Just a few wrap up comments.

1. Yup, Blake clearly preaches that the BoM does not teach penal substitution. He just says it actually does teach something different than you do.

2. I’ll have to re-read your paper because I don’t understand what you are saying replaces penal-substitution or Blake’s sin-energy in those passages.

3. When we say that God is Good, do we mean that he has a perfect relationship with himself?

Well the relationship idea always includes the first and second great commandments as a whole. So since “inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these [God's] brethren ye have done it unto [God]“, and since he offers a perfect relationship to all, yes in that sense he has and offers perfect relationships with “himself”.

4. We will probably need to nail down a definition of sentience before we argue that in the future. I am thinking of mentally whole people and that entails accountability. But you are right that sentience itself is usually considered broad enough to include the mentally ill, etc.

But overall I think you are right that we are arriving at a level of mutual understanding so that is a good thing.

First, I just want to say that I have really enjoyed the last 30 or so comments. It is very edifying to have a discussion that makes progress as it goes. We seem to be bottoming out on many of the things we were arguing about, which is a good sign of progress.

(fwiw, Blake agrees)

The thing I was saying Blake agrees with is that Amulek is not arguing for penal substitution. See his first sentence of this comment. As to the rest of his theory, if you read his book and my paper, you will find that we have a lot of overlap in how we interpret the scriptures and how we setup the problem. I don’t think the BofM is inerrant (as you know), but I am not anxious to reject the primary things it has to say about the atonement which is repeats again and again.

The seem to teach penal substitution.

We just disagree on this. I supported my view on this already at that other thread, so I won’t waste any space doing it again here.

I can’t see how Jesus suffering would infuse the the universe with the light of Christ nor do I see any support for that claim in those verses at all.

Well, I never claimed that every scripture which speaks of the atonement talks about the light of Christ, that would be ludicrous. As to how Alma 34 fits in my divine-infusion theory, I explain that in my paper and in the comments of my penal substitution post. I think it is a good fit.

You obviously didn’t mean it that way.

Correct, I didn’t mean it that way.

If, as I contend, Good is building a relationship with God

I think that is an overly-simplified view of Good, but that is probably for another thread. To me, that sounds like one of those “nonsensical-sounding claims when looked at from afar” you mentioned earlier. When we say that God is Good, do we mean that he has a perfect relationship with himself?

Plus if one believes spirits chose good or evil before arriving here it would make no sense to say they couldn’t know the difference before the earth.

Of course spirits chose good and evil before arriving here, I agree with you on that. The reason the divine-infusion was necessary is because of the Fall, which cut us off from the presence of God. That is, the atonement was a response to the Fall and was only necessary because the Fall occurred. Pretty standard stuff, really. (And it makes it into the ceremony, watch for it.)

Well perhaps you could give me an example of a sentient, free willed, and accountable being who did not have any conscience and who could not tell the difference between good and evil.

Whoa there. You added a lot of requirements besides sentience suddenly. Previously you argued that it was intrinsic to sentience. I never said a person could be accountable without knowing good and evil. Both things (knowing good and evil -and- having free will) are more nuanced than we generally give them credit. While I believe basic autonomy is an essential characteristic of intelligent beings (so that our spirits have always had basic free-will and couldn’t lose it), there are other ways in which free-will can be restricted or marginalized.

Having a severly limited set of choices or having no preference between available choices both serve to make free will somewhat useless. Having no sense of right and wrong (consider animals for example) renders free will useless with respect to developing moral character. In other words, free will may be intrinsic to sentient beings, but moral agency is not. The plan of salvation requires us to have a robust moral agency with robust choices, enticement, and knowledge of good and evil. When the scriptures say that we were made free, it does not mean we were given the bare autonomy of free-will, but that the circumstances were provided in which that free-will could be used to advance toward the kind of life God lives (as Joseph said in the KFD). I provide some of the scriptural basis for those assertions in my paper.

I insist on theology that makes sense to me and the idea that our consciences magically were given to us as the result of one divine person suffering excruciating pain seems like utter nonsense to me is all.

In the end, we all choose to believe the things that make sense to us, so I don’t fault you for rejecting things that seem ridiculous to you. I do that too. (I will point out again that you have yet to demonstrate anythings that is, strictly speaking, “nonsense” in my proposal.) I suppose that the atonement is portrayed in such a way that nearly any theory will be open to someone saying that it seems absurd to them.

Blake agrees that penal substitution is false. He has an alternative explanation for those scriptures that I think is at least coherent with his sin-energy deal. (Even though I don’t think his sin-energy transfer theory is accurate.) I don’t know how your theory is particularly supported by those verses though. The seem to teach penal substitution. I can’t see how Jesus suffering would infuse the the universe with the light of Christ nor do I see any support for that claim in those verses at all.

Rather, I think those verses incorrectly assume penal substitution. I can live with that though. The BoM may be the most correct book on the earth but that doesn’t mean it is inerrant. (I understand why you and Blake would want to bend over backwards to try to show they don’t really mean that, I just think that is a losing cause.)

2 Ne 9 doesn’t explain how the atonement brought about the resurrection, but it is crystal clear in claiming that it did bring it about

Right. I sorta suspect Nephi might have been mistaken in his opinion on that subject but I guess we will have to wait and see when we meet God to find out for sure. But I certainly don’t see how your Divine Infusion idea helps any of that make more sense.

I take that as the starting point for my theological musings.

I don’t fault that approach. I can see why you use it. I prefer a top down, big picture, synthesizing all and fitting the details in approach to theology while most people prefer a bottom up, using the the details and specifics to build a theology approach. I get accused of ignoring scriptures (which I do) and I get to accuse the other side of making nonsensical-sounding claims when looked at from afar (which y’all do).

(#208) so the “har” might be misplaced here

Sorry. That comment about your view being scriptural struck as sounding pretty condescending. As in “I’m right because my view is the only scriptural view”. You obviously didn’t mean it that way.

Sorry, that is just not what Moroni 7 says. It says that the Spirit of Christ is “given” to every man that he may know good from evil (vs. 16).

If, as I contend, Good is building a relationship God (keeping the first great commandment) then the only reason mortals could know Good is because God graciously offers such a relationship. Plus if one believes spirits chose good or evil before arriving here it would make no sense to say they couldn’t know the difference before the earth.

Then show me what is nonsensical about it.

Well perhaps you could give me an example of a sentient, free willed, and accountable being who did not have any conscience and who could not tell the difference between good and evil. Has such a being ever existed throughout all eternity that you know of? Even if you take the Adam and Eve story literally, God held them accountable for their choices so they must have been able to tell some difference between right and wrong or God would have judged unjustly.

Again, it is just my big-picture bias showing through here. I insist on theology that makes sense to me and the idea that our consciences magically were given to us as the result of one divine person suffering excruciating pain seems like utter nonsense to me is all.

That is a valid beef. I can see your interpretation and I think it fits within the language of the verses. The reason I interpret it differently is because of all the other scriptures which speak to the same topic which influence the way I read it, but I don’t think your interpretation is unreasonable at all. Obviously my theory is not self-evident or I wouldn’t be the first person to be making it. If people disagree, I can understand that.

But your personal interpretation of what that opaque passage means is hardly a foundation most of us would feel confident in building a theology and atonement model upon.

Fair point. I am offering it as an interpretation for others to evaluate on their own. I bring many scriptures to bear in an effort to support my interpretation. If I fail to persuade, that’s okay.

Har. The world is full of false doctrines that people claim are “scriptural”. (Creation ex nihilo, original sin, total depravity, etc.)

Well, I did back up the statement by citing multiple scriptures which explicitely state the doctrine I am saying is scriptural. I don’t think your flippant response does justice to the scriptures cited. In fact, your answer to those scriptures seemed to be simply that you choose not to believe what they say (see #204), so the “har” might be misplaced here.

Right — every sentient person has free will and every person can choose to accept the invitation God offers of a relationship or reject it.

Sorry, that is just not what Moroni 7 says. It says that the Spirit of Christ is “given” to every man that he may know good from evil (vs. 16). It doesn’t say anything about the offer of a relationship (please cite verse to correct me). It doesn’t say we already knew good from evil as sentient beings. It says our knowledge of what is good and evil relies on something given to us by Christ.

But it seems nonsensical to me to say that the Passion alone gave us a conscience.

Then show me what is nonsensical about it. Do you just mean that you don’t believe it, or that it is actually non-sense? It seems perfectly within reason (it might be wrong, but it seems to make sense) to suggest that when we were cut off from God’s presence (known as the Fall) we needed something to help us discern what is right and entice us toward it. I am not sure what seems so implausible about that to you.

In this passage the word atonement seems to be clearly used as a synonym for “payment”. So basically this verse is pushing penal substitution theory.

I spent many comments making detailed arguments against your claim on this post. In those arguments, I am not using other arguments against these verses, but trying to demonstrate that these verses themselves do not argue for penal substitution (fwiw, Blake agrees). Of course, this is just one example, other scriptures could be cited which say the same thing (e.g. Alma 42:15, D&C 19:16). This is a consistent claim of the scriptures, it is not one verse you are rejecting, but the entire theme running throughout.

Here there is some kind of connection made between suffering and the resurrection but no explanations. I don’t see this as being very enlightening at all when trying to understand the details of the atonement. So it seems like vague talk to me — certainly not the stuff of theological details.

That scripture from 2 Ne 9 doesn’t explain how the atonement brought about the resurrection, but it is crystal clear in claiming that it did bring it about. It is not vague about that at all. Theology is about making sense of these scriptural claims, not simply rejecting them because they didn’t spell it out for us in enough detail. Also, please note that this is only one of many scriptures which says the same thing with respect to the resurrection. I have already cited D&C 88:14 and Mosiah 16:6-9 above. When the scriptures consistently tell us that Christ’s suffering and death brought about the resurrection, I take that as the starting point for my theological musings.

It is okay that you do not, but this is the primary reason we come to very different conclusions on this topic I think.

I just don’t think it really says this. That is a serious beef I have with your theory.

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;
7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

I take this to mean he somehow basked in the light of truth in new ways as the result of the Christ Event. This light of truth is also called the light of Christ. It existed before Jesus’ experiences in Gethsemane and continues to exist forever. he just partook fully in it as a result of the Passion.

Sure. But your personal interpretation of what that opaque passage means is hardly a foundation most of us would feel confident in building a theology and atonement model upon.

The light of Christ as conscience is the basis of my theory

I have no gripes with calling conscience the light of Christ. My complaint is with the unsupportable claim that all of our consciences directly result from the Passion. (Or whatever pre-earth atonement deely-bob you hinted at elsewhere.) So are you really saying that there have been times in our existence when we had free will but no conscience? When was that? In the premortal world? When did our spirits first get a conscience? And since our spirits/minds are reportedly beginningless do we get a conscience as the result of every atonement on every world that we have watched from the sidelines throughout eternity on your model? Does it turn off between worlds until the next savior gives us one? The whole thought of free-willed beings not having any conscience makes reason stare in my opinion.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but it is a scriptural doctrine

Har. The world is full of false doctrines that people claim are “scriptural”. (Creation ex nihilo, original sin, total depravity, etc.)

Moroni says the light of Christ is given to everyone so that they can judge good from evil.

Right — every sentient person has free will and every person can choose to accept the invitation God offers of a relationship or reject it. The atonement consists mostly of that unearned invitation. The freedom it offers is not free will but the freedom to accept God’s gracious offer or not. If God chose not to offer a relationship, we would not be free to accept it. But we would still have free will in general. Accepting the offer is good. Rejecting it is evil. (As the first and second great commandments show.) This principle applies to the 2 Nephi verses you listed and the Helaman verses. None of them say that the suffering of Jesus give us a conscience.

Now I fully agree that we have free will and as a result can choose to smother our conscience. Perhaps way to do that is to consistently break the first and second great commandments and hate God and our neighbors. (The scriptures indicate that hating our neighbors is hating God after all.) But I think it makes sense to say we can only choose God because he extends grace to us on an ongoing basis first in the form of a standing offer of a relationship. That prevenient grace is the key to me. Our conscience is tied to how well we hearken to that offer I think. But it seems nonsensical to me to say that the Passion alone gave us a conscience.