The Living Christ

[a-train]

Christ paid "a" price in the process of offering the sacrifice for sin, but Christ did not pay the exact penalty we merit due to our sins, because that would require that he spend eternity being banished from God's presence.

You already quoted this part of D&C 19: 'And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.... yada yada...'

Doesn't this demonstrate how Christ could have performed an 'eternal' or 'infinite' seperation from God? Christ is Endless. He WAS seperated from the Father in taking upon Him the sins of all. He did endure 'Eternal' and 'Endless' punishment which is 'God's Punishment'. That is the 'these things' He speaks of having suffered four verses later.

Don't we therefore have a scriptural answer to the logical question you have raised?= 'How could Jesus suffer an endless banishment from God's presence in our behalf, but somehow get back to His presence?'

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

You could advance that interpretation, a-train, sure. But what you're forgetting is that the reason "endless punishment" isn't really endless is because Christ's sacrifice makes remission of sins possible. Also, D&C 19 was a stern reprimand to Martin Harris warning him to repent. So it was already assumed that if he repented his punishment would not be endless.

If Christ was truly taking our place and taking our punishment, he would have to receive the punishment that a sinner who can't undo their sins must receive. We can't undo our own sins. Therefore, Christ couldn't undo "ours" if he was truly being placed in our stead. To believe that the punishment would sometime just "fade away" or "expire" is to assume that Justice's demands are temporary. I believe 1 Ne. 10:21 who says that if we had the chance to repent but did wickedly instead, we will be eternally cast off.

Our spiritual uncleanness doesn't magically undo itself after a set amount of time. We cannot cleanse ourselves. Therefore, for Christ to literally be treated as though he were us, he would never be able to get out from under the punishment that sinners merit.

As for your earlier question about scriptural evidence:

I've often read and re-read Alma 34:11-12 and thought that perhaps the suffering of Christ was something altogether different from the Primary-lesson explanation of the atonement:

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.

12 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.

To me, this is saying that if a law is just or fair, it will not assign the consequences of one person's actions to a different person. If I steal and must spend two years in jail, it isn't just for my brother to serve my sentence for me just because I'm really sorry and promise not to do it again. What judge in the world would transfer my guilty verdict to my brother just because he volunteered to serve my prison term for me? Would that be just? Would that be fair?

I'm defining justice as: "administering the law; enforcing the law." Justice is predicated on the Law of the Harvest: Reap what you sow. You can't pick up one end of a stick without the other end coming with it. Consequences follow actions. That is Justice...dispensing punishment to one who breaks the law.

What if a law said this: "If a purse is stolen, the purse must be returned or the value thereof restored, and a prison-term of six months must be served; it doesn't have to be the thief who restores the value and sits in jail. As long as someone does these things, the law is satisfied." Is that just?

To believe that God cannot be satisfied until He has dispensed a punishment for every single sin is ridiculous. Take the Parable of the Mediator by Elder Packer. In that parable, the Father is represented by "the creditor." The creditor is only concerned with getting paid the money he's owed. He doesn't care who pays it, as long as he gets paid. This is not a true parallel to God's Justice. When we sin, we don't "steal" from God or take anything from Him.

It's not like we took out a "spiritual loan" from God when we entered mortality, and that when we sin we are defaulting on the "loan."

The result of sin is not taking from God, but instead becoming spiritually unclean. Thus Justice does not demand God be "paid" anything when we sin. The law demands that sinners--who are spiritually unclean--be cast off from God forever (1 Ne. 10:21; Moses 6:57).

So you tell me, how does Christ take eternal separation from God (the punishment for our sin) and translate it into dying on the cross? Or bleeding from every pore, if you want to go there. It makes no sense whatsoever, nor can I find any scriptures that say that Christ complied with Justice's demands in dying on the cross.

No, the law is not merely concerned with righting wrongs or making someone, anyone, take the punishment for a broken law. The law is concerned with making the person who was in the wrong, make things right. Find me one scripture that says that a God of laws and justice could arbitrarily re-assign the punishment for our sins to Christ just because Jesus asks Him to.

I don't see the atonement as a progression of events like: We sin; God raises the flail of Justice to punish us; we repent; Christ steps in the way just in time to receive our whipping for us.

Why don't I believe this is what happens? Alma 34:14-15 says:

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

Verse 15 intrigues me. Let's read it backwards in terms of concepts:

Men can repent...because they have faith...that justice's demands have been overpowered...by the bowels of mercy...which result from Christ's atoning sacrifice.

I find it interesting that verse 15 says the bowels of mercy overpower justice. My dictionary defines "overpower" as: defeat or overcome with superior strength; be too intense for; overwhelm. If the atonement is just quid-pro-quo, if it just involves transferring our punishments to Christ, then that has nothing to do with overpowering justice. Rather, that's doing what justice demands, namely, to dispense a punishment when a law is broken.

To me, overpowering justice would involve removing the demand that someone be punished, period. That's not the same as removing the demand that we be punished if Christ suffers in our place. Overpowering justice would mean no one has to receive the punishment, not us or Christ. I'll use a courtroom analogy to illustrate these two different models of the atonement.

The first model of how the atonement works (the one I hear taught in Church) goes like this:

JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.

DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, the defendant's brother has volunteered to serve this prison term. I request that you transfer the conviction and judgment to the defendant's brother, and let my client go free.

JUDGE: Why should I do this?

DEFENSE LAWYER: Because the defendant's brother has never committed a crime, is an upstanding citizen, and loves his brother.

JUDGE: Motion granted. Bailiff, release the defendant and take his brother into custody.

The second model of how the atonement works (the one I'm pondering) would go like this:

JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.

DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, I'm requesting that the prosecution drop all charges and that you dismiss this case against my client.

JUDGE: On what grounds?

On what grounds indeed. What could be so powerful that "the judge" would dismiss all charges against the sinner, and throw out the case against us? What would be so compelling as to overpower justice's demands against us sinners?

How about the life of a God?

I believe that Christ's voluntarily sacrificed life is what drives this "motion to dismiss." You may say, "Well no kidding genius, everyone knows that!" What I hear most people say is that Christ gave his life while suffering the punishment for our sins. This is not what I mean, however.

I mean that Christ's death on the cross is ultimately the act that overpowers justice. How? Not by means of quid-pro-quo. Rather, I think Christ presents his perfect innocence and the blood he gave while being murdered on the cross as sufficient reasons to "dismiss the charges" against us.

Why would God withdraw the demand that we be punished if we have repented and abandoned sin?

For Christ's sake.

