What is the Book of Mormon's religious agenda.

[_Chap]

Bumping for Wayer Dog - I'd like that unique Atonement stuff in the Book of Mormon please.

If you just thought there was some, and you have now found there isn't any, it would make you more of a stand-up guy if you just said so.

Maybe what you were thinking of was somewhere in the D&C, and not the Book of Mormon at all? There! I've left you a ladder to climb down. Want to use it?

The concept of the atonement is too deep to convey with a single verse. If such were possible there would be no point in having the whole book. The philosophy is embodied in the whole narrative. If I were to off the cuff pick a few specific verses it would be Alma 7:11-12 and 2 Nephi 28-32, particularly 31 and 32. Analogies like the whipping boy are very flawed and fail because they perceive salvation as a place when in truth it's a state of being. And for this same reason the "follow the prophet" mantra, with analogies like staying in a boat helmed by leaders, is flawed because they go against the very essence of the atonement. Atonement is about fostering personal growth, which isn't possible through a blind obedience.

Alma 7:11-12:

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

And that is a unique insight into the Atonement? How exactly?

2 Nephi 28-32, particularly 31 and 32

That's at least two whole chapters ... could you give us a little more guidance towards what you take to relate specifically to the Atonement?

[_Chap]

What say you?

I think it conveys a unique understanding of the Atonement which is a quite radical and profound shift from traditional Christian philosophical thought.

My emphasis.

Just to remind people what we have been chasing Water Dog for on this thread ... 'it' is the Book of Mormon, of course.



Has he delivered yet?

[_Zadok]

I may be obtuse, (many have called me worse), but I don't learn anything more, or see any unique insight to the atonement of Jesus Christ from the Book of Mormon that isn't already contained in the Bible.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think it conveys a unique understanding of the Atonement which is a quite radical and profound shift from traditional Christian philosophical thought.

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

That's it. For the New Testament.

So you're going to the Old Testament for your baseline understanding of the atonement, right? The Book of Mormon has much more teaching/preaching on the atonement than the New Testament. Where does the Old Testament outshine the Book of Mormon, specifically in regards to the atonement of Christ?

Regards,
MG

[_fetchface]

I think I found it:

Since, then no external evidence can, at this long distance of time, be produced to prove whether the Church fabricated the doctrines called redemption or not (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be subject to the same suspicion of being fabricated), the case can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries within itself; and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication. For the internal evidence is that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its base an idea of pecuniary Justice, and not that of moral Justice.

If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed; moral Justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose Justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself; it is then no longer Justice, it is indiscriminate revenge.

Oh wait, that was Thomas Paine's unique understanding of the Atonement.

The more I think about it, the sillier the Atonement seems to me. Mormons frequently describe the Atonement in terms of pecuniary justice but it is not at all obvious why it is even necessary in the first place. If God wanted the debt forgiven why did he insist that Jesus come and pay it and then forgive it? Why didn't God just forgive the debt himself if that is what he in fact wanted? That's the huge plot hole in the story of the Atonement.

If I am a lender and I think that someone I have lent money to is deserving of that debt being forgiven, what is stopping me from forgiving that debt directly?

Edit: The Mormon answer is: because Justice.

Pecuniary justice or moral justice? As Paine points out above asserting this as moral justice is problematic. If it is pecuniary justice, just forgive the debt already if that's what you want to do.

[_Chap]

The more I think about it, the sillier the Atonement seems to me. Mormons frequently describe the Atonement in terms of pecuniary justice but it is not at all obvious why it is even necessary in the first place.

Penal substitution analogies are completely wrong in my opinion, and this is in fact my whole point. The Book of Mormon offers a different perspective. Now, within the church, I think most members themselves do not understand the atonement and that's why penal substitution analogies hang around. They don't do much for me but I think can be useful for teaching certain concepts. I would again repeat, the paradigm shift is that salvation is not a place, it's not a location, a room one gets access too. But a state of being. It's about becoming a certain type of person. Likewise, hell is not a place. Sin is not arbitrary or God-made. It's not a matter of whether one is "unclean" and therefore isn't physically capable of entering God's house, what a jerk of a dad. It's a matter of whether one has become a Christ-like person or not. One either is or isn't. Are you worthy to walk in Yoda's footsteps or not? Either you have Jedi-like "oneness" with "the force" or you don't. God can't force you to learn to ride the bicycle.

My emphasis.

So salvation is a matter of us making ourselves worthy, by our own efforts? Like learning to ride a bicycle?

If that is your idea of atonement, it is certainly radical. But what does Christ do for us? We don't seem to need him at all in your account.

(by the way - hate to be a bore, but where does it say this in the Book of Mormon, exactly?)

[_fetchface]

Yes but the big question is, why did a guy have to get tortured and killed for me? It is not at all obvious to me why this would be necessary. Why wouldn't God just want us to learn to be good? Why the atonement? Why is it absolutely necessary? What problem does it solve?

As I learned it in church, without the atonement, God would have to judge us all as fundamentally unacceptable. This does not make sense to me. There is no special "thing" that has to happen for me to find my children acceptable, however many mistakes they make.

[_fetchface]

Imagine a parent with a child who has cancer. Imagine if somehow this parent were able to give themselves cancer, so that they could experience, literally, all the things that their child is experiencing. Then the parent could "succour" their child, comfort them, and act as a guide showing them how to overcome this horrible trial. This is where Christ comes in. His having been tortured is irrelevant as far as the actual act of the atonement is concerned. Two other guys were on crosses right next to him, they suffered just the same. The great miracle that Christ performed was a kind of acquisition of knowledge. A kind of comprehensive knowledge of the human condition and all the possible temptations and hardships that come with it. Holy Ghost is medium through which that knowledge is transferred to us. This is why Book of Mormon has such a strong emphasis on living by the spirit.

Water Dog, I have enjoyed this and the other exchange with you. I hope I am coming across as I intend, which is respectful disagreement. I have just looked back and I probably could have worded things nicer.

I have heard this line of thinking all my life in church. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I have Mormon friends on Facebook who post cute quotes that in essence say things like, "When I am going through difficult times, I gain great comfort knowing that Jesus suffered in the Atonement and knows what I am going through." I have never understood that. My brain doesn't work that way. All I think is, "Sorry Jesus. That sucks that you had a bad time. I hope you didn't do that for me because I don't gain any comfort knowing that you suffered too." When I am suffering, knowing that someone else suffered doesn't make me feel better.

I guess we are all different.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

That's it. For the New Testament.

So you're going to the Old Testament for your baseline understanding of the atonement, right? The Book of Mormon has much more teaching/preaching on the atonement than the New Testament. Where does the Old Testament outshine the Book of Mormon, specifically in regards to the atonement of Christ?

You realize, I hope, that the New Testament needn't use the word "atonement" to be talking about the atonement? Hebrews 10:10-18 being just one of many examples? And anyway, to show that the Book of Mormon's view of atonement is unique, Water Dog really needs to distinguish it from 19th century Protestant concepts of penal substitution, not from the New Testament. It goes without saying that penal substitution, rooted in a European concept of satisfying justice through punishment, differs from New Testament teachings about atonement, rooted in a Hebraic cult of animal sacrifice to cleanse/cover/purge ritual pollution and/or to appease an offended deity.

[_CaliforniaKid]

So salvation is a matter of us making ourselves worthy, by our own efforts? Like learning to ride a bicycle?

If that is your idea of atonement, it is certainly radical. But what does Christ do for us? We don't seem to need him at all in your account.

(by the way - hate to be a bore, but where does it say this in the Book of Mormon, exactly?)

+1