Vicarious Atonement Through Human Sacrifice

[mfbukowski]

I'm not going to get into this because I don't want to end up debating in the trailer park which is where all this is headed.

If anyone is interested in a Reader's Digest version of Process Theology which I think is largely compatible with Mormonism (Blake Ostler considers himself a process theologian for example) and process answers to these questions, this is an excellent site- though you won't believe me at first glance!

The best 25 words or less process theology explanation for the atonement is that it allows us to learn how to take our own suffering and turn it into triumph and achieve healing and forgiveness all at once. That's about all I will say about that here.

Also, there is this

Edited January 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[sethpayne]

Heard this once, did Jesus get persecuted and thus crucified for living polygamy, or is it a Mormon myth that needs to be squashed?!?!

Allow me to squash that one.

IMO, Jesus was likely crucified by the Romans because he represented a threat to the empire -- at least in the eyes of the Romans. Huge following (entry into Jerusalem), claims of a new Kingdom ... I'm sure Jewish leadership played a role but from a historical perspective I think the Gospels overplay this angle. Especially the Book of John.

My $.02

[sethpayne]

I'm not going to get into this because I don't want to end up debating in the trailer park which is where all this is headed.

First off, you know I love ya mfbukowski. To be quite fair to Sethbag, he is one of the more thoughtful posters at MDB. He's direct and honest. If he thinks something is untrue, he'll tell you. But, I've noticed at least 2 times where he admitted that his original position is incorrect.

[The Nehor]

So there's debt, and there's responsibility. You might pay my debt, but you cannot take upon yourself my responsibility.

We are lead to believe that Jesus not only paid the debt, but removes the responsibility as well. It's as if he committed my sins, not me. I don't believe that's possible. "Having done this" is something that belongs to me, and I don't see how anything short of a time machine can change that.

But this is exactly what it is. I agree it is foreign to everything we observe and hence seems unreasonable to us. At least the Resurrection is equally foreign so the two fruits of the atonement match in being odd and outside human experience. I think this is why the scriptures makes it clear that it is an infinite atonement and not a human sacrifice.

It is not even really substitutionary in the punishment sense since it takes care of far more then just the punishment. Somehow it undoes the effects it has on us and (eventually) all the reprecussions influencing everyone else.

[Lightbearer]

I'd like to mention that I don't believe that the underlying basis for the Atonement of Jesus Christ is even reasonable. For a very long time the Atonement occupied a privileged status in my mind where it wasn't even questioned at all, and I accepted it wholeheartedly, with no thoughts that this was anything but reasonable. As the years since my apostasy tick on and I've removed myself intellectually from where I had been as a member, I've become able to reconsider things like the Atonement in ways I never did before, and have startled myself by realizing I think the whole idea of an Atonement by Jesus Christ is bogus.

So, I do things, think thoughts, say words, and so forth that cross some universal line and are intrinsincally "evil", ie: sinful. Now I have racked up some guilt on a cosmic ledger of some sort. This guilt requires that some suffering be experienced. I have free agency, so whatever I've done that's sinful, that is my own, personal, direct responsibility, for which I alone am accountable. The idea that someone else can suffer and thus lift my responsibility for the things I've done makes no sense. Worse than that, though, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is a doctrine which basically says that a human sacrifice of someone else, besides me, who had no part in any of the things that I've done, can absolve me of responsibility for all of the things that I have personally chosen to do. Sorry, but that no longer makes sense to me.

Just as it may no longer make sense to you that by killing a bird, or a sheep, on an altar and burning its corpse your sins are absolved, I no longer think it makes any sense for essentially the same thing to occur, but the victim of this sacrifice be another human being.

I will point out one difference between the sacrifice of an animal and the sacrifice of a human (Jesus) which some may point to as making the difference. The animal doesn't choose to be sacrificed, but Jesus did. So there's a real difference. But I still don't think that works. Just because someone chooses to take upon them the choices I made doesn't mean they made those choices. I did. Nothing can change that.

Anyhow, I probably didn't do this justice in these few brief paragraphs. I should probably write this all down and rework it and rethink it one day to clarify exactly my thoughts on the matter, whereas here I just whipped it out. I'm sure this could be argued better. But the bottom line is that I think the whole notion of vicarious atonement through human sacrifice of a 3rd party, willing or no, is repugnant. I don't think that God exists, so the Atonement is not really true as a matter of reality, but more than that, I don't think it's even a really good idea. In other words, I can't even find myself wishing that it were true.