It's rather ironic that justice is overpowered by the ultimate injustice (Christ's crucifixion and death). In fact, when we show mercy or feel pity for someone, it's usually because they've experienced an injustice; something has happened to them that they didn't deserve. If you're a landlord and your tenant can't pay their rent on time because they were robbed the day before, you can either evict them or show mercy because of the crime committed against them, and give them more time to pay their rent.

So again, I believe that Christ's unjust death and sacrificed life is what overpowers justice. I don't believe Jesus received the specific punishment for our specific sins and that's why we can be forgiven. To be sure, being crucified in the process of redeeming us is a punishment.

What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think Christ "served our prison sentence" in our place. I think that Christ's perfect life and perfect innocence and perfectly unjust death are in themselves what overpowers justice for the repentant, and are what removes the need for anyone to serve a prison sentence. Here are a few scriptures that are key to me and my belief:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom; and verily, I say, even as many as have believed in my name, for I am Christ, and in mine own name, by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded before the Father for them. (D&C 38:4)

Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

"Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life. (D&C 45:3-5)

I find it interesting that in the last two passages quoted above, Jesus doesn't mention that he "served our prison sentence" for us and that's why we can be forgiven. In fact in D&C 45, in what I call the true Intercessory Prayer, Jesus calls attention to his innocence and spilled blood as reasons for God to forgive us. While much of the Law of Moses was symbolic, I also find it interesting that the blood of the sacrificial animals (bullock and lamb especially) is what "cleansed Israel of sin." The high priest didn't stone the lamb in place of the adulterer, etc... Rather, because the sacrificial animal was free of spot, "innocent," it's blood made forgiveness of sins possible.

Now some of you may say, "Well if a punishment isn't given for sinning, that's robbing justice!" Not so. If Mosaic justice demanded that an adulterer be stoned, and that adulterer wasn't stoned, that would be robbing justice. But if the requirement for the adulterer to be stoned was removed, that isn't robbing justice, it's overpowering justice. Alma 42 explains these concepts very well, especially the following verses. Note that in verses 13, 22 and 24 it states that mercy cannot be granted except to the repentant...otherwise, it wouldn't be just to dispense mercy (forgive the apparent paradox)...it would, in essence, rob justice. Here are the verses:

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Notice in verse 22 it says that if we don't repent then justice executes the law. It doesn't say that God executes the law against Christ in our place so that we don't have to take the punishment. Zenos explains it well:

And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son. (Alma 33:11)

Zenos didn't say that God laid our punishments on Christ in our place. Zenos said that God turned away His punishments because of Christ.

So either:

1.) God turns His punishments away from us because He makes Christ suffer them in our place; or...

2.) God turns His punishments away from us because He loses His appetite for punishing us when we repent and when Jesus asks Him to because of Christ's unjust death.

Now for #1 to be true, God would have had to be the one crucifying Jesus. However, Jesus was crucified by wicked men, not by God. So God wasn't punishing Jesus in any way, shape or form. Men did that. And that comprises the injustice of the atonement: A God was executed because he was spotless.

That is the exact opposite of what Justice would demand. Justice demands that Christ be exalted, praised and revered. Yet men did the opposite by abusing him, convicting him of sin, and executing him as a criminal.

Let me borrow an example from the book "The Infinite Atonement" by Tad R. Callister to illustrate how the suffering of an innocent person can overpower the demands of others.

Calcutta was a battleground of hate. Gandhi, a Hindu, stayed at a Muslim home in the heart of the riot district. Some Hindus were incensed at Gandhi's conciliatory conduct towards the enemy. An attempt on his life failed. Various consortiums of hot-headed Hindu youth were sent to Gandhi to convince him of the error of his ways. Each time the youth would return and repeat, "The Mahatma is right."

The war continued. Finally, Gandhi announced a fast to the death unless the foes altered their course. It would be peace for them or death for him. After three days of fasting, the suffering of one revered by an entire nation proved too much for the people to bear. The softening and persuasive powers of his suffering melted "hearts of stone." Weapons, from knives to Sten guns, were laid at his feet. Almost overnight the healing occurred. Lord Mountbatten, one of the military leaders present observed, "What 50,000 well-equipped soldiers could not do, the Mahatma has done. He has brought peace." And so he had.

Delhi was his next challenge. The tension was screw-tight. Gandhi proposed eight points on which Hindus and Muslims must reach accord, or again he would fast to the death. All eight points favored the Muslims. The risk was staggering, but his goal was honorable: to unify a divided nation. After six days the pact of peace was signed. E Stanley Jones, present just before the fast, wrote: "This was no cheap signing of an ordinary peace pact. There was a moral quality here that made it different. His blood and their tears cemented the pact." He also noted: "His method and his aim were right...He shook that nation to its depths--shook it morally." Through the power of righteous suffering a diminutive, seventy-nine-year-old man, waning in life, literally saved a nation by bringing it to its spiritual senses

This isn't a perfect parallel. The principles are the same, however. When doing something would cause or magnify the suffering of an innocent, the noble heart abandons its previous design in order to defer to the innocent sufferer. Taking that one step further, the only thing worse than not punishing a repentant adulterer is punishing an innocent person for adultery that they did not commit.

Now whether you guys believe this or not, doesn't really matter.

What you cannot believe is that Christ took our punishments in our place, paid Justice, and complied with the law's demands. To believe so is to doom Christ to remain forever disembodied (unresurrected) and cast off from God.

Yet the scriptures teach that Christ rose from the dead (contrary to Justice's demands), and Christ ascended to the Father (which Justice's demands forbid someone to do if that someone is suffering the punishment of uncleanness through sin).

So believe whatever other theory you want about how Christ's sacrifice overpowers Justice. Come up with your own if you want, but base them on the scriptures and the principles in them.

Penal-substitution is contrary to the scriptures...explicitly contrary to the scriptures' explanation of what the punishment for sin is.

[Adomini22]

I love it how in Alma verse 15 it says mercy overpowers justice, and then in verse 16 it says that mercy satisfies the demands of justice. So lets play with words and say that it is this way or the other....

In this chapter, the Nephite law says that one person cannot sacrifice his blood to atone for the sins of another. But that is not the be all of the characteristic of JUSTICE. That is Nephite law. Lets look at Gods law, shall we? One person did sacrifice to atone for the sins of another, given that the sinner repents. Oh wait, that would be Jesus himself, wouldnt it? Justice , the word and characteristic of Justice, does let that happen. Verse 12 and 12 in Alma 34 says it best, justice requires that we pay the price for sin...."therefore it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice....." and " therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.." on our behalf. "which will suffice for the sins of the world.." Sounds like Justice, doesnt it? Of course, later on it states that mercy overpowers justice ( which by the way, can only be thought possible regarding the sacrifice for sin.... however, it cant be said that mercy overpowers justice regarding the resurrection). And of course the next verse says that mercy can satisfy the demands of justice...........

