Vicarious Atonement Through Human Sacrifice

[rongo]

I don't particularly like atonement theories based on either punitive or economic metaphors.

Kevin, what would you consider to be an economic metaphor? I'm not sure I understand. Would that be "payment" for debts or sins?

Are you somebody who doesn't care for Skousen's explanation? And if so, why?

Thanks in advance!

[Teancum]

He is God and sinless...makes him worthy (Cliff note version). The idea being to spare you the need to suffer. Also we know you will just go back to MD and make fun of our posts, espeally anything Dan or Will might say.

Why can't God just forgive the penitent soul? Why does someone's blood have to be shed?

[rongo]

Why can't God just forgive the penitent soul? Why does someone's blood have to be shed?

See above for Skousen's explanation. If He did that, He would cease to be God. The intelligences, whose honor is His source of power, would no longer honor Him.

[The Nehor]

It is more likely Jesus was killed due to his most recent big miracle which was raising Lazarus. People who can raise the dead are dangerous. See any zombie movie for why.

[yootaw]

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.

Thanks for this! I appreciate your insight into the atonement.

[yootaw]

I'll add something that has always puzzled me about the atonement (in addition to the concerns raised in the OP). If Christ suffered for my sins 2000 years ago, how did he know what sins to suffer for? And what are the implications to agency?

[Spammer]

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....

.

.

.

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

http://www.margaretb...s/Atonement.pdf

Speaking of the Rite of Atonement, Barker, and the view of the East, these are good too:

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

http://www.svots.edu/sites/default/files/final_barker_our_great_high_priest.pdf

[changed]

...The idea that someone else can suffer and thus lift my responsibility for the things I've done makes no sense. ...

Brother Skousen related an account from the Civil War which was instrumental for me in understanding the atonement. The account is as follows:

“There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.

She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.”

The reason that president Lincoln was not criticized for letting the 19yo off the hook was because a great sacrifice had been made. It was no longer about what the 19yo did, it was now about the sacrifice that was made by his mother. Like this little mother, our Heavenly Father has made a infinite and eternal sacrifice – He has given His only begotten Son that we might live. Justice demands that Heavenly Father be compensated for His great sacrifice, just as justice demanded that the little mother be compensated for her loss. Without the atonement, we would have just cause to refuse forgiveness to those who were unable to make recompense for their transgressions. With the atonement, there is just cause for everyone to forgive everyone else. We forgive one another because refusing forgiveness would be the same as refusing to acknowledge the great sacrifice that was made by our beloved Savior.

**************************************

Considering the Civil War story, if you were one of the parents of one of the kids who was killed because someone fell asleep... would you have criticized Lincoln's decision? Would you agree, that in this case, one person's mistake was justly paid for through another's death? although in this story, I supposed the 19yo still feels guilty, and people might still look down on him, he just isn't required to die anymore. I guess in the case of Jesus, if we continued to feel guilt after having a changed heart etc. etc. it would be a lack of faith, it would belittle the atonement... I think guilt comes from our conscience, and our conscience is "the light of Christ", there is no logical reason to feel guilty once the price is paid and everyone is satisfied, and there is no guilt coming from the "light of Christ" when our work is accepted,

(Book of Mormon | Enos 1:6)... my guilt was swept away.

If guilt comes from the light of Christ in the first place, then it can be swept away by him too.

Edited January 19, 2013 by changed

[changed]

I'll add something that has always puzzled me about the atonement (in addition to the concerns raised in the OP). If Christ suffered for my sins 2000 years ago, how did he know what sins to suffer for? And what are the implications to agency?

I think God knows what we will do, that the future is set in stone - but this does not take away our agency. Agency is not about "if" the future is set in stone, it's about "who" sets it in stone... we set our own future in stone, so it is our agency... just because God knows what will happen, does not mean He caused it. (I can know what will be on TV tonight, but I did not cause it, nor did I take away anyone's agency through knowing it) agency is about who is the cause behind the actions. We cause our own actions, therefore it is our own agency.

Agency is deterministic - it's not some random future, it is a deterministic future - we "determine" our own actions, that is deterministic. If something just randomly happens, that is not agency...

What is the initial cause? in the cause/effect web, what can it all be traced back to? the initial cause is what controls it:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

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

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

We are our own cause, therefore we have agency.

