The Cross Of Christ

[CV75]

Is this recent General Conference Address full and true doctrine?

Of course I disagree with nothing stated in this talk.

But I recognize that the purpose of this talk is “directed in a special way to those who are alone or feel alone or, worse yet, feel abandoned.” It is to help them understand “that because Jesus walked such a long, lonely path utterly alone, we do not have to do so.” It is not a complete treatise on all aspects concerning the subject of Atonement or the significance of the cross. It is in this context that Elder Holland states as a message of comfort for the lonely, “Trumpeted from the summit of Calvary is the truth that we will never be left alone nor unaided, even if sometimes we may feel that we are.”

As such, this talk speaks primarily to the loneliness of the journey to Atonement, pointing to several of the steps in it, so those who are lonely can apply the Lord’s experience and example.

As to the role of the cross: “Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement …when He cries in ultimate loneliness, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ …For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone.”

This message is not proof that this one aspect of the Atonement that took place on the cross is more significant than the others—it was all important, and it is all one “at-one-ment”. The statement, “It [the Father’s withdrawal from Jesus] was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement,” is not a statement that this was all that had to be done and that there were no other aspects that are or could be central to the significance of the Atonement as far as the Lord’s entire life journey to Atonement goes.

This message is not proof that the depth of the Lord’s suffering is any more or less significant to the Atonement than His actual victory over death and hell.

[teddyaware]

This message is not proof that this one aspect of the Atonement that took place on the cross is more significant than the others—it was all important, and it is all one “at-one-ment”.

I'm in 100% agreement with this! So let's finish on this strong point of total agreement!

[CV75]

I'm in 100% agreement with this! So let's finish on this strong point of total agreement!

Cool!

[teddyaware]

Cool!

God bless you and yours, my friend...

Edited October 5, 2012 by teddyaware

[CV75]

God bless you and yours, my friend...

Thank you, and you too--

[Flyonthewall]

Did you read the references I gave in post #137? Teddy also gave some good ones. What do you think of them? Which do you think has more authority, the Bible, or the Bible dictionary?

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

Not so plain to me. That is Mormon tradition. What if that tradition is wrong? What if the scriptures teach differently? Which is more authoritative, scripture, or Mormon tradition?

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

In post #184 Teddy quoted something from David Millet as follows:

"It is probably the case that if one hundred Protestants were asked where the Atonement of Christ took place, those one hundred persons would answer: At Golgotha, on the cross. It is also no doubt true that if one hundred Latter-day Saints were asked the same question, a large percentage would respond: In Gethsemane, in the garden."

What do you think of that? What if the Protestants are actually right?

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.

That is right, they do say that. They don't understand the nature of Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane. But that does not prove that we have correctly understood the entire process either. Just because they have go their end of the stick wrong, it doesn't prove that we have got ours right.

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?

My personal belief is that the sins of the world were placed upon him in the garden, His sacrifice for sin(death) took place upon the cross, and He broke the bonds of death upon his resurrection. These are 3 essential parts of the Atonement.

[spartacus]

I mean having the symbol around their necks or adorning buildings...the scriptures you quote are speaking metaphorically.

Granted. I meant "metaphorically" when I said "symbolically" in that response to you - I apologize for this imprecision.

However, to make the "Jesus wasn't talking about necklaces and steeples" point is to miss the point that the cross in all its manifestations of meaning and symbolism are more or less recognized by LDS and/or traditional Christians. Someone else made a post about the "legalism" of Christians wanting LDS to wear crosses. This is way off the mark. Even the talk about how painful the cross was misses the point. It's not about wearing or decorating with crosses but about valuing a symbol/metaphor that Jesus valued/values.

Pa Pa (and whoever voted for your reply), exactly how far do you think symbolism is from metaphor?

