How Can God Forgive Sin?

[Messenger]

The only other theory that is in true opposition to the idea that a price must be paid (atonement) is 100% grace. If memory serves, I believe that plan was rejected in the pre-existence.

[Zeta-Flux]

Zerinus, the replies I saw were more assertions that it just is, appeals to authority, and individuals quoting others teaching the model.

Then you either missed my reply or misunderstood it. I thought your questions were sincere and was trying to explain how I viewed the answers. I didn't appeal to authority, I didn't quote anyone (except some scriptures to support my own viewpoint), nor did I assert that it "just is".

What was said in response didn't make the model, or those asserting it, make any more practical sense to me.

I'm happy to discuss further any questions you had about my model.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[Log]

Well, I thought I had plugged what I saw were the holes in Skousen's thesis, but nobody has commented.

[Messenger]

Well, I thought I had plugged what I saw were the holes in Skousen's thesis, but nobody has commented.

I'll take a harder look at your post. I've just been busy.

[Mudcat]

I am not aware of any scripture that unambiguously teaches that doctrine; and I am not aware of any teaching by a General Authority that has unambiguously commented on that particular doctrine.

Do you know what any ambiguous position by the CoJCoLDS is on the topic?

If not, would you like to offer any unambiguous comments?

[Log]

Well, here's a GA who is, admittedly, ambiguously commenting on the topic:

That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ At another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after it transpires.

[Messenger]

Why not therefore save everyone, regardless, without requiring an Atonement in which Jesus had to submit to being tortured and murdered?

I will give some of my opinions, since I am still, for whatever reason, permitted to post here.

Skousen has, so far as I can tell, the only cogent and scripturally consistent account of the Atonement, which is not to say I agree with all of it.

Blake Ostler has his own thesis - what he terms the "Compassion theory of Atonement." Ostler's thesis does not account for Hebrews 10:10, nor D&C 19:17, which jointly serve to break his theory.

You have to bear in mind what kind of society the Celestial Kindgom is. All are indwelling, all are all-knowing. They know what each is thinking and feeling at all times.

Intelligences don't want to be joined to, nor under the direction of, those who have shown that they will not keep the laws upon which such a society must exist. There must be charity and faith and hope at all times among all participants, or the society is fractured and beings are cast out, for who wants to be united to such as refuse to forgive, to feel their ill-will, having to eternally walk on eggshells, or worse, who direct in order to feed their ego and vanity?

So Christ, by submitting first to drinking the cup of the wrath of God, which is spiritual death - being cut off from the light and the life of the Father - and also by suffering every possible physical pain, and also by submitting to being tortured and executed, demonstrates that they who are possessed of the divine nature will be faithful in all circumstances, at all times, under the literally most extreme circumstances such a being may be placed in. Thus he made it possible for such as did not keep the law but also did turn and repent with all their might, mind, and strength in submission to God may receive the divine nature and become as he is - because that was the condition upon which the Father said mercy should be extended. That Christ succeeded is a public and eternal vindication of the divine nature, and the judgement of the Father.

The divine nature is bestowed upon all such as will submit themselves as fully to God as Christ did and to none else. That is the plan of salvation.

Thus, justice is that them who will not abide by the law of God - those who are not possessed of the divine nature - are not received into the Celestial society, but are placed somewhere else, where they will be most comfortable.

Mercy is that one who did not keep the law, but did turn and repent with all their might, mind, and strength, are given the divine nature, which qualifies them for the Celestial society.

Sleep deprivation forbids me to make this a fully-fleshed out account, but I trust the thrust of my thinking is plain.

I got up early to give your post some thought and respond. I would agree with you as much as you agree with Skousen! Which is to say that I haven't completely embraced the theory, but at the same time I haven't let it stand in the way of exploring the congruence it has with what I believe in the atonement. And, let me say that my reply is not at all a rebuttal in the opposite point of view. I agree with you not only on the things we agree with, but also on the things that are theories.

I look at Skousen's model and compare it to the general reaction to non-members when they hear the song, "

" . Because, when they hear that song, they may only see one concept, which is that God and the Son of Man are on a planet called Kolob. Which is why much of the leadership doesn't like the song, because it somehow reduces the God and The Son of Man to a space men. In fact, I have heard this is why much of the leadership does not like the song for fear of misinterpretation in the minds of non-members.