Edited January 19, 2013 by changed

[yootaw]

I think God knows what we will do, that the future is set in stone - but this does not take away our agency. Agency is not about "if" the future is set in stone, it's about "who" sets it in stone... we set our own future in stone, so it is our agency... just because God knows what will happen, does not mean He caused it. (I can know what will be on TV tonight, but I did not cause it, nor did I take away anyone's agency through knowing it) agency is about who is the cause behind the actions. We cause our own actions, therefore it is our own agency.

Agency is deterministic - it's not some random future, it is a deterministic future - we "determine" our own actions, that is deterministic. If something just randomly happens, that is not agency...

What is the initial cause? in the cause/effect web, what can it all be traced back to? the initial cause is what controls it:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

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

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

We are our own cause, therefore we have agency.

Thanks for the response. I agree that this is a possibility, and am interested to hear what others have to say as well.

[changed]

Thanks for the response. I agree that this is a possibility, and am interested to hear what others have to say as well.

agency and determinism are not mutually exclusive, but it is a little frustrating to think that our future is already set in stone (by our own character/personality, but still set in stone)... that we're here learning who we are - God already knows - we're proving to our self what we are capable of. Either our eternal nature is one that can grow and progress, or not... and we are stuck with our eternal nature. No one to blame but ourself, but can you really escape yourself?

with determinism there is almost no cause/effect, no time, Laplace's demon can see the past/present/future all smooshed together within each moment...

Alma 40:8... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

They say God does not change...

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

perhaps we don't change either.

[wenglund]

To my understanding, the atonement doesn't un-ring the bell's of sin, it just mutes eternally the debilitating and dissident clangs so that the edifying music of righteousness can resonate in and magnify our souls. Christ, alone, had access to the divine mute button.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2013 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

To my understanding, the atonement doesn't un-ring the bell's of sin, it just mutes eternally the debilitating and dissident clangs so that the edifying music of righteousness can resonate in and magnify our souls. Christ, alone, had access to the divine mute button.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree. I do not know how but I think it unrings the bell and removes any pain caused by those hearing the bell.

[TAO]

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.

Well, let me ask you this; how is the atonement unjust? That is what you are saying essentially; that it is unjust. But do you not give up several things to be able to repent appropriately? Does not Christ gain some things while suffering for you? How is that unjust, if it is included inside of the law.

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.

So you are unhappy that Christ chooses to suffer for you?

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.

Incorrect, imho. You both made the choice; a binding contract on both sides. And you will do certain things to abide to the contract, as will Christ. Is this not just?

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.

Why do you think it is repugnant, exactly? What specifically makes you unhappy with it. Is it the idea of suffering for sins? Or the idea of someone else taking upon your responsibility in exchange for your service? Or is it something else?

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, what would you consider to be an economic metaphor? I'm not sure I understand. Would that be "payment" for debts or sins?

Are you somebody who doesn't care for Skousen's explanation? And if so, why?

Thanks in advance!

Yes, by economic I mean things like the parable about the defaulted debt, or the parable of the bicycle. Equating sins and debts. I do understand and appreciate Joseph Smith's comment that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand, and that for many, such a view is a way to begin in our understanding. But I don't think that either payment of depts, or substitute torture, to balance the books of pain, is really what at-one-ment is about. Such notions may serve as temporary place holders, to lead us along till we're more able to seek and comprehend better ideas. But there are far better ideas. And several LDS scholars have noticed how the Book of Mormon teachings are quite distinct relative to normative Christian interpretations. Margaret's essay argues that atonement is a rite of healing. The Book of Mormon talks about how the condension of God, the descending with, and the suffering it part of the preparation required for the one doing the healing. They empower him in his role as judge and his more important role as healer. Hansen's essay observes how most theories of atonement were either objective, operating to satisfying some external requirement, or totally subjective, made to influence human behavior but with no existential necessity. He suggests that the Book of Mormon scriptures depict and atonement that is both objectively required and subjectively effective. It was my exposure to Hansen's approach that first moved my thinking out of the pop culture level. Ostler came to a similar model from a different direction with his com-passion theory. And I should have mentioned Truman Madsen's amazing essay on the symbolism of time and place, The Olive Press.

In Paradigms Regained, I had a little section on Margaret's approach to the atonement:

Barker's The Risen Lord proposes to answer an important set of questions regarding the atonement:

Where in the traditions available to the original disciples in Palestine do we find a belief or a hope that it was a divine being or even the Lord himself who was the atonement sacrifice? The priestly laws of the Old Testament are both complex and obscure on the matter of atonement; the details about lambs and goats are clear enough, but the theology which the rituals expressed is still largely unknown. This must be a major obstacle in any attempt to understand Christian origins because it is a very big step indeed from goats and lambs in the temple to the human sacrifice of one declared to be the Lord, the Son of God.