It's all about meaning. If traditional Christians view LDS emphasis on the garden as a devaluing or a "de-meaning" of the cross, or stories about LDS having cultural rules against wearing crosses or that LDS say "we choose to celebrate his life and resurrection", its because the cross has extraordinary meaning to them as Christians and they find these events inconsistent with a similar claim to follow Christ. Whether you agree with them or not, it is understandable. And, I believe, greater understanding was the purpose or hope of the OP.

A personal, real life example: A friend-family of ours, my wife, and I were going to a destination in 2 cars. Two of the older children were in our car and when we were getting out in the parking lot the younger of the two looked down at my wife's feet and saw that her shoes were decorated with crosses. That youth said "Those are bad. You're not supposed to wear those." The older of the two corrected him and said to us, "We (LDS) celebrate his life, not his death." [The appropriateness of these statements to my wife and I may sound questionable in this short version of the story, but I can quickly say that there was no rudeness involved.] Now I understand the lack of eloquence that comes with adolescents, I also already knew the LDS Church/Culture stance on wearing crosses, but it still struck me that, whatever the teachings of the LDS Church, it still got into this youth's head as "bad".

[Broker]

I realized this topic has probably run it's course, but I wanted to add an observation, that everybody is already aware of...

Last week, I was listening to an evangelical radio host. He made the comment that a sure way of identifying a "cult" (which I know is the discussion of another thread...he meant it in a derogatory way) was to observe which houses of worship did not display a cross on their buildings. That i nitially made me a little upset, since I knew he was referring to Latter-Day Saints (among others). Then the thought came to me....which is more symbolic of a christian church, the display of a cross, or the words " Church of Jesus Christ" ? I then realized how few, very few, other churches display the name of "Jesus Christ" on their buildings.

[teddyaware]

Well, I've Just awakened from a fitful sleep, it's the middle of the night, and I find myself returning to this thread to tie up some loose ends on this subject, that my combined contribution to the thread might be more definitive. Two points:

1. Some here make the point that of the three pillars of the atonement -- Gethsemane, Calvary and the Resurrection -- the Resurrection of our Saviour is the most glorious of the three pillars, the one most important to our salvation and exaltation; the pillar which should be our primary focus. Aprapos to this point of view, earIier on this thread I made some comments that bear repeating. They are:

"Let's also realize another reason why the symbol of the cross was important to Paul is because the Gethsemanic sufferings of Christ (his descent into outer darkness and eternal separation from God), that began in the Garden and culminated on the cross, was the hard part of the work of the atonement. By contrast, his resurrection day was a time of great joy. Again by contrast, Gethsemane and Calvary were incomprehensibly diffcult, terrifying and agonizing ordeals of infinite and eternal sacrificial love, while the resuurection, though of equal importance to our redemption, was -- I would imagine -- not a moment of great trial but was, rather, welcomed with great joy. He almost shrank from the task in Gethsemane, but must have openly embraced his resurrection with immense pleasure.

Is it not true that a war hero is more loved and remembered for his conquering of fear, his bravery, his valor, and selfless sacrifice while in the heat and horrors of battle than he is for the awards ceremony in which he is honored, glorified and decorated for the courage he previously displayed during the terrors of war?

So it is with Christ: His glorious resurrection, wherein he ascended in joy above all things, came as a direct result of his first courageously descending below all things. The resurrection was the joyous day (analogus to the aforementioned decoration ceremony) when he received glory, honor and reward for having successfully conquered the eternal foes of death, hell and the devil in a momentous life-and-death struggle of infinite and eternal consequense. So I say again, do we honor a war hero more for the moment in which he or she receives medals and plaudits of appreciation, or do we honor the hero for the acts of courage and valor that preceeded and were the Cause and inspiration for the awards ceremony. Hence Paul's veneration of the literary symbols of the cross and crucifixion of Calvary -- the place of divine courage and vaquishing of all the enemies of men's souls.

Scriptures such as the following lend some credence to the view that that third pillar of the atonement (the Lord's resurrection) is the one of foremost importance: 'Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

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. Romans 5: 9-10).' Nevertheless, I do not believe that this verse negates the cogency and validity of my last point."