I feel very sorry for you. It must be horrific to live a life without hope or faith. The main problem is that with either of these faith or hope and charity then it is impossible to understand the meaning of the atonement. Because it is based on all three of these vital principles. If you do not believe that God exists then all this talk of sin or righteousness or morality is vitually meaningless. If we have no feeling that there is a God who is a God of justice and mercy or one that requires faith and love then the entire atonement the idea of Christ is nothing but supersitious nonsense. You must have a starting point for an understanding of the atonement. That starting point is that there is a God and that He is our Father, and as such we are made in His image. Thus we are not some separate creature or just a thing... we are His offspring, His sons and daughters. So we are of His spiritual DNA so to speak. We are children of light. We have the power within us to become as He is. That was the whole purpose of our creation that He may "prove us herewith to see if we would do whatsoever He would command us" for the reason that He must have absolute trust in us if we are to be given His mighty power and glory. In order to gain the necessary faith, hope, and love... we had to come to mortality. We had to have the possiblity of making wrong choices, and if we did we had to have a means of overcoming those wrong choices. Thus God is able to be a just God and a Merciful God. Not one of selfishness or of self-righteousness, but one of righteousness, equity, and truth. One of holiness and purity, one who blesses His children with the same opportunities He has had. A God who cherishes our agency so much that He is willing to suffer for us and if we insist, loose us if we choose not to follow the path of salvation and exaltation. The following from the Book of Mormon explains the very point you mention in you OP that it is not reasonable to assume that a human sacrifice could atone for the sins of another, I agree one human cannot atone for another's sin, that is why we are not accountable for Adams or anyone else's sin! Only our own and we are fully accountable, that fact that Christ atoned for our sins does not negate our responsibility or our accountability. That is why it is required of us to covenant with Christ to recieve the blessings of the atonement, and it is also required of us to have faith in His atonement and to live up to that covenant until the end of our lives. See the following:

"For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption." (Book of Mormon | Alma 34:9-16)

Jesus Christ was not just a man, not just a human, He is a God, the Son of God the Father, He had life within Himself, no man took His life, He freely gave it to satisfy the demands of justice. He is a member of the Godhead and as such made covenant with the Father and with us that He would work out the infinite atonement. It is hard for those who do not have spiritual eyes to see this, that is why the leaders of the Jews hated Him and why they had Him killed. The doctrine of Christ is foolishness to the natural man, because it can only be understood by the spirit of God. That is why the natural man is the enemy to God and will be forever until He yields unto the enticings of the spirit of the Lord. Traditional christianity only vaguely comprehends this beautiful doctrine of Christ. The reason for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was so this doctrine could be plainly shown to the world in these last days. About the same time it came out was the time of the so-called "age of reason" which by definition causes men to trust more in reason and "science" rather than revelation. The problem is faith is the only way this type of knowledge can be learned! So if we use men's uninspired reasoning, we will be "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. We are one big holy family, even Lucifer was our one time brother who rebelled and divorced himself, or rather disinherited himself by his rebellion against the Father and the Son. We are children of God, as such we can through the law of adoption (through the atonement provided by the Son of God) become one with the Father. I am a father, so I can understand in a small way how the Father must feel of us... I love my son (and my wife I might add) so much that I would die for them. Not because I am unafraid to die or suffer, but because I love them. God love us so much that He sent His only begotton in the flesh (His Son who was the only one of us who has ever lived a perfect life) to save us from destruction (not physical death only) from the spiritual death suffered by Lucifer and the other one third of God's children whom He could not save because of their agency. It is our agency and choices that makes the atonement possible. We can choose to believe, yes it is a choice. We are not doomed by fate, we can overcome our sins through the power of the atonement of Christ. I hope I have explained by position in a way that you can understand and perhaps even open your mind again to the possiblity. Think back to the time when you believed in God and you accepted these things. How did you feel? I am sorry if this sounds like preaching, I understand you position and your current state. But rather that calling each other names or condemning you, I just wanted to let you know my thoughts on the subject. I do not desire to argue or contend, that is not the Lord's way. I hope you take this in te spirit it was intended. May God bless you with understanding and love.

Lightbearer.

[mfbukowski]

First off, you know I love ya mfbukowski. To be quite fair to Sethbag, he is one of the more thoughtful posters at MDB. He's direct and honest. If he thinks something is untrue, he'll tell you. But, I've noticed at least 2 times where he admitted that his original position is incorrect.

Dangit. You also know the feeling is mutual.

Ok here goes.-

I am a big fan of the Didache, which is a first century text which describes the difference between two "Ways"- one leading to life (righteousness) and the other leading to death (sin)

We all sin, and have made choices which earn us death in following that path, as actual natural consequences of those acts. (Anger leads to murder, poor health decisions, addictions, breaking laws which lead to unsafe situations, destructive behavior etc)

We must repent of those behaviors to partially reverse the effects we have already earned through sin, but on our own, we can never be perfect.

