Mechanisms Of Atonement

[Maidservant]

I went ahead and took my reply to Bro. Cobalt out of Bro. Englund's great discussion on Jesus' time frame of being God, so that anyone could take this tangent where we want it to without muddying Bro. Englund's great question.

True, the word "retribution" does not appear in the Book of Mormon, but the word "punishment" does, which is the same concept: "Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement." 2 Nephi 2:10. This says that it is God who inflicts the punishment. See also Alma 42:1: "And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery."

Again, I see this as just one of many possible models of salvation consistent with Mormonism. The one in the Book of Mormon is particularly conservative and Calvinistic. Joseph Smith later developed much more universalist and progressive theologies, including the three degrees of glory idea, and the later King Follett sermon theology, which I think are much more quintessentially "Mormon."

Well, obviously, for me to insist that there is no basis in the Book of Mormon whatsoever for a more legalistic or law-based atonement (?? what is a good word here), or no basis for your reading of it, would be disingenious of me at best. There is that there.

But it's funny, because I was just reading 2 Ne 2:10 today, and I said to myself, "Hey, even here it doesn't say that God afflicts the punishment. (It just says that there is punishment in the law.)" So I had the exact opposite reaction you have. So I guess that is a case of funneling what I read into what I have already conceptualized on the whole based on larger study (same as what anyone does, I suppose).

Also I disagree that punishment and retribution are automatically equated. Although I'm not a fan of either, and I personally have concluded (perhaps similar to some here, dissimilar to others) that God (as a person) does not punish.

[Maidservant]

To continue the discussion in this thread, maybe people can share what they think are their foundational sources or passages or thought processes, etc, of how to best begin to understand how the atonement really works for us. Non-LDS people are welcome to answer from the place of their knowledge. Anyone with any challenges (atheists, etc) are welcome also.

I will come back soon to share how and where I found my understanding in.

[altersteve]

Cobalt seems to believe that his reading of the Book of Mormon, and his interpretation of the "theologies" of Joseph Smith and other leaders, is the only true one. I happen to strongly disagree with him when he makes the implication that the Book of Mormon and the later teachings of Joseph (such as the teachings of salvation and punishment from God) are incompatible with or contradict each other.

[Cobalt-70]

But it's funny, because I was just reading 2 Ne 2:10 today, and I said to myself, "Hey, even here it doesn't say that God afflicts the punishment. (It just says that there is punishment in the law.)" So I had the exact opposite reaction you have. So I guess that is a case of funneling what I read into what I have already conceptualized on the whole based on larger study (same as what anyone does, I suppose).

I focus on the verb phrases, for example: "inflicting of the punishment," "the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner," and "consigned to a state of misery." The term "inflicting" requires an inflictor. "The punishment of the sinner" requires a punisher. The word "consigned" requires a consignor. There are other scriptures as well: "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." (2 Ne. 9:34). See also 2 Ne. 9:36, that says the same thing about those who commit whoredoms. There's another one in 2 Ne. 28:15. Helaman 14:18 says that the wicked will be "hewn down and cast into the fire."

I guess you could say that these statements were all figurative, and not to be taken literally, but I don't see any contemporary (circa 1829) evidence of that more liberal reading in early Mormon history. In fact, D&C 19, which was given in early 1830, stated, "Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not." (verse 15). I don't think there's any other interpretation of this verse than that god himself is punishing the wicked in anger.

But I think all of this conservative imagery of a vengeful god casting the wicked into a lake of fire and brimstone has been superseded by later, more progressive and universalistic statements by Joseph Smith (most importantly the King Follett sermon) that it is our own guilt that damns us. That there is no such thing as hellfire, but that damnation is merely a temporary mental state we bring upon ourselves, until we accept and commit to follow Jesus either in this life or the next.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[altersteve]

I don't think there's any other interpretation of this verse than that god himself is punishing the wicked in anger.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are other interpretations. God Himself does not punish, but He does allow punishment to take place.

[Cobalt-70]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are other interpretations. God Himself does not punish, but He does allow punishment to take place.

When God says "I smite you by the rod of my mouth," are you saying that God is merely allowing the rod of his mouth to smite the wicked, but he has no voluntary control over his mouth?

[Maidservant]

Cobalt seems to believe that his reading of the Book of Mormon, and his interpretation of the "theologies" of Joseph Smith and other leaders, is the only true one. I happen to strongly disagree with him when he makes the implication that the Book of Mormon and the later teachings of Joseph (such as the teachings of salvation and punishment from God) are incompatible with or contradict each other.

