The Atonement

[janderich]

My problem with understanding the atonement revolves around Christ taking upon himself our sins. If he took them then surely he has them. Although sinless himself he now has my sins, so surely he is no longer sinless? He suffered for them but does that erase them? If so, then anyone who fails to repent will do the same. They will suffer for the sins they carry until paid for. Surely then they will be sin free and heirs to the celestial kingdom just as Christ was?

The current model of the atonement which most members accept, the penal theory, has a major problem. It would have us believe that suffering magically remits sin. This is simply not the case. If I suffer a million years my suffering does not free me from my sinful nature, nor the attendant consequences. The same holds for Christ, his suffering alone has never, and will never, free me from my sins. There is only one way I can be free. It is to change my ways (ie repent). Thus suffering is the penalty for sin but it is not the way to freedom, repentance is. 

 

Further, each sin does not have a certain amount of required suffering. When I steal I do not incure 10 pain units which must be endured. Neither does my repentance transfer the balance of the pain units to Christ (Alma 34:11-12). What a messed up notion. We would never accept such a false concept in our legal system why do we accept it when talking about the atonement?

 

In the most simple terms, Christ's atonement allowed him to be with us in this fallen world. Christ, "ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;...The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things" (D&C 88:6, 13). Because of Christ's atonement the Spirit strives with man and we are free to choose liberty and eternal life or death.

[Palerider]

Bingo! You know how few can go through the reasoning in the Church? Yes, the problem starts with the notion that HF actually made the rules of the game we call the Plan of Salvation. If HF made up the rules, who would make he rules require the bloody torture and killing of His own Son? And what would be the point of sacrificing Your Son just to make You feel better about your other Spirit Children? So there had to be an external reason, and the plan was a type of recipe developed over generations of gods. Christ said there was no greater act love than than to lay down ones life for another. But, HF already knew about the love that Christ was capable of so He could not have been the person that Christ was trying to convince. Skousen argued it was the intelligences of the universe that Christ had to convince. He also had to live a perfect life. Having lived a perfect life He was entitled to a fullness of joy, the purpose of His sacrifice was to prove to the intelligences of the universe that His joy would not be full without the companionship of His siblings. The purpose of our testing is to establish that we can be trusted to not abuse the authority which we will receive by reason of this Grace which He has bestowed upon us. The key to it all this is Christ's love. But, whether this reasoning is right or wrong, it is the depth of the thinking involved. Our members deserve to be taught more than just platitudes like " It was to fulfill the demands of justice" or "It was to carry out the Will of the Father" etc.

 

I think you could really benefit from a reading of The Cross of Christ by John R.W. Stott.

 

He addresses many of the issues you raise here without the outside concepts of "intelligences of the universe". This has more to do with the concept of "God" and "Law" and God's nature than some would think. The relational experience between the Father, the Son and the Spirit being much closer than even the Mormon paradigm exhibits. And this would be true regardless of whether one views them as separate and distinct persons or not.

 

The Mormon concept of God being subject to the law (which some believe exists outside Himself), rather than being the Law, creates a number of problems that, once one starts digging, there needs to be someone to tell you when to stop and just climb out of the hole.

 

Whether talking about justice, mercy, love, space, time, or whatever,  God is the Law. Therefore He executes that which satisfies His own character, even if it means sacrificing Himself.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

I think you could really benefit from a reading of The Cross of Christ by John R.W. Stott.

 

He addresses many of the issues you raise here without the outside concepts of "intelligences of the universe". This has more to do with the concept of "God" and "Law" and God's nature than some would think. The relational experience between the Father, the Son and the Spirit being much closer than even the Mormon paradigm exhibits. And this would be true regardless of whether one views them as separate and distinct persons or not.

 

The Mormon concept of God being subject to the law (which some believe exists outside Himself), rather than being the Law, creates a number of problems that, once one starts digging, there needs to be someone to tell you when to stop and just climb out of the hole.

 

Whether talking about justice, mercy, love, space, time, or whatever,  God is the Law. Therefore He executes that which satisfies His own character, even if it means sacrificing Himself.

I agree with this.  I don't think God should be beholden to us for anything. 

