© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
The LDS perspective cannot be viewed correctly outside the pre-mortal existence or the plan of salvation. The Atonement is and must be an Infinite atonement.
We faced a conundrum, agency assured by divine decree guaranteed we would sin and without that atonement we could not become as God.
The Atonement was proposed by God and voluntarily accepted by the son. This offered us a way back.
How can we explain the atonement without referencing the plan as proposed by the Father? An infinite atonement.
I am no scholar! Just an ordinary member. The fact that all this was decided upon from before the creation gives me the hope I need to strive to endure to the end. Without the promised atonement none of us would have accepted the plan.
Mention of philosophy and the atonement reminded me of this account shared by Elder Harold B. Lee:
President Melvin J. Ballard told me . . . of an experience at conference time. All the mission presidents would have a day with the Council of the Twelve in the temple where it was a time of report and testimony bearing. In that meeting one of the presidents presumed to explain philosophically how the Savior was able to atone for the sins of the world. He thought he had given a masterful talk that would teach the General Authorities. Dr. James E. Talmage immediately rose to denounce the ideas advanced by the mission president. President Ballard commented: “If I ever heard a man get a lashing from a scriptural standpoint, it came to this mission president who had the temerity to put aside all the scriptures that taught the true doctrine and presumed to philosophize as to how the Savior could atone for the sins of mankind.” (“Viewpoint of a Giant,” Address to CES Religious Educators, 18 July 1968, Brigham Young University, 3)
I am unsure if your comment is chastising Ostler’s work for engaging in philosophical discourse about the Atonement, or if it is chastising the authors of the essays he reviewed for the same thing. Thank you for the clarification!