This step is unacknowledged in any account I have read of atonement in the New Testament.

64

Barker attempts, in The Risen Lord,⁶⁵ to answer these questions, to describe the theology behind the atonement ritual, and to show from that theology the necessity for the atonement of the Son of God. Her answers do make for fascinating reading. But I wish to note here simply that the Book of Mormon treats exactly these issues in discussing the atonement.⁶⁶

I do think that one of the reasons that Moroni 7 talks about how the light of Christ is in everyone is because during the atonement (including both Gethsemane and the cross), he actually became at-one with all of us. We learn from physics that the act of observation changes what which is observed. And I learn from NDE accounts of the life review, as from Alma 36, that Jesus is able to show people every moment of their lives and how their actions affected other people, not on a balance scale against some external law book, but in terms of an interconnected web of human relationships and real consequences. He knows, from personal experience, what is wrong with us, whether rooted in what we have done, or what has been done to us, and offers us a way to heal, and amazingly, a way to participate in healing our selves and others. That sort of thing does not come through in the economic, debt and payment metaphors. Nor, I think, from legal metaphors.

Even the debt parables though, are better than giving up and talking about how in some incomprehensible way the atonement does some incomprehensible thing which must remain forever beyond human comprehension. The loan debt models, and the bicycle model, and the beaten with our stripes models do have the benefit of speaking to something the listener can understand.

For the notion of payment, and deeper than payment, a sense of unpayable moral obligation comes in. I think of the end of Saving Private Ryan, when the dying captain Miller says, "Earn this." And the scene shifts to an elderly Ryan in a graveyard surrounded by crosses as far as the eye can see, and asking his family, "Have I lived a good life?" How can any strictly human life "earn" what has cost so much? And yet, how can Ryan, or anyone escape the feeling that one should, and yet can never "Earn this?"

There is more than just payment going on.

Look at it like this. When watching the recent Les Miserables movie, watching Anne Hathaway sing "I Dreamed a Dream", something powerful happened to me. When my wife and I just watched the a little documentary on the filming, and watched her sing just part of a verse, neither of us could speak for a long time. It's all pretend, of course, but it points to something real, and it does so in a way that makes a profound human connection. It's not a sappy little bit of sentimental treacle, but a reminder that life can and does crush hopes, love, ideals, and dreams. It's not just the pretend, the "play" in the play, but the honest and truthful connection to the real disappointment, loss, squalor, degradation, and hopelessness and personal betrayals and human failures that come in life. Then imagine the pain of Jesus connecting even more deeply to a real life Fantine, so completely at one that he feels all of that life that is so utterly contrary to his own nature. And then add every other life to that, as intimate, personal, and deeply felt, completely empathetic identification. Feeling emotional wounds while watching Les Miserables, should help a person comprehend something of the at-one-ment. Empathy can bring one to feel another's pain. It is a powerful reminder, I think that something of how at-onement operates is and should be comprehensible. How we can and should feel for one another. Nibley and England point out that the word comes into English through Tyndale, and it originally meant at-one, not payed for.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited January 20, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[volgadon]

I disagree. I do not know how but I think it unrings the bell and removes any pain caused by those hearing the bell.

You and your Nine Tailors.

[longview]

I disagree. I do not know how but I think it unrings the bell and removes any pain caused by those hearing the bell.

I agree with Wade because it is taught by the LDS that God will not only forgive our sins but totally forget them ("I will remember them no more") IF we will repent and apply ourselves to Christ and His Atonement. On the other hand, WE will still regretfully recall (hopefully not obsessively) our sins. "The bell" will be quieted due to the cleansing power and exaltation of the Atonement.

[wenglund]

I disagree. I do not know how but I think it unrings the bell and removes any pain caused by those hearing the bell.

My experience suggests otherwise. During my first year of college I had an acquaintance who was severally crippled and wheelchair-bound for life because of venereal disease resulting from his single experience with a prostitute. And, even though he had repented and was presumably forgiven for his sin, and his sin was remembered no more, and the din from the bell of his sin presumably muted, there remained clear evidence that the bell had once been rung.