So, when we LDS members hear Skousen's theory, we are often appalled because it seems to reduce the atonement to satisfy only the most basic elements of the Universe. So, how could this be possible? Normally I don't entertain the idea that I would answer a question with a question, but it seems appropriate in this instance .... How could the Son of Man be the only Begotten of the Father and also a Space Man? The answer is simple, He is, They are both, and more! How could the fundamental elements (intelligences) accept the atonement to satisfy the demands of justice? The answer is, they are more than just fundamental elements.

To understand them I have referenced some material from BYU

Source: http://eom.byu.edu/i...p/Intelligences

"The word "intelligences" (plural) occurs frequently in LDS literature, having reference to the period of the premortal existence of mankind. The term has received two interpretations by writers within the Church: as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth. Because latter-day revelation has not clarified the meaning of the term, a more precise interpretation is not possible at present.

The scriptural source for the word "intelligences" is the book of Abraham 3:21-22. The Lord instructed the patriarch Abraham regarding the premortal experiences of all who have been or ever will be upon the earth. Among those events was the Council in Heaven, at which the Father's Plan of Salvation for his children was discussed. Abraham wrote of this, "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; …for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them" (Abr. 3:22-23). The Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of intelligences as follows: "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them" (TPJS, p. 354).

Concerning man's premortal existence, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29). "Intelligence," as used here, is singular, and it is not clear from this passage if it refers to individual, conscious identity. As noted, Abraham referred to the spirit offspring of God as organized intelligences, apparently using the word "intelligences" to mean "spirits." Church authorities have indicated that spirit birth was not the beginning. Spencer W. Kimball, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote, "Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969). Marion G. Romney, of the First Presidency, speaking of people's divine origin as children of God, stated, "Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings" (Ensign 8 [Nov. 1978]:14). Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, wrote: Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father. The intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities (Abr. 3:22-24). Use of this name designates both the primal element from which the spirit offspring were created and also their inherited capacity to grow in grace, knowledge, power, and intelligence itself, until such intelligences, gaining the fulness of all things, become like their Father, the Supreme Intelligence [MD, p. 387].

While the revelations leave no doubt as to the existence of intelligent matter prior to its being organized as spirits, speculation sometimes arises regarding the nature of premortal existence and whether there was individual identity and consciousness prior to birth as a spirit. Some hold that the terms "intelligence" and "intelligences" have reference to a form of prespirit conscious self-existence, which included individual identity, variety, and agency (so reasoned B. H. Roberts, pp. 401-423). Others maintain that while these characteristics, attributes, and conditions are eternal, they essentially came together for each individual at the spirit birth. The question of whether prespirit intelligence had individual identity and consciousness remains unanswered. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave this caution in 1936: Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual [p. 10].

No formal pronouncements have been made by the leading councils of the Church to clarify what additional meanings and attributes may be assigned to the word "intelligences," beyond that which identifies intelligences as spirit children of God. [see also First Estate; Intelligence; Premortal Life; Spirit Body]

It takes a lot even to understand the most basic fundamentals of the mechanics of the the Atonement. To the non-member I would simply say this .... It is my testimony that Christ is my savior, and I have in fact felt the burdens of sin been removed from my life. Its more deep than just changing behavior, actually removing the bad feelings. Its a process that starts, in my opinion, with forgiving others. Once I do, I have found that I too gain forgiveness - which is to say that I not only repent or change, but they no longer influence my life, my thoughts, and my feelings. Someone once told me that this is all about sanctification, which is something new to me and am still trying to grasp.

Further, I do think a lot of saints don't understand just how much the savior is important in our daily lives. He is not only for the sinner, but also the saint. We can use the atonement to be a better person in our daily lives, our callings.... everywhere. To me, this is much, much more than simply saying that Christ died so that I can live. Yes, it is true that we will all live forever. But how can we not work at improving ourselves, and use the atonement in our daily lives if it helps fulfill God's ultimate goal? To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Eternal life is not simply living as an immortal.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Messenger

[zerinus]

Do you know what any ambiguous position by the CoJCoLDS is on the topic?

I am not aware, or at least cannot recall any LDS official or Church leader specifically commenting on this doctrine and its implications. It may very well be that somebody has; and it certainly is a topic that has been talked about in religious history; but I am not aware of it being discussed in Mormonism.

If not, would you like to offer any unambiguous comments?

