[More temple changes]

I suspect there are a couple of contributing factors for why people had such a distaste for the newer videos.

1. They were different and unfamiliar. When you change a thing that people gotten accustomed to, there's generally going to be some kind of backlash. Human nature is kind of reactionary. I remember when the video before the most recent two was released. It had a younger Satan who acted the part in a more contemporary manner, while the previous Satan had a more classical theater style. I remember some of these complaints then, too.

2. Different videos, with different actors, directors, and crews will sometimes have different emphases. Perhaps it's an inflection on a word that, in some languages, can have subtle (or not so subtle changes to meaning). I some of this happened in the newer videos, and people found that some of their favorite "truths" that they had taken from earlier versions were now less prominent. They may have felt like important teaching were being lost (not something I agree with, but I can empathize with the concept).

 

Personally, I enjoyed seeing the different versions, largely because they do have some subtle differences in presentation that have caused me to think more and consider new ideas. I would like to see the trend continue in even the current comic book format (sorry, that's what it felt like to me. I don't mind it. It's just a different artistic style). I would love it if there were multiple audio versions with different voice actors that explore different expressions of the characters. Even if we are to assume that the core events in the record are literal, there's very little to indicate that Adam and/or Eve's reactions to some events are known. And interpreting some of those things in different ways might help us unlock new truths or relate truths to our lives in different ways. Furthermore, some people might relate to a crying Eve, and others to a more stoic Eve, for example. 

Another thing I hope and pray for is that there will be more comic book slides produced that show more diversity in the characters. I know this will likely trigger anti-woke sentiment, but hear me out. We are encouraged to imagine ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve through parts of the endowment as we make covenants. And as we return to do proxy work, we study those covenants, the teachings of the Endowment, and how some of those allegorical/symbolic items relate to us. Seeing races and ethnicities represented in those roles could have a powerful impact in helping some people place themselves in those roles and expand their knowledge. I think something like this would have been a lot more cost prohibitive in full movie form, but the current format (where the backgrounds are separated from the characters), I think these substitutions are a lot more accessible, and I think the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

[More temple changes]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Given that three live-action films were produced in a 2-3 year period and that *all* of them were discontinued in favor of a slide show, I suspect that the cause wasn’t so much acting technique/production values as that the slide-show presentation makes it possible to do further changes in the future by simply re-dubbing the audio without having to do a whole new visual production.  

 

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Interesting theory. Makes sense.

That and dubbing in multiple languages with accurate translations is far easier when you are not bound by the constraints of the time it takes to say something in English. 

[My daughter's new programmer joke]

Seems like it'd be easy enough to come home by just dropping the gallon of milk as soon as he exits the store.

But the milk will never make it home.

[Depending on Non-LDS Sources for Gospel Doctrine]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:25 PM, Carborendum said:

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything. 

The direction this thread took within four replies is so wonderfully ironic.

I do a lot of external-to-LDS research when I do my own study, and a lot of it will seep into lessons when I teach (because I tend to teach what I find interesting). I will often try to use the various resources in an attempt to highlight different viewpoints, or different aspects of a story that may have an impact. You can look at a lot of the stories from viewpoints such as

• If this story was literally dictated from the mouth of God, what is the message he was trying to convey?
• If this story was included because an ancient Hebrew scholar thought it was important to the theological culture, why was it deemed so?
• If we posit that the story was included by a well meaning historian trying his best to pass on wisdom, why would this have been important to him?

This is not an exhaustive list. But, more to the point, looking at different viewpoints like this can highlight different strengths and weaknesses of various stories, and can offer comfort and insight to different people at different phases in life. 

I personally don't subscribe to the philosophy that there is one singularly correct interpretation of scripture (at least not most of it). They are vague, imprecise, and they aren't going to give me a lot of specific direction on how to manage a lot of aspects in my life in the modern world.  They will, however, provide concepts, principles, and priorities that can help me make decisions around the unique circumstances in which I live. 

There's also a lot of value in being able to reinterpret scripture in a way that keeps you engaged, learning, and expanding your knowledge. Will that lead you down a rabbit hole sometimes? Absolutely! That's not such a bad thing. Now that you've gone down this rabbit hole of exploring they psychological/social aspects of biblical stories, you're now in a position to act as a guide and/or bridge for people who think this way and struggle to relate to the metaphysical side of the stories. 

