He gave up something, they merely hurried an inevitable process along.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

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.

Funny, but also insightful and very well said.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Chris Smith