The Logic Of The Mormon Atonement.

[Chris Smith]

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).

Christ knew he would wake up in three days, whereas many others who have willingly sacrificed themselves had no idea if they would ever wake up. Who made the bigger sacrifice?

[Chris Smith]

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.

Frankly, the Plan sucks. Is there an amendment process? Can we call for a referendum?

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

I'm jerking your chain a little, yes, but I'm also quite serious. The penal substitutionary theory, IMO, is based on a fallacious concept of justice.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Chris Smith

[cdowis]

The penal substitutionary theory, IMO, is based on a fallacious concept of justice.

It's a little late now to complain.

[Chris Smith]

It's a little late now to complain.

You're assuming that I've already agreed to it in the pre-existence.

I'm assuming that I wouldn't have agreed to something that made no sense, so your assumption must be incorrect.

[Ahab]

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.

Several things, like the fact that Christ was the only one who never had committed any sin, whatsoever.

And then there's the fact that he was the only person ever chosen by our Father to be the Savior and Lord of all of the rest of us.

And then there's the fact that he's he one known by Adam and Noah and Abraham and, well, many other people, by the name of Jehovah.

There is and can be only one Christ, and there is only one Jesus who is the same person.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Christ knew he would wake up in three days, whereas many others who have willingly sacrificed themselves had no idea if they would ever wake up. Who made the bigger sacrifice?

The one(s) who were ignorant of whether or not they would ever wake up?

Nah, that couldn't be it. Ignorance doesn't make anybody a bigger hero.

[ERMD]

Why did Christ have to do it?

I think the answer is here:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[cinepro]

Hmmm...people incurring huge debts they could never repay, and then a benevolent and merciful mediator stepping in to help them avoid default. It sounds like the atonement is the spiritual equivalent of the real estate crash of 2008!

We're all sinners who, through our disobedience, have overextended ourselves to the heavenly mortgager. Recognizing that we could never repay Him, he has made spiritual mortgage relief available, through which we can renegotiate the terms of our debt and hope for a lower interest rate that will forestall our permanent heavenly eviction. Jesus has provided the bailout funds that allow us to live in a mansion which would otherwise be unaffordable.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cinepro

[ERMD]

It sounds like the atonement is like the real estate crash of 2008.

We're all sinners who, through our disobedience, have overextended ourselves to the heavenly mortgager. Recognizing that we could never repay Him, he has made a spiritual refinancing, through which we can renegotiate the terms of our debt and hope for a lower interest rate that will forestall our permanent heavenly eviction. Jesus has provided the bailout funds that allows us to live in a mansion which we would otherwise be incapable of affording.

Brilliant!

[LeSellers]

Christ knew he would wake up in three days, whereas many others who have willingly sacrificed themselves had no idea if they would ever wake up. Who made the bigger sacrifice?

He had great faith that He would "wake up" in three days, but I dispute that He knew it.

Further, as I said, He had a choice, whereas they did not.

Lehi

[Ahab]

He had great faith that He would "wake up" in three days, but I dispute that He knew it.

Lehi

So you think he was something like about only 99.99% sure, instead of 100% sure, huh.

Yeah, I can go along with that notion. It's just that I usually classify that much faith as what I call knowledge.

[cinepro]

So you think he was something like about only 99.99% sure, instead of 100% sure, huh.

Yeah, I can go along with that notion. It's just that I usually classify that much faith as what I call knowledge.

We can't have 100% knowledge of any future event. Even Jesus would have to acknowledge the (slight) possibility of everything (including Kolob, God, God's father, His Grandfather etc.) snuffing out at any moment.

[HeatherAnn]

The debt metaphor just doesn't work. Essentially what that metaphor implies is that sin takes something away from God, and the shedding of Christ's blood somehow returns it to him. But no one seems to be able to explain what exactly God has lost here, or how killing an innocent person could possibly pay it back.

The justice metaphor is no better. For someone to serve someone else's prison sentence would defeat the whole purpose of the correctional system. When we pardon a criminal, we don't imprison someone else to serve his sentence for him. That wouldn't be justice, it would just be dumb. It would be blind vengeance, at best.

[from other thread...Feb. 2011]....Mine are the standard objections. Why does God need to be satisfied by blood? Why can't he just forgive us without any atonement? How is it fair to punish us for sinning in the first place, given that we are born into it? How does forgiving us without any consequences for our actions help transform us into better beings? If Christ only stayed dead for three days, how is that an infinite atonement? Why do I have no sense of guilt for my sins until I am socialized to feel this way by Christian literature and preaching? And so on. It's one of those things that makes sense as long as you're embedded within the system of Christian myth and values, but starts to sound pretty unreal once you step outside that system and adopt a scientific-rationalist framework.