2. The primary reason why there is some misunderstanding and speaking past one another on this thread grows primarily out of the doctrine of Christ's atoning 'Gethsemanic' suffering (abject spiritual death). Proponents of emphasising the Lord's suffering in Gethsemane as being the place of our Lord's supreme sorrow know that the physcial tortures of scourging and crucifixion, as horrible as they might be, do not constitute nearly enough suffering to serve as a propitiation for the totallity of the sins committed by mankind. They know only Gethsemanic suffering -- descending in superhuman emotional and spiritual woe below all things -- is the only kind of suffering that can atone for the sins of the world. After all, as it's been truly said, many unfortuanate souls -- not just Christ -- have had to endure the twin demons of scourging and crucifixion. So emphasis by some on the Lord's sufferings in Gethsemane is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

Where the controversy comes in is that the leaders of the Church are now placing equal emphasis and appreciation on the Lord's sacrifice while on the cross. Notice that I said "sacrifice while on the cross," as opposed to mere physical crucifixion. This renewed understanding that the Saviour not only suffered the physical agonies of crucifixion while on the cross, but also experienced (for three hours) a recurrence of Gethsemanic suffering (tasting spiritual death for all, as if he were the son of perdition) while also suffering physically and emotionally as the consequences of crucifixion and the vicious, mercilessly cruel taunting he endured at the hands of his visible and invisible enemies. We have now been amply taught by those in authority that when Jesus the Christ cried out from the cross in unfathomable lonliness and divine sorrow, "My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?" he was once again experiencing the agony of Gethsemane for each of us. Let's honor and praise him for it...

All that needs to be done to put an end to this controversy is for each of us here to humbly accept the fact that Christ endured Gethsemanic suffering both in Gethsemane and on Calvary -- it as simple as that. As Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught us in his April 1985 General Conference address, just prior to his untimely death"

"We do not know we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane. We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his father had given him. We know he suffered both body and spirit more than it is possible for man to suffer except it be unto death."

Then,

"The Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross. With great malice they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. Then the cross was raised that all might see, gape, curse, and deride. This they did with evil venom for three ours from 9 a.m. until noon. Then heavens grew black darkness covered the land for the space of three hours as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm as though the very God of nature was in agony, and truly he was for while hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon until 3 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane reoccurred. And finally when the atoning agonies had taken their toll, when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of God in all things he said "It is finished" and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

This post should suffice; what more can I say. Nevertheless, I may chime in again if it feels right. The reason being that I think it's possible many non-LDS Christians have been reading this thread with interest, and if others persist in upholding an "imbalanced presentation" of the atonement I will post again, so that our traditional Christian friends will know that I, for one, have not given up the fight to give full honor to Christ's infinite and eternal work on the cross of Calvary, as well as for the wondrus work of divine love and sacrifice he endured and accomplished for us in Gethsemane.

All the best to my LDS and non-LDS friends.

Edited October 6, 2012 by teddyaware

[MormonMason]

And they say it wrong. The “actual point” was the cross, not Gethsemane.

...

Jesus suffered and died for the sins of the world, not resurrected for the sins of the world.

I open with the following quote:

Atone, Atonement

See also Blood; Children of Christ; Cross; Crucifixion; Fall of Adam and Eve; Forgive; Gethsemane; Grace; Immortal, Immortality; Jesus Christ; Justification, Justify; Merciful, Mercy; Plan of Redemption; Redeem, Redeemed, Redemption; Remission of Sins; Repent, Repentance; Resurrection; Sacrament; Sacrifice; Salvation; Sanctification; Sons and Daughters of God.

To reconcile man to God.