Honestly, I appreciate what each poster on this forum brings to the table; both challenges and confirmations to my beliefs are important. I would tend to agree with you, that all or most of the doctrine of the Church and the gospel, centered in the Book of Mormon, is all one whole. However, I can see that Cobalt has done his homework and has chosen to see and emphasize the differences, which can be valuable as well.

I focus on the verb phrases, for example: "inflicting of the punishment," "the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner," and "consigned to a state of misery." The term "inflicting" requires an inflictor. "The punishment of the sinner" requires a punisher. The word "consigned" requires a consignor. There are other scriptures as well: "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." (2 Ne. 9:34). See also 2 Ne. 9:36, that says the same thing about those who commit whoredoms. There's another one in 2 Ne. 28:15. Helaman 14:18 says that the wicked will be "hewn down and cast into the fire."

I guess you could say that these statements were all figurative, and not to be taken literally, but I don't see any contemporary (circa 1829) evidence of that more liberal reading in early Mormon history. In fact, D&C 19, which was given in early 1830, stated, "Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not." (verse 15). I don't think there's any other interpretation of this verse than that god himself is punishing the wicked in anger.

But I think all of this conservative imagery of a vengeful god casting the wicked into a lake of fire and brimstone has been superseded by later, more progressive and universalistic statements by Joseph Smith (most importantly the King Follett sermon) that it is our own guilt that damns us. That there is no such thing as hellfire, but that damnation is merely a temporary mental state we bring upon ourselves, until we accept and commit to follow Jesus either in this life or the next.

As I have not made any study as you have about how the Book of Mormon may have been initially presented or approached back in history, I cannot answer on that. As I see it, it was inevitable that as a church, and as individual members, we would grow in understanding, and I don't have a problem with the general idea of growing past what we used to think it said. However, for me, I would say that the truth has always been there as God gave it, but he lets us grow on that til we realize what we really have in our hands.

I posted a lot in the On Hell thread that I'm not sure I want to repeat here. I will note that I have discarded the "figurative" and "literal" dichotomy, and do not label my spiritual knowledge and stick it into one or the other categories. Rather, as I also posted before, that symbolisms reveal reality to us in ever-increasing layers, and then we can choose to live by those realities.

I will answer more on what specific scriptures say in another post (as I am almost out of time and have to get to Pack Meeting).

God Himself does not punish, but He does allow punishment to take place.

This is basically my understanding as well, more or less.

When God says "I smite you by the rod of my mouth," are you saying that God is merely allowing the rod of his mouth to smite the wicked, but he has no voluntary control over his mouth?

The "rod of his mouth" represents something relating to speaking, teaching, the word of God, or something in that area of conception. But I haven't figured that all out either yet.

more later, thanks for continuing the discussion everyone. Would love to hear from anyone.

[Rob Osborn]

My understanding has always been that because the lawgiver is God, He too, is the enforcer of that law. I see no difference in a parent such as you or I who punishes their disobedience kids. God works exactly the same- He is the lawgiver and thus the one who enforces the punishment upon us so that justice tot he law is met. I am reminded of these verses-

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a ^aprison have I prepared for them.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 7:38)

Perhap I do not understand what people are getting at here in this thread but as I see it, it is rather plain to aknowledge that Not only is God the punisher, He also has gone to lengths to create places such as the "prison" as a physical place for those he punishes to go to.

[Maidservant]

My understanding has always been that because the lawgiver is God, He too, is the enforcer of that law. I see no difference in a parent such as you or I who punishes their disobedience kids. God works exactly the same- He is the lawgiver and thus the one who enforces the punishment upon us so that justice tot he law is met. I am reminded of these verses-

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a ^aprison have I prepared for them.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 7:38)

Perhap I do not understand what people are getting at here in this thread but as I see it, it is rather plain to aknowledge that Not only is God the punisher, He also has gone to lengths to create places such as the "prison" as a physical place for those he punishes to go to.

Except I don't punish my children. I don't train or teach them with punishments. So if I can do it, God can't? (Is part of my thinking; = he can.) I also don't think that human beings should punish other human beings in their systems. And I feel that it is God that is teaching me this way. I'm sure I have more to learn, but it's just not the way normal, psychologically healthy human beings behave toward other human beings of any age or family relation.

Hmmm, I wonder what the etymology of the word 'punishment' is.

[Maidservant]

What does the Book of Mormon teach about the atonement of Christ then?

I love 2 Nephi chapter 11 and surrounding chapters where Nephi is receiving his knowledge regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ in response to his father, Lehi's, dream.

verse 31-33

And he spake unto me again, saying: Look!

