Jesus, Eternally God?

[wenglund]

There are two original Mormon theologies, the first introduced by Joseph Smith and the second introduced by Brigham Young, and under both, you can't really say that Jesus was always our God....

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, I can and have really said that Jesus was our God for all eternity, and I even provided scriptural support for my beliefs--which are entirely consistent with the doctrinal pronouncements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

I don't know what religious faith you may or may not adhere to, but please don't presume to tell me what I really can or cannot believe in relation to my own faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

God Omnipotent

As indicated previously, Christ was God for all eternity in the sense that he was a member of the Godhead, the Right Hand of God.

However, as the Right Hand, he was not, in a sense, the Most High God. The Father was the Son's God and Lord over the Son. (Mt 22:42-46; Ps 110:1) Thus the Son was not omnipotent except by derivation from the Father.

The Father is not omnipotent in Mormon theology, either, at least as the term omnipotent is understood by classical Christianity. If there are multiple being that are co-eternal with the Father (as in Joseph Smith's theology), or if God himself was once born as a spirit (as in Brigham Young's theology), then there are domains over which the power of the Father is not supreme. Moreover, no god can be omnipotent unless he can create the universe ex nihilo. Also, if there are other gods beside the Father, then obviously the Father cannot dominate the will of those other gods, or cause those other gods to blink out of existence.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know what religious faith you may or may not adhere to, but please don't presume to tell me what I really can or cannot believe in relation to my own faith.

I'm pretty sure I'm at least as Mormon as you are, but I would never presume to dictate what you can and cannot believe. I'm just stating what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed. From the beginning, there has been a great theological diversity within Mormonism, something that is often obscured by the modern Correlation movement.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

The Father is not omnipotent in Mormon theology, either, at least as the term omnipotent is understood by classical Christianity. If there are multiple being that are co-eternal with the Father (as in Joseph Smith's theology), or if God himself was once born as a spirit (as in Brigham Young's theology), then there are domains over which the power of the Father is not supreme. Moreover, no god can be omnipotent unless he can create the universe ex nihilo. Also, if there are other gods beside the Father, then obviously the Father cannot dominate the will of those other gods, or cause those other gods to blink out of existence.

I hope you will forgive me if I ignore your repeated and mistaken attempts to tell me what I can or can't believe and what was believed by my Church leaders, and this in contravention to what I actually believe and ignoring what I have provided in support thereof. You are welcome to speak for yourself and what you believe in relation to your own faith tradition, but you aren't welcome to speak for me and mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm just stating what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed.

No. You are dogmatically, as well as tangentially, stating your opinion (thus far unsupported) as to what you believe they believed, and foisting your opinion onto me. Please stop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I hope you will forgive me if I ignore your repeated and mistaken attempts to tell me what I can or can't believe and what was believed by my Church leaders, and this in contravention to what I actually believe and ignoring what I have provided in support thereof. You are welcome to speak for yourself and what you believe in relation to your own faith tradition, but you aren't welcome to speak for me and mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I nominate Wade for Sainthood. Oops, I guess he would have to be Catholic for that, but you get the idea....

Such patience I could never muster.

[altersteve]

The Father is not omnipotent in Mormon theology, either, at least as the term omnipotent is understood by classical Christianity. If there are multiple being that are co-eternal with the Father (as in Joseph Smith's theology), or if God himself was once born as a spirit (as in Brigham Young's theology), then there are domains over which the power of the Father is not supreme. Moreover, no god can be omnipotent unless he can create the universe ex nihilo. Also, if there are other gods beside the Father, then obviously the Father cannot dominate the will of those other gods, or cause those other gods to blink out of existence.

You are taking an extremely conservative view of LDS doctrine, saying that it has to be "this" way and no other. That's the problem. Open up your mind a little and really take the time to consider what others are saying for once.

[Cobalt-70]

You are taking an extremely conservative view of LDS doctrine, saying that it has to be "this" way and no other. That's the problem. Open up your mind a little and really take the time to consider what others are saying for once.

