What’s the best Atonement theory?

[teddyaware]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

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 demonstrate an ability to vicariously put himself in the place of sinful mortals, to the point that he was able to feel their pain, is an absurdly.

 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Thank you for sharing your opinion so that I now understand what you think and believe.  As I have tried to explain to you, I do not see our Lord the same way you do.  Or his suffering for what you think caused him his pain.  And I don't see mistakes as bad things either, at least not when mistakes are unintentional. Nothing to be embarrassed about because when you don't know better you simply don't know any better.  And if you do get embarrassed or feel bad about not knowing how to do better than you did it is usually because of unrighteous pride, because with humility you realize you are not perfect, yet.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

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.

 I want to get your opinion on something.

 I have been toying with the idea of using a term  In the book I am working on.

This relates to what you said above

 The term is psychological reality. When we feel or know  Something,  deeply as in a testimony experience, it becomes real for us, even without  Objective evidence. Part of my psychological reality is that  I can say that I know the church is true.

Empathy with others can as well be part of of our psychological reality especially when we are God.

 I can say perfectly rationally that I know that God lives and that Christ is his son.

 I can also say that the sky that I see is the color of blue as I learn the name of that color,  and therefore I know that the sky is blue 

And in the same way that I know that God lives.

 Since we can only know that which has entered our minds, or been taught that the principle is so,  That becomes reality for us.

We can never get outside of our personal psychological reality to anything else. 

 I cannot know what it is like to be you and you cannot know what it is like to be me, except for empathy 

We can see if others agree with us but that's about all.

 Scriptural examples  include John 3:16 where it says  hat we must believe that Jesus is the Christ before we can  be saved.

Of course we must believe!

 Our sacrament prayers are limited to "those who partake of it".

 John one says that all was created by the word.

  Certainly we can not talk about anything if there were no words. I would not know about Antarctica if there were no words. 

 In that sense, in my mind, Antarctica would not exist without words,  And I could know nothing about it.

 My belief that it is cold there would not  exist either.

 The reason for any teaching whatsoever is so that we become educated. We become part of the pool of people who understand and believe similar ideas, like for us, who believe that  Antarctica  exists and is cold and that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration.

 I could not know about Christ or believe  In him if I did not 1st hear The Word

These ideas are "in our minds" and are just as true for us as the names of our children, and are part of our psychological/mental reality,  Just as surely as our belief that God exists.

 Therefore belief in God is  Rational. We have experienced it personally

I know it as clearly as I know the sky is blue, Or that Antartica exists.

 I could be mistaken and any of these beliefs just as one can be mistaken that a Mirage is water.

 But believing that a Mirage is water is also rational 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 I cannot know what it is like to be you and you cannot know what it is like to be me.

We can see if others agree with us but that's about all.

Being able to know when or if others agree with us helps us to know what it is like to be like those others, or at least think like them, otherwise we would not know whether or not those others agree with us.

So knowing whether or not others agree with us helps us to know as much about others as we know about ourselves.

Or at least that is my opinion.  Your opinion may vary.

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But believing that a Mirage is water is also rational 

But only if one is not aware of the science of mirages, correct?  
 

Is it rational to both know how mirages occur, to see one with the usual indicators, and then refuse to accept it as a mirage because by doing so one loses hope? 
 

I am curious as to how you are defining rational and looking at some possible nuances. 

[Ahab]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 But believing that a Mirage is water is also rational 

Not when you know it is a mirage.

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But only if one is not aware of the science of mirages, correct?  
 

Is it rational to both know how mirages occur, to see one with the usual indicators, and then refuse to accept it as a mirage because by doing so one loses hope? 
 

I am curious as to how you are defining rational and looking at some possible nuances. 

Good point, my bad example, thanks!.

I was really speaking of optical illusions in general 

Actually mirages would be a great example if you "knew" it was a mirage and then discovered it was not!

 I remember driving to Las Vegas one time when I saw a freeway mirage about a 1/2 mile ahead of me, a very typical event. I knew rationally it was a mirage, but as I got closer, I saw people working behind some trees whom I could not see from my first vantage point, and guess what, the "mirage" was "actually" water!  They were apparently working on adjusting the sprinkler system that watered the trees.

 So was it rational to believe what I saw was a Mirage?

 The point of all this is to show that all we can know about, is how the world appears TO US

We can never fully know what is beyond those  perceptions or what "reality" IS independent of our perceptions.

Yet the process is  "rational"

 As Rorty shows we cannot divorce our perceptions of reality from reality as it is. We can never know reality as it is, independent of our perceptions and gut feelings, or "the spirit " using the Mormonese language.

 You need the full experience in order to process the Perception to find its meaning for us. 

I am still trying to translate Rorty into Mormonese.

 Understanding reality as it is includes the full experience including emotions, the unexpected and surprise.  The full Mirage experience for me  included the unexpected and the surprise that there was actual water there. The truth included the initial error as much as the final conclusion.

Without the error I would not have been seeking the "reality"

 When one prays  impressions and feelings one receives is as much real as any other experience.

 The eventual conclusion that God exists for example can be found going down a lot of dirt roads and mirages, but it is still a bundle of perceptions and experiences.

In discovering what is reality, hunches and feelings become the raw materials of reality,  and there is nowhere they can be except "in your mind".

We see through a glass darkly, and as with most mirrors, pretty much all we see is ourselves!

Hunches and feelings count even without being "objective evidence ". 

And in finding the purpose of your life they are ALL we have.

 The errors are just as important as the trials that and experiments that work as expected 

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion so that I now understand what you think and believe.  As I have tried to explain to you, I do not see our Lord the same way you do.  Or his suffering for what you think caused him his pain.  And I don't see mistakes as bad things either, at least not when mistakes are unintentional. Nothing to be embarrassed about because when you don't know better you simply don't know any better.  And if you do get embarrassed or feel bad about not knowing how to do better than you did it is usually because of unrighteous pride, because with humility you realize you are not perfect, 

I get the feeling you’re being intentionally obtuse because you know I’m making too much sense and you don’t want to admit it.

I have two questions for you, and simple yes or no answers are all that’s needed if you’re too weary to elaborate:

1) Do you believe the prophet Joseph Smith committed a sin when he gave Martin Harris the 116 pages even though the Lord gave him permission to do it?

2) Have you ever made a mistake that put you in a prolonged state of gut wrenching emotional upset?

Edited February 4, 2021 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I get the feeling you’re being intentionally obtuse because you know I’m making too much sense and you don’t want to admit it.

That's funny.  

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I have two questions for you, and simple yes or no answers are all that’s needed if you’re too weary to elaborate:

1) Do you believe the prophet Joseph Smith committed a sin when he gave Martin Harris the 116 pages even though the Lord gave him permission to do it?

2) Have you ever made a mistake that put you in a prolonged state of gut wrenching emotional upset?

1) no

2) yes, when I was younger and prideful and horrified at the idea that I could make a "mistake".  But as I grew in wisdom and stature and humility I came to terms with the fact that I am not perfect, yet, and that "mistakes" help me to learn what not to do.

[theplains]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, theplains said:

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

Is that the first in mortality, or ever?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

Do you mean the first person whose pain from guilt for sin he felt while knowing what it felt like to have that guilt from sin when before that moment he had never felt what it felt like to sin since he had never sinned and was not accountable for any sins?

Or do you mean the first time he felt what it felt like to be accountable for sin?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

Presumably Lucifer and the Hosts of Heaven that fell with him.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Presumably Lucifer and the Hosts of Heaven that fell with him.

All those verses in the New Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price about what Jesus did before the foundation of the world!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

Scripturally it might have been at the marriage feast. But obviously the record is incomplete. You are asking for chronicles that don't exist.

Every single miracle benefitted someone.

Don't know why you would even ask.

 What act does NOT show compassion??

Edited February 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

All those verses in the New Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price about what Jesus did before the foundation of the world!

Indeed!

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

'God is love'.

As long as we have known our Saviour, He has been characterised by empathy and compassion towards us because that's Who He is. It will, no doubt, have played a central role in why we trusted Him then.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Indeed!

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

'God is love'.

As long as we have known our Saviour, He has been characterised by empathy and compassion towards us because that's Who He is. It will, no doubt, have played a central role in why we trusted Him then.

You and several others don't seem to be considering what is required in order to be able to empathize with somebody else.  

Sure, our Savior wanted to help/save us even before we needed to be saved while we were still living in heaven, but how could he have possibly known what it would feel like to sin if he had never sinned and was not accountable for anyone else's sins?

To empathize with someone else requires being able to feel what that someone else is feeling.  How do you suppose Jesus learned or discovered what it felt like to sin or to be held accountable for any sin?

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Who was the first human that Christ felt empathy, pity, and compassion for?

If you’re talking about those humans who have dwelt on earth in mortality, it would be Adam and Eve. But because God foreordained Christ to be the sacrificial Lamb of God before the world was created, I know he, even then, had perfect empathy, pity and compassion for every human being who would ever live on the face of the earth.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How could he have possibly known what it would feel like to sin if he had never sinned and was not accountable for anyone else's sins?