[JLHPROF]

The Mormon concept of God being subject to the law (which some believe exists outside Himself), rather than being the Law, creates a number of problems that, once one starts digging, there needs to be someone to tell you when to stop and just climb out of the hole.

 

Whether talking about justice, mercy, love, space, time, or whatever,  God is the Law. Therefore He executes that which satisfies His own character, even if it means sacrificing Himself.

 

I have to disagree - God is the law for our world, but he still operates under eternal law.  The problem with the idea that God is the law instead of being subject to it is that God hasn't always been God.  As long as we believe that Godhood is a state to be achieved and there was a time when it was not achieved, then the eternal laws have to exist independent of God.  And it is by following those laws perfectly that a being becomes God.

[Tacenda]

I have to disagree - God is the law for our world, but he still operates under eternal law.  The problem with the idea that God is the law instead of being subject to it is that God hasn't always been God.  As long as we believe that Godhood is a state to be achieved and there was a time when it was not achieved, then the eternal laws have to exist independent of God.  And it is by following those laws perfectly that a being becomes God.

I guess that's the difference between Mormons and Christianity, that is what separates them.  We don't believe that God is the same from beginning to end?  One eternal round?  I think we have.  Maybe you mean in this realm he is the same from beginning to end.  Very confusing to me though.

[Palerider]

I guess that's the difference between Mormons and Christianity, that is what separates them.  We don't believe that God is the same from beginning to end?  One eternal round?  I think we have.  Maybe you mean in this realm he is the same from beginning to end.  Very confusing to me though.

 

I agree. I think when Mormons and some other Christians actually get to the other side, they're going to experience a whole new paradigm of what it means to be God and these synthesized concepts of eternal progression of gods, are going to melt away.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Palerider

[JLHPROF]

I agree. I think when Mormons and some other Christians actually get to the other side, they're going to experience a whole new paradigm of what it means to be God and these synthesized concepts of eternal progression of gods, are going to melt away.

 

Not sure what you mean by synthesized.  I got my idea from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the scriptures.  I like to think they came from God himself.

[Palerider]

Not sure what you mean by synthesized.  I got my idea from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the scriptures.  I like to think they came from God himself.

 

I understand.

 

I like to think that Joseph synthesized them.........himself.

[Rob Osborn]

Its rather apparent that we do not know much about the atonement. I am starting to sway more and more to the idea that the atonement works because it does show unto man the love Christ has for us and that because of that love shown by Christ's suffering, it perfectly allows mercy to come into play by the Father because he will not deny the love of Christ in behalf of his pleading for the repentant.

I am almost in complete belief that the suffering of Christ did not actually pay the price for all of mans sins but rather brings into balance on the scale between justice and mercy by placing Christ's love and suffering in our behalf on one side while on the other we offer up a broken heart and contrite spirit. I am reminded of what Christ told us to sacrifice after his death and resurrection that would take the place of the blood sacrifice-

19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9:19-20)

[Calm]

My problem with understanding the atonement revolves around Christ taking upon himself our sins. If he took them then surely he has them. Although sinless himself he now has my sins, so surely he is no longer sinless? He suffered for them but does that erase them? If so, then anyone who fails to repent will do the same. They will suffer for the sins they carry until paid for. Surely then they will be sin free and heirs to the celestial kingdom just as Christ was?

There is a difference between being free of sin and being a good person. A comatose person is not committing any sin, but he is not doing anything good either.

Free of sin is the minimum requirement of being able to exist in the Presence of God.

I agree with janderich in some ways about his concept in sin, especially the nonexistence of some sort of set penalty per sin. I find the taking over of the debt analogy very prone to being taken way too far by some.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Acris Venator]

Maybe Jesus had a Christ-complex.

[Calm]

I guess that's the difference between Mormons and Christianity, that is what separates them..

Right...because Mormons aren't Christians. It is very important you keep reminding us of that.

[ERayR]

My problem with understanding the atonement revolves around Christ taking upon himself our sins. If he took them then surely he has them. Although sinless himself he now has my sins, so surely he is no longer sinless? He suffered for them but does that erase them? If so, then anyone who fails to repent will do the same. They will suffer for the sins they carry until paid for. Surely then they will be sin free and heirs to the celestial kingdom just as Christ was?