That is difficult to do because as I said, the scriptures are ambiguous on the issue; but it is possible to examine the subject from various angles based on what has been revealed. There are many passages of scripture that declare God to be just, that He deals with mankind on the principles of equity and justice. A particularly interesting example of this is when Abraham is remonstrating with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Genesis 18:

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Here both Abraham and God appear to agree to a standard of what is right and just, and what is not, which both of them expect to adhere to—as if it were some kind of independent standard of judgement. Similarly, there are many passages of scripture in which mankind are exhorted to do good, to do what is right—without explaining what that good is. There are hundreds. Here is a typical example:

Psalms 37:

27 Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.

These imply that doing good is something that is inherently knowable. It is a universal, independent standard which both God and man are expected to adhere to. On the other hand, the scriptures tell us that God acts according to law. According to the scriptures, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). And God is the author of the law:

D&C 88:

34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

D&C 132:

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

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

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

Therefore since God is the author and creator of all organized existence, and the laws by which they are governed; He must also be the author and creator of the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong.

Looking at it at a deeper, more fundamental level, according to Mormon revelation, “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). And in the same section we are also told, “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36). What I get from this is that truth, in the spiritual sense, has the quality of light. It is spiritual light—and it is independent of God. God did not create it. And that light is good, which stands in contrast to darkness, which is evil: “. . . and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good . . .” (Alma 32:35). “Light and truth forsake the evil one” (D&C 93:37). Satan is the prince of darkness, whereas God is the source of light. So looking at it from that most fundamental point of view, it may be possible to argue that good and evil are independent principles from God. But again looking at it from another point of view still, God is the source of all truth, light, and good to man. Man cannot acquire it in any other way except in the prescribed way from God:

John 8:

12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Ether 3:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, . . .

Ether 4:

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; . . .

D&C 45:

7 For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the world—a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

So looking at it from our perspective, it may still be correct to say that God is the determiner or standard of what is good and evil, what is true and false.

On a historical note, you might be interested to know that this question has been a source of lively debate in the history of religion. Historically it has centered on the concept of “justice” rather than good and evil (the concept of justice incorporates the concepts of good and evil). I haven’t studied its development in the history of Christian theology (although I am guessing that it will have been a big issue there too); but I can confirm that it became a subject of debate in the early history of Islam. The question arose whether God is inherently just, in the sense that He adheres to an independent standard of justice; or whether justice is determined by what God does. He becomes the standard of justice; and whatever God does is just. Is justice determined by what God does, or does God act according to an independent standard of justice? It is a very fine theological distinction. And this is one of the main theological differences between the two main sects of Islam—Shi'a and Sunni—today. The Shi'a (which is the minority sect in most Islamic countries), adhere to the view that God is inherently just, meaning that He adheres to an independent standard of justice; whereas the Sunni adhere to the view that justice is determined by what God does. Whatever God does is just. He doesn’t need a standard of justice to conform to. So although in Mormonism is has not been the subject of much discussion, elsewhere it has been.

Edited May 11, 2012 by zerinus

[David T]

Who got paid?

1. Justice.

How is sin quantified by a 'price'?

2. The punishment is set in the law.

Who sets this price?

3. God.

How is punishing an innocent have anything to do with Justice?

4. In and of itself nothing.

The reason Christ, of all people, can atone for our sins is that in the premortal life we all agreed to the law as it was set. And, as it was set, it provided a means for the law-giver to take the punishment in our stead. There had to be a bite to the law, as Lehi says in 2 Nephi 2. An eternal punishment. Christ is the only one who could, can, and does meet those demands.

If, as you say, God set up what consists of the price that needs to be given to Justice, then He is the one who established that pain, torture, and suffering is the price? If God is setting up the terms of payment - and determining what payment means - than I see that as God instituting pain and suffering and expulsion as currency. If God is setting the Law, and making up 'prices', He does not need to make a payment system 'that has bite'. He is in control.

I really can't see anything where, if the plan is progression, it makes any sense to require torture upon those who don't 'live up', and why, therefore, some Super Torture is required upon a God to appease.. what? The Law that was set by God? This 'Justice' that God created a law to appease? According to this model, the Ultimate Intelligent Authority In The Universe, whether this is God or 'Justice', is demanding torture and pain and suffering as something that will make the world right for the lapse of progress in individuals. Either God demanded suffering, or God is beholden to someone who demands suffering. Neither of which are comforting, or appear compatible with the view of God as Loving Heavenly Father. Unless we acknowledge the best Father is one who requires severe beatings on someone's part (whether that person is guilty or not) to be appeased. And if God isn't the one who requires it, he's subject to someone who is.