This view of the finiteness of God is not only consistent with Mormon theology, but a logical consequence of it. I'm not the first one to say that the Mormon God is finite and limited. B.H. Roberts, for example, said, "But we have already seen that God cannot be considered as absolutely infinite, because we are taught by the facts of revelation that absolute infinity cannot hold as to God; as a person, God has limitations, and that which has limitations is not absolutely infinite." (1903 Mormon Doctrine of Deity, p. 126). There is hardly a more influential Mormon theologian than Roberts.

Here are some strong words on the subject from the highly-regarded Mormon theologian Sterling McMurrin, who said: "The Mormon doctrine that God is finite comes primarily from the unargued pronouncements of Joseph Smith, who...propounded it rather as a common sense conception of the nature of the divine personalty. And certainly the doctrine does not go unchallenged, especially by those whose thought is careless or undisciplined and who, while professing commitment to Mormonism, fail nevertheless to discern how radically it departs from the foundations of classical Christianity." (Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 106).

[wenglund]

God the Possessor/Owner of all

As Father and King, God the Father is in possession of, and owns all that constitutes his kingdoms in heaven and on earth.(Rom 11:36;1 Co 8:6; 11:12; 2Co 5:18)

In this sense he is the God of heaven and earth for all eternity.

And, while the Son and Prince has the birthright to all that is the Father's/King's (De 21:15-17), it did not, or will not fully become his until he received or receives his complete inheritance of the Father/King.

Through receiving his inheritance of all that is Gods (Mt. 11:27; 21:33-41; Jn 3:35; 6:37.39; 13:3 16:15; 17:7; Rom 4:13; Eph 1:11,18), and becoming joint-heirs with the righteous (Romans 8:17), though obtaining a more excellent name (Heb 1:4), he then has, or will, become God of heaven and earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

I hope you will forgive me if I ignore your repeated and mistaken attempts to tell me what I can or can't believe and what was believed by my Church leaders, and this in contravention to what I actually believe and ignoring what I have provided in support thereof. You are welcome to speak for yourself and what you believe in relation to your own faith tradition, but you aren't welcome to speak for me and mine.

I have never told you what you can and cannot believe. I don't know why you think that. You can believe whatever you want, with my blessing and congratulations.

I'm just talking about basic history. There is no law that says you have to believe what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young believed. In fact, I would encourage you not to believe in everything they believed, because some of it was a little "out there." I do happen to like Joseph Smith's theology, however, as to the relationship between Jesus and God. The description of Smith's theology I gave above is not merely my own opinion as to what he believed. It is taken from Richard Bushman's 2005 biography of Smith, on pages 456-57.

[HiJolly]

I think it's both.

I believe in a corporal, changing and progressing God based on Joseph's teachings, and my own belief in the progression of man concept.

I believe in an unchanging, all-knowing and all-everything outside-of-time God based on personal experience.

We just don't talk about that second definition very often, in the Church. Sections 88 & 93 excepted.

HiJolly

[wenglund]

I have never told you what you can and cannot believe. I don't know why you think that. You can believe whatever you want, with my blessing and congratulations.

I'm just talking about basic history. There is no law that says you have to believe what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young believed. In fact, I would encourage you not to believe in everything they believed, because some of it was a little "out there." I do happen to like Joseph Smith's theology, however, as to the relationship between Jesus and God. The description of Smith's theology I gave above is not merely my own opinion as to what he believed. It is taken from Richard Bushman's 2005 biography of Smith, on pages 456-57.

Perhaps your memory is failing you, but in the last several hours you have not only dogmatically declared what my "Mormon theology" is (and in that way told me what I believe as a member of Christ's Church), but you also explicitly said to me: "you can't really say that Jesus was always our God."

Even in the post quoted above you are dogmatically declaring what Joseph and Brigham believed, as though your view of history, or whomever you may presume holds the same view as you, somehow trumps my view of the same. This may come as a shock to you, but I do not recognize you, Cobalt-70, as in a position preferential to me to speak for me and my faith. Sorry.

Please understand that there is a reasonable measure of uncertainty and a broad spectrum of opinions within the Church regarding omniscience and omnipotence of God, including the notion of relative omniscience and omnipotence. In other words, there is NO Mormon Theology on these specific subjects. Rather, there are different perspectives that may or may not contradict each other. In some respects, I, like H. Jolly, happen to agree with Roberts and others, while in other respects I consider God as relatively and literally omniscient and omnipotent, though I am keeping an open mind.

