What’s the best Atonement theory?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

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.

I suppose you think that is relevant?

Why?

History is never relevant to the meaning of scripture.   This is not scientific observation- the process and purpose of spirituality is entirely different.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that is what I said.

Good.  I was just trying to be clear about what the price for that was.

Quote

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.

Okay, I can see how we can empathize with Jesus Christ after accepting the fact that he paid the price for our sins, and how he must have had empathy for us and our situation which caused him to do what he could do to help/save us.  I would say that first we are saved by what Christ did for us and then we are saved by accepting what he did, rather than making it appear as if our salvation is first dependent on how we respond to what Christ did.   

Quote

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

If they are saved, I suppose he meant.  People who are not saved likely don't empathize with what Christ went through to save/help us, which I suppose means they are not intelligent or not very intelligent.

Quote

The money analogy doesn't make sense anymore.

Did it ever?  I don't think there could ever be enough money to pay the price for all of our sins, or even only the sins of only one person.

Quote

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

That is probably a good choice for you to stick to, although I think we could probably have some good arguments that might benefit both of us.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Ahab

[Ahab]

On 1/31/2021 at 6:03 AM, teddyaware said:

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.

That is an intriguing perspective, but I think our Savior was simply focused on doing whatever our Father told him to do, regardless of whether or not anyone else was willing to obey our Father.  And because our Father wanted to help us, he wanted to help us too.

In all things and in all the ways he could he simply wanted to be like our Father and do only what our Father wanted him to do.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

That is an intriguing perspective, but I think our Savior was simply focused on doing whatever our Father told him to do, regardless of whether or not anyone else was willing to obey our Father.  And because our Father wanted to help us, he wanted to help us too.

In all things and in all the ways he could he simply wanted to be like our Father and do only what our Father wanted him to do.

My focus was on the spirit sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father who were likely much more willing to engage with the trials, vicissitudes and extreme tragedies of mortality if they knew that their God was willing to get down into the trenches of the fallen state with them and take the worst of it.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

My focus was on the spirit sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father who were likely much more willing to engage with the trials, vicissitudes and extreme tragedies of mortality if they knew that their God was willing to get down into the trenches of the fallen state with them and take the worst of it.

... but without committing any sin or violating any of his/our Father's commandments.  That is the only way I consider any of us to get ourselves into any "trenches".  Otherwise we're just mortal for a little while, which is no big deal.

[teddyaware]

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... but without committing any sin or violating any of his/our Father's commandments.  That is the only way I consider any of us to get ourselves into any "trenches".  Otherwise we're just mortal for a little while, which is no big deal.

I guess you missed the part in the Lectures on Faith where the prophet Joseph Smith testifies that Christ had far greater trials and temptations while in the fallen state than anyone else who ever lived? In addition, he suffered the exquisite agonies of total alienation from the presence of God that can only be experienced by the sons of perdition. His suffering for our sins was so great that it was infinite and eternal in length, width and depth as he descended in spiritual, emotional and physical sorrow “below all things.”

Are you saying Christ had an easier time in this fallen state than any of the rest of us?

Edited February 2, 2021 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you missed the part in the Lectures on Faith where the prophet Joseph Smith testifies that Christ had far greater trials and temptations while in the fallen state than anyone else who ever lived? In addition, he suffered the exquisite agonies of total alienation from the presence of God that can only be experienced by the sons of perdition. His suffering for our sins was so great that it was infinite and eternal in length, width and depth as he descended in spiritual, emotional and physical sorrow “below all things.”

Are you saying Christ had an easier time in this fallen state than any of the rest of us?

Until the very moment when he felt all of our pain from all of our guilt from all of our violations of all of the laws and commandments of God we violated, yes, it was a cake walk... like walking on water... for him.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

violated, yes, it was a cake walk... like walking on water... for him.

I disagree. He had the option none of the rest of us had imo, which was removing himself from his trials, saving his loved ones from having troubles. And he withheld his interference to allow himself to fulfill his own mission and they fulfill theirs. 
 

Standing by and watching someone suffer knowing you can stop their pain and not acting is not a cake walk at all, especially not for someone so fully empathetic as he likely was. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree. He had the option none of the rest of us had imo, which was removing himself from his trials, saving his loved ones from having troubles. And he withheld his interference to allow himself to fulfill his own mission and they fulfill theirs. 
 

Standing by and watching someone suffer knowing you can stop their pain and not acting is not a cake walk at all, especially not for someone so fully empathetic as he likely was. 

Actually, when you can empathize with others during all they go through, as he did and does and still is able to do, you can not remove yourself from the trials others go through while you are empathizing with them.  He still sees everything and is always near.

But he knows he can not choose for others what they needs to choose for themselves to do.  He will not take over our mind or our body if we choose to go with another option.

So if you want to try to imagine how Jesus felt when he was tempted in every way we have been tempted and will ever be tempted, and yet did not give in to any temptation, then think about how you feel when you overcome your temptations.

He was always victorious over every temptation he ever felt or has ever seen anyone suffer, and yet he never gave in to any temptation.  Not even once. And he never will give in to any temptation. I like it when I feel as Jesus felt when he overcame a temptation.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would say that first we are saved by what Christ did for us and then we are saved by accepting what he did, rather than making it appear as if our salvation is first dependent on how we respond to what Christ did. 

That doesn't work logically.  What he did is "just a story" until we believe he actually did it for us.   First comes belief.  John 3:16 and all the other scrips that say that.

  You have it backwards

If you don't believe we might as well be talking about what Thor supposedly did for us  (picked a random name of an alleged god figure)

 

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That doesn't work logically.  What he did is "just a story" until we believe he actually did it for us.   First comes belief.  John 3:16 and all the other scrips that say that.

  You have it backwards

If you don't believe we might as well be talking about what Thor supposedly did for us  (picked a random name of an alleged god figure)

 

He did it, first, then we are told about what he did.  Or, if we had lived before he did it, we were told about what he would do.  And then we choose whether or not to believe it.

I don't think I am the one who has it backwards.  I came to this planet as a mortal after he did it.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Until the very moment when he felt all of our pain from all of our guilt from all of our violations of all of the laws and commandments of God we violated, yes, it was a cake walk... like walking on water... for him.

To imagine that Christ wouldn’t have been severely tried and tested in the refine’s fire throughout his life, in preparation for the great challenges of his ministry and the extreme demands required of him to triumphantly endure the infinite and eternal agonies of his atoning sacrifice, indicates to me you don’t understand Christ’s humanity and how it was absolutely necessary for him to pass trough many sore trials, just like all humans do, in order to develop deep compassion and insightful empathy. When you meet the Savior one day, tell him you know his life was an easy peasy “cake walk” prior to his atoning sacrifice and be humbled to the dust by his response. There’s no way our Lord could have waded through the unimaginable agonies of his atoning sacrifice, in order to perfectly satisfy the strict demands of divine justice, if he wasn’t already a compassionate man of great sorrows and well aquatinted with grief. 

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

To imagine that Christ wouldn’t have been severely tried and tested in the refine’s fire throughout his life, in preparation for the great challenges of his ministry and the extreme demands required of him to triumphantly endure the infinite and eternal agonies of his atoning sacrifice, indicates to me you don’t understand Christ’s humanity and how it was absolutely necessary for him to pass trough many sore trials, just like all humans do, in order to develop deep compassion and insightful empathy. When you meet the Savior one day, tell him you know his life was an easy peasy “cake walk” prior to his atoning sacrifice and be humbled to the dust by his response. There’s no way our Lord could have waded through the unimaginable agonies of his atoning sacrifice, in order to perfectly satisfy the strict demands of divine justice, if he wasn’t already a compassionate man of great sorrows and well aquatinted with grief. 

... and yet with no remorse of his own for succumbing to temptation and committing a sin... any sin.  He was tempted but he never gave in to temptation.  Don't you know what that feels like, when you do it, without giving in to the temptation(s) ?

My life sucks only when I give in to temptation and then feel bad about it because then I know I have messed up big time.  Otherwise, when I obey God's commands and am always doing the right thing, my life is wonderfully glorious.

Now tell me when do you consider yourself to be in the trenches? And when do you feel you are on top of the world?  When you're doing the right thing you should not feel bad about it.  We have a very good reason to rejoice, so stay out of the trenches.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My life sucks only when I give in to temptation and then feel bad about it because then I know I have messed up big time.

You are lucky then. 
 

Many others are obedient and yet suffer significant health and financial issues through no fault of their own beyond agreeing to be born.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

He did it, first, then we are told about what he did.  Or, if we had lived before he did it, we were told about what he would do.  And then we choose whether or not to believe it.

I don't think I am the one who has it backwards.  I came to this planet as a mortal after he did it.

Disagree, no point in going forward from here on this.

You are not saved by his date of birth but your belief that he even existed.   Mithras was a savior figure long before Jesus lived.

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

Edited February 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

To imagine that Christ wouldn’t have been severely tried and tested in the refine’s fire throughout his life, in preparation for the great challenges of his ministry and the extreme demands required of him to triumphantly endure the infinite and eternal agonies of his atoning sacrifice, indicates to me you don’t understand Christ’s humanity and how it was absolutely necessary for him to pass trough many sore trials, just like all humans do, in order to develop deep compassion and insightful empathy. When you meet the Savior one day, tell him you know his life was an easy peasy “cake walk” prior to his atoning sacrifice and be humbled to the dust by his response. There’s no way our Lord could have waded through the unimaginable agonies of his atoning sacrifice, in order to perfectly satisfy the strict demands of divine justice, if he wasn’t already a compassionate man of great sorrows and well aquatinted with grief. 

This is exactly why we can see Him and understand Him as the savior- precisely BECAUSE of His humanity!

This really is the brilliance of the restoration- and the solution to the classical Christian problem of the "Nature" of Christ.   When a Catholic priest blesses people he holds his hands in a particular "SIGN" - an ancient gesture similar to other hand-signs symbolizing various mysteries of the gospel.   https://fuelforpilgrims.wordpress.com/tag/blessing-finger-positions/

In this case the hand is held with three fingers folded into each other and two fingers extended.   The symbol represents the belief that Christ has TWO natures - human and divine, and the three fingers held together symbolize the Trinity

Yet one of the main differences between the our restored church and others is that we believe that Christ has only ONE nature which combines characteristics of divinity within an exalted, resurrected,  physical HUMAN body.

Some philosophers, most notably Kierkegaard, believe that Jesus had to "empty out" part of his divinity in order to take on portion of a human nature.  This belief is incompatible with our restored belief that HUMANS CAN BECOME LIKE GOD and that Father himself, and Christ have a tangible body like ours.

WE are the only Christians who believe that Father and Christ have human bodies and that we have only ONE nature- which combines both earthly and divine characteristics.

The theory Kierkegaard brought forth is called "Kenosis" and is not among our beliefs.  https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF014791%2F1

Quote

The term 'kenosis' is derived from 'ekenosen', which Paul uses in his letter to the Philippians to describe Christ's action or attitude towards his equality with God. In the first stanza of this text we read of 'Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied (ekenosen) himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross' (Phil. 2.6-8). Christ did not 'seize' his equality with God or see it as something to be exploited for his own self-interest, but 'emptied' himself of this divine equality in order to assume the form of a servant. On the basis of the use of the term 'ekenosen' in this text, 'kenosis' has come to be used as shorthand for a series of problems and issues arising from the claim that Christ is both truly divine and truly human. How can these two natures co-exist in the one, united Person of Christ without undermining the integrity of either nature? 'Kenotic Christologies' are those Christologies which address this problem by arguing that Christ 'emptied' himself of something in order to become a human being. The dispute among kenotic theologians concerns this 'something' that Christ has allegedly emptied himself of and whether it compromises his divinity. Is it his divine nature or only certain non-essential attributes belonging to his divine nature? Or does Christ continue to possess his divine attributes but merely refrains from exercising them? 

 In this study I intend to examine the contribution that the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) makes to this debate.

My contention is that Kierkegaard offers an original contribution to kenosis theology. Like many of the classic kenotic theologians of the 19th century he argues that Christ undergoes a limitation on becoming a human being. Where he differs from his contemporaries is in emphasizing the radical nature of this limitation. Christ is 'bound by his servant form' and even if he had wished to exercise the powers belonging to his divine nature, he could not have done so. Another distinctive feature of Kierkegaard's thought is his claim that the ascended Christ's relationship to human beings continues to be that of the humiliated Christ. Kierkegaard criticizes Christians who emphasize the exalted Christ and who forget that Christ came to humankind as the lowly, humiliated servant, because this distracts them from their task of taking up their cross and following Christ in suffering discipleship. Kierkegaard, then, conceives of the kenosis not as finished with Christ's ascension into heaven but sees it as an ongoing event. In my monograph I place these ideas in dialogue with the leading kenotic thetheologians and assess the significance of Kierkegaard's version of kenosis for 21st century debate.

We take this idea as a false teaching

Edited February 3, 2021 by mfbukowski
additional info, corrections

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly why we can see Him and understand Him as the savior- precisely BECAUSE of His humanity!

This really is the brilliance of the restoration- and the solution to the classical Christian problem of the "Nature" of Christ.   When a Catholic priest blesses people he holds his hands in a particular "SIGN" - an ancient gesture similar to other hand-signs symbolizing various mysteries of the gospel.   https://fuelforpilgrims.wordpress.com/tag/blessing-finger-positions/

In this case the hand is held with three fingers folded into each other and two fingers extended.   The symbol represents the belief that Christ has TWO natures - human and divine, and the three fingers held together symbolize the Trinity

Yet one of the main differences between the our restored church and others is that we believe that Christ has only ONE nature which combines characteristics of divinity within an exalted, resurrected,  physical HUMAN body.

Some philosophers, most notably Kierkegaard, believe that Jesus had to "empty out" part of his divinity in order to take on portion of a human nature.  This belief is incompatible with our restored belief that HUMANS CAN BECOME LIKE GOD and that Father himself, and Christ have a tangible body like ours.

WE are the only Christians who believe that Father and Christ have human bodies and that we have only ONE nature- which combines both earthly and divine characteristics.

The theory Kierkegaard brought forth is called "Kenosis" and is not among our beliefs.  https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF014791%2F1

We take this idea as a false teaching

Great stuff!

According to the testimony of John, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 93, the Savior didn’t arrive in his body as a perfected human being, but had to spend his life proving himself to his Father as he “learned obedience by the things he suffered.” In fact, John testifies that the Savior grew in grace and knowledge throughout his life by going from one degree of divine capacitation to ever higher degrees of by growing in the grace and knowledge of God, exactly like the rest of us have to do. Our Lord didn’t arrive on earth as some sort of impeccable heavenly version of Superman, but had to consistently prove to his Father that he was worthy of receiving greater and greater outpourings of divine grace. John reveals that Christ didn’t receive a fulness of the light and power of his father until he received the fulness of the Spirit at his baptism when he received the gift of the Holy Ghost in its fulness...

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.
16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (D&C 93)

Put simply, he needed the light and power of the Father to ever increasingly grow within him through the indwelling of the Spirit, and without that ever increasing indwelling of the Spirit of the Father he could not have fulfilled his mission, as he would have been powerless to do so. The great and grand secret of it all is that God the Father is the Savior of the Son of God, and, as Bruce R McConkie asserted,” Christ is the prototype of a saved human being.”.

Edited February 3, 2021 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

You are lucky then. 
 

Many others are obedient and yet suffer significant health and financial issues through no fault of their own beyond agreeing to be born.

I don't believe in luck and I have dealt with and continue to deal with significant health and financial issues, none of which have ever made my life suck.  Challenging, yes, but I am okay with being challenged.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Disagree, no point in going forward from here on this.

You are not saved by his date of birth but your belief that he even existed.   Mithras was a savior figure long before Jesus lived.

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

... the fact that he existed existed before I believed he existed.  And the point of arguing is to win.  And I win because I am right.  You are still wrong.

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly why we can see Him and understand Him as the savior- precisely BECAUSE of His humanity!

This really is the brilliance of the restoration- and the solution to the classical Christian problem of the "Nature" of Christ.   When a Catholic priest blesses people he holds his hands in a particular "SIGN" - an ancient gesture similar to other hand-signs symbolizing various mysteries of the gospel.   https://fuelforpilgrims.wordpress.com/tag/blessing-finger-positions/

In this case the hand is held with three fingers folded into each other and two fingers extended.   The symbol represents the belief that Christ has TWO natures - human and divine, and the three fingers held together symbolize the Trinity

Yet one of the main differences between the our restored church and others is that we believe that Christ has only ONE nature which combines characteristics of divinity within an exalted, resurrected,  physical HUMAN body.

Some philosophers, most notably Kierkegaard, believe that Jesus had to "empty out" part of his divinity in order to take on portion of a human nature.  This belief is incompatible with our restored belief that HUMANS CAN BECOME LIKE GOD and that Father himself, and Christ have a tangible body like ours.

WE are the only Christians who believe that Father and Christ have human bodies and that we have only ONE nature- which combines both earthly and divine characteristics.

The theory Kierkegaard brought forth is called "Kenosis" and is not among our beliefs.  https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF014791%2F1

We take this idea as a false teaching

I see the problem as simply another example of Satan's desire to divide us.  The word "human" is nowhere to be found in scripture and all through it we see God relating with us as his children which he created as male and female reproductions of himself. 

It is true that we are different than he is, that he is more advanced than we are, but nowhere did he or does he ever tell us that we are a different kind of being than he is.  He repeatedly refers to us and relates with us as his children, which means God and what WE call "human" are simply different words for the same kind of being.  But don't say that to Satan or to those who would rather believe what he tells them because he/they will repeatedly say that is simply not true.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... the fact that he existed existed before I believed he existed.  And the point of arguing is to win.  And I win because I am right.  You are still wrong.

I wanted to preserve that one forever un-editable.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I wanted to preserve that one forever un-editable.

Better yet let's leave it editable while we see it as the truth that it is.  Not saying winning is the only point to arguing, mind you, but the main point, I think, with winning including being on the right (correct) side of the argument even if others do not regard it as such.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Better yet let's leave it editable while we see it as the truth that it is.  Not saying winning is the only point to arguing, mind you, but the main point, I think, with winning including being on the right (correct) side of the argument even if others do not regard it as such.

Uh huh. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh. 

for some reason, again, my mind recalls this wonderful sentiment I embraced from my Mother:

 

[teddyaware]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

... and yet with no remorse of his own for succumbing to temptation and committing a sin... any sin.  He was tempted but he never gave in to temptation.  Don't you know what that feels like, when you do it, without giving in to the temptation(s) ?

My life sucks only when I give in to temptation and then feel bad about it because then I know I have messed up big time.  Otherwise, when I obey God's commands and am always doing the right thing, my life is wonderfully glorious.

Now tell me when do you consider yourself to be in the trenches? And when do you feel you are on top of the world?  When you're doing the right thing you should not feel bad about it.  We have a very good reason to rejoice, so stay out of the trenches.

First, what you apparently fail to realize is that while there’s a difference between making a mistake and committing a sin, making mistakes can often be just as gut wrenching and conscience afflicting as committing sin. The prophet Joseph Smith didn’t actually commit a sin when he gave the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation to Martin Harris because the Lord gave him permission to do so, yet when the pages were lost it had such an profoundly agonizing affect upon him that, in his mind, it was as if he committed a great sin by disobeying God. Similarly, the Savior could have remained sinless throughout his life while making pain enducing mistakes during the years before his ministry. As a matter of fact, the apostle Paul tells us that Christ had to learn how to be obedient by the things which he suffered as part of his growing process, and that this suffering caused him to cry many bitter tears.

Next, Christ was the ultimate empath during his mortal ministry, with emotional intelligence so great that it enabled him to emotionally put himself in the place of suffering sinners and actually feel what they were feeling without having to commit sin himself. If you think the first time Christ ever felt emotionally impacted by sin to the point that he was able to experience great spiritual and emotional agony wasn’t until the time of his atoning sacrifice, I’m beyond certain you are incorrect. To imagine that it wasn’t until his atoning sacrifice that the Son of God was able to feel profound empathy, pity and compassion, and an ability to vicariously put himself in the place of sinful mortals so as to be able to feel their pain is an absurdly.

Edited February 3, 2021 by teddyaware