Skousen's intrepretation of the Atonement

[cooles]

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. Energ y= 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.

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]

I disagree. I have read and studied Skousen's The First 2000 years and I loved it. I felt the spirit particulairly strong when he explained Why was the Atonement necessary? as found in his Appendix B of the book.

It opened my understanding and gave me a much greater appreciation for what Jesus Christ did for us. In my opinon, Skousen's commentary is harmonious with the many, many scriptures that we have which explain the atonement. In fact it was one of many concepts that brought me to a conclusion that the plan of salvation is much more vast than I had previously assumed.

I don't know if you actually read Skousen's Appendix B or just the spoken talk that he gave to the missionaries in Texas. Sometimes people do a much better job of communicating via written word than spoken...

But In his appendix B of only 9 pages he quotes 36 separate scriptures. I love the commentary given in Texas about 2 Nephi 2: 14, and remember this scripture and intrepretation was given to Skousen by Widtsoe. I hope you don't have anything negative to say about Widtsoe btw. The scripture 2 Ne 2:14 has been quoted over and over by the general authorities during general conference.

[bert10]

I guess both Max and Cleon Skousen had good teachings on the Atonement. Those teachings are from their own point of view. And maybe do not go far enough. When the Fall came not only did Adam and Eve died Spiritually to the Father. The earth also with all its elements followed Adam and Eve in the Fall. The temple of the Father is not just our body...but the Elements that make up our body. And in our corruptible state, we could not go near the Father nor could the Father be a Father to us. Jesus Atonement gave the Father back the Ability to be a Father to us and all His creation and also to abide in us as we abide in Jesus. The Atonement of Jesus allows the Father to interact with us. Sometimes thunder is just not thunder, and wind is just not wind. bert10

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.

[Seminarysnoozer]

One thing I don't understand about Skousen's view of "intelligences" is understanding why God would form spirit bodies in the first place. If all the universe contained obedient intelligences, why would God want to take some of those and form them into spirit bodies of which some would later rebel and be disobedient. By that act then, He would be creating disobedience, that doesn't make sense to me. Skousen is saying that the most nobel and valiant intelligences were formed into spirit bodies and then goes on to say that all the "lesser" ones are perfectly obedient, that they honor God 100%. That seems backwards to me. If all of these individual intelligences obey God willingly then what more is there to achieve out of them, that sounds like what all of us are trying to achieve now. Forget the probationary, test period, they already 100% honor and obey God, and according to Skousen continue to honor and obey Him 100% of the time even in the fallen state. If those other intelligences are that good, then why would God alter any of them to form spirit bodies? That really does not make sense.

The only way around that is to say, well those other intelligences are "lesser" because they really can't reason and think for themselves. But, if one says that, then they can't "honor" God willingly either and there goes Skousen's whole theory. They either obey God in a robotic, scientific way because that is what they do, or they do it because they can think and know who and what to honor, knowing good from bad and understanding who honors the Priesthood and who doesn't etc. If it is the later, then they are not really "lesser" intelligences, they understand and willingly obey, that makes them better than any of us who got spirit bodies.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[mikbone]

Skousen is stating that the lesser intelligences are plants, animals, and the earth itself.

D&C 88:42, Abraham 4:18, Jacob 4:6, Mormon 8:24, Helaman 12: 8-21

These intelligences obey the Lord without question. It is mankind with our free agency that are the only ones that are allowed to disobey (yet because of the atonement we can eventually overcome our disobedience).

[bert10]

He errs. The watchers were also in charge of elements. And when they fell so did the Elements.

However, the Spirit of GOD is called the Spirit of Life and all things are alive even stones since this Spirit is above all things and below all things, inside all things etc. What men define as life is not God's definition. In fact you have a little of the old religion of Zion in the OT and NT.

Joshua 24:27 - And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.

Habakkuk 2:11 - For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it.

There is more....Jesus said that the stones would cry out...[spiritually that is]

There is more. Some of the Elements that remained faithful to God and always obeyed the Prophets are Rock and Stones, Clouds, Rivers, [Waters] Mountains, wind, trees, grass etc.

All things behave according to the law and intelligence of light that is within them. They who become filled with Light can command those things who are of from the Light.

Those things whose Watchers rebelled, are destructive when men try to use them. Such as coal, oil, uranium, and other things corrodes and weakens...requiring much work to maintain them etc.