This is why the 'required payment' models are incredibly disturbing to me. Especially if they claim that God, this loving Father, can't forgive us of our mistakes unless someone is beaten. We say God is more forgiving than we can imagine, but in the same stroke, we say God can't forgive humanity without there having been a tremendously painful session of torture, suffering, and death? Really?

It resonates much stronger with me that the suffering would be something that served, not to pay anyone who demanded it, but as a powerful sign expressing the extent of love - for all intents and purposes, an attention getter, showing ;this is the extent God is willing to go for you. "Believe me when I say I already forgive you. Please accept that, come to me, and then we can proceed together." to 'draw all men unto him'. The recognition of Love does transform, and bring hope. It does draw one and save one from sorrow and additional spiritual suffering. When one acknowledges the Love of God, and then listens to his further guidance out of recognition for that love, additional enabling power is given.

The key forgiveness that this suffering makes possible, I see, is the forgiveness of one's self due to recognition that God, the Supreme Being, Loves you, and wants you to forgive yourself and have joy. Jesus died to free us from the bondage we bring upon ourselves as we refuse to walk towards God, and the layers of pain and suffering such actions bring upon ourselves. I see this pain and suffering as something naturally inevitable, not as some punishment someone 'decreed'.

I don't see what benefit comes to one who views suffering as the swiping of a Cosmic Credit Card demanded by some Higher Power.

[mercyngrace]

DavidT,

I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

If God is the ultimate creator of Good, then the price/payment metaphor when drawn beyond its most superficial comparison seems to indicate that we need Jesus to protect us from God.

How is this God worth worshiping? How is His plan Good News?

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[thesometimesaint]

mercyngrace:

To protect us for our own bad decisions. Without God we would be here. Someday we can be like him.

[mercyngrace]

mercyngrace:

To protect us for our own bad decisions. Without God we would be here. Someday we can be like him.

I'm not understanding you, TSS.

How does a loving God, confining one to hell indefinitely or to a kingdom of glory outside His presence infinitely based on finite sins protect the sinner from himself?

[thesometimesaint]

mercyngrace:

If we repent(change) then God is bound. He will not deny us any righteous desire. A temporary detour to Hell or even permanent placement in a lesser kingdom is totally dependent on us.

[Log]

I got up early to give your post some thought and respond. I would agree with you as much as you agree with Skousen! Which is to say that I haven't completely embraced the theory, but at the same time I haven't let it stand in the way of exploring the congruence it has with what I believe in the atonement. And, let me say that my reply is not at all a rebuttal in the opposite point of view. I agree with you not only on the things we agree with, but also on the things that are theories.

Let me add one more thing - the Atonment, on my view, allows all the other intelligences access to the full experience of mortality - because they are united with Christ and know from him of his experiences and thus can they have compassion upon us when we repent. In this way too is Christ the intercessionary or the mediator between us and the Heavens.

Anyways, I look forward to seeing what else you have to say upon the topic!

[zerinus]

If God is the ultimate creator of Good, then the price/payment metaphor when drawn beyond its most superficial comparison seems to indicate that we need Jesus to protect us from God.

How is this God worth worshiping? How is His plan Good News?

I agree that the price/payment metaphor is a superficial explanation for the principle of the Atonement; but the Book of Mormon provides a better explanation:

Alma 42:

1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

Now I admit that this also does not explain why an atonement was necessary to “appease the demands of justice”. If God can do anything, why can’t He just forgive us anyway, without the need for an atonement? We just have to take His word for it that in the eternal scheme of things, that is the only way that it could have been done. But the most significant bit here is that, according to the above exposition, Jesus is not “saving us from God,” to borrow your own turn of phrase; but it is God Himself who is saving us from the demands of justice. The Atonement is performed by God Himself, to save us from the demands of justice. God establishes the law, and the principles of justice which He Himself has no choice but to adhere to. But then, in order that He might be a merciful God as well as a just God, He takes upon Himself the burden of our punishment, subject to the condition of our repentance. That is the only thing that we need to do to avoid that suffering; whereas He is going to suffer anyway, in order to make the plan or our happiness to work. So the ultimate choice is ours. We can believe and repent, or rebel and suffer—contrary to His wishes. God is not made happy that the sinner should suffer and die. It makes Him extremely unhappy. But He has given us the choice, and He cannot override that choice.

