How Do You Repent?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree.   Insufficient resources and talents is likely to occur with fewer numbers.

Given the mobility of the workforce though, not sure how extended families could work very well these days since too many would have independent households leading to more inequity among members.

"Inequity"?

Some communities find ways to provide the needed supervision and activities which substitute for lack of the larger extended family.  I'm thinking of Latter-day Saints, Jews, Hutterites, Amish, etc., because it does "take a village" to successfully raise youngsters.  Everyone needs to be involved.

What needs to be avoided like the plague is the madness which is evident in some "expert" or "inspired" scams, such as ConneXions, 8-Passengers, or the Daybell Death Cult.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you are talking about Hunter-Gatherer societies a lot of them were not monogamous so I doubt you would hold them up as that much of an ideal. Agriculture is believed to be one of the prime drivers towards marriage and monogamy.

Yes, polygamy was the norm in many ancient societies, which has many positive qualities -- sister wives who could take turns with various tasks and still have plenty of childcare available.  Marriage in early societies was more a matter of pair-bonding than ceremonial, even though a bride-price might be involved.  We can see this in the Bible, where polygamy was common, and where consummation was the marriage.

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

sister wives who could take turns with various tasks and still have plenty of childcare available.

Oh yay! 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, polygamy was the norm in many ancient societies, which has many positive qualities -- sister wives who could take turns with various tasks and still have plenty of childcare available.  Marriage in early societies was more a matter of pair-bonding than ceremonial, even though a bride-price might be involved.  We can see this in the Bible, where polygamy was common, and where consummation was the marriage.

I am not just talking about polygamy. It was more likely just non-monogamy without marriage. From the (admittedly small) samples done it is likely these were not exclusive for either gender.

Edited April 5, 2025 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not just talking about polygamy. It was more likely just non-monogamy without marriage. From the (admittedly small) samples done it is likely these were not exclusive for either gender.

Margaret Meade's salacious Coming of Age in Samoa might give that impression, but her conclusions were dubious at best.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Margaret Meade's salacious Coming of Age in Samoa might give that impression, but her conclusions were dubious at best.

No, I am basing it more on hunter-gatherer graveyards. In some cases we get a bunch of DNA samples from one community and can use it to get an idea of how the people are related. The view is that they were what someone today might call monogamish. Like most humans.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, I am basing it more on hunter-gatherer graveyards. In some cases we get a bunch of DNA samples from one community and can use it to get an idea of how the people are related. The view is that they were what someone today might call monogamish. Like most humans.

Yes, but that is also the case in traditional Muslim communities where polygamy is legal.  Most men cannot afford more than one wife.  Anciently, based on inheritance practices, the firstborn male might have more than one wife, and the women would likely be brought from another village.  We know that from DNA (https://www.iflscience.com/bronze-age-families-appear-to-have-practiced-both-monogamy-and-polygamy-70377 ), but we already knew that from distinctive pottery decor coming from nearby villages (the women made the pottery).  Thus avoiding inbreeding.  Most humans nevertheless pair-bonded, and were not as likely to cheat as free-loving modern hippies (who remind us of nothing so much as bonobos).

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but that is also the case in traditional Muslim communities where polygamy is legal.  Most men cannot afford more than one wife.  Anciently, based on inheritance practices, the firstborn male might have more than one wife, and the women would likely be brought from another village.  We know that from DNA (https://www.iflscience.com/bronze-age-families-appear-to-have-practiced-both-monogamy-and-polygamy-70377 ), but we already knew that from distinctive pottery decor coming from nearby villages (the women made the pottery).  Thus avoiding inbreeding.  Most humans nevertheless pair-bonded, and were not as likely to cheat as free-loving modern hippies (who remind us of nothing so much as bonobos).

Most humans pair-bonded but were not necessarily sexually exclusive.

Free-loving modern hippies? The hippies are all in their 70s and 80s right now.

Also average number of lifetime sex partners is on a downward trend. Hooray for the loneliness epidemic I guess.

[MustardSeed]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also average number of lifetime sex partners is on a downward trend. Hooray for the loneliness epidemic I guess.

Lots of partners sounds lonely “to me”. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Lots of partners sounds lonely “to me”. 

I’m more worried that average means a lot more with zero.

[manol]

On 4/3/2025 at 3:18 PM, halconero said:

No problem. It helps to define substitution first.

Substitution and participation represent two distinct ways of understanding how Christ's life, death, and resurrection affect human salvation.

Substitutionary atonement emphasizes that Christ acts as a substitute who bears a punishment or consequence on behalf of humanity. Individual humanity is deserving of punishment or these consequences either due to individual sin, or because of a depraved nature inherited from Adam and Eve. Christ suffers and dies in our place and absorbs the punishment or consequence we deserve.

There are different substitutionary models, all of which relate to whatever problem Christ's atonement is meant to solve.

