Mechanisms Of Atonement

[David T]

Not really (or at all). Under this understanding, intelligences demand absolute justice. They aren't requiring anything other than absolute justice in the form of not allowing unpure, tainted intelligences to return to God's presence. That the infinite and eternal atonement by God Himself is what does bring to pass the bowels of mercy in the intelligences does not equal them "clamoring" for blood and suffering, a la the "Mola Ram Suda Ram" priest in "Temple of Doom."

What is attractive about this is that it offers an explanation of "why" and "how." The only explanations I am aware of.

It seems Skousen's intelligences could use a lesson in Christ's parable of the prodigal son. Seems Skousen feels they are all the older brother who complain and whine that Dad welcomed in a disgraceful sinner, and did nice things for him, even though he didn't deserve it at all. That Skousen's intelligences actually desired to keep mankind away from God, and that in fear of losing his Kingship to Revolution, God let these selfish spirits keep his children away from him, and had his son be tortured to keep the peace. It kind of puts God in the role of Pilot, having the sacrifice of one to appease the angry mob.

I do think key principles expressed in Ostler's perspective gives as much an explanation as to the 'why' and 'how' as Skousen's literalist fundamentalist explanation does.

I think we tend to look to far deeper and metaphysical mysteries to explain that which can be expressed by human nature. We make decisions that in one form or another cause actual mental anguish and suffering. We develop worldviews in which in some degree we need to justify ourselves and behavior, and shield ourselves from some of our pain. The shield doesn't remove the pain, but keeps it out of sight. Jesus' expression of love is to say, "I loved you before you hurt yourself, and I still love you. You're already forgiven. Really. Come join us." - the Atonement wasn't a single event, it was God manifest in a life of nothing but service - service that came at a price of severe mental, physical, and spiritual anguish. Pain in every category we comprehend. And the understanding that instead of suffering for what has happened, view the life of Christ as having done that for you. It's done. You don't need to punish yourself anymore. Let go the pain in recognition that someone loved you so much, he was willing to suffer if thats what it would take to get your attention, and to realize that you really were loved, already forgiven, and get you to walk towards God in love. "We love God because He loved us first".

Jesus of Nazareth knew poverty, he knew lonliness, he knew family strife, he knew betrayal, he knew what it was to go hungry, he knew what it was to lose loved ones, he knew what it was to have trials of faith, he knew what it was to feel spiritual alienation, and he was tortured and murdered in a way that effected all of the senses, and is known to be one of the most physically painful torture methods in history.

He could say, "Of all circumstances God could have been born into, this is what was chosen, to show you that I understand your sorrow, your guilt, your fear. You don't feel you can walk back to God because of what you've gone through. You're wrong. Let go of your pain, and view it as being part of the suffering I've gone through. For you. I love you. We love you. Unconditionally. Come back to us."

I think God knew from his experience that which would have the greatest and most universal effect on humanity, the principal that, "No greater love is this, that a man would give his life for his friends." - Being loved in such a way is powerful that I think we often give credit.

God loved us so much, that when he came to live among us to show us love, he was willing to be hurt in every way possible that it would take for as many of us as possible to recognize God's love, and respond to it.

This is the perspective that resonates with me. That the atonement wasn't a quantitative metaphysical suffering, but was an expression of infinite love that, when understood and recognized, would draw us to have the confidence to "walk back to the presence of the Father" - the invitation to have faith in Christ is to trust and have confidence that He loves us, and that His life as a Suffering Servant was done to draw us to him, as a blazing signal of how much he wanted us to enter back into a relationship with him. I see all of the ordinances being teachers of this principal, as we repent, we become more like Christ, and are more willing to walk in his footsteps, and do what he did, because we come to understand his perspective. We are willing to do what it takes - to the extremes of sacrifice and consecration - if that's what it takes to get our loved one's attention, and to draw them to us, Christ, and the Gospel.

It's horrible that we're so hard-headed and hard-hearted that we need(ed) this to get our attention - but the Lord knew the conditions of our mortality, and expressed love that could be grasped by the lowest common denominator. That's how much he wants us to willingly walk back into relationship with the Eternal Godhead - the Eternal Covenant Family.

It's a powerful paradigm, although certainly not complete.

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[rongo]

Do you think that God really would have ceased to be God if He allowed us to return to Him without the atonement as it took place? Could He have simply allowed all of us back into His presence without an atonement? Why or why not?