In short..... Authority of President Hinckley through Joseph Smith vs. the authority of anyone on this site

NO CONTEST

[CrimsonKairos]

Before you congratulate yourself, you might be interested to know that I didn't understand much of that.

Well, I did understand one thing: You aren't aware of the Latin roots of the word "satisfy" and of what it literally means.

Let's turn to those roots, yes?

Satisfy comes from these Latin roots:

Satis = enough

facere = to make

So satisfy literally means "to make enough."

My online dictionary provides some more modern definitions:

1.) Meet the expectations, needs, or desires of (someone), i.e. "I have never been satisfied with my job."

2.) Fulfill a desire or need, i.e. "Social Services is trying to satisfy the needs of so many different groups."

3.) Provide someone with adequate information or proof so that they are convinced about something, i.e. "After examining the object, the chief engineer was satisfied that it was not a weapon."

Here is a scriptural example of how "satisfy" can mean "to convince" or "to persuade" someone of something:

And it came to pass that Amalickiah took the same servant that slew the king, and all them who were with him, and went in unto the queen, unto the place where she sat; and they all testified unto her that the king was slain by his own servants; and they said also: They have fled; does not this testify against them? And thus they satisfied the queen concerning the death of the king. (Alma 47:34)

How does this apply to the atonement?

When we repent, abandon sin, and when Christ pleads his death for us, God is satisfied and withdraws the law's demands. How is God satisfied? He is convinced that our spiritual rebirth, change of heart and Christ's sacrifice are enough.

He is satisfied that we have changed, won't sin again, and when He considers that Christ gave up his life for our sake, God is satisfied or persuaded that enforcing the letter of the law against us would render Christ's sacrifice meaningless and in vain.

In other words, God becomes satisfied that enforcing the letter of the law is not as important as the unjust suffering of His Son in whom He is well pleased.

It becomes a choice between:

1.) Dispensing Justice and making Christ's death meaningless; or...

2.) Withdrawing the law's demands, that Christ's sacrifice might not have been in vain.

I notice how you not only gloss over the use of the word "overpower" in Alma 34, but you also ignore all the other scriptures I listed. This is why the false tradition persists. No one is willing to harmonize all of the scriptures together. They insist on using one scripture in a doctrinal vacuum, such as D&C 19, when such a limited use contradicts the rest of the scriptures.

Try again, Adomini. Look at all the scriptures. Don't look for evidence to confirm a bias. Look at all the evidence, and then draw a conclusion.

When you do the latter, you will find what I have found. I'll start you out. Let's see if we can cross-reference some scriptures to determine just how the word "satisfy" is being used in Alma 34.

You think that when Alma 34 says that mercy satisfies the demands of justice, it means that mercy pays the full price that justice demands. This is one possibility.

However, when you take into account that Alma 34 previously says that Christ's sacrifice brings about the bowels of mercy which overpower justice, the likelihood of your interpretation of how the word "satisfy" is used becomes not only tenuous, but impossible. Unless you believe that Amulek was contradicting himself.

Are there other scriptures which use language similar to Alma 34 that we can use to confirm or clarify what "satisfy" means in this context? Yes. Turn to Alma 42:15 with me:

And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

Well this is wonderful! The language is almost identical to Alma 34, except instead of it saying mercy "satisfies" the demands of justice, it says mercy "appeases" the demands of justice.

Okay, so it would seem that "satisfy" and "appease" are both being used to convey the same concept. Are you with me? From here, it becomes easy to clarify what "satisfy" was meant to convey in Alma 34. We have but to look up the definition of "appease" and we will have a clearer understanding of both scriptures. Here is what appease means:

Appease comes from these Latin roots:

a- = to, at

pais = peace

So "appease" literally means "to peace" or "at peace." Here are some more modern definitions from my online dictionary:

1.) To pacify or placate, i.e. "Amendments have been added to appease local pressure groups."

2.) Relieve or satisfy (a demand or feeling), i.e. "We give to charity because it appeases our guilt."

Alright, so far we have the understanding that the Latin roots of "satisfy" mean "to make enough," and the roots of "appease" mean "to peace" or "at peace." So both Alma 34 and Alma 42 are trying to convey that Christ's sacrifice is reason enough to convince God to be at peace and relieve His wrath against our sins.

I found a lovely little example of these concepts in Helaman 11. In this chapter, the people are wicked and Nephi prays for the Lord to send a famine to humble them unto repentance. Then, when the people repent, Nephi pleads before God on their behalf in an attempt to appease His anger at their wickedness. Follow along closely, this is what it's all about!

1 And now it came to pass in the seventy and second year of the reign of the judges that the contentions did increase, insomuch that there were wars throughout all the land among all the people of Nephi.

2 And it was this secret band of robbers who did carry on this work of destruction and wickedness. And this war did last all that year; and in the seventy and third year it did also last.

3 And it came to pass that in this year Nephi did cry unto the Lord, saying:

4 O Lord, do not suffer that this people shall be destroyed by the sword; but O Lord, rather let there be a famine in the land, to stir them up in remembrance of the Lord their God, and perhaps they will repent and turn unto thee.

5 And so it was done, according to the words of Nephi. And there was a great famine upon the land, among all the people of Nephi. And thus in the seventy and fourth year the famine did continue, and the work of destruction did cease by the sword but became sore by famine.

6 And this work of destruction did also continue in the seventy and fifth year. For the earth was smitten that it was dry, and did not yield forth grain in the season of grain; and the whole earth was smitten, even among the Lamanites as well as among the Nephites, so that they were smitten that they did perish by thousands in the more wicked parts of the land.

7 And it came to pass that the people saw that they were about to perish by famine, and they began to remember the Lord their God; and they began to remember the words of Nephi.

8 And the people began to plead with their chief judges and their leaders, that they would say unto Nephi: Behold, we know that thou art a man of God, and therefore cry unto the Lord our God that he turn away from us this famine, lest all the words which thou hast spoken concerning our destruction be fulfilled.

9 And it came to pass that the judges did say unto Nephi, according to the words which had been desired. And it came to pass that when Nephi saw that the people had repented and did humble themselves in sackcloth, he cried again unto the Lord, saying:

10 O Lord, behold this people repenteth; and they have swept away the band of Gadianton from amongst them insomuch that they have become extinct, and they have concealed their secret plans in the earth.

