- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The atonement was the subject in another thread and that got me thinking, I’ll continue some thoughts here to preserve the focus of the other threads. I haven’t done a massive study of the subject but most other Christian denominations that I’m familiar with do not place emphasis on Jesus’ prayer that he offered in Gethsemane (relatively speaking of course), Jesus’ sacrifice takes place exclusively while on the cross. For some the atonement began in Gethsemane, for others on the cross. Depending on which atonement theory you subscribe to there’s a good argument to be made that Christ’s entire life was an atonement.
I’m not sure what other denominations make of the event in Gethsemane, likely the agony Christ suffered was the result of the realization of what was to shortly take place. The LDS version of the atonement greatly expands the event in Gethsemane. In some ways we view that event as
thedefining moment of the atonement. There aren’t many scriptures that spell out what we believe happened in Gethsemane. We have: Mosiah 3:7 wrote:And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.
(D&C 19 uses similar language)
Which ties the Gethsemane event to suffering because of the wickedness and abominations of his people. It also uses language that makes bleeding from every pore more literal that the language found in Luke. There really aren’t many points of origin for the theology that Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind while in Gethsemane. For me the theology flows better when the price for sin is paid on the cross.
There’s the concept of a blood atonement. Maybe it’s the sweating, as it were, drops of blood that is the source of the Gethsemane atonement theory.
This isn’t a problem that needs solving, my views on the atonement are very different anyway. I was just curious about the history of the LDS version of the atonement, how we got to where we are today with relatively little scripture to support our unique stance. Was it a latter-day prophet expounding on a verse people found to be mysterious, did the teachings solidify during a time when leaders were distancing themselves from using the cross, etc.?
The following are two links to my Sunday School lesson recap thread when I was teaching the oldest youth SS class. The first link is to the lesson about Atonement theories, and the second link is to the lesson about how the Atonement is taught in our LDS hymns. Atonement Theories: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3481&p=72824&hilit=atonement+theories#p71618 The Atonement in our hymns: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3481&p=72824&hilit=atonement+theories#p72824 I had understood the LDS version of the atonement as it was attributed to Cleon Skousen in a type written, oft photocopied, manuscript from my mission. Essentially it goes that the source of God’s power is his honor. He so perfectly walks the razor wire that all the elements pay him homage. Unfortunately, if he were to forgive those that do not deserve forgiveness it would violate justice and the elements of the universe might revolt against this seeming inconsistency. General chaos would then reign and order would disintegrate. It was therefore necessary that someone that was universally loved and respected would intercede on the behalf of the accused. The universe is moved to compassion and together petition God to rule with mercy. God is then free to forgive the sinner without losing his honor/power.
He used restoration scriptures to support his version.
I now see that this is a Mormonized version of the Satisfaction theory/Governmental thoery.
Quote:The third metaphor, used by the 11th century theologian Anselm, is called the “satisfaction” theory. In this picture mankind owes a debt not to Satan, but to the sovereign God himself. A sovereign may well be able to forgive an insult or an injury in his private capacity, but because he is a sovereign he cannot if the state has been dishonoured. Anselm argued that the insult given to God is so great that only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy, and that Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice. Therefore, the doctrine would be that Jesus gave himself as a “ransom for many”, to God the Father himself.
The next explanation, which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm’s satisfaction theory, is the commonly held Protestant “penal substitution” theory, which, instead of considering sin as an affront to God’s honor, sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law. Placing a particular emphasis on Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death), penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God’s wrath with the essence of Jesus’ saving work being his substitution in the sinner’s place, bearing the curse in the place of man (Galatians 3:13). A variation that also falls within this metaphor is Hugo Grotius’ “governmental theory”, which sees Jesus receiving a punishment as a public example of the lengths to which God will go to uphold the moral order.
I also see that – even though Mr. Skousen seems to have cherry picked scriptures to make his position – there are also plenty of LDS scriptures/examples that would support the other theories
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.