Close Topic Options

Day Of Atonement And The Mystery Of Azazel - Page 2

First off, please do not refer to me in Threads where I have not even been, this is a basic rule in our Constructive Posting Policy, you may wish to revise that and the use of quote tags.

Next, I removed that link you referenced in a Post above. The Read Me Thread within this Board clearly states no links or references to anything outside of the works of the Church.

Now with regards to the Topic, I am aware of the scapegoat. In fact, we have a common saying here for someone who is used to take the blame for another as a "scapegoat" thus referencing the ceremony / tradition of the ancients, however Amonhi's added version and interpretation needs to come attached with additional words... "In my opinion..." as much of what he is placing on this is largely his perspective of things. With regards to moving it to the Mature section I do not see anything that warrants that... you brought up the Topic, you will need to carry it on using the works prescribed and outlined according to the Read Me Thread of this Board.

Azazel Mystery The Atonement Day

You may have had this experience, I am not doubting that you did, but because the experience has not happened to me or to the majority of other's scriptures, I have to discount that without further evidence. But I am not saying that you did not have this expereince.

I agree with you on this. I am not a penal substitution fan myself. However I am respectfully disagree with how you came to this conclusion because I do not see it scripturally supported in text.

In reference to D&C 68:25

First what does "sins on the parents heads mean"? I think that is an assumption that you are making. This verse really does not clearly what this means. Does it mean that we will be eternally punished for such sins? Or does it mean that the pain for our error will hurt us the rest of our lives? Also remember Jeremiah refutes this doctrine in the old testament in the way that you are referring to it. In either since you are still transferring punishment away for the actor who commits it. I see no difference being it Christ or Satan in this theory.

Taking this into account, we can see that the parents who do not teach their children the gospel are accountable or responsible for their children not accepting it. And justice is satisfied on the heads of the parents, not the children. Justice now being satisfied, the children are free to experience the full measure of mercy. [QUOTE]
Again I understand your point. However it seems to not take into account of free agency. Where does the "sins of the parents" give way to ones' personal accountability to reject the gospel? What if a child is not taught by his parents the gospel but he goes on and becomes an active outstanding member? What sins are on the parent then? Clearly his righteousness is no credit to his parents. It seems that you do not account for individual agency. Further why does justice have to be punitive? And why is mercy only available after punitive measures? If I forgive someone for an offense without demanding punitive punishment, then why does God still have to punish? Does that then make me better then god in the since that I can forgive without a demand of justice where God cannot?

As far a Satan's involvement, this idea that Christ does not have the power sufficient to save us alone on his own atonement, but rather he needs to have the penal punishment onto another, seems strained in my view. I just do not see this in the gospels.
I do agree with you on the idea of Jesus is not "our whipping boy", nor is it just for him to stand in and take our punishment. But I just do not arrive here the same way you do. Actually your ideas do sound a lot like Thomas Acquaints and Ansolyom's atonement theories. (If I remember correctly). He uses a lot of these ideas of Satan, ransom etc.
Anyway with that said it is refreshing to see someone talking about such ideas. It is a basic tenant of the gospel that we do not talk to deeply about. Thanks for the discussion.

Day Of Atonement And The Mystery Of Azazel Studies Doctrine Mormon

Yes, and this is as it should be. I am sure you would have said something similar to young Joseph.

This seems to be the consensus. :-) Let's say that the Book of Enoch is not considered accepted acceptable LDS literature despite the many references and articles stating otherwise. In fact, let's stick only to the bible to provide the 'scripturally supported text". We will use Lev. 16, beginning with 7-10:

First off, note that there are 2 goats. One is 'the Lord" the other 'the scapegoat". If they were both meant to be the Lord, then they would have both been 'the Lord". So, by default, one IS the Lord and one IS NOT the Lord.

Point 1: There are 2 goats, 1 is the Lord, 1 is not the Lord.
Point 1.1: Now we have not yet identified the name of the second goat, or the first. We just know that one is a symbol for the Lord and the other is not.

Point 2: 1 goat was put to death and the other was not.
Point 2.1: The goat symbolic of the Lord was used for "a sin offering" and was put to death, it's blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat of the Ark.and is a perfect representation of Christ who was put to death.
Point 2.2: The scapegoat remains alive to wander in the wilderness. (Sounds a little like Cain, known as Master Mahan, doesn't it?)

Point 3: The scapegoat is presented "alive before the Lord". Clearly the scapegoat is not the Lord or he couldn't be presented before the Lord. So this being, be it Good or Bad is clearly separate from the Lord.

Point 4: This scapegoat which clearly plays a role in the atonement as it is presented before the Lord 'to MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM", (verse 10). So, according to this, the atonement could not be made by the Lord himself because a 'scapegoat" was required.
Now, Verse 15-16 tells us how the blood of the goat symbolic of 'the Lord" is spilt on the mercy seat.

Then in verse 20, we go back to the live goat still waiting in the outer courtyard.

Point 5: Why the Lord would ever go to "a land not inhabited" is beyond me and is also another sign that this is not a symbol of the Lord. This "wilderness" and land that is "not inhabited" is a symbol of outer darkness, which as discussed in another thread on this forum is not "inhabitable". In the other thread we discussed how those in outer darkness will consume each other until they eventually also become destroyed. See below:

These symbols are also directly connected with "desolate" or "desolation" or utter destruction which makes the land "not inhabited".

Do a word search for "not inhabited" and you will see many references to "wilderness" and "desolation" which are both symbols of outer darkness. It is highly unlikely that "Jehovah" will go to outer darkness with the sins of the people on His head.

