A Question About The Atonement

[mfbukowski]

One of the things about this discussion board that has surprised me over the years is how rarely posters use the scriptures to help bolster the points they try to make. When making points on this board I try to use the scriptures as often as I can to help establish the validity of the points I'm trying to make.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your comments above, you seem to be at least partially invalidating the famous Book of Mormon scriptures that declares the eternal law of justice must be satisfied before mercy can be extended to man in his fallen state. Though the following quote from Alma 42 is a long one, I hope you will carefully read it and then explain to me how the principles set forth in these verses harmonize with your statement when you say, "I don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical stains or laws."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

This will never make sense for generations raised by parents who never punished their children.  That is what we are seeing on this thread.  If you were raised to feel guilt for.misdeeds instead of physical punishment, forgiving oneself becomes the most important thing.

 

If we see "punishment" in terms of unintended negative consequences for bad behavior, it makes a lot of sense.

Edited March 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I have struggled with this for many years and this represents my own thinking and not LDS thinking.

 

I too am unsure if God needs the atonement to forgive us I think he can forgive who he will but I think we will need the atonement to forgive ourselves. Remember we must have come to earth with high hopes and perhaps a bit of bravado hoping or thinking we would accomplish much, remain faithful, be good to others, etc. We chose to follow Gods plan knowing the risks, and presumably the rewards, and considering ourselves up to the challenge. I don’t think God forces anyone to come here.

 

Yet at some point we will pass beyond the veil and remember all that came before and have a full awareness of all we have done here. I have seen enough people on earth destroyed by guilt and being unable to forgive themselves enough to change, the person who drinks to forget he is a drunk being a classic example, that I know that the belief in the forgiveness and the atonement can help here. I imagine that beyond the veil that sense of guilt, when we are able to fully see the ripple effect of all we did wrong here, things that we can’t even guess at today, will be a thousand times stronger.

 

So more than God I think we need the atonement to forgive ourselves. Christ did nothing but what He saw the Father do, as the Father laid down His life and took it up again, so too did Christ. So too will we, following the example of Christ, lay down our lives and take them up again at the resurrection and we will need the atonement of Christ to forgive ourselves for all the harm we have caused

Agreed

[changed]

....Though the following quote from Alma 42 ...

 

Alma 42 is a good one, it seems God does not make all the rules, the Euthyphro dilemma, goodness and justice and mercy exist outside of God? 

In any event, the ultimate love, the ultimate sacrifice - it would just be an idea, instead of a reality, without an actual atonement.

I lke Skousen's story:

During the Civil War, there was a nineteen-year-old soldier who went to sleep on guard duty. A whole section of the Union Army was wiped out in that particular sector. He lost many of his very best friends, all because he went to sleep and they were able to make a surprise attack on one flank of that particular defense effort. He survived the battle, was court marshaled and sentenced to be hanged for neglect of duty in going to sleep while serving as a guard, which is routine military law.

The death sentence and order of execution was placed on the desk of President Lincoln and he was prepared to sign it. We'd lost a lot of valuable men because a nineteen-year-old soldier went to sleep.

(I don't remember whether it was by letter or personal visit, but it's not too significant." President Lincoln was communicated with by an old woman — (I think she came in person) — and this little mother said to President Lincoln, "When this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, then I lost my sons—five of them. I just have one son left, and he's about to be executed for neglect of duty. He feels terrible about what he did and he knows he deserves to die—he's expecting to die, President Lincoln. But I'm wondering, if maybe, because you have pardoning power in the Constitution, if you could find it in your heart to let me have the last of my family, for my sake."

President Lincoln said to the mother, "For your sake, I pardon your son. I pray to God he'll survive the war and be a blessing to you all the days of your life."

See how compassion works? It completely overcomes the demands of justice and nobody criticized President Lincoln for using his pardoning power in that case once they found out what the plea of that little mother had been. Now that's the way all of us are.

I don't think it was compassion, as much as actual justice - a price had been paid (the husband and all the other brothers death), the country owed the little mother something, that's justice.  