 

Perhaps if we looked at this way it might help.  Say I get arrested for assaulting a police officer who was giving me a speeding ticket.  I go to court and they fine me for the speeding ticket and then I go to court for the assault charge.  I apologize and since it is my first offense the judge levies a hefty fine.  Since I am on a fixed income and am unable to pay the fines you, as my dear friend, step forward and pay my fines.  You are in no way guilty of the crimes I committed but you have paid the price.

 

Hope this helps.

[Calm]

While I have some major disagreements with both portrayals so far, this is an easy correct or clarification IMO.

" Heavenly Father offers His sinless Firstborn Son to guarantee the integrity of the implementation of the Plan."

Christ stepped up and offered himself.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

[Calm]

Perhaps if we looked at this way it might help.  Say I get arrested for assaulting a police officer who was giving me a speeding ticket.  I go to court and they fine me for the speeding ticket and then I go to court for the assault charge.  I apologize and since it is my first offense the judge levies a hefty fine.  Since I am on a fixed income and am unable to pay the fines you, as my dear friend, step forward and pay my fines.  You are in no way guilty of the crimes I committed but you have paid the price.

 

Hope this helps.

The one paying the price has also blessed another's life while the one whose fine was paid has not. Thus he is not only not guilty of the sin, not owing in for any sin himself whether paid by him or someone else, he is a good man. Someone who has not chosen to help others may have chosen not to harm them as well and if successful could be said to be sin free, but he is also 'good free' and thus not someone likely to accept the blessing of exaltation from God.

[Tacenda]

Right...because Mormons aren't Christians. It is very important you keep reminding us of that.

No I'm not saying that.  Sorry if it came across that way I should have said non LDS Christianity.  They think he is the same always, never changing.  Always God.  Never a man.  That's all.  I do believe LDS are Christians that they believe in a Saviour.  Anyone would know that.  But do believe in a different Saviour . 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Okay. Who can explain the Atonement without making Heavenly Father look like a sadist? No platitudes allowed.

Justice requires punishment, he chose one to pay the debt rather than require all to pay our own debts. Nothing sadist about, pure love and compassion.

[Stone holm]

I understand.

 

I like to think that Joseph synthesized them.........himself.

I don't agree. But that is a matter of personal testimony. When I was introduced to Mormonism, finally found a form of Christianity that actually made sense.

[Stone holm]

Justice requires punishment, he chose one to pay the debt rather than require all to pay our own debts. Nothing sadist about, pure love and compassion.

You realize this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, right?

[Calm]

Makes sense to me especially when we weren't capable on our own to begin the purification process and would have been locked out if Christ hadn't first opened the door into the Judge's chamber, so to speak.

It is not the complete picture, IMO, though but only a small part of it.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Makes sense to me especially when we weren't capable on our own to begin the purification process and would have been locked out if Christ hadn't first opened the door into the Judge's chamber, so to speak.

It is not the complete picture, IMO, though but only a small part of it.

I don't subscribe to the scapegoat concept of the Atonement or that Heavenly Father set the terms of the justice prescribed. That requires us to believe that Heavenly Father would have voluntarily established rules which required the torture and cruel death of His Son. That is an argument which is morally bankrupt.

[Palerider]

I don't agree. But that is a matter of personal testimony. When I was introduced to Mormonism, finally found a form of Christianity that actually made sense.

 

I agree, some of it makes sense, but if it totally made sense, neither you nor I would be here on this site.

[longview]

The "Gods" provide spirit bodies for intelligences which become spirit children of Heavenly Parents.

Do you not believe that those intelligences have the free agency to choose what kind or nature of progression they would prefer and who to associate with?

I suppose that depends on what "intelligences" actually were - self aware but without form perhaps?  I doubt that God specifically asked permission to father their spirit bodies any more than we ask permission of each spirit we bring to earth.  In many cases there were pre-mortal covenants made but I doubt every single baby that comes to earth follows that pattern.  Also, I think except for the spirits that fell, every spirit is coming to earth one way or another.  It's a natural process just as I think spirit birth was.