[David T]

Do you think that God really would have ceased to be God if He allowed us to return to Him without the atonement as it took place? Could He have simply allowed all of us back into His presence without an atonement? Why or why not?

I think we always were allowed back into his presence. I don't think that without the Atonement, we would have been capable or prepared to take that invitation.

I think that which would make God cease to be God is to act out of selfishness, and not for love and the good of the entire Divine Family. That would break anyone out of fellowship with the rest of the Divine Family. A personal rejection, not imposed by anyone else. Pride keeps one from unity with the Divine. Humility and Love are what brings one in. (The divine reason for the two commandments of which all others are just guides: Love God, Love Others).

I find the Purpose of Everything is binding us all together in the grand unity and full potential of Divine Love. Once we're there, our goal is to find others to help bring them into full relationship with Our Divine Family. That, to me, is what Exaltation is - taking one's place in the United Divine Family.

I think without some of the perspective and knowledge we've been given in Modern Revelation, it's very easy for prophets and other followers of YHWH in the past to have interpreted Divine Separation and results of poor choices as being a form of outward inflicted punishment. Especially during the periods when it was thought that nothing happened and nobody did anything without God having been personally actively willfully involved in the action occurring (IE, see Old Testament perspectives that God hardened pharaoh's heart, God caused the storms and earthquakes, God sent a lying spirit to deceive and confuse, etc).

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

In terms of repugnance, I find little difference between:

1) God allowed his Son to be tortured to lovingly pay our debt and satisfy the law of justice.

2) God allowed his Son to be tortured to lovingly show us that his Son understands our suffering.

Christ suffering and torture is an common element of differing views of atonement. Where people differ is the intended function served by the suffering and torture--i.e. satisfy the demands of justice and/or show understanding. To me, I think it is both, and then some.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Do you think that God really would have ceased to be God if He allowed us to return to Him without the atonement as it took place? Could He have simply allowed all of us back into His presence without an atonement? Why or why not?

God abides by eternal law, and this is why He is God. We do not abide by eternal law, the indicators of which are evident (and if God should follow suit, He would be like us, and cease to be God).

Because we do not abide by eternal law, we are subject to it. The difference between abiding by and being subject to eternal law is a matter of ownership (God owns it, we do not). God owns it through His perfect observance of it; we are subject to it because we do not--we pick and choose what we observe and face the consequences.

This is why entering into His presence in our fallen condition would destroy us. Sharing the same eternal existence is not possible. We either have to become like Him (which we have proven we cannot do alone) or He needs to fall and become like us (and that is not going to happen).

The only way God and sinners can come together (“at-one-ment”) is by their both observing the same eternal law. God observes it, so we are the ones that have to change.

This is why the atonement (or everything that Christ ever did to bring heaven and earth together) was necessary, and why experiencing “at-one-ment” requires our changing, not God. The wherewithal that Christ put into the atonement, including the sacrifice, accomplished this in our behalf but we have to accept it and abide in Him.

[David T]

In terms of repugnance, I find little difference between:

1) God allowed his Son to be tortured to lovingly pay our debt and satisfy the law of justice.

2) God allowed his Son to be tortured to lovingly show us that his Son understands our suffering.

Christ suffering and torture is an common element of differing views of atonement. Where people differ is the intended function served by the suffering and torture--i.e. satisfy the demands of justice and/or show understanding. To me, I think it is both, and then some.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find a significant difference between:

• Some outside(democratic? Authoritarian?) force demanded quantitative suffering of an innocent out of a sense of fairness.
  
• God knew from experience the drawing power innocent and loving suffering brings among one's peers, and Christ willingly did what he knew would have that drawing power - something the Father at this stage would have been unable to do.
  

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

I also find the idea attractive that Our Father was the first fully-actualized and perfected God, and that He learned some key principles of what became His plan by choosing to become embodied in a developing intelligent mortal society. The amount learned by this experience in such a relatively extremely short amount of time set in motion the plan to gather all other less developed Eternal Intelligences and facilitate the same type of experience for them.

Whether this is how it happened or not, I have no idea. I just find the concept far more attractive and resonating for me than the popular concept of an infinite regress of physically reproducing gods.

[wenglund]

I think we always were allowed back into his presence. I don't think that without the Atonement, we would have been capable or prepared to take that invitation.