We need an ideal image of perfection, and the contemplation of that ideal image and comparing Him to us causes us guilt by knowing how far we have strayed from the ideal. But that guilt is itself destructive- we need a way to rid ourselves of it and know that we can be healed of our past transgressions and look forward to being perfect in the future.

This to me is the bottom line in understanding how belief in the atonement actually works in our lives- it is my version of the "Pragmatic Atonement" in 50 words or less.

On this view, Christ becomes the major force in our lives and helps us individually to overcome the effects of sin by becoming our ideal, our healer, and our hope for future redemption as we repent and do our best to achieve perfection in our own lives and ultimately become one with Christ and our Father.

There is probably a book in each of those paragraphs, but that's the short version!

Just as God defined sin and the fall in Adam, Christ defines all that we can become, in the central event of all history which turns our hearts from guilt and pain for what we have done to the hope that we can become as Christ is.

The death of Christ is the paradigm shifting dramatic event where sinlessness confronts sin and evil in the ultimate battle- the battle for death of the sinless one by the forces of evil. Yet in his death, and resurrection, the ultimate triumph over evil is reified and made concrete. Evil becomes triumph, and sin becomes forgiveness. Pain becomes healing and bondage is transformed to freedom.

The image of Christ's death and resurrection is what allows us to make the transformation in all our lives. He who underwent all, overcame all. He who is unworldly overcomes the world.

The Son of Man becomes the paradigm for us all, as men, to be the model for all of us in overcoming the world.

[rpn]

The atonement isn't intended to and doesn't absolve us of anything. It fills in the gap between our personal best AND objective perfection required to return to live with our Heavenly Father. It meets the demands of justice. It fills the holes in our heart that nothing we can do will fill.

[mfbukowski]

I feel very sorry for you. It must be horrific to live a life without hope or faith.

Hey, there you go. That should convert him. If love doesn't work, just insult them until they change their minds. Good idea!

[pogi]

To understand how and why the atonement works, we would first have to understand God's eternal law, justice, and mercy. The vicarious atonement through human sacrifice of a 3rd party may be "repugnant" to the general law of man, but God's ways are not our ways. Suffice it to say that the atonement satisfied the demands of justice on the conditions of repentance (Alma 42:13) and a broken heart and contrite spirit (2 Nephi 2:7).

God set the law and the conditions. According to God's law, justice, and mercy (not man's), Christ's atonement placed Christ betwixt us and justice (Mosiah 15:9). I don't need to understand why or how, I just need to believe Him when He says it is so.

[ERayR]

The atonement isn't intended to and doesn't absolve us of anything. It fills in the gap between our personal best AND objective perfection required to return to live with our Heavenly Father. It meets the demands of justice. It fills the holes in our heart that nothing we can do will fill.

This I can not accept. The atonement covers all our sins and allows the one doing the atoning (Jesus Christ) to establish new criteria for meeting the demands of justice. Nothing we do can be anymore than willingly subjecting our selves to Jesus' criteria.

[Garden Girl]

Heard this once, , did Jesus get persecuted and thus crucified for living polygamyor is it a Mormon myth that needs to be squashed?!?!

Tacenda! You can come up with some of the darndest things... where did you hear this anyway... under what circumstances? I don't think you should be able to make such a statement without some context or reference... otherwise, it's just another drive-by attempt at sensationalizing Mormonism... so yes, this is a CFR because if it is a Mormon "myth" that needs to be squashed then it must have been repeated enough to become a myth... so, where did you hear it and under what circumstance? So I expect a full disclosure and/or a statement as to why you even brought it up. I certainly have never heard such a thing!!

GG

[Calm]

Tacenda! You can come up with some of the darndest things... where did you hear this anyway... under what circumstances? I don't think you should be able to make such a statement without some context or reference... otherwise, it's just another drive-by attempt at sensationalizing Mormonism... so yes, this is a CFR because if it is a Mormon "myth" that needs to be squashed then it must have been repeated enough to become a myth... so, where did you hear it and under what circumstance? So I expect a full disclosure and/or a statement as to why you even brought it up. I certainly have never heard such a thing!!

GG

It seems a very strange belief/claim since polygamy was legal during that time period among Jews so why would they be persecuting and even killing him over his practice of such?

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11040/questions-about-polygamy-in-jewish-law-and-culture

Edited January 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Heard this once, did Jesus get persecuted and thus crucified for living polygamy, or is it a Mormon myth that needs to be squashed?!?!

Sounds more like a myth about Mormons than a Mormon myth.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda! You can come up with some of the darndest things... where did you hear this anyway... under what circumstances? I don't think you should be able to make such a statement without some context or reference... otherwise, it's just another drive-by attempt at sensationalizing Mormonism... so yes, this is a CFR because if it is a Mormon "myth" that needs to be squashed then it must have been repeated enough to become a myth... so, where did you hear it and under what circumstance? So I expect a full disclosure and/or a statement as to why you even brought it up. I certainly have never heard such a thing!!

