In my EQ lesson today I had the audacity to call Elder Packer& #39;s parable of The Mediator insufficient for describing the power of the atonement because it makes it out that our debt is not paid by Christ but merely transferred to him, and that we& #39;re still on the hook for it.

In reality, the atonement is offered freely, conditional only on our willingness to accept it through repentance. I think Elder Packer& #39;s intent was to say that because he pays our debt to justice, we owe Christ a debt of obedience, but I think that& #39;s also insufficient.

The way I understand the scriptures, I don& #39;t think Christ demands payment for his act of love, which is exactly why it inspires love (and therefore obedience) in return. If he demanded that obedience as payment, there would be no grace.

I was surprised no one argued the point. I hope they didn& #39;t leave thinking of me as an apostate looking for excuses to criticize the leaders of the church, or trying to supplant their teachings.

Elder Packer& #39;s parable formed the foundation of my understanding for many years, but I& #39;ve built on that foundation since then. I & #39;m not sure a perfect metaphor for the atonement exists.