Holy Envy: What Mainstream Christians Can Teach Latter-Day Saint Christians About The Atonement Of Christ

[Buckeye]

Hehehe....I didn't.....

On my mission an investigator/convert gave us these crosses for a gift. It had an angel in front of it praying and it reminding me of the scripture about having your own cross to bear. That thing was hanging on my wall till the day I left the mission (it's not in my closet in another state). The most I got comments-wise were on cleaning checks or new companions. None of them were condemnatory; mostly just surprise.

But then again, I also enjoy pushing silly boundaries that are folk based rather than doctrinally sound. I don't wear a cross mainly because I don't want to. I've chosen what symbolic references I maintain and it's just not one of them...it just doesn't have the same sacred feel and reminder to me that other symbols do. I don't know it could still be a little bit from my bad experience with a few (at the time it felt like many) adamant Christians It's really dumb that that still has some effect, years later...but it does.

Honestly from my experience, if you are doing what you are supposed to and hold a firm faith, no one really cares. And those that do....meh....what are they going to do anyways?

With luv,

BD

To give a little more context, I do wear a cross a few weeks each year - stake conference and general conference come to mine. But most other weeks I'm the presiding authority in my ward. That puts me in a different situation. Right or wrong, my example is more "out there" than other members and could therefore be a big distraction. For now, I think it best to keep the unity. Although I do quickly come to the defense of members in my ward who wear crosses and are criticized for doing so.

[BlueDreams]

To give a little more context, I do wear a cross a few weeks each year - stake conference and general conference come to mine. But most other weeks I'm the presiding authority in my ward. That puts me in a different situation. Right or wrong, my example is more "out there" than other members and could therefore be a big distraction. For now, I think it best to keep the unity. Although I do quickly come to the defense of members in my ward who wear crosses and are criticized for doing so.

I can respect that reasoning.

[Daniel Peterson]

David (and others):

The 2013 meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology will be held sometime, probably, between mid-September and late October on the campus of Utah Valley University, in Orem. (We're currently nailing down the dates.)

The theme for the meeting will be the Atonement -- although papers are certainly welcome on other topics, as well. I'm currently in the process of formulating the call for papers, but I wanted to say already that we'll be happy to receive proposals on this topic.

[Damien the Leper]

David (and others):

The 2013 meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology will be held sometime, probably, between mid-September and late October on the campus of Utah Valley University, in Orem. (We're currently nailing down the dates.)

The theme for the meeting will be the Atonement -- although papers are certainly welcome on other topics, as well. I'm currently in the process of formulating the call for papers, but I wanted to say already that we'll be happy to receive proposals on this topic.

Holla! I love symposiums. Thanks for the heads up, Dan.

[Questing Beast]

The atonement never made sense to me. If God is all powerful then nothing like that kind of eternal, all-encompassing suffering is required. If "this is how it's always been done", then "the gods" (GtF included in their number) are not "all powerful". I'm still waiting for anyone to explain the NEED for an atonement in a way that makes sense to me. I can see the need, the requirement, for a person to choose integrity over dishonesty. And I can see the need for "God" to provide what anyone requires to change their life. But to me the "Jesus Story" is an illustration of that depth of God's love for everyone and everything, that he would if necessary condescend to our level and individually save us even if it meant having to suffer as one of us unto death in order to effect that salvation. But to take that story as literal, inevitable fact is where I have never been able to go....

[williamsmith]

The atonement never made sense to me. If God is all powerful then nothing like that kind of eternal, all-encompassing suffering is required. If "this is how it's always been done", then "the gods" (GtF included in their number) are not "all powerful". I'm still waiting for anyone to explain the NEED for an atonement in a way that makes sense to me. I can see the need, the requirement, for a person to choose integrity over dishonesty. And I can see the need for "God" to provide what anyone requires to change their life. But to me the "Jesus Story" is an illustration of that depth of God's love for everyone and everything, that he would if necessary condescend to our level and individually save us even if it meant having to suffer as one of us unto death in order to effect that salvation. But to take that story as literal, inevitable fact is where I have never been able to go....

The reason and need for the Atonement is simple....

We are beings incapable to true perfection, and to be masters of the Universe "Gods" who can control spirit and matter like gods can and mortals can't because of our mortality, there needs have been a Savior, one who could "bridge" the gap between mortality and Godhood on our behalf, for we can't do it ourselves because it takes Godly power which we don't have. We are only God's in embryo, having a semblance of their power, but not actually having it. Something/someone had to be fully mortal and fully God in order to have bridged that gap. And because Christ was also God, he was able to connect to us (take on the sins of the world) in a way that we only touch on in our own connection with others, in feeling their pain, in love, etc.

Edited March 15, 2013 by williamsmith

[williamsmith]

BTW, I think this article on "Holy Envy" was completely unnecessary and misapplied.

All Christians of the earth know and understand the Atonement, mormons and christians are no different in this.

Further, Holy Envy applies to things one doesn't have in their own faith tradition that they like or respect in other faith traditions.

[Stone holm]

BTW, I think this article on "Holy Envy" was completely unnecessary and misapplied.

All Christians of the earth know and understand the Atonement, mormons and christians are no different in this.

Further, Holy Envy applies to things one doesn't have in their own faith tradition that they like or respect in other faith traditions.

You really think so?

[Questing Beast]

The reason and need for the Atonement is simple....

We are beings incapable to true perfection, and to be masters of the Universe "Gods" who can control spirit and matter like gods can and mortals can't because of our mortality, there needs have been a Savior, one who could "bridge" the gap between mortality and Godhood on our behalf, for we can't do it ourselves because it takes Godly power which we don't have. We are only God's in embryo, having a semblance of their power, but not actually having it. Something/someone had to be fully mortal and fully God in order to have bridged that gap. And because Christ was also God, he was able to connect to us (take on the sins of the world) in a way that we only touch on in our own connection with others, in feeling their pain, in love, etc.

It's not simple. You raise the usual points of redundancy: that God requires suffering in One, forever, in order to "heal" what God created in the first place. You assert that we are "gods in embryo", yet in that assertion we require something more than we were originally created with. Why? Why can't we simply advance forever, learning more about "God" with each moment? The only thing holding any individual back is his own ignorance, that much is supported by evidence. To assert that somehow we were created to BE deficient, unless God condescended to put into us the missing ingredient, which required his own miserable suffering and death, makes out God to be some sort of masochist on a cosmically infinite scale. I can't see that: if I believe it then I have to believe that suffering is intended to be the main focus of immortal existence: for God to put himself through such a never-ending ordeal in order to fix what was originally "perfect" makes no sense to me....