GG

Orson Pratt "The Seer" and Fairmormon is where I read about it. They also said the church doesn't take a stand either way on it. So it isn't out of the question. I'm not making stuff up GG, I'm not a storyteller.

[Maidservant]

I'd like to mention that I don't believe that the underlying basis for the Atonement of Jesus Christ is even reasonable.

"the" underlying basis -- as you've seen already in this thread, there is not just one way to understand the atonement, and I haven't met anyone who doesn't struggle with the whole idea in some way in hopes to understand it or come to a conclusion on it one way or another; myself, since the time I was a young woman and proactively began thinking and studying on it, have had two major overall theories (lots of changes to details). The first way I understood or reconciled it was very mechanical--not a debt in terms of being bad but debt as in the laws of phyics, the law of conservation--the energy we create with sin has to be cleaned somewhere so that the universe can remain basically good, so I saw that cleaning happening in the Savior's body (ever read Dune where the Bene it (sp?) women can neutralize poison in their bodies?). Well, this is all right, but in the last few years, I've seen a few more things to where I think almost something completely different about the atonement, that I have never met anyone who thought like I did.

So, I do things, think thoughts, say words, and so forth that cross some universal line and are intrinsincally "evil", ie: sinful. Now I have racked up some guilt on a cosmic ledger of some sort. This guilt requires that some suffering be experienced. I have free agency, so whatever I've done that's sinful, that is my own, personal, direct responsibility, for which I alone am accountable. The idea that someone else can suffer and thus lift my responsibility for the things I've done makes no sense. Worse than that, though, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is a doctrine which basically says that a human sacrifice of someone else, besides me, who had no part in any of the things that I've done, can absolve me of responsibility for all of the things that I have personally chosen to do. Sorry, but that no longer makes sense to me.

While I would never justify a scenario of an atonement as you have painted here, I would like to point out a couple of things here.

"cross some universal line"; again, is this the way to think of it? I think the Atonement postulates an energetic universe. I don't think a sin is about yourself, it's about the energy you've sent out into the world, namely, wounding other people and other life. A sin is harm to another. We don't even have to use the word 'sin'. Just harm. When we harm our spouses, children, neighbors, they carry our wounds. Do you accept a karma aspect to the universe? If you don't then yes all these ideas will make less sense.

"guilt" forget about this word-just think about harm and responsibility--the only use of the idea of guilt is if it indicates to us that we ARE responsible for our acts

Now getting a little bit into how I now think of the atonement, and to respond to what you say about how you don't think a human sacrifice makes any sense, too late.

The image of the atonement of Christ is the image of us. There IS a human sacrifice. It is inescapable. Your wife has been sacrificed for YOUR sins. My children have been sacrificed for MY sins. I have CRUCIFIED the innocent. In this world, we are both the crucifiers and the crucified. We are born as babies but we soon enter a world where we hurt people and people hurt us.

There is harm and there is harm. There is being impatient with our kids. There is being a person who traffics in human beings and tortures human beings. There's a big spectrum of harm.

We are the innocent. We are the ones who know not what we do. We are the Pontius who wash our hands. We are the covenant people who more deliberately crucify God. We are the thieves on the cross. We are the Saviors.

So if you say there is no or should not be any human sacrifice--it's already done. It's us.

So what happens after being crucified? What happens after our death, our tomb?

We are SHOWN by the EXAMPLE of Christ's atonement WHAT TO DO TO BE REDEEMED AND TO ATONE.

When we get to the bar of God (if one accepts something like this, I use it for imaginary effect since I don't know how it will really go down), after having lived a lifetime in the covenant and growing, perhaps a little scene like this will play out.

God: "Daughter, here is your earthly father. He [insert all the things he did to harm me]. What would you say we should do to him for justice sake? What should we do since he is responsible for your pain/crucifixion?"

Me (the me who follows Christ/became like Christ/became Christ): "Let him in. He is me and I am him. He was harmed when he was a child also. He struggled. He did his best. He hurt me, yes. But he loved me. My wounds are no longer here, because I let you, God, love me and show me the way [i.e. the covenant], and I have been healed and risen, and so it is as if this man, my earthly father, has done nothing, because--I am whole; or I will be whole once you Let Him In."

I know I am not expressing this right, but this is how I understand the atonement right now. It is us, when we are finished, we all look at each other on the other side, blinking, stunned--and we will realize we are the slaughtered lambs and the risen lords.

Here's the thing. We all have our free agency. We do things that we choose to do. We are culpable for these things. It doesn't change the essence of my having made these choices for someone else to say hey, this one's on me. That transfer of guilt, as it were, simply makes no sense to me.

