What’s the best Atonement theory?

[Stargazer]

Oops. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 1/20/2021 at 2:49 PM, echelon said:

The crucifixion is part of the atonement.  Suffering on the cross was the final piece to understanding our infirmities which began in Gethsemane. 

I do understand what you're saying, and I don't wish to disagree very strongly, but I tend to believe that the being who created the Earth at the command of the Father, even though he had not yet been incarnated himself, could easily understand our infirmities well before his birth and before Gethsemane. This is because he could see everything far deeper than we could. There is a saying, "Don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes", but the sentiment pertains to us mortals, not to the Godhead or any member of the Godhead, either before or after the crucifixion.

On 1/20/2021 at 2:49 PM, echelon said:

This also sparks an interesting question, which do you think caused more suffering, the price of sin? or the price of understanding ALL our infirmities (including suffering on the cross)?  The recorded experience in Gethsemane does not differentiate between the 2.  In both cases Christ suffered, one to satisfy justice and the other to understand us. Though it seems to me that all the physical, mental, emotional suffering we go through as a product of our mortal experience occurs more often than the suffering we go through as a result of sin. (Assuming that the price for sin is limited to only those committed in the mortal world)

I definitely sympathize with your point of view. However, I feel that he did not need to be crucified in order to understand us. But his outward suffering of a physical torment does help US understand him, at least a little bit. And so we can't confront him with the silly sentiment: "You don't know what it's like!" Because we saw that he experienced what he experienced and could relate to it.

[Stargazer]

On 1/19/2021 at 5:55 PM, The Nehor said:

I’m not young anymore. I am just juvenile.

Well, you're hardly alone in that!  

[Stargazer]

On 1/19/2021 at 5:23 PM, bluebell said:

Perhaps I would find merit in it.  Do any of the current apostles and prophets teach or espouse his Atonement theory (sincere question)? 

I'm pretty sure that's a No. I've never heard it, anyway.

On 1/19/2021 at 5:23 PM, bluebell said:

Are there reasons to assume that gaining a testimony of Skousen's theory is necessary for my spiritual development?  

Again, no. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that one might gain a testimony of his theory -- it's not something that I would bear testimony of, in other words. I might bear my witness that Christ atoned for our sins, and perhaps offer scriptural foundation for this, but as for Skousen's theory, it rests on the scriptures, not Skousen. I think you understand this, but I just wanted to be clear.

On 1/19/2021 at 5:23 PM, bluebell said:

I've got a lot on my plate as it is and already have courses in scripture study in my day.  What are the arguments for giving Skousen's opinions a part of that time?

 

Personally, it gave me a much deeper appreciation of the Atonement than I had had prior to investigating it.  I am not saying that it is the only way to achieve this.  Just studying the Atonement and praying for a deeper understanding of it will give any sincere investigator of the Gospel a leg up on understanding. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit that will enlighten one's understanding on this topic.

When it comes to degree of effort in connection with this "Skousen Theory", as it were, it didn't think it was that hard of a slog, actually. Almost everything that Skousen cited is canonized scripture. The one thing I remember him citing that wasn't scripture was in the History of the Church, if I remember correctly.

Keep in mind that as a remarkably well-studied scriptorian Cleon Skousen had a lot of opinions. It is certain that not all of his opinions are to be taken as Gospel, as it were.

I recall a story told of Joseph Fielding Smith, that when Skousen's The First Two Thousand Years was first published, as someone recognized somewhat as a doctrinal master Elder Smith was asked his impression of the book. He responded that as he had read the book, he had marked his impressions using a code. Most sections or paragraphs he marked with the letters "SD", meaning "Sound Doctrine". A few sections he marked with an ambivalent "PO", meaning "Personal Opinion". And very occasionally he marked a section with the letters "BS", meaning "Brother Skousen".

There are members of the Church who seem to worship the ground Brother Skousen walked upon. There are other members of the Church who curse that same ground. As for me, his writings have been a great benefit, but he's like many others, a sincere student of the Gospel who makes an honest attempt to teach the Gospel as he understands it. Most times, he knocks it out of the park. Occasionally, he manages a good base hit. And here and there he swings and misses. I feel that in this case of understanding the Atonement, he hit a home run. But your mileage may differ.

OK, have I mixed enough metaphors for today?

[Stargazer]

On 1/19/2021 at 6:13 PM, Tacenda said:

Yeah, a juvenile delinquent! 🤭😉

LOL!

