Skousen's intrepretation of the Atonement

[mikbone]

I have ascribed to Skousen's model of the Atonement ever since I read Appendix B in his book The First 2,000 Years back in the 80's.

I was wondering how many members here are aware of Skousen's intrepretation. And of those who are aware of his intrepretation, who likes it and dislikes it. And if you do like it, is your intrepretation of Skousen's intrepretation the same as mine?

Found a copy of it on the net, thanks Google!

Why Was the Atonement Necessary

Here is also a speech that he gave on the same topic. It was an address to the missionaries in the Dallas Texas Mission back in 1980.

A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement

We should really call it the Widtsoe/Skousen Model though. Now that I reviewed the above speech.

Edited May 19, 2009 by mikbone

[pam]

My mom had that book on her shelf for as long as I can remember but I have never read it. Perhaps that is another book I should add to my "must read" list.

[deseretgov]

I find it make alot of sense. It has increased my appreciation for Chirist's atonement.

[Justice]

The only thing I'm a little shaky on is that the lesser intelligences would rise up against God and not obey Him. I'm not sure I buy into that part. I believe the other equal beings, the other Gods, would be the ones that might not approve of God doing things differently that they have always been done.

Of course it's speculation, but that's the only part I haven't grasped yet.

[mikbone]

The only thing I'm a little shaky on is that the lesser intelligences would rise up against God and not obey Him. I'm not sure I buy into that part. I believe the other equal beings, the other Gods, would be the ones that might not approve of God doing things differently that they have always been done.

Of course it's speculation, but that's the only part I haven't grasped yet.

Thats kinda the crux of the Widtsoe/Skousen model. The lessor intelligences Honor God because he is honorable. If for some reason God became dishonorable, he would lose the honor and respect of these lesser intelligences and would cease to be God.

[Justice]

Well, he has a lot of other interesting things. That's just one part.

In any case, I'm not sure where I stand with lesser intelligences having the agency to not obey God. I think it more resides in God loosing His authority to command, and thereby they don't have to obey, not recognizing the authortiy... just like they don't obey you are I.

[Hemidakota]

I have ascribed to Skousen's model of the Atonement ever since I read Appendix B in his book The First 2,000 Years back in the 80's.

I was wondering how many members here are aware of Skousen's intrepretation. And of those who are aware of his intrepretation, who likes it and dislikes it. And if you do like it, is your intrepretation of Skousen's intrepretation the same as mine?

Found a copy of it on the net, thanks Google!

Why Was the Atonement Necessary

Here is also a speech that he gave on the same topic. It was an address to the missionaries in the Dallas Texas Mission back in 1980.

A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement

We should really call it the Widtsoe/Skousen Model though. Now that I reviewed the above speech.

Many things within will give credence of the principle of progression....

[cooles]

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.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

I agree with a lot of that. I have a hard time understanding how "lesser" intelligences are 100% obedient and the "higher" intelligences are the ones that sometimes don't obey. I think what throws the conversation off is the word "intelligences" itself because that seems to imply that "intelligences" are intelligent, that they can think for themselves which really isn't how that word is used in that context. In that context of "intelligence" being in every matter of the universe we are just talking about the associated spirit matter connected to that physical matter, not a separately thinking and acting being as low as it may be.

If so called lesser intelligences have enough power in themselves to move the matter they are attached to and alter it like turning water into wine then they would have to be individual thinkers. Individual thinkers that are 100% obedient, in my mind, should be called "higher" intelligences then. Now if they aren't really "thinkers" then they also can't give "allegiance" to one being and not another, I choose to obey this person but not this one. I think that is different than saying God has authority, "honor" to work spirit matter as He sees necessary.

This seems backwards that a "lesser" intelligence that has 100% allegiance to God by choice and by obedience could be stuck in a rock miles below the Earth's surface without a chance to act on it's own and increase it's glory through free agency. Unless, this is our destiny as sometimes disobedient "intelligences", if we become 100% obedient we can be attached to a rock in God's universe somewhere. That sounds a lot like some Eastern Religions.

[mikbone]

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.

If you want to have a discussion about the atonement or at least your dislike of Skousen's intrepretation you might want to break it down into bite size pieces. Otherwise you will get a pretty feeble response to the thread.

[HEthePrimate]

The idea of intelligences inhabiting all the particles in the universe sounds kinda like animism.

I'm not convinced by what he says about the atonement. If the idea is to maintain the confidence of all the "little intelligences" that God is just, then doing something inherently unjust (punishing an innocent person for another person's sins) seems rather self-defeating. IMHO, it was not God who insisted that Jesus die, but it was wicked people who killed Jesus. Of course, that leaves us with the question of why Jesus and the Father allowed that to happen.

[Casper]

I love a lot of what Skousen says, my main problem with his explanation of the Atonement is that in one place he quotes Alma 34:11-12

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.

But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

Then when he explains how the Atonement works it is by Christ sacrificing his own blood to atone for the sins of another. If all the intelligences are moved with compassion or not it is not completely just. I believe it is based on a different principle altogether.