To repeat, and as I have explained, it's NEVER just 'on me'. Our sins are ALWAYS 'on' someone else--the Christ we crucified when we harmed.

You've all heard the saying "you can't un-ring a bell". Likewise, you can't un-fornicate, un-lie, or un-think-bad-thoughts. You did it. There may be visible consequences, there may not be, but the fact that you did these things remains. What I'm agreeing with, or perhaps you're all right and I never just got it, is that a person, whether God or anyone else, can voluntarily assume responsibility for the thing that I chose to do, and some fundamental property of the universe recognizes this, and it's now as if that person did it and not me.

This isn't the same thing as a parent paying a kid's traffic ticket off.

It's not the assumption of responsibility. It's the assumption of suffering. And how do you become redeemed? By becoming like Christ. And what did Christ do? Suffer for other people's sins/harm. So if someone comes to harm you, and if you are (like) Christ, what do you do? You willingly suffer (NOT talking about being a doormat here). Have you ever seen the Buttercream Gang? Where one boy tries to steal from the store, but the kindly grocer says, "Here, take it. It's not stealing if I give it to you." The boy screams, "Don't you get it!! I"m trying to rob you!!" But he cannot rob someone who will not be robbed, but will love instead. Being (like) Christ is not for wimps. When we are parents, and our children do stupid things, like wreck the car, yes, it's not fun, but it's not harm like it would have been if we weren't full of love for them. We say, "We'll get past the wrecked car. You may need to earn back some trust and some money for the fix, but you are still my son, and I'm NOT harmed, I'm your parent/(Christ)." You don't take responsibility away from them (think repentence?). But you allow yourself to be harmed simply by the act of having had the baby in the first place (all women know this--they submit to harm for the purpose of bringing LIFE), you know there will be harm to you as a parent by this KID, but you never FEEL it has harm because of the joy of parenthood (or theoretically; practically in this mortal world, we're all still children and as parents we are still struggling too, so its not perfect).

Btw, as my understanding of the way things are has shifted from the more "magical" worldview of religion, spirits, and so forth to a more materialist viewpoint (not as in Modonna's "Material Girl"), I have ceased thinking of "sin" as a concept that reflects reality.

This is fine, although I hope you know these aren't the only two paradigm choices . I also have ceased thinking of sin [or as traditionally thought] as a concept that reflects reality or even the scriptures, and I learned that from the gospel.

I don’t like the idea of the Father punishing Jesus on my behalf, either. Punishment for something Jesus didn't do! It seems so unjust. That’s one reason why I’m Orthodox. Eastern Christianity does not place as much emphasis on guilt and punishment by proxy to meet the demands of justice. The notion of vicarious atonement is predominantly a Western (Roman) Christian view associated with Augustine and it conceives salvation in juridical terms, as in a courtroom setting. In this view, God is a lawgiver, laws have been broken, and justice demands that a consequence is levied. Christ’s mercy is found in his volunteering to step in and submit to God’s justice on our behalf. The punishment must still be applied no matter what (“mercy cannot rob justice”). A variant of this view is the notion that we have incurred a debt that must be paid. Jesus steps in to pay the debt for us and God lets us off the hook. As Westerners, Protestants (and Mormons) inherited this view.

In Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, by contrast, the salvation Jesus offers through his atonement is not viewed in this punitive way, but is instead understood as if our salvation occurs in a hospital. This view is articulated in the teaching of the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea), Athanasius, and Maximos the Confessor. Augustine is not nearly as admired in the East as these church fathers. In Eastern Christianity, God is not a judge, but a healer. We are indeed flawed and broken as a result of the Fall (having contracted a sinful nature and being deprived of the life of grace as a result), but we have not inherited any specific guilt from the Fall, as per Augustine, nor is God offended or angry. Sin is not conceived as law-breaking, resulting in God’s anger and the invocation of the demands of justice, but is understood as hamartia (missing the mark), a reflection of an inner sickness that keeps us separate from the divine. It is turning away from God and toward the self, which is fragmented and dominated by images, concepts, and passions. This sickness needs to be healed. In this Eastern view, instead of a rite that satisfies justice and deflects punishment, the atonement offers healing and Jesus is the physician. Jesus did not come to be our proxy, but to heal. Christ emptied himself, poured himself out, lowered himself, and became one of us. By uniting his divine nature to our humanity, Jesus healed our nature and lifts it up to the Father, returning it to its primordial state. His death was not required to satisfy the demands of justice, but was required so that death itself could be ‘healed’ – destroyed once and for all, for death cannot hold back the Author of Life. By dying, Christ “destroyed death by death” (as we sing in exultation during the Paschal Liturgy every Easter). “For that which [Christ] has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.” [st. Gregory (the Theologian) of Nazienzus] Put another (more technical) way, the Divine Logos (the Word of God) becomes man and, by virtue of his divinity and his Incarnation, divinizes human nature, restoring it to its original glory (theosis). “God became man so that men might become gods.” [st. Athanasius of Alexandria] "Man is mud whom God has commanded to become god." [st. Gregory of Nyssa] Sound familiar? The means by which we commune with Christ (prayer, fasting, Eucharist) are courses of treatment that enable this healing and this outcome. In the Eastern view, this is something that can happen in this life, although we will never become as God is (i.e., God by essence or nature). God us uncreated; we are created. That is a bridge that can never be crossed, in the view of the Eastern church fathers I mentioned. I hope that helps.