This doesn't mean everything you learn needs to, or ought to, be included in a lesson. But you should feel free to share some parts that will cause your students/peers to reflect and engage more enthusiastically with the content.

 

Personal anecdote: For a few months, now, I've been studying out of Martin Luther King's sermons published in Strength to Love. Acknowledging that there are divides between MLK's baptist faith and the LDS faith, I will make the (perhaps controversial) statement that these sermons have inspired more self reflection, desire to repent, and a thirst for a closer connection with Christ than any General Conference talk over the last ten years. 

So go ahead and explore some of those rabbit holes. Just keep asking yourself how it can benefit your, those you teach, and those you may meet in the future. If you ever feel "woah...stop here. Here be danger." listen to that. Otherwise, as long as exploring the rabbit hole is enriching you and bringing you joy, then go ahead.

[What do Bishops see when they search former members’ names?]

22 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Thank you.  I appreciate everyone’s responses.

It turns out that what my brother-in-law did was try to start a records request,  without completing the process, to see if anything would come up.

Not sure if using the “Request Records” functionality to search the record of a family member in a situation like this is approved or not.  He’s a bishop, and pretty by-the-book, so I’m assuming he knows the rules.  He’s also a judge, and I don’t just mean in Israel, and spent many years prosecuting criminals before that, so I think he’s familiar with the law. In any event, it wasn’t our idea.

I'll alert the Brigade for Intervention and Stopping HOrrible Problems (B.I.S.Ho.P) Squad. But you may never hear from him again.

[Cursing and colouring]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I get the impression from reading Genesis 4:11 and 15 and 2^nd Nephi 5:21 that in the cases of both Cain and of the Lamanites, the cursing God gave them was a related but separate event from the changing of their skin colour. In both cases, the skin colouring seems to be intended as a marker, or identifier, in Cain’s case to serve as a warning to people not to kill him or his seed and in the case of the Lamanites, their skin colour was to serve as a warning to the Nephites not to associate with them. There seems to be no prima facie reason to suppose that the cursing was the changing of their skin colour.

Does this sound like a reasonable or correct conclusion?  

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 

The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 

Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.

 

[Serious dating before my mission - Good idea? Bad idea?]

The one thing that stands out to me in what you write is "He’s trying to recover from depression and anxiety before his mission, however, which will take him an extra 6 months of recovery before actually leaving." I live with people with depression and anxiety, and "recovery" has been "six months away" for about 15 years. I don't intend to be critical, nor do I intend to be pessimistic.  But you should be realistic in understanding that this is a huge variable that can turn out a lot of different ways.

• Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months and serves a two year mission without problem
• Maybe he is delayed again and doesn't start serving for 10 months, but then completes a mission
• Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months, but the stress of a mission becomes too much and he returns home early
• Maybe his is delayed, doesn't start serving for 10 months, and then still ends up returning early
• Maybe he starts serving in six months, lasts a year, has a break down, returns home for 3 months, then returns to finish his last year.
• Maybe he never develops enough stability to receive a mission call.

I will not judge him for any of those outcomes. His path is his path and I hope he receives all of the support he needs as he navigates that path. 

My point is, if you try to time your mission service around when he is either ready to go, or likely to return, you are very unlikely to succeed. There are too many things that could alter what actually happens, despite your best intentions and best laid plans. If you feel the call to serve a mission, and you are prepared to serve, then go now. The only reason I would recommend you delay your availability at all is if you are enrolled in school and need to finish your term before leaving. Otherwise, set your availability as soon as makes sense and let the Lord determine when you go. 

When you return, it really isn't of any concern whether your boyfriend has served a mission, a partial mission, or been unable to serve at all.  What matters most is that he prepares himself to make and keep covenants in the temple, has a heart willing to serve the Lord, and is an equal partner with you in managing your mutual and individual successes, failures, and conflicts.

[What do Bishops see when they search former members’ names?]

Thank you for clearing that up, @estradling75. 

What I had intended to emphasize, and did poorly, was that bishops cannot just look up the full membership information of any member in the church. The best they can do is infer a record does or doesn't exist based on whether the system finds a match (any number of typos may fail to produce a match). 