Now, remember that guy called 'the fit man" that took the goat into the "land not inhabited". Well, he being in contact with this 'scapegoat" became unclean and needed to become clean before entering into the camp again. See verse 26 below:

Again, had this scapegoat been 'the Lord" or even a good angel, it would seem strange that the "fit man" would need to become clean.

So, Here we have a symbol of something that is not 'the Lord" who is making an atonement WITH the Lord, but who is it?

Going back to the Hebrew, the word that was translated to be scapegoat is, "`aza'zel". And the word translated to be 'the Lord" is "Jehovah". Both of these are proper names of Specific People. The Goat named "Jehovah" is an obvious player in the atonement. However this mysterious "Azazel" is not.

Who then is Azazel on who's head the sin's of the people are placed before he sent to a land not inhabited and is considered unclean?

The bible does not say anything else about Azazel. Not even mentioning why he desirves to be treated so terribly. And how is it justified that the sin's of the people are placed on this poor unfortunate and innocent Azazel? What has he done to deserve such a fate? As far as I can tell the bible does not say.

However, this is where the Book of Enoch is quite clear. Also, history shows that Azazel was considered to be 'the enemy of Jehovah" before and during the beginning of the Christian era.

Have I now provided more reason to consider what I have been saying about this particular topic using only LDS accepted scripture? Granted I was given significantly more detail than is provided from the bible, however, I think that the bible has more than plenty to support what I am saying. Any takers, questions, challenges?

Isaih53, I will address the rest of your post later.

Amonhi

Page 2 Azazel Mystery The Atonement Day

I have been trying to find my notes from a class I took at BYU education week. We were talking about types and shadows and I specifically remember this being one of the types for Jesus Christ and Satan. I do agree with what you are saying here but cannot find my notes to back it up.

The explanation is how I remember being taught there as well.

Azazel Mystery The Atonement Day

Again, you are making assumptions as to what is the scapegoat. I do not think that no one is arguing that the scapegoat was a real thing. But you are making an assumption as to what it is. All of your points are describing a ritual ceremony but do not support who is Azazel. In my opinion you still have not shown any scriptural evidence as to this idea. You just have shown my scripture that describes the ritual.

The problem is that Azazel is not a proper noun in Hebrew. So to say that it is a specific person is a stretch by Hebrew linguistics. My Hebrew may be a little rusty but not that rusty to know that. So if you are going to deal in ancient texts you have to account for this.

This may be so, but you cannot assume that the ancient Hebrews have the same meaning as the Christians. This is a no no in any historical or textual reading. You cannot argue that the Hebrews had the same meaning hundreds of years later as the ancient Hebrews. Without a closer source you cannot make that assumption.

Your theory is not a bad one. It has been made many of times before so there are a lot of others that see it your way. I just am not convinced that there is much evidence to support it textually. especially with a word like Azazel that is not a proper noun, nor have very little use in Hebrew.
Personally I feel that scapegoating is satanic. it is how Satan keeps order. So I find it hard to see it as part of the atonement. Simply because pf penal punishment is just not there under Hebrew understanding. I am a LDS guardian maybe to a fault at times, so I am always suspicious of any scapegoating and violence attributed to God.

Day Of Atonement And The Mystery Of Azazel

Well done Isaih53, great post. Thank you for questioning me with reason. It's nice now and again rather than just stating a belief without backing it. :-)

I appreciate you being a guardian that is willing to consider what is outside the box. I am a Rational Inventor, (Meyers & Briggs PP), but I understand and appreciate the stability and order you guardians provide society.

I think you make excellent points. I would like to work from your point of view and see where it takes us. Let's start back with the Hebrew word used for scapegoat. Can you please provide it again and the various definitions you find acceptable.

Then can you please provide from your point of view and agree or disagree to the following points so that I know for certain where to start from in order to understand your view point:
1. The scapegoat is a type of Christ.
2. The scapegoat is a part of the atonement doctrine.

Please clarify the above and share any other thoughts that might be valuable.

Thanks,
Amonhi

Day Atonement The Mystery Azazel - Page 2

Leviticus 16 begins in an interesting manner, the LORD telling Moses what to do after the death of the two sons of Aaron, who were burned before the altar. Why were they burned, because they offered inappropriately the sacrifice before the altar?

Then the LORD gives Moses instructions about the Day of Atonement and speaks about the scapegoat.

From what I remember, the LORD is also referred to as the "Lamb" and the Lamb is sacrificed to represent Him.

That made me think about the "Lamb" and the "goats", taking into consideration Matthew 25:32-33.

Goats for the Day of Atonement were without blemish, right. Was Satan without a blemish, before being cast out from the presence of the Father to suffer and die (both physically and spiritually before the preexistence)?

Moses 4

Was Jesus's spirit (at Gethsemane and the separation from the body on the Cross) and body (again Gethsemane [Luke 22:44], bleeding and on the Cross dying physically) sacrificed to Atone for our sins? Yes. So was with the first goat.

Was Satan cast out to become the father of all sin and live so that his life might lead him to suffer and die alone? Yes. So is with the second goat.

These are just few thoughts on my part for this interesting subject.

Day Atonement The Mystery Azazel Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

Guy, why is Azazel bothering you so much and since when is the uninspired translation of the Book of Enoch part of the standard works of the church or do you tend to cannonize your own scripture? I'm guessing you don't bring these things up in church specially the one about seeing the extra verses?