Edited to add more scriptures for you to look at:

Mosiah 13:

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

The Atonement was made by God Himself to save us from the demands of justice, not by Jesus to save us from God!

Edited May 11, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

If God is the ultimate creator of Good, then the price/payment metaphor when drawn beyond its most superficial comparison seems to indicate that we need Jesus to protect us from God.

How is this God worth worshiping? How is His plan Good News?

Either God is transcendent as the Neoplatonists would have it, or he is immanent, and is able to change, interact with his children, perform miracles (not possible for a transcendent God who does not interact with his children) or he is not

Mormon 9

18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

To me, this is pure genius, a complete confounding of Neoplatonism- saying exactly what we are saying here. It has to be inspired!

The mere fact that God has "ceased to be a God of miracles" because of the actions of his children, confirms that he DOES in fact change as he needs to, to teach his children- and is therefore immanent!

This is also why he is subject to acting justly- because he has made the decision to give up transcendence to become immanent.

He gave us the ideas of “justice” and “goodness” so that we would survive as a race, as part of our basic goodness even though we confront and flirt and even succumb to evil every day of our lives

Why should we worship this Man of Holiness and what does the Son of Man, Christ, have to do with it?

I see this voluntary "fall" from transcendence mirrored in the Plan of Salvation, in the fall of Adam, and the condescension of Christ. Christ himself "does what he has seen his Father do"- that doesn't imply necessarily that the Father existed on another planet- it might just mean that Christ's condescension mirrors the Father's voluntary surrender of transcendence so that he can remain interactive with his children- and remain "a God of miracles"

Anyway that's what I think.

[mfbukowski]

Now I admit that this also does not explain why an atonement was necessary to “appease the demands of justice”. If God can do anything, why can’t He just forgive us anyway, without the need for an atonement? We just have to take His word for it that in the eternal scheme of things, that is the only way that it could have been done. But the most significant bit here is that, according to the above exposition, Jesus is not “saving us from God,” to borrow your own turn of phrase; but it is God Himself who is saving us from the demands of justice. The Atonement is performed by God Himself, to save us from the demands of justice. God establishes the law, and the principles of justice which He Himself has no choice but to adhere to. But then, in order that He might be a merciful God as well as a just God, He takes upon Himself the burden of our punishment, subject to the condition of our repentance. That is the only thing that we need to do to avoid that suffering; whereas He is going to suffer anyway, in order to make the plan or our happiness to work. So the ultimate choice is ours. We can believe and repent, or rebel and suffer—contrary to His wishes. God is not made happy that the sinner should suffer and die. It makes Him extremely unhappy. But He has given us the choice, and He cannot override that choice.

I don't believe it, but I actually agree whole heartedly with Zerinus! Definitely a red-letter day!

And again as I said above, I believe that God voluntarily gave up being a God of transcendence- a god as Plato would have seen him, so that he could be a God of miracles- a God who interacts with his children are teaches them and cares about them

I think that was his personal sacrifice for us, again mirrored in the sacrifice of his son.

And I think that is symbolized in the temple as well- and one of my favorite scrips- Hebrews 10: 20 mirrors that (think about that- lotsa mirrors here) when you think who it is who is behind the veil and who IS the veil.

Definitely enough of that.

[mfbukowski]

Zerinus- great additional scriptures- thanks.

[mfbukowski]

The fact that God has to conform to the principle of justice does not necessitate that He should not have created that standard of justice in the first place. There are many passages of scripture that teach that God is just, that He conforms to the principles of justice.

Just to clarify in case it has not yet been clear enough- what you are saying here agrees with what I am saying. I think God created the standards- those standards also "by coincidence" (of course not really- but by his design) happen to "work best" for mankind to live happily.

God created the standards, and then voluntarily made the decision to take them upon himself and become an immanent God. Furthermore I think that is why sometimes the scriptures speak as if God is transcendent and sometimes as if he is immanent- in a sense he is both, or on another way of seeing it, he "was" transcendent but now is immanent by his own decision. Again the idea is he is self-determined by the rules he himself has set for himself.