It should be noted that using the "Request Records" functionality to investigate if a friend/relative/acquaintance has a membership record isn't an approved use of the system. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it could be a violation of privacy laws (it isn't in the U.S., but I imagine it could be a problem in the E.U.)

[What do Bishops see when they search former members’ names?]

On 11/26/2022 at 12:40 PM, Jedi_Nephite said:

When I was a ward clerk, I learned that bishops have access to a global church database that is exclusive to bishops 

This is inaccurate. The only resource that Bishops have access to that provides church-wide information is the Church Directory of Leaders (CDOL). As the name indicates, it only provides information about leaders, and is intended to facilitate communication between ward and stake leaders. 

I can think of two ways a bishop might attempt to determine if a person still has a membership record.

• Initialize a request for their record. They would need to know name and birthdate or record number to do so. The system will identify matches and ask the person performing the request if this is the person they are looking for.
• Submit a Request for Confidential Information. Normally, these requests involve members of the bishop's unit, but they can request records for former members as well. These requests are reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency, and he wouldn't learn much until they had reviewed the request and adjudicated that he did, in fact, need the information. 

I would guess your bishop friend used the first approach and was unable to find a match. 

[Bishop title after being released]

"Bishop" is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. Strictly speaking, once ordained to the office of bishop, always a bishop (in the same way of once an elder, always an elder). 

This is not strictly the same as being set apart as the bishop in a ward. When set apart to that calling, keys are given that are necessary for the administration of the ward. When released, the individual will no longer hold the keys of the calling, but will still retain the office of bishop. 

My understanding is that some people continue to refer to released bishops as "Bishop So-and-so" on the understanding that this is appropriate given that they still hold the office of bishop. I don't follow this custom myself; my interpretation is that, once released, holding the office of bishop is irrelevant given their ordination to the office of high priest. 

But I might not be the best example. I have developed the practice of referring to my bishops by their first name in settings that are not strictly formal. I began doing so after one of the bishops I worked with commented that he felt like his individuality had been consumed by the calling. He was always "Bishop," as if that were his name, even in the most informal settings. He missed just being Jim. All of my bishops since then have expressed appreciation for being recognized this way.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

37 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's as I never said anything about those specific religions. To the extent a religion teaches it's followers to live Judeo-Christian values I think our Constitution can be upheld. Though i specifically say "can" because far too often good intentions are having a disastrous effect on our country and the effectiveness of the Constitution.

To clarify, from my initial response to you (with parentheticals added)

Quote

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God (eg, Catholic); the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage (eg, Episcopal).  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

Isn't a legal prohibition against gay marriage an imposition against the free exercise of the Episcopal religion?

Quote

Coming back full circle, for example the gay issue, under the name of equality, is being used as a battering ram against religious freedom. This is an instance where the Constitution is failing to be adequate because non-Judeo-Christian values are being given equal status in the eyes of the law. So to this extent some religions, intentionally or not, are helping to destabilize the Constitution.

I will disagree with you here. In my perception, the issue is not that "non-Judeo Christian values are being given equal statis in the eyes of the law." The issue is that the Constitutional process of feeling out and establishing new boundaries is slow (and deliberately so), and that many of the parties involved are disinterested in talking to each other, building empathy, and establishing compromise. 

[Respect for Marriage Act]

9 hours ago, laronius said:

That quote was from Adams but Madison also made very similar comments. I don't think Adams was speaking of just any religion nor of any specific religious belief. Rather I think he had in mind a people who lived according to the Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. A person could be an atheist or of most any religious persuasion and still practice this idea of morality.

In another post you referenced slavery as being a very immoral stain on our country's past and you are exactly right, which makes my point. That serious departure from morality very nearly rent this country asunder and we paid a heavy price for it.

A second point I would make is that much that is unconstitutional has crept into our government. I believe this comes as a direct result of the immorality of our society and that relationship will only grow stronger. And when I say immorality I'm specifically speaking sexually but of general right and wrong.

My apologies on the Adams-Madison mix up. Multi tasking doesn't work well for me anymore.

