LDS: Dialogue-What is the Atonement of Christ, and what did it achieve?

[SteveVH]

As far as the question, what does the Atonement mean for me, personally?

The Atonement was provided to us by God because of His infinite mercy. Jesus Christ was chosen to be the sacrifice that would bring the atonement to pass. It is the complete testament of God’s love for me.

Why was the atonement necessary? Because, God cannot rob justice to give mercy. Because, just as God is Merciful He is also Just.

The plan for our salvation included an opposition to all things - that we may learn right from wrong from our own freely made choices. Because of free will, Adam fell into sin and became mortal, begetting mortal children. The price for such a fall is death.

God’s mercy requires that we rise to eternal life. We could not gain eternal life for ourselves because of our mortal state. We needed a mediator. It is like owing the bank $100,000 for our house. But, our income is only $20,000. We need $80,000 more to pay the bank that we can’t possibly acquire on our own. So, Jesus comes up with $80,000, and pays the bank with it on our behalf. We then write a contract with Jesus to promise certain things (covenants) made in faith to be worthy of the $80,000. The thing is - the $80,000 is free. Because, it is quite difficult - impossible even - to pay that back. But, we keep our covenants not to pay back the $80,000 but to show God that we have faith in Him and would want to be like Him.

Okay, so this is really very “kindergarten” explanation. It’s kinda hard to express a totally amazing, gargantuan thing as Jesus’ Atonement in a forum post…

I don’t think we can have a discussion on the atonement without distinguishing it from salvation, and I see some very clear differences here if salvation is brought into the topic of this thread. In other words, Christ redeemed all of mankind, but not all of mankind will be saved. Are we in agreement on this?

I don’t think we have significant differences in understanding that we, ourselves, could not pay the debt. But I do see differences in how we understand what is required in order to be saved.

Also, do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will? By that I mean do you believe that it was God’s will that mankind would fall into sin in order that “we may learn right from wrong from our own freely made choices”? Or do you believe that because man fell into sin that God’s plan was to save us, but His will was that we would remain faithful and not fall into sin in the first place? Bottom line, do you believe that the fall was necessary in order for us to attain our heavenly destiny?

Thank you.

 

[pinay]

I remember the General Conference when Packer gave the discourse for the first time.In my own unpublished work of LDS Apologetics, “The Christians We Call Mormon” I include it with Hugh B. Brown’s “The Currant Bush” as an essential discourse.

The granularity on Grace/Works is a relatively new (last decade and a half, or so) development, at least to the scope it has become. I have seen BYU’s Robert Millet kind of taking the lead on this one. I find most of those taking up the Grace side are more Book of Mormon purists, taking the Title Page and the assurance of it as “the most correct book” literally. When they do that and use it to interpret other scripture sources, rather than the other way around, they perceive grace as more important than has been emphasized.

My main observation is that in the development of LDS doctrine it is going through many of the same passages as did Catholicism in its first centuries. This goes right down to discovering that the Return of Christ was not quite as imminent as at first believed.

I got a bit tangential, but I think the on-topic part is that it shows how when we focus on a common belief in the Atonement of Christ we will find additonal concord in other teachings. I think any Christian can benefit from the discourses I mentioned, and neither seeks to proselyte.

I’m not sure I follow what you mean about a “relatively new development”…

I am talking about the 3 degrees of heaven. That’s the granularity that distinguishes the grace/works discussion with the LDS that is not present in Catholicism. Know what I mean? This is core LDS doctrine.

 

[pinay]

In other words, Christ redeemed all of mankind, but not all of mankind will be saved. Are we in agreement on this?

Yes. We are in agreement.

I don’t think we have significant differences in understanding that we, ourselves, could not pay the debt. But I do see differences in how we understand what is required in order to be saved.

There is no difference between Catholicism and Mormonism on what is required in order to be saved. Remember - the word we are using is saved… which, by definition, is salvation from the fires of hell (in LDS lingo, outer darkness). Now, there might be some differences in “practice” and LDS have the additional gospel on opportunity for redemption after death. For example - both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism is required for salvation, but there’s a difference in how it is done. Did that make sense?