Edited March 15, 2014 by changed

[mfbukowski]

This is one of the fundamental errors in viewing the necessity of the atonement.  Sin is not simply about offending God.  Sin is about transgressing law.  And even God, as powerful and forgiving as he is cannot remove the penalty for transgressing law just by forgiving us.

 

The scriptures are clear - the wages of sin are death.  Just one sin, any sin, has a price attached.  No person with a sin upon them can enter God's presence.  And eternal law requires those under mortal sin to remain in the grave.  Not because he won't let them live, but because eternal law prevents it.  So the price attached to that sin still has to be paid.

 

The mercy comes in that by offering a sinless sacrifice to pay the price and bring about resurrection of a sinner.  God could personally forgive us in our sins but the sins would still be on our heads and the price would still have to be paid by us.  God cannot (and will not) violate the eternal law that places a punishment on a sinner.  The price has to be paid.  It's unavoidable even if God forgives us.  And praise to our Savior that he paid the irrevocable price of our sins if we accept him and that makes the Father's mercy efficacious.

For me, the IDEA that we can live forever in eternal bliss if we repent is what takes away the guilt for what I have done, and allows me to forgive myself because I have done "all I can do" to make it good.

 

So it is the belief in the atonement and my faith in the IDEA which sets my heart free.

 

We say that in scriptural language in this way : "we are saved by faith in the grace of Christ, after all we can do."

[Hapy]

I agree with bluebell. Our Father in heaven uses eternal laws to accomplish His purposes. Jesus was the only innocent individual who could accomplish this magnificent task of atoning for our sins. It is because of His innocence that Mercy was able to satisfy Justice. It's about eternal laws which cannot be broken. 

[Stargazer]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

The best explanation for it that I have ever read was given by Cleon Skousen in one of the vignette articles at the end of "The First Two Thousand Years". I believe it was titled "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". Skousen also gave a talk on this back a number of years ago, and it used to be available on YouTube, but I can't find it now. He was very careful to prove his words by using the scriptures, and said that he was schooled in this by Elder Widtsoe, who was his mission president in England (pre-WW2). I followed his proof very carefully and found it to be very persuasive. I recommend it. He specifically shows why God the Father couldn't carry out the Atonement himself.

Oh, and I just found this particular doctrine as explained by Skousen available for Kindle! Go to this link:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atonement-Personal-Search-Meaning-ebook/dp/B0084NSYLW

or since you are in the UK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Atonement-Personal-Search-Meaning-ebook/dp/B0084NSYLW

They also offer the audio version of this (probably from the talk he gave to missonaries in Texas back in the 90's sometime).

Now, there are a lot of members who don't appreciate Skousen due to his political views, but I assure you this work has absolutely no politics in it. And I promise you that it is very worthwhile.

[Duncan]

The best explanation for it that I have ever read was given by Cleon Skousen in one of the vignette articles at the end of "The First Two Thousand Years". I believe it was titled "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". Skousen also gave a talk on this back a number of years ago, and it used to be available on YouTube, but I can't find it now. He was very careful to prove his words by using the scriptures, and said that he was schooled in this by Elder Widtsoe, who was his mission president in England (pre-WW2). I followed his proof very carefully and found it to be very persuasive. I recommend it. He specifically shows why God the Father couldn't carry out the Atonement himself.

Oh, and I just found this particular doctrine as explained by Skousen available for Kindle! Go to this link:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atonement-Personal-Search-Meaning-ebook/dp/B0084NSYLW

or since you are in the UK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Atonement-Personal-Search-Meaning-ebook/dp/B0084NSYLW

They also offer the audio version of this (probably from the talk he gave to missonaries in Texas back in the 90's sometime).

Now, there are a lot of members who don't appreciate Skousen due to his political views, but I assure you this work has absolutely no politics in it. And I promise you that it is very worthwhile.

 

 

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Skousen-Williams.pdf

 

worth reading!

[Stargazer]

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Skousen-Williams.pdf

 

worth reading!

Edited to remove most of what I posted in this space during the last hour or so.