And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men.

And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits . . .

And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look!

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people;

Yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world . . .

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up on the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

**************************************************

While these are usually read as a (historical) prophecy regarding the mortal life of the Savior, there is much more knowledge available here, and the entire experience of Nephi is to show the atonement. These scriptures not only describe his acts on earth, but they teach how the Lamb works among ALL his children at any time and age, to bring to pass his work in their lives and to save them.

One of my points would be is that the Book of Mormon provides many perspectives on the atonement, and they are all able to be understood together.

[KevinG]

I'm sure history is full of times when someone did something self-incapacitating despite the warnings of God not to do them and when the extent of their injury was revealed they ascribed it to the "wrath of God."

[Calm]

Hmmm, I wonder what the etymology of the word 'punishment' is.

Punishment has the baggage of being a bad thing, but if its purpose is to change behaviour so that the organism is more functional and not for retribution and it is effective and appropriate in doing so, how is this a bad thing? Punishment can include the removal of something desirable, it does not have to always be the application of something aversive just as reinforcement isn't always about getting what one wants, but sometimes can be the removal of something one doesn't want (such as removing a curfew).

In operant conditioning, punishment is any change in a human or animal's surroundings that occurs after a given behavior or response which reduces the likelihood of that behavior occurring again in the future. As with reinforcement, it is the behavior, not the animal, that is punished. Whether a change is or is not punishing is only known by its effect on the rate of the behavior, not by any "hostile" or aversive features of the change. For example, painful stimulation which would serve as a punisher in many cases serves to reinforce some behaviors of the masochist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_%28psychology%29

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Types_of_reinforcement

[Calm]

I'm sure history is full of times when someone did something self-incapacitating despite the warnings of God not to do them and when the extent of their injury was revealed they ascribed it to the "wrath of God."

If men refuse the protection of God and rely on the arm of flesh, is it his fault when such fails and they end up captives of their enemies? Those who think that God should interfere just because he can to make their lives easier are often also those who are angry at interference when it makes their lives harder (at least in their view). They want God to act based on their personal desires, disregarding justice or mercy (or rather they effectively choose to define "mercy" as 'letting them do what they want without holding them accountable').

Personally I prefer a mercy that heals and nurtures, not one that simply allows one to maintain the status quo:

http://lds.org/gener...eng&query=mercy

Mercy is the compassionate treatment of a person greater than what is deserved

http://lds.org/study...eng&query=mercy

I think punishment is built into the natural world more than enough that God does not have to add to it, but he is able to cause the natural consequences of our behaviour (internal and external) to be withheld thus allowing us to escape punishment through his mercy because he descended below all things, gaining not only perfect understanding, but perfect control and power. And I believe this was required of him because there was no other way to accomplish this. For some reason it had to be done by someone who had walked side by side with his fellowman and lived the same life there and then and not imposed upon from on high, even if God the Father had once experienced the same thing in his existence. Perhaps God the Father has progressed too far beyond us in glory and power that such a connection was impossible for him and so the unbridgeable gap was bridged by the Son instead, being truly a Mediator. Or perhaps the mechanics require the inclusion of a catalyst that is only effective in one direction, requiring someone 'on the ground' so to speak to lift others up to the Father, rather than the Father solely pulling us up to his level.

In that sense Christ paid the price for us so that we do not have to experience the same in order to achieve the same level of knowledge and power/control and instead we achieve such mastery and dominion by becoming one with him.

Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

Except I don't punish my children. I don't train or teach them with punishments. So if I can do it, God can't? (Is part of my thinking; = he can.) I also don't think that human beings should punish other human beings in their systems. And I feel that it is God that is teaching me this way. I'm sure I have more to learn, but it's just not the way normal, psychologically healthy human beings behave toward other human beings of any age or family relation.

Hmmm, I wonder what the etymology of the word 'punishment' is.

Hum, ok, Let us take the Green River Killer who killed 70+ women. Our law system brought down punishment upon him causing him to be locked up for life without any chance for parolle. We limited his desires and caused him to suffer. When he dies, he will obviously go to the spirit prison- the place God has set up for punishment in the spirit world. Are you saying it is unjust for us to lock him up and keep him from destroying and ending others lives? Are you also stating that it is unjust for God also to lock this person up and keep him away from his good sheep?

I am not sure how you can think that God doesn't punish the wicked acts of men when the scriptures are replete with Him stating that he does punish the disobedient.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Questing Beast]

Atonement as I have always understood it is one of the huge problematic topics for me. I think my problems with it are the core cause of my unbelief in Christianity.