Whatever the case, this is somewhat tangential to this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps your memory is failing you, but in the last several hours you have not only dogmatically declared what my "Mormon theology" is (and in that way told me what I believe as a member of Christ's Church), but you also explicitly said to me: "you can't really say that Jesus was always our God."

You are misrepresenting what I said. I said there were two original Mormon theologies. And that neither of them represents the standard Mormon theology that most Mormons believe. I said that "under both" of these two theologies, "you can't really say that Jesus was always our God." I said nothing about your theology, and I wouldn't presume know your theology better than you do. Frankly, I don't understand your theology enough to say much about it, but I'm very familiar with the theologies of Smith and Young, and with standard "Correlation" theology, which are amenable to historical analysis and great volumes of material have been written about them. But I certainly don't dispute that you can say that Jesus was always our God according to your theology.

[KevinG]

What was Jesus before he had a Heavenly Father?

That makes as much sense as asking what time was before there was time.

What were things like "before" eternity?

I've got an idea- why don't you tell us what God was doing floating around alone- for how long?- before he decided to create the world- and why did he in the first place? Did he get lonely?

We answer questions you guys don't even ask!

I'm having flashbacks to my days as Sunday School teacher to the Teacher's quorum.

[Kenngo1969]

We are all familiar with the LDS usage "from eternity to eternity".

The question becomes, for me, which "eternity" are we talking about? He could theoretically be "eternally" God in one, but not another "eternity"

What constitutes an "eternity"? Who knows? One big bang, with one return to a black hole which then erupts into another "eternity"? Each with its own time context? I don't pretend to know. Yet I think this might be one possibility.

You metaphysical rascal, you!

[mfbukowski]

You metaphysical rascal, you!

[David T]

I know that Blake Ostler's position is that that the Father - as the eternal Head God - is very much like Christ - was fully divine, then for a period took upon himself a mortal experience, and then continued beyond that following mortal death with further knowledge and compassion to guide his other associates through the process of developing a fulness of familial love and compassion.

If I understand him right, Ostler's position also isn't that the Atonement occurred to pay off some metaphysical Eternal Debt, but rather what was necessary for us to willingly drop our pain and sorrow from our own self-alienation and self-justifications and self-torment, and to recognize the forgiveness and love that God has given us even before we began walking towards Him. Conversion is turning towards the love of Christ in recognition that Christ loved us first, and has already forgiven us.

The Father would not have needed to be a savior, or to be saved. He learned through his experience the power of familial love, as well as powerful symbols and ways of expressing or communicating that love, and the power that comes from recognizing one is fully, thoroughly, and unconditionally loved. He pioneered the understanding of the exalting power of pure love.

The Savior's life is the expression and image of this unconditional love presented for us.

There is much that is extraordinarily attractive, beautiful, and logical about this perspective.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

I know that Blake Ostler's position is that that the Father - as the eternal Head God - is very much like Christ - was fully divine, then for a period took upon himself a mortal experience, and then continued beyond that following mortal death with further knowledge and compassion to guide his other associates through the process of developing a fulness of familial love and compassion.

If I understand him right, Ostler's position also isn't that the Atonement occurred to pay off some metaphysical Eternal Debt, but rather what was necessary for us to willingly drop our pain and sorrow from our own self-alienation and self-justifications and self-torment, and to recognize the forgiveness and love that God has given us even before we began walking towards Him. Conversion is turning towards the love of Christ in recognition that Christ loved us first, and has already forgiven us.

The Father would not have needed to be a savior, or to be saved. He learned through his experience the power of familial love, as well as powerful symbols and ways of expressing or communicating that love, and the power that comes from recognizing one is fully, thoroughly, and unconditionally loved. He pioneered the understanding of the exalting power of pure love.

The Savior's life is the expression and image of this unconditional love presented for us.

There is much that is extraordinarily attractive, beautiful, and logical about this perspective.