I will go back to the questions of Catholics and Episcopalians, however. I would find it hard to take seriously a claim that Episcopalians do not live according to Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. While the former is opposed to gay marriage and the latter is not, there is still far more those two religions share than separate them. I don't see how their disagreement on such a small subset of principles renders constitutional government ineffectual.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MOE, you know I love ya; but I would respectfully suggest that I find this a bit selective.  The context surrounding your second quotation is extremely suspicious of labels.  [redacted for brevity]

 

I'm not going to engage in a debate about the ability of identity labels to "expand or limit our ability to follow God’s plan for our happiness." I find nothing controversial in that statement. 

My comment was cautioning against foisting labels upon other people (especially strangers). And the quotes I chose demonstrated the Church modeling the behavior of not foisting labels. Specifically, the Church's explanation was that they use the term "same sex attraction" as an umbrella term to be inclusive of multiple identity labels, rather than tell an individual what label is appropriate to use. We would do well to follow their example.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe you must be either confusing my views with someone else's or doing some reading between-the-lines of the things I've said. I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of your reply here. I don't disagree with it (other than the "starting to get it" part). I don't believe I said we should be refusing to compromise. In point of fact I said that we should compromise in order to do our best, despite the fact that the compromises don't seem to work. So I'm not sure what you're on about. You sure didn't address anything I actually wrote in the post you replied to. Are you actually interested in discussing the Constitution and it's sufficiency or lack thereof to guide governance?

The post to which I was responding was a condescending lecture about how a piece of paper doesn't actually have teeth and therefore can't actually bite people (enforce itself). I wasn't sure if you were trying to imply that I was stupid or if I you were just looking for cheap debate points. Either way, I chose to be charitable and focus my response on the substance of the discussion. Namely, that the Constitution has proven itself to be up to the task of governing people in this country when they mutually agree to be bound by it. 

If it would be more enjoyable for you, I'd be happy to return to anthropomorphizing paper.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. Maybe you're not following my two trains of thought here (which...I was, self-admittedly, cryptic).

The constitution is a piece of paper. It is adequate to nothing. It has no teeth of itself. Only men, and their will, have the teeth to enforce or deny it. For example, there are a few things that I believe are not constitutional that occur (some even viewed as legal). No one counters them by force of law. And hence, the constitution cannot enforce itself. So, to my thinking, speaking of the Constitution as if it's a power is strange. It's not magic. It's not God. It's just words on paper. It's agreed upon ideas. Are agreed upon ideas sufficient to govern people who disagree on those ideas? Of course not. One belief can overwhelm and overpower the other, by force, but doing so doesn't have to adhere to words on a piece of paper.

The way I'm thinking of it in terms of the slavery example speaks to my view of the question more directly though. The constitution, and its amendments, were, very clearly, not adequate. I offer you The Civil War.

Hey, I think you're starting to get it! When parties of disparate beliefs refuse to compromise on civic/governmental affairs, violence tends to follow.

Now read the Church's statement again: "appropriate religious freedoms" AND "rights of LGBTQ brothers and sisters." 

This is the Church saying we agree on the ideals in the Constitution, and so "this approach is the way forward."

[Respect for Marriage Act]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What teeth do you believe the Constitution has?

I find "teeth" to be an odd choice of words. It makes it sound like some kind of a trap. Which I suppose it could be understood to be in the sense that it is intended to restrain the reach of government. But more importantly, it enables citizens to enact, as President Lincoln would describe it, at government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@MarginOfError I'm just exploring what you're thinking, not trying to be cryptic, btw. Let me ask you another question. Let's say we replaced your question with another as a thought exercise (subject already in play in the discussion):

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that slavery is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that slaver is moral.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

I offer you the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments.

 

EDIT: I'll also add to that list the Eighteenth and Twenty-First amendments.

As well as the Twentieth amendment. And the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

[Respect for Marriage Act]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes. I believe that to be true.

I'm surprised to learn you have such a low opinion of the Constitution.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that the Constitution of the United States is inadequate to guide the government of both Catholics and Episcopalians?

[Respect for Marriage Act]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If we made the presupposition you suggest, then we must recognize mindset in which Madison made the statement.

Recognizing gay marriage as a "moral ideal" would have been so far beyond the pale that he would think the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that we were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling us back from such corruption.