I struggled for decades with the concept that God the Father HAD to find someone to atone for sin. The plan of salvation was proposed by Christ, but was really his Father's plan all the time. This occurred before we ever came to be, because the Only Begotten Son in the flesh was also the Father's "first born" of all his spirit children. So Christ our elder brother was on the scene "in the beginning". We all came along later in our turn. Once things had been rolling along for quite a while, we realized that the Father and the Son were different; they were glorious, and we were less so. We wanted what they have. The plans to advance all of us to a higher degree of glory were proposed. Christ was chosen as the Savior. All of us on this planet are born here because we each agreed with that plan.

Now, the problematic part, for me.

I cannot accept that if I had had the slightest clue what Jesus Christ was in for, that I would have gone along with it. I would not, as I am right now (in my fallen, mortal estate), agree that he should suffer one stroke from a flagellum in order to make me into an immortal "god".

If, by coming down here, I risked being lost forever, and the only way that I could make it back to safety (and subsequent advancement) depended on Christ suffering agony infinitely greater than having his flesh flayed away by flogging, and I agreed to it, then I have a problem with that.

If this is "the plan" from the beginning, and God the Father is just locked into "the plan" like all the gods before him have been, then I have a problem with that.

I can not imagine anything that would infuriate me more, than to discover - after having been down here and seeing what goes on without memory of an asserted preexistence - that God the Father put us all up to this so-called plan of salvation. What Christ went through in the hands of the mortal tormentors was overkill tribulation. I am repulsed by the whole story.

The film "The Passion of the Christ" did not deepen my appreciation for Christ's capacity to love: it offended my sense of outrage and injustice. It slapped me awake. Because of the graphic images that I was powerless to ignore, I realized just how offended my preexistence self would have been at the proposed plan. My fallen self is cowardly. If I had been threatened with that flagellum, and Jesus Christ had interposed himself and taken all the blows in my place, I would not have been able to refuse, out of mortal fear: but I also would not be able to live with myself for the rest of eternity. I would not be grateful for that revelation about my lack of courage! A friend pointed out that in the preexistence we did not know any better. We agreed to the plan of salvation because our Father and his Only Begotten Son got us together and said "this is the way it will be done", and we ignorantly, eagerly, joyfully agreed to participate. Now, look at how much I (we) have already grown!

I tried to see it that way. I really did try. Without belief in the preexistence, the whole cosmology of Mormonism comes unraveled. I did try to hold onto that belief. But the concept of underhanded dealing by the Father and the Son won out.

I cannot accept the atonement, because anyone who would be bound to perpetuate it is no god worthy of worship. I even have doubts about my being able to respect such a being. Such a god would be powerless to "save" his beloved children any other way? Really? Then my "Father" is a puny god.

My concept for "God" does not require any such infantile atonement "games". My "God" does not need to "save" anyone or anything. And because nothing and no one requires saving - having been created to advance Joy; for after all, what greater possible purpose for Existence is there? - it follows logically that "God" can save or punish as needed, according to the explicit condition of each person. And not being bound in any degree by the space-time that "God" institutes, there is no such thing ultimately as a lost soul. What would be the point in that? Creating souls with free will must be intended for something other than being "lost". And my finite charity tells me that Joy is the ultimate purpose of Existence, ergo all and sundry souls are bound to discover perfect, eternal Joy sooner or later.

The short version of my objection to the atonement as presented by Judeo-Christianity, is that I would never do it that way. And my limited charity must be a pale thing compared to God's charity. So I cannot imagine God behaving in such a manner as to institute such a "plan" in the first place. And if he did, then I have issues with that god; unfinished business, that will have to be taken up after I leave this place....

[mercyngrace]

No time now to read all the (I'm sure) Awesome comments but I wanted to add that I believe God's "punishment" to be figurative in that it's the natural consequence of violating eternal laws. In the same way that blessings are tied irrevocably to certain laws, the withholding of those blessings, and all that such implies, is tied to law breaking.

In other words, God's law (or the laws of Godhood) define the consequences of our choices but we are the ones who actually punish ourselves and each other:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. ~ Moroni 4:5

Edited October 5, 2011 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

I would agree. I figure that God is the greatest behavioral therapist in existence. If human beings can figure out that imposed, artificial punishments are at best temporary fixes with likely unintended consequences, then surely God is fully aware of such and has not set up his system to include them.

Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[HeatherAnn]

Also I disagree that punishment and retribution are automatically equated. Although I'm not a fan of either, and I personally have concluded (perhaps similar to some here, dissimilar to others) that God (as a person) does not punish.

Hi Maidservant,

I also believe that God does not punish. We are punished BY our sins, not for them.

God is love... wants what's best for us in the eternal perspective & designed us to sin - so God wouldn't punish us beyond the natural consequences of sin (& there are always consequences). If God IS LOVE... then that love is unconditional - what's conditional is if we're receptive to it or not (via our thoughts, feelings & behavior).

I spent a long time trying to understand the Atonement... I'm not done learning, but I see it in a new way.

The root of behavior (sin) are incorrect thoughts. How can anybody save us from our thoughts, but us?

We are taught to pray to God in Jesus' name, but never directly TO Jesus.

"A relationship is only as good as it's communication (relating)." So how can I trust Jesus to save me, when I don't relate with him?

Joseph Smith taught that we are our own condemners. "As a man thinketh, so is he."

Last month's Visiting Teaching Message, Joseph Smith also taught,

"After [my] instruction, you will be responsible for your own sins; it is a desirable honor that you should so walk before our heavenly Father as to save yourselves; we are all responsible to God for the manner we improve the light and wisdom given by our Lord to enable us to save ourselves."

I think what Joseph meant was to do all we can to progress, that essentially our spirituality is our responsibility.

As we know, we have a carnal nature, which isn't as interested in saving ourselves spiritually as temporally & egotistically.

The conflicting goals of our carnal & spiritual nature can present challenges not only in behavior, but also behavior's root... beliefs.

It can be sad to throw out the "old wine bottles," (old beliefs) even though "new bottles" are needed for "new wine" (New approaches for new perspectives). -Matt 9:17 Still, Gospel = Good News!! Good news is not just a one time event & then, no more good news. It's continual. "Eternal life is to know God" -John 17:3, which is a constant challenge & wonderful discovery. We are not just spiritually "born again" once - but born again & again (which the birth of Jesus represents)... Yet, birth is preceded by a type of death or change, which can be challenging. Still, our purpose & real joy is found in progressing by seeking God/Love.

Chist is not Jesus' last name, but what he became & encouraged us to become... "an heir of God through Christ." -Gal 4:7

Moses learned & taught that our experience of God is truly in the present & within... "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM." -

Exodus 3:14 Consider God/"I AM" with the scripture, "I AM the way, the truth & the life." -John 14:6 Jesus never intended us to worship him... always gave glory to God... & corrected when one refered to him as good master, "None is good, save one, that is God." Luke 18:19

So, when considering the Atonement, we must learn to think deeper & be, "not children in understanding." 1Cor 14:20.

"Without a parable spake he not unto them." -Matt 13:34 Jesus spoke in parables, so each could understand according to their spiritual & psychological development. "He that findeth his life, shall lose it: & he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." -Matt 10:39 Literally, this seems to imply physical life & death, but spiritually, it implies spiritual life & death. "To be carnally minded is death." -Rom 8:6)

I think the atonment is essentially making at one (uniting) the goals of both our carnal & spiritual selves... which also involves correcting harm we may have caused.

Edited October 5, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Cobalt-70]

No time now to read all the (I'm sure) Awesome comments but I wanted to add that I believe God's "punishment" to be figurative in that it's the natural consequence of violating eternal laws. In the same way that blessings are tied irrevocably to certain laws, the withholding of those blessings, and all that such implies, is tied to law breaking.

In other words, God's law (or the laws of Godhood) define the consequences of our choices but we are the ones who actually punish ourselves and each other:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. ~ Moroni 4:5

You have to look at the context of this quote. It is talking about God's punishment of living mortals. It does not refer to God's punishment of the wicked in the afterlife, which God either exacts in his anger himself (according to Mormon theology circa 1829-30: See D&C 19:15) or we cause in our own minds (according the King Follett sermon).

[Maidservant]

Punishment has the baggage of being a bad thing, but if its purpose is to change behaviour so that the organism is more functional and not for retribution and it is effective and appropriate in doing so, how is this a bad thing? Punishment can include the removal of something desirable, it does not have to always be the application of something aversive just as reinforcement isn't always about getting what one wants, but sometimes can be the removal of something one doesn't want (such as removing a curfew).

If men refuse the protection of God and rely on the arm of flesh, is it his fault when such fails and they end up captives of their enemies? Those who think that God should interfere just because he can to make their lives easier are often also those who are angry at interference when it makes their lives harder (at least in their view). They want God to act based on their personal desires, disregarding justice or mercy (or rather they effectively choose to define "mercy" as 'letting them do what they want without holding them accountable').

