Close Topic Options

He took our Place - Page 2

Dough, you seem to be blending the moral and penal/substitutional atonement theories in your ideas.

Yes but who is to say that Alma was referring to Justice as a type of satisfation through punishment? Meaning if I do something sinful there is a punishment a fixed to the sin. I am assuming that is what you are saying. That justice is satisfied by a degree of punishment being met for sin.
I do not think this is the case at all. Simply because Alma is essentially Jewish, and the Jewish idea of justice is related more to the idea of charity and restoration as opposed to our idea of justice. In the Hebrew covenant language, the idea of God's justice is met when he is able to give us his promise of eternal life. Thus justice is satisfied when we become sanctified. And according to Alma, this process of becoming sanctified is done through the mercy of God's forgiveness of our sins. Thus when we are forgiven and our sins are replaced with his virtue, God is able to give us his justice- the restoration of our birth rite.
I do not think Alma is saying anything about justice being a measure of punishment.

Yes this is the moral atonement theory. The problem with this idea is it really does not matter if Christ actually did this or not. As long as I believe in the idea that I must forgive others then I am achieving the atonement even if I do not believe that Christ actually died. This only makes Christ an exemplar or revealer of forgiveness. You do not have to be God to do this. Also there is no account of the physical change of the resurrection implied to this idea. Is there not some actual change in my spiritual being that changes when I enter into the atonement? Is there not some actual spiritual change that happens to me? Is their not an enabling power to the atonement that makes me better and more perfect?

Personally I like the moral theory, but it does have its limits. I personally agree that the atonement does show me that the demands of justice are not God's but ours. It is us that demands justice for another's offenses. The atonement shows me that God is on the side of the sinner because he is on the cross rather then leading the crusade for justice. This is the revelation of the cross: That God would rather die then to see anyone suffer. This aspect is important because the atonement is not only individual but communal. If we are to be one with God we will have to be one with each other. Thus the atonement must create a oneness between all of us.

The problem I have with Skousen is that he still has us under a creditor if you will. He says that if we do not live in a particular manner then Christ will not intervene to generate Mercy with the intelligences. The actual problem he tries to avoid about substitution/ justice, he inadvertently finds himself back into it with this relationship with Christ. He in turn makes Christ this demanding God that we have to appease in order to get this mercy from the intelligences. He does not escape it. This is not to dog Skousen at all. He was a good friend of mine, and his ideas were good.

Place took

I am at a complete loss in how to respond. You have completely misunderstood what I have written - and Bro. Skousen as well.

Alma does not speak as a Jew, or a Nephite - he speaks as an inspired Prophet of God.

There is no creditor in the atonement, only a God, so Glorious, so Majestic, so universally and infinitely loved, who suffered something - I can find no adequate words in my vocabulary - something so exquisitely horrible that all said If he is willing to suffer that, then what ever he says is good with me. And if he says, "his sins are forgiven" then as far as I'm concerned, they are. And if he chooses that one and not this one, so be it. What he did was to invoke such infinite mercy in all the intelligences that all are willing to yield their demand for justice to whatever Christ wills.

I know of no penal, substitution, or any other theory. I do know of what I write.
Gods power is his Glory - the love, honor, and admiration of the intelligences.
They love, honor, and admire him because he does nothing that is not in their best interest. He does not assert his will against ours, he only asks that we yield our will to his so that he can teach us to chose to be as he is. God gives us our agency by teaching us what our choices are. Without that knowledge there is no choice or agency. And if we make the correct choice, he will teach us more. And if we do not, we will lose or forget what we have been taught.

Doug

He took our Place Studies Doctrine Mormon

I do not think that I miss understood Cleon. Like I said, I have talked with him many of hours on this subject of Atonement. We talked about the atonement every Monday afternoon for a little over 2 years. We even talked about this subject deeper then what he published. I can almost quote you all of his ideas word for word.

What I am saying is his ideas is a concept of a moral theory of atonement. It is a good theory but like all theories (including mine) it has its problems. Namely the idea that in his ideas the atonement does not have physical change in our being. He says nothing of this, as how it physically perfects one. For me there is a element of the atonement that produces a physical change in my being. Cleon does not have any account for this. There is something about the atonement that changes my very being, more then just invoking mercy and my desire to forgive others because of the suffering of Christ. The atonement also has an enabling power a literal power that perfects one physically as well as spiritually. This goes beyond invoking mercy within me and others.

Like I said I do like his ideas of justice and the ideas of Christ's mercy intervening with intelligences. He moves in a good direction. However, I see it more as Christ intervening among our since of justice because of his suffering. Like I said this in theological terms is a moral theory of atonement. (This is an idea that is in protestant theological circles well before Cleaon came around. He basically just "mormonised" many of these ideas. Or better yet Widtsoe did)

The problem that I have is that according to Cleon, Christ only intervenes for those who "qualify" for his intervention with the intelligences. Thus in a since we are moved from the debt of justice of the intelligences to the debt of Christ. We still to some extent have to earn or justify our right to his mercy and intervention. Again in this perspective, in a since we have to invoke Christ mercy upon us by our works. We are still under the debt of another's since of justice. (which is Christ approval to have his mercy) Cleon in this way still has us working to justify ourselves under Christ to get his mercy or intervention to the intelligences. Thus we went from one debtor to another.

Cleon really does not address the grace of Christ in the biblical since that it is a gift despite our sins. Christ intervenes despite our sins not because we meet his criteria for his mercy. In Cleon's idea Christ may want to intervene in our lives but if we do not measure up or qualify for his grace we do not have his mercy. Again this is subjective to Christ since of qualification to his mercy.) We get his mercy only if Christ himself feels that we deserve it. To me along with the physical change that we expereince with his atonement he has problems.

I am not sure what you are getting at. Pres. Monson is still a prophet but he speaks like an American. It is the only way he knows how to be. Your idea does not make since to me. Prophets have to use the ideas and language of there times and people. How else would they communicate? Sure Alma was a prophet, but when he talks about Justice, he is talking to the people that see justice in a biblical since. We must not take things out of its context.

Thus God's justice in the Hebrew since is to restore one to its original state. It is more aligned to the idea of Charity not punitive punishment. Thus in the OT God's justice is to restore man before the fall. God's justice is only achieved when Man is restored to what he was. We know this to be godhood. Thus God's justice in covenant language is for us to be sealed in the eternities and inherit all that he has. This is the justice of God. Thus this is not done, unless he invokes mercy, which is the method that he exalts us. Thus as Alma says, Mercy cannot rob justice. Because it is by Mercy that justice is satisfied. This can fit in may ideas and even into Cleon's ideas, but one has to get away from the idea that justice satisfies a form of eternal law or punishment. (Cleon gets away for this to an extent.)

The reality is that the scriptures teach the atonement through metaphor. The scripture's do not sit down and give us the technicalities of the atonement. Even our church does not have a solid theology of the atonement. You can read the general conference talks for a year and see several atonement theories/ theologies taught.
I think this is a good thing because the atonement is something we experience more then understand. And any metaphor or idea on the atonement that gets one to experience Christ is a good thing. Thus Christ is more concerned in our ability to experience him the to intellectually understand and get it right as to how that process is done.
Like I said all atonement theories have problems. (mine included) But there are some good LDS theories out there like R Dennis Potter's ideas and Blake Ostler's. They do address some things that Cleon does not.