As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind. He was able to do so because of his selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed (Ether 3:14; Moses 4:1–2; Abr. 3:27), his divine Sonship, and his sinless life. His atonement included his suffering for the sins of mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane, the shedding of his blood, and his death and subsequent resurrection from the grave (Isa. 53:3–12; Mosiah 3:5–11; Alma 7:10–13). Because of the Atonement, all people will rise from the dead with immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15:22). The Atonement also provides the way for us to be forgiven of our sins and live forever with God. But a person who has reached the age of accountability and received the law can receive these blessings only if he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of salvation, and obeys the commandments of God. Those who do not reach the age of accountability and those without the law are redeemed through the Atonement (Mosiah 15:24–25; Moro. 8:22). The scriptures clearly teach that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence (2 Ne. 2; 9).

(The Guide to the Scriptures)

This has virtually always been the position of the Church. The weight of the sins of the world placed upon him caused him to bleed at every pore. He took those sins and nailed them to his cross. He rose from the dead and sealed or finished the atonement.

Were it not for the resurrection, the atonement would have been for nothing and all mankind would be lost (See 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Nephi 9). All this is the teaching of the scriptures as a whole.

Anything else that detracts from or focuses too tightly upon (to the omission of the other parts of) any one of the three-fold aspects of the atonement is gospel-hobbyism at its finest.

Edited October 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[Flyonthewall]

...

This was a wonderful statement from you and I appreciate it

Then this part got me to wondering...

This post should suffice; what more can I say. Nevertheless, I may chime in again if it feels right. The reason being that I think it's possible many non-LDS Christians have beer reading this thread with interest, and if others persist in upholding an "imbalanced presentation" of the atonement I will post again, so that our traditional Christian friends will know that I, for one, have not given up the fight to give full honor to Christ's infinite and eternal work on the cross of Calvary, as well as for the wondrus work of divine love and sacrifice he endured and accomplished for us in Gethsemane.

Are you saying there is a drinking game going on? or could it be just a typo?

[teddyaware]

Flyonthewall' said:

This was a wonderful statement from you and I appreciate it

Then this part got me to wondering...

Quote

This post should suffice; what more can I say. Nevertheless, I may chime in again if it feels right. The reason being that I think it's possible many non-LDS Christians have beer reading this thread with interest, and if others persist in upholding an "imbalanced presentation" of the atonement I will post again, so that our traditional Christian friends will know that I, for one, have not given up the fight to give full honor to Christ's infinite and eternal work on the cross of Calvary, as well as for the wondrus work of divine love and sacrifice he endured and accomplished for us in Gethsemane.

Are you saying there is a drinking game going on? or could it be just a typo?

Well you see 'fly," you'll note that in that specific line I was referring to some our non-member friends who are not bound by the Word of Wisdom as are we. So perhaps, while enjoying this thread they are not prohibited from partaking of two different kinds of inspiring spirits simultaneously. Sounds reasonable, right?

By the way, thanks!

[MiserereNobis]

Flyonthewall' said:

This was a wonderful statement from you and I appreciate it

Then this part got me to wondering...

Quote

This post should suffice; what more can I say. Nevertheless, I may chime in again if it feels right. The reason being that I think it's possible many non-LDS Christians have beer reading this thread with interest, and if others persist in upholding an "imbalanced presentation" of the atonement I will post again, so that our traditional Christian friends will know that I, for one, have not given up the fight to give full honor to Christ's infinite and eternal work on the cross of Calvary, as well as for the wondrus work of divine love and sacrifice he endured and accomplished for us in Gethsemane.

Are you saying there is a drinking game going on? or could it be just a typo?

Well you see 'fly," you'll note that in that specific line I was referring to some our non-member friends who are not bound by the Word of Wisdom as are we. So perhaps, while enjoying this thread they are not prohibited from partaking of two different kinds of inspiring spirits simultaneously. Sounds reasonable, right?

By the way, thanks!

I'll admit that the other day I was posting while enjoying a glass of wine

[teddyaware]

To flyonthewal':

I'll admit that the other day I was posting while enjoying a glass of wine

You see "fly," I was right!!!

[zerinus]

I open with the following quote:

This has virtually always been the position of the Church. The weight of the sins of the world placed upon him caused him to bleed at every pore. He took those sins and nailed them to his cross. He rose from the dead and sealed or finished the atonement.