This touches on what I mentioned earlier about the material affects of sin. As I understand things, part of the reason that there is a veil drawn between mortals and God is because the impurity of our physical condition is such that it would be consumed as if by fire were it subjected to the glory of God. This is why transfiguration is required for mortals to see God, and also why there are divisions of resurrected glory--only those of celestial resurrected glory are capable of eternally abiding the presence of God.

So, to me, for us to be allowed eternally back into God's presence, necessitates, in part, not only a glorification of our physical bodies, but also the purification (removal of darkness due to sin) of our spirit bodies. And, I don't know that we, of ourselves, are capable of removing the darkness--and this because of our sins, but must rely on the sacrifice of he who was sinless.

In short, I don't believe we are capable of being invited back into God's presence absent Christ's atoning sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2011 by wenglund

[CV75]

P.S. An illustration of abiding vs. subjection might be found in the parables about vineyards--the Lord owns them (and therefore abides in the livelihood they produce), bu we are subject to them (we either respond to or ignore the nourishment/conditions they provide).

[CV75]

I also find the idea attractive that Our Father was the first fully-actualized and perfected God, and that He learned some key principles of what became His plan by choosing to become embodied in a developing intelligent mortal society. The amount learned by this experience in such a relatively extremely short amount of time set in motion the plan to gather all other less developed Eternal Intelligences and facilitate the same type of experience for them.

Whether this is how it happened or not, I have no idea. I just find the concept far more attractive and resonating for me than the popular concept of an infinite regress of physically reproducing gods.

I've thought about this as well, but I get stuck on His being able to advance by creating new laws that did not exist prior to His acting one way or another (the evolution of eternal law).

[David T]

This touches on what I mentioned earlier about the material affects of sin. As I understand things, part of the reason that there is a veil drawn between mortals and God is because the impurity of our physical condition is such that it would be consumed as if by fire were it subjected to the glory of God. This is why transfiguration is required for mortals to see God, and also why there are divisions of resurrected glory--only those of resurrected glory are capable of eternally abiding the presence of God.

So, to me, for us to be allowed eternally back into God's presence, necessitates, in part, not only a glorification of our physical bodies, but also the purification (removal of darkness due to sin) of our spirit bodies. And, I don't know that we, of ourselves, are capable of removing the darkness--and this because of our sins, but must rely on the sacrifice of he who was sinless.

In short, I don't believe we are capable of being invited back into God's presence absent Christ's atoning sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the concept of 'transfiguration' as a change needed to approach God seems to be the result of prophetic speculative reasoning over why something viewed as ontologically unholy (or unclean) can be in the presence of something ontologically holy. I think the Book of Mormon's view of the flaming fire being an internal metaphor of one's shame is more apt. Any transfiguration in this context seems more like an ourpouring of grace and love and opening of one's spiritual eyes where one's heart and mind are changed - not one's physical genetic makeup.

[David T]

I've thought about this as well, but I get stuck on His being able to advance by creating new laws that did not exist prior to His acting one way or another (the evolution of eternal law).

The advancement of mankind from cave dwellers to developers of artificial intelligence didn't come from the creation of new laws, just education on learning about and learning how to harness the laws that were already in existence.

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

I find a significant difference between:

• Some outside(democratic? Authoritarian?) force demanded quantitative suffering of an innocent out of a sense of fairness.
• God knew from experience the drawing power innocent and loving suffering brings among one's peers, and Christ willingly did what he knew would have that drawing power - something the Father at this stage would have been unable to do.

I suppose the phrasing can be spun whichever way one wishes. What matters to me, though, isn't so much one's particular atonement philosophy, but rather the results--people having faith in Christ unto repentance of their sins, baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and striving to become Christlike.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

As I reflect on some of the name/titles of Jesus Christ, I must reject any non-punishment, non-Atoning philosophies in re: the Gospel.

His names, e.g., Redeemer, Savior, indicate there was something from which I was saved or redeemed (bought back). That thing is sin. I have sold myself into bondage. Only by His buying me back, paying the price for my indebtedness to sin, can I hope to escape an eternity of bondage. I cannot make that payment myself, having no capital with which to make it.

Why this payment must be by blood, I do not know. But there was no other way, given that God loved this Son. His work and glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, must have required such a payment or it would not have been made.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I think the concept of 'transfiguration' as a change needed to approach God seems to be the result of prophetic speculative reasoning over why something viewed as ontologically unholy (or unclean) can be in the presence of something ontologically holy. I think the Book of Mormon's view of the flaming fire being an internal metaphor of one's shame is more apt. Any transfiguration in this context seems more like an ourpouring of grace and love and opening of one's spiritual eyes where one's heart and mind are changed - not one's physical genetic makeup.

