cooles

What does the pre-existent life of plants, animals and/or the earth have to do with your and Skousen’s assertion that Christ cannot and did not suffer for our sins? Do you really think that because Elder Widtsoe said something somewhat close to one part of Skousen’s theory that that puts Elder Widtsoe’s apostolic seal of approval on brother Skousen’s entire theory?

Yes that is a great article—I think I remember reading or hearing it before at some point and I just reread it and loved it, thank you. Yes, Elder Christofferson uses some of the same scriptures, but that is irrelevant. The problem is not with the scriptures themselves, the problem is with Skousen’s wresting of those scriptures. Elder Christofferson used the scriptures in their proper context and meaning. The things that Elder Christofferson thought in this article are true and right and thus contradict the false teaching in brother Skousen’s talk. Here are some examples: Quoting The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles Elder Christofferson said “He [Christ] gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.” The definition of vicarious is to “performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another: vicarious punishment.” (Vicarious | Define Vicarious at Dictionary.com). We use the word vicarious often in the Gospel talking about vicarious work for the dead in the Temple were we do for others what they cannot do for themselves. The same is true with the Atonement—Christ vicariously suffered for our sins in one great vicarious atoning sacrifice. Also look at 1 Pet. 3:18, which Elder Christofferson quotes from in this article: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” The doctrine of Christ’s Atonement and his vicarious suffering on our behalf is central to the restored gospel and repeated several times in Elder Christofferson’s article. Then there is this blearing problem with Skousen’s theory that Elder Christofferson helps illuminate: “To be sanctified through the blood of Christ is to become clean, pure, and holy. If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin.” Skousen’s theory can only try to address justification or the pardoning of our sins and ignores and precludes sanctification. Look at Skousen’s Lincoln analogy: sure the young man is pardoned and he didn’t have to be put to death, but he will still had to live with the guilt from what he did for the rest of his life. And so it is with Brother Skousen’s theory. We sin and come back to God presence despite the face that “[we] really shouldn’t go back” as Brother Skousen puts it. Skousen’s theory provides no means whereby we become clean, pure, and holy, we are just brought back in our sins to live in the kingdom of heaven and God retains His Honor because those to whom He owes His Honor let it slide and turn a blind eye to sin in God’s presence.

I’m sorry, I didn’t want to offend anyone. Your assumptions about my motives are 180 degrees off, but that’s not the point. I didn’t dismiss your post; I just think the fact that brother Skousen used 36 scriptures in an explanation of his theory is irrelevant to the simple question I asked of you to just show me at least one verse directly from scripture that supports your case. If Skousen’s list of scriptures (which I’ve seen and gone over in my blog) are so definitive, then you would be able to sight a few and that would be that. But the scriptures that Skousen uses need to be massaged and tweaked before he can piece them into his theory, so you can’t just sight me one because they won’t say what you want them to say when they stand along in their proper context. And you or Skousen can’t just name-drop Elder Widtsoe to gain legitimacy for a theory—you need to quote something from him in his own words, it you want to be intellectually honest about it. I also think that it is a misconception to say that when we sin that we are adding to the amount of suffering that Christ suffered. I know that Christ’s suffering and Atonement are infinite and eternal. Christ “shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it” (Alma 34: 8) and not for each individual sin as its committed, but it is a matter of revealed doctrine that Christ’s suffered for our sins to removed the effects of our sins—and it was not just a way to coax some entity(ies) into over looking our sins.

So the scripture that you’re pointing to justify your contradicting with LDS.org’s definition and scripture list is 2 Ne 2:14? This scripture doesn’t even address the subject we were discussing. Yes, it’s used as part of Skousen’s theory, but the fact that this is the one scripture you choose to support your case that Christ did not suffer for our sins just goes to the point that there are no scriptures that state or even elude to your view of the atonement. And that in itself doesn’t brother me—you and brother Skousen are welcome to have ideas that are not directly found in scripture all you want, but it’s Skousen’s repeated statements that his theory is “the doctrine” that gets my eyebrow raised. And as for you, my dear brother mikbone, you’re rightly calling Skousen’s interpretation commentary, so my only suggestion would be to give more credence to what the scriptures actually say—not what they can be made to say. And give more credence to the “commentary” approved by our First presidency on LDS.org then the commentary of those who do not hold the Keys of the Kingdom.

