The Cross Of Christ

[Lachoneus]

It is unquestionable that the resurrection is part of, in fact the completion of, the atonement.

". . . the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead . . ." Alma 42:23.

"But there remained one more set of chains to be broken before the Atonement could be complete: the bands of death." Howard W. Hunter, He is Risen

"His Atonement is infinite—without an end.It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death." Russel M. Nelson, The Atonement

"Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected and saved from physical death (see 1 Corinthians 15:22)." Resurrection

[zerinus]

I disagree. I think He meant His time on earth was finished, not the Atonement.

I think it means that the Atonement was finished.

Why does it matter that some people believe the Resurrection of Christ was part of His Atonement, anyway? What's the problem with believing that? Surely you don't believe God is going to punish those who believe in this "false doctrine," do you?

Why does it matter that some people believe the resurrection was not part of the Atonement? Do you think they are going to go to hell for believing that?

I think the inclusion of the Resurrection with the rest of the Atonement is beautiful, and is a concept that helps me personally better understand the scope of the Atonement and the gospel as a whole.

I think it is a false doctrine.

Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean you have to so harshly retaliate against those who do. Chill out.

I don't think I am retaliating against anybody. It seems to me more like some people are retaliating against me.

Why do you think it is necessary for me to agree with doctrines which I disagree with? Why do you think that voicing my disagreements, and giving reasons for them, amounts to "retaliating" against someone?

Edited October 8, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I have read the references in your post, and I beleive Apostles and Prophets are more authorative than anyone else's interpretation of scripture.

Again, I say teachings of the Prophets and Apostles are more authorative than anyone else's interpretation.

I trust the Apostles and Prophets of today. If I am wrong because I believe what they teach, then I am in good company.

They have said, the Atonement did not take place in one spot, it involved the Garden, Cross, and Resurrection.

I am comfortable beleiving modern day Prophets and Apostles when they say the Atonement started in the Garden and included His death on the cross, His resurrection.

What good do modern day Prophets and Apostles do us if we don't beleive them?

Do you believe in all that the prophets and Apostles have taught, or do you pick and choose what you like, and leave what you don't like? Does your unequivocal support for the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles include support the following?

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith,

Doctrines of Salvation

, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee,

European Area Conference of the Church

, Munich, Germany, 1973)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President,

Improvement Era

, January 1969 p.13)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts,

Deseret News

(23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence.” (Bruce R McConkie, “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions,” an open letter to all “honest truth seekers,” dated 30 October 1980, {quoted in Michael Hicks, “Do You Preach the Orthodox Religion: Thoughts on the Idea of Heresy in the Church,”

Sunstone

v6:5 (Sept./Oct. 1981), 32}.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world . . . to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young,

Journal of Discourses

, 3:5.)

Edited October 7, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

It is unquestionable that the resurrection is part of, in fact the completion of, the atonement.

". . . the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead . . ." Alma 42:23.

My reading of that is that the resurrection is the consequence of the Atonement, not the Atonement itself.

"But there remained one more set of chains to be broken before the Atonement could be complete: the bands of death." Howard W. Hunter, He is Risen

Ditto.

"His Atonement is infinite—without an end.It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death." Russel M. Nelson, The Atonement

Ditto.

"Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected and saved from physical death (see 1 Corinthians 15:22)." Resurrection

Ditto.

[Flyonthewall]

Do you believe in all that the prophets and Apostles have taught, or do you pick and choose what you like, and leave what you don't like? Does your unequivocal support for the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles include support the following?

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith,

Doctrines of Salvation

, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee,

European Area Conference of the Church

, Munich, Germany, 1973)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President,

Improvement Era

, January 1969 p.13)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts,

Deseret News

(23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence.” (Bruce R McConkie, “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions,” an open letter to all “honest truth seekers,” dated 30 October 1980, {quoted in Michael Hicks, “Do You Preach the Orthodox Religion: Thoughts on the Idea of Heresy in the Church,”

Sunstone

v6:5 (Sept./Oct. 1981), 32}.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world . . . to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young,

Journal of Discourses

, 3:5.)