I have researched the notion of light and glory in the scriptures and I have found good reason throughout to consider transfiguration and the like to be more than an internal metaphor to also include material change. Consider how Moses, after coming down from the mountain, had to put a sack over his head because the host of Israel were unable to bear the brightness of his post-transfiguration.

But, I suppose we each can speculate whichever way we wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

The advancement of mankind from cave dwellers to developers of artificial intelligence didn't come from the creation of new laws, just education on learning about and learning how to harness the laws that were already in existence.

My thought / assumption is that if they do evolve, and/or there are more eternal laws that have yet to be discovered, our God’s current level of ignorance (however small) can potentially undermine everything He is doing, and everything that relies on Him, especially if there is a trial-and-error aspect to His discovering new laws.

Assuming there are eternal laws governing advancement from grace to grace, it seems that eternal law must be organized and revealed by someone who has them to someone who does not, in order for secure, permanent advancement to occur. Otherwise, if God became God by His own genius and management, He must have been, or finally is, an atheist!

(Not that I understand infinite regress any better).

[Cobalt-70]

Do you think that God really would have ceased to be God if He allowed us to return to Him without the atonement as it took place? Could He have simply allowed all of us back into His presence without an atonement? Why or why not?

I think the idea that God "would cease to be God" is derived from the Arminian "governmental theory" of atonement. The idea is that, like any king, God would lose kingly authority if he gave lawbreakers a pass. Therefore, there has to be some meaningful substitute payment to preserve justice and perpetuate his status as the ruler of heaven.

If God simply overlooked sin, then he wouldn't really be our ruler. In the Mormon context, he would perhaps still exist, but his status and glory would be diminished. To us, he would be our teacher and guardian, but not our king. We know that the Mormon God considers it important to maintain his glory. An offer to share that glory got Lucifer exiled from heaven (see Moses 4).

Edited October 7, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

My thought / assumption is that if they do evolve, and/or there are more eternal laws that have yet to be discovered, our God’s current level of ignorance (however small) can potentially undermine everything He is doing, and everything that relies on Him, especially if there is a trial-and-error aspect to His discovering new laws.

Assuming there are eternal laws governing advancement from grace to grace, it seems that eternal law must be organized and revealed by someone who has them to someone who does not, in order for secure, permanent advancement to occur. Otherwise, if God became God by His own genius and management, He must have been, or finally is, an atheist!

(Not that I understand infinite regress any better).

Excellent points.

To me, there is also the matter of transcendence, which suggests that an eternity of evolved learning will not produce certain results, but require the intercession of higher beings. I view man as incapable of himself to evolve to become materially like our Heavenly Father. Such requires transcendent powers. The same, I believe, is true of spiritual purification and sanctification.

While I can see some appeal to the "hey man...I feel your pain" speculative atonement philosophy of certain modern members, it heightens the import of man in affecting his salvation, and inadvertently diminishes the significance, role, and absolute need for a Savior and Redeemer and Lamb of God, particularly in terms of transcendence as well as propitiation.

This is why I am more inclined to accept the so-called speculations of ancient and modern prophets, if not an amalgam of the two.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I think the idea that God "would cease to be God" is derived from the Arminian "governmental theory" of atonement.

***

We know that the Mormon God considers it important to maintain his glory. An offer to share that glory got Lucifer exiled from heaven (see Moses 4).

I think the reason-behind-the-reason is that God abides by eternal law. We do not abide by eternal law, the indicators of which are evident. So, if God should follow suit (or overlook sin and rebellion) He would be like us, and cease to be ("a" as well as "our") God.

Those who do not abide by eternal law are subject to it because they only pick and choose what they observe and face consequences they’d rather not. On the other hand, those who abide by eternal law own it, like God does.

I suspect that Satan wanted God’s glory in that he wanted His obedience / Him to give up abiding in eternal law / to give up His perfect agency (eternal life). He wanted God to prove His love for His children by being rebellious. Of course God would not do that, and since Satan was subject to Him, he suffered the consequences.

The only way God and sinners can come together is by their both observing the same eternal law. God observes it and won’t stop observing it, so we are the ones that have to change. The atonement allows this to occur.