[cooles]

If you want to have a discussion about the atonement or at least your dislike of Skousen's intrepretation you might want to break it down into bite size pieces. Otherwise you will get a pretty feeble response to the thread.

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).

[mikbone]

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

I will respectfully disagree with you. I may be incorrect but are you saying that Christ essentially paid a 1 for 1 pain for pain price be it mental, physical, or spiritual for our sins? Essentially that each sin we have committed or will commit, lays another straw upon the burden that he shouldered in the garden and on the cross?

Because I don't. All the pain that we (all of mankind) endure because of our sins is a finite amount. The atonement was infinite and eternal. D&C 19 11-20.

You seem to favor the penal substitution theory.

To me the Atonement is much more vast. It in and of itself is an ordinance. Apparently God the Father also went through a similar experience. And I believe that it will happen again in the future.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I will respectfully disagree with you. I may be incorrect but are you saying that Christ essentially paid a 1 for 1 pain for pain price be it mental, physical, or spiritual for our sins? Essentially that each sin we have committed or will commit, lays another straw upon the burden that he shouldered in the garden and on the cross?

Because I don't. All the pain that we (all of mankind) endure because of our sins is a finite amount. The atonement was infinite and eternal. D&C 19 11-20.

You seem to favor the penal substitution theory.

To me the Atonement is much more vast. It in and of itself is an ordinance. Apparently God the Father also went through a similar experience. And I believe that it will happen again in the future.

I think He paid an equal amount which results in a 1 to 1 trade. The form it which it was paid is hard to comprehend. It is partially represented in physical or even mental discomfort but obviously not wholly represented by that.

Some people don't endure any pain at all from their sins. They simply don't care to repent where a lot of pain from sins comes from, it comes out in that process. So, if they are not repentant they may not experience all pain from their sins.

I agree with it being an ordinance that requires specific keys and anointed powers.

[slamjet]

I find it interesting the level of debate concerning a point of doctrine that has not, as of yet, been revealed to us as a Church. I read Skousen (and even have the talk on CD) and I read the book Earth: In The Beginning by a different Skousen. What I got from both books is that their ideas, summations and conclusions are all arrived at by reading between the lines and nit-picking (and I don't mean that in the derogatory sense) scriptures in minute details. In other words, by taking all these extremely finely filtered references, framing them within a certain thesis, the conclusion can be derived about intelligences, their origins, attributes, relationship with God's and how they fit in the whole scheme of things.

I find the whole idea fascinating and don't dismiss it outright. But I take it with a pinch of salt and a fun excursion with my imagination, and await the time where I get to see "the movie" and find out all that there is to know. In the mean time, I certainly would not use a whole lot of energy proving, disputing, or merely discussing other than in a shallow sense this particular subject.

[cooles]

I will respectfully disagree with you. I may be incorrect but are you saying that Christ essentially paid a 1 for 1 pain for pain price be it mental, physical, or spiritual for our sins? Essentially that each sin we have committed or will commit, lays another straw upon the burden that he shouldered in the garden and on the cross?

Because I don't. All the pain that we (all of mankind) endure because of our sins is a finite amount. The atonement was infinite and eternal. D&C 19 11-20.

You seem to favor the penal substitution theory.

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

[mikbone]

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

I read as far as I could. Im not really into bashing fellow mormons. Let alone ones that have recently passed. Yes during the talk that you quoted, which was given to a group of missionaries as I recall, he was probably a little too casual with his quotes and documentation.

Yes Christ suffered for us. He partook of the cup in Gethsemane in the end because he loves us. But this does not mean that Christ suffered for our sins, I don't believe in the penal substitution theory. He partook of something that we cannot begin to understand. He went through that great trial to give us the opportunity to partake of salvation if we fulfil our parts. Believe me, we will suffer for our sins. The atonement cannont save us from our sins. It only works when we completly repent.

Recognize our sin

Feel remorse

Confess

Ask for forgiveness

Give restitution

forsake the sin

What The atonement give us, is the ability to experience sin and still overcome it and be cleansed. If you sin and follow the steps of forgivenes completely you are still not whole. It takes the atonement, the grace of God to redeem us. What Christ did in the Garden gave him the ability to offer us redemption.

[cooles]

I read as far as I could. Im not really into bashing fellow mormons. Let alone ones that have recently passed. Yes during the talk that you quoted, which was given to a group of missionaries as I recall, he was probably a little too casual with his quotes and documentation.

Yes Christ suffered for us. He partook of the cup in Gethsemane in the end because he loves us. But this does not mean that Christ suffered for our sins, I don't believe in the penal substitution theory. He partook of something that we cannot begin to understand. He went through that great trial to give us the opportunity to partake of salvation if we fulfil our parts. Believe me, we will suffer for our sins. The atonement cannont save us from our sins. It only works when we completly repent.

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).

[mikbone]

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).

Kinda. There are multiple effects of sin.