I believe in what the Prophets and Apostles teach in conjunction to what the church teaches. If one of them teaches something that does not ring true to me, then I seek my own testimony of what they teach.

If it comes down to their interpretation or the interpretation of someone on the internet, there is no question as to who I will believe.

[zerinus]

I believe in what the Prophets and Apostles teach in conjunction to what the church teaches. If one of them teaches something that does not ring true to me, then I seek my own testimony of what they teach.

If it comes down to their interpretation or the interpretation of someone on the internet, there is no question as to who I will believe.

That doesn't really answer the question, does it. It appears that your expression of unequivocal support for the teachings and counsel of the Prophets and Apostles is not as unequivocal as you seem to have thought. You pick the ones you like, and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the ones you don't.

Edited October 8, 2012 by zerinus

[teddyaware]

It absolutely, positively does, Zerinus, tally with the resurrection. You have forgotten what the fall brought. It not only brought spiritual death into the world of the sons of Adam, it brought physical death as well. The cross compensated for spiritual death (and only for that) but the resurrection fully compensated for the physical death and made it possible for man to rise again to live without physical death after the resurrection. You are quite mistaken, therefore. The resurrection is the completion of the atonement. As Paul and Jacob said in their own but similar ways, if Christ were not risen all were lost forever.

You see, this is the problem with gospel-hobbyism. It tends to cause people to detract from some principles in favor of specific principles, and causes people to "miss the mark" and fail to see the forest for the trees. The atonement was three-fold, just like the three-fold mission of the Church, the three persons of the Godhead, etc., etc., etc.

In the beatitudes the Saviour famously said, "blessed are the peacemakers." I believe one of the spiritual gifts many of these peacemakers share is the God-given ability to understand that often, when people seem to be at odds with one another, there is actually no real substantive disagreement between the quarreling factions, just different ways of expressing the same commonly held belief.

Lately on this thread, there is one side of a certain dispute that asserts the resurrection of Christ is an essential component of what the Latter Day Saints refer to as the infinite and eternal atonement. Then there is an opposing side in this dispute that asserts the resurrection of Christ is the end result of Christ's atoning sacrifice, not an essential constituent of the same.

Is it not true that depending on which particular vantage point one might be viewing this controversey, both sides could, in reality, be correct?

For example, most Latter Day Saints know and understand the atonment of Christ is called an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Therefore, one would be hard-pressed to see how the resurrection of our Lord could in any way be considered a sacrifice. In fact, rather than being a divine sacrifice requiring unfathomable love, courage, resolve and faith, the Saviour's resurrection and ascention to heavenly glory was a joyous reward. I say a joyous reward of which one could hardly imagine the Lord saying with regard to his emminent resurrection, 'Father, let this cup pass from me!" Rather, it would seem obvious (unless there's something I don't know) the Lord would openly welcome his resurrection with joyful anticipation. It's exceedingly hard to conceive that he would want to shrink from the blessing of eternal life in the same way he began to shrink from the bitter cup he was commanded to partake in Gethsemane. So it doesn't seem one could rightly say the Lord's resurrection was a sacrifice along the lines of what he endured in mortality in garden, before the scourger, and while on the cross.

On the other hand, what purpose and meaning would the atonement of Christ have for the sons of men if it didn't offer positive, life-changing blessings here, and a glorious resurrected life in one of the Father's many mansions hereafter. For if Christ did not obtain a glorious resurrection, there would be no means nor mechanism by which to convey the blessings that were won for us in the divine sacrifice. For if Christ had remained in the grave, the purposes of great atonement of God would have been for nought. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ (i.e. believers in Christ) are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

So it's plain to see in verse 17 that if Christ had not risen from the dead there would be no possibility for receiving a remission of our sins. Yet, I don't believe we can rightly refer to the Lord's resurrection as an atoning sacrifice. Rather, we might call it the rebirth that made the blessings of the atonement available, or the joyous "atonment afirming rebirth."

Again, our Apostolic friend Paul said in Romans 5:

"

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

In the non-highlighted portion of the above quote, Paul irefers to the blessings (justification and reconciliation) that were won by means of the atoning sacrifice of Christ; while the highlighted portion refers to the same blessings that are now offered or given to us by means of the glorious resurrection, or. if you will, atonement affirming rebirth of Christ.