Sacrificial/Ransom

This is what's called the "Classic paradigm," meaning one of the oldest views. Sin makes us slaves to the devil and to death. Depending on your view (for example, if you're Jewish around Paul's time), Jesus became the perfect sin offering on the mercy seat. He is sort of a substitute for us, but not in the same way as later paradigms might illustrate. It's not so much that he absorbs God's wrath or the consequences of sin. Rather, it's that the temple sacrifice is an extremely *good* thing—whose savour wafts up to God. He's a substitute in the sense that he can offer himself without blemish, whereas we ourselves are blemished by sin. So the vicarious nature is more like a family coming to the altar to sacrifice a lamb on their own behalf. The lamb isn't the vicarious recipient of punishment—it's the vicarious representative of the family offering themselves to God.

A related variation of this is that sin makes us slaves to death and the devil (alternatively, the Fall makes us slaves to sin). It's no coincidence that slavery is used here, given this developed in antiquity around the Mediterranean. God the Father offers His Son in what's essentially a hostage swap with the devil and death (alternatively, Jesus offers himself). Jesus would be a way more fruitful and enticing slave than we could ever be, given He's (a) God and (b) perfect. Satan and death. Except, being God and being perfect, there's just no way that Satan, death, or sin could keep Christ bound. So Christ busts out of hell and death, with some depictions of this even including a very entertaining idea that Christ spent three or so days flipping tables, breaking windows, and being a general hooligan throughout Hades, before He was resurrected. This may also involve a mass prison break, with Him leading the way.

This is substitution, not in the sense that Jesus is justly punished on our behalf. He's simply a much more worthy hostage or ransom than we can be, and he either pays Satan for our release, or tricks him into giving us up. Later theologians (like Anselm) had an issue with the idea that God owed Satan anything, so they developed alternatives. We accept the prisoner swap by becoming clients of Christ. He, of his own good will and grace, offers to save us as our patron. We are free to accept and become his clients through pistis, or faithfulness, love, trust, and covenant. It's not that we're trying to buy his support. Rather, a patron-client relationship is the natural outgrowth of an act where Jesus conducts a prisoner swap or busts us out of jail. We do it because he loves us, and because we love him.

Satisfaction

One of the earliest versions was articulated by Anselm of Canterbury, who served there as Archbishop from 1093 to 1109.

Anselm viewed our relationship to God through the relational system he was familiar with—feudalism. God is our feudal lord and we his knights, pages, peasants, etc. The nature of sin is similar to Sir Lancelot's affair with Guinevere (my metaphor, not Anselm's). It's not just adultery, but an offence against God's honour. Not only that, but our offence against the king causes us to fail in our quest for righteousness, similar to how Lancelot fails in his quest for the Holy Grail due to his affair. God's honour is besmirched, and we cannot repay.

For Anselm, Jesus satisfies the honour of God by perfectly undertaking the quest for righteousness on our behalf, culminating in his death, as any good knight should be willing to die for their sovereign. He is Galahad to our Lancelot—the perfect knight who finds the grail due to his purity and righteousness. In fact, plenty of legends have Galahad being able to choose the timing of his death, following his success. His success is enough to cover for Lancelot's failure. That's not Anselm's metaphor, but it gets at his view—Christ's success satisfies the honour of God and restores humanity to the proper feudal order. He take advantage of the atonement by more or less becoming Christ's page/servant in the feudal order through the sacraments of the church and works of righteousness—not because those works save us, but because they're what a good page owes to their feudal overseer.

Penal Substitution

I mentioned this earlier, but it's no coincidence that main contributor to penal substitution, John Calvin, was a lawyer before he ever became a theologian.

The Fall makes humanity depraved and only deserving of God's wrath. We are rebellious by nature against our sovereign king. We only deserve death and hellfire. There is nothing we can do to merit his help. Individual sin is an outgrowth of depravity, but it's the latter that damns us all equally.

John Calvin's first work wasn't a theological text, but a commentary on the ancient Roman author Seneca's work, De Clementia (on mercy). Seneca wrote about how rulers (in his case, Nero) have the absolute right and responsibility to punish evil. Seneca argues that rulers should periodically dispense clemency. Clemency is not pity, where the ruler forgives punishment due to emotion. Nor is it generosity, or a reward for good behaviour. Clemency is the withholding of a punishment where punishment is deserved, for the purpose of demonstrating the goodness of the sovereignty and maintaining public order. John Calvin takes some issue with Seneca's Stoic philosophy, but by and large agrees with his political views on crime and punishment. Remember, clemency is a tool to demonstrate the glory and goodness of the ruler, not a response to the criminal.

As Calvin develops his ideas, he applies Roman legal language to our own situation. Humanity has inherited a state of reatus, which is a Roman legal term for legal liability (which we translate as "guilt"). In Roman law, the only way to resolve legal liability is through satisfactio. The guilty party must make amends, payment, or even a ritual sacrifice. God took out His wrath and justice on Jesus, as we were incapable of taking sufficient wrath to satisfy God. On the one hand, God himself takes the punishment (as Jesus *is* God). On the other, separate personhood is still a thing in the Trinity, so it's the Father's will that the Son take his wrath.