Were it not for the resurrection, the atonement would have been for nothing and all mankind would be lost (See 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Nephi 9). All this is the teaching of the scriptures as a whole.

Anything else that detracts from or focuses too tightly upon (to the omission of the other parts of) any one of the three-fold aspects of the atonement is gospel-hobbyism at its finest.

The resurrection is not the Atonement, and has nothing to do with the Atonement. Anybody who can read the dictionary can know that. I looked up the word atonement in online dictionaries, and here are some of the definitions I found. In these definitions I have omitted all the religious or theological definitions. All the dictionaries give a religious as well as a non-religious definition of the word. I have only included the non-religious definitions so as not to give a biased definition:

• satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong
  
• the action of making amends for a wrong or injury
  
• satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.
  
• reparation for an offense or injury: satisfaction
  
• Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
  
• repayment, compensation, or reparation made for a wrongdoing or mistake
  

None of these definitions tally with the resurrection; but they do tally with the sufferings of Christ on our behalf, on the cross and elsewhere, in which He took upon Himself the burden of our sins, and thus paid (atoned) for them.

[Flyonthewall]

To flyonthewal':

You see "fly," I was right!!!

Indeed you were...but was there a word when spoken/written that a drink was taken? I would hate to think I was involved in the intoxication of anyone...

[The Grimace]

In consideration of the fact that the Latter Day Saints tend to de-emphasize the relative importance and severity of the sufferings endured by Christ during his crucifixion when compared to the sufferings he endured in Gethsemane; and considering the well-established fact that Latter Day Saints de-emphasize the importance of the cross of Christ as a religious symbol, and even go so far as to totally eschew it: If a friendly and non-confrontational Evangelical Christian were to quote the following scripture and then ask you why, in light of said verse, the Mormons react the way they do to Christ's cricifixion and the symbolism of his cross, what would you say to him or her in response?

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Galatians 6:14

If I were a practicing Mormon, I'd say, "Ya, and your point is...?"

[teddyaware]

If I were a practicing Mormon, I'd say, "Ya, and your point is...?"

Thanks for the positivity. Perhaps there's a good reason why you call yourself "Grimace."

Here's the Online Dictionary definition of you screen name: "Grimace: A sharp contortion of the face expressive of pain, contempt, or disgust."

Here's the etymology: "Grimace: from the Old French grimuche; meaning "being of grotesque countenance."

Fortunately, though your post actually did at first cause me to grimace for a brief moment, it ended up giving me a good belly-laugh in the end. Thanks... Hopefully, you yourself don't grimace as much as the first impression one could get from your post would seem to indicate.

Lastly, I'm interested to know what you as a non-practicing Mormon (or whatever you are) have to say about the initial comment that started this rather popular and, apparently, compelling thread.

Edited October 7, 2012 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Indeed you were...but was there a word when spoken/written that a drink was taken? I would hate to think I was involved in the intoxication of anyone...

Ah ... nothing like a delightful snifter of vintage Brown Brothers Orange Muscat after a lovely dinner, and a heaping helping of red hot religious controversy to calm the inner beast ...

[The Grimace]

Thanks for the positivity. Perhaps there's a good reason why you call yourself "Grimace."

Here's the Online Dictionary definition of you screen name: "Grimace: A sharp contortion of the face expressive of pain, contempt, or disgust."

Here's the etymology: "Grimace: from the Old French grimuche; meaning "being of grotesque countenance."

Fortunately, though your post actually did at first cause me to grimace for a brief moment, it ended up giving me a good belly-laugh in the end. Thanks... Hopefully, you yourself don't grimace as much as the first impression one could get from your post would seem to indicate.

Lastly, I'm interested to know what you as a non-practicing Mormon (or whatever you are) have to say about the initial comment that started this rather popular and, apparently, compelling thread.