Edited October 7, 2011 by CV75

[CV75]

While I can see some appeal to the "hey man...I feel your pain" speculative atonement philosophy of certain modern members, it heightens the import of man in affecting his salvation, and inadvertently diminishes the significance, role, and absolute need for a Savior and Redeemer and Lamb of God, particularly in terms of transcendence as well as propitiation.

I agree--Christ did more than empathize with what we are going through to become like Him. He personally did all it took to reverse all the non-exalting effects of the fall and replace them with every accoutrement of every individual's (the human family's) exaltation. I view it as more than His suffering; it was His overcoming that suffering as well and then building up the superior substitute in opposition to it so that it was forever abated.

[Cobalt-70]

While I can see some appeal to the "hey man...I feel your pain" speculative atonement philosophy of certain modern members, it heightens the import of man in affecting his salvation, and inadvertently diminishes the significance, role, and absolute need for a Savior and Redeemer and Lamb of God, particularly in terms of transcendence as well as propitiation.

I don't much like the "empathy model" of atonement, because if Jesus needed to suffer to obtain empathy, then he must not have had sufficient empathy beforehand.

[David T]

I guess I view homo sapiens as suitable hosts for Eternal Intelligences who are of the same kind as God, with the same potential and inherent nature. God chose to take on a host, and learned that the material mortal societal existence was the most effective way to progress and more fully obtain (and appreciate) Joy and Family. God is not ontologically different than us, just far more advanced in all respects. His goal is for us to get where he is as quickly and effectively as possible, so that we can cooperatively work to get more and more to where he is.

if Jesus needed to suffer to obtain empathy, then he must not have had sufficient empathy beforehand.

While I think he had maximal empathy for one who had not experienced a mortal experience, I don't think he did have sufficient empathy to be one who could save us mortals from our suffering.

There is a significant difference between having an intellectual understanding of someone's pain, and having experiential understanding. I am far more likely to give heed to someone who has experienced a certain type of pain and suffering than just someone who understands it in theory.

Tons of people have expressed sympathy and coping ideas and advice to my wife as we work towards Adoption, following her cancer-mandated hysterectomy that removed the possibility of bearing further children. As much as she knows those people care, much of the actual advice has been viewed as 'that's nice you feel that way'. Until she met someone in our ward who had medical-mandated surgery that removed the possibility of bearing further children, and who had gone through the adoption process. An instant bond was struck. They really know each other's pain.

My experience (as well as in times when I have tried to console others who have suffered) has shown me that there is a big difference between, "I understand through years of observation of others what you're going though," and "I have experienced the same physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering that you are experiencing. And I did that, so I can help you." - My wife is now better qualified to show compassion to those who she will meet who have been in her circumstances.

Edited October 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

I don't much like the "empathy model" of atonement, because if Jesus needed to suffer to obtain empathy, then he must not have had sufficient empathy beforehand.

What about knowledge? What if he had to know what it was to suffer to be able to atone, not to just feel empathy?

[HeatherAnn]

...Tons of people have expressed sympathy and coping ideas and advice to my wife as we work towards Adoption, following her cancer-mandated hysterectomy that removed the possibility of bearing further children. As much as she knows those people care, much of the actual advice has been viewed as 'that's nice you feel that way'. Until she met someone in our ward who had medical-mandated surgery that removed the possibility of bearing further children, and who had gone through the adoption process. An instant bond was struck. They really know each other's pain.

My experience (as well as in times when I have tried to console others who have suffered) has shown me that there is a big difference between, "I understand through years of observation of others what you're going though," and "I have experienced the same physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering that you are experiencing. And I did that, so I can help you." - My wife is now better qualified to show compassion to those who she will meet who have been in her circumstances.

Excellent point & I hope the best for you, your wife & the adoption process.

I do believe that we are God's hands... so in a way, we are our own & each others' saviors.

It probably doesn't mean we must go through everything to empathize.

They say that if you experience the depth of anything... whether it's comfortable or uncomfortable - you really search your thoughts & feelings about it, you'll gain a better understanding of yourself, & a better understanding of how to relate to others in similar circumstances. If we hide from our own thoughts & feelings than we can't help others with their's.

The essence of our purpose is to love others as ourselves. Sometimes love feels great, sometimes it doesn't... but true love is striving for what's best in the big picture.

[Cobalt-70]

What about knowledge? What if he had to know what it was to suffer to be able to atone, not to just feel empathy?

That assumes that the pre-mortal Son was not omniscient, although standard Mormonism doesn't regard God as technically omniscient anyway.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70