An analogy which is easy to understand is that of us going on a diet. We voluntarily accept the rules of the diet for a greater good- for us it may be better health and a longer life. For God, it was so that he could bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his children by being able to interact with them. That "condescension" is a parallel of the condescension of his Son- in fact they can be seen as the same thing, since both beings are part of the Godhead- both are "God"- they are one in purpose and their purpose is allowing us to have joy, and bringing to pass our immortality and eternal lives

The fall of Adam can then be seen as a third condescension - the planned "fall" from the garden "Adam fell that man might be, and man is that we might have joy".

I am sorry if I am repetitive about this idea, but I just thought it up, and I am working it out mentally in these posts. I really like the idea- it really seems to solve a few issues for me.

[Zeta-Flux]

If, as you say, God set up what consists of the price that needs to be given to Justice, then He is the one who established that pain, torture, and suffering is the price? If God is setting up the terms of payment - and determining what payment means - than I see that as God instituting pain and suffering and expulsion as currency. If God is setting the Law, and making up 'prices', He does not need to make a payment system 'that has bite'. He is in control.

I see this argument as a non sequitur.

When you say that God did not need to make a payment system 'that has a bite' you are right in one sense. It wasn't a necessary action. God could have decided to do nothing at all, and ceased to become God, for example. But God is working in the framework of His desire to exalt us. If you read 2 Nephi 2, Lehi explains why a person like God, who wants to exalt us, set punishments with a bite.

Or to put it another way, not only is God in control of the punishments but He is also in control of the rewards. Would it make sense to say: "If God is setting the Law, and making up 'wages', He does not need to make a payment system 'that exalts'."? Well, yes. I suppose God could have chosen a system that didn't exalt us, since He is in control, but that isn't what God ultimately wants. The 'bite' in the punishment is one of those things that helps exalt us.

I really can't see anything where, if the plan is progression, it makes any sense to require torture upon those who don't 'live up', and why, therefore, some Super Torture is required upon a God to appease.. what? The Law that was set by God? This 'Justice' that God created a law to appease? According to this model, the Ultimate Intelligent Authority In The Universe, whether this is God or 'Justice', is demanding torture and pain and suffering as something that will make the world right for the lapse of progress in individuals. Either God demanded suffering, or God is beholden to someone who demands suffering. Neither of which are comforting, or appear compatible with the view of God as Loving Heavenly Father. Unless we acknowledge the best Father is one who requires severe beatings on someone's part (whether that person is guilty or not) to be appeased. And if God isn't the one who requires it, he's subject to someone who is.

I think you are confused about what the punishment for sin is. It isn't "torture" (except that which is self-inflicted). It is spiritual death. Being cut off from the presence of God.

And yes, God does demand obedience to His law. If He didn't we couldn't be exalted.

And yes, God is truthful and just. When He set the law which we all agreed to, it bound not only us but Him. He *had* to appease the law else He would cease to be God.

God doesn't demand suffering. However, it is the natural consequence of being cut off from God. I'm sure you yourself have felt it when you have sinned and sought on your knees forgiveness. Did God "demand" that suffering from you? Did He inflict it on you? No. Your actions took you away from God, and by freely making those choices you inflicted your suffering on yourself. And as you sought to come back to God, the atonement healed those bridges you burnt.

The only thing that gives me peace when I think about the infinite affects of my bad choices is the hope that Christ will make it right.

I think you may be conflating the specific sufferings Christ went through with the sufferings set in the law by God.

This is why the 'required payment' models are incredibly disturbing to me. Especially if they claim that God, this loving Father, can't forgive us of our mistakes unless someone is beaten. We say God is more forgiving than we can imagine, but in the same stroke, we say God can't forgive humanity without there having been a tremendously painful session of torture, suffering, and death? Really?

I see. I don't think my model claims that God couldn't forgive us without beating us.

That said, Christ freely chose to undergo all the suffering of all mankind, to understand us fully and have His bowels filled with mercy.

It resonates much stronger with me that the suffering would be something that served, not to pay anyone who demanded it, but as a powerful sign expressing the extent of love - for all intents and purposes, an attention getter, showing ;this is the extent God is willing to go for you. "Believe me when I say I already forgive you. Please accept that, come to me, and then we can proceed together." to 'draw all men unto him'. The recognition of Love does transform, and bring hope. It does draw one and save one from sorrow and additional spiritual suffering. When one acknowledges the Love of God, and then listens to his further guidance out of recognition for that love, additional enabling power is given.

