How Do You Repent?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

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.

Do you see the deficit as only something that is incurred (in mortality?) or could part of it be missing in our eternal nature (perhaps something necessary to achieve exaltation on our own)?

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/6/2025 at 1:30 PM, 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. ...

Hell, some of us can't afford even one!    

(Sorry.   Just roll with it!  I'm in a weird mood tonight.  )

[halconero]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you see the deficit as only something that is incurred (in mortality?) or could part of it be missing in our eternal nature (perhaps something necessary to achieve exaltation on our own)?

I’m not even sure if deficit is the right term for it, to be honest. I think it’s useful insofar as we want to use terms grounded finance (debt, payment, satisfaction) or penalties.

Insofar as we use it, there are likely components of both. One is in an inherited debt of mortality. We don’t believe in inherited depravity, but we do believe an inherited expiry date, wherein all of must die.

The other part is a deficit in likeness to God in terms of perfect righteousness. Repentance is less about Christ paying that deficit for us, as inviting us to become inheritors of a large inheritance. The story of of the prodigal son is probably the best analogy, where a son gives up and sells their inheritance, and is later invited back into the household and family of God.

Again, all of those are imperfect, and not what I would necessarily use. Studying the ancient Israelite role of sacrifice, restitution, and payment all seem to play a different role in at-one-ment with God than I think penal substitution suggests. Payment especially seems more related to restoration than it does satisfaction or punishment for sin, the latter of which seems to be related to exile into the wilderness and recovery therefrom.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

I’m not even sure if deficit is the right term for it, to be honest.

Maybe “insufficiency” or “inadequacy”?

I don’t like using financial terms for our relationship with God.  My dad turned almost everything into business or what he saw as business (he was an engineer), we even had written up contracts with him as kids (he did not handle emotion or social relationships that well).  He did not follow through too well on his own side of the contract (his actual work/contracts kept him busy; I don’t think he saw family relationships as needing that much thought, we all were supposed to understand what our roles were naturally I guess like he seem to).  I saw what treating kids as if they were in debt looked like rather than trying to help them have their best life possible. 

And the legal stuff…I have heard too many complain about being forced into things by law/government.  Where’s the joy?  The sense of agency, actual self control?

So I have never liked using that kind of language to describe the Atonement.  Neither resonates for me.  It makes God distant rather than an intimate, personal relationship.  The contract or debt controls the behaviour, not love.

I have used “catalyst” for what Christ does for us, gives us the ability to overcome the spiritual and perhaps physical energy barrier (if spirit is simply refined matter) that prevents the spiritual reaction of creating the ‘new man’ from happening.  His sacrifice lowers the activation energy required, lends us the needed energy perhaps somehow.  Catalysts are not consumed by the reactions they allow to happen, they can be used over and over for additional reactions, so it fits for me.

I also love that why a particular catalyst works may not be understood, but that doesn’t stop it from being life changing.

Not exactly that intimate of a description, but I was trying to figure out why Christ would be needed instead of us just taking our time given we have infinity.

Edited May 3, 2025 by Calm

[halconero]

On 5/2/2025 at 9:20 PM, Calm said:

Maybe “insufficiency” or “inadequacy”?

Those are probably the better words.

On 5/2/2025 at 9:20 PM, Calm said:

I don’t like using financial terms for our relationship with God.  My dad turned almost everything into business or what he saw as business (he was an engineer), we even had written up contracts with him as kids (he did not handle emotion or social relationships that well).  He did not follow through too well on his own side of the contract (his actual work/contracts kept him busy; I don’t think he saw family relationships as needing that much thought, we all were supposed to understand what our roles were naturally I guess like he seem to).  I saw what treating kids as if they were in debt looked like rather than trying to help them have their best life possible.

I agree.

My one exception is viewing atonement through the ransom lens, where it operates as more of a hostage swap versus a business transaction. The powers of death and sin have taken us captive (or we have given ourselves over to them), and Christ offers himself in our place. The sacrifice of Aslan is probably the best fictional depiction of this. By law, the witch owns and has the right to slay any traitors. Edmund becomes fully reformed after a conversation with Aslan, but the witch still owns his life. Aslan offers himself in the place of Edmund, effectively ransoming him from the witch.

The reason Anselm developed satisfaction theory is because the idea that God (or us) owed Satan anything felt off to him.