[Stargazer]

On 1/20/2021 at 3:27 PM, bluebell said:

Does all suffering come from the Fall? 

Not directly. Much like falling off a cliff, the fall itself doesn't hurt a bit, but that sudden stop at the end... well, that's a different story!

Sorry, couldn't resist your straight line -- but I think the reality is that the Fall made it possible for us to suffer, but didn't directly cause it. The suffering in mortal life comes from three sources:

• unearned events, or things that happen to you that you don't control, like a bird pooping on your head, an earthquake shaking the ground at your feet, or more positively, finding gold on your land
• earned events, or things that happen to you because you chose one thing over another, such as an impecunious life caused by choosing Library Science over Computer Science as a career, and
• sinful acts, which frequently have their own unpleasant consequences that lead to suffering, even if nobody catches you doing them

Quote

Perhaps that's why He had to suffer for our infirmities, not only for justice for sins but to redeem us from all of the effects of the Fall.

I think that outside of justice for sins, the only other effect of the Fall that He redeemed us from was physical death.

But I wouldn't present that as an absolute; for all I know, there were other, perhaps less well-advertised effects, that I'm unaware of.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 1/14/2021 at 9:38 PM, rongo said:

I think the only one that explains the how and why is Skousen's. Heads explode over that, but no one (including general authorities) has ever explained the how and why, especially in light of the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP. 

I forgot that Skousen's talk on this was available on YouTube, but just now remembered. I went looking for it, and I thought that it was available as a full video of him giving the talk to a conference of missionaries in Texas, but that's either been taken down, or just doesn't come up in the search. I found this one, which just shows a portrait of Skousen while the 1 hr 19 minute long talk plays. @bluebell, this might be of benefit to you in deciding whether to investigate this "theory" further.  This is entertaining as well as informative, IMHO.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 1/20/2021 at 11:15 PM, bluebell said:

They don't seem to really apply as we've gotten used to defining them.  God has a physical body so He isn't actually omnipresent in a literal sense.  He is bound by laws so He's not exactly omnipotent in a literal sense.  It wouldn't be surprising if He's not exactly omniscient in a literal sense either. 

Though in exactly what sense He is omniscient I don't know.  That seems to be the difficult omni to figure out.

I have a basis in science, and computing, and for quite some time it was hard for me to visualize this omniscience. Starting with and most especially given the utterly incomprehensibly enormous size of the Universe. We're talking billions and probably trillions of galaxies, each with billions and possibly trillions of stars, each with thousands and possibly millions of bodies, including planets, dwarf planets, moons, comets, asteroids, and other smaller and smaller bodies. And then drill down to just this earth. It's 4.5 billion years old, and life has existed here since about 4.4 billion years ago, just after the oceans began to form. You think there are lot of humans on the planet right now, something like 7 billion of us, which is a lot, but consider how many individual lifeforms have ever lived on this planet, from the very first one-celled plant or animal, all the way up to blue whales (the largest single animal which has ever existed here). You cannot conceive of it. And then expand to every habitable planet in the Universe, and all the plants and animals which have ever, or will ever exist on ALL of them, from the beginning not terribly long after the Big Bang all the way to the heat death of universe, quadrillions of years hence.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, if you think you understand the enormity of the universe and the extent of all of God's creations, then you don't understand it.

So how can God possibly know about every single bit of it, as enormous as it is?  This had me flummoxed for a time.  I've written data processing programs that deal with large numbers of records, and in order to keep all that data in a database requires a large amount of data storage and memory.  I quailed at the impossibility of God being able to know where single every thing or particle of His universe was at all times, what condition it was in, and how each and every thing therein related to every other thing. As far as I could see, this was an utter impossibility, even for God. 

If God had a computer system capable of keeping track of all that matter and energy, from Year Zero to Year Infinity, he would have to have a computer system that was as large as the Universe, impossible in itself already, and it would have to have a hard drive that could hold a googolplex of data points for every nanosecond of the Universe's existence.  At a minimum.

Have you ever heard of the number "googolplex"? Look it up HERE. It is triply incomprehensibly large, and so large that if every single elementary particle in the Universe were to be used to represent every zero in the decimal form of the number, you would still run out of subatomic particles before you could ever finish representing it, even once. And you'd have to have a googolplex times googolplex bytes of data on that hard drive in order to come even remotely close to being able to accurately represent the Universe. And that much processing power would have to exceed the size of the Universe a googolplex number of times.

Pack a lunch. You'll be at it for a Very. Long. Time.