Personally I prefer a mercy that heals and nurtures, not one that simply allows one to maintain the status quo:

I think punishment is built into the natural world more than enough that God does not have to add to it, but he is able to cause the natural consequences of our behaviour (internal and external) to be withheld thus allowing us to escape punishment through his mercy because he descended below all things, gaining not only perfect understanding, but perfect control and power. And I believe this was required of him because there was no other way to accomplish this. For some reason it had to be done by someone who had walked side by side with his fellowman and lived the same life there and then and not imposed upon from on high, even if God the Father had once experienced the same thing in his existence. Perhaps God the Father has progressed too far beyond us in glory and power that such a connection was impossible for him and so the unbridgeable gap was bridged by the Son instead, being truly a Mediator. Or perhaps the mechanics require the inclusion of a catalyst that is only effective in one direction, requiring someone 'on the ground' so to speak to lift others up to the Father, rather than the Father solely pulling us up to his level.

In that sense Christ paid the price for us so that we do not have to experience the same in order to achieve the same level of knowledge and power/control and instead we achieve such mastery and dominion by becoming one with him.

Very, very good points and insight.

Well, I did a preliminary search on the etymology of the English word punish, and it went back to the Latin which meant to inflict pain or penalty for an offense. Other etymology included the ideas of damage and loss. What I don't know is what the Hebrew and Greek etymologies (much less the original Book of Mormon languages) are on those words used in the passages. But in any case, it is obvious that the scriptures do speak of punishment and similar types of consequences. So the question for myself or any reader is . . . what does the scriptures mean, in their entirety, and for me personally as I live my life and make choices. Do the scripture mean the same thing as Webster's dictionary? (maybe yes or no).

And as is evident by just all of our thoughts here, 'punishment' in today's language is one of those words that is a little slippery on definition, like 'love' and 'freedom' . . . so it is worth exploring to see what God really wants us to know on this, and how it relates to his atonement. For example, in my mind, I make distinctions between 'limits', 'justice', 'penalty', 'wrath', 'punishment', 'consequences'. These are all different things to me. And while I have sought on the scriptures for these things, it has been a while and I may need to revisit and clarify. But for example . . . penalty and punishment are different to me. But maybe that is just because of modern usage, I don't know.

For me, punishment is additional pain and humiliation and just plain hurting someone for doing something wrong, or more accurately, for having a struggle.

But I agree that consequences and penalties can have a rehabilitative effect at times (not as often as we think), to cause a person to want to change. But still are these things natural, or do we have to make them happen if one is in authority (like God, or parents).

I have often pondered on how the Lord hope for the same things for Nephi AND for Laman and Lemuel. He wanted them all to come to him. The beginning of spiritual progress is humility, a broken heart . . . Nephi had one from his own trials and his willingness. Laman and Lemuel had some humility after . . . being shocked, seeing an angel, being tossed by storms at sea . . . but was God punishing them? or trying to get them to the same place that Nephi was in, the only way they could understand, so that they could enjoy the same things Nephi had? Well, I am thinking this through still, but this is what has come to me so far. But in the end . . . Laman and Lemuel could not be changed permanently by their "punishments", and neither did Nephi ever need any punishments in order to change (although he had the same trials . . . how did Nephi and Laman respectively view the loss of the bow? did that feel like a punishment?).

[CV75]

But it's funny, because I was just reading 2 Ne 2:10 today, and I said to myself, "Hey, even here it doesn't say that God afflicts the punishment. (It just says that there is punishment in the law.)"

I’m not so sure these verses (2 Nephi 2:10, Alma 42:1) indicate that God Himself is doing the punishing. To me, the verses indicate that the eternal principles (“the ends of the law”, “justice”) determine the punishments and blessings. Of course God is in perfect alignment with all eternal principles, is the embodiment of eternal principles, and so has set up a system that is in full compliance with them.

I can see how, as a Teacher, He may intervene to punish or bless us in our best interests, consistent with our probationary state, where He mercifully delays both judgment and gratification so that we can become like Him. His ability to do this is an outgrowth of the atonement.

[CV75]

You have to look at the context of this quote. It is talking about God's punishment of living mortals. It does not refer to God's punishment of the wicked in the afterlife, which God either exacts in his anger himself (according to Mormon theology circa 1829-30: See D&C 19:15) or we cause in our own minds (according the King Follett sermon).

As I mentioned in the post above, I think this sort of intervention by God during our probationary state is made possible by the atonement and is designed in the best eternal interests of His children.

[Maidservant]

Hum, ok, Let us take the Green River Killer who killed 70+ women. Our law system brought down punishment upon him causing him to be locked up for life without any chance for parolle. We limited his desires and caused him to suffer. When he dies, he will obviously go to the spirit prison- the place God has set up for punishment in the spirit world. Are you saying it is unjust for us to lock him up and keep him from destroying and ending others lives? Are you also stating that it is unjust for God also to lock this person up and keep him away from his good sheep?

I am not sure how you can think that God doesn't punish the wicked acts of men when the scriptures are replete with Him stating that he does punish the disobedient.

There are many things in the scriptures. Some times I think there are varying levels of laws even that we can choose from in the scriptures, whenever we are ready for them (could be wrong on that).

A man who kills 70 women needs to be STOPPED . . . . IMMEDIATELY. And righteous or just or mentally healthy people should nurture their own strength to become strong enough to STOP all madness like this. But STOPPING or LIMITING one who will harm other human beings (which is also helping them to stop their own sinning), is different than additionally harming them in return for what they did. In the case of a man like this (who is probably SICK), you may think that they would deserve additional pain, and perhaps such a thing would be justified, but NOT THE ONLY CHOICE. It is possible to have compassion for even a person like this, and to help him as far as he is willing to go and able to go, to change (and our ability to help him change is dependent on our own faith and knowledge; for example, maybe we will discover a medical brain operation that will help serial killers . . . so why punish when they can just have a procedure done? kind of thing). I have a hard time believing that a person who makes these kinds of killings really wants to be that person deep inside himself, and he would like to be free of these things. Also a person who does wrong ought to make as much restitution as possible, but how can you restitute on a murder? You can't.

However, there are choices on how we respond to evil. I heard that in some Native American cultures (could be wrong), when they took war captives from their enemies, they would make them their sons and daughters to replace their own sons and daughters that had died in the fight. So this was their idea of restitution.

In the Book of Mormon, there are a lot of responses to evil, and all of them justified, no doubt, but there are choices. For example, I LOVE Helaman 6:37 "And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites." So how were Gadiantons destroyed? By teaching them until they were no longer Gadiantons.

I also love Helaman chapter 5, where the brother Nephi and Lehi were missionaries and got themselves cast into prison. And for many days they were treated horribly. But in the end, they were ALL, both those who were harming and those harmed, able to share a most miraculous experience of fire, light, revelation, redemption and love (although the wicked in the story first repented when they saw what was starting to happen).

Also there are many oppressions and wickedness in this world, and many children of God are perpretators of these combinations . . . and YES these things God (and those who serve God) breaks and/or will break, with no hesitation.

I will reply to other posters, but I am out of time at the moment. Great thoughts everyone.

[Cobalt-70]

If, by coming down here, I risked being lost forever, and the only way that I could make it back to safety (and subsequent advancement) depended on Christ suffering agony infinitely greater than having his flesh flayed away by flogging, and I agreed to it, then I have a problem with that.

Most Mormons use the Calvinistic "penal substitution" model of the Atonement, but I think that the Arminian (e.g., Methodist) view of the "Governmental" theory of Atonement could also be consistent with Mormonism. In this model, Jesus suffered as a substitution for our sins, but did not literally suffer the precise punishment for each an every person's individual sins. It is more of a satisfaction, rather than a precise payment. Mormon scripture says there was an "infinite atonement" (2 Ne. 9:7)--meaning that it applies to all and to all sin; however, I could be mistaken but I don't think there is any Mormon scripture that says that Jesus underwent infinite suffering. I think the idea of infinite suffering is rather meaningless anyway. If someone kicks you in the gut twice, you don't suffer twice as much as if you were only kicked once. It follows that if they kicked you in the gut an infinite number of times, you wouldn't suffer infinitely. Suffering is not a simple mathematical equation.

[Maidservant]

Atonement as I have always understood it is one of the huge problematic topics for me. I think my problems with it are the core cause of my unbelief in Christianity.

Thanks for sharing on that, Questing. And certainly the atonement is the central idea to the gospel of Jesus Christ, so our wrestle with understanding that, and our conclusions (whatever they may be) on it, can be heavy on our hearts and also hold great import for the rest of the shape of our life in the present and in any time to come.

Now, the problematic part, for me.

I cannot accept that if I had had the slightest clue what Jesus Christ was in for, that I would have gone along with it. I would not, as I am right now (in my fallen, mortal estate), agree that he should suffer one stroke from a flagellum in order to make me into an immortal "god".