If the doctrinal definition of the Atonement I gave right off LDS.org is just commentary (and follow the link and read the whole thing with the extensive list of scriptures backing it up) and you justify contradicting it my saying that you go directly to scripture, then what scripture(s) are you pointing to that state your position? And with your E=MC² analogy (which I like) you’re projecting something on me, which is not true. Within the frame of this analogy, I did not and am not saying I understand the complexities of the atonement. I am arguing that Skousen’s attempt to explain the atonement is incorrect because it is at odds with the revealed definition of the Atonement. My problem with Skousen’s theory is that not only does it distort the definition of the Atonement, the Fall and the character and supremacy of God—it cheapens the Plan of Salvation by dragging this Mystery of Godliness down to a finite carnal human’s thought process. In other words, Skousen’s theory ends up explain the way a carnal being might find a way to bring us back to God, and the result is a theory that can be understood by a carnal mind, but is far from the revealed doctrine and far from the way God operates for the Lords “ways higher than [our] ways, and [His] thoughts than [our] thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).

Mikbone, you’re getting off on some interesting subjects, but missing the main issue. So let me ask you a direct question—I’m not trying to make this a “gotcha” kind of question, I’m genuinely curious what your answer would be. The doctrinal definition of atone or atonement right off LDS.org is : “As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind” (GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES Atone, Atonement). How do you rectify this with Skousen’s interpretation of the atonement, which clearly denies the doctrine of Christ suffering the penalty for our sins?

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel that I’m bashing a follow Mormon—I’m disagreeing with an idea, not attacking a person. Weather or not one agrees with the “penal substitution theory” is irrelevant to this because the Restored Gospel supersedes the centuries of debate in the rest of the Christian world. LDS doctrine will often not fit into the categories made my men outside the Church. My point is that the Atonement is that Christ suffered the penalty for our sins (I don’t know how) on the conditions of our repentance, and no matter what you want to call it—that is the revealed doctrine. Just as it says right off LDS.org: “As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind” (GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES Atone, Atonement). And no, if we repent and take all the revealed steps, we will not have to suffer for our own sins. “For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;” (D&C 19: 16).

Thank you for the respectful reply. I’m not quite sure how you got that out of my post—it says like 5 times in my post that the Atonement is “infinite and eternal.” I don’t know exactly how the Atonement work, but it has been reviled by every Prophet and every book of scripture that Christ “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: [...] he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53: 4-5). I don’t know the details of how that works, but I do know that when brother Skousen says that Christ cannot and did not suffer for the sins of the world and he proposes theories (which he calls doctrines) that are in open conflict with the reviled truth, then I know enough to know when I see false doctrine. You should really read my whole blog post because not only do I disagree with the theory; I detail how the scriptures used to setup the theory are misquoted and distorted. http://iftwothingsexist.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-brother-skousen-thats-not-atonement.html

Like your Paine quote says "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly” if anyone is serious about this subject then reading my whole post at If Two Things Exist: No, brother Skousen, that’s not the Atonement is not that big of a deal. And it’s not as long as it looks because I included the entire text of brother Skousen’s talk in blue, so you can skim over that part if you’ve read it before. But you make a very good point, so here is a bite of my blog post: Brother Skousen uses Alma 34:11 to say that “No person can suffer for the sins of another person, that’s the law”, and he, as you read the whole talk, includes Jesus Christ as someone who cannot suffer for another person’s sins. First what does Alma 34: 11 really say and what is the context, Alma 34: 10-14 (emphasis added): “10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. 11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. … 13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, […] and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.” Now in Alma 34 Amulek is saying that their will be (this is about 74 B.C.) a great and last sacrifice or the Atonement, but this sacrifice will not be of man (lower case “m”, he talking about mortal man), beast or fowl. The Atonement is not a “human sacrifice” he says: it’s an “infinite and eternal sacrifice.” But what does he mean by that? Well just look at verse 14 “that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.” So in this context, and rightly so, Amulek is saying that the Atonement will be preformed, not by a man but by the Son of God. For truly no mere mortal man could have atoned for the sins of the world—only the Only Begotten, Jesus Christ, the Son of God has the power and ability to perform the great and last sacrifice. Alma 34:11 in its proper context is so clear I almost don’t need to explain it. It is not saying that Christ cannot suffer for our sins—it is saying that one fallen mortal man cannot pay for another mortal’s sins, and that is why we need Christ because of who He is and because He remained sinless Himself He could and did suffer for the sins of the world. Just to keep it perfectly clear here is a quick list of scriptures that say Jesus Christ suffered for our sins: Isaiah 53: 4-5, 1 Pet. 3: 18, Alma 11:40, D&C 18:11, D&C 19: 16-18, Alma 7: 13 “As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind” (GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES Atone, Atonement).

Here’s my debate style scriptural and doctrinal rebuttal to brother Skousen’s theory: If Two Things Exist: No, brother Skousen, that’s not the Atonement This talk by brother Skousen distorts the Fall, the Atonement and the very power and character of God; my blog post breaks it all down paragraph by paragraph.