When exactly do you think the Saviour became responsible for our sins?

From the Church's New Testament Study Manual:

Quote

In Revelation 12:11, an angel declared that Christ’s followers overcame Satan and his followers [during the premortal war in heaven] “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” One truth we learn from the scriptures is that the saving power of the Atonement was already in place in the premortal world, for Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8; see also 1 Peter 1:18–20; Mosiah 3:13; 4:7; D&C 93:38).

 

Quote

How do you suppose Jesus learned or discovered what it felt like to sin or to be held accountable for any sin?

'My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee' (Abraham 2:8).

Edited February 5, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

...but how could he have possibly known what it would feel like to sin if he had never sinned and was not accountable for anyone else's sins?

I heard somewhere he has ESP.

BUT, oh my. See there is this little thing called in some circles "omniscience?" Heard of it?

He knows if a sparrow falls, he could read the hearts of David, Moses, and Aaron. He knew Abraham's heart when he was commanded to murder his son by God Himself, but he didn't have enough intelligence to know the heart of a sinner begging for forgiveness.

Where is the justice in that?

It's nonsense. 

[2BizE]

On 2/1/2021 at 6:55 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is light a wave or a particle?

Light is electomagnetic radiation (photon particle) It is wave-like, when it travels in groups of particles called photons.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Light is electomagnetic radiation (photon particle) It is wave-like, when it travels in groups of particles called photons.

It's a bit odder than even that:

Quote

What we’ve learned over the years, from these experiments and many others, is that all quanta inherently behave as thought they are both waves and particles simultaneously, with your choice of how you measure it determining the results you see. As far as we can tell, there is no one true objective, deterministic reality that exists independently of observers or interactions. In this Universe, you really to have to observe in order to find out what you get.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What we’ve learned over the years, from these experiments and many others, is that all quanta inherently behave as thought they are both waves and particles simultaneously, with your choice of how you measure it determining the results you see. As far as we can tell, there is no one true objective, deterministic reality that exists independently of observers or interactions. In this Universe, you really to have to observe in order to find out what you get.

Yes, this is off-topic, but I can't resist it. These things are extremely counterintuitive. If we think we understand, we are wrong. Check out the double-slit experiment (which I've actually seen demonstrated in real life and not just an animation):

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Stargazer
better video

[Nofear]

Late to the thread but I can throw in my 2 cents.

For me the fundamental nature of our being is the uncreate aspect of ourselves which we have at times called "intelligences". While uncreate, all of them/us have some degree of imperfection from the standpoint of a celestial society. One of God's goals is to raise the other intelligences like to himself. But, one doesn't just give all power to a being who, at its core, is flawed. We might be able to control our behavior, restrain our impulses, and otherwise behave good. An all powerful being having even the least degree of imperfection = bad news, at some point, eventually.

The problem is, being uncreate, "intelligences" cannot eo ipso (of/by itself) fundamentally change its nature (e.g. "corruption cannot put on incorruption" as Jacob says). Solution? The Atonement. Somehow, someway, by a mechanism we don't even begin to really have context to understand, Christ was able to transcend the imperfections and purify the corruption, the imperfect, but fundamental, nature of a cooperative being. And as an added bonus, there's all kinds of other good stuff from the Atonement, but that enabling of purification/sanctification/transformation of our core being is its primary goal.

[Rivers]

On 2/5/2021 at 10:12 AM, Nofear said:

Late to the thread but I can throw in my 2 cents.

For me the fundamental nature of our being is the uncreate aspect of ourselves which we have at times called "intelligences". While uncreate, all of them/us have some degree of imperfection from the standpoint of a celestial society. One of God's goals is to raise the other intelligences like to himself. But, one doesn't just give all power to a being who, at its core, is flawed. We might be able to control our behavior, restrain our impulses, and otherwise behave good. An all powerful being having even the least degree of imperfection = bad news, at some point, eventually.

The problem is, being uncreate, "intelligences" cannot eo ipso (of/by itself) fundamentally change its nature (e.g. "corruption cannot put on incorruption" as Jacob says). Solution? The Atonement. Somehow, someway, by a mechanism we don't even begin to really have context to understand, Christ was able to transcend the imperfections and purify the corruption, the imperfect, but fundamental, nature of a cooperative being. And as an added bonus, there's all kinds of other good stuff from the Atonement, but that enabling of purification/sanctification/transformation of our core being is its primary goal.

Purification, sanctification, transformation, etc. is the whole purpose of the plan of salvation.  The Atonement is God’s way of helping us along the journey.  By descending below all things, he’s taking that journey with us.  That’s the meaning of the name Immanuel: God with us.