So there is an atoning sacrifice wherein Christ descended in pain and sorrow below all things; and the is an atonment affirming rebirth wherein Christ ascended in glory and joy above all things.

So both sides of this dispute are correct; both sides have something worthwhile to offer to our understanding of holy things. Far too often people go to war over misunderstandings, rather than because of bonified outright disagreement.

Edited October 8, 2012 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

I think it refers to any producer of dairy products.

[altersteve]

Why does it matter that some people believe the resurrection was not part of the Atonement? Do you think they are going to go to hell for believing that?

It doesn't matter. I wasn't trying to say it does. And no, I don't think that.

I don't think I am retaliating against anybody. It seems to me more like some people are retaliating against me.

Why do you think it is necessary for me to agree with doctrines which I disagree with? Why do you think that voicing my disagreements, and giving reasons for them, amounts to "retaliating" against someone?

I'm not saying you have to agree with anything. You just seem to be disagreeing with people in a very confrontational manner.

[zerinus]

It doesn't matter. I wasn't trying to say it does. And no, I don't think that.

I think that it does matter. I think it is important to be accurate and precise about the expression of doctrine. Sloppy thinking is not the way to learn or understand true doctrine.

I'm not saying you have to agree with anything. You just seem to be disagreeing with people in a very confrontational manner.

What you call confrontational I call saying it as it is. What you really want me to do is to agree with people disagreeing with me just for the sake of being "nice". Well I am not going to do that. Which do you think is more confrontational, calling someone a "gospel hobyist," or expressing reasoned disagreement? That is at least provocative, if not conftontational. How do you think I should say that the resurrection is not the Atonement, without being "confrontational," as you call it—short of agreeing with what I disagree with? I think that is what you really want me to do—to agree with what I disagree with. And I am not going to do that.

Edited October 8, 2012 by zerinus

[altersteve]

What you call confrontational I call saying it as it is. What you really want me to do is to agree with people disagreeing with me just for the sake of being "nice". Well I am not going to do that. Which do you think is more confrontational, calling someone a "gospel hobyist," or expressing reasoned disagreement? That is at least provocative, if not conftontational. How do you think I should say that the resurrection is not the Atonement, without being "confrontational," as you call it—short of agreeing with what I disagree with? I think that is what you really want me to do—to agree with what I disagree with. And I am not going to do that.

No, I don't want you to agree with something you disagree with. Please don't tell me what my intentions are. If I wanted you to agree with me, I'd say that. I'm not one to beat around the bush like that. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know me and you probably never will. So please don't assume that you have any idea what I "really want." Thanks.

Edited October 8, 2012 by altersteve

[zerinus]

No, I don't want you to agree with something you disagree with. Please don't tell me what my intentions are. If I wanted you to agree with me, I'd say that. I'm not one to beat around the bush like that. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know me and you probably never will. So please don't assume that you have any idea what I "really want." Thanks.

In that case then you did not explain yourself very well. I don't know how I can say that the resurrection is not the Atonement, and insist on that in the face of provocative disagreements, without appearing to be "confrontational" as you call it. Can you tell me how I can do that? I like to know what the magic formula for that is.

Edited October 8, 2012 by zerinus

[Flyonthewall]

That doesn't really answer the question, does it. It appears that your expression of unequivocal support for the teachings and counsel of the Prophets and Apostles is not as unequivocal as you seem to have thought. You pick the ones you like, and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the ones you don't.

It does answer the question as everything your cited quotes say is the same thing I stated.

Can you name one thing I have turned a blind eye or deaf ear to that Prophets and Apostles have taught and that the LDS church teaches too?

I am not the one that states that any of their teachings are in conflict with the scriptures.

[teddyaware]

zerinus and flyonthewall:

If you haven't done so already, please read the following, I'm reposting my last post on this thread in hope you'll find something here to bring a spirit of deference and brotherhood to your dialogue. A much better starting point for any discussion upon which there may be some disagreement is to find all the points of common ground first, before venturing into the areas where you are at variance. In pursuing this method of dialogue. there will usually be far fewer misunderstandings blocking the way toward a more respectful mutual understanding.