Also, I have more than a few friends who are children of parents that divorced because at least one of the parents rung the bell of adultery. And, even though some of the adulterous parents have repented of their sin, the continuation of the divorce provides clear evidence that the bell had once been rung.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2013 by wenglund

[Stargazer]

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

Actually, as the NT says, Pilate wanted to let him go precisely because Jesus did not represent a danger to the Empire. People think that Pilate operated as governor in a vacuum. He did not. He utilized spies and informants to keep track of what was going on -- don't CFR me, because I haven't got a source. It is just clear that they would have done this. What Pilate was afraid of was that the leaders of the Jews would incite an insurrection if he DIDN'T execute Jesus. That was the whole purpose of the crowd shouting "Crucity him!" Jesus had lots of followers and supporters. It is most likely that the Pharisees/Saduccees arranged that only those people supporting THEIR side of the question would be allowed into the square where Pilate showed Jesus to the people.

The politics of Judea under the Romans was very complex and shifting. And the Roman governor, for all of his power, still had to walk a fine line when dealing with the Jewish leadership, precisely because they had de facto power with the people. Rome held Pilate responsible for keeping the peace in Judea, and keeping tax revenues flowing to Rome. If Pilate proved to be unable to do this, they would replace him very quickly. So Pilate had to work with the Jewish leadership. He was an autocrat, sure, but not a totalitarian.

[Stargazer]

Why can't God just forgive the penitent soul? Why does someone's blood have to be shed?

Because mercy cannot rob justice. If God were to do so, He would cease to be God, as it says in the Book of Mormon.

The reason Jesus's sacrifice can overcome this hurdle is because he had no sin, and thus was not required to fulfill the requirements of justice. His voluntary taking upon himself of the price of justice, when he was not required to do so, made it possible for him to draw all repentant souls after him.

There is a video of Cleon Skousen explaining this in great detail. It is actually quite entertaining and worth the watch. It's available on YouTube as audio-only, and I recommend it. I have it on DVD, too.

Here's a link to a playlist on my YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqwlIP6-6gE&list=PLEC723E5ED982834F

The occasion of the talk was a mission zone conference in Texas way back in December 1980.

[The Nehor]

I agree with Wade because it is taught by the LDS that God will not only forgive our sins but totally forget them ("I will remember them no more") IF we will repent and apply ourselves to Christ and His Atonement. On the other hand, WE will still regretfully recall (hopefully not obsessively) our sins. "The bell" will be quieted due to the cleansing power and exaltation of the Atonement.

I do not think the memory will be gone. Just the effects.

[The Nehor]

My experience suggests otherwise. During my first year of college I had an acquaintance who was severally crippled and wheelchair-bound for life because of venereal disease resulting from his single experience with a prostitute. And, even though he had repented and was presumably forgiven for his sin, and his sin was remembered no more, and the din from the bell of his sin presumably muted, there remained clear evidence that the bell had once been rung.

Also, I have more than a few friends who are children of parents that divorced because at least one of the parents rung the bell of adultery. And, even though some of the adulterous parents have repented of their sin, the continuation of the divorce provides clear evidence that the bell had once been rung.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It has been my experience that the full effects of the atonement often must wait until this life is over. Somehow the Savior will wipe away every tear. I cannot figure out how but He promised.

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

"Vicarious Atonement Through Human Sacrifice?" I don't mean to be snippy or anything but to this old farm girl, that statement is nonsense. What does that mean really? There is only ONE Atonement and that through the death and resurection of Jesus Christ.

[daz2]

I agree with Kevin. I would go further and say I don't accept the penal substitution model or theory of the Atonement. But I do believe and accept the Atonement, and believe it completely cleanses and heals us of the burdens and negative effects of our sins, and heals completely those we have harmed. It is a miracle, not understandable to mortals, although there are various analogies one may us, and that have been used over the centuries to explain it. Some of the various articles cited by others explain some alternate models and theories that yield the same result as penal substitution, and to my mind, make much more sense. I think the healing and cleansing takes place as we become one with God, as we come unto Christ as penitent sinners, humble and teachable, and are made perfect in Him. Moroni 10:32. Through His life, His death, His experience of positive and negative vicisitudes and emotions of life, and His resurrection, Jesus is our wounded Healer who loves us, strenghtens us, cleanses us, heals us.

Edited January 20, 2013 by daz2

[Teancum]

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.

.

But how can you know this is not just human cultural demands for justice and that was imputed to God? Why does a perfect being demand blood for payment for breaking his laws? Where did this requirement come from? It seems that such a powerful being can forgive someone who is truly penetrant without shedding blood. I can forgive one of my children without having to beat them.