Good points, Chris. I appreciate you sharing them.

They say that it isn't God who lost anything, but we have (by sinning) & to feel good in God's presence, we need a mediator (maybe a referee ha! - j/k). How can anyone make us feel any way, except us?

Killing an innocent person isn't in line with God's commandment to not kill, nor is it in line for God commanding Abraham to get away from his father's traditions of human sacrifice. (If I remember correctly.)

Having someone suffer in behalf of another seems to take the responsibility off of the person & at the same time, implies shame in God-created imperfection, that we'd never be good enough "as is."

I also relate with your previous post you referred to.

Have you read, "Putting on the Mind of Christ" by Jim Marion? I don't agree with everything he wrote, yet Marion discusses how Jesus' life was meant to be a parable - a spiritual map for us, not to be taken literally & that Jesus' last name was not Christ, but it's what he became & tried to teach us to become... "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17) If indeed the kingdom of God is within us & as we are to "liken the scriptures" unto us (as written in the BofM)... then taking things literally instead of spiritually may hinder instead of help.

Still, it's not easy letting go of such a huge traditional belief that has uplifted my spirits so many times! - Even if it is illusional. That's why I think that it's ok to pretend. How can we relate to God - the unknown, the higher power & energy that created this universe as well as an infinity of universes? We can't! What we relate most to, are people - like Mother, Father, Jesus... But maybe we need to learn to resonate to more. Like when I go up the canyon & hike... sometimes, I feel that God is part of everything - & maybe that's the way it is everywhere, we just are too busy (in mind & body) to realize it.

Edited July 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Chris Smith]

Several things, like the fact that Christ was the only one who never had committed any sin, whatsoever. And then there's the fact that he was the only person ever chosen by our Father to be the Savior and Lord of all of the rest of us. And then there's the fact that he's he one known by Adam and Noah and Abraham and, well, many other people, by the name of Jehovah. There is and can be only one Christ, and there is only one Jesus who is the same person.

Frankly, those things make Christ less useful as a moral example, not moreso. It's difficult to imitate someone with superpowers.

Gary Willis makes an interesting point in his book What Jesus Meant-- namely, that because the Gospels depict Jesus as a divine person, they portray him acting in ways that are not really meant to be imitated. Here's Willis:

But can we really aspire to do what Jesus did? Would we praise a twelve-year-old who slips away from his parents in a big city and lets them leave town without telling them he is staying behind? The reaction of any parent would be that of Jesus' parents: "How could you treat us this way?" (Lk 2.48). Or if relatives seek access to a Christian, should he say that he has no relatives but his followers (Mk 3.33-35)? We might try to change water into wine; but if we did, would we take six huge water vats, used for purification purposes, and fill them with over a hundred gallons of wine, more than any party could drink (Jn 2.6)? If we could cast out devils, would we send them into a herd of pigs, destroying two thousand animals (Mk 5.13)? Some Christians place a very high value on the rights of property, yet this was a massive invasion of some person's property and livelihood.

Other Christians lay great emphasis on family values-should they, like Jesus, forbid a man from attending his own father's funeral (Mt 8.22) or tell others to hate their parents (Mt 8.22, Lk 14.26)? Or should they go into a rich new church in some American suburb, a place taking pride in its success, and whip the persons holding out collection plates, crying, "Make not my Father's house a traders' mart" (Jn 2.16) or "a thieves' lair" (Mk 11.17)? Would it be wise of them to call national religious leaders "whitewashed tombs, pleasant enough to outer appearance, but inside full of dead bones and every rottenness" (Mt 23.27)? Are they justified in telling others, "I come not imposing peace, I impose not peace but the sword" (Mt 10.34)? Or "I am come to throw fire on the earth" (Lk 12.49)? Should they imitate Jesus when he says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but never will my words pass away" (Mk 21.333)? Or when he says, "I am the resurrection" (Jn 11.25) or "I am the truth" (Jn 14.6), or "I have the authority to lay down my life and I have the authority to take it up again" (Jn 10.18)? None of those who want to imitate Jesus should proclaim that "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8.12) or that "I am the path" to the Father (Jn 14.6).