But John Calvin is also trying to solve for the issue that criminals can do **nothing** to absolve themselves. We can't choose salvation. It is in the hands of the ruler who to punish and who to give clemency, or undeserved mercy. Hence, predestination.

I won't go into governmental theory here, except to say that it's sort of like penal substitution, except that Jesus doesn't experience the full wrath of God. Rather, God as ruler needs a whipping boy to get humanity back in line, and inflicts something lessor on Jesus for demonstration purposes.

PARTICIPATION

Participation emphasizes our union with Christ, or, conversely, Christ's union with us. Atonement is less about finding someone to take our legal place in punishment, finding a knight to win the day on our behalf, or become a hostage to free us.

Rather, Christ's atonement begins with his incarnation on the earth. He lives us a life like us, experiences what we experience, including death and the horrors of alienation from God. Alienation isn't a legal state, where we're criminals. Rather, it's more a relational distance. Sin isn't in the nature of God, so the more we sin, the more distant we become from Him in character, peace, and joy.

Jesus, being God, experiences humanity. Conversely, God wants humanity to experience godhood (theosis). For Orthodox Christians, this isn't necessarily the same thing as exaltation (though I'd argue it's related). Rather, it's God inviting us to partake in His nature, His joy, and His love—to become one with Him. He became us, to understand us, to heal us, and to help us become Him.

So, why the cross? Why the suffering? Neither are punishments. Rather, as Gregory of Nazianus said, "what is not assumed is not healed." The point is restoration, not punishment. Jesus takes on all of humanity's spiritual alienation (sin) to heal it from within. The satisfaction of justice is not paying a fine or accepting a punishment for sin. Rather, the just state of the cosmos is union with God—it's the natural, good order of things. Sin isn't a crime; it's an aberation or corruption of the natural order. Jesus satisfies justice by restoring us to that state.

Now, there are echos of substitution here, Jesus indeed takes our place. The difference, however, is the purpose is not to absorb something on our behalf, but experience what we're experiencing, in order to heal us.

The other substitution is us become as Christ—we participate in this experience *with* him, and become His substitutes as much as he becomes substitutes us.

The Pauline epistles

One of the irony of ironies is that despite Calvin relying on Paul for much of his theory of grace, Paul barely talks in terms of legal penalties or substitution.

For Paul, the major issue of the day is the grafting in of the Gentiles into God's plan. For most of human history, from Moses to Jesus, the Law was God's vehicle for perfecting humanity. Suddenly, this Jesus fellow comes along and opens the gate to all to experience God's love and salvation.

How does Jesus do this? It's not through suffering a legal penalty. It's through His divine life and conquering of evil and death (see previous comments on Ransom theory, which is the most compatible substitution theory with participation). In some views, this extends to viewing Jesus as a New Adam, who completes life and all its goals perfectly, where Adam (and us) struggled. Jesus' perfect life and death doesn't enable us to evade death, or even suffering. In fact, that's the opposite of what Paul wants us to do!

Instead, Paul invites us to die in Christ, be buried with him, and rise united with him. Contrary to modern depictions of Paul being against works, Paul emphasizes that the old man is dead, and that the new creation must participate in the life of Christ through acts of goodness, love, and mercy. Paul doesn't say, "Christ died for me that I might live." He says "I must die with Christ, that I might live in Christ."

See Galatians 5:19-21:

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

That last part should not be construed as a penal sacrifice. The language here suggests that Christ gave himself to establish a new way of dealing with sin and death, by participating with Him in its conquest. He, if anything, is a forerunner and conqueror who forged the way for both Jew and Gentile to be reconciled with God, and Paul invites us to join Christ in that triumph.

Put all together, Christ participates in our lives to the fullest extent possible, including its deepest eternal sorrows and distance from God, and figures out how to heal us from these. He then invites us to participate in His life, be healed, and take on his character and goodness.

It's in a number of spots, but it's clearest articulations are in Alma 7 and 2 Nephi 31.

In the first, Christ comes down to suffer the pains, afflictions, and temptations of humanity, that he might feel our pains and sicknesses. He also takes upon him death, to loose the bands that bind his people. He takes upon him our infirmities, that he might be filled with healing mercy to succor his people.

In verse 13, sin isn't framed in legalistic terms. Sin blots us, distorts us. He suffers that blotting that he might deliver us from it. At first glance, you might infer that he's blotting out a legal record or something, but in verse 25, Alma admonishes us to keep our garments spotless. The implication is that sin is a stain that causes us to suffer. Christ participates in the experiences of his people, that he might help them and deliver them.

That participation isn't one way either; it's not just about him participating in our lives. Alma follows this up by commanding baptism and entering into a covenant relationship with God. This involves walking in "the paths of righteousness," which Alma describes as "his paths." He further admonishes the people he is teaching to "walk after the holy order of God," which, in preceding chapters (Alma 5), he says "is in Christ Jesus."

Now, Alma adopts a distinct view of atonement later on his life, but at least here, he mentions almost nothing about a substitution for humanity that is apart from humanity, but rather a joint participation in the difficulties of life, but also the holiness of God.

