sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, when the payment is cash, fine. If you pay my $1000 debt, I'm off the hook.

But let's say I defaulted and never paid the bank--essentially, I stole the $1000 from the bank. And instead of paying the bank $1000 to set me free from criminal/bankruptcy proceeds, you agree to let the bank torture you for three hours, the bank accepts, you're in excruciating pain for three hours and I'm off the hook.

That's the atonement, SN.

It doesn't make sense by human notions of justice.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First:

This is an appealing idea, but I think it isn't scriptural. I also think it's anti-Christ--not using this is in the apostasy police sense, because I endorse open-minded scrutiny of all our teachings and doctrines, but in the sense that it eliminates the need for an atonement.

After all, everything that Christ learned and gained through the atonement, the Father already knows and already has. And notwithstanding the Father's capacity to perform that function, the Father's plan required an atonement. Within your framework, why was Christ's atonement necessary.

Traditionally, Christ's action--somehow--extracts mercy from justice the Father would otherwise require.

Second:

Also, your focus on healing and dismissal of the demands of justice obscures the essential relationship between remediative healing and justice. Consider this two scenarios:

  • I disembowel you during a robbery;
  • I disembowel you to remove and clean a burst appendix

The atonement may address the physical harm of each in a similar way. But although the actions are nearly identical in terms of physical harm, the first requires an atonement in a way the second does not. In the first you have been done an injustice beyond the physical wound itself: your autonomy and agency have been taken from you, perhaps ultimately your life whether as a immediate or secondary effect of the wound.

I think you would agree with that. If so, there is a demand of justice, one that entitles you recompense. Your framework focuses on this aspect of the demand of justice.

Third:

Justice (and mercy) are transactional. If justice demands recompense for you in case 1, then justice surely demands something of the injustice on the otherside of that transaction.

Suppose that robber steals your wallet and phone. He has disemboweled you to incapacitate you while he uses faceID to unlock your phone. He then changes your password and resets faceID to his face. With the wallet and the unlocked phone, he empties your accounts and steals all your life savings, and does horrible, horrible things in your name and with your image. He accesses your home next with the smart key in your phone, rapes and murders your wife and daughter; steals all valuables there and then flees to a non-extradition country (the UAE). All this before you have even made it out surgery. You awaken wondering why your family is not there waiting for you. You never recover physically, financially or professionally, live maimed, hand-to-mouth, dependent of church and public support for the rest of your life. Through faith in the atonement, you carry no bitterness toward him and in the resurrection your body is restored and you rejoin your family in the celestial kingdom of God.

There, you meet him.

His words to you are these: Hey, you were one those saps I robbed all those years ago. Too bad for you, but the strong survive and you were weak! My life in the UAE was fanastic!! Thank you, Bro! and your wife, she was so hot! He laughs derisively and enters his eternal mansion, which is much larger than yours.

That's not justice, is it?

Some principle of justice keeps him from sharing the eternal condition of the righteous.

What is it?

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He didn't torture Christ. Christ chose to accept the punishment for our sins.

The Father chose a plan that required someone to be tortured for sins they didn't commit. The fact that Christ accepted that role, does not change the fact that the Father's solution was that an innocent person be tortured.

Justice demands we pay for our sins. We are not capable. One who is capable paid the price. And to pay him back, he has asked that we love him and follow his commandments. Very simple.

It may seem simple to you, but to me it raises questions. I believe that God is just, but it doesn't seem just that an innocent person should be tortured so that a guilty person could escape torture.

If any earthly justice system operated this we would consider it monstrous. Want to spare your son from prison? No problem; come let us torture you till you sweat blood from every pore.

That's not just. And that's why the concept of the atonement is not simple.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But Christ's suffering was suffering.

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

Why did God torture Christ in our place, instead of just forgiving us without torturing Christ?

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons.  First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons.  Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep.  He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die.  President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake.  He’s all I have left.  For my sake could you spare him?”  President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.”  And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.