If, by coming down here, I risked being lost forever, and the only way that I could make it back to safety (and subsequent advancement) depended on Christ suffering agony infinitely greater than having his flesh flayed away by flogging, and I agreed to it, then I have a problem with that.

If this is "the plan" from the beginning, and God the Father is just locked into "the plan" like all the gods before him have been, then I have a problem with that.

I can not imagine anything that would infuriate me more, than to discover - after having been down here and seeing what goes on without memory of an asserted preexistence - that God the Father put us all up to this so-called plan of salvation. What Christ went through in the hands of the mortal tormentors was overkill tribulation. I am repulsed by the whole story.

The film "The Passion of the Christ" did not deepen my appreciation for Christ's capacity to love: it offended my sense of outrage and injustice. It slapped me awake. Because of the graphic images that I was powerless to ignore, I realized just how offended my preexistence self would have been at the proposed plan. My fallen self is cowardly. If I had been threatened with that flagellum, and Jesus Christ had interposed himself and taken all the blows in my place, I would not have been able to refuse, out of mortal fear: but I also would not be able to live with myself for the rest of eternity. I would not be grateful for that revelation about my lack of courage! A friend pointed out that in the preexistence we did not know any better. We agreed to the plan of salvation because our Father and his Only Begotten Son got us together and said "this is the way it will be done", and we ignorantly, eagerly, joyfully agreed to participate. Now, look at how much I (we) have already grown!

I actually respect your view on this and I think a lot of people would emotionally be with you on this. I am sure these thoughts crossed my mind also, although at my present understanding, it is not so much for me the thought of what Jesus went through. Because since then I have learned that (for example) Peter was crucified upside down. As well . . . the children of God have suffered at the hands of our brothers and sisters (and WE can sometimes cause our brothers and sisters to suffer) in the most unmentionable of ways that far surpass even what Jesus went through physically speaking. So my questions are not so much any more on why God did this to JESUS, but why are all here doing these things TO EACH OTHER, and what this means for our eternal progression and what does it have to do with atonement. What did we have to learn or gain by passing through this existence, by descending below all things, and how do these experiences lead us to become One with each other and with God?

I tried to see it that way. I really did try. Without belief in the preexistence, the whole cosmology of Mormonism comes unraveled. I did try to hold onto that belief. But the concept of underhanded dealing by the Father and the Son won out.

I cannot accept the atonement, because anyone who would be bound to perpetuate it is no god worthy of worship. I even have doubts about my being able to respect such a being. Such a god would be powerless to "save" his beloved children any other way? Really? Then my "Father" is a puny god.

My concept for "God" does not require any such infantile atonement "games". My "God" does not need to "save" anyone or anything. And because nothing and no one requires saving - having been created to advance Joy; for after all, what greater possible purpose for Existence is there? - it follows logically that "God" can save or punish as needed, according to the explicit condition of each person. And not being bound in any degree by the space-time that "God" institutes, there is no such thing ultimately as a lost soul. What would be the point in that? Creating souls with free will must be intended for something other than being "lost". And my finite charity tells me that Joy is the ultimate purpose of Existence, ergo all and sundry souls are bound to discover perfect, eternal Joy sooner or later.

The short version of my objection to the atonement as presented by Judeo-Christianity, is that I would never do it that way. And my limited charity must be a pale thing compared to God's charity. So I cannot imagine God behaving in such a manner as to institute such a "plan" in the first place. And if he did, then I have issues with that god; unfinished business, that will have to be taken up after I leave this place....

I get really mad at God on these kinds of things too, and take it up with him directly. He knows what things he has disappointed me in; of course, I have disappointed him a thousand times also; but I still feel like He and I are in this thing together so to speak. While I don't have problems with God on the exact things you express here (as I feel I have some more understanding so that I am not "at" the questions you have), there are plenty of other things upon which I seek God, but it comes out more like . . . "What the heck are you DOING, Father?!" But thankfully, he always has time for such a conversation *cough*fight*cough*.

The beginnning of my knowledge is in 1 Ne 11:17: "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." I say this like a mantra, and it is the base of my faith and knowledge. I know that I am a daughter of my Heavenly Father, and I have asked for this witness over and over again, and have received it many times. All other knowledge, belief, information, law, etc etc may come into existence and pass away, may change or be more fully revealed, I may be broken, etc etc. . . . but I always return to my base belief that I am His daughter and I am loved but that I simply don't know everything. From that place . . . I try to find out more to know, ha ha!