For sake of time, I won't elaborate on 2 Nephi 31, but suffice to say, the entire chapter is about transformative participation in Christ.

Thank you for the time you put into this post and for the expertise you have acquired in this subject which makes it possible for you to write such posts in the first place.  I'm coming from a far weaker background, the terms "substitution theory" and "participation theory" being new to my lexicon, but they help me to organize my own thinking on the topic of the atonement.

Imo substitution theory is a useful and effective response to the belief in a God who requires punishment, or payment of debt, in order to extend forgiveness. The idea of Christ paying the price (for someone unable to) at least gives people reason for hope and grounds for making needed changes. But ime the idea that God's requirements are satisfied by Christ substituting in our place starts to fall apart once one's personal experience of God contradicts the “God requires punishment” paradigm.

So I see substitution theory as what we have been given to lean on until it no longer serves us. And imo “participation theory” is the next level.

While (to the best of my knowledge) “participation in Christ” isn't articulated in so many words in the Church, I think the idea is present in LDS thought. I hadn't considered 2 Nephi chapter 31 in this context but agree with you, it is about transformative participation rather than penal substitution.

I see “us participating in Christ” as implied in taking upon ourselves the name of Christ in the Sacrament prayers; present in the remarkably common phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ”; claimed in one of the names in which covenants are made in the Endowment ceremony; taught in 3^rd Nephi 27:27 (we are to be the same manner of men and women as Christ) and in Revelation 3:21 (those who overcome sit on the throne WITH Christ). I'm not claiming this is the only possible interpretation of these wordings, but imo it's the one that actually expects us to become the same manner of men and women as Christ within our present mortal lives.

I see “Christ participating in us” implied by Alma Chapter 7 (Christ experiences our hardships first hand), and D&C 88:6-13 (Christ is in and through all things). That being said, I do not want to draw distinctions about who is participating in whom; the vine participates in the branches, and vice-versa, whether the branches are aware of such or not.

Imo one of the most powerful teachings on participation is the parable of the King who went among his people disguised as the least of them. Imo the implication is that Christ is in everyone we encounter or do not encounter (including the ones we think the least of), and we are to treat them as if they are Christ in disguise, disguised even from themselves, regardless of how deeply buried under baggage their true Christ self is at this time.

So, perhaps rather simplistically, I see the higher meaning of the word "atonement" to be implied by its constituent parts, "at-one-ment"... i.e., "participation".   

@halconero, I have a question for you.  Regarding "subsitution theory" versus "participation in Christ", you said, "if I have to accept one over the other into the larger fold of ideas, I lean to the latter." 

Despite having cited what I think are examples of participation theory in the foregoing paragraphs, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence in LDS canon and thought favors substitution theory.  So if you don't mind sharing, I am quite curious about how you arrived at leaning towards "participation in Christ".

Thanks!

Edited April 7, 2025 by manol

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Thank you for the time you put into this post and for the expertise you have acquired in this subject which makes it possible for you to write such posts in the first place.  I'm coming from a far weaker background, the terms "substitution theory" and "participation theory" being new to my lexicon, but they help me to organize my own thinking on the topic of the atonement.

Imo substitution theory is a useful and effective response to the belief in a God who requires punishment, or payment of debt, in order to extend forgiveness. The idea of Christ paying the price (for someone unable to) at least gives people reason for hope and grounds for making needed changes. But ime the idea that God's requirements are satisfied by Christ substituting in our place starts to fall apart once one's personal experience of God contradicts the “God requires punishment” paradigm.

So I see substitution theory as what we have been given to lean on until it no longer serves us. And imo “participation theory” is arguably the next level.

While (to the best of my knowledge) “participation in Christ” isn't articulated in so many words in the Church, I think the idea is present in LDS thought. I hadn't considered 2 Nephi chapter 31 in this context but agree with you, it is about transformative participation rather than penal substitution.

I see “us participating in Christ” as implied in taking upon ourselves the name of Christ in the Sacrament prayers; present in the remarkably common phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ”; claimed in one of the names in which covenants are made in the Endowment ceremony; taught in 3^rd Nephi 27:27 (we are to be the same manner of men and women as Christ) and in Revelation 3:21 (those who overcome sit on the throne WITH Christ). I'm not claiming this is the only possible interpretation of these wordings, but imo it's the one that actually expects us to become the same manner of men and women as Christ within our present mortal lives.

I see “Christ participating in us” implied by Alma Chapter 7 (Christ experiences our hardships first hand), and D&C 88:6-13 (Christ is in and through all things). That being said, I do not want to draw distinctions about who is participating in whom; the vine participates in the branches, and vice-versa, whether the branches are aware of such or not.

Imo one of the most powerful teachings on participation is the parable of the King who went among his people disguised as the least of them. Imo the implication is that Christ is in everyone we encounter or do not encounter (including the ones we think the least of), and we are to treat them as if they are Christ in disguise, disguised even from themselves, regardless of how deeply buried under baggage their true Christ self is at this time.