Edited to add:

Here's a link to an essay that better explains what we Eastern Christians believe about the atonement. The key statement: "There is no offended justice and original sin, no theories of predetermined schemes and imputed goodness. There is the story of a movement from a rejected possibility to a realized divinity. God’s own entrance into the story is that of God become man so that man could become God."

http://glory2godfora...work-of-christ/

Beautiful.

And a little bit of wow: "There is the story of a movement from a rejected possibility to a realized divinity. God’s own entrance into the story is that of God become man so that man could become God." Where have I heard that before?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Maidservant

[volgadon]

Tacenda! You can come up with some of the darndest things... where did you hear this anyway... under what circumstances? I don't think you should be able to make such a statement without some context or reference... otherwise, it's just another drive-by attempt at sensationalizing Mormonism... so yes, this is a CFR because if it is a Mormon "myth" that needs to be squashed then it must have been repeated enough to become a myth... so, where did you hear it and under what circumstance? So I expect a full disclosure and/or a statement as to why you even brought it up. I certainly have never heard such a thing!!

GG

Jedediah Grant taught it (though I don't remember in which volume of the Journal of Discourses it was printed), basing himself in a large part on statements made by Celsus.

[volgadon]

What the Jesus the polygamist idea boils down to is that certain church leaders viewed the early church as mirroring the Mormon experience, and found support for that view in certain ancient writings.

[Calm]

Jedediah Grant taught it (though I don't remember in which volume of the Journal of Discourses it was printed), basing himself in a large part on statements made by Celsus.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/reason_crucified.htm

[onefour1]

It is wonderful that we come together on this thread and talk about the atonement of Jesus Christ. It has been a topic that I don't feel we talk enough about. So I am happy that we have a thread on it. When i was in college, I took a course on the philosophy of religion. In this course the instructor taught us that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and a being who is all loving. The entire class was in agreement with these concepts. The instructor then asked, "If God is all power, all knowing, and an all loving being, then why didn't he just create us perfect like himself?" In other words, why did he make us inferior beings? Why didn't he make us all knowing, all powerful, all loving beings like himself? This question took me back and I didn't know the answer at the time. After studying the scriptures and praying about it, I realized that D&C 93:29 was the answer.

D&C 93:29

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

What I realized from this verse was that God could not create us perfect like himself because there is a part of us that he could not create. Our intelligence. The part of us that thinks and makes decisions is self-existent and was not created or made and neither indeed can be. God couldn't create us perfect but only created us from that which has always existed. Thus it was incumbent that God find another way to help us to become like himself. We are his literal sons and daughters and he loves us and wants us to become like him. But he couldn't simply create us perfect, so he teaches us and gives us experience so that we might, if we choose to, become like him. This earth life is such an experience. We receive bodies and are left unto ourselves to see if we will, in and of ourselves, choose good over evil. This whole mortal existence was pre-planned by God himself to give us the opportunity to become like Him.

So I ask, "who forces God to do good?" The answer is that nobody forces God to do good. He does it in and of himself. It is therefore essential that we be given the opportunity to choose good over evil in and of ourselves in order to become like God. Free will is critical for us to become like him. We have to learn to choose good over evil without having to be told to, or forced to do so. This mortal life is the opportunity we have been given. This was all planned from the beginning because God wanted the best for his children and wanted them to have what he has, eternal life. But we have to choose it and it can happen in no other way. But God knew that because we were not created perfect and that it would be a struggle for us to overcome our less worthy selves, that he provided a means whereby we could stumble along the path of progression due to our imperfections, but still be able to overcome them over time. So God devised a great plan called the Plan of Salvation. From the foundation of the world he foreordained Jesus Christ, his firstborn spirit, to atone for the sins of the world.

