Skousen's intrepretation of the Atonement

mikbone · #1 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 06:44 PM

I have ascribed to Skousen's model of the Atonement ever since I read Appendix B in his book The First 2,000 Years back in the 80's.

I was wondering how many members here are aware of Skousen's intrepretation. And of those who are aware of his intrepretation, who likes it and dislikes it. And if you do like it, is your intrepretation of Skousen's intrepretation the same as mine?

Found a copy of it on the net, thanks Google!
Why Was the Atonement Necessary

Here is also a speech that he gave on the same topic. It was an address to the missionaries in the Dallas Texas Mission back in 1980.
A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement

We should really call it the Widtsoe/Skousen Model though. Now that I reviewed the above speech.

pam · #2 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 06:55 PM

My mom had that book on her shelf for as long as I can remember but I have never read it. Perhaps that is another book I should add to my "must read" list.

deseretgov · #3 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 07:31 PM

I find it make alot of sense. It has increased my appreciation for Chirist's atonement.

Justice · #4 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 08:50 PM

The only thing I'm a little shaky on is that the lesser intelligences would rise up against God and not obey Him. I'm not sure I buy into that part. I believe the other equal beings, the other Gods, would be the ones that might not approve of God doing things differently that they have always been done.

Of course it's speculation, but that's the only part I haven't grasped yet.

mikbone · #5 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justice

The only thing I'm a little shaky on is that the lesser intelligences would rise up against God and not obey Him. I'm not sure I buy into that part. I believe the other equal beings, the other Gods, would be the ones that might not approve of God doing things differently that they have always been done.

Of course it's speculation, but that's the only part I haven't grasped yet.

Thats kinda the crux of the Widtsoe/Skousen model. The lessor intelligences Honor God because he is honorable. If for some reason God became dishonorable, he would lose the honor and respect of these lesser intelligences and would cease to be God.

Justice · #6 (**permalink**) 05-18-2009, 09:39 PM

Well, he has a lot of other interesting things. That's just one part.

In any case, I'm not sure where I stand with lesser intelligences having the agency to not obey God. I think it more resides in God loosing His authority to command, and thereby they don't have to obey, not recognizing the authortiy... just like they don't obey you are I.

Hemidakota · #7 (**permalink**) 05-19-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikbone

I have ascribed to Skousen's model of the Atonement ever since I read Appendix B in his book The First 2,000 Years back in the 80's.

I was wondering how many members here are aware of Skousen's intrepretation. And of those who are aware of his intrepretation, who likes it and dislikes it. And if you do like it, is your intrepretation of Skousen's intrepretation the same as mine?

Found a copy of it on the net, thanks Google!
Why Was the Atonement Necessary

Here is also a speech that he gave on the same topic. It was an address to the missionaries in the Dallas Texas Mission back in 1980.
A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement

We should really call it the Widtsoe/Skousen Model though. Now that I reviewed the above speech.

Many things within will give credence of the principle of progression....