For example, If I were to drink alcohol and get drunk and do some things that I shouldn't, I have to suffer the effects of my sin. I get a hangover. I lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost. My body sustains the negative effects of the alcohol. If I make a stuipid comment and hurt someones feelings. Then I have to repair the relationship or lose a friend or perhaps gain a bad reputation. I lose honor, etc... The atonement does not save me from the repercussions of my actions.

If I follow the steps of repentence completely then I can recieve forgiveness from God throught the power of the Atonement such that I can be reedemed and brought back into the presence of the Lord. Without the atonement we would all be subject to the Devil and eternal damnation. Because we are all sinners.

Although lesser intelligences such as the 1/3 host are forever damned and can never return to live with God the Father. You and I have the opportunity to make mistakes, sin, and yet become entirely clean and return to live with our Heavenly Parents. Is this fair? In my opinion no. But it dosent matter. Jesus Christ did something to make it acceptable such that we can be redeemed.

When you are dammed you are dammed. Dammed means that your progression is stopped. Everything that has life probably has a spirit or some form or intelligence. Can a dog ever become like God. No. At some point long long ago did the intelligence that eventually became a dog have the same potential as you or I. I don't know. But it is possible. If that scenario is correct then all the intelligences that have been placed into a spirit or body of a non-human are also dammned.

What the atonement did was to allow mankind the opportunity to sin, fail, and yet still be able to continue to progress as if we had never made a damnable mistake.

Did Jesus Christ suffer more for the redempion of a horrible sinner or a gentle 9 year old who stole a candy bar after her baptism? In my opinion its an irrevelant question. The horrible sinner just has to go through much more of the repentence process before He can justly lay hold of the atonement.

[Seminarysnoozer]

When you are dammed you are dammed. Dammed means that your progression is stopped. Everything that has life probably has a spirit or some form or intelligence. Can a dog ever become like God. No. At some point long long ago did the intelligence that eventually became a dog have the same potential as you or I. I don't know. But it is possible. If that scenario is correct then all the intelligences that have been placed into a spirit or body of a non-human are also dammned.

This is a side-note, off topic, sorry. I think I've heard somewhere that what makes our spirits different than others is the ability to reason. I don't think all intelligences are of the same "species", whatever that is in spirit terms. It seems, also, that whatever the intelligence is when it is formed is a permanent state. In other words, species X intelligence cannot become species Y intelligence. A non-child of God spirit can't become a child of God. I think we had to start out that way.

I know, that confuses people because some state that we have been around forever. I don't know, though, that we have been around forever as children of God. Then there are only a few options; 1) either we were not beings before, we just existed forever as spiritual matter called intelligence .... or 2) we always were formed as an individual being and somehow became adopted or part of the fold of the children of God (which to me lessens the idea that we are actually children of God) and makes me wonder why He chose beings to become part of His fold that He would know later would be cast out .... or 3) we were always separate beings but advanced over time until we became similar to God's spirit and could reason - like you said is possible (I don't think that is possible).

I tend to think of it as the first option, that we are literal children, offspring, procreated beings of God. I think that is traditional thought, from my experience. Yes, the matter that made up the being has been around forever and cannot be made or destroyed but I believe the moment I became my self was the moment God procreated my spirit, not before.

I don't think a spirit can be "damned" if it never had the option to become like God or have endless glory in the first place, which would preclude them from your idea of all non-human spirits being damned, if they never had that potential as spirits. But, more likely they are not damned in that they may also participate in spiritual procreation after their kind, continuing their Glory.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer
typo

[cooles]

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?

[estradling75]

After reading the Skousen's talk and Cooles's counter I find the Skousen idea to leave a bad taste in my mouth. To me it almost as if he is saying that God the Father is running a giant con on the lesser intelligences. Tricking the universe to get his way and maintain power. That simply doesn't match with how I understand that God the Father operates.

[Obolus]

Cooles, your breakdown of Skousen's dogma and subtle misinterpretations is erudite. Thanks for the blog.

[mikbone]

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?

I tend to go directly to scripture, instead of commentary.

Alma 34:8 is probably the best scripture you are going to find to state what you want it to.

"And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it."

Here is the problem though. You think you know what that scripture means. I think that you don't.

E=MC^2. Energy= Mass x the Speed of Light squared. Just because I know the defination of that simple equation does not mean that I understand the complexities of the theory of relativity. And the atonement is vastly more complex than relativity.

The Widtsoe/Skousen model tries to take into account the concepts of Justice, and Honor to explain the atonement. Skousen had a legitimate question. Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer? What does suffering accomplish? Who or What is demanding justice???

See 2 Nephi 9: 25-26

How did Jehovah create the Light of Christ?

Why is Jehovah so special in relation to the rest of mankind?

Why did Lucifer want Elohim's honor?

How does someone obtain true honor?

Here is a piece of truth from a fellow Mormon in a book I recently read:

The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson

"Authority doesn't come from a rank"

“Where does it come from?”

“From the men who give it to you. That’s the only way to get it.”

Edited September 27, 2011 by mikbone