I've decided that I was giving Williams too little consideration before launching into a blanket condemnation of what he wrote in the essay that Dancan linked to. So I will reserve my comments until later when I have more time to consider what Williams has written.

I will still maintain that I believe Williams has taken a lot of what Skousen wrote out of context, or has misunderstood it.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Stargazer

[David T]

Skousen's theory is the one where Jesus has to suffer to defuse the bloodthirst of all the intelligences in the Universe demanding Justice, right? Not a fan.

Edited March 15, 2014 by David T

[Stargazer]

Skousen's theory is the one where Jesus has to suffer to defuse the bloodthirst of all the intelligences in the Universe demanding Justice, right? Not a fan.

You see, this is what Williams is doing. You misstate what Skousen has written, add little scare words (bloodthirst), and then disagree with your restatement. David, you're an intelligent man -- sure you recognize that this is a classic straw man?

Of course, some of the problem is Skousen himself. He really likes to overdramatize things, and sometimes I think that this overdramatization is what people are responding to, not so much the underlying issues he presents.

[David T]

You see, this is what Williams is doing. You misstate what Skousen has written, add little scare words (bloodthirst), and then disagree with your restatement. David, you're an intelligent man -- sure you recognize that this is a classic straw man?

Of course, some of the problem is Skousen himself. He really likes to overdramatize things, and sometimes I think that this overdramatization is what people are responding to, not so much the underlying issues he presents.

 

I, like many, were introduced to this through photocopied versions on my mission. I really thought about it for a while. Eventually, looking more into Skousen's writings, I realized I had MAJOR problems with his basic approach to scripture in general. His Atonement talk really, really bothered me. Bothers me even more now.

 

My summary is how his theory sounds to me when it is brought down to its essentials. His idea of intelligences holding God's mercy ransom, with Jesus being tortured and killed to influence the Democratic Society of Intelligences' vote to let Jesus save whoever he wants is all sorts of messed up.

 

I just really, really don't like Skousens' theological worldview. It's not one where God gets to choose how to raise his family, and what gifts and guidance to give - it's one where he is subject to the Tyrany of the Majority.

[jchristopher]

I agree with bluebell. Our Father in heaven uses eternal laws to accomplish His purposes. Jesus was the only innocent individual who could accomplish this magnificent task of atoning for our sins. It is because of His innocence that Mercy was able to satisfy Justice. It's about eternal laws which cannot be broken.

How was it Jesus was able to remain sinless throughout his mortal life, unlike the rest of us? Is it possible to obtain perfection before mortality? Was it by virtue of his ordained status as the Redeemer?

[jchristopher]

This doesn't necessarily contradict the other understanding. Justice is both punitive and restorative. Punishment can be decreed and self-inflicted. Remember that the guilty will look up and say "thy decrees are just," in other words, they will recognize themselves that their own self-punishment is in compliance with divine decree.

Justice is also the law that governs mercy. The sinner who repents is meted forgiveness by law, and justice that is endemic to God and Jesus ensures this.

I also believe that law might not have to do so much with legalism as we see it, but a nature of the way things are.

I couldn't have said it better myself

[LDSGuy]

There is a talk by Cleon Skousen about the atonement. He asks the same question, and gives a beautiful answer. At least an answer that rings true to me.

This link seems to be the talk.

http://whitebinder.com/index.php/articles/talks-and-stories/talks-by-church-leaders/147-the-meaning-of-the-atonement

Edited March 18, 2014 by LDSGuy

[Alan]

Fascinating insights from everyone.

One theme which seems to run through the discussion on here is that, in effect, God is subject to eternal law.

I have a real problem with that. I see it as the other way around - eternal law is subject to God. It is God who makes the laws, not the laws that make or unmake God.

I think this is the nub of the issue. If the laws are subject to God (as I believe they are) then I am struggling to understand the need for the atonement. I can understand the need for the atonement if God is subject to law, but to me at least, that makes Him less than God; and I'm really very uncomfortable with that.

[jaxenro]

God is subject to His own law just as we are subject to our own creations. I firmly believe in honor and doing what I consider honorable. Sometimes this requires me to do things I would rather not because I think my personal code requires it. God can not set a law and not follow it as it is outside His nature to do so.

Also, as I said I think the atonement helps us to forgive ourselves. Plus, by taking on Him the sins of the world Christ has a perfect understanding of each of us and the struggles we have gone through. I think He will need this as He judges us and chooses who to exalt. So the atonement is for Christs benefit as well as ours. It needed to happen for the plan to work

[teddyaware]

Fascinating insights from everyone.

One theme which seems to run through the discussion on here is that, in effect, God is subject to eternal law.

I have a real problem with that. I see it as the other way around - eternal law is subject to God. It is God who makes the laws, not the laws that make or unmake God.

I think this is the nub of the issue. If the laws are subject to God (as I believe they are) then I am struggling to understand the need for the atonement. I can understand the need for the atonement if God is subject to law, but to me at least, that makes Him less than God; and I'm really very uncomfortable with that.

Another way to put it, then, is that God is true to Himself because He is the living embodiment of the one and only system of eternally perfect law.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

 

The eternal law that God the Father employs, which requires an atonement, is the most perfect system of order and progression for intelligences that could ever be conceived because God cannot do anything that is not perfect (i.e. because of His eternal perfection He doesn't need to experiment by trial and error in order to find the best way to do something).Therefore we can rest assured the atonement is necessary because God is perfect, and in order to be true to Himself He can only do that which is perfect in design, execution and outcome.

 

Edited March 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

Fascinating insights from everyone.

One theme which seems to run through the discussion on here is that, in effect, God is subject to eternal law.

I have a real problem with that. I see it as the other way around - eternal law is subject to God. It is God who makes the laws, not the laws that make or unmake God.

I think this is the nub of the issue. If the laws are subject to God (as I believe they are) then I am struggling to understand the need for the atonement. I can understand the need for the atonement if God is subject to law, but to me at least, that makes Him less than God; and I'm really very uncomfortable with that.

 

No, I'm sorry.  In ANY other Christian religion this might be the case.  But Mormonism has a somewhat unique teaching in that God has not always been God.  In order to become God (an exalted man) he had to follow the same laws and ordinances we do.  This means that the laws had to be in place - that they are eternal and all who would be Gods must be subject to them.

 

But I can see how if you believe instead that the law is subject to God then the atonement would make little sense - God could just negate the effects of the law when we sin through his mercy.  The atonement would be unnecessary.

[MiserereNobis]

But I can see how if you believe instead that the law is subject to God then the atonement would make little sense - God could just negate the effects of the law when we sin through his mercy.  The atonement would be unnecessary.

 

That does simplify the traditional Christian/Catholic understanding QUITE a bit

 

For an good summary of the development of the theology of the atonement in Catholicism, I graciously point you to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

I highly recommend it.  It is an easy read and not very long.

 

One thing to keep in mind in traditional Christianity is that Jesus IS God.  This changes things a bit.  Also, another thing to keep in mind is that we have a different ontology than you.  We believe that God and humans are different types of beings.  We also believe that one's ontology can be changed.  For example, baptism creates a permanent change in your being (which is why there is no rebaptism, like there is in the LDS church).  Becoming a priest also creates a permanent change.  This idea connects to original sin and the fallen nature of humanity.  Our ontology is messed up.  Part of the atonement is fixing that.  God becomes human so that God's being can permeate throughout humanity's being.  The atonement is not just paying for an individual sin that I have committed.  It is repairing the ontological defect that causes me to sin in the first place.

 

These are, of course, all inadequate figures to describe a deep mystery, and like any metaphor or analogy, they have their flaws and should not be pushed to absurd limits.  But often metaphor is all we have to go on when it comes to spirituality.  Or, as mfb calls it, mysticspeak.

[JLHPROF]

That does simplify the traditional Christian/Catholic understanding QUITE a bit

 

Well, I did say "might be the case"

Of course there is more to the atonement in other Christian religions than my admittedly simplistic statement.

I just needed to differentiate why in Mormonism eternal laws make Gods, God is not the source of eternal laws.

[Alan]

......Mormonism has a somewhat unique teaching in that God has not always been God.  In order to become God (an exalted man) he had to follow the same laws and ordinances we do.  This means that the laws had to be in place - that they are eternal and all who would be Gods must be subject to them.

 

 

I'm not sure this is doctrine. It appears President Hinckley was unsure too.

I don't know of a single scripture which states this, but I know of a number that suggest something quite different.

 

I personally do not believe this doctrine. For me God is and always has been God. We can share in his attributes by qualifying to join the family business (Moses 1:39), but we will never be "God" to anyone. He will always be their God as well as ours.

 

I know I am out of step with many in the church regarding this issue, but I find support for my view from the scriptures, including and especially the Book of Mormon.

 

But I digress somewhat. Surely God is all-knowing. Therefore he has a perfect foreknowledge and would not create laws to which he binds himself as a matter of honour, knowing that he would then have to require his only begotten Son to suffer such agony in order to uphold the law he set.

Some people are calling it "cosmic child-abuse" and I can see their point.

I just wish I could get my head around this because it really bothers me.

[Alan]

 God is not the source of eternal laws.

 

Well who (or what) is then?

[DJBrown]

That would be stupid. Justice would still not be served. I as a father don't impose punishment because it just has to be done for punishments sake.

If someone murdered your family, would justice be done by letting the murderer free and putting me to death just because I volunteered?

That is insane.

 

 

Does the idea of a "limited atonement" have implications here?  If a murderer (or any sinner) "got off" without ever facing up to his or her crimes, in the setting of a limited atonement, Christ would not have suffered for those sins.  The justice in this instance would be exercised through the sinner paying for his or her own sins outside of the conditions of repentance.  

 

If the daughter had the intent to change her behavior and heart but without the ability to do so, would it make sense to have the son step in to pay for her sins if that would result in 1) justice being satisfied, and; 2) the daughter being enabled to overcome sin through the offering of the son?

[jaxenro]

Remember most sins, including murder, are temporal in nature with, of course, spiritual implications. If you kill someone you are only taking their earthly life not their eternal soul. Theft? Show me what material objects go with you past the grave. Yet it is the spiritual dimension of the theft Christ atoned for not the material one. You are trying to apply temporal laws to spiritual dimensions.

I can make restitution for theft by replacing the property but how do I make spiritual restitution? How do I replace that part of my spirit that was damaged by my act? Repentance and faith in Christs atonement provides the spiritual restitution.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not sure this is doctrine. It appears President Hinckley was unsure too.

I don't know of a single scripture which states this, but I know of a number that suggest something quite different.

 

I personally do not believe this doctrine. For me God is and always has been God. We can share in his attributes by qualifying to join the family business (Moses 1:39), but we will never be "God" to anyone. He will always be their God as well as ours.

 

I know I am out of step with many in the church regarding this issue, but I find support for my view from the scriptures, including and especially the Book of Mormon.

 

But I digress somewhat. Surely God is all-knowing. Therefore he has a perfect foreknowledge and would not create laws to which he binds himself as a matter of honour, knowing that he would then have to require his only begotten Son to suffer such agony in order to uphold the law he set.

Some people are calling it "cosmic child-abuse" and I can see their point.

I just wish I could get my head around this because it really bothers me.

 

Well, of course disagreeing with established doctrine is your right (as we've discovered before ).  I can see how that would cause the atonement to trouble you in that case.  But Joseph Smith (and pretty much all of the first 12 prophets of the Church taught this explicitly).  There can really be no question as to the source of the doctrine being valid even if our understanding is limited or we disagree.  And it does address your concerns if you were to accept it.

 

Well who (or what) is then?

 

There is no "source" for eternal law.  They exist and always have and always will.  You could argue I suppose that the Eloheim (the council of the Gods) established them and all Gods are subject to them but I don't necessarily see evidence for that.  For me they are more akin to laws of nature - inviolable and unchanging.