Also, do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will? By that I mean do you believe that it was God’s will that mankind would fall into sin in order that “we may learn right from wrong from our own freely made choices”? Or do you believe that because man fell into sin that God’s plan was to save us, but His will was that we would remain faithful and not fall into sin in the first place? Bottom line, do you believe that the fall was necessary in order for us to attain our heavenly destiny?

Thank you.

Okay, so in this particular doctrine, Catholics and LDS have a difference. The account from the Bible is the same, the interpretation of it is different. This difference is attributed to the scriptural accounts in 2 Nephi 2 which the Catholics do not have. But, I would just like to state that the Catholic understanding of the events in the Garden of Eden is sufficient. In other words, this granularity does not cause anyone to be denied salvation.

In answer to your questions…
Do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will?
No difference. God’s plan is God’s will. God is omniscient. Jesus Christ was chosen to be the Savior before the creation.

The LDS interpretation of these events is clearly explained in 2 Nephi 2. It’s too long to quote here. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the entire Book of Mormon.

I’ll just quote this one line on verse 25:
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Anyway, I’m not proselyting… but if you want to know exactly what the LDS believe about the fall of Adam and Eve and how it ties into the atonement, there’s nothing clearer than that chapter.

 

[Peter_John]

I’m not sure I follow what you mean about a “relatively new development”…

I am talking about the 3 degrees of heaven. That’s the granularity that distinguishes the grace/works discussion with the LDS that is not present in Catholicism. Know what I mean? This is core LDS doctrine.

Then I misundertood. I was talking about a reemphasis that first made significant inroads in LDS publishing early this decade, beginning more with scholarly authors more than with ecclesitical authority. It reevaluated some of the scriptural interpretations on the role of Grace. I thought you referred to a granularity of opinion on that issue. I understand about the LDS perception of the three degrees of glory, and I really do not think it has any bearing on the discussion. That is why I never even considered you were talking about that. We can accept that we have completely different perceptions on what the personal outcomes can be and agree about what the Lord did to achieve this.

One could argue that LDS believe even more in Grace than Catholics, because many that a strict interpretation of Catholicism would consign to hell, LDS dogma still allows some palce of rest and happiness. On the other hand, many that LDS believe could not be forgiven in this life, or might never have a chance of attaining the Celestial Kingdom of Mormon cosmology, under Catholicism might still attain forgiveness in this life and end up in Heaven.

I apologize for the miscommunication.

 

[pinay]

Then I misundertood. I was talking about a reemphasis that first made significant inroads in LDS publishing early this decade, beginning more with scholarly authors more than with ecclesitical authority. It reevaluated some of the scriptural interpretations on the role of Grace. I thought you referred to a granularity of opinion on that issue. I understand about the LDS perception of the three degrees of glory, and I really do not think it has any bearing on the discussion. That is why I never even considered you were talking about that. We can accept that we have completely different perceptions on what the personal outcomes can be and agree about what the Lord did to achieve this.

One could argue that LDS believe even more in Grace than Catholics, because many that a strict interpretation of Catholicism would consign to hell, LDS dogma still allows some palce of rest and happiness. On the other hand, many that LDS believe could not be forgiven in this life, or might never have a chance of attaining the Celestial Kingdom of Mormon cosmology, under Catholicism might still attain forgiveness in this life and end up in Heaven.

I apologize for the miscommunication.

No problem. Yeah, I try not to use non-scriptural stuff in these types of discussions… I mean - a lot of confusion can come from non-scriptural accounts like the Journal of Discourses, so I typically avoid those things.

But you are correct. This granularity (I seem to be using that word a lot!) is not needed in this discussion.

 

[Peter_John]

Yes. We are in agreement.

There is no difference between Catholicism and Mormonism on what is required in order to be saved. Remember - the word we are using is saved… which, by definition, is salvation from the fires of hell (in LDS lingo, outer darkness). Now, there might be some differences in “practice” and LDS have the additional gospel on opportunity for redemption after death. For example - both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism is required for salvation, but there’s a difference in how it is done. Did that make sense?