This line of argument, to me, betrays the very premise of the Constitution to begin with.  The Constitution as we know it was written because the Articles of Confederation were too rigid and destined to fail. The Constitution incorporates massive compromises that, had they not been made, likely would have prevented any form of governance between the disparate parties.

Furthermore, I would argue that upholding the right own and sell human beings as property as a "moral ideal" ought to have been so far beyond the pale that we could assume the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that they were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling them back from such corruption.

Yet, here we are.

[Respect for Marriage Act]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Just because I agree with something someone once said does not mean I agree with everything they ever said or did.

In this instance I agree because personal liberty puts the burden on us to exercise self control. Nowadays it seems that people equate legal with right and that is not always the case. A strong sense of personal morality is required to maintain freedom.

Even if we presuppose agreement with Madison's statement ("Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."), what do you propose to do when religions disagree on points of faith?

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

[Respect for Marriage Act]

6 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

If your brother in law is not practicing homosexuality then he is not gay.  He likely has a same sex attraction that he controls and he lives his life like a saint if he is worthy to get a temple recommend.

I would caution against assigning identity labels to people.  From the Church's Gospel Topics section on Same Sex Attraction

Quote

Same-sex attraction (SSA) refers to emotional, physical, romantic, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself. Either way, same-sex attraction is a technical term describing the experience without imposing a label. This website uses this term to be inclusive of people who are not comfortable using a label, not to deny the existence of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity.  (emphasis mine, source)

And in the same topic under the section for individuals:

Quote

If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way. (source)

 

[Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Allow me to clarify: By "widely accepted", I didn't necessarily mean a majority believe that. I don't know the percentages. Rather, my point was that this is not some cockamamie idea dreamed up by Kyrie Irving or his friends, or even believed only by a tiny minority of paranoid conspiracy theorists. This at least was my son's impression. I know that pictures of "Black Jesus" are common in that area, even in the LDS meetinghouse in Chicago that, until recently, my son attended with his family.

Black Jesus in art is very different animal though. There most definitely has been an increase in representations of Christ outside of the Caucasian Jesus that is prevalent in religious are in the public domain (and for a long time, a lot of the art the Church used was used because it was in the public domain). These representations have more to do with helping Christians recognize that the mission of Christ is multi-cultural and multi-racial. The Historical Jesus, so to speak, is of less significance than the Jesus that understands and relates to my cultural background. Personally, I find it it be a beautiful and inspiring thing. 

I know I risk harping on this; I just don't want to see this awesome cultural trend get swept up in the same breath as the Black Jesus Conspiracy theory.  They really are two very different things.

For some fun, I went looking through the art work in the past few iterations of the Church's international art competition.  I was able to find two instances of Arabic Jesus (here and here) and one of Mexican Jesus (here) and another with darker skin, though I'm not sure if any racial/ethnic representation was intended (here). Still, the majority of the renditions of Jesus in those are shows are very pale (even when accounting for limitations of the medium). 

[Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:52 PM, Vort said:

One of my sons served his mission in the Kentucky Louisville mission, and was mostly in southern Indiana. Most of his contacts were black (African American). According to him, this idea of Jewry being black (including Jesus Christ) and having been usurped from this position by conspiring white people is common among African Americans. Obviously, I think this is a beyond-ridiculous conspiracy theory, but I think it's false to claim it's just a lunatic fringe idea. I believe this is actually widely accepted among urban blacks in America.

Being a resident of that mission, allow me to clarify that this is not widely accepted. The vast majority of black Christianity in this area is still heavily influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That form of black supremacy doesn't fly around here.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find practicing black ministers that perpetuate that belief.  My impression from living here is that those who are most likely to subscribe to that idea are those that are working political angles.

[Men of no worth?]

26 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

So, are men just useless now?

It seems that society seems to think so, and it appears as though the church is beginning to think it as well. Men are not allowed to be men. I have been thinking about this since it is men that are always expected to risk their lives in dangerous work and in wars. They are expected to give everything thing they have, even their own lives with no real reward for all that they do. I am so tired of seeing men discounted and tossed away for all that they do.

Men in general, no?  But certainly some of them are useless. 

[What price did he pay]

I'm going to lay out a bunch of propositions without justification, because I'm too lazy to look them up.  But this illustrates how I think about the issue.  It isn't entirely scripturally backed, but because I'm me, it's obviously correct

Premise 1: Returning into God's presence is contingent on obeying his laws. Those who fail to do so cannot be exalted.

Premise 2: God, knowing the unlikelihood of anyone living up to standard set forth in Premise 1, proposed a plan where an intermediary could absolve others of their guilt, allowing them to regain eligibility for exaltation. The condition to be an intermediary was completing a life completely obedient to God's laws.

I think these two premises are relatively uncontroversial.  You can nitpick them if you want, but at their core, I think most of would agree to the basic concepts.

There is one thing that isn't addressed here, however.  Premise 2 establishes the conditions for eligibility to be an intermediary. But it doesn't establish the terms for becoming an intermediary. This is at the very heart of @Chainsaw's question. And as other  have stated, there is no definitive scriptural answer to this question.  

I think it is common for people to assume the Penal Substitution model. This, by my understanding, makes the assumption that every sin or misdeed is attached to a penalty. And Christ would have had to feel the weight of all of those penalties. As an adult, this model never felt right to me. In some ways, it feels like it multiplies the penalty of sin. Christ  had to experience the cumulative penalties of the sins of some 40 billion people (or whatever), but all of those people would experience those penalties at least up until the moment of their repentance?  In the case of natural consequences, perhaps even further?  It just didn't feel right to me that God's plan to give people the option of exaltation was to increase the cumulative load of suffering in humanity.

@Just_A_Guy proposes a Penal Substitution-lite model, where maybe it isn't quite so cumulative, but operates on a similar idea.  There is a certain amount of suffering required of each sin, but maybe not an additional penalty on top of the natural consequences. (I may not be fully understanding him). But I think this ultimately has the same flaw in that it marks a multiplication of a fixed amount of suffering based on the actions of each individual. I don't feel good about it.

 

I tend to view it more like this: Premise 1 gives God the rights to judgment--and his judgment is strict. Premise 2 establishes that he is willing to yield the right of judgment to another. Once the right of judgment is yielded to the intermediary, the intermediary is free to set the terms on which a person is exalted. The unanswered question, then, is what are the terms of sale of those rights.  In my mind, I suspect the terms were that Jesus, having lived all of God's laws, would be given the rights to judgment so long as he felt all of the pains that are inflicted by the sins of a person on themselves and also on others. To rephrase it, the rights to judgment were sold on the condition that Jesus would be able to have perfect empathy for anything that we feel.  

So Jesus didn't have to suffer a certain amount of pain for every loaf of bread stolen. Instead, he suffered the pain of hunger, the pain of desperation, and the pain of having the loaf of bread stolen from him; and he only needed to suffer each of those pains enough to have empathy for us. He needed to understand what makes us hurt, what makes us tick, and what factors might lead us into sin. With that empathy, he could then judge if our hearts had returned into a state of being where we no longer have a desire to do sin. 

Ultimately, even this view increases the cumulative amount of suffering. But it does so in a way that minimizes that total suffering required to reach exaltation. And the idea of a God that is interested in minimizing suffering appeals to me*. It also makes sense to me in the context of the New Testament. We read the Jesus suffered in Gethsemane through the Atonement, and we largely think of that as where all that suffering was borne to purchase the right of judgment. But then he was tortured, mocked, ridiculed.  The suffering kept going on for several more hours.  But there is this one poignant moment where, hung on the cross, Jesus cries out "Father, why have you forsaken me?" For the first and only time in his existence, Jesus was cut off from the presence of his Father. It was the one thing He had never experienced. And it was so awful, that shortly after he declared "It is finished" and allowed himself to die. In my interpretation, He didn't experience that separation once for every person that lived. He experienced it once, and exactly once. And that was enough to understand how it feels.

 

As a general principle, the price to exchange the rights to judgment can effectively be reduced to "whatever terms they agreed to." And there's a lot of interesting twists and turns you can take on that if you want to liken it to our legal system and contract law. But in the end, I don't think the specifics matter a great deal. I think it ought to be sufficient to recognize that an agreement on the transfer of those rights was struck, and part of that agreement is that we must live up to the expectations of Jesus. These expectations are that we  live God's law, and repent of our failures to the best we are able. 

 

 

* With the obvious caveat that what someone believes about God usually says more about the person than it says about God.