I agree, although I take a less either/or view, and consider the atonement in layers of meaning that include both the power of turning to love as well as payment for debt, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I agree, although I take a less either/or view, and consider the atonement in layers of meaning that include both the power of turning to love as well as payment for debt, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I still can't work my way to understand who Jesus would be paying, how suffering can be equated as quantifiable cash, and who would be demanding suffering as any form of 'payment'. Such payment theories of atonement don't make any sense to me.

If God is the one demanding suffering as payment, that doesn't make God look just or merciful. (It is not Just to have an innocent be punished for the faults of another. It is nonsensical to imprison an innocent in order to let a homicidal rapist go free, etc.)

If it's 'The Universe and Natural Law', then that begins to delve even more significantly into the realm of nonsensical.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

I guess I feel that there are many popular analgies used to describe the atonement that were based on primitive understandings and culture based on Supreme Kingship and 'Whatever the King Says Is Right', morality aside, that make some of those teaching methods far less effective in our culture today in expressing the full truth and ultimate love behind the Atonement.

Today, the Prophets emphasize the Family relationship of God, and not the aspect of Sovereign Kingship (the Calvinist route). I would expect the rhetoric around the Atonement to adjust and progress as well to that paradigm.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Maidservant]

(Here is the text - if you paste it into MS word as text only then copy and paste it into your comment you can get rid of the tags. I will ask Nemesis if there is any way to make this easier. -Ares)

Thaaank you, Ares .

The only problem I have with this is that it comes awfully close to doctrines which affirm God's "essence" or "nature" or "substance" or "being" as eternal and unchangeable; I think that is problematic because it is basically Platonic philosophy- the belief in eternal "Forms" and is a pagan Greek notion and is unbiblical.

Other than that, it's a great idea!

Well, I do know I have a long ways to go before I get full clarity on the nature of God and the reality of how he lives and the reality of what exactly is beyond what we know in this earth life. I am always gaining insight that hopefully allows me to see more truth and discard that which I did not understand fully.

I will go on record as saying I am sooo not a fan of how Greek philosophy mutilated theology in general.

My point is much more simple (I hope). It is like these scriptures:

*all the scriptures that say that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God

*all the scriptures that describe a narrow way

*the tree of life

*those places in the Book of Mormon where it is noted "if so he would cease to be God", such as Mormon 9:19, Alma 42:13, 25.

AND one of my favorites: D&C 76:50-60 ending with "And they shall overcome all things."

Thus, God is a condition or state of being (which however does not exclude us from using the word for other things, such as the idea of investiture that I mentioned in another post). But the conditions upon which Godhood may be entered do not change. We must be clean. We must be just. We must be merciful. We must be full of charity. etc. In fact, "entry" may be better said as "becoming".

(In my personal understanding, I do not conceive of there being any ethers or essences outside of Being. Being is the source of anything additional that may be created.)

Thanks for helping me thinks some more on the subject, to make sure I knew what *I* even wanted to say, ha ha.

I know that Blake Ostler's position is that that the Father - as the eternal Head God - is very much like Christ - was fully divine, then for a period took upon himself a mortal experience, and then continued beyond that following mortal death with further knowledge and compassion to guide his other associates through the process of developing a fulness of familial love and compassion.

If I understand him right, Ostler's position also isn't that the Atonement occurred to pay off some metaphysical Eternal Debt, but rather what was necessary for us to willingly drop our pain and sorrow from our own self-alienation and self-justifications and self-torment, and to recognize the forgiveness and love that God has given us even before we began walking towards Him. Conversion is turning towards the love of Christ in recognition that Christ loved us first, and has already forgiven us.

The Father would not have needed to be a savior, or to be saved. He learned through his experience the power of familial love, as well as powerful symbols and ways of expressing or communicating that love, and the power that comes from recognizing one is fully, thoroughly, and unconditionally loved. He pioneered the understanding of the exalting power of pure love.

The Savior's life is the expression and image of this unconditional love presented for us.

There is much that is extraordinarily attractive, beautiful, and logical about this perspective.

I love where you used the idea of "pioneer" here. I shall have to think on this further.