Okay, so in this particular doctrine, Catholics and LDS have a difference. The scriptural account is the same, the interpretation of it is different. This difference is attributed to the scriptural accounts in 2 Nephi 2 which the Catholics do not have. But, I would just like to state that the Catholic understanding of the events in the Garden of Eden is sufficient. In other words, this granularity does not cause anyone to be denied salvation.

In answer to your questions…
Do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will?
No difference. God’s plan is God’s will. God is omniscient. Jesus Christ was chosen to be the Savior before the creation.

The LDS interpretation of these events is clearly explained in 2 Nephi 2. It’s too long to quote here. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the entire Book of Mormon.

I’ll just quote this one line on verse 25:
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Anyway, I’m not proselyting… but if you want to know exactly what the LDS believe about the fall of Adam and Eve and how it ties into the atonement, there’s nothing clearer than that chapter.

I don’t think we can have a discussion on the atonement without distinguishing it from salvation, and I see some very clear differences here if salvation is brought into the topic of this thread. In other words, Christ redeemed all of mankind, but not all of mankind will be saved. Are we in agreement on this?

I don’t think we have significant differences in understanding that we, ourselves, could not pay the debt. But I do see differences in how we understand what is required in order to be saved.

Also, do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will? By that I mean do you believe that it was God’s will that mankind would fall into sin in order that “we may learn right from wrong from our own freely made choices”? Or do you believe that because man fell into sin that God’s plan was to save us, but His will was that we would remain faithful and not fall into sin in the first place? Bottom line, do you believe that the fall was necessary in order for us to attain our heavenly destiny?

Thank you.

Perhaps the thread on the effects of original sin forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=540700 could greatly benefit from this discussion, as it got kind of hogwallered over a couple of semantic issues. I expect this degree of actual dialogue would be welcome there.

I am glad that it has been brought up because it is a good example of something that need have no bearing on our appreciating the reality of the Atonement. Whatever the nature of a positive eternal reward, we all agree that it is something the best of us could not get without Him, no matter what we do. Or am I wrong?

 

[Peter_John]

No problem. Yeah, I try not to use non-scriptural stuff in these types of discussions… I mean - a lot of confusion can come from non-scriptural accounts like the Journal of Discourses, so I typically avoid those things.

But you are correct. This granularity (I seem to be using that word a lot!) is not needed in this discussion.

I do think that recognizing the deifference is important – so bringing it up was not wasted. As I hope I expressed in my last post, it says something aabout the strength of the Atonement that our beliefs can so thoroughly differ regarding the outcomes, but recognize that we owe it to the same great total gift of self.

 

[pinay]

I’ve been wanting to Thank some posts here but I can’t seem to find the Thanks button…

 

[SteveVH]

There is no difference between Catholicism and Mormonism on what is required in order to be saved. Remember - the word we are using is saved… which, by definition, is salvation from the fires of hell (in LDS lingo, outer darkness). Now, there might be some differences in “practice” and LDS have the additional gospel on opportunity for redemption after death. For example - both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism is required for salvation, but there’s a difference in how it is done. Did that make sense?

Do you mean an opportunity for “salvation” after death? Hasn’t this person already been “redeemed”?

What is your take on the “good thief” to which Jesus promised paradise that very day? Would you say he was “saved” and if so, how? We can assume that he made some very poor choices in his life. Would he be in need of an opportunity after death? And what about his lack of baptism?

Okay, so in this particular doctrine, Catholics and LDS have a difference. The account from the Bible is the same, the interpretation of it is different. This difference is attributed to the scriptural accounts in 2 Nephi 2 which the Catholics do not have. But, I would just like to state that the Catholic understanding of the events in the Garden of Eden is sufficient. In other words, this granularity does not cause anyone to be denied salvation.

Acknowledged.

In answer to your questions…
Do you see a difference between God’s plan and God’s will?
No difference. God’s plan is God’s will. God is omniscient. Jesus Christ was chosen to be the Savior before the creation.

That Jesus was chosen to be the Savior before creation we agree. My question has to do with the fall. Was God complicit in the disobedience of Adam and Eve? Was it His will that they fall into sin? Or did He give them free will so that they might choose to love Him and remain faithful. We agree that God knows all things from eternity, but does this translate into His approval of all that takes place, or do some things go against His will?

The LDS interpretation of these events is clearly explained in 2 Nephi 2. It’s too long to quote here. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the entire Book of Mormon.

I’ll just quote this one line on verse 25:
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Anyway, I’m not proselyting… but if you want to know exactly what the LDS believe about the fall of Adam and Eve and how it ties into the atonement, there’s nothing clearer than that chapter.

I’ll check it out. Thanks.

 

[pinay]

Do you mean an opportunity for “salvation” after death? Hasn’t this person already been “redeemed”?

Not necessarily. Salvation is not automatic. It is predicated by faith in Christ. Catholics and LDS are similar in this stance. Therefore, if somebody living in the remote regions of the mountains of Sierra Madre, Philippines who has never heard of Jesus Christ dies, he is not lost. Because, he is given the opportunity to learn of Him after death and continue to make the choice by free will to follow Him.

LDS believe that everybody is born with the light of Christ (conscience) to instinctively know right from wrong. So that, even the guy of Sierra Madre would have made some choices on earth according to this light.

What is your take on the “good thief” to which Jesus promised paradise that very day? Would you say he was “saved” and if so, how? We can assume that he made some very poor choices in his life. Would he be in need of an opportunity after death? And what about his lack of baptism?

Yes, not only is he saved, he may be in spirit paradise*. As far as conversion goes, he made that choice to follow Christ while he was still alive on the cross. His spiritual journey continues after death. And yes, he would have his baptism done then too. This particular event in the gospel is a great inspiration on the power of faith, repentance, and God’s mercy.

*In LDS doctrine, after death, our spirits go to the spirit world awaiting the resurrection. Spirits can be in “prison” or in “paradise” in this world according to their faith. This is not an eternal state. This is a temporary place where people continue to learn and those who are faithful continue to minister to those who need knowledge.

That Jesus was chosen to be the Savior before creation we agree. My question has to do with the fall. Was God complicit in the disobedience of Adam and Eve? Was it His will that they fall into sin? Or did He give them free will so that they might choose to love Him and remain faithful. We agree that God knows all things from eternity, but does this translate into His approval of all that takes place, or do some things go against His will?

I’m not sure what you mean by the word “complicit”. My impression of that word is that God “encouraged, urged, tempted” Adam and Eve to sin. No. Of course He didn’t.

Was it His will? Complicated question that can get caught up in semantics. To avoid misunderstanding, let me explain it to you in my kindergarten manner again - the way I understand it. I’m a mother. As a mother, I know that my child needs to learn how to walk. As a mother, I know that my child will only learn how to walk if he stumbles and gets up on his own - to find his balance. Learning how to navigate the opposition of gravity is key to this learning. Therefore, is it my will that he stumbles and falls? I’m not quite sure how to answer that question in a straight Yes or No answer. I know that it is necessary for him to learn to walk and stumbling and getting up on his own is part of that learning… so, I set up the room so that when he stumbles he doesn’t break his skull on the coffee table, then I try my very best to let my child learn on his own instead of scooping him up right when it seems like he is going to fall (or, even worse, removing gravity all together)… he might cry, he might skin his knees. Is that my will? I can’t answer that in a straight manner either - but, it is part of the plan for the greater glory.

After he learns to walk, then he starts to learn to run, then he starts to learn to ride a bike… yes, he will fall some more, skin his knees, maybe breaks his ankle. Each step is a progression. A learning experience. The path to perfection.

But, as a mother, I also know that my kid can be very stubborn. He now knows how to run, so now he is running all over the place. I tell him the proper place to run - so he doesn’t get hurt (not necessary for him to get hurt anymore because he already knows how to run, he just needs to practice to run and maintain his muscles). So, he runs in the living room that has all the breakable knick knacks. I tell him to stop, he doesn’t listen. I tell him if he doesn’t stop he will get hurt. He doesn’t listen. So, I go ahead and let him do what he wants and suffer the consequence for it. So he breaks a knick knack, falls on it, and gets a big gash on his leg. Nope, not my will at all. I’m mad even because he refused to listen. But, I let it happen, because next time, he will not run around in the living room anymore.

But, if he was ready to run out to the middle of the busy highway… no. I will scoop him up and stop him physically. His death is not in my plan (of course, because I don’t have power over death).

Anyway, Adam and Eve were still at the learning to walk phase…

Did that make sense?

 

[SteveVH]

Not necessarily. Salvation is not automatic. It is predicated by faith in Christ. Catholics and LDS are similar in this stance. Therefore, if somebody living in the remote regions of the mountains of Sierra Madre, Philippines who has never heard of Jesus Christ dies, he is not lost. Because, he is given the opportunity to learn of Him after death and continue to make the choice by free will to follow Him.

LDS believe that everybody is born with the light of Christ (conscience) to instinctively know right from wrong. So that, even the guy of Sierra Madre would have made some choices on earth according to this light.

Catholics would agree that the man in the Philippines is not necessarily lost, although we would differ in that we believe his salvation is based upon what he did with what he knew, knowing that all humans inherintly know right from wrong. We believe he does not have a second chance after death (though he does have a chance to be purified in purgatory after death unless he has committed deadly sin).

Yes, not only is he saved, he may be in spirit paradise*. As far as conversion goes, he made that choice to follow Christ while he was still alive on the cross. His spiritual journey continues after death. And yes, he would have his baptism done then too. This particular event in the gospel is a great inspiration on the power of faith, repentance, and God’s mercy.

This would be a perfect example of the Catholic belief in “baptism of desire”. Nevertheless, we would agree that he was saved by faith in Christ at the last minute and after leading less than a Christian life.

*In LDS doctrine, after death, our spirits go to the spirit world awaiting the resurrection. Spirits can be in “prison” or in “paradise” in this world according to their faith. This is not an eternal state. This is a temporary place where people continue to learn and those who are faithful continue to minister to those who need knowledge.

We’re very close here. Again, we believe, through the mercy of God, that we will be purified after death in purgatory. All who reach purgatory will eventually spend eternity in heaven. One difference, however, would be that one can, immediately upon their death, also enter directly into hell for eternity. There are those who may enter into heaven directly upon their death if they are in a state of complete grace and not in need of purification.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

I’m not sure what you mean by the word “complicit”. My impression of that word is that God “encouraged, urged, tempted” Adam and Eve to sin. No. Of course He didn’t.

Was it His will? Complicated question that can get caught up in semantics. To avoid misunderstanding, let me explain it to you in my kindergarten manner again - the way I understand it. I’m a mother. As a mother, I know that my child needs to learn how to walk. As a mother, I know that my child will only learn how to walk if he stumbles and gets up on his own - to find his balance. Learning how to navigate the opposition of gravity is key to this learning. Therefore, is it my will that he stumbles and falls? I’m not quite sure how to answer that question in a straight Yes or No answer. I know that it is necessary for him to learn to walk and stumbling and getting up on his own is part of that learning… so, I set up the room so that when he stumbles he doesn’t break his skull on the coffee table, then I try my very best to let my child learn on his own instead of scooping him up right when it seems like he is going to fall (or, even worse, removing gravity all together)… he might cry, he might skin his knees. Is that my will? I can’t answer that in a straight manner either - but, it is part of the plan for the greater glory.

After he learns to walk, then he starts to learn to run, then he starts to learn to ride a bike… yes, he will fall some more, skin his knees, maybe breaks his ankle. Each step is a progression. A learning experience. The path to perfection.

But, as a mother, I also know that my kid can be very stubborn. He now knows how to run, so now he is running all over the place. I tell him the proper place to run - so he doesn’t get hurt (not necessary for him to get hurt anymore because he already knows how to run, he just needs to practice to run and maintain his muscles). So, he runs in the living room that has all the breakable knick knacks. I tell him to stop, he doesn’t listen. I tell him if he doesn’t stop he will get hurt. He doesn’t listen. So, I go ahead and let him do what he wants and suffer the consequence for it. So he breaks a knick knack, falls on it, and gets a big gash on his leg. Nope, not my will at all. I’m mad even because he refused to listen. But, I let it happen, because next time, he will not run around in the living room anymore.

But, if he was ready to run out to the middle of the busy highway… no. I will scoop him up and stop him physically. His death is not in my plan (of course, because I don’t have power over death).

Anyway, Adam and Eve were still at the learning to walk phase…

Did that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense and I had to laugh as you described your child learning how to walk. I remember the visions of split skulls and even patched up a few. Amazing that they live through it. lol.

Where we would differ is that we believe that Adam and Eve already lived in Paradise and walked in the presence of God. They were made whole and entire. What they believed they would receive from eating of the fruit, they already possessed. They were already “like God” as they had been made in His image and likeness. They were told a lie and doubt was placed into their hearts.

God had given them everything they required, but what was He holding back by not allowing them to eat of this tree also? They turned away from the Creator and desired His power and glory for themselves, not with God, but apart from God. It was only after they disobeyed that the atonement of Christ was necessary. They had lost what had been given. God’s will was that they remain faithful. In other words they were born knowing how to walk already. It was only their disobedience that caused them to fall. Now they, and their children would have to learn how to walk all over again, and some, now, would run into the street.

 

[pinay]

Where we would differ is that we believe that Adam and Eve already lived in Paradise and walked in the presence of God. They were made whole and entire. What they believed they would receive from eating of the fruit, they already possessed. They were already “like God” as they had been made in His image and likeness. They were told a lie and doubt was placed into their hearts.

God had given them everything they required, but what was He holding back by not allowing them to eat of this tree also? They turned away from the Creator and desired His power and glory for themselves, not with God, but apart from God. It was only after they disobeyed that the atonement of Christ was necessary. They had lost what had been given. God’s will was that they remain faithful. In other words they were born knowing how to walk already. It was only their disobedience that caused them to fall. Now they, and their children would have to learn how to walk all over again, and some, now, would run into the street.

Yes, this explains very well the Catholic perspective. And yes, it is a different interpretation than the LDS view.

And that’s why I always say that LDS is not a “different gospel” it is just a broader view of it. Because, the only way that the LDS perspective is acceptable is if you accept the doctrine of pre-mortal existence and the post-death progressions that are in the Holy Bible but not explained fully (not necessary for us on earth to understand fully to gain salvation). Without those, the LDS view would not make complete sense. But, with those, it explains more fully God’s omnipotence and omniscience. That neither man nor the devil has the power to put assunder God’s design for His children.

And I think we can leave it at that because it is always better to highlight our similarities than our differences. Because, I don’t believe that you should accept anything outside of Catholic canon as true (even if it makes logical sense) unless you are guided by the Holy Spirit. So, for the purposes of this thread, we will just have to accept that this difference in interpretation of the Fall of Adam is not completely bridgeable.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, this explains very well the Catholic perspective. And yes, it is a different interpretation than the LDS view.

And that’s why I always say that LDS is not a “different gospel” it is just a broader view of it. Because, the only way that the LDS perspective is acceptable is if you accept the doctrine of pre-mortal existence and the post-death progressions that are in the Holy Bible but not explained fully (not necessary for us on earth to understand fully to gain salvation). Without those, the LDS view would not make complete sense. But, with those, it explains more fully God’s omnipotence and omniscience. That neither man nor the devil has the power to put assunder God’s design for His children.

And I think we can leave it at that because it is always better to highlight our similarities than our differences. Because, I don’t believe that you should accept anything outside of Catholic canon as true (even if it makes logical sense) unless you are guided by the Holy Spirit. So, for the purposes of this thread, we will just have to accept that this difference in interpretation of the Fall of Adam is not completely bridgeable.

Thanks, Pinay. I agree that the belief in the pre-mortal existence and post-death progressions lie at the heart of the difference in interpretation. Maybe that is a thread that should be started. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate here to discuss that issue. I’ll defer to the OP on that one.

God bless you.

 

[Peter_John]

Thanks, Pinay. I agree that the belief in the pre-mortal existence and post-death progressions lie at the heart of the difference in interpretation. Maybe that is a thread that should be started. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate here to discuss that issue. I’ll defer to the OP on that one.

God bless you.

I actually think the implications of these differences, when considered in comparable scope, diminish differences in our interpretations of the effects of the Atonement and the role of Grace. I’ll let some other people comment, and share my thoughts on it later.