These are just a few samples of the way Jesus acts in the gospel. They were acts meant to show that he is not just like us, that he has higher rights and powers, that he has an authority as arbitrary as God's in the Book of Job. He is a divine mystery walking among men. The only way we can directly imitate him is to act as if we were gods ourselves-yet that is the very thing he forbids. He tells us to act as the last, not the first, as the least, not the greatest. And this accords with the common sense of mankind.

The one(s) who were ignorant of whether or not they would ever wake up?

Nah, that couldn't be it. Ignorance doesn't make anybody a bigger hero.

It takes less courage to take action when we are certain of a positive personal outcome than when we are not. So to the extent that courage for a good cause is the measure of heroism, ignorance can indeed make one a bigger hero.

He had great faith that He would "wake up" in three days, but I dispute that He knew it.

Further, as I said, He had a choice, whereas they did not.

So he knew that he could defer death indefinitely, but he didn't know that he would rise from the dead after three days?

Still, it's not easy letting go of such a huge traditional belief that has uplifted my spirits so many times! - Even if it is illusional. That's why I think that it's ok to pretend. How can we relate to God - the unknown, the higher power & energy that created this universe as well as an infinity of universes? We can't! What we relate most to, are people - like Mother, Father, Jesus... But maybe we need to learn to resonate to more. Like when I go up the canyon & hike... sometimes, I feel that God is part of everything - & maybe that's the way it is everywhere, we just are too busy (in mind & body) to realize it.

That's a great way of putting it. I think the story of Christ's sacrifice for us can be an inspiring one, as long as one doesn't think too deeply about what it implies about God and the nature of justice. But this story is certainly no more inspiring than the stories of other, more human figures who have willingly suffered for more concrete moral causes. I think there's at least as much divinity and moral inspiration to be had from the stories of UFW martyrs, Gandhian martyrs, and civil rights martyrs as there is from the story of Jesus.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited July 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

It's a simple matter of knowing where to look.

Discussing reconciliation, Ian Barbour writes, “The redemptive power of love is known in human life. Grace and redemption are not theological abstractions but experienced realities in which divisions within man and between man and his neighbor are healed.” Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 89. If you actually want to see such power at work, it's a simple matter of looking in the places and among people where that power is at work. I manage that a few times a week.

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.

If you'd read my essay on "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience," you should get a better idea of how I approach mystical union, and I how I see that relates (as a distant cousin) to the much larger event in Gethsemane and the Cross. I like Ninian Smart's description of the blending of the numinous and mystic. For those who care, I elaborated on my approach to at-one-ment in Paradigms Regained.

And regarding the classical and scriptural meaning of the term, atonement Nibley explains:

People are usually surprised to learn that atonement, an accepted theological term, is neither from a Greek nor a Latin word, but is good old English and really does mean, when we write it out, at-one-ment, denoting both a state of being "at one" with another and the process by which that end is achieved. The word atonement appears only once in the New Testament (Romans 5:11 in the King James Version), and in the Revised Standard Version it does not appear at all, since the new translation prefers the more familiar word "reconciliation." Paul has just told us that the Lord "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High," so reconciliation is a very good word for atonement there, since it means literally to be seated again with someone (re-con-silio)—so that atonement is to be reunited with God.

Nibley, The Meaning of the Atonement.

After discussing a range of Greek uses in the NT, he comments: "when the scriptures speak of atonement, it is always re-conciliation, re-demption, re-surrection, re-lease, salvation, and so on. All refer to a return to a former state. This is even more vividly and concretely expressed in the Hebrew terminology."

So he discusses the Hebrew:

The basic word for atonement is kaphar, which has the same basic meaning in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, that being "to bend, arch over, cover; . . . to deny, . . . to forgive, . . . to be expiated, . . . renounce."5 The Arabic kafara puts the emphasis on a tight squeeze, such as tucking in the skirts, drawing a thing close to one's self. Closely related are Aramaic6 and Arabic kafat,7 meaning a close embrace, which are certainly related to the Egyptian hpet,8 the common ritual embrace written with the ideogram of embracing arms. It may be cognate with the Latin capto,9 and from it comes the Persian kaftan,10 a monk's robe and hood completely embracing the body.

Eugene England and Arthur Henry King offered related discussions of the English term. England in "Shakespeare and the At-onement of Christ" where he observes that "one barrier to our accepting Christ's love is that we pronounce the word "atonement" in a way that encourages a misleading emphasis on payment. The work actually descends from the thirteen-century phrase, at one, which was based on the old very, to one, meaning to make one or reconcile." As Nibley observes, even the Hebrew notions of redemptive payment were to enable re-union, reconcilation.

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.