Where I am at in my understanding, I cannot accept that the atonement of Jesus Christ does not have some actual effect on the actual energies of the universe and our souls, and that it's power is circumscribed by the power of symbolism (only). In fact, this realization (for myself) was the very first personal revelation I was aware of receiving, when I was about 20 years old, when it felt as though the blinders came off my eyes and I realized that the stories I had been hearing in church up to that point were not stories, intended for the purpose of making me feel sorrow or empathy or guilt that "Jesus died" in order to induce obedience; but that rather, in the knowledge of, and workings of, the atonement I was being introduced to the most advanced "science" that existed. In one moment, I realized that the gospel was real and materially effective. This was the foundational revelation I had that embarked me on a lifetime of study, seeking, and revelation. Thus, the atonement (in my understanding) is not only an expression or image. Love is not an emotion.

Love IS a payment. Sacrifice IS a payment. Love is what we "pay" towards what we consider to be costly, our treasure. For women, we "pay" our bodies and our lives and our souls in order for children to come into the world (also men join with us). Any time we give of our time, talents, energies, etc toward any other thing, in order for that thing to be created and/or its life preserved (whether a human or some other thing, like a career goal) . . . then we are LOVING, we are PAYING, we are SACRIFICING . . . in order that that thing we love may come into Being. Thus through the atonement, we are the sons and daughters of Jesus Christ, because he gives birth to us.

I once studied on the internal energy processes of our sun, and realized that much was being sacrificed (certain elements) in order to generate new elements, plus heat and light. The sun is a perfect example of death and life in simultaneous moments, creating a greater life (the energy of the sun, which is for us) because one element passes away in order for a new one to come into being in the plasma engine of the sun.

The atonement does no less than this. I cannot explain all here, of course, because there is not enough time or space. But these are some beginning ideas.

I should also go on further to say however, that the power of symbolism is also not negligible. I hope I can be given words that will allow me to explain what I mean and what I think I have learned. The symbolisms in the gospel of Jesus Christ do not only "represent" something else. For example, what is the purpose of saying that the tree of life "represents" the love of God. What is the point of making that representation for representation's sake? Why can't we just say . . . God loves us, or God's love is real? Why do we need a symbolism? (We do, but why is that?)

I will turn to the symbolisms in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve is symbol, yes, but it is a INFINITE symbol . . . it is an initiation into whatever set of knowledge and spirit one is prepared for. Symbolism in the gospel of Jesus Christ is not free floating from reality, but rather, causes our mind to absorb (and therafter our life to live) massive amounts of knowledge and reality that pass far beyond the space they take up in a few short chapters. The opportunities for sight, and to order our lives by that sight, are endless (if one has the keys and other preparation).

The symbolism of the atonement of Jesus Christ is also the same opportunity. The atonement of Jesus Christ is a historical reality and a spiritual reality and a material reality, so that the symbolisms are not "free floating", but allow us to access the reality there is. Lately in the last few months or so only, I have been seeing some symbolisms on the atonement of Jesus Christ that have just floored me (I'm almost not sure what to do with them). They have to do with how the atonement of Jesus Christ is a token or sign for all the world and all humanity and the struggle it is in (for example, the part of us that crucifies, and the part of us that is crucified). So learning over the time the endless knowledge available from the symbolism of the atonement is necessary for our progression, so that we can understand the reality that the symbolism opens our eyes to (symbolism is a veil--it blocks us for a time, but also we must pass through it, so that it is no longer a veil). However, it is also the case that this act (the atonement) changed the universe in a material sense. As I am understanding at present, anyway. Maybe I will learn more .

Edited October 4, 2011 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

I still can't work my way to understand who Jesus would be paying, how suffering can be equated as quantifiable cash, and who would be demanding suffering as any form of 'payment'. Such payment theories of atonement don't make any sense to me.

If God is the one demanding suffering as payment, that doesn't make God look just or merciful. (It is not Just to have an innocent be punished for the faults of another. It is nonsensical to imprison an innocent in order to let a homicidal rapist go free, etc.)

If it's 'The Universe and Natural Law', then that begins to delve even more significantly into the realm of nonsensical.

The questions you are asking here are important, nack. Keep asking them. This is how one knocks on heaven's door (as I'm sure you already know).