Well, this assailed my faith a bit, I have to tell you.  But the solution eventually occurred to me. 

It is a fact that God does not exist inside the Universe. This should be evident from the Big Bang.  When the Big Bang occurred, from Nothing suddenly all the mass and energy in the Universe showed up, all at the same point, all in the same nanosecond, and began to expand to create Space and Time. If God were in the Universe, it would have to be the case that He created Himself, because before the Universe existed (before the Big Bang) there was Nothing, not even God. But God does not create Himself - it is an absurdity to believe that He did. There are no mathematics nor physics that can explain what is outside the Universe. Some like to think of multiverses, or Universes outside of this one, but even to think that requires that there is something outside of any universe. Not even quantum physicists can explain it; Stephen Hawking had a shot, maybe, but even he miffed it. Anyway, if God is outside of the Universe, then He is outside of both Space and Time. And being outside of Space and Time, having created the Universe, He sees the entire Universe from the moment of its creation to the end of its destiny.  In short, for God the Universe itself, with all its Time and Space, is the computer and the database that represents it. Problem solved.

Imagine it this way. Consider the author of a well-written Novel. One of my favorites is Tom Clancy's Without Remorse. It tells the story of a former Navy SEAL who falls in love, has his girlfriend murdered by a drug gang, and himself seriously injured, and then he spends the rest of the novel getting revenge on every last member of it. It's quite gripping.  In the universe of the novel, the main character John Kelly goes from a hospitalized man who has just discovered his girlfriend has been brutally murdered, to a recovering convalescent, to a quietly investigating intelligence operative looking for the gang and its members, to an avenging angel tracking down and killing the gang members one or two at a time, until he finally knocks off the leader of the gang and his few remaining thugs. Spoiler alert.

Well, in the universe of the novel, Tom Clancy is god. He existed outside of the novel, in fact he existed before the novel was even conceived. Having written the novel, and holding a copy of the book in his hand, he knows every single detail and every single event from beginning to end, and every single character in the novel, both major and minor. Meanwhile, John Kelly, the main protagonist, starts out meeting the girl, falls in love with her, suffers her brutal loss, and experiences every event in the novel in the order and in the manner that it is portrayed in the novel. At any given moment, he only knows what has happened so far, and what he plans to do next -- as does every other character in the book. There are characters in the novel that John Kelly doesn't know, and many who don't know him, but all of them have an effect on every other of them. It is quite complex, including a series of sub-events in which Kelly goes off briefly to Viet-Nam to carry out a mission unrelated to his self-imposed mission of vengeance. But regardless of what Kelly and every character in the novel knows at any given moment during the events of the novel, the author Tom Clancy knows everything at every time. He is the Omniscient Author.

Just as our God is the Omniscient Creator.

I don't know if this helps you at all, but I thought I would give it a shot.

[RBoylan]

On 1/14/2021 at 9:28 PM, Rivers said:

I just finished reading All Things New by Fiona and Terryl Givens.  https://deseretbook.com/p/all-things-new-rethinking-sin-salvation-and-everything-in-between?variant_id=190826-paperback

 

 

The book contains a chapter on the Atonement.  They dismantle the ransom and penal substitution theories.  However they don’t, to my satisfaction, fully explain their own theory as to how the Atonement actually works.

 Is there a perfect theory or do we chalk it up to being incomprehensible to human understanding?

 

Sorry for coming to late to this.

 

I am a huge fan of Terryl, but I find his understanding of the atonement in this book and The Christ Who Heals to be rather weak. In my forthcoming book, “Do This in Memory of Me”: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass, I have an appendix where I go into detail on the atonement, including defending there being a propitiatory aspect of Christ's work of atonement, something downplayed or rejected by Givens and even my friend Blake Ostler. The book should be out later this year (currently at 121,000 words). I also go into some detail into the nature of Christ's intercessory work and other things.

Edited January 31, 2021 by RBoylan

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, RBoylan said:

Sorry for coming to late to this.

 

I am a huge fan of Terryl, but I find his understanding of the atonement in this book and The Christ Who Heals to be rather weak. In my forthcoming book, “Do This in Memory of Me”: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass, I have an appendix where I go into detail on the atonement, including defending there being a propitiatory aspect of Christ's work of atonement, something downplayed or rejected by Givens and even my friend Blake Ostler. The book should be out later this year (currently at 121,000 words). I also go into some detail into the nature of Christ's intercessory work and other things.

