Why did we need an atonement?

[Anonymous]

Since my belief in the truthfulnessof the doctrines of the church has been sorely tested, and I must admit there is not much left I believe in, my mind continues to ponder over all the things I was brought up to believe in. I wonder do other beliefs contain fabrications. Specifically I have been pondering the atonement. I have been asking myself was this a real event in the manner I was taught. I have really begun to struggle with the actual need for such a sacrifice as this is portrayed to be. What is the point really? So we are all sinners, but what is sin? Does God really care that we adhere to a strict regiment of obedience? And when we deviate he has to ask his oldest son to take the beating for us. Why is it so necessary to be so perfect to enter heaven that we need an advocate to plead our case. I do not make my children live by an unobtainable code of conduct to enter my home. I do not require someone else to plead their case to be able to show compassion on them. Sure I may have rules I ask my children to live by, but when they break them I do not banish them form my home forever until they beg and plead to come in, or require them to find an advocate to plead their case. Granted I may require their commitment to do better but not much more.

It just all seems to make God so intolerant to me to require such a thing as the atonement. I know many people find beauty in the concept but I am hung up on not the act itself which if I believed was a selfless act but on the need in the first place for such a thing.

[Anonymous]

Hey Cadence, have you read “The Power of Myth” by Dr. Joseph Campbell? It is also a PBS documentary by the same name.

I think you would really enjoy it based on this question and other comments. I consider it on the top of my list of influential works in my own personal journey the past couple years. Joseph Campbell’s positive perspective on religion, from the vantage point of comparative mythology, helped me really work through finding beauty and intensely valuable meaning from things that I now (in the rational part of my mind) don’t believe are literally and factually “true.” (at least in the way I used to think of things being true).

[Anonymous]

I second Brian’s recommendation of “The Power of Myth”. Much of what I “accept” I do so symbolically or figuratively or allegorically. Some of those things I choose to accept also as literal, but even then I often do so in my own way from a symbolic or figurative foundation.

The Atonement is one of those things. I accept the concept or principle of an atonement (a process by which we can become one with all mankind and God) as literal (that it can happen for those who strive to make it happen), but I accept “The Atonement of Jesus Christ” as symbolic – even as I accept that the events might have been literal.

I will try to explain:

The sacrificial lamb was a POWERFUL symbol in ancient times, as was the scapegoat. I take the combination of those powerful symbols and honor / value them. I talk of the “atoning sacrifice” as if there was a real, imbued power in it, since I believe there really is power in something in which people place power – and since I want to remain open to the possibility that there really was divine power in it. However, when I personally speak of “the Atonement”, I speak of the grand, timeless process of becoming one with God and all mankind – the process that started in the pre-mortal life and will end only when mankind is exalted and godlike. I do that because, for me in my own lifetime and culture, that process is more powerful symbolically than just one event within that process. (I don’t mean to devalue Gethsemane and Golgotha in ANY way by saying that. As I said, I value those events and the powerful symbolism they provide too much to reject them in any way.)

I had a Religion professor who taught a class called “Jesus and the Moral Life”. In it, he compared the teachings of Jesus to the teachings of the founders of all other major world religions. One of his examples was analyzing the parables from the viewpoint of what he called the “Zen slap” – the conclusion of a Zen Buddhist story that came out of left field and “slapped” the hearer upside the head in a totally unexpected way. He talked about how many of Jesus’ parables did just that – seemed to lead in one direction and then veered suddenly into an unanticipated and even shocking direction.

I see much of that in the narrative of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, of Nazareth – the life that pointed toward political liberation and sovereign power but ended “triumphantly” in public crucifixion and release from a tomb. I see great symbolic power in that narrative, and it is powerful for me whether or not it was historically accurate. I can believe that GOD chose someone to represent his commitment to bring all His children back to Him in unity and peace, whether that choice was made in a pre-mortal existence or retroactively upon that person’s death. I can believe that GOD inspired someone to teach the “life”, the “truth” and the “way” – or that He chose someone before the creation to do so. I can lean toward the symbolic without discarding the literal.

One last thing:

The religion professor I mentioned, at the end of the class, gave us an assignment to write our own parables, stories that would have meaning and power in our own world. The one I will remember until the day I die was written by a young woman who wrote about a certain farmer who cared for his animals lovingly whenever they expressed discomfort or pain or loneliness – then beat his children whenever they cried. That lesson was totally symbolic within the context of a parable, but it was powerful to me – and it carries great meaning as I interact with my own children. Did it really happen? I don’t know. I don’t know the background of the person who wrote it. It doesn’t matter, really, since, like the story of Job, the message is more important to me than the historical veracity.

Within Mormonism, some people have derided Stephen Robinson’s parable of the bicycle. They say things like, “That cheapens the atonement.” I’ve even read some comments in Hawkgirl’s post here saying that same basic thing about various interpretations of the Atonement. My only caution is the same thing I say in lots of other contexts – that we need to be careful of the human tendency to censor or eliminate things that don’t make sense to us or match our own perspectives.

If a certain symbolic representation resonates with some people – if a particular symbolism gives meaninfg and peace and power and liberation to some people – if a particular symbolism helps some people “get it” in some way – why do we need to challenge or belittle or reject it? Why can’t we say something like, “Cool. I’m glad that works for them. Here’s what works for me – at least right now at this point in my life.”

[Anonymous]

What a wonderful response, Ray.

I myself have come to the conclusion that there is no need for a literal substitutionary atonement by Christ–when I stopped accepting the paradigm of the church and examined what I personally believed about God, the Christian atonement as I understood it just didn’t make sense. That’s precisely why I no longer consider myself a Christian.

But I love the atonement-as-parable concept. It’s not, of course, what any Christian churches that I know of mean when they say Atonement, but it’s an interesting concept.

I still feel “the spirit” when I listen to my favorite sacrament meeting songs and am moved by the concept of a person who “cared for me enough to die for me,” even though I don’t believe Christ’s crucifixion was necessary for my return to God.

[Anonymous]

Wow Ray … thanks for taking the time to put all that into words on the forum. That is how I would have wanted to say it too. I agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Cadence, good questions and I think a valid topic of discussion and study. Thanks for raising this.

I agree with Ray that there can be different analogies or stories that can help us understand or inspire us to action, but none are perfect in describing the principle of the Atonement, whether it is the oft-used bicycle analogy, or the kids who play in the mud and need to be cleaned before entering the house, or whatever. Those are just different stories to try to help clarify a point. The true meaning and value is internalizing it personally in my own way.

Cadence wrote:

Why is it so necessary to be so perfect to enter heaven that we need an advocate to plead our case. I do not make my children live by an unobtainable code of conduct to enter my home. I do not require someone else to plead their case to be able to show compassion on them. Sure I may have rules I ask my children to live by, but when they break them I do not banish them form my home forever until they beg and plead to come in, or require them to find an advocate to plead their case.

I’m not sure I see the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement as a perfect comparison to this situation you describe.

I really love Brian’s recommendation for Power of Myth, as that dialogue Campbell has with Moyer to me was enlightening. The myths and the meaning behind the religion that helps me make choices daily is what gives the Atonement power in my life…not just the rules as laid out in the scripture, but how I internalize them.

For me, there is something powerful about believing I cannot do all things myself. I should look to a higher power outside myself to strive to learn more and be better.

Like you, I cannot relate to banishing my kids from my house and making them beg to get back. But I can relate more to telling my oldest son to go out and find the other children who are lost, and bring them back, knowing that the oldest knows the way.

That is just one more imperfect “story” – but one that I relate to more and how in some ways I view the need for the Atonement. Of course, I don’t claim to understand the Atonement, but I still value it.

I guess my question to you, Cadence, is: Do you think you need God at all in your life? Why?

[Anonymous]

Cadence, great questions.

I love Ray’s response and will simply add my own perspective here.

I am leaning away from an interpretation of the atonement that is literal and legalistic. I’m open to being wrong on this point, but my best guess is that the atonement was NOT literally required to balance some actual scale of justice — but instead is the most powerful symbol I can imagine of God showing solidarity with us.

If He sends His Son — or even comes down Himself — to suffer with us, to plead our cause, to die an ignominious and painful death, He shows us how much we mean to Him. That there is something about suffering that is inherently valuable. That He can heal and bind all our wounds, because He understands what we’re going through. Ours is not a God who watches distantly from heaven and judges from a place of detachment. Ours is a God who joins us in our pain and makes our pain His pain.

Whether or not there was a literal transfer of guilt, I have no idea. It’s not particularly important to me. The symbol IS important to me, and it’s a gorgeous one.

[Anonymous]

I posted a reply on another thread on this forum called atonement theology, which would answer this. check it out:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1160

Here is something that a man in my ward shared with me about the atonement that I thought was interesting:

Atonement Analogy

By Wayne Amodt-PhD and Masters Degree in LDS Church History

In this story Harry is the name of a father and a son, Harry Sr. and Harry Jr.. Harry Jr. is interested in automobiles and Harry Sr. gives him enough money to set up an automobile repair shop. Harry Jr. does well with the shop and enjoys the work until one day a racing driver brought his car in for a tune up before an important race. The engine was really too fine an engine for Harry Jr. to work on, and as he proceeds the performance decreases rather than improving. Finally it is evident hat the car cannot win the race. Possibly it will not even start the race. The owner of the car has a legitimate claim against Harry Jr., and Harry Jr. is sincerely sorry for what he has done. The owner of the car has no legitimate claim against Harry Sr. because although he provided the money to start the shop, the shop belonged completely to Harry Jr. Still, the father wants to help the boy and he is very rich. He sends his personal airplane to the factory and hires one of their best mechanics to come repair the damage his son has done. The mechanic tunes the motor properly and the next day the man wins the race. Everyone is happy. But Harry Jr. is not completely satisfied. He knows that he was responsible for the mistuning of the engine and that he had been unable to make things right. During the following months Harry Jr. changes the way he operates his shop. So that he will not cause injury again, he only accepts jobs he is sure he can do right. If he has the slightest doubt that he can do it he refuses the job and suggest they take the car to the dealer. The father observes this behavior and he recognizes that this son has dammed his progress as a mechanic. He does only that which he had done countless times before, and rejects every opportunity to do something new out of fear that he will injure someone again.

In order to help his son grow, Harry Sr. makes a proposition. They will take down the sign that says, “Automobile Repairs, Harry Jr. Proprietor and Chief Mechanic.” In its place they will erect a sign that say, “Automobile Repairs, Harry Sr. Proprietor, Chief Mechanic, Harry Jr.” Now, the father says we will share responsibility for the results.

“But,” Harry Jr. protests, “ I still must be responsible for my mistakes.” “You will be,” Harry Sr. replies. “ you will be responsible to me and I will be responsible to your customers. I will give you assignments to learn what you need to know, and among those assignments will be to undertake new tasks so that you will become a better mechanic. If in performing your tasks you make honest mistakes you will have a right to call on me to compensate those you have injured, and so long as your recognize your responsibility to me and follow my rules you have a right to call on me for such support. But, if you reject our contract and refuse to follow my rules you also lose the right to call on me for help.”

[Anonymous]

Hi!

Cadence – I’ve been wondering similarly. Human sacrifice required by God never set well with me.

Heber – The idea of anyone suffering in behalf of me inspires humility, which seems necessary to connect with God.

Brian – “The Power of Myth” sounds interesting.

I believe we are dependent on God & others (for physical & spiritual guidance & love) to an extent, but nobody can overcome our trials, change our attitude nor be willing & open to learning except us. It was comforting to believe & hope my Savior would save me, but I think such a belief may keep me from truly believing in Jesus’ message & from following his example. As others implied, Jesus’ life may be symbolic for what we must do spiritually. As the scriptures/other inspiration & temple can reveal different truths at different times, the story of Christ can too.

[Author]

Posts