Edited October 4, 2011 by Maidservant

[wenglund]

I still can't work my way to understand who Jesus would be paying, how suffering can be equated as quantifiable cash, and who would be demanding suffering as any form of 'payment'. Such payment theories of atonement don't make any sense to me.

If God is the one demanding suffering as payment, that doesn't make God look just or merciful. (It is not Just to have an innocent be punished for the faults of another. It is nonsensical to imprison an innocent in order to let a homicidal rapist go free, etc.)

If it's 'The Universe and Natural Law', then that begins to delve even more significantly into the realm of nonsensical.

The notion becomes more sensible to me when I think less literally and more symbolically, and lean less on my own understanding, and more on God's wisdom. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Bringing back to the OP, I think too often we try too hard to reconcile scriptural expressions of different paradigms of place, culture, and time. I think a key part of the Restoration is to, piece by piece, strip away the cultural masks, and get at the underlying truth behind it, and an authority to declare it in a new and fresh way that at times is significantly different (and even contradictory) to how previous prophets explained, understood, and described it. Our cosmologies are different. Our governments are different. Our culture is different.

If we take the modern revelation that the spirits of all men are co-eternal with God, and that taking upon mortality does not mark the beginning of our existence or eternal power/nature, and that Christ was a key revelation of a pre-eternal God temporarily taking mortality upon him as both a) Educational and b) Merciful, and we further look at Joseph's teachings on forming an eternal family by formal covenant of love and commitment, I don't see a need to 'fit in' the idea that the Atonement was a barbaric sacrifice demanded by some Eternal Force that demanded that someone had to suffer.

Ostler suggests that the actual and real pain we suffer as a result of our own immoral actions is real, and physical, and remains with us unless we release it. That this pain causes self-justification and shame that keeps us from being willing to walk into God's presence - that nobody is keeping us from walking back to God but ourselves. He suggests that Christ invites us to release that pain, and let it 'go to him' to suffer, and that this willingness to suffer to express how much he already loves and forgives us is powerful enough to allow us to do so, and to actually release our former pain and suffering, and allow us to stop walking away, and actually see ourselves walking towards God, and thus begin on that journey.

In this scenario, it wasn't a debt that was demanded by anyone by ourselves, and he let us know, there really wasn't any debt imposed, and invited us to remove the consequences of our own self-imposed debts onto him. This frees our souls, hearts, and minds, and creates love within ourselves.

Whether or not it expressed metaphysical truth, this image paints a far more useful and powerful picture of the Atonement for me than any 'He settled the debt of suffering imposed by God/The Universe/etc' imagery.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

In fact, I think the best analogy of this is actually the story of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. Valjean, imprisoned for stealing bread to save his family, is then caught in the cogs of the law of condemnation, and after decades of being treated as such, ends up identifying himself as a criminal for life. When he is set at parole, a Bishop mercifully invites him into his house to sleep when everyone else rejected him because of his Criminal status. Valjean then steals the Bishops few remaining personal items that hadn't already been donated to charity - silver, leaving only a set of candlesticks behind.

Valjean is apprehended by the law, and is about to be tossed into Prison for the rest of his life, when the Bishop proclaims that he has given Valjean the silver - and the candlesticks as well, which he must have forgotten. The Bishop gives all that is personal and unique to him to Valjean. Valjean is told to take this silver, and make a new life for himself.

Immediately afterwards, through instinct, Valjean steals a coin from a young child. But immediately is horrified by the act. Recognizing the act of love and mercy by the Bishop had already changed his heart, although his habits hadn't realized it yet until they went to act. The recognition of love and mercy caused the conversion - repentance followed as an act of love and changed nature.

Forgiveness came first. Repentance followed. Valjean changed his name, and was in a very real sense born again. Valjean went on to devote his life to beneficient and compassionate service.

This, to me, is the best illustration of the Atonement ever written.

And yet, in the story, there is still Inspector Javert, the personification of the Law, who brands everyone who ever committed a crime as a Criminal for life, unable to do good, or be good. At the end of his life when he realized he was wrong, and that Valjean actually did become a new person, his paradigm is shattered, and instead of being willing to change, he kills himself - unwilling to live in a world where a Sinner can become a Saint.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nackhadlow