Question for DCP regarding the Attonement
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:40 am
I've written about this many times but never got your opinion on it.
I hold a serious disagreement with some LDS on the attonement. I see the attonement as enabling men and giving him the strength to repent and live a sinless life. I understand this would take a long time, but I believe that ultimately if progression is to be made, we're going to have to do it.
So take an example,
God puts Job through a very difficult time. As far as we can see Job was on his way to the Celestial kingdom already, and for the sake of argument let's say he was. I would say that Job is further along toward Godhood because of the difficult times he went through. Others say that he's not getting anything special for what he went through. That was just his mission and in the end if we haven't progressed as far, it will just be given to us by the attonement. I so disagree with that. I guess it just amazes me that the Church I belong to accepts this as a possible solution to the question. To me it's a very pivotal point, and definitely a belief that has an immediate effect on the attitudes and action of people and how they live. It also seems very important to our salvation. I don't really see where Steven Robinson gave a satisfying answer to this in his book. I don't remember ever finding the answer as I read it. He seemed to just contradict himself. He also used vague terms like, 100%. Nobody knows what their 100% is.
In most instances I'm willing to just let the issue alone and say, "If it makes people feel better to believe that way than let them." Yet for me this belief not only seems unfair, it's very disheartening. I wouldn't want people teaching my children that this is the way the attonement works. Am I just supposed to swallow this and like it, maybe even teach it, even though I really hate this dogma? Until now even though I present it as my opinion, I've been teaching and testifying to the way I feel is right. Until now nobody has asked me not to, so as far as I know, that's as specific as Church doctrine gets.
I hold a serious disagreement with some LDS on the attonement. I see the attonement as enabling men and giving him the strength to repent and live a sinless life. I understand this would take a long time, but I believe that ultimately if progression is to be made, we're going to have to do it.
So take an example,
God puts Job through a very difficult time. As far as we can see Job was on his way to the Celestial kingdom already, and for the sake of argument let's say he was. I would say that Job is further along toward Godhood because of the difficult times he went through. Others say that he's not getting anything special for what he went through. That was just his mission and in the end if we haven't progressed as far, it will just be given to us by the attonement. I so disagree with that. I guess it just amazes me that the Church I belong to accepts this as a possible solution to the question. To me it's a very pivotal point, and definitely a belief that has an immediate effect on the attitudes and action of people and how they live. It also seems very important to our salvation. I don't really see where Steven Robinson gave a satisfying answer to this in his book. I don't remember ever finding the answer as I read it. He seemed to just contradict himself. He also used vague terms like, 100%. Nobody knows what their 100% is.
In most instances I'm willing to just let the issue alone and say, "If it makes people feel better to believe that way than let them." Yet for me this belief not only seems unfair, it's very disheartening. I wouldn't want people teaching my children that this is the way the attonement works. Am I just supposed to swallow this and like it, maybe even teach it, even though I really hate this dogma? Until now even though I present it as my opinion, I've been teaching and testifying to the way I feel is right. Until now nobody has asked me not to, so as far as I know, that's as specific as Church doctrine gets.