One of the attributes of God is that he is just. Justice is part of his character and it is engrained in the laws of heaven. The Book of Mormon suggests that if God were not just, then he would cease to be God. (see Mormon 9:19, Alma 42:13,22,25) Justice is an integral part of the law of heaven. The law also states that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. (See Alma 11:37 and 3 Nephi 27:19). So once we, his children, have sinned we are unclean and can no longer find entrance into the kingdom of heaven. This is what is known as the spiritual death. God cannot go back on Justice otherwise he would cease to be God. So how does he overcome these demands of justice??? God is so clever. He takes a being who is so advanced as a spirit; someone he has nurtured for a long time to be a leader in the eternities; someone he knows could come to this earth and keep all his commandments and never sin. It was critical that Jesus not sin when he came to this earth. This is a huge part of fulfilling his calling as a Savior and Redeemer. It had to be a sinless sacrifice. God has brought him up to be this Savior and prepared him. It was the only way God could save his other children. The idea was to have Jesus come down and be subjected to the Adversary and allow the Adversary to cause him to suffer all the anguish and pain of the sins of all mankind and to give himself for the salvation of all the rest of the children of God that they might be saved. You see, God knew that if Jesus chose to be subjected to this pain and suffering and even death, that it would cause a great injustice if this happened to this sinless being. It would not be fair that Jesus suffer at all let alone for all the sins of the world. It was a total injustice that he should suffer and bleed at every pore and cause him, even God, to tremble because of the pain. Why the very thought of that loving, sinless, beautiful person going though such a thing is repulsive. He was nothing but good!!! So justice for the Christ is demanded and he must be recompensed for this great injustice placed upon him. The Father knows that this was unjust that he, a perfect and sinless being, would suffer and be killed. So that Father, according to JUSTICE, recompensed the Christ for the depth of his suffering. And since he suffered the pain and anguish that is equal to all the pain and anguish of all mankind, he was given a great recompense. He was given the right to grant mercy to the repentant sinner and cleanse him of all his wrongs. The Father knew that man and his Christ were eternal beings. And that in the end, it would work out for the best of all his children. Oh how great the wisdom and the love of our Father and our loving Savior!!! Did mercy rob justice??? I say unto you Nay! It was a just reward that the Christ should be recompensed for his injustice. All this was planned by a Father who only wanted to give his children a chance to overcome evil and have what he has, eternal life. It is the greatest act of love bar none. Thus the law of justice was appeased and we now have the law of mercy to save us from ourselves if we will only repent.

Do you see how it had to be a sinless being? Do you see that Jesus was such a being who could do this? Do you see the justice in God granting the right to give mercy and cleanse the sinner to the Christ? Do you see the infinite love of a Father and our Elder Brother to save us all if we but repent? Do you see that the atonement was necessary for God to remain God by continuing in justice and still give us the opportunity to become like him? Do you see how great our God is and how we should be thankful to him eternally?

I read another talk on the atonement while on my mission by Cleon Skousen that I think might be insightful to some. You can read it here.

Edited January 19, 2013 by onefour1

[Garden Girl]

It seems a very strange belief/claim since polygamy was legal during that time period among Jews so why would they be persecuting and even killing him over his practice of such?

http://judaism.stack...law-and-culture

Orson Pratt "The Seer" and Fairmormon is where I read about it. They also said the church doesn't take a stand either way on it. So it isn't out of the question. I'm not making stuff up GG, I'm not a storyteller.

Jedediah Grant taught it (though I don't remember in which volume of the Journal of Discourses it was printed), basing himself in a large part on statements made by Celsus.

What the Jesus the polygamist idea boils down to is that certain church leaders viewed the early church as mirroring the Mormon experience, and found support for that view in certain ancient writings.

http://www.lightplan...n_crucified.htm

A thousand pardons... thank you all for correcting me. And for the explanations. I just found it so strange because polygamywas legal and lived among Jews so like Cal says, why would they persecute/kill Jesus because of it...

And I'm sorry Tacenda, I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were making something up... I just had never heard of such a thing... again, sorry... mea culpa.

GG

[Tacenda]

A thousand pardons... thank you all for correcting me. And for the explanations. I just found it so strange because polygamywas legal and lived among Jews so like Cal says, why would they persecute/kill Jesus because of it...

And I'm sorry Tacenda, I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were making something up... I just had never heard of such a thing... again, sorry... mea culpa.

GG

That's ok, GG. It's good for you to keep me on my toes. All my years of reading things in Mormonism should or would have been better spent reading the word of God. I need my Saviour's sacrifice more than ever now for not striving to KNOW Him through prayer and scripture study but instead wasting time in research on the web. Your heart and desires have been in the right place, with your service in the temple for example, you've got your priorities right.

[CV75]

I don't know which culture this comes from but I have heard of a Sin Eater. A Sin Eater takes on the group or tribes sins and does a ritual to purify himself and the group/tribe. Well I heard this from Mortal Kombat Deception. And one of the characters is a Sin Eater. Just say, Mortal Kombat Lore will incorpate a lot of ideas from Real world cultures but it is very loose in how it presented in the game itself.