However, Gustaf Aulén suggested a sort of divine irony or guile in the act of self-sacrifice and ransoming souls from sin and death, by essentially agreeing that God did *not* owe anything to Satan or two death—that's the whole point. Christ offers himself in the hostage swap as a sort of divine, undercover rescue mission, getting himself captured as the only prisoner who could not be justly held. As a result, Christ breaks the bands of death and sin, overcoming both. The ransom, then, is less of a payment and more of a ploy (which is also depicted well by C.S. Lewis' Aslan):

"If the witch knew the true meaning of sacrifice, she might have interpreted the deep magic differently: that when a willing victim who has committed to treachery (sin) is killed in a traitor's stead the stone table will crack, and even death itself would turn backwards."

Somewhat humorously, the early Church fathers extended this to mean that Christ, in part, overcame death and sin through the despoiling or harrowing of hell, going down into the depths, trashing the place, and releasing the imprisoned spirits there.

We don't go that far, but I would suggest that at least some of our prophets have taught the above, at least in part. Starting at the finish, and working backwards, we have D&C 138, wherein President Joseph F. Smith shares his vision of the assembly of the righteous at the time of Jesus' death:

Quote

18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;

19 And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.

...

23 And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell.

24 Their countenances shone, and the radiance from the presence of the Lord rested upon them, and they sang praises unto his holy name.

...

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

...

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.

...

50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life...

There is even an element of trickery, whereby not only the Fall but the Atonement are a gambit to simultaneously introduce humanity into mortality and to rescue them from the inevitable bondage which we incur upon ourselves.

Moses 4:6 and 2 Nephi 2:24 both suggest that Lucifer was tricked by God in instigating the Fall of Man. One possibility is that Satan believed that bringing about the death of humanity would deliver them into his power forever:

Quote

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

However, as Jacob outlines, God had a plan:

Quote

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

11 And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave.

12 And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

13 O how great the plan of our God!

I think one of the benefits of this approach to the atonement is that it is that (at least to me) it is simultaneously funny and exhilarating all at once. Repentance is agreeing to the swap for a price we could never pony up. Whatever guilt we might feel for this fiscal deficiency should be swept away in the realization that it was a necessary part of the plan so that he could permanently triumph over the very things holding us down.

At the risk of too much levity, he becomes our substitute in the same way that Ethan Hunt might, ripping a mask off that previously looked like our visage, revealing that he's spent the past three days infiltrating the prison IT systems, and then blowing off all the doors while he exfiltrates to some cool music written by Lalo Schifrin. Meanwhile, by participating in his image, his life, and his nature, we ourselves were let go from the prison by the same guards who felt there was no just means to hold us there, just three days earlier.

On 5/2/2025 at 9:20 PM, Calm said:

Not exactly that intimate of a description, but I was trying to figure out why Christ would be needed instead of us just taking our time given we have infinity.

I like the catalyst imagery. It's not intimate, but neither is the Harrowing of Hell, and both are acceptable means of portraying what Christ does for us.

As was said earlier, the exact means are less important (at least at this stage our existence) compared to the story itself and what it tell us. If we're going to have a story for how we're saved, it's best to have an explanation for how we got into trouble and how the hero comes to save us, whether it be through intimate means of co-participation, or something else.

[manol]

@halconero, thanks for your in-depth posts here.

I understand that there are nuanced variations to substitution theory, wherein Christ pays a debt which we cannot pay; and/or offers himself as ransom for us; and/or performs a salvific task on our behalf which we are unable to perform; and/or gives us a gift we do not deserve.

While I can definitely see utility in that focus, imo a higher focus is expressed in this passage: “What manner of men [and women] ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” At this strata of being, in my opinion, substitution is no longer in play.

Edited May 6, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

9 hours ago, manol said:

At this strata of being, in my opinion, substitution is no longer in play.

But how do we get to that level?

[manol]

On 5/6/2025 at 11:19 PM, Calm said:

But how do we get to that level?

I'm still in the early stages of discovering “what works for me”, and therefore am quite far from being in a position to say what would presumably work for someone else. But I will say that I think Joseph Smith was right when he spoke of progression characterized by the process of “going from a small capacity to a great one”.

My understanding is that the promise made to us is this: Those who ask will receive. And if we ask for bread, we will not be given a stone. I asked to learn something (not directly related to this thread), and what showed up required me to set aside my prejudices and give a fair chance to a source which would normally have been way too far outside of my comfort zone.  And along the way some of the ideas I've mentioned in this thread showed up... unexpectedly.

 

Edited May 8, 2025 by manol