11 Now, O Lord, because of this their humility wilt thou turn away thine anger, and let thine anger be appeased in the destruction of those wicked men whom thou hast already destroyed.

12 O Lord, wilt thou turn away thine anger, yea, thy fierce anger, and cause that this famine may cease in this land.

13 O Lord, wilt thou hearken unto me, and cause that it may be done according to my words, and send forth rain upon the face of the earth, that she may bring forth her fruit, and her grain in the season of grain.

14 O Lord, thou didst hearken unto my words when I said, Let there be a famine, that the pestilence of the sword might cease; and I know that thou wilt, even at this time, hearken unto my words, for thou saidst that: If this people repent I will spare them.

15 Yea, O Lord, and thou seest that they have repented, because of the famine and the pestilence and destruction which has come unto them.

16 And now, O Lord, wilt thou turn away thine anger, and try again if they will serve thee? And if so, O Lord, thou canst bless them according to thy words which thou hast said.

17 And it came to pass that in the seventy and sixth year the Lord did turn away his anger from the people, and caused that rain should fall upon the earth, insomuch that it did bring forth her fruit in the season of her fruit. And it came to pass that it did bring forth her grain in the season of her grain.

This is incredibly significant. Did you notice what reasons Nephi gave the Lord why he should forgive the people?

1.) They had repented and proven it by their actions (v. 10)

2.) They were humble (v. 11)

3.) The Lord had already destroyed many wicked people (v. 11)

Nephi felt confident asking the Lord to forgive the people based on those three reasons. Nephi was in essence asking, "Lord, let all this be enough to put you at peace." In fact, Nephi links the concept of the Lord turning away his anger with the concept of appeasement in verse 11.

Nephi isn't saying, "Appease your wrath by exacting the full price that justice demands these people suffer because of their past wickedness." He says the opposite, namely: "Lord, the people have given up their wicked ways that angered you; you have already destroyed many sinners through the wars and famines; let this be enough, and turn away your anger; forgive them."

This is a perfect example of how mercy appeases the demands of justice, or satisfies the Lord that inflicting the full punishment that justice demands is no longer desirable. So here is what we have:

Alma 34 says that mercy can satisfy the demands of justice...

Alma 42 says that mercy can appease the demands of justice...

Helaman 11 says that the Lord's wrath was appeased because the people repented and had already suffered enough...

So if you read Alma 34 in a vacuum, you could interpret its use of the word "satisfy" to mean that mercy pays the full price justice demands.

But when you read Alma 34 in conjunction with the rest of the scriptures, its true meaning becomes clear.

So just like Nephi did in Helaman 11, Christ acts as the Mediator between God and repentant sinners. And what is Christ's plea? Let me add comments in brackets to D&C 45:3-5 to show what I believe it means in light of the scriptures we've just examined (and there are many more):

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, [let the injustices done to me and the repentance of these sinners be enough to make you at peace and turn away your wrath, and] spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

Helaman 11 is a beautiful echo of D&C 45:3-5. In both cases, a righteous advocate pleads for mercy and for God's wrath to be turned away, not because the full penalty for sin has been suffered, but because wickedness has been abandoned, hearts have been changed, and because there has been enough suffering already.

The plea is the same: "God, let these things be enough to relieve Thy anger; remove the demand that these penitent souls be punished any further."

Zenos teaches this same concept:

And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son. (Alma 33:11)

I understand it's difficult to consider something different than what you previously thought to be true. I went through the same thing, bro! I used to believe as you did, and came to believe as I do now after reading the scriptures as a whole and harmonizing their several teachings in order to grasp their consistent, coherent and unanimous message.

Please re-consider what I've shared. Please don't think I'm discussing these things just to be right. Please don't imagine for a moment that I'd ever say anything like "I told you so" if you ever start to believe these things I've been sharing. These truths have been confirmed in my heart. I know they are true.

Don't look at it like, "CrimsonKairos's view versus the Prophet's view." If you re-read Pres. Hinckley's statements, you will see that he does not say, "Christ suffered the exact penalty for every sin that we commit."

Yes, Jesus suffered for our sins.

Yes, Jesus took upon himself the burden of our sins.

Yes, Jesus bore our iniquities.

Yes, Jesus paid a terrible price in atoning for our sins.

Yes, Jesus ransoms us from the grasp of death and hell.

Yes, Jesus's sacrifice can satisfy the demands of justice if we repent.

Yes, Jesus's sacrifice can appease the demands of justice if we repent.

If the only thing keeping you from embracing these things I'm sharing is that you feel they are at odds with the declarations of the living oracles of God, I'd urge you to re-read their statements with this new understanding in mind. See if there really is a contradiction. There's something of worth before you and I really encourage you to just take a day or two to let all this digest. If you still feel as you do now, that's between you and God. It just pains me to see someone turn a blind eye to such clear and compelling teachings from the scriptures.

Just allow yourself to ponder: Do the words of our modern-day prophets mean what I think they mean? Is it possible that they mean something else? Is it possible they are in harmony with the unanimous message of the scriptures as a whole, and I've been taught an incorrect view of all of this?

Only good can come of such an approach. You risk nothing, but stand to gain everything. I wish you well brother, and hope you do give these words a chance. As I said before, the scriptures don't support my view, I support their view. To God alone the glory, now and ever, and may we remember the Savior's comforting counsel:

36 Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.

37 Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen. (D&C 6:36-37)

[a-train]

Crimson,

As I and many others here have heard your case before, it comes down to interpretation. There is your interpretation, and that offered by members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. We have already been through discussions about who has said what about penal-substitution and you have admitted that the doctrine exists among the brethren. It is going to be very difficult to find LDS persons willing to undertake a new interpretation of the verses you've outlined.

Frankly, many of the verses you are using seem to me to be some of the strongest supporters of penal-substitution. I just don't think you will find many who will agree with you.

-a-train

[a-train]

As I'm certain you are aware, there is another conceptualization of the salvation of man from sin that has had place throughout traditional Christian history. It is the old idea that good works counterbalance evil ones and vice versa.

The idea is visualized in the final judgement, each individual's good works are placed in one basin of a balance and their evil works are in the other basin. If the evil works outweigh the good, then they are sent to hell and if the good works outweigh the evil they are sent to heaven. The idea is most poignantly represented by statements like: 'Well, after you did that, you're sure to go to heaven.' or 'That deserves a few more smokes and a beer.' or 'Your going to need a lot of Hail Marys for that one.' This is as if one great work in a man's life will counterbalance him against the judgements of all his evil works.

We all know this is NOT how the laws of God operate and that a man cannot through any efforts of good works counteract the effects of previous evil works.

With penal-substitution, we still have the image of the balance wherein evil works are in one basin and punishments in the other. Now I am comfortable saying that if a man be punished for his own sins by God that he will indeed endure the appropriate portion of justice exactly as prescribed by the law. However, we must understand that the sacrifice for sin didn't balance the scale by putting all the sins of mankind in one basin and punishing Jesus just enough to level the apparatus.

The punishments endured by the Saviour in the effort to satisfy the demands of justice were not some finite level of judgements inflicted upon a single man corresponding to the sum of the iniquities perpetrated by mankind. For it was '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.'

Amulek says that the Atonement can suffice for the sins of the world not because it is worse than the sins of the world or worse than the judgements thereof, but because it is 'an infinite atonement '. He says plainly that it is NOT the placing of the punishments of one man on another, but the placing of 'the transgressions of [the] people' upon Christ, the Eternal God, THAT is the difference.

Furthermore, the Father IS NOT represented by the debtor in Packer's parable. Satan is. Through sin we are bound to Satan (need I list scriptures?). Through sin we become servants of sin itself. Christ came to overcome sin and the Devil, NOT the Father. Satan is the accuser at the judgement, NOT the Father.

What do you think?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Furthermore, the Father IS NOT represented by the debtor in Packer's parable. Satan is.

I didn't say He was. I clearly said the Father was represented by the creditor. Did you even read my posts? The creditor is the one in the parable who is exercising justice's demands. It is the creditor who is inflicting the punishment. Now ask yourself: Is it God who executes the law against sinners, or is it Satan? Exactly.

Through sin we are bound to Satan (need I list scriptures?).

Not because he has any claim on us. The only reason we go where Satan goes is because he is unclean and when we sin, we become unclean. It's not like Jesus had to pay Satan something so Satan would release us. That's going further back beyond even penal-substitution or satsifaction theory to ransom theory by Origen.

This is what I see happening:

You all will continue to ignore the scriptures.

You will continue to misinterpret the Brethren's words.

You will continue to project that misinterpretation onto the scriptures.

I am surprised by all of the responses to the scriptures I've presented. I lay out carefully scripture, after scripture, after scripture, even quoting the Brethren and showing how their words must either be in harmony with the scriptures or in conflict, and then showing how their words are in harmony with the scriptures.

And what response do you all offer to this thoughtful approach?

"We don't think that's what the Brethren have been saying, so the scriptures can't possibly mean what you think they mean."

This is frustrating to say the least. I'm not frustrated that "you won't believe me," but that you won't bring any scriptures of your own to the table, only the assertion that "The Brethren don't believe it." Don't bother quoting the Brethren, or any scriptures. No, don't bother putting time and thought into your responses.

Just dismiss the scriptures with a wave of the hand. Good. Go on believing what you will. It doesn't affect my testimony at all. What it does do is sadden me that otherwise intelligent people cannot engage in a meaningful discussion of the most important doctrine in all of history without resorting to, "The Brethren haven't laid it out like you have, so you can't be right!"

Do you remember the Prophet who said that God would never let man land on the moon since it didn't have anything to do with man's salvation? Was he correct or incorrect?

Do you remember the Prophet who said the earth awas 14,000 years old? Was he correct or incorrect?

Do you remember the Apostle who taught and published a book saying that no black man would have the priesthood until ever worthy white male had a chance to receive it first? Was he correct or incorrect?

I'm not saying ignore the Brethren's words.

I am cautioning you against interpreting their words first, and then reading that interpretation into the scriptures.

What you ought to do is interpret the scriptures first as a whole, and then read that interpretation into the Brethren's words.

After all, the Brethren base their words on the scriptures. The Brethren's beliefs are a result of studying the scriptures, not just speculating and then using the scriptures to support that belief (usually).

So go ahead and ignore the scriptures. Search out Truth backwards, by going from the Brethren's words to the scriptures, instead of from the scriptures to the Brethren's words.

My jaw almost hit my desk when I got up this morning and read a-train's response to my last post wherein I clearly tied Alma 34, Alma 42, D&C 45:3-5 and Helaman 11 together to do just what a-train asked me to do: provide scriptural evidence.

What response did I get? Essentially a-train said:

"Most people won't believe that's what those scriptures mean because no one's ever said it like that in General Conference."

God forbid that my spiritual growth and learning be limited because some things haven't been said yet.

God forbid that the Spirit be kept from testifying of truths unless that exact wording or explanation has been given by one of the Brethren!

One more thing that occurred to me:

The claim is that this whole topic comes down to personal interpretation. I interpret the Brethren to mean one thing, you all interpret their words to mean another thing.

What you're forgetting, dear friends, is that while you can interpret the Brethren's words to mean what you want them to mean, you cannot interpret the scriptures to mean what you think the Brethren mean.

Well you could, but you'd have to define words like "overpower" to mean "comply with," and "appease" to mean "pay in full."

I will give a-train one shekel of credit for at least trying to discuss this with me by using my explanation of D&C 19 to try to self-contradict my other statements (the whole "endless punishment" isn't endless so Christ doesn't have to be forever cut off from God while suffering our punishment for us).

Adomini, your attempt to dissect Alma 34 which ended with an odd statement that the prophets are right and I am wrong (without even listing a quote of theirs from which you draw that opinion) was most disappointing indeed.

Thank you all for reading, and I hope someday all of the scriptures and testimonies I've shared might begin to penetrate the tradition we're spoonfed in Sunday School, a tradition which I don't believe any of the First Presidency or Twelve Apostles actually believe despite how you interpret what they've taught.

Thank you all for engaging in such mature discussion of my posts by reducing your position to plugging your ears and shouting: "The Brethren haven't said it like that! I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

[Adomini22]

CK, relax. Its as if you got your youth back..... I didnt dissect the whole chapter. i pointed out 2 verses, one after the other, saying that mercy 1) satisfies justice or 2) overpowers it. That is an interesting thing that I saw. However, your scriptural basis for your response was good, and I am not even going to dissect all that. And on a side note, I wasnt trying to be direct with that last comment. Notice, I didnt say prophets vs. CrimsonKairos. You believe to be doing what is right, and since your comments/views are not damaging, then I have no problem with it. Something just doesnt fit quite right, and I need more time to look into it. While I have been saying this before, I stumbled on Alma 34, and hence, my post.

[CrimsonKairos]

Perhaps I mistook your intent, then, Adomini.

If you're still open and searching for more possible knowledge, perhaps you'd like to consider this:

23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. (2 Ne. 9:23-26)

This is very explicit. It says a couple things:

1.) God has given us a law to follow (v. 25)

2.) That law involves repenting, being baptized, having faith in Christ, and enduring to the end (vv. 23-24)

3.) Those who don't obey this law must be damned (v. 24)

4.) Someone with no knowledge of this law won't be punished for failing to live it (v. 25)

5.) The atonement satisfies the demands of justice against those who are ignorant of the law's requirements (v. 26)

So what this is saying is that if someone has not been given or taught the gospel law, there can be no punishment for their failure to obey that law. Yet it also says that the atonement satisfies the demands of justice on behalf of those who disobey through ignorance.

So here's where we're at now:

1.) If someone disobeys through ignorance, there is no demand that they be punished; and...

2.) If Christ satisfies the demands of justice for those who have no punishment awaiting them; then...

3.) Satisfying the demands of justice does not involve suffering someone else's penalty.

Remember, "satisfy" can mean "convince" or "persuade" that something is enough. So in the case of those who don't know the law, Christ satisfies or persuades God not to punish them. Christ's plea is enough to convince God not to condemn them (v. 25). In other words, God doesn't condemn those who sin ignorantly even though they are breaking the law, and it is for Christ's sake that He doesn't condemn them.

I'm not trying to say that the atonement only satisfies justice for those who don't live the gospel law due to their ignorance of it.

I'm trying to show that the phrase "satisfying justice's demands" does not have to mean paying the full penalty for someone's disobedience.

Does that make any sense? I'm not asking you to agree with my theory as a whole. I'm just asking if you agree that this specific example from 2 Nephi 9 shows that satisfying justice's demands doesn't have to involve suffering someone's penalty.

After all, if the ignorant deserve no punishment, then what penalty would Christ have to suffer in satisfying justice's demands against them?

Satisfying justice's demands is about convincing or persuading God that there is reason enough to withdraw the demand for punishment. It is not about paying the penalty in full.

[a-train]

Wow, OOPS! I meant the creditor. The CREDITOR is SATAN. Read the parable. That is clear. The creditor is NOT the Father, it is Satan.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Then the parable is flawed, or your reading of it is.

It is the creditor who is demanding justice in the parable.

Does God execute justice against us, or does Satan?

Hint:

O the greatness and the justice of our God! For he executeth all his words, and they have gone forth out of his mouth, and his law must be fulfilled. (2 Ne. 9:17)

So this is what I'm talking about. You're taking a parable written by Elder Packer, and placing it above the standard works. Why is it that we can't read the scriptures first, and then examine the teachings of the Brethren to see how they measure up to the standard for our doctrine?

If you believe that the Brethren will never be wrong in their views, then you are not acquainted with Church history. If that is the only reason you refuse to accept what the scriptures say, you're on shaky ground indeed.

The scriptures are the "ruler" against which we measure all teachings and doctrines. The scriptures set the standard for official Church doctrine (not policy, which is different).

There are unchangeable doctrines in the standard works. By doctrine I mean "eternal truth." An example would be, "Christ is our Savior." Conversely, whether or not we have to be circumcised is a matter of policy or practice.

When any teaching---from lay member or leader---contradicts the unchangeable doctrines of the standard works (such as those dealing with the atonement), we are duty bound to reject such teachings. Conversely, we are not duty bound to accept as true every single talk or statement or opinion that the Brethren express just because they are the Brethren and just because they say it.

We are to employ the gift of the Holy Ghost in proving every teaching and doctrine, and we are to hold fast that which is true. Period.

[Adomini22]

Actually, if this doesnt sound too bad....I can see that the creditor could be Satan. That actually makes sense.....800pm

[CrimsonKairos]

Would you please explain how it makes sense to you?

Are there any scriptures that lead you to believe Satan could be represented by the creditor in the parable?

My problem with the parable is that people get caught up in the details and think, "Oh, Elder Packer must have meant for us to take the financial details of the parable and understand the atonement to work in terms of creditors, debtors, payments, etc..."

Me? I think he was merely trying to explain the principle that law-breakers can be reconciled through the efforts of a third party...a Mediator.

But again, Adomini, how does it make sense that Satan is the one with the right to execute God's laws and demand justice?

[Adomini22]

Would you please explain how it makes sense to you?

Are there any scriptures that lead you to believe Satan could be represented by the creditor in the parable?

My problem with the parable is that people get caught up in the details and think, "Oh, Elder Packer must have meant for us to take the financial details of the parable and understand the atonement to work in terms of creditors, debtors, payments, etc..."

Me? I think he was merely trying to explain the principle that law-breakers can be reconciled through the efforts of a third party...a Mediator.

But again, Adomini, how does it make sense that Satan is the one with the right to execute God's laws and demand justice?

It is written (and I am at work right now, so scripture browsing isnt much of an option at the moment), that if it wasnt for the resurrection and/or atonement, we would be enslaved by the power of the devil. We would be in a sort of bondage. So, that relates to an extent....the creditor putting the other in bondage, and the person looking for someone else to pay the debt and set him free. By the fall, the consequence of such would put us in a bondage where we could never free ourselves. Someone has to step in for us. Does that help? I can see the relation....

[CrimsonKairos]

You're missing a few key aspects of the parable.

The creditor doesn't slap handcuffs on the debtor himself. He would summon officers of the law to cast him into prison. Prison represents the bondage of Satan.

Besides that, there's the fact that in the parable, the Mediator pays the creditor. So if the creditor represented Satan, Elder Packer would be claiming that Jesus has to pay Satan some price as if Satan has a right to execute God's laws, or as if Satan has the final say as to whether or not we can dwell with God.

Satan is not our Judge. Satan has no right to demand anything, since he is a law-breaker and guilty himself. Satan is not an agent of God, does not represent God nor have authority from God to punish us.

The demands of the law are that if we sin and do not repent, we must be cast off from God. Why? Because sin makes us unclean, and no unclean thing can dwell with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

In being cast out, we arrive at the same "place" or condition that Satan now occupies due to his rebellion. We aren't cast off from God because Satan demands it. We are cast off from God because His laws dictate that unrepentant sinners be cast off.

In the Judgment Day, Satan won't be standing there at the Judgment Bar with us, accusing us of our sins. God keeps a record of our works and it is out of that book that we will be judged.

No one has yet addressed my example from 2 Nephi 9. Does it or does it not show that satisfying the demands of justice doesn't have to mean paying a penalty for someone's sins, in their palce?

[Adomini22]

Tell ya what. When I actually get off work, I will review this with more care. Apparently, I am the only one reading this post so far...so someone might beat me to the punch later tonight if not tomorrow. 2 nephi does appear to say what you say it says (ok, that sounds wierd).... let me take a closer look.

[CrimsonKairos]

Please do. I admire your willingness to continue looking into this and not just closing the door without examining the evidence.

[a-train]

'And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.' (Rev. 12:9-10)

While it matters not for our purposes here whether the scripures portray Satan as the accuser against mankind or the demander of Justice, the parable of the Mediator clearly does portray our debt to Satan or at least to sin itself. Take a look at the parable.

The fact is, I don't use the words of the latter-day leaders to 'supercede' the scriptures. On this precise issue, I believe the scriptures teach penal-substitution and that is the authority. As I said before, much of the exact verses we have been discussing the whole time are those I look to and see penal-substitution. Now, if a different interpretation of the scriptures is available, I look to the spirit and also to the leadership of the Church to see which of the available interpretations is supported. On this issue, clearly the interpretation of penal-substitution within the Atonement is viable and the brethren have supported as much. (Two or three witness.)

Regardless, I don't think that you or I will suffer damnation simply for not understanding the inner workings of the Atonement so long as our repenting and commencing to the work of God is going on. My statements about the LDS people not believing you wasn't to the intent that their disbelief is evidence against your position, but a simple statement about the fact that right our wrong, the saints aren't going to take up the idea until the leadership of the Church does.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

...the parable of the Mediator clearly does portray our debt to Satan or at least to sin itself. Take a look at the parable.

The debtor didn't owe anything to sin.

His sin was that he didn't pay back the loan.

In the parable, the debtor took out a loan from the creditor. He contracted to pay back the money or go to prison.

So if the creditor represented Satan, you're asserting that:

1.) Mankind received something of value from Satan.

2.) Mankind entered into some contract or covenant with Satan to pay back the value of this thing.

3.) It is because we can't fulfill this contract with Satan (whatever that could possibly be) that we incur a debt to him.

4.) Jesus had to pay Satan some amount of suffering so that Satan wouldn't cast us off from God.

What the creditor represents is Heavenly Father. This means that:

1.) Mankind received something of value from God (our bodies, agency and time on this earth).

2.) We enter into a covenant with God to "pay back" through obedience, His "loan" to us.

3.) When we disobey, we break the covenant and incur a metaphorical debt.

4.) Christ's sacrifice satisfies, or appeases, or convinces, or persuades our Creditor (God) not to exact the full penalty of our sins due to our repentance and Christ's unjust death.

The first model makes no sense and is not scriptural or taught by the Brethren. The second model is both scriptural and affirmed by the Brethren.

As I said before, much of the exact verses we have been discussing the whole time are those I look to and see penal-substitution.

But you haven't explained why you think that way. There must be a reason beyond "The Brethren said so," for you to interpret the word "overpower" and "appease" to mean "comply with" or "pay in full." If there is no reason beyond you thinking the Brethren have taught that, I guess that's that.

On this issue, clearly the interpretation of penal-substitution within the Atonement is viable and the brethren have supported as much. (Two or three witness.)

Okay, let me try a different approach. Forget the term penal-substitution. You assert that the Brethren have taught that Christ had to suffer our punishment if we do not, so that Justice could be paid in full and no law would be broken.

The punishment for our sins is spiritual uncleanness and being eternally cast off from God. Find me one talk by any GA that says, "Christ is at this moment banished from God's presence in your place so that you don't have to be. God was the one who crucified Christ in our place. God somehow transformed being cast out of His presence into crucifixion, and accepted that as the punishment for our sins."

If you are unable to do that, please stop putting words into the Brethren's mouths to the effect that they believe that Christ took our specific punishment for our specific sins in our place. Thank you.

[Adomini22]

"So if the creditor represented Satan, you're asserting that:

1.) Mankind entered into some contract or covenant with Satan.

2.) It is because we can't fulfill this contract with Satan (whatever that could possibly be) that we incur a debt to him.

3.) Jesus had to pay Satan some amount of suffering so that Satan wouldn't cast us off from God."

i see it differently. Mankind is under bondage because of Satan, because that is the consequence of the Fall of Adam. We cannot redeem ourselves by any means, hence we cannot escape the bondage.... and Jesus had to pay with some amount of suffering to complete the atonement, resurrect everyone (bring everyone back to the presence of God), and have our sins removed if we repent, so we can dwell full time with God.

[CrimsonKairos]

i see it differently. Mankind is under bondage because of Satan, because that is the consequence of the Fall of Adam.

But Adam didn't sin against Satan, he sinned against God!

Adam incurred a metaphorical debt against God, not Satan.

You're ignoring the imagery of the parable.

The debtor entered a contract with the Creditor.

If the creditor equals Satan, then you are saying that:

1.) Through the Fall, Adam became indebted to Satan.

2.) Adam and all of us enter a contract with Satan.

3.) We owe Satan something.

4.) Jesus paid Satan so Satan would release us.

That is utter nonsense bro. C'mon, you have to admit that's rather ludicrous to assert! Being in bondage because of our sins does not mean we sinned against Satan and owe him something!

The Creditor is Heavenly Father. That is the parable's message.

In the video version of the parable, we see young men tempting the debtor to leave his work and go party with them instead.

Satan represents the debtor's friends who convinced him to slack off and go have fun instead of working hard in order to be able to repay the debt.

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

i see it differently. Mankind is under bondage because of Satan, because that is the consequence of the Fall of Adam.

But Adam didn't sin against Satan, he sinned against God!

Adam incurred a metaphorical debt against God, not Satan.

You're ignoring the imagery of the parable.

The debtor entered a contract with the Creditor.

If the creditor equals Satan, then you are saying that:

1.) Through the Fall, Adam became indebted to Satan.

2.) Adam and all of us enter a contract with Satan.

3.) We owe Satan something.

4.) Jesus paid Satan so Satan would release us.

That is utter nonsense bro. C'mon, you have to admit that's rather ludicrous to assert! Being in bondage because of our sins does not mean we sinned against Satan and owe him something!

The Creditor is Heavenly Father. That is the parable's message.

In the video version of the parable, we see young men tempting the debtor to leave his work and go party with them instead.

Satan represents the debtor's friends who convinced him to slack off and go have fun instead of working hard in order to be able to repay the debt.

I think this is taken literally by you. I dont see how we enter in a contract with anyone at any time. Through the Fall, Adam came into bondage. the same happens to the creditor and the servant. We never entered any contract.....we fell under his power(the devils). We owe a debt, not through a contract, but thru consequence of an act of transgression in the Garden of Eden. Jesus frees us from this bondage if we repent. There is no other way to be free.... The assumption that we enter a contract is ludicrous. No doubt. Because no one at any time did such a thing, so I dont take that literally at all.

[a-train]

'For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.' (Alma 34:35)

Clearly, those who do NOT partake of the Atonement will NOT be servants or in subjection or bondage to the Father, but to SATAN.

Look, regardless of the details of the parable, Packer says this:

'Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.

And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.

Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.

But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”'

In our very initial converstations on the subject of penal-substitution, we talked about Alma 42. To me, it unwaveringly teaches penal-substition. We already went over it. You interpret the words differently. So, therefore, I look also to the brethren and their interpretation. As far as I can tell, I cannot see anywhere that the brethren have interpreted the scriptures as you do, nor as I said, do I interpret them that way in the first place, regardless of the brethren.

So I don't want to argue every point of Packer's parable. But there are a few phrases in the parable that make the creditor sound shady. In the video made for the parable the dude is depicted as worldly and nasty. But I don't care. So what if the creditor IS the Father. It doesn't matter. I will not argue that we are not indebted to our Heavenly Father for all we have. Indeed we are, but it is when we seek self gratifying sin that we become the servants of sin and the slave of sin. We are then in bondage of sin.

Regardless, this is all way over-analized.

Here is my question. If 'the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God', then how is it that God can forgo the implimentation of the law by 'dropping all charges'?

To me, the point of Alma 34 is to prove penal-substitution and the need for a Saviour so that both Justice and Mercy could be satisfied, just as the Mediator parable describes.

-a-train

[Adomini22]

here we go again....

[CrimsonKairos]

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I was eating dinner and helping with my dad.

I also had a very valuable conversation with one of my older brothers on the phone. I filled him in on how this thread has been proceeding, and I expressed my frustration at what appeared to be an unwillingness to confront the evidence and give it an honest appraisal.

He gave me a much-needed paradigm shift. He told me, "Look at how I reacted to your theory when you first told me. I know you. I know you study things deeply, and I trust your judgment. But even I rejected your beliefs when you first told me. It was only when I told myself that if you were advancing this theory I might as well consider it and read all your scriptures and thoughts. I realized I had nothing to lose. It took awhile before I finally saw that whether your new theory was right, penal-substitution had to be wrong."

I think there's alot to what he said. You guys don't know me other than a cryptic username on a website. You have no reason to trust me, nor would you have any reason to believe that my beliefs can be true. Now I know, you're going to say, "That's not it, CK, it's just that we don't think the Brethren have taught what you are teaching." That's true, but I feel that if we could sit down in a room together, face-to-face, size each other up, discern what type of person we're dealing with, this discussion might take a different course.

Not that you'd believe me, but you really have no reason to trust me other than my word, and we all know the internet is full of people who pretend to be what they are not.

Anyway, I've let this whole thread get to me, frustrate me, and that is not what should result from discussing the atonement. If I've become contentious, or confrontational, or angry, or rude in any way, I recognize that fault and apologize.

I'm not going to let this frustrate me so much from now on. At least I'll try not to. Sorry if I've been over-zealous.

Clearly, those who do NOT partake of the Atonement will NOT be servants or in subjection or bondage to the Father, but to SATAN.

But it is because of their debt to God that they are cast off and turned over to Satan's power. We don't owe Satan any debt. He only has power over us because God casts us away if we don't repent. I've lost my appetite for arguing the jots and tittles of the parable. I guess we'll just disagree.

'Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit...And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.

If Elder Packer is indeed espousing penal-substitution here (which I'm not convinced he is but that will be a never-ending debate), I simply disagree with Elder Packer. I don't think the scriptures support his interpretation. I allow him the freedom to be wrong, nor does his misinterpreting the scriptures invalidate his right to preside or officiate with the keys of his calling. I love him, admire him, sustain him, and enjoy the majority of his teachings.

I do not believe his calling automatically makes all his teachings correct. I don't believe Elder Packer even meant for the Creditor to represent Heavenly Father, because the Creditor is protrayed as deceptive, greedy and churlish (in the video at least). However, conceptually, the only one who administers Justice is God the Father, regardless of what the parable might imply.

You interpret the words differently. So, therefore, I look also to the brethren and their interpretation.

Fair enough. In fact that is what you should do. What you should not do is assume the Brethren will always be correct. However, there is no reason for you to believe me or believe I'm a credible person. I'm just a name in cyberspace.

What I don't want is for people to walk away thinking that CK is saying you can't trust the apostles. That is not my point, regardless of how it might have come across. I hope this clarification, here and now, will put to rest any suspicion that I have contempt for the apostles or do not sustain or respect them.

Here is my question. If 'the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God', then how is it that God can forgo the implimentation of the law by 'dropping all charges'?

To me, the point of Alma 34 is to prove penal-substitution and the need for a Saviour so that both Justice and Mercy could be satisfied, just as the Mediator parable describes.

Good question. Here is my answer. There is a law that says if you repent and change it is permissible for the rest of your penalty to be cancelled. Here's where I glean that understanding from:

23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

25 Wherefore, he has given a law..." (2 Ne. 9:23-25)

To me, that is saying, "There is a law that states that if you comply with certain conditions (baptism, repentance) then God can remit your sins and withdraw the demand that you or anyone be punished."

I view that as a law. Now even if you agreed that this is a law, we might still disagree on what makes it okay for God to withdraw the punishment for our sins...in essence, why such a law is valid.

Based on all the other scriptures I've read and those I've discussed with you guys here, I believe that this supreme law is predicated on Christ's unjust suffering.

Adomini, you said:

I dont see how we enter in a contract with anyone at any time...We never entered any contract...We owe a debt, not through a contract, but thru consequence of an act of transgression in the Garden of Eden.

We enter a contract or covenant with God when we partake of gospel ordinances.

A covenant is essentially a contract. Two parties sign or agree to a set of conditions in which both parties agree to do certain things.

When we are baptized, we enter into a covenant with God. We agree to forsake sin, love our neighbor and obey God in all things. God agrees to remit our sins if we do so.

You said at the end of the above quote that we owe a debt through the transgression in Eden. I don't owe a debt because of Adam's acts. I won't be punished for his transgression, but for my own sins.

By sinning, I violate the terms of my covenant or contract with God. You don't view entering covenants as equivalent to entering into a contract with God?