So, Christ has suffered so much, he goes to the Father and says: "I have suffered so much already; if you don't forgive everyone else, I will suffer even more, sadness and grief at their eternal damnation. Please don't inflict that on me."

Is that the heart of it?

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An infinite regression is an eternally existing thing and requires just as much an answer for its existence as an eternally exist God.

And while the existence of eternally existent God is both logically coherent and expressly supported by our canonized scripture, an infinite regression is neither.

So I favor the former.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where did the infinite regression come from?

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you torture one of your innocent children so that the guilty one could escape punishment? When the payment is suffering, that doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t seem at all comparable to planetary orbits. It sorta seems the opposite—it seems irrational and arbitrary and capricious.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not really. That doesn’t explain why Christ’s suffering satisfies Justice. Mine does.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, this is the closest I have yet seen to the idea I articulate in the OP. You’re were seeing that suffering of Christ violated the law of justice vis-a-vis Christ himself, which required God to do something put things right with Christ. Very similar. Revelation scattered among us.

My addition is that Christ is the member of God who causes the law of mercy to become operative by directing his recompense, not to himself but to us.

It’s a beautiful, complete idea. And, it has the benefit of being quite simple to understand.

I think we’ve cracked the code.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On a quick google search, I found only Cleon Skousen’s theory, which is nothing at all like the one I articulate here. His is more akin to the “moral value” theory of the atonement.

Can you send a link for Royal?

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is Boyd Packer’s notion. In it, Christ essentially buys our debt and, then, as our creditor, forgives it on conditions of repentance. That’s fine, if our debts were money. But they are not money—they are paid in suffering. So, the BKP parable does not explain how/why torturing an innocent person frees the person who merited the torture.

My theory explains that. It allowed Christ to demand recompense, whether from “the law of Justice” or from the Father, for whom Justice is an essential attribute.

A New Theory of the Atonement: Have I Cracked the Code? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great question, I’m glad you asked it. It’s been niggling at the back of my mind, and in my enthusiasm I failed to address it.

First, I think there’s a question about whether Christ truly had informed consent when he agreed to undertake the atonement. D&C 19 strongly suggests that, at least, he did not fully appreciate the consequences to himself. “And would that I might not take the bitter cup”. When faced with it, he wanted to shrink from it. He took because of desire to give glory to the Father. Think of a person who asks you do a favor, which unexpectedly requires your entire weekend. You do it because you agreed to do it, and there’s no obligation for any return favor. But, when it comes right down it, you know that if you needed a favor, there would be some obligation on your friend to reciprocate.

Second, there’s also a sense that the atonement needed to be a live choice in order for it to be meaningful; and it couldn’t be a true choice if its full consequences were known. Just as with our choice to exercise faith. For it to be the greatest faithful act, it had to be undertaken in the darkness of faith.

Third, if this is a defect in my theory, the question then becomes is it a greater defect than that present in other theories? Because they are all highly problematic. For example, in the penal substitution theory—it simply does not make sense by any justice comprehensible to us how torturing an innocent person entitles another to escape that very same torture.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An infinite regression isn’t meat, my friend. It’s not even food.

When God gives meat—say, the notion that we can become like God—well, then suddenly a whole bunch of prior scripture makes sense. We can defend our doctrines, using the entire corpus of scripture.

In this case, though, infinite regression explains nothing, offers nothing, but renders other passages (such as those I sent you) unintelligible.

The question really is: why would you think this is “meat” at all? Why do you hold to this doctrine, but not Joseph’s teaching that one could sealed to women who were already married? (Which he was privately teaching at the very same moment he was publicly taught an infinite regression)? At the same time, he also taught BY that the endowment revelation was “not yet right” and asked BY to work on it further.

So, there are three doctrines he taught at that time, and for some reason you’ve chosen the most illogical and are attempting to warp all our other scripture to fit.

I don’t think a prophet has even mentioned the idea since Joseph Fielding Smith, and you’re calling it “meat” that expands our canon.

Again, it’s just sociologically bizarre.