So, perhaps rather simplistically, I see the higher meaning of the word "atonement" to be implied by its constituent parts, "at-one-ment"... i.e., "participation".   

Although I don’t believe we will ever outgrow the need for our Savior as a holy and sinless sacrificial substitute who suffers the punishment for the sins that we would otherwise be required to endure according to the fixed and immutable demands of the divine law of justice. And even though we will always need that substitutionary element of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice to enable us to continue dynamically moving forward spiritually with eternally broken hearts and contrite spirits, the fact is that there is indeed a participatory element found within the atonement that’s required of us all if we are ever going to be able to fully become like Christ, The Apostle Paul fully understood this need to willingly suffer physically, emotionally and spiritually with Christ if we are ever going to become fully one with him in thought, word and deed. The manifold sufferings which Paul was called upon to endure throughout his ministry bear powerful witness to the fact that for him the participatory elements of the atonement are essential and very real, and not just the theoretical musings of emotionally detached theologians.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans8) 

Edited April 7, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Although I don’t believe we will ever outgrow the need for our Savior as a holy and sinless sacrificial substitute who suffers the punishment for the sins that we would otherwise be required to endure according to the fixed and immutable demands of the divine law of justice. And even though we will always need that substitutionary element of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice to enable us to continue dynamically moving forward spiritually with eternally broken hearts and contrite spirits, the fact is that there is indeed a participatory element found within the atonement that’s required of us all if we are ever going to be able to fully become like Christ, The Apostle Paul fully understood this need to willingly suffer physically, emotionally and spiritually with Christ if we are ever going to become fully one with him in thought, word and deed. The manifold sufferings which Paul was called upon to endure throughout his ministry bear powerful witness to the fact that for him the participatory elements of the atonement are essential and very real, and not just the theoretical musings of emotionally detached theologians.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans8) 

I respect your views and values Teddy, and I respect your faithfulness to them.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/6/2025 at 7:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Most humans pair-bonded but were not necessarily sexually exclusive.

Free-loving modern hippies? The hippies are all in their 70s and 80s right now.

Also average number of lifetime sex partners is on a downward trend. Hooray for the loneliness epidemic I guess.

Cheaters often push the notion of "everybody does it," but that is not true, except for the modern hippies in our population.  Not the old geezers who can barely hold it together.  And, yes, the trend to anomie is unprecedented.  If it holds, the only population which grows will be the traditional one.  All others will die out.  Demography is destiny.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cheaters often push the notion of "everybody does it," but that is not true, except for the modern hippies in our population. 

Cheaters are bad. There are, of course, other ways to have more than one partner that don’t involve cheating.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not the old geezers who can barely hold it together.

What I know of retirement homes and communities suggest that the old geezers are still doing all kinds of things.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  And, yes, the trend to anomie is unprecedented.

Anomie? What?

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  If it holds, the only population which grows will be the traditional one.

No, children are not replicas of their parents and will not automatically follow in their footsteps.

Also by traditional I suspect you mean the traditions established less than a century ago and that are not some unblemished perfect version stretching back through all of human history.

Or to use the old meme line:

the main lesson i took away from studying history was that anything people complain about as a problem "with this generation" is something people have been saying for thousands of years, and anything those people call "human nature" is a social construction of the last 100 years

 

 

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All others will die out. 

Yeah, nope. That is not how anything works. If the key to success is always just outbreeding everyone else things would be very different.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Demography is destiny.

Nope. This has been shown to be false historically and in contemporary society.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What I know of retirement homes and communities suggest that the old geezers are still doing all kinds of things.

He's got a point here.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/stis-rise-among-older-adults-here-s-what-doctors-can-do

 

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, manol said:

I respect your views and values Teddy, and I respect your faithfulness to them.  

More scriptural evidence from the Apostle Paul that a willingness to suffering with Christ is essential to our sanctification, refinement and eventual exaltation. In addition, the quoted verses and the unquoted verses that immediately follow clearly indicate that Paul understood the process of receiving the fullness of eternal glory is a process in which one must be diligently engaged.

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (i.e. If by any means I might attain unto a fullness of glory in the resurrection of the dead).

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 2)

 

Edited April 8, 2025 by teddyaware

[halconero]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

...[T]he fact is that there is indeed a participatory element found within the atonement that’s required of us all if we are ever going to be able to fully become like Christ, The Apostle Paul fully understood this need to willingly suffer physically, emotionally and spiritually with Christ if we are ever going to become fully one with him in thought, word and deed. The manifold sufferings which Paul was called upon to endure throughout his ministry bear powerful witness to the fact that for him the participatory elements of the atonement are essential and very real...

I very much agree with your points on participation in particular.

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

...and not just the theoretical musings of emotionally detached theologians.

I'm not sure I've met an emotionally detached theologian, to be honest, and I've happened to meet a few from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Biblical scholars from among academia, certainly, but the theologians I've encountered have all had a deep desire to know Christ and how He works within their lives.

I do agree with those above that lacking a doctrinal theory of the atonement (i.e., a canonized explanation that puts others to rest) is by-and-large a benefit.

Theoretical thinking itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be taken too far, and we can risk looking past the mark.

That said, in it's simplest form, theorizing is noting different observations and drawing connections between them. The purpose of theory isn't to just rest on our musings thereafter, but think about how these explanations plausibly impact our lives and decisions. I personally think the Spirit has a vital role in helping us note those observations and draw inspired connections.

Put even more simply, what else is a study journal than a place to note our observations and draw inferences?

PS: I meant to address the parts regarding substitution, but will have to come back to them later. I don't disagree with @teddyaware that substitution is present in the scriptures, but I do think we need to (a) understand what penalties, justice, and mercy are in relation to them and (b) ponder exactly what Jesus is substituting for in the atonement. I'm less convinced that early modern thinking around law and justice is how we're meant to understand them.

Edited April 8, 2025 by halconero

[halconero]

On 4/7/2025 at 2:04 PM, manol said:

Thank you for the time you put into this post and for the expertise you have acquired in this subject which makes it possible for you to write such posts in the first place.  I'm coming from a far weaker background, the terms "substitution theory" and "participation theory" being new to my lexicon, but they help me to organize my own thinking on the topic of the atonement.

Imo substitution theory is a useful and effective response to the belief in a God who requires punishment, or payment of debt, in order to extend forgiveness. The idea of Christ paying the price (for someone unable to) at least gives people reason for hope and grounds for making needed changes. But ime the idea that God's requirements are satisfied by Christ substituting in our place starts to fall apart once one's personal experience of God contradicts the “God requires punishment” paradigm.

So I see substitution theory as what we have been given to lean on until it no longer serves us. And imo “participation theory” is the next level.

While (to the best of my knowledge) “participation in Christ” isn't articulated in so many words in the Church, I think the idea is present in LDS thought. I hadn't considered 2 Nephi chapter 31 in this context but agree with you, it is about transformative participation rather than penal substitution.

I see “us participating in Christ” as implied in taking upon ourselves the name of Christ in the Sacrament prayers; present in the remarkably common phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ”; claimed in one of the names in which covenants are made in the Endowment ceremony; taught in 3^rd Nephi 27:27 (we are to be the same manner of men and women as Christ) and in Revelation 3:21 (those who overcome sit on the throne WITH Christ). I'm not claiming this is the only possible interpretation of these wordings, but imo it's the one that actually expects us to become the same manner of men and women as Christ within our present mortal lives.

I see “Christ participating in us” implied by Alma Chapter 7 (Christ experiences our hardships first hand), and D&C 88:6-13 (Christ is in and through all things). That being said, I do not want to draw distinctions about who is participating in whom; the vine participates in the branches, and vice-versa, whether the branches are aware of such or not.

Imo one of the most powerful teachings on participation is the parable of the King who went among his people disguised as the least of them. Imo the implication is that Christ is in everyone we encounter or do not encounter (including the ones we think the least of), and we are to treat them as if they are Christ in disguise, disguised even from themselves, regardless of how deeply buried under baggage their true Christ self is at this time.

So, perhaps rather simplistically, I see the higher meaning of the word "atonement" to be implied by its constituent parts, "at-one-ment"... i.e., "participation".   

@halconero, I have a question for you.  Regarding "subsitution theory" versus "participation in Christ", you said, "if I have to accept one over the other into the larger fold of ideas, I lean to the latter." 

Despite having cited what I think are examples of participation theory in the foregoing paragraphs, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence in LDS canon and thought favors substitution theory.  So if you don't mind sharing, I am quite curious about how you arrived at leaning towards "participation in Christ".

Thanks!

I will get back to this sometime this week. I'm juggling a few balls right now labelled "toddler," "calling," and "supervising grad students" (which, now that I think about it, may occasionally intersect with "toddler").

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

I very much agree with your points on participation in particular.

I'm not sure I've met an emotionally detached theologian, to be honest, and I've happened to meet a few from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Biblical scholars from among academia, certainly, but the theologians I've encountered have all had a deep desire to know Christ and how He works within their lives.

I do agree with those above that lacking a doctrinal theory of the atonement (i.e., a canonized explanation that puts others to rest) is by-and-large a benefit.

Theoretical thinking itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be taken too far, and we can risk looking past the mark.

That said, in it's simplest form, theorizing is noting different observations and drawing connections between them. The purpose of theory isn't to just rest on our musings thereafter, but think about how these explanations plausibly impact our lives and decisions. I personally think the Spirit has a vital role in helping us note those observations and draw inspired connections.

Put even more simply, what else is a study journal than a place to note our observations and draw inferences?

PS: I meant to address the parts regarding substitution, but will have to come back to them later. I don't disagree with @teddyaware that substitution is present in the scriptures, but I do think we need to (a) understand what penalties, justice, and mercy are in relation to them and (b) ponder exactly what Jesus is substituting for in the atonement. I'm less convinced that early modern thinking around law and justice is how we're meant to understand them.

Thanks for your insightful input. Even as I was writing, I was well aware that there was a better way to more accurately express what I was trying to say, but I let what I wrote pass due to a bout of mental laziness. All I was attempting to say is that for Paul the understanding of the imperative need to be participants with Christ in his sufferings is something he be became intimately acquainted with due to the intense suffering for truth that he was so often called upon to endure. Like the Savior, Paul’s profound knowledge of the need to be willing participants with Christ in the fellowship of his sufferings was obtained through his own personal refiner’s fire of real life experiences, not just by intellectual assent.

 

23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I ammore; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, inperils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Corinthians 11)

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

..........................

Anomie? What?

See David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (1950)

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

............................

the main lesson i took away from studying history was that anything people complain about as a problem "with this generation" is something people have been saying for thousands of years, and anything those people call "human nature" is a social construction of the last 100 years

Yeh.  The social constructionists have been on their absurd quest to show that "man makes himself" (Sartre and Childe), but man has been what he was designed to be for thousands of mammalian years, and has little except technology to show for it.  Man is little more than an ape with a smart phone.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, nope. That is not how anything works. If the key to success is always just outbreeding everyone else things would be very different.

Nope. This has been shown to be false historically and in contemporary society.

Could be that success is to be found by leapfrogging into another realm -- I Cor 15:53-55.  The true next step of evolution.

[manol]

4 hours ago, halconero said:

I will get back to this sometime this week. I'm juggling a few balls right now labelled "toddler," "calling," and "supervising grad students" (which, now that I think about it, may occasionally intersect with "toddler").

Our household increased by two this weekend, one of which is a two-year-old, plus a major supply chain disruption for my business so... I get it, no hurry!  

Edited April 9, 2025 by manol

[Chum]

59 minutes ago, manol said:

plus a major supply chain disruption for my business so... I get it, no hurry!  

I feel you there brother.  

[halconero]

On 4/7/2025 at 2:04 PM, manol said:

So, perhaps rather simplistically, I see the higher meaning of the word "atonement" to be implied by its constituent parts, "at-one-ment"... i.e., "participation".   

@halconero, I have a question for you.  Regarding "subsitution theory" versus "participation in Christ", you said, "if I have to accept one over the other into the larger fold of ideas, I lean to the latter." 

Despite having cited what I think are examples of participation theory in the foregoing paragraphs, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence in LDS canon and thought favors substitution theory.  So if you don't mind sharing, I am quite curious about how you arrived at leaning towards "participation in Christ".

Thanks!

Getting back to this, but it's worth, I think, differentiating between penal substitution, wherein Christ experienced a punishment in our stead, versus substitution meaning someone doing something in our stead generally, as proxy, forerunner, etc.

Western Christianity has been dominated some sort of "satisfaction" model for the past 900 years or so, ever since Anselm (and then Aquinas) developed satisfaction theory, and when John Calvin developed this further the basis for Penal Substitution theory. Aquinas softened Anselm's model for getting a bit to legal about the atonement, but at its core, we still have a God who is not glorified by our sin. Jesus obedient life and death brings a surplus of glory to God, which more than restores humanity, and helps transform humanity from sinners to saints. This is related to but distinct from penal substitution, wherein God must uphold the order of heaven and vent his wrath on sin, which Jesus does for only a limited number of the elect, no one else.

What both of these share in common is that Christ is resolving some sort of **legal** or **hierarchical**/**institutional** infraction on our behalf. The former is more-or-less the theory held by the Latin Church in Catholicism (not necessarily the Eastern Catholics), the latter by most Protestants (with some exceptions). I think this context is important for a couple reasons:

a) Most Church members come from or descend from a religious or cultural context where these theories pervade.

b) God doesn't insist on us adopting a new or different theory, at least right away, and leaves it up to us to figure things out both individually, collectively, and situationally, according to our pastoral needs, the needs of the Church, and readiness for doctrine.

With that said, I don't think the idea of substitution generally is wrong, per se. Where I think we get into trouble sometimes is thinking of this in the legalistic or feudalistic terms which we've dragged with us from the Medieval era and the Reformation into our own thought patterns. Substitution exists in scripture, but not in the way a feudal archbishop or 16th century Genevan lawyer thought of it.

Part of the issue is that we bring these ideas with us in a rather incomplete manner. We keep, for example, a penal mindset around Christ paying an eternal fine for us, but have ditched a **necessary** part of Calvinist thinking, which suggests that a natural and necessary assumption related to this is **predestination**. If Christ pays, and we cannot, then nothing we do has any effect anyways. If, then, there's nothing we can do to save ourselves, and God must choose us, it therefore means that Christ's atonement is **limited** and **effective**, meaning that Christ saves who ever he suffered for. If he didn't save someone, why would he bother suffering for them? Why would he suffer ineffectively if they aren't going to heaven? The idea of a limited, effective, and predestined selection is *not* inconsequential to the mindset around penal substitution.

So why does this matter?