Now the purpose of this post is not to teach things of the ancient religion of Zion. This ship has sailed long ago when the Early Hebrews rejected this religion and eventually went into so much darkness that God had to give the Laws of Moses, to make them guilty and be as a Schoolmaster, until Christ could come to call men into repentance.

This ancient religion and knowledge shall again be back on the earth when Zion is set up again.

bert10

Skousen is stating that the lesser intelligences are plants, animals, and the earth itself.

D&C 88:42, Abraham 4:18, Jacob 4:6, Mormon 8:24, Helaman 12: 8-21

These intelligences obey the Lord without question. It is mankind with our free agency that are the only ones that are allowed to disobey (yet because of the atonement we can eventually overcome our disobedience).

[cooles]

I love the commentary given in Texas about 2 Nephi 2: 14, and remember this scripture and intrepretation was given to Skousen by Widtsoe. I hope you don't have anything negative to say about Widtsoe btw. The scripture 2 Ne 2:14 has been quoted over and over by the general authorities during general conference.

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.

[mikbone]

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.

Not quite. You dismissed my post. But thats understandable as I have dismissed your original blog. I mentioned that Skousen's original 9 page written discourse as found in The First 2,000 years quoted 36 scriptures. I added the 2 Ne 2:14 scripture to explain that Skousen's idea is not his alone. That the apostle John A Widtsoe spoon fed much of the information to Skousen. But you haven't done your homework. You wrote a blog which hasn't received much response and then came here to this site to get some people to appreciate your astute commentary. You tried to resurrect my old post from May '09 and trash another member of the Chruch who has bolstered at least my testimony no doubt many others.

I'll write it once more. Christ's atonement provides us a way to overcome the effects of sin that remove us from the presence of God. We do not know the details of how it works. Christ did suffer in Gethesemane and on the cross to allow us to overcome the effects of our sin. BUT he did not suffer for our sins. When Jehovah decided to become the Savior for us during the pre-mortal existence his destiny was sealed. The amount of suffering that he partook of was infinite and eternal.

It is a great misconception that Christ suffered directly for our sins. Many people think that when they sin that they are adding to the amount of suffering that Jesus already sustained. It is not so.

[cooles]

Not quite. You dismissed my post. But thats understandable as I have dismissed your original blog. I mentioned that Skousen's original 9 page written discourse as found in The First 2,000 years quoted 36 scriptures. I added the 2 Ne 2:14 scripture to explain that Skousen's idea is not his alone. That the apostle John A Widtsoe spoon fed much of the information to Skousen. But you haven't done your homework. You wrote a blog which hasn't received much response and then came here to this site to get some people to appreciate your astute commentary. You tried to resurrect my old post from May '09 and trash another member of the Chruch who has bolstered at least my testimony no doubt many others.

I'll write it once more. Christ's atonement provides us a way to overcome the effects of sin that remove us from the presence of God. We do not know the details of how it works. Christ did suffer in Gethesemane and on the cross to allow us to overcome the effects of our sin. BUT he did not suffer for our sins. When Jehovah decided to become the Savior for us during the pre-mortal existence his destiny was sealed. The amount of suffering that he partook of was infinite and eternal.

It is a great misconception that Christ suffered directly for our sins. Many people think that when they sin that they are adding to the amount of suffering that Jesus already sustained. It is not so.

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.

[mikbone]

Check out this recent Ensign article by D. Todd Christofferson - Justification and Sanctification - Ensign June 2001

I particularily like the paragraph

“That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear [justify] the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness” (D&C 76:40–41).

You may notice that D. Todd in this article uses many of the same scriptures that Skousen / Widtsoe commented upon.

[mikbone]

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.

Abraham 3:22-26

Whether the references in sacred writ concerning the pre-existence of all life, plant and animal, justify the belief that individuality is preserved even in the lower orders of creation, must remain, until further light is obtained, a matter of personal opinion. The wording of the above quotations from the Pearl of Great Price seems to imply the pre-existence of individual life everywhere. Certainly, the earth on which we live is an imperishable, living organism:

And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law --

Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it. (D. & C. 88:25, 26)

John A Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations p.157

[cooles]

Check out this recent Ensign article by D. Todd Christofferson - Justification and Sanctification - Ensign June 2001

I particularily like the paragraph

“That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear [justify] the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness” (D&C 76:40–41).

You may notice that D. Todd in this article uses many of the same scriptures that Skousen / Widtsoe commented upon.

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.

[cooles]

Abraham 3:22-26

Whether the references in sacred writ concerning the pre-existence of all life, plant and animal, justify the belief that individuality is preserved even in the lower orders of creation, must remain, until further light is obtained, a matter of personal opinion. The wording of the above quotations from the Pearl of Great Price seems to imply the pre-existence of individual life everywhere. Certainly, the earth on which we live is an imperishable, living organism:

And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law --

Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it. (D. & C. 88:25, 26)

John A Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations p.157

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?

[mikbone]

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 think that your and my interpretation of Skousen is different.

We cannot lay claim upon the atonement until after we have repented for our sins.

D&C 19

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent:

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

The Atonement does not save us in our sins. After we have repented of all our sins and overcome them, we are still dirty. The atonement does something that alows us to cleans ourselves in the blood of the lamb such that we will be allowed readmittance to God's presence. Essentially the atonement makes it such that we had never committed the sin. Skousen and I do not know the details of how it works. But he attempts to at least give a reason as to how justice is appeased.

I personally think that after the resurrection that our progression is going to continue, and that we will be required to continue with difficult tasks. I think that the Atonement is conditional upon our continued progression and sacrifice. Skousen dosen't go that far

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?

Dude, you challenged me to give you a quote that substantiated that Widtsoe introduced some of the concepts of the theory to Skousen. It wasnt easy btw.

In Skousen's model these lesser intelligences are the souls that required the atonement to appease their sense of justice. You see, it is not fair that these lesser intelligences were dammed by their mistakes or shortcomings, yet we (mankind) are going to be allowed to continue progressing despite our sins.

The Widtsoe passage that I quoted infers that plants, animals, and the earth itself are intelligences. Intelligences that have been placed into spirits, and then into physical matter or bodies be they mineral, plant, or animal. These lesser intelligences will never have the opportunity to become like God is. Yet you and I, because of the Atonement, have to opportunity to continue to progress infinitely.

These lesser intelligences are the things that are acted upon in 2 Nephi 2:14. Apparently the Atonement also causes these lesser intelligences to honor God.

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

Edited April 23, 2011 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

I personally think that after the resurrection that our progression is going to continue, and that we will be required to continue with difficult tasks. I think that the Atonement is conditional upon our continued progression and sacrifice. Skousen dosen't go that far

The atonement only works on continued progression? So it does not work on people that make it into the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdom? I've never heard that before.

What is "sacrifice" in the next life? What is it that one would have in the next life that they could give up? I can't think of a single thing. If it is self-sacrifice or service that you are talking about, that would be just who we are, whatever level of service we offer is who we are nothing more and nothing less, it doesn't vary depending on being pulled this way or that. Sacrifice only really has meaning in this life, in a probationary state where there is choice between right and wrong, where the carnal mind pulls us in one direction opposite of the spiritual drives. What adversarial force are we going to be facing in the next life?

I don't think we will be faced with "difficult" tasks in the next life. That can be found nowhere in our gospel. They would seem difficult to us here, of course, in this fallen state and interpreted through carnal eyes. Our work will be what we love and we will find joy in our work without interpreting it as "difficult". Struggle, difficulties, trials etc. are not part of the Eternal Life that I am shooting for. Which is different than saying there will be a love of hard work, industry and performing God's errands. I think if one interprets that kind of work as "difficult" or "sacrifice" then they wont be doing it.

[mikbone]

The atonement only works on continued progression? So it does not work on people that make it into the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdom? I've never heard that before.

What is "sacrifice" in the next life? What is it that one would have in the next life that they could give up? I can't think of a single thing. If it is self-sacrifice or service that you are talking about, that would be just who we are, whatever level of service we offer is who we are nothing more and nothing less, it doesn't vary depending on being pulled this way or that. Sacrifice only really has meaning in this life, in a probationary state where there is choice between right and wrong, where the carnal mind pulls us in one direction opposite of the spiritual drives. What adversarial force are we going to be facing in the next life?

I don't think we will be faced with "difficult" tasks in the next life. That can be found nowhere in our gospel. They would seem difficult to us here, of course, in this fallen state and interpreted through carnal eyes. Our work will be what we love and we will find joy in our work without interpreting it as "difficult". Struggle, difficulties, trials etc. are not part of the Eternal Life that I am shooting for. Which is different than saying there will be a love of hard work, industry and performing God's errands. I think if one interprets that kind of work as "difficult" or "sacrifice" then they wont be doing it.

Please see “His Great Heart Almost Breaking”

[Seminarysnoozer]

Please see “His Great Heart Almost Breaking”

This is a great description and is colorful and fanciful for our reading in bringing a lot of emotion to the story but I would say that "I think" is as far as we can take the description of how God felt;

"In that hour I think I can see our dear Father, behind the veil looking upon these dying struggles until even he could not endure it any longer, and, like the mother who bids farewell to her dying child, has to be taken out of the room, so as not to look upon the last struggles, so he bowed his head, and hid in some part of his universe, his great heart almost breaking for the love that he had for his Son. Oh, in that moment when He might have saved his Son, I thank him and praise him that he did not fail us, for he had not only the love of his Son in mind, but he also had love for us."

I wouldn't take it beyond "I think" and "like the ...". These are comparisons to barely help us get a glimpse of what was done for us to appreciate what was given to understand the amount of love God has for us. But like other scriptures suggest, what Father wouldn't give bread if their child asked for bread. There is no "sacrifice" in that act because it is an act of love and knowing what the consequences are fully. Sacrifice requires a bit of trust and faith in something unknown. What is it that God did not know about this "sacrifice"? Nothing, and therefore it is not a sacrifice, it is charitable. It represents His giving, loving and charitable nature but 'sacrifice' is our word for this world. ... I still believe that.

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

I have many of Brother Skousen's books on my shelf yet cannot say I base my beliefs on them but I do agree with most of what he had written.

Yes, he is relating the conditions of the Atonement as I understand it and I remember way back when I read the 2nd Thousand Years back in 1968 (or was it 69?) that I was so excited as he was confirming much of what I already believed.

Yes, I do feel good about most of what he wrote.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have many of Brother Skousen's books on my shelf yet cannot say I base my beliefs on them but I do agree with most of what he had written.

Yes, he is relating the conditions of the Atonement as I understand it and I remember way back when I read the 2nd Thousand Years back in 1968 (or was it 69?) that I was so excited as he was confirming much of what I already believed.

Yes, I do feel good about most of what he wrote.

I guess my biggest hang up on following Skousen's thought process is that he is basing the description of power on Satan's rebellious words, D&C 29:36 " 36And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;"

This was the lie and deception Satan used to turn away a third of the host of heaven that honor and power could be given that way. This kind of honor cannot be given by anyone but then Skousen tries to reason that honor is given to God by intelligences by their obedience.

We are supposed to only receive the honor that comes from God, John 5:43-44; " 43 I am come in my Father’s bname, and ye creceive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"

I think love and charity are better words than "honor" that Skousen is kind-of missing the mark on. If he would say that God receives His power from the love and charity He has towards all intelligence and the love He receives, that, to me is more believable. Love, meaning He really cares about our success. Satan I think misinterprets "love" as honor and power. Love, I think, is more powerful than honor because love can be in one direction and still be powerful. God can love those that don't love him.

[JohnnyRudick]

I guess my biggest hang up on following Skousen's thought process is that he is basing the description of power on Satan's rebellious words, D&C 29:36 " 36And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;"

This was the lie and deception Satan used to turn away a third of the host of heaven that honor and power could be given that way. This kind of honor cannot be given by anyone but then Skousen tries to reason that honor is given to God by intelligences by their obedience.

We are supposed to only receive the honor that comes from God, John 5:43-44; " 43 I am come in my Father’s bname, and ye creceive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"

I think love and charity are better words than "honor" that Skousen is kind-of missing the mark on. If he would say that God receives His power from the love and charity He has towards all intelligence and the love He receives, that, to me is more believable. Love, meaning He really cares about our success. Satan I think misinterprets "love" as honor and power. Love, I think, is more powerful than honor because love can be in one direction and still be powerful. God can love those that don't love him.

I think the saying "Ya can't teach an old dog new tricks" has anew d meaning for me these days.

Back when I was searching for knowledge in the beginning I soaked it up like I was a sponge and many of those things I soaked up is still with me today.

Somebody like you comes along and tried to give me more light on a subject and I have to read it several times and I still say "Huh?".

You all have given me much to chew on here and maybe I will figure it out:huh:

Thanks:cool:

[Justice]

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).

In my view, this is just a poetic way of saying He overcame death for us. Or, more specifically, He overcame the effects of the Fall AND allowed us to overcome sin.

Think of David and Goliath: David was a type of Christ and Goliath a type of death (or what man could not overcome on his own). Christ slew the beast for us. Isaiah's words are much more poetic.