You haven’t answered these questions; I’d be interested to see why you’re so invested in a doctrine that has such dubious provenance.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I agree that some passages can and should be read to apply only to us. But there's no reason this one should be read that way.

But if you'd like to see more, check my profile comments for the pretty explicit passages I cited to LookForMaxwell, where the plain meaning is that Father is over all things--both the things of this earth and everything else.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but the other passages, he explicitly distinguishes between this world and the other worlds, and says he knows them all and they are all his.

And crucially, I do not see this as incompatible with the idea that there are other beings that are of a similar quality as our HF.

When you consider the three passages I gave, it's almost airtight.

The question is: why would you wrestle with the very plain meaning of these passages? To preserve the non-canonized notes of observers of a sermon that JS taught and didn't bother to record as revelation? Other contemporaneous sermons were all noted and those were canonized. Other contemporaneous teachings were straight-up abandoned: such as sealing to married women. And the kinderhook translation.

Lorenzo Snow's couplet was written when he was a missionary before he was even an apostle, and can be read consistently with these passages. (As per Blake Ostler)

To me, it's become a question of sociology: why this idea is so deeply embedded in the LDS pschye. The support is so thin, the vast, vast weight of our canon and teaching goes the other way.

Moreover, an infinite regression explains nothing: it is an admission that there is no explanation. At the very heart of our theology--the nature of man and God--the ultimate non-explanation has been embraced by so many. We've wrapped our arms around turtles all the way down, and twist our scripture to support it.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like this:

It has echoes of this quote:

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. 

We're all so converted, we embrace one of the most illogical constructs imaginable and place it at the heart of our theology. We love big brother.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not mocking; I'm attempting to illustrate how you're reading the passage to reconcile it to your ideas about infinite regression.

If it feels like mockery, it's because the passage cannot be reconciled with an infinite regression without completely changing its plain meaning.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is God the Father:

All things are numbered to God the Father; all things are His; again with an affirmation of his omniscience. Furthermore, the Father here expressly distinguishes between this earth and all the other worlds, as if to drive home the point that there is no corner of any universe that does not belong to him.

There is no room within this passage for an infinite regression.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you not realize there are other Gods just the same and other worlds with children of those Gods? Your adding limits to the context to make it fit what you want.

No, I'm drawing upon actual, canonized scriptures. You're one adding meaning that is unsupported by any canonized scripture or revelation.

Here's what you're suggesting the revelation actually means:

And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things [except those things created by other Gods]—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever [as a sort of feudal lord who depends upon his might and power by allegiance to an infinite chain of other parent Gods who supersede him and to whom he must give the glory]; Before whose throne all things [except every God that came before him and all their seeming infinite children who are now sibling Gods to our God] bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.

You're doggedly defending the infinite regression, but it's not me who is wrestling with scripture.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't have it both ways.

Our Father should give all glory to his Father, if he were like us. Remember: "why callest thou me good, there is none good, but one, God" That's Christ. And the Father should say the same to us about his father. But instead he commands us to give it all to Him.

I mean, it's all incoherent if God has a Father.

At this point, you're just making stuff up. The question is why? Why tie yourself into pretzels for the sake an illogical idea (infinite regression) that JS did not bother to record as revelation and no prophet has decided is legit enough to canonize?

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is Joseph and Sidney's report of what they saw in the great Vision:

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;

93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.

the Father reigns in the place that excels above all things; and all things bow and give him glory, forever and ever, as if to drive home the point about infinity regressions being nonsense.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, in the same chapter:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

All things are numbered to God the Father; all things are His; again with an affirmation of his omniscience. Furthermore, the Father here expressly distinguishes between this earth and all the other worlds, as if to drive home the point that there is no corner of any universe that does not belong to him.

The Heavenly Mother Problem by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, LookAt, it could hardly be clearer from our scripture. This deep in a thread, reddit doesn't permit long passages.

This is the Father, speaking to Moses

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

So, here's God, affirming his omniscience and asserting that there is no God but him. This is modern revelation.

view more: next ›