Isn’t one of the primary reasons why the atonement was necessary is because God couldn’t ask his sons and daughters to voluntarily fall into a pit of near hell like conditions without setting the example and being willing  to get into the trenches with us and heroically lead us into battle? I believe one of the main reasons we were willing to accept God’s plan of salvation, and not Lucifer’s, is due to the fact that we clearly understood he was willing to descend into the degradation of the fallen state with us and take on the worst of it by suffering infinitely and eternally more than any of us are required to do. Simply put, he’s a God who doesn’t just say “do what I tell you to do” but says “I will suffer with you so that we all might learn how to overcome the fallen state and be glorified together.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/21/2021 at 11:17 AM, mfbukowski said:

There was no transfer of sin- that removes responsibility for sin and causes folks like Martin Luther to say "sin boldly" because consequences of sin has been removed from "believers"

What is transferred is guilt through putting ourselves in Christ's place, while he felt the weight of every pain, mental illness, guilt of every sinner, and all victims of sin and all human pain, all at once, through his infinite empathy.

And so when we believe that he did that for us, our empathy responds to that emotional force reaching out to us and decreases our desire to sin and makes us want to reverse the pain we caused him, by repenting and thereby reversing and accepting our own portion of the guilt, and at the same time eliminating the guilt insofar as we are able 

 But to be saved from this guilt we must believe that he did this for us.

Note that what I said above is essentially Skousen's theory without all the quasi-science about intelligent particles- BUT that does not mean he is wrong to include that. 

I agree that spirit affects matter in many ways- because spirit IS matter.   We are after all materialists in that sense, but do not at this time need a scientific theory about that, yet perhaps we have the start of how that works.  Quantum entanglement may be one example of this phenomenon https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

That is partially perhaps part of the "empathy" required by Skousen's article, that all intelligences respond to the sufferings of Christ.   If we have empathy, it makes perfect sense that all intelligences respond to the notion of Jesus taking upon himself all the pains and sins of mankind once that is understood and believed that it actually happened.  The belief that is generated by that empathy helps us realize that our guilt for sin- the real "weight" of sin- was eliminated by what Christ was willing to do for us.  

That is partially perhaps part of the "empathy" required by Skousen's article, that all intelligences respond to the sufferings of Christ.   

For me the notion that one person could undergo punishment for another and thereby pay for the crime of another makes no sense.  However infinite LOVE and infinite empathy produced by understanding what Jesus went through CAN create 

The other aspect of his theory is the creation by the word- which I have also discussed- The Word created all things, we know that from John1.  Of course that can be taken two ways- the Word was Christ- our creator Jehovah -but I believe that that of Logos also includes the idea that definitions make things "real" to us

If something is unspeakable we cannot discuss it.  Fairly obvious, right?   We have no words for it- and in a sense it does not "exist" because we cannot speak about it or share information about it  There literally are no words for it.

There can be nothing discussable without language!  Of course!  How can some "Thing"  be a thing if it is not a describable "Thing"?

Think of an unnamed species.

   What ARE they? Fish? Fowl? Some kind of bear? Some kind of single celled animal?  How do we describe it without words?

If they are not classified by science there is no way to define one species from another- effectively the "species" does not exist.

And so The Word gives a command- "Let there be light" and the elements obey because somehow they "recognize" what is happening and who gave the command- perhaps not unlike the way quantum entanglement works.

But that science does not YET exist- but the idea that a "species" cannot "exist" until it is named by The Word - ie the definition of that species by it's proper classification in words- is simply a logical point which has been understood in philosophy over hundreds if not thousands of years.

If a tree falls in the wilderness does it make a "sound"?   

That question is at the crux of the idea that reality is created by THE WORD.   If what happens qualifies as "sound" it is because someone heard it and can tell you what time it happened, where it happened, etc- THEN it was a definable event and clearly "existed".

But without the definition of the event- effectively it does not exist!  And so God "calls" light into existence by saying - THIS stuff is now defined as "light".  And it is so!

So here we have the elements of what Skousen is talking about, that the Lord gives a command and reality responds.  THAT is true creation by The Word of Jehovah.

 In a small way we also create reality by the word in making a definition and then discussing that thing we defined/created using science.

The second element is that the atonement is defined by love and empathy, to which all intelligence responds.   The guilt goes away when we realize what Christ did for us

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Simply put, he’s a God who doesn’t just say “do what I tell you to do” but says “I will suffer with you so that we all might learn how to overcome the fallen state and be glorified together.

YES!  THAT is the empathy!  Brilliantly said!

It is also why it was necessary that The Christ be an embodied human and remain embodied forever, as we hope to do

I just say it funny.  You say it very gooder. 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For me the notion that one person could undergo punishment for another and thereby pay for the crime of another makes no sense.

Yes. When I first read about Skousen's "theory" that's what I thought he was describing, but it became clear that this was not the case. It only seems that way if one doesn't think it through.

Christ doesn't actually pay for the crime of another. He pays "the price" of sin, just as everyone who does not repent will have to pay, but the difference is this: he doesn't owe the price, since he never sinned. The plain truth is that you cannot pay for any sin but your own. Christ's payment, because he does not owe it, puts him in a different category from everyone else. When the Book of Mormon calls his atonement "infinite" that's exactly what this means.

Alma 34:10 - "For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice."

What makes it an "eternal sacrifice" is that it is the sacrifice of a God.

DC 19:10-12 - "[10] For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore— [11] Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. [12] Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

And what makes it an "infinite sacrifice" is this: it is the sacrifice of a God (because infinity is endless and eternal as well). What also makes it infinite is this: paying for what is not owed is "dividing by zero". Yes, in terms of actual mathematics this operation is "undefined" (and therefore disallowed), but it also makes clear the ineffable indescribability of the atonement.

If Christ paid the price of sin for every repentant sinner that Father was Father to, his sacrifice would be less than infinite, simply because it would be additive and therefore finite, not infinite. This is because Father doesn't have an infinite number of children who repent. He has an extremely large number, sure, but not an infinite number. So the "infinite sacrifice" of Jesus Christ does not mean that he pays for each and every repentant sinner. He pays only one price, and that is "the price". But this affords him the right to pick and choose who will benefit from his atonement, and he chooses all who will repent.

I write about this semi-extensively in an essay I published on my personal website/wiki: The Mathematics of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and in its companion essay: The Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

Can anyone explain why sin, my misdeeds, creates a "price" that somehow the universe or some person must pay?

Can anyone explain that?

Frankly all I can understand is by empathy, if I hurt someone, I feel bad and want to remove the pain I caused that person.

It's a psychological phenomenon, and the best I can do is to stop doing it, and make retribution so I feel better.

But I can't really remove it from ever happening.

BELIEF that somehow someone made it better through non-understandable means makes ME feel better.

But that's ok.  It actually works as a remedy. It's good for us to believe that.  It is healing, and that is the great attribute of the Savior, isn't it?

But first we must believe with all our hearts.

That would be a pragmatic atonement.  It is faith-based healing which "really works".  It is like the placebo effect.

THAT is a theory which could stand up to science.

 But like all else, When you start having the savior reply to your prayers, and you know for certain Someone is there, it all changes.

THAT is when you KNOW that present science  does not have all the answers

Edited February 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can anyone explain why sin, my misdeeds, creates a "price" that somehow the universe or some person must pay?

Can anyone explain that?

I started a whole thread on that very topic a few days ago. 
There may be some possible explanations there.

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can anyone explain why sin, my misdeeds, creates a "price" that somehow the universe or some person must pay?

Can anyone explain that?

In a nutshell, under the Skousen theory, it isn't a matter of "paying a price." It's a matter of convincing the intelligences to accept imperfect, tainted higher intelligences being allowed in God's presence. What Jesus had to go through to achieve this can be considered a "price," but it's not really transactional. Jesus has to bring about "the bowels of mercy" through His unjust suffering during His life, in the Garden, and on the Cross to make this possible. 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can anyone explain why sin, my misdeeds, creates a "price" that somehow the universe or some person must pay?

Can anyone explain that?

Sure, I can.  And I bet you could too if you put some more thought into the question while asking for some help from our Father in heaven.

The word "price" refers to the "cost" of something and is limited to only what the market can bear, and the "market" includes anyone who is seriously interested in obtaining whatever the "something" is that the "price" and "cost" refer to.  In this case that "something" for the one(s) who obtain(s) it is a clean conscience void of any guilt from making bad (sinful) choices and personal knowledge that those sins have been paid for and a personal cost is no longer due.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Frankly all I can understand is by empathy, if I hurt someone, I feel bad and want to remove the pain I caused that person.

It's a psychological phenomenon, and the best I can do is to stop doing it, and make retribution so I feel better.

But I can't really remove it from ever happening.

God doesn't really remove it from ever happening either.  He just lets us know we are off the hook from any more negative consequences from making bad (sinful) choices after we have accepted what it takes to pay the price for our bad choices.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

BELIEF that somehow someone made it better through non-understandable means makes ME feel better.

Interesting.  I feel better by understanding how my bad choices were paid for, mainly because I know who to thank for paying that price. 

Otherwise I would be like:  What? How? Who did it? Why should I think I am no longer accountable for my own bad (sinful) choices?  It just wouldn't make sense to me if I didn't understand how that could happen.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But that's ok.  It actually works as a remedy. It's good for us to believe that.  It is healing, and that is the great attribute of the Savior, isn't it?

But first we must believe with all our hearts.

That would be a pragmatic atonement.  It is faith-based healing which "really works".  It is like the placebo effect.

A placebo that made someone feel like they no longer needed to pay/suffer any negative consequences for making bad (sinful) choices when in reality they did would not be a good thing.  Or would it?  Hmmmm.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is a theory which could stand up to science.

 But like all else, When you start having the savior reply to your prayers, and you know for certain Someone is there, it all changes.

THAT is when you KNOW that present science  does not have all the answers

Science is a discipline and method of discovery, and there is really nothing wrong with it.  The problems come only when people are irrational about it.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I started a whole thread on that very topic a few days ago. 
There may be some possible explanations there.

Huh? You mean HERE?

Yes I am aware this thread exists an so far I see no answers that work fo me except for the Skousen theory which is partially acceptable, and my version of which I have accepted long before I heard the Skousen story, as I have already posted.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

In a nutshell, under the Skousen theory, it isn't a matter of "paying a price." It's a matter of convincing the intelligences to accept imperfect, tainted higher intelligences being allowed in God's presence. What Jesus had to go through to achieve this can be considered a "price," but it's not really transactional. Jesus has to bring about "the bowels of mercy" through His unjust suffering during His life, in the Garden, and on the Cross to make this possible. 

Yes the notion of convincing others is basic also to my view.

I believe that happens through empathy for the pain we caused them through sin and the subsequent desire for that guilt to disappear.

That is the function of the story of his Agony in the garden and cross.

All intelligences respond to that emotion

Edited February 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Can anyone explain why sin, my misdeeds, creates a "price" that somehow the universe or some person must pay?

I think the answer to that is not yet available. You're asking for "Why", when "why" isn't important now.

I'm not saying that there is no answer, or that an answer doesn't really matter, but we just haven't been told what it is. I've not seen it. I don't think anyone else has, either. Or at least, if they have, they're not permitted to give it out. Probably because it doesn't matter to us at this stage in our existence, and it might be a milk before meat kind of thing. Maybe with much fasting, prayer and pondering the scriptures you will eventually find the answer. But I bet you'll be asked to keep it to yourself, if you do.

So my answer is: there is no why. Justice is its own justification. Without it, all falls down.

But it's still fun to speculate.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh? You mean HERE?

No, there's another one on a similar topic.

 

[2BizE]

I find it intriguing that there are many differing theories and concepts around the atonement.  I’m sure the story of the atonement has evolved since it was first developed after the death of Christ.

Edited February 2, 2021 by 2BizE

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I find it intriguing that there are many differing theories and concepts around the atonement.

Is light a wave or a particle?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think the answer to that is not yet available. You're asking for "Why", when "why" isn't important now.

I'm not saying that there is no answer, or that an answer doesn't really matter, but we just haven't been told what it is. I've not seen it. I don't think anyone else has, either. Or at least, if they have, they're not permitted to give it out. Probably because it doesn't matter to us at this stage in our existence, and it might be a milk before meat kind of thing. Maybe with much fasting, prayer and pondering the scriptures you will eventually find the answer. But I bet you'll be asked to keep it to yourself, if you do.

So my answer is: there is no why. Justice is its own justification. Without it, all falls down.

But it's still fun to speculate.

Yes you are right.   I meant it in the sense of "how".

But that also doesn't really make sense, imo.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

In this case that "something" for the one(s) who obtain(s) it is a clean conscience void of any guilt from making bad (sinful) choices and personal knowledge that those sins have been paid for and a personal cost is no longer due.

Yes that is what I said.

It's psychological guilt.  It is removed by empathy considering what Christ went through for us, and belief that He did.   That is why we are saved first by faith/belief in Christ and then "after all we can do" we are saved by grace.

All intelligences share in that empathy- that's what Skousen says.

The money analogy doesn't make sense anymore.

Just to make it clear, I answered you because I have no argument with what you said.  I refuse to argue with you anymore.