I'm willing to let people start with what they can grasp. If that is penal substition or payment, fine. That is at least "some concept." Something to start with. Something a child can grasp. When I was a child, I thought as a child. Growing up should release me to to expand my thought. When the weakness of the metaphor leads someone to want to distance themselves from the redemptive power of Christ, then it might be time to try something a bit richer, a bit more appealing, something with more redemptive power.

I think people like Eugene England, and Nibley, and Hansen, and Oster, and Barker and Girard, and many others offer much richer understandings of atonement. I find is striking how the separate approaches interrelate. Given the existence of such approaches, what is the point of wrestling with a weak approach solely for the leverage it gives one to separate one's self from Christ? Why commit to a program design to increase enstrangement? It's that the opposite of at-one-ment, which as Margaret's essay observes, was originally designed to repair the covenant bonds and heal creation.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Chris Smith]

Kevin,

"Atonement" may indeed embrace the concept of "reconciliation"-- especially in Greek and English-- but it also has a very specific ritual and theological meaning rooted in the sacrificial cult of the Hebrew Bible and the sacrificial theology of the New Testament (especially the book of Hebrews). I don't particularly have a problem with people who have "outgrown" this old theology self-consciously divorcing the term from its Hebrew theological context and re-appropriating it in new ways. But I also don't think it's fair for such people to criticize those of us who prefer the more straightforward approach of rejecting the old theological system and its loaded terminology, and constructing a new one to replace it. We do so not to "alienate" ourselves from God, but rather to reconcile ourselves to the realities of the universe we find ourselves in.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited July 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[HeatherAnn]

...That's a great way of putting it. I think the story of Christ's sacrifice for us can be an inspiring one, as long as one doesn't think too deeply about what it implies about God and the nature of justice. But this story is certainly no more inspiring than the stories of other, more human figures who have willingly suffered for more concrete moral causes. I think there's at least as much divinity and moral inspiration to be had from the stories of UFW martyrs, Gandhian martyrs, and civil rights martyrs as there is from the story of Jesus.

Peace,

-Chris

Thanks, Chris.

Yeah, no doubt there are many inspiring heroes & heroins. Yet, as Buddha taught, we tend to resonate most with the religion & teachings of our childhood.

So, I'll always feel inspired by songs like, "I know that my Redeemer Lives" - even though I no longer take the words literally.

I'm taking it really slowly... At first, realizing so many religious beliefs I'd had my entire life were not exactly accurate was really difficult. So, I hesitate to share too much with others, or I want to offer something in exchange.

I'm realizing the truth of what Jesus taught, that "the kingdom of God is within you" & how when Moses experienced God as "I am that I am." Mormonism teaches that we're children of God... & that we can become like God... So I think Joseph Smith paved the way for deeper & more authentic Christianity, even though he continued many traditions that came from the bible, which has been through a lot of corrupt translations.

I still define atonement as being at one... but with more personal responsibility... like soul-searching to bring as much of our intellect in harmony with our spirit.

I also believe that we have many saviors - in body & spirit - our mothers, for one - almost die in giving birth, & I believe those we love who've passed on are still aware of us & helping us here & there.

And there are people who come into our lives at just the right time, to say what we needed to hear, or to help or guide us, & hopefull we do the same for others too.

[mrmandias]

I don't see why having bad consequences make bad actions meaningful. Actually, I don't see why bad or good consequences make anything meaningful at all. They may be opportunities for us to express meaning to them (or find meaning in experiences) but that is quite different from saying those actions are meaningful because they have bad consequences. There's too much to dislike about this explanation you provided in your link so I won't bother.

So your notion is that your choices are meaningful even if they have no consequences? How is it possible for my choices to matter if I, the world, the course of events, and everything remains unchanged by them? If I give you a choice but the same thing happens no matter what you 'choose,' do you really have a choice?

I don't think that's a tenable position. Certainly its odd to say that the Mormon theory of the atonement is meaningless because it assumes that choices should have consequences to be meaningful.

[elguanteloko]

So your notion is that your choices are meaningful even if they have no consequences? How is it possible for my choices to matter if I, the world, the course of events, and everything remains unchanged by them? If I give you a choice but the same thing happens no matter what you 'choose,' do you really have a choice?

I never said "unchanged", I was just talking about "good and bad" actions. Not all changes are "good or bad" and many of those that are are not meaningful because they produce good or bad outcomes.

I don't think that's a tenable position. Certainly its odd to say that the Mormon theory of the atonement is meaningless because it assumes that choices should have consequences to be meaningful.