As a non-practicing Mormon, I have little, if anything to say about the initial comment. If someone wants to quote me scripture, that's fine, but you'd be better off quoting The Catcher in the Rye. As for what practicing Mormons believe, when I was a one of those, I really can't imagine why it would matter what an Evangelical thought of what I believed concerning Jesus.

[teddyaware]

As a non-practicing Mormon, I have little, if anything to say about the initial comment. If someone wants to quote me scripture, that's fine, but you'd be better off quoting The Catcher in the Rye. As for what practicing Mormons believe, when I was a one of those, I really can't imagine why it would matter what an Evangelical thought of what I believed concerning Jesus.

Thanks Grimace! Looks like we're putting on a bit more of a cheery face now, aren't we .

I'm concerned about what the Evangelicals think of the Latter Day Saint's understanding of the portion of Christ's atoning sacrifice that took place upon the the cross because some of us Mormons tend to minimize the salvative significance of what took place there, thereby unnecessarily turning off people whom we hope one day to convert to the Restored Gospel. You know, it's sort of a love thy neighbor and walk a mile in their shoes sort of thing.

The Catcher in the Rye, aye? That's a pretty big leap to there from the Book of Mormon. I hope this doesn't mean you're into smelly socks...

[The Grimace]

Thanks Grimace! Looks like we're putting on a bit more of a cheery face now, aren't we .

I'm concerned about what the Evangelicals think of the Latter Day Saint's understanding of the portion of Christ's atoning sacrifice that took place upon the the cross because some of us Mormons tend to minimize the salvative significance of what took place there, thereby unnecessarily turning off people whom we hope one day to convert to the Restored Gospel. You know, it's sort of a love thy neighbor and walk a mile in their shoes sort of thing.

The Catcher in the Rye, aye? That's a pretty big leap to there from the Book of Mormon. I hope this doesn't mean you're into smelly socks...

I don't think Mormons minimize what happened on the cross, they just take a more expansive view of where and when the atonement occurred.

[zerinus]

I don't think Mormons minimize what happened on the cross, they just take a more expansive view of where and when the atonement occurred.

Mormons have generally taught that the Atonement, or at least the bigger part of it, took place in Gethsene rather than on the cross. There are some of us who think that is doing things the wrong way round, kind of like putting the cart before the horse. What do you think?

[MormonMason]

The resurrection is not the Atonement, and has nothing to do with the Atonement. Anybody who can read the dictionary can know that. I looked up the word atonement in online dictionaries, and here are some of the definitions I found. In these definitions I have omitted all the religious or theological definitions. All the dictionaries give a religious as well as a non-religious definition of the word. I have only included the non-religious definitions so as not to give a biased definition:

• satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong
  
• the action of making amends for a wrong or injury
  
• satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.
  
• reparation for an offense or injury: satisfaction
  
• Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
  
• repayment, compensation, or reparation made for a wrongdoing or mistake
  

None of these definitions tally with the resurrection; but they do tally with the sufferings of Christ on our behalf, on the cross and elsewhere, in which He took upon Himself the burden of our sins, and thus paid (atoned) for them.

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.

[zerinus]

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.

Do you have a useful contribution to make to this discussion apart from calling me names? I have seen no sign of it yet.

The resurrection is not the Atonement, or even part of the Atonement. It is a result of the Atonemewnt. Sin brought death into the world, and the Atonement reversed the process and brought back life. But the resurrection is not the Atonement, or even part of the Atonement.

If I became sick and went to the doctor, and he prescribed me a bitter medicine for it; and after eating the medicine I became well again; my becoming well is a result of taking that medicine, not the medicine itself, or even part of the medicine. You want to tell me that my getting well is the same as the medicine which I took to get well, which is a ridiculous nonsense. The Atonement consists of the "bitter cup" that Jesus had to drink (i.e. the suffering and death He endured on our behalf); and the resurrection is the result of that Atonement. It is not the Atonement itself, or even part of the Atonement.

Edited October 7, 2012 by zerinus