---There are many kinds of beings: some destined to become humans, some animals, and some even inhabit components such as planets, stones, dust. Even Jesus stated if his people were prevented from praising Him, the very stones would cry out. In the Grand Council, all beings had to carefully consider the Plan. The war did take place, they had to choose one way or the other.

 

  They keep progressing until the time comes for them to enter mortality.

Do you agree that those spirit children can learn only so much that they will reach a limiting point?  Hence the need for a radical new learning environment and a new body of many more attributes?

Yes, I agree.

 

 

STAGE TWO:

  Eloheim convenes the Great Council of the Gods and afterwards calls together the Spirit Children.

  He proposes a Plan in which Spirit Children will have opportunity for orders of magnitude greater progression and more glorious body.

  He explains the risks of such a Plan.  Because of the fallen natures they would obtain they would be sinful and unable to return so eternal law required a sacrifice of mortal blood to pay for the sins.  Heavenly Father offers His sinless Firstborn Son to guarantee the integrity of the implementation of the Plan.

Is Heavenly Father accountable to only Himself?  What about the "Host of Heaven" ?  Does not HF have power only from the love and honor  of ALL the Host?  God exercises power simply by saying the "word" and various "beings" leap to fulfil it?  If HF does one tiny thing that smacks of carnality or other kind of wickedness, won't God cease to be God?  Because the Host won't stand for it.

 

I think you are confusing "Host of Heaven" with God's spirit children.  God does not operate by consensus or common consent.  God operates by eternal laws that if violated would cause him to cease to be God.   The relationship is a two-way responsibility entered into by both parties I agree - but that doesn't mean we can cause God to violate law.

---My perspective on the "Host of Heaven" much more extensive than that. It includes all the hierarchies of the Gods, the House of Israel, any observers from the realm of intelligences. At every step, everyone is free to choose to continue with the Plan or go with llllo checkother options. I totally disagree that anyone can cause God to violate law.

 

  Repeat process by those who are exalted while striving for a Higher order of Kingdoms begins.

Not sure what a "Higher Order of Kingdoms" might mean.  Do you mean continual increase in the "Dominions" over which God will preside?

 

I'd love to tell you I knew what the Higher Order of Kingdoms were but I don't.  I only know two things about this:

1. When we reach that Celestial level where God dwells a higher order of Kingdoms will be made known to us (so something to progress to).

2. I don't believe the BRM teaching that God can only advance in dominion, not knowledge.  I believe God continues to progress in knowledge and power.  The other notion is nonsensical to me (and Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, and others).  I don't believe any doctrine that permanently stops a being in a certain condition and never allows it to grow further in nature.

[bluebell]

I don't subscribe to the scapegoat concept of the Atonement or that Heavenly Father set the terms of the justice prescribed. That requires us to believe that Heavenly Father would have voluntarily established rules which required the torture and cruel death of His Son. That is an argument which is morally bankrupt.

 

So you believe the scapegoat aspect of ancient Israel worship, as part of the law of Moses, was not implemented by God but was purely a human construct?

Edited December 29, 2013 by bluebell

[bluebell]

My problem with understanding the atonement revolves around Christ taking upon himself our sins. If he took them then surely he has them. Although sinless himself he now has my sins, so surely he is no longer sinless? He suffered for them but does that erase them? If so, then anyone who fails to repent will do the same. They will suffer for the sins they carry until paid for. Surely then they will be sin free and heirs to the celestial kingdom just as Christ was?

 

You have forgotten though that there is more to exaltation than merely being justified.   One must also be sanctified in order to become heirs of the kingdom with Christ.

 

Yes, such people who will not allow Christ's Atonement to pay for their sins will suffer and pay for them themselves-they will fulfill their debt to 'justice' completely.  They will be justified.  However, being justified does not equal being sanctified.  

 

Becoming holy is a process that only happens when a person accepts Christ and submits to Him.  These people who have suffered for their own sins won't necessarily have submitted to Christ.  They won't necessarily have become as a little child.  The spirit won't necessarily have the ability to purify them or refine them into holy beings through the grace of Christ.

 

All those things are necessary in order to become joint heirs with Christ.  A person can suffer for their own sins, but they cannot on their own, under such circumstances, become sanctified.  And without that, there is no true (or in other words, full) salvation.  

 

Christ truly is the only way.