Because we've mostly ditched or re-framed the "limited", "effective", and "predestined" parts of this idea. We believe that whatever Christ did, whether we focus on the living, suffering, dying, or being resurrected *for us* parts, it was universal, partially hypothetical (for the partakers, not in terms of what Christ did; it's also 'partial' because the resurrection is unconditional), and involves our agency. We haven't, in my experience, reframed or ditched our understanding of what the penal part means.

So there's a punishment that needs to be paid, Jesus pays for it, but we have our agency. We know there are "demands of justice" and that we must "suffer even as [Christ]" if we are under sin, which perhaps lead us to a sort of mentality that suggests "Christ paid my part if I pay my part." There is some heavier penalty Christ paid, which we can take advantage of if we repent sufficiently. This would be fine if we had a systemitized way of penance and guilt, wherein we could check all the boxes and confirm for ourselves that we're forgiven, but as far as we know, that's doctrinally false too. My sense is that this leaves a lot of members, including myself at times, in a quasi-limbo, where we're never quite sure if we've done enough to merit Christ's grace. The sense wherein debt is only cancelled after the payment plan is met can leave many of us feeling as though we're in arrears, and risk turning repentance into a means of earning forgiveness. Penalties remain on the books until after we finish repenting.

I believe, however, that a re-interpretation of past scriptures and the revelation of new ones actually allows us to re-frame concepts of justice, penalties, punishments, and payments too in a way that is not only healthier for members, but more in-line with what Christ accomplished through their condescension, suffering, and triumph over sin and death. When substitution is understood in relational terms more than (specifically modern) legal terms, it helps us understand what exactly is being asked of us when we're commanded to repent. Specifically, it is God asking us to partake and participate in the divine nature of His Son, whose payment for us was not a fine towards God, but addressing a deficit which we have incurred against ourselves, and not only returning it to balance, but giving us a surplus of goodness and joy.

Edit:

The courtroom analogy is funny to me, because the more I think about it, the more I realize that there's simply no way for us to lose the court case if we just shut up and let the Advocate work something out the Judge, both of whom desperately want to let us off. Instead, we sometimes think of repentance as doing something or saying something that gets the Advocate on our side, so He can then save us. Except, to the Advocate, we end up looking like one of those sovereign citizen types trying to come up with our own interpretation of the law, justice, and personhood, while the Judge is practically begging us to let our lawyer take the lead.

Edited May 2, 2025 by halconero

[halconero]

Will come back to this, but if I were to summarize this, it would be something like this:

- The idea that someone thing must be substituted for, something must be punished, and something must be paid are all foundationally correct. Since issues of legal justice and debt repayment are all around us, we naturally teach these concepts in ways that are familiar to us.

- We have likewise inherited a fairly recent understanding of the atonement, with its origin in early modern legal training, which itself is grounded in Roman law (not Hebrew concepts of justice or mercy). We have ditched parts of these ideas, specifically those which limit the efficacy of the atonement to a limited few. We have retained, however, the consequential parts that are inflicted on the unelect, and implicitly worry that we're among them, without questioning whether this needs a re-frame too.

- We thus develop a concept of standing liability that can re-attach itself to us if we do not repent.

The first step is realizing that Christ doesn't pay the debt if we repent. Christ already paid the debt, the fine, the punishment. The debt is already balanced, the judge is satisfied. Christ is a substitute for us in the sense that we became a forerunner and co-participant with us in our lowest depths and greatest alienation from God. His invitation is that we become co-participants with Him his greatest heights and closest proximity with God.

So what is repentance then? It is not repaying something. Rather, it is consenting to be healed. More than that, it's consent to be trained, aided, and supported in becoming as the master healer is.

The Evangelicals are right when they say there's nothing we can do to earn forgiveness. They are wrong when they say we don't have a say in the matter. Consenting to God's work in us and invitation to work with him isn't earning our way to salvation, because earning anything was never the point. Nor is justice about satisfying a God who demands something to exercise His wrath on. The just state of communion with God is one of likeness and glory with Him. What justice demands, then, is we become like Him. If we don't want that, we become subject to the alternative demand, which is that we become *not* like Him in glory, happiness, and joy; not because of some legal case, but because we don't want that nature, life, or habitation. By experiencing the results of eternal alienation and triumphing over them, he has the power to withhold its effects. Nevertheless, we we choose not to participate is life, death, and rising with him, we don't make us, and will apply the consequences we ask him to apply. Everyone will rise to the level they embrace that shared life with Christ.

Put all together, the victory is won, the debt is paid, the forerunner has conquered sin, trashed hell, and overcome death. He's not asking you to feel guilty over what He did, its only function is to recognize that which holds us back from our yearning desire to be with Him. Whether or not you participate in that doesn't negate those facts, so stop feeling like you can earn it. It was never up to you, your exaltation is not a start-up combining your limited funds with an angel investor — it's a trillion dollar enterprise and God just revealed that you've been adopted into the family as an inheritor. Your repentance is a signature that you want to become part of it, and begin your first day of on the job training with the greatest mentor that eternity has ever produced, who will be with you every step of the way.

Exaltation is free, agency is preserved. Repentance, ordinances, and covenant keeping are essential modes of participation, not a co-pay.