Why is an atonement necessary?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • UtahDan
    *
    • Nov 2008
    • 14496

    #1

    Why is an atonement necessary?

    This may have been dealt with in another thread, but I wanted to couch this in my own terms. What I really want this thread to be is a discussion of what LDS doctrine is, or where there may be gaps in what the doctrine teaches. I would really like for it not to be "why LDS doctrine doesn't make sense."

    So my understanding of the atonement (thumb nail) is that as a result of the fall sin enters into the world and all men and women consequently sin. Because of their sins they become unclean and cannot enter the presence of God. Also, justice demands that a penalty be paid for sin. Since no one can pay for their own sins, it was necessary for a perfect being who was sinless to receive the punishment for the sins of everyone. This Savior then demands, in order for people to have access to the effects of his sacrifice, that they do certain things. Once those conditions are met, his payment for them becomes effective and one is no longer unclean.

    That may not be exactly right but I think it is mostly right. If it is fundamentally lacking in some respect I'm sure someone will tell me. So here are my questions, in no particular order.

    1. Why does Adam and Eve sinning cause the world to be fallen? Is a fallen world necessary for me to sin (IOW, Adam and Eve sinned, or at least transgressed in the garden, not a fallen world). Does fallen mean anything other than sin happened for the first time.

    2. Why do my sins make me "unclean." What does that mean?

    3. Why can't I go back to God's presence having sinned? Can He not be around me, or it is me who can't be around him? And why not? What law prevents that? What mechanism or entity prevents it? Why is it so?

    4. What is meant by "justice?" Is there a higher enforcement mechanism than God? Or is justice another way of saying something God requires? If it is an "eternal law" who makes the law? Who enforces it? What is an eternal law?

    5. Why is punishment or suffering necessary to "pay the price for sin?" Why must justice be paid at all? Why must it be paid in the form of suffering? What is it about feeling pain that removes my "uncleaness?" Why can't I pay that price my self? What difference does it make that a perfect being suffers as opposed to me?

    6. Having suffered on my behalf, why does the Saviour make his gift to me conditional? Does he have to? Could he simply pay for me with nothing else? If he "has to" make it conditional, is that because of another law, is there some enforcement mechanism if he doesn't? Is his suffering ineffective if the gift is not conditional? Does he get to set the conditions or does someone else tell him what they must be? If the payment is ineffective without the conditions, why?

    I'm trying to get deeper, if possible, than the stock answer I laid out above. I think most of the discussion I have heard or read centers around laying it out logically like I did above. But that being logical rests on many, many assumptions. For example "well of course justice must be paid" (why, what is it, how does it work, who says, etc.).

    So again, this is not a bash. This is more "can anyone tell me what our theology says about this or alternatively say that we don't know." TIA.
  • jay santos
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 13652

    #2
    LDS doctrine: God is beholden to a higher law that he can't break that is something like: sin (any act that's less than perfect) needs to be punished and unredeemed sinners can't live eternally with God. God's kind of impotent in this model. Jesus paid that price but even his new covenant is beholden to these higher laws, just with more doable guidelines.

    Christian doctrine: The Father sets the higher law. God's kind of a little bit of an a-hole that way. The Son is the nice one. Jesus paid the price the Father set. All you really need to do to be covered by Jesus' atonement is to choose to follow him, defined rather loosely.

    Non-literal God believer: It's all symbolic. The point behind the whole story being that through the act of condescension and sacrifice, God and man grow closer together in their love, codependency, and understanding of each other.

    Non-literal Atheist who affiliates with believers: We learn something about ourselves that helps with the human experience by pretending these stories are true? I'm not sure. Someone help me out.

    I think that covers it. The pieces are never quite there in any of the versions. It's one of those things that seems to work but then there's something nagging at you in the back of your head telling you you're missing something because it doesn't make sense yet.

    Comment

    • cowboy
      Homer Weems
      • Dec 2008
      • 5740

      #3
      These are questions I've had as well, and here are the possible explanations in my opinion.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      1. Why does Adam and Eve sinning cause the world to be fallen? Is a fallen world necessary for me to sin (IOW, Adam and Eve sinned, or at least transgressed in the garden, not a fallen world). Does fallen mean anything other than sin happened for the first time.
      There are a couple of possibilities. First, and most likely, the world fell to make it a more challenging place to live, where we would be tempted to seek worldly things simply because they are difficult to obtain. Second, it is possible that imperfection cannot dwell in the presence of perfection. Once man was fallen, the world then had to become imperfect for mankind to dwell on it.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      2. Why do my sins make me "unclean." What does that mean?
      I prefer to think that sin makes us imperfect rather than unclean. Because the consequence of righteousness is spiritual growth, the consequence of sin is spiritual damage, scarring, if you will. The damage of sin keeps us from being able to reach our potential and it keeps us from progressing.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      3. Why can't I go back to God's presence having sinned? Can He not be around me, or it is me who can't be around him? And why not? What law prevents that? What mechanism or entity prevents it? Why is it so?
      I don't have a great answer for this, but I believe that perfection and imperfection cannot permanently coexist. I suspect that imperfection cannot bear to be in the presence of perfection for whatever reason, but I really don't know for certain.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      4. What is meant by "justice?" Is there a higher enforcement mechanism than God? Or is justice another way of saying something God requires? If it is an "eternal law" who makes the law? Who enforces it? What is an eternal law?
      As a loving father, God wants us to learn, develop, and grow. The best way for us to accomplish this is by experience, learning through trial and error. For the good choices we make, we are rewarded with growth and progression. As a just God, our Father in Heaven cannot make a plan that rewards good choices with good results without meting bad results for bad choices.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      5. Why is punishment or suffering necessary to "pay the price for sin?" Why must justice be paid at all? Why must it be paid in the form of suffering? What is it about feeling pain that removes my "uncleaness?" Why can't I pay that price my self? What difference does it make that a perfect being suffers as opposed to me?
      See above. If joy is a consequence of righteousness, then misery must be a consequence of sin.

      Many will pay the price themselves. However, because the consequence of righteousness is eternal, so too must the consequence of sin.

      Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
      6. Having suffered on my behalf, why does the Saviour make his gift to me conditional? Does he have to? Could he simply pay for me with nothing else? If he "has to" make it conditional, is that because of another law, is there some enforcement mechanism if he doesn't? Is his suffering ineffective if the gift is not conditional? Does he get to set the conditions or does someone else tell him what they must be? If the payment is ineffective without the conditions, why?
      Yes, he has to. It is no coincidence that much of the Savior's recorded ministry focuses on healing. It is symbolic of the literal healing of the soul, the reversal of the damage brought about by poor choices. The Savior was granted this healing power by the Father when he suffered all things. This act was the culmination of his education, and with this, he earned his license to practice, so to speak. But in being granted this power, he had to abide by the rules to not short-circuit the learning process for us.

      Just because it is now possible for us to overcome the consequence of sin doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Were this the case, the learning process would be destroyed. We must still have consequences for our actions. Further, we must still meet threshold levels of commitment before we can obtain forgiveness. Otherwise, we could waltz through life doing whatever we pleased and taking no thought of right and wrong because there would be no consequence.
      sigpic
      "Outlined against a blue, gray
      October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
      Grantland Rice, 1924

      Comment

      • Sullyute
        a day late/a dollar short
        • Jul 2010
        • 3308

        #4
        Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
        4. What is meant by "justice?" Is there a higher enforcement mechanism than God? Or is justice another way of saying something God requires? If it is an "eternal law" who makes the law? Who enforces it? What is an eternal law?

        .

        As far as church "doctrine" goes I don't believe that there is any. Apostles and church leaders have shared different opinions over the years with most recent simplying say that we cannot understand why in this life... (my interpretation of what they said)

        I am sure that many people on here have read the "Meaning of the Atonement" by Cleon Skousen. And whether or not you believe what he says (politically or spiritually) at least it is one why of looking at things.

        He said (in my interpretation) that the universe is full of elements (intelligence) that act and others that are acted upon. These intelligences could be rocks, animals, trees, space dust, basic elements of life. God is God because all of these elements obey him. They obey him because of his rightousness and their love for him. He walks a fine line to keep this love or obedience. Now God has allowed (or can only allow) for some intellegences to become like him, these are the greater intellegences.

        Since in order to become like him we come to this earth to gain a knowledge of good and evil and we eventually (or continually) sin. Since all of the other "lesser" elements do not get the oportunity to become like God, these elements will rebel against God (they have agency too) if he allows back intelligences that have sin.

        So God had his perferct and perfectly loved Son come to earth to suffer pain until all of the elements called out to God to stop justince and have mercy. Thus Christ suffered pain (justice) for our sins and He then can be an advocate with all of the elements (intelligences) to allow us to return to God's presence based on their love of Christ and His vouching for our goodness.

        This is a very shorten version and I am sure skewed view of what Skousen said. Since I really haven't read anything deeper on the subject that is all that I can add.

        Obviously this is not doctrine just someones opinion...
        "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

        Comment

        • SoonerCoug
          Joycelyn Elders Supporter
          • Nov 2008
          • 4680

          #5
          The atonement was necessary because it teaches us all how to "man up"

          [YOUTUBE]N1n_1jmKpu4[/YOUTUBE]
          That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

          http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

          Comment

          Working...