"In the beatitudes the Saviour famously said, "blessed are the peacemakers." I believe one of the spiritual gifts many of these peacemakers share is the God-given ability to understand that often, when people seem to be at odds with one another, there is actually no real substantive disagreement between the quarreling factions, just different ways of expressing the same commonly held belief.

Lately on this thread, there is one side of a certain dispute that asserts the resurrection of Christ is an essential component of what the Latter Day Saints refer to as the infinite and eternal atonement. Then there is an opposing side in this dispute that asserts the resurrection of Christ is the end result of Christ's atoning sacrifice, not an essential constituent of the same.

Is it not true that depending on which particular vantage point one might be viewing this controversey, both sides could in reality be correct?

For example, most Latter Day Saints know and understand the atonment of Christ is called an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Therefore, one would be hard-pressed to see how the resurrection of our Lord could in any way be considered a sacrifice. In fact, rather than being a divine sacrifice requiring unfathomable love, courage, resolve and faith, the Saviour's resurrection and ascention to heavenly glory was a joyous reward. I say a joyous reward of which one could hardly imagine the Lord saying, with regard to his emminent resurrection, "Father, let this cup pass from me!" Rather, it would seem obvious (unless there is something I don't know) the Lord would openly welcome his resurrection with joyful anticipation. It's exceedingly hard to conceive that he would want to shrink from the blessing of eternal life in the same way he began to shrink from the bitter cup of which he was commanded to partake beginning in Gethsemane. So it doesn't seem one could rightly say the Lord's resurrection was a sacrifice along the lines of what he endured in mortality in garden, then before the scourger, and when upon the cross.

On the other hand, what purpose and meaning would the atonement of Christ have for the sons of men if it didn't offer positive, life-changing blessings here, and a glorious resurrected life in one of the Father's many mansions hereafter. For if Christ did not obtain a glorious resurrection, there would be no means nor mechanism by which to convey the blessings that were won for us in his divine sacrifice. For if Christ had remained in the grave, the purposes of great atonement of God would have been for nought. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ (i.e. believers in Christ) are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

So it's plain to see in verse 17 that if Christ had not risen from the dead there would be no possibility for receiving a remission of our sins. Yet, I don't believe we can rightly refer to the Lord's resurrection as an atoning sacrifice. Rather, we might call it the rebirth that made the blessings of the atonement available, or the joyous "atonment afirming rebirth."

Again, our Apostolic friend Paul said in Romans 5:

"

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

In the non-highlighted portion of the above quote, Paul irefers to the blessings (justification and reconciliation) that were won by means of the atoning sacrifice of Christ; while the highlighted portion refers to these same blessings that are now made possible to be bestowed by means of the glorious resurrection -- or. if you will, atonement affirming rebirth of Christ.

So there is an atoning sacrifice wherein Christ descended in pain and sorrow below all things; and there is an atonment affirming rebirth (resurrection) wherein Christ ascended in glory and joy above all things, that we might actually receive the blessings won for us by the sacrifice.

Bottom line? There could be no atonement without the infinite and eternal sacrifice; and there could be no actual bestowal of blessings of the atoning sacrifice upon the children of men without the glorious resurrection. Both principles are utterly dependant upon one another. Neither would have any reason to exist without the other.So both sides of this dispute are in their own particular approach correct. Therefore, both sides have something worthwhile to offer to our understanding of holy things.

Far too often people go to war over misunderstandings, rather than because of real disagreements. Disputes over mere semantics, while the underlying truths are agreed upon, seem hardly a worthwhile pursuit for priesthood brethren within the Restored Church and Gospel. Unless, of course, the fun and thrill of the joust is what you actually enjoy. If that's the case, please do continue to joust on as much as you wish."

All the best, Ted

Edited October 9, 2012 by teddyaware

[zerinus]

It does answer the question as everything your cited quotes say is the same thing I stated.

Can you name one thing I have turned a blind eye or deaf ear to that Prophets and Apostles have taught and that the LDS church teaches too?

I am not the one that states that any of their teachings are in conflict with the scriptures.

I find that quite puzzling. Can you summarise for me briefly in your own words what you think the cited quotations mean, or what message they conveigh?

Edited October 8, 2012 by zerinus