My criticism in no way ignores the good or bad consequences of our willful actions UNLESS you think Christ's demands today (after the atonement) are ignoring the good or bad consequences of our willful actions.

[elguanteloko]

I apologize for not answering as promptly and as often today and yesterday as I did before that. I haven't been feeling too well.

Edited July 7, 2011 by elguanteloko

[stYro]

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.

I agree with you - there is something not quite right about the concept of the atonement as it is normally presented.

stYro

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

"Atonement" may indeed embrace the concept of "reconciliation"-- especially in Greek and English-- but it also has a very specific ritual and theological meaning rooted in the sacrificial cult of the Hebrew Bible and the sacrificial theology of the New Testament (especially the book of Hebrews). I don't particularly have a problem with people who have "outgrown" this old theology self-consciously divorcing the term from its Hebrew theological context and re-appropriating it in new ways. But I also don't think it's fair for such people to criticize those of us who prefer the more straightforward approach of rejecting the old theological system and its loaded terminology, and constructing a new one to replace it. We do so not to "alienate" ourselves from God, but rather to reconcile ourselves to the realities of the universe we find ourselves in.

Peace,

-Chris

Nibley and Barker and England(among others) both start with the Hebrew theological context.

Barker, for instance, here:

In other words, the extent of our ignorance about the Day of

Atonement, the central rite of atonement, is the extent of our ignorance about Israel’s religion, and

furthermore, what we read of it in the post exilic texts may not be the best source of information about

its original significance, nor about this root of the Eucharist. The temple roots of the Christian

Liturgies lie very deep in the first temple, and have to be reconstructed from a variety of sources.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TempleRootsofChristianLiturgy.pdf

Nibley, here:

The ancient state or nation was hierocentric, focused on one sacred place of power and authority; such places were sometimes referred to as "places of emergence," that is, of contact between the Upper and the Lower Worlds, where at the New Year all the people met to rehearse the creation. Regarding this practice, Mircea Eliade writes, "It was the . . . sacred place, . . . the celestial prototype, . . . the act of creation which . . . brought the ordered cosmos out of chaos, . . . the sacred marriage, . . . the ritual confrontation with evil as the dragon and the victory of the King, whose triumphant coronation inaugurates the new age of the world and the cosmos." There is an "atoning sacrifice" to "restore the primal unity between God and man and enable the latter to regain the Divine presence." In this, "Reality is conferred through participation in the "symbolism of the Center": cities, temples, houses become real by the fact of being assimilated to the "center of the world." . . . The temple in particular—preeminently the sacred place—had a celestial prototype,"39 the holy mountain, "the mountain of the Lord's house" (Isaiah 2:2).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=72

And of course, here:

This yearly rite of atonement included the teshuvah, a "return to God, repentance."21 The prophets repeatedly invite Israel to return to God, who is waiting with open arms to receive them if only they will repent (Jeremiah 3:14; Leviticus 16:30). They not only return and are welcomed in, but they also sit down, and that is the yeshivah, "1) sitting, rest, 2) settlement, dwelling, . . . 3) . . . session, council, . . . court";22 the meanings all combine in the Yeshivah shel macalah or Metivta de-Rakica ("The Academy on High" or "Academy of the Sky," respectively): "Heaven (where the angels and the souls of the righteous are believed to dwell), a place of divine justice to which all will be summoned";23 the root yashav has the basic meaning of sitting or settling down to live in a place, yashub" seated, . . . [a] sitting."24 You have a place because you have returned home.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=75&chapid=1222

And Welch, here, for example:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=1&id=508

Thanks to the work of Margaret Barker and many others in recent years, one can now better identify numerous elements in the scriptures as reflecting "temple themes." 16 Because modern readers have not experienced firsthand the sights and sounds of the things that transpired in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, their ears are not attuned to verbal allusions to things that went on there. By way of comparison, in Latter-day Saint culture, all a person needs to say are words like recommend, garments, or holiness to the Lord, and Latter-day Saints know that the subject has something to do with the temple. By the same token, modern scripture readers need to be on the lookout for possible temple themes whenever they encounter concentrations of words such as light, salt, washing, anointing, the name of God, throne, sonship, garments, bread, forgiveness, commandments, covenants, oaths, treasures, wisdom, judgment, seeing God, eternity, rock, and peacemaking—ordinary words though these may be in other contexts. Indeed, over 120 such elements can be identified as potential temple themes in the Sermon on the Mount alone.17

Come to think of it, there is a lot of LDS scholarship on the topic of ancient temples and atonement.

For instance:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=133&chapid=1571

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA