What's wrong with what we teach about the Atonement

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:27 PM, Navidad said:

I wasn't familiar with that article, but I think I know Lynn from some shared experience 100 years ago.

So ... you're either really old, or you believe in reincarnation?  

   

Sorry   Couldn't resist!  Carry on!

[Navidad]

Good morning all Chihuahua time (6:47 am):

Two things - I want to apologize for the way I leaped full-force into the discussion last evening when I got home. I was very disappointed by what I read and reacted to that in a way that wasn't Christ-like.

Second I need to make this my last post. I thank those of you who have tried to answer my many questions. I appreciate that very much. I lay in bed last night realizing that for many, if not most of you, this forum is a diversion, a place to come to engage in debate and dispute. You do this from a position of strength and confidence in your theological or spiritual position. You have confidence and satisfaction in your correctness; this forum is no threat to that. You come on here, have some fun (enjoyment or lighthearted harassment of each other) and then go back to your work, family, church, etc. unaffected by it all, or maybe with a modicum of satisfaction that you got your point across and maybe even won a few points.

This is not where I am, either personally or professionally. I am deeply connected to the pain of those who have suffered terribly because of theological differences. To me this is not a game of doctrinal, theological, or believer's Jeopardy, to see who knows the most. I write and speak a lot about religion and conflict. It is an important topic today. Arizona State has a whole building, a center dedicated to the Study of Religion and Conflict. I just published an article in the MHA journal on the tension and stress that caused 4000 Saints to be uprooted from their homes here in Mexico in the exodus of 1912. They fled back to the US where the Church had changed. They struggled here (Mexico) and then went back "home" and struggled. They were second class citizens in the Mormon world to which they returned. Families were divided forever. There was fault all the way around, yet more importantly people suffered great pain. Junius Romney, the young stake president here who made the decision for the Saints to leave was so shaken by it, he didn't speak of it for around fifty years in public to anyone. A chance encounter with J. Reuben Clark on a train in the early sixties allowed him to speak about it in his home ward. After the exodus he never again accepted a priestly calling in the Church. Think of what his pain and discomfort must have been!

Both Mormons and Protestants (maybe a few Catholics too, but I have not read of any) have died, lost everything over these LDS/Protestant religious differences, into the twentieth century - this is not old history, like the persecution in the 16th century of thousand of Anabaptists killed by both Protestants and Catholics. However I have family history, especially that of my wife in which their deaths are recorded, so even though I don't know them, I sense their pain in their writings.  Perhaps even more directly, I experience the pain of theological dispute, confusion, and antimony in my own life. It consumes my thinking. This is no diversion, hobby, lighthearted debate for me. It is a matter of eternal life. And for me, Mormons are not some far-away boogie men and women who I can mock and move on. These are my friends, my neighbors, those with whom I picnic, worship, and do my best to fellowship. All of that has caused tension within my own family of origin. My family is praying I come to my senses; my Mormon friends are praying I come to my knees, and to the baptismal waters. I am just praying to figure it all out.

Through my studies I also realize that real people have suffered and been killed by  the "other" because of an inability or more significantly, a lack of desire to find their commonalities. Some say it is important that we acknowledge our differences. My reaction is to point out all the terrible harm that has done over the years. All the great sociology of religion books, especially those about religion in America in the 19th century  help explain this to me. People haven't come together, simply because they didn't want to come together. They preferred being cocooned in their surety of their superior faith. Some preferred being persecuted and developed that into a fine sense of being the "other." Or the other party had the power. They had the government, the numbers, the country's sense of self-identity on their side, so they saw no reason to reason together. They dominated and they won. Of course whenever someone dominates, the "other" loses and strikes back, sometimes verbally and sometimes physically, especially when their faith assures them they are the "only" or their positional power assures them they "will win."

So one side chose to forget when a faithful Primitive Baptist preacher in a small town in Missouri left his church door open with a light on in 1834 for Zion's Camp to find shelter from a terrible storm beside the Fishing River. I love the painting of that night that has been painted by one LDS artist. May God bless her for remembering. Saints were starting to come down with cholera, local folks were apparently poised (we don't know for sure) to attack from the other side of the river, and the old pastor of Gilead Baptist Church,  a church founded by 6 White Baptists and their 6 slaves all names on the roll - an astonishing and God honoring event in early 19th century Missouri, lit the kerosene light and left the door open for these strangers in their land. The kind act of giving shelter to the sick wet Mormons may have saved more lives than were lost years later at Hawn's Mill, but we hear volumes about the latter and no Sunday School lessons about the former, for LDS children to understand inter-faith kindness. That doesn't fit the narrative of innocent persecution. God bless the 21st century LDS artist who recorded it for us, and Wilford Woodruff for including the event in his diary (of course he included everything in his diary!). The Chapel with the light on in the background of the painting is not a Mormon Chapel; it is a Baptist one.

So I come home last night and I read posts about how the Baptists will probably think this or that; there will be differences; and if not someone will bring up another issue, because we will be sure to find disagreement there. So the narrative still continues. Please..........can't we enjoy the meaning of the little Baptist church in Missouri instead of telling our kids about the horror of Galatin and MMM (if we are Protestant) and the disaster of Hawn's MIll (if we are Mormon). BTW, it is interesting that Jacob Hawn was never Mormon, I am convinced with good evidence that he was Mennonite - a member of a Peace group - I wish we had his grief over what happened recorded somewhere. We know that a couple of years later he moved on to Oregon and built more mills in areas where today there are significant Mennonite colonies. I digress.

The last post I read last night before going to bed was a post where the writer made sure to point out he had caught me in an  inconsistency. Sigh! Congratulations to him. He won. Sorry, once again I go on too long. I have an index of a three hundred page book that is waiting for me to finish. I have enjoyed (for the most part🙂) interacting with you all. I wish you peace and fulfillment in your lives, both personally, professionally, and on this forum. If you will accept a blessing from an old Mennonite patriarch, I offer the same to you. Phil

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Navidad

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been traveling all day today. I am just now trying to catch up on posts. So, let me say I am very sad and disappointed in the posts I have seen from today. It seems that 1. the Mormons on this thread are insistent on predicting what will be the objections in the minds and hearts of Protestants. That is so contrary to inter-faith dialogue. How about we let the Baptists tell us what their problems will be, instead of the Mormons doing so? So many of you want to make issues so you can continue your rants about how terrible the Protestant view of Mormons is. You thrive on that. You must maintain that to maintain your otherness. Please let it go. The issues raised today border from silly to pitiful.  I am sorry, but as a Mennonite/Protestant I am deeply saddened by the apparent need to discuss the three locations of Christ's suffering, eternal security, the trinity, when all that was asked was about the atonement. You all need to debate how many angels will dance on the head of a railroad stake in Utah. Shame on you. All of this has nothing to do with the original question about the atonement. Methinks the majority of the folks on this forum want and need there to be conflict between Protestants and yourselves. You need that to maintain your identity as the "other," the persecuted ones," and on and on. A very specific question started this thread, why don't we stick to that? Why? Because as I have said there is no difference; that is your worst nightmare. Some of the folks here apparently don't ever want there to be peace between Protestants and Mormons. Shame on you. You will forever come up with theological nitpicking to find differences instead of accepting that we are moving much closer to each other. That must really scare you! I will get back to the original post in a few minutes.

I think you might be misunderstanding some of the posts.

I personally see no difference between between what we teach about the Atonement and what most protestants also seem to believe, but when speaking with some protestants in the past, these issues that have been brought up here have also been brought up by them to me.  I served a mission in California and gospel discussions with most protestants almost always came back to disagreement about who Christ is and grace/works/salvation, no matter what the original topic was.

I would be absolutely thrilled if I had Baptists in my house and they said that there were nothing in those scriptures that I posted earlier that they disagreed with.  There is no need to maintain a persecution complex or otherness. I do agree though, if past conversations with Baptists and Evangelicals have been any indication, that that probably wouldn't happen, especially if the reason the Baptists were speaking to me was to convince me that I can't be saved as a member of the church.  They would likely want to focus on the differences in our beliefs, because that would be their whole reason for being there-to convince me that I'm going to hell for believing what I do.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been traveling all day today. I am just now trying to catch up on posts. So, let me say I am very sad and disappointed in the posts I have seen from today. It seems that 1. the Mormons on this thread are insistent on predicting what will be the objections in the minds and hearts of Protestants. That is so contrary to inter-faith dialogue. How about we let the Baptists tell us what their problems will be, instead of the Mormons doing so? So many of you want to make issues so you can continue your rants about how terrible the Protestant view of Mormons is. You thrive on that. You must maintain that to maintain your otherness. Please let it go. The issues raised today border from silly to pitiful.  I am sorry, but as a Mennonite/Protestant I am deeply saddened by the apparent need to discuss the three locations of Christ's suffering, eternal security, the trinity, when all that was asked was about the atonement. You all need to debate how many angels will dance on the head of a railroad stake in Utah. Shame on you. All of this has nothing to do with the original question about the atonement. Methinks the majority of the folks on this forum want and need there to be conflict between Protestants and yourselves. You need that to maintain your identity as the "other," the persecuted ones," and on and on. A very specific question started this thread, why don't we stick to that? Why? Because as I have said there is no difference; that is your worst nightmare. Some of the folks here apparently don't ever want there to be peace between Protestants and Mormons. Shame on you. You will forever come up with theological nitpicking to find differences instead of accepting that we are moving much closer to each other. That must really scare you! I will get back to the original post in a few minutes.

Wow, man. You realize this is a Mormon Discussion board so most often things that are discussed will be from a Mormon POV. I'm sorry you find this thread so pitiful and silly. I've learned some interesting things here. Pointing out differences isn't necessarily about feeling persecuted or showing anyone is better than another religion. If that's all you see, I think it says more about you than anyone else.

IMO- the question about differences in teachings on the atonement have a foundations in the issues you seem so upset to discuss. Maybe you're just having a bad day but you sound like you feel you're the "persecuted one".

[Anakin7]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's very minor, but (from what I've seen/heard) Mormons focus on the Garden of Gethsamene as the location of the atonement and downplay the Cross, where for Catholics it takes place on the Cross with the death of Christ, which is why the crucifix is such a prominent symbol. It is in that moment of death that the atonement temporally occurred.

Admittedly minor, but a difference that (I think) has led to the lack of crosses in LDS iconography, which can cause issues because it is by and far the biggest icon/symbol of Christianity.

    As a LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior, I have what Christ Jesus did for me in The Garden of Gethsamene and on The Cross of Calvary ingrained in my Heart/Mind. No downplay of the cross from this LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good morning all Chihuahua time (6:47 am):

Two things - I want to apologize for the way I leaped full-force into the discussion last evening when I got home. I was very disappointed by what I read and reacted to that in a way that wasn't Christ-like.

Second I need to make this my last post. I thank those of you who have tried to answer my many questions. I appreciate that very much. I lay in bed last night realizing that for many, if not most of you, this forum is a diversion, a place to come to engage in debate and dispute. You do this from a position of strength and confidence in your theological or spiritual position. You have confidence and satisfaction in your correctness; this forum is no threat to that. You come on here, have some fun (enjoyment or lighthearted harassment of each other) and then go back to your work, family, church, etc. unaffected by it all, or maybe with a modicum of satisfaction that you got your point across and maybe even won a few points.

This is not where I am, either personally or professionally. I am deeply connected to the pain of those who have suffered terribly because of theological differences. To me this is not a game of doctrinal, theological, or believer's Jeopardy, to see who knows the most. I write and speak a lot about religion and conflict. It is an important topic today. Arizona State has a whole building, a center dedicated to the Study of Religion and Conflict. I just published an article in the MHA journal on the tension and stress that caused 4000 Saints to be uprooted from their homes here in Mexico in the exodus of 1912. They fled back to the US where the Church had changed. They struggled here (Mexico) and then went back "home" and struggled. They were second class citizens in the Mormon world to which they returned. Families were divided forever. There was fault all the way around, yet more importantly people suffered great pain. Junius Romney, the young stake president here who made the decision for the Saints to leave was so shaken by it, he didn't speak of it for around fifty years in public to anyone. A chance encounter with J. Reuben Clark on a train in the early sixties allowed him to speak about it in his home ward. After the exodus he never again accepted a priestly calling in the Church. Think of what his pain and discomfort must have been!

Both Mormons and Protestants (maybe a few Catholics too, but I have not read of any) have died, lost everything over these LDS/Protestant religious differences, into the twentieth century - this is not old history, like the persecution in the 16th century of thousand of Anabaptists killed by both Protestants and Catholics. However I have family history, especially that of my wife in which their deaths are recorded, so even though I don't know them, I sense their pain in their writings.  Perhaps even more directly, I experience the pain of theological dispute, confusion, and antimony in my own life. It consumes my thinking. This is no diversion, hobby, lighthearted debate for me. It is a matter of eternal life. And for me, Mormons are not some far-away boogie men and women who I can mock and move on. These are my friends, my neighbors, those with whom I picnic, worship, and do my best to fellowship. All of that has caused tension within my own family of origin. My family is praying I come to my senses; my Mormon friends are praying I come to my knees, and to the baptismal waters. I am just praying to figure it all out.

Through my studies I also realize that real people have suffered and been killed by  the "other" because of an inability or more significantly, a lack of desire to find their commonalities. Some say it is important that we acknowledge our differences. My reaction is to point out all the terrible harm that has done over the years. All the great sociology of religion books, especially those about religion in America in the 19th century  help explain this to me. People haven't come together, simply because they didn't want to come together. They preferred being cocooned in their surety of their superior faith. Some preferred being persecuted and developed that into a fine sense of being the "other." Or the other party had the power. They had the government, the numbers, the country's sense of self-identity on their side, so they saw no reason to reason together. They dominated and they won. Of course whenever someone dominates, the "other" loses and strikes back, sometimes verbally and sometimes physically, especially when their faith assures them they are the "only" or their positional power assures them they "will win."

So one side chose to forget when a faithful Primitive Baptist preacher in a small town in Missouri left his church door open with a light on in 1834 for Zion's Camp to find shelter from a terrible storm beside the Fishing River. I love the painting of that night that has been painted by one LDS artist. May God bless her for remembering. Saints were starting to come down with cholera, local folks were apparently poised (we don't know for sure) to attack from the other side of the river, and the old pastor of Gilead Baptist Church,  a church founded by 6 White Baptists and their 6 slaves all names on the roll - an astonishing and God honoring event in early 19th century Missouri, lit the kerosene light and left the door open for these strangers in their land. The kind act of giving shelter to the sick wet Mormons may have saved more lives than were lost years later at Hawn's Mill, but we hear volumes about the latter and no Sunday School lessons about the former, for LDS children to understand inter-faith kindness. That doesn't fit the narrative of innocent persecution. God bless the 21st century LDS artist who recorded it for us, and Wilford Woodruff for including the event in his diary (of course he included everything in his diary!). The Chapel with the light on in the background of the painting is not a Mormon Chapel; it is a Baptist one.

So I come home last night and I read posts about how the Baptists will probably think this or that; there will be differences; and if not someone will bring up another issue, because we will be sure to find disagreement there. So the narrative still continues. Please..........can't we enjoy the meaning of the little Baptist church in Missouri instead of telling our kids about the horror of Galatin and MMM (if we are Protestant) and the disaster of Hawn's MIll (if we are Mormon). BTW, it is interesting that Jacob Hawn was never Mormon, I am convinced with good evidence that he was Mennonite - a member of a Peace group - I wish we had his grief over what happened recorded somewhere. We know that a couple of years later he moved on to Oregon and built more mills in areas where today there are significant Mennonite colonies. I digress.

The last post I read last night before going to bed was a post where the writer made sure to point out he had caught me in an  inconsistency. Sigh! Congratulations to him. He won. Sorry, once again I go on too long. I have an index of a three hundred page book that is waiting for me to finish. I have enjoyed (for the most part🙂) interacting with you all. I wish you peace and fulfillment in your lives, both personally, professionally, and on this forum. If you will accept a blessing from an old Mennonite patriarch, I offer the same to you. Phil

 

    Navidad, Thank you you so very much for your Grace Empowered self reflecting post above,  I appreciate your sharing your heartfelt posts to us and hope and pray that True Grace will be with you and all you love that is accepted, accessed, activated, grabbed hold of, received, obtained, held on to by a True Belief and Faith. May your spiritual journey by blessed.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe in His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

Edited September 7, 2018 by Anakin7

[Calm]

I like to hear how others view our beliefs as different because it helps me look at those beliefs in different ways and many times expands my awareness of my beliefs.  This may lead to conclusions that the difference isn't really a difference or that there is a profound difference I need to be aware of when speaking to other Christians and even nonChristians (the best example imo of a profound difference that influences everything else is the Creator/Creature paradigm and the Father/Literal spirit children paradigm as these views impact what our relationship with God means and can be).  

If I were to just focus on how much we share, .I believe there would be a lot less stepping out of my box on my part at least.  Shared views may challenge me to change my behaviour (or not), but different views challenge me to examine my own beliefs which may likely will lead to change, if only refinement but possibly dramatic.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been traveling all day today. I am just now trying to catch up on posts. So, let me say I am very sad and disappointed in the posts I have seen from today. It seems that 1. the Mormons on this thread are insistent on predicting what will be the objections in the minds and hearts of Protestants. That is so contrary to inter-faith dialogue. How about we let the Baptists tell us what their problems will be, instead of the Mormons doing so? So many of you want to make issues so you can continue your rants about how terrible the Protestant view of Mormons is. You thrive on that. You must maintain that to maintain your otherness. Please let it go. The issues raised today border from silly to pitiful.  I am sorry, but as a Mennonite/Protestant I am deeply saddened by the apparent need to discuss the three locations of Christ's suffering, eternal security, the trinity, when all that was asked was about the atonement. You all need to debate how many angels will dance on the head of a railroad stake in Utah. Shame on you. All of this has nothing to do with the original question about the atonement. Methinks the majority of the folks on this forum want and need there to be conflict between Protestants and yourselves. You need that to maintain your identity as the "other," the persecuted ones," and on and on. A very specific question started this thread, why don't we stick to that? Why? Because as I have said there is no difference; that is your worst nightmare. Some of the folks here apparently don't ever want there to be peace between Protestants and Mormons. Shame on you. You will forever come up with theological nitpicking to find differences instead of accepting that we are moving much closer to each other. That must really scare you! I will get back to the original post in a few minutes.

If my post about the doctrine of “eternal security” contributed to your disappointment, please accept my apologies.  People like me (with faulty reading and reasoning skills) should probably avoid commenting.  For what it’s worth, I was not trying to provoke or otherwise engender negative feelings.  

I thought Bluebell was wanting to explore such doctrinal differences.  I haven’t read the entire thread, but it seems I was probably wrong about that.  Unfortunately, such miscomprehension is not all that unusual an occurrence with me these days.  If you’ve ever experienced “brain fog” born of chemo therapy, you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

[Kenngo1969]

Okrahomer,

To a greater or lesser extent and at one time or another, all of us (even those whose health is not seriously challenged) have suffered from poor reading comprehension and faulty reasoning.  Sorry to hear of your health struggles, My Brother.  Prayers and best wishes for all you love and for all who love you.

All the best,

-Ken

[SettingDogStar]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:48 PM, SouthernMo said:

Yes - this is important. I can’t speak for all faiths, but Mormonism teaches about a distinction between salvation and exaltation, and it seems other Christian faiths have a more binary view of the post-existence. 

I agree with this. Other faiths seem to only rely on the Atonement for the forgiveness of sins, which IMO is actually a result not the PURPOSE of the Sacrifice. If this was the case then we would all only get dropped into the Terrestrial Kingdom/Lower "levels" of the Celestial Worlds. However the Atonement is meant to CHANGE who we are and make us "perfect even as [our] Father in Heaven is perfect." In other faiths it would seem that the Atonement makes no real change, but just cleans us of sins and leaves us us with same sinful natures we left Earth with. Hopefully that made some sense haha 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

In other faiths it would seem that the Atonement makes no real change, but just cleans us of sins and leaves us us with same sinful natures we left Earth with.

I think you're attempting to describe the difference between justification and sanctification, which are certainly concepts that have a history in Christian thought generally.

[SettingDogStar]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you're attempting to describe the difference between justification and sanctification, which are certainly concepts that have a history in Christian thought generally.

I don't think I'm familiar with the definition the modern christian world uses for those words, or the relation they would have to each other in the average non-denominational church. Could you expand? Or point me to a source I could get some good info from?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Could you expand? Or point me to a source I could get some good info from?

You should probably Google and do some reading for yourself. The terms are understood differently depending on the background theology of the Christians using them. Justification is essentially the process by which we are covered by Christ’s righteousness so that we can be seen as clean. In my personal understanding, this is what allows me to pray, perform priesthood ordinances, enter the temple, etc. despite being imperfect. It’s also what allows God to bless me as if I were righteous when I’m really just desiring/trying to be. Sanctification is the process by which God actually changes our natures and makes us more like Him. 

[SettingDogStar]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You should probably Google and do some reading for yourself. The terms are understood differently depending on the background theology of the Christians using them. Justification is essentially the process by which we are covered by Christ’s righteousness so that we can be seen as clean. In my personal understanding, this is what allows me to pray, perform priesthood ordinances, enter the temple, etc. despite being imperfect. It’s also what allows God to bless me as if I were righteous when I’m really just desiring/trying to be. Sanctification is the process by which God actually changes our natures and makes us more like Him. 

I’ve attempted to google and pulled up a few websites talking about it. I just wasn’t sure if you had any good source material in mind I suppose. I love doing research on my own, but it does make it easier when I have some where to start. Im familiar with the definition Members of the Church use for those terms, so now I’m curious as to how differently other churches view them.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’ve attempted to google and pulled up a few websites talking about it. I just wasn’t sure if you had any good source material in mind I suppose. I love doing research on my own, but it does make it easier when I have some where to start. Im familiar with the definition Members of the Church use for those terms, so now I’m curious as to how differently other churches view them.

Good morning: This is the single best website I know for what the vast majority of evangelicals or Protestants would say about the terms justification and sanctification. R.C. Sproul is a well-respected evangelical scholar and he is in the mainstream of the evangelical community within Protestantism, which is by far the largest group therein. I hope you enjoy it. Please ask if you have any further questions. I should say was . . . he passed away a couple of years ago.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-are-justification-and-sanctification/

Edited October 11, 2018 by Navidad

[Anakin7]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good morning: This is the single best website I know for what the vast majority of evangelicals or Protestants would say about the terms justification and sanctification. R.C. Sproul is a well-respected evangelical scholar and he is in the mainstream of the evangelical community within Protestantism, which is by far the largest group therein. I hope you enjoy it. Please ask if you have any further questions. I should say was . . . he passed away a couple of years ago.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-are-justification-and-sanctification/

Thank you for sharing.

[SettingDogStar]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good morning: This is the single best website I know for what the vast majority of evangelicals or Protestants would say about the terms justification and sanctification. R.C. Sproul is a well-respected evangelical scholar and he is in the mainstream of the evangelical community within Protestantism, which is by far the largest group therein. I hope you enjoy it. Please ask if you have any further questions. I should say was . . . he passed away a couple of years ago.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-are-justification-and-sanctification/

I appreciate the reference! It’s curious all the different ways different faiths view the Atonement and all its different facets and doctrines. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Anon the Great said:

This is a typical theologian promoting the doctrines of grace, justification, sanctification, and faith in the modern "penal substation" ideas, ever since it has been promoted since the 16th century.  Do we want to feel good about ourselves?  Or do we want to know the truth?  The problem is the theologians, such as this man, change the view of the cross to what it is today.  Paul said the gospel is the "power of salvation".  Where is the word "power" in this man's view of the atonement?  Where did the word atonement come from?   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor

But see. the theologians have screwed up the atonement so much, it is a theory, and not a truth anymore.  Why don't we just go with what the first Christians believed?  Because someone has spent 400 years promoting the lie from the top, and they do not want to teach the truth.  Christians are not even taught the origins of the word at-one-ment.  The theologian Tyndale created it out of thin air and then inserted in into the Bible. It means we as mortals can be "one" with God in the flesh.  It is a false assumption.  We cannot be "one" with God until after Satan, or the evil one created in us, is removed from our spirits and we are translated or resurrected.  This is only one of ten thousand false paradigms that twist the true meaning of the Bible. 

Thank God we have the original Greek and Hebrew meanings to find the actual truth by our study and faith. The theologians  learn about these facts because they go to school for years.  But guess what, they don't tell us and keep the knowledge to themselves among the "theologian circles".  The word atonement used in the Old Testament means covering. Tyndale created a new word because the English did not have a word to explain the "modern" ideas the "church" had grown into believing, as he translated the Bible into English..  Now everyone on earth expects to be "one" with God as mortals, when such is impossible to do.  He is holy and eternal, and we are inside mortal fallen flesh.  So one word misleads everyone.  Don't misunderstand me.  We will be one with God when we are resurrected.  Be we cannot be one with Him as mortals.  He is separate from us, and He uses the word "holy" quite a bit to remind us mortals of that  truth, that He is separate from us--Holy..  This is not in a mean way,  as the theologians babble about sin and being "cut off" from the presence of God.  This is nonsense. We are here for the purpose to know good and evil as we walk in the light.  

Hello my friend. I assume you mean "penal substitution" not penal substation - I have never heard of that. Penal substitution is one of three of four means of explaining the atonement (justification) throughout church history. Tyndale was not a theologian per se. He was a linguist, who constantly worked with different theologians at his side, whether he was in England or in the Netherlands or Germany. He did on occasion pastor in small churches, but he never claimed to be a theologian, nor is he looked at that way. He was a brilliant linguist. He did not make up the word atonement. It existed hundreds of years earlier in a very similar form in what is known as middle English, a language he was proficient in,  and is of no doubt Latin origin, also a language in which he was proficient.  Since he was writing in English, he used it in place of the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) words for the same concept, as is always done in translating anything.  Certainly Joseph Smith did the same in translating the ancient language of the Book of Mormon into English. In fact he used the word atonement or its derivative 39 times in the Book of Mormon. If you would like to review the meanings of Hebrew or Greek words in the respective testaments to validate your point, I would be happy to discuss those with you on this forum. I knew R.C. Sproul and can tell you he never minimized the power, the importance of the cross, or the victory of the resurrection. No one who I know in theological circles believes that the atonement means we are one with God.  Take care.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I appreciate the reference! It’s curious all the different ways different faiths view the Atonement and all its different facets and doctrines. 

Yes, some of it is more related to semantic games than anything else. One focuses on one aspect more than another and it sounds like they disagree more than they really do. One thing you can count on, we are all pro-atonement - we are all for it and the grace with which it covers (the Hebrew term) our sins! best to you

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, Anon the Great said:

You know I mean "penal substitution" and made a mistake.  So why do you bring a mistake to everyone's attention, and pretend you do not know what I mean and play stupid?  Friends don't do that, so why do you call me your friend, when you don't act like one. Friends would say a mistake was made, but not play stupid about it, claiming you had never heard of it before to make you look smart and me look dumb.  My mind goes 1000 times faster than my fingers, and I missed the mistake.  It is always the same.  Posters pick out a mistake, and build the post around it.  Others might not catch the mistake, but you knew what I was saying.     I also clearly wrote I am not attacking the love of God in Jesus, but I am attacking the theology that was changed over time, which you are well aware of. Yes, there are different "theories" of the atonement, but the question is asked, "What is wrong with the Atonement?", for they are confused and seeking more information to know what it is, when the ancients never thought like that.  So, which "theory" do we believe, since the ancients scripture do not teach the atonement doctrine?  If this is proven true by the facts, then it means Joseph Smith was deceived and used a word that was made up and forced into the scripture and fools everyone because the ancients did not think like Tyndale.  The argument for the atonement in the Book of Mormon only makes sense if the ancients had the concept of "at-one-ment" in their heads, but they did not, and the Hebrew language proves it.  The confusion all goes back to the same problem.  The theologians teach the New Covenant is for mortals, and it is not.  The New Covenant is for immortals.

But please, don't tell me you are my friend unless you act like one.  Thank you.  This paradigm of the word atonement is new and modern, but the ancients understood the entire message of God was about power to overcome sin and darkness, and they did not believe in the magic wand of forgiveness that the penal substitution  idea teaches.   That said, before we begin our discussion of reason, do you disagree or agree with the link below I posted earlier of the apparent facts and the writer's claims and perspectives here:

http://www.pineknoll.org/references/2005/q1/atone.pdf

Actually I make many mistakes in my typing. I acknowledge that and now I see your perspective. I am sorry I offended you. That was not my intent. I was trying to think if the word substation had some meaning I didn't recognize and came to the conclusion it didn't I apologize for the offense.  I am somewhat new here, am not a Mormon, and am nervous about even posting. I read the article and the two websites that are attached to it. I searched in vain for a name I recognized or a bio of the founder and author of the article. I thought it (the article) was  a work that was trying to make a distinction without a difference. It is kind of like the millenial views - are you pre, post or amillenial? My attitude is I am pro-millenial - I am all for it.

[Maureen]

On 9/5/2018 at 10:49 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

3- The nature of Jesus Christ. (this is a big one IMO)- They believe that Jesus is literally the Father. As in they are different manifestations of the same person. They view Mormons as putting their faith in Jesus, who is not the same person as The Father, as believing in a different Jesus, who doesn't have the power to save.

I don't know if any other poster has mentioned this, but this statement is not true in how either Catholics or Protestants view the Trinity. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity and is NOT the Father. God is 3 persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each are distinct from each other. In mainstream Christianity Jesus is God, not created, and has always existed as God. He became incarnate as human, and in doing so brought about the salvation of humankind.

M.

[Anakin7]

4 hours ago, Maureen said:

I don't know if any other poster has mentioned this, but this statement is not true in how either Catholics or Protestants view the Trinity. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity and is NOT the Father. God is 3 persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each are distinct from each other. In mainstream Christianity Jesus is God, not created, and has always existed as God. He became incarnate as human, and in doing so brought about the salvation of humankind.

M.

    Thank you Maureen for sharing, we understand your statement on the trinity for it has been presented to us hundreds of times, We LDS believe in The True Godhead - or in scholastic terminology an Ancient, Monarch, Eastern, Economic, Social, Godhead, Trinity.  Do you believe that God The Son Christ Jesus was inside God The Father's mind as his Logos before time began ?. Thank you.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Maureen said:

I don't know if any other poster has mentioned this, but this statement is not true in how either Catholics or Protestants view the Trinity. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity and is NOT the Father. God is 3 persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each are distinct from each other. In mainstream Christianity Jesus is God, not created, and has always existed as God. He became incarnate as human, and in doing so brought about the salvation of humankind.

M.

Hi Maureen - What you said about Catholics and Protestants beliefs' is correct. However, I would suggest to you that discussing the trinity with LDS Christians will not get anyone anywhere. This is really a "thing" for them. They are inculturated as to what the trinity means to folks. They will readily tell you what you believe, how it is all creedal, the result of hellenizing (see corrupting) Christianity, and is a hallmark of the great apostasy. That we see it in scripture, even in the Book of Mormon will never be accepted by them. Railing against the trinity goes back to the Pratt brothers and continues into the present. It is truly unique how the LDS Christians are so creedal-centric; ironically far more than I am. I have tried and tried to explain that the vast majority of Protestants and especially evangelicals are not creedal, don't know the creeds, and don't care about the creeds, but it is like banging my head against the wall. They are conditioned from somewhere to believe something else. It is not so much a doctrinal debate - those I enjoy. It is a absolute belief in where and how we got our trinitarian beliefs and that it is all corrupting and part of the reason for the restoration needed for the Christian church. I certainly don't disagree that there was a need for a restoration, but that work began centuries ago and is not unique to, or limited to the LDS Christians.

[Anakin7]

    True LDS Doctrine, Teaching, Thought, Practice, Walk, Run, Journey is that we believe in the True Christian Biblical Godhead, An Ancient, Monarch, Eastern,  Economic, Essential, Social Godhead Trinity. 

The Atonement It is the Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Rivers]

The third Article of Faith

”We believe that through the [A]tonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

This is probably where baptists would disagree with us the most.  It’s not the atonement itself but how we access the the atonement’s saving power.