I think that is exactly what most of the suffering Christ went through did. But there was one further aspect, being cut off from the presence of God, that had to happen to fulfill the ends of the law.

The key forgiveness that this suffering makes possible, I see, is the forgiveness of one's self due to recognition that God, the Supreme Being, Loves you, and wants you to forgive yourself and have joy. Jesus died to free us from the bondage we bring upon ourselves as we refuse to walk towards God, and the layers of pain and suffering such actions bring upon ourselves. I see this pain and suffering as something naturally inevitable, not as some punishment someone 'decreed'.

I don't see what benefit comes to one who views suffering as the swiping of a Cosmic Credit Card demanded by some Higher Power.

The benefit comes from knowing that in fact Christ does and will heal all hurts. He will right all wrongs. Justice will be met and mercy.

God won't be a fickle being who randomly decides to save some and not others, whose word is changing, and who makes no demands on us. He will be the kind of being we all should aspire to be like, who does require obedience, and who is worthy of all praise.

[Messenger]

I don't believe it is Gods law. For if he broke the law, God would cease to be God.

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe it is Gods law. For if he broke the law, God would cease to be God.

If you decided to go on a diet, and you cheated, you would cease to be a "dieter".

There is a reason the words "good" and "God" are related. If God would cease to be good, he would cease to be God. Why? Because he would be contradicting all that he is.

If he was just breaking someone else's law, he would merely be exercising agency as we do. We do not contradict what we are by exercising agency- because we have the ability to be good AND bad. In fact, that is what agency IS.

But if God created the law, and broke it, he would be contradicting what he IS- one who does what he says- always. He would be destroying his own integrity- he would be negating the whole law so that the law would no longer exist.

It would be like saying that A=A is actually A=not A. That contradiction would make A cease to be A.

Such an act would be a contradiction of the very definition of what "A" IS, not just an exception to A as an existing, continuing law.

[David T]

I see this argument as a non sequitur.

When you say that God did not need to make a payment system 'that has a bite' you are right in one sense. It wasn't a necessary action. God could have decided to do nothing at all, and ceased to become God, for example. But God is working in the framework of His desire to exalt us. If you read 2 Nephi 2, Lehi explains why a person like God, who wants to exalt us, set punishments with a bite.

I don't think it's necessary to view the effects of something as an imposed punishment. That being said, I don't feel it's necessary to view God as the deviser and constructor of the laws of cause and effect either. I see God as one who knows by experience. He understands, and warns of consequences. I can easily see how those who viewed everything that happened in the Universe as being directly willed and caused by God characterize and understand 'Consequences' as God's Punishment. I think that's clear in a great deal of prophetic rhetoric.

I understand it as God warns about the consequences of doing x. If y is pursued rather than x, then consequence z will occur. Z is not a result of God actively smiting someone who avoids x, it is simply the natural result of y.

My position is that God knows the quickest, most effective path to achieve what he achieved, and to learn what he learned. He knows what behaviors will disrupt one's progression, and have effects that would cause the individual to distance themselves from him, and lose sight of his live, and trust in his guidance.

I see the biggest, most prevalent cause of not following God's guidelines is an unwillingness - or inability - to love him enough to trust him. I see the life of Jesus Christ, as the manifestation of the Love of God on earth, as the key beacon to illustrate God's love, and draw others to understanding the nature of who God is. Without understanding the nature of God's full and complete submission and willingness to descend below all to express Love, full and complete trust and loyalty - to the extent necessary - would not be completely possible.

My point is, I don't see a cosmic trigger switch being pulled by Jesus' willingness to be murdered that suddenly allowed God to forgive people of their sins, or that suddenly appeased some entity/Law known as JUSTICE. I understand why some of an earlier time found that metaphor helpful, but I don't think it is complete, or even fully accurate. There were definitely times in the history of Christianity (even periods in the Restored Church) where key emphases of preaching rhetoric were to develop guilt and fear and views of God more in the character of a Sovereign Almighty King, than of the current prevalent model of presenting God as the Ideal Father. Model and audience dictates approach of teaching and explaining Atonement. Not to say that your understanding of the model isn't also compatible with your view and understanding of God as Ideal Father. At times, however, those two models weren't always given equal emphases, and the paradigm surrounding one's understanding of who God is very strongly affects how one would understand his motivations, requirements, and actions.