I once heard in one of those maudlin, pre-digested pabulum correllated Church class that the scapegoat served this purpose!

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/scapegoat?lang=eng

"Scapegoat. The goat upon whose head the sins of the people were laid on the Day of Atonement, and which was afterwards sent off into the wilderness (Lev. 16:21–22)."

[thesometimesaint]

Orson Pratt "The Seer" and Fairmormon is where I read about it. They also said the church doesn't take a stand either way on it. So it isn't out of the question. I'm not making stuff up GG, I'm not a storyteller.

I haven't heard that story so I can't comment on it directly. However the Church does not take any position on the earthly marital status of Jesus. I believe a good case can be made that he was married, and maybe even was polygamous. I don't speak for the Church.

[rongo]

Looks like onefour1 beat me to this, but it's what I wanted to post last night (but didn't have time).

I really like Cleon Skousen’s explanation of *how* and *why* the atonement works (and is necessary, and why it is necessary that it work how it does, which is Sethbag’s actual question/observation). Some members are violently opposed to it, and become mockingly dismissive of Skousen (can there any good thing come out of Cleon Skousen?), but I have *never* heard any of these LDS critics put forth an alternative explanation for *how* and *why* the atonement works. Skousen’s explanation also weaves BoM, D&C, and PoGP scriptures in explaining it.

Skousen’s original question was why Jesus had to suffer. Why was it necessary? Was it necessary? His mission president, Elder Widtsoe, pointed him towards the scriptures he weaves together, but he made him do the work (he didn’t tell him outright what they were).

Under this explanation . . .

1) Intelligence and matter (spirit and physical) cannot be created, and are as eternal as God. All intelligence obeys God with exactness except for the highest, the intelligence that forms God’s children when combined with spirit matter and physical matter.

2) The source of God’s power is the honor that intelligences give Him because He is completely just and worthy of it. Creative acts and miracles are due to the intelligences in matter obeying the commands of Him whom they honor. Healing, water into wine, etc. results from intelligences in matter (things that act) acting upon matter (things to be acted upon).

3) Because God’s power is His honor, He must remain completely just. We, as sinful and imperfect beings, cannot return into His presence because that would be capricious and unjust. If He did that, He would cease to be God and everything would fall apart (because the intelligences would no longer honor Him, and He would have no power).

4) Jesus Christ, His Firstborn and universally recognized as God along with His Father, is also honored by the intelligences, and they obey Him, too. By having Him come to earth and suffering unspeakably and unjustly (how unspeakable and how unjust, we cannot comprehend), the “bowels of mercy” are brought about in the intelligences (the “bowels of mercy” didn’t need to be moved in the Father ---- He already had mercy for us, but couldn’t extend it without losing His honor). They rebelled at the injustice of it all, as shown by the upheavals in nature in both hemispheres at the crucifixion.

5) With the “bowels of mercy” brought about in the intelligences, they were willing to accept Jesus’ purchase and vouching for those who accept His sacrifice and obey the terms He dictates. They are not capriciously allowed to return, “scot free,” and have to pay a price and suffer, but they can be reconciled and the Father remains completely just.

------

I think this explanation has the added advantage of answering several of Sethbag’s concerns, including not depending on a “substitutional replacement.” It also doesn’t explain the atonement as magically making it so things that were done are now “undone” or never happened. It’s all about overcoming the insistence of the intelligences (whose honor is the source of God’s power) that we not be allowed to return, or else God would cease to be God.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't particularly like atonement theories based on either punitive or economic metaphors. I do note that the symbolism of the Day of Atonement is not based on them. I recognize that people have to start somewhere, but just because a particular metaphor is helpful to lead a child, does not mean that it serves as well for an adult. So I take heart and interest from approaches by Hugh Nibley, Eugene England, Loren Hansen, Blake Ostler, Margaret Barker, and others.

I heard Loren Hansen deliver a version of this paper, and had my understanding completely changed.

Atonement theories of the past can be characterized and distinguished from each other by fundamental theological assumptions or positions on just a few key issues. So I note these issues and assumptions and then turn to the Mormon scriptural canon, particularly the Book of Mormon, to determine Mormon positions on those same issues.In this essay, making such a comparison, I find that Mormonism has a significant and unique position on issues basic

to the Atonement. And once I define the Mormon position relative to others, I am able to suggest an Atonement interpretation or rationale that is consistent with Mormon sources.

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

Nibley's The Meaning of the Atonement is also very helpful, and like Hansen, notes historical streams of interpretation, and notes the Book of Mormon ties to the Day of Atonement.

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

I'm also very touched by England's Shakespeare the the At-One-ment of Christ, in his Why the Church is as True as the Gospel.

And there is also Margaret Barker's Atonement: The Rite of Healing.

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA