{"id":357,"date":"2007-03-26T11:45:42","date_gmt":"2007-03-26T18:45:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2007\/03\/an-evangelical-survey-of-mormon-teachings\/357\/"},"modified":"2020-01-09T06:07:31","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T13:07:31","slug":"an-evangelical-survey-of-mormon-teachings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2007\/03\/an-evangelical-survey-of-mormon-teachings\/357\/","title":{"rendered":"An [evangelical] Survey of Mormon Teachings"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2003, Dr. Cky J. Carrigan presented this survey <\/a> for our edification and perusal. First, let me say I do not find anything in what I have skimmed from this article malicious, and actually was thoroughly impressed at the effort Dr. Carrigan put into it. <\/p>\n

I thought I would post Dr. Carrigan\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s conclusions here for our discussion.
\n<\/p>\n

\nLDS Derived Propositions on the Application
\nof the Atonement of the Son of God<\/p>\n

1.\tThere are two applications of the atonement of the Son of God: universal-unconditional and individual-conditional. <\/p>\n

2.\tThe direct object of the universal-unconditional application of the atonement of the Son of God is the transgression of Adam, which resulted in death and separation from God for Adam and his entire family.<\/p>\n

3.\tThe indirect beneficiary of the universal-unconditional application of the atonement of the Son of God is the entire family of Adam.<\/p>\n

4.\tThe universal-unconditional application of the atonement of the Son of God produces immortality in the resurrection for the entire family of Adam.<\/p>\n

5.\tThe universal-unconditional application of the atonement of the Son of God does not produce the highest degree of salvation (eternal life) for any individual in the family of Adam.<\/p>\n

6.\tThe individual-conditional application of the atonement of the Son of God applies only to those individuals who meet the conditions for eternal life.<\/p>\n

7.\tThe conditions for eternal life are directly related to the individual\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s degree of repentance and obedience. Those who repent and obey to a greater degree receive a greater kind of immortal body and are assigned to a greater realm at the resurrection. The reverse is true as well.<\/p>\n

8.\tThe individual-conditional application of the atonement of the Son of God also applies to earth-born humans who died after their eighth birthday never having heard the LDS Gospel. These persons are given the opportunity to meet the conditions for eternal life during a probationary period in the realm of the dead.<\/p>\n

9.\tThe individual-conditional application of the atonement of the Son of God does not apply to the individual sins of murder or apostasy. The individual\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s own blood must be shed to atone for these sins in order to merit eternal life.<\/p>\n

10.\tThe atonement of the Son of God does not result in the forensic justification of anyone.<\/p>\n

LDS Derived Propositions on the Manner
\nof the Atonement of the Son of God<\/p>\n

11.\tThe atonement of the Son of God was not directly achieved by his death on the cross. The actual death of the Son was only a necessary event preceding his resurrection.<\/p>\n

12.\tThe atonement of the Son of God was directly related to his suffering and the flow of blood.<\/p>\n

13.\tThe atonement of the Son of God occurred during the simultaneous suffering and bleeding of the Son in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.<\/p>\n

14.\tThe suffering of the Son of God was primarily the result of the Father\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s withdrawing of his Spirit from the Son. The Father withdrew his Spirit while the Son was in the Garden and on the cross.<\/p>\n

15.\tThe Son of God bled in the Garden and on the cross. The blood of the Son of God flowed from his pores in the Garden and from his wounds on the cross. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I personally am not sure I agree with 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14<\/p>\n

I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t agree with 2 because of the use of the article \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the\u00e2\u20ac\u009d If it read rather \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a direct\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d I would be fine with this statement. I say this because the atonement also universally gave us freedom as discussed in 2 Nephi 2 and universally gave us succor in our afflictions, as discussed in Alma 7. <\/p>\n

I am not sure about 3 as I do not understand why Cky used the term \u00e2\u20ac\u0153indirect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Children of Adam.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Here. Nothing I can find within his article gives me a clue as to his meaning either. Is Children of Adam synonymous with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all God\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Children?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d And if we are the indirect beneficiary, who is the direct beneficiary?<\/p>\n

I was uncomfortable with 5 at first, but his footnote helps immensely: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The universal-unconditional application of the atonement of the Son of God produces immortality for the entire family of Adam including every child who has died before reaching the age of eight years old and every mentally impaired person whose mental abilities are less than the mental abilities of an eight-year-old child. Since these two categories of humans in the family of Adam are not accountable for their sins then they will certainly enjoy the highest degree of salvation (eternal life). They will receive immortality on the basis of the universal-unconditional atonement of the Son and they will receive the highest degree of salvation on the basis of the individual-conditional atonement. They meet the conditions for the highest degree of salvation because they are righteous, having no sin accounted to them.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/em><\/p>\n

For number 9, I think the whole \u00e2\u20ac\u0153blood atonement\u00e2\u20ac\u009d bit can definitely be rejected here, sighting the authority of SWK. I am not sure about this murder and apostasy bit, since there is really no way for us to judge the reasons a man murders or the reasons a man apostatizes\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6<\/p>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not sure where he pulled number 10 from, since the term \u00e2\u20ac\u0153forensic justification\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is used no where else in the article. From Wiki <\/a> I am able to guess he means legal justification. Wiki gives the Lutheran version: This doctrine holds that God on His throne declares a sinner “not guilty” for Christ\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s sake. Christians, who were once sinners are now righteous because Christ\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s righteousness applies to them (i.e., it is imputed to them, or counted as their own). For Lutherans, it is necessary that justification is independent of and in no way depends upon works performed, thoughts had, or attitudes cultivated by believers. <\/em> Is the Evangelical view the same? If so, I would say it is a debateable statement, depending on ones view of the D & C 45 <\/a><\/p>\n

13, I question merely because I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve seen plenty of statements to the affect that the atonement neither began in Geth. Nor ended at Golg. It is infinite and ongoing.<\/p>\n

And 14, I am totally unaware of. While I have heard Holland mention this in one talk, I have never seen it doctrinally expounded on elsewhere, to my memory, and especially not in relation to the Garden, where an angel was present. <\/p>\n