I certainly don't claim my expression to be complete either. But it is an understanding that resonates with me, and allows me to feel true devoted loyalty to The Father, and to Jesus. The Justice/Mercy model does not resonate with me, nor trigger within me a desire to repent.

Which comes to the core of the matter - I don't feel an Atonement model is useful if it does not ignite a desire to repent out of love. I feel we may do individuals a disservice if we insist that one model is the only way to understand it. Paul and the NT writers shifted their analogies as their audience changed.

I think it's helpful to be familiar with several Atonement models, so when teaching someone, if one doesn't resonate, invite one to see it from a different perspective.

"One way to understand the Atonement is like abc. How do you feel about that?"

"Here's another way others have understood the Atonement, it's like xyz."

To put it another way, while I can't say your model is 'wrong' (I acknowledge it is one model compatible with models used as examples in the scriptures) , I do feel comfortable saying that it is incomplete, and for me, personally, it doesn't resonate as being a true principle. That doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't contain truth. It just means it didn't trigger that response from me.

And I think that opens up another concern - to make sure that testimonies aren't founded on interpretations or models of the Atonement, but of the core Doctrine and Principle that the life of Christ, including and his culminating torture and murder made Atonement with God possible for me. I don't have a testimony of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, or of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, or of the Ransom Theory of Atonement, etc. My testimony isn't even based on the Compassion Theory, or 'Beacon' Theory. While some explanations are more helpful and resonate with me more, my foundation is built on the principle that an Atonement Did Happen. I don't claim to fully know what that means. And I'm willing for others to understand it differently (and perhaps even more correctly) than I do.

Edited May 12, 2012 by David T

[Messenger]

If you decided to go on a diet, and you cheated, you would cease to be a "dieter".

There is a reason the words "good" and "God" are related. If God would cease to be good, he would cease to be God. Why? Because he would be contradicting all that he is.

If he was just breaking someone else's law, he would merely be exercising agency as we do. We do not contradict what we are by exercising agency- because we have the ability to be good AND bad. In fact, that is what agency IS.

But if God created the law, and broke it, he would be contradicting what he IS- one who does what he says- always. He would be destroying his own integrity- he would be negating the whole law so that the law would no longer exist.

It would be like saying that A=A is actually A=not A. That contradiction would make A cease to be A.

Such an act would be a contradiction of the very definition of what "A" IS, not just an exception to A as an existing, continuing law.

For me its more simple. God is not above the law. In my opinion, there are other Gods that have been God before he was. The law is in him and therefore the law works through him. Just as we understand and can define what is right and wrong without the need for a thousands of commandments. We simply know what to do, because we understand the law. And when we deviate from this law, we lose our power in the law.

But, I agree with you. A nice perspective you have.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Messenger

[Zeta-Flux]

I see two points I'd like to comment on:

My point is, I don't see a cosmic trigger switch being pulled by Jesus' willingness to be murdered that suddenly allowed God to forgive people of their sins, or that suddenly appeased some entity/Law known as JUSTICE. I understand why some of an earlier time found that metaphor helpful, but I don't think it is complete, or even fully accurate.

I think you are begging the question by calling justice a metaphor.

Would you agree that God sets laws? Would you agree that God is bound by those laws? Whether or not there is a "trigger" would you not agree that God cannot, willy-nilly, decide not to enforce one of His laws on one person, but can on another?

If I'm reading you right, your position merely changes the law to something like "If someone is sincere enough (among possibly other options), God can wave the penalty." There is no need for an atonement in order for God to forgive, because the law you believe He uses already provides for mercy. Is that right?

Which comes to the core of the matter - I don't feel an Atonement model is useful if it does not ignite a desire to repent out of love.

I admit that a model is only as useful as the purpose for which it is created. For you, a model of the atonement is meant to help you repent.

For me, the model I want is the one which helps me understand eternity and God better. To understand the truth of the matter.

I don't necessarily measure the truth of a proposition by whether it ignites a desire in me. I'm sure I could go to just about *any* church and feel a desire to repent. I could listen to books on tape and feel a desire to change my life in certain ways. But I want more than that.