The Ultimate "What Would Jesus Do?" Question?

[Questing Beast]

Christianity that accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of all creation, believes in "the infinite and eternal atonement". Christ suffered so that the repentant must not. The suffering was/is of a cosmic proportion only fathomable and possible to a God. We are so in awe and horror of the magnitude of that suffering that to be spared even our part in it forms the main motivation to believe, behave, repent and let Christ take all the punishment in our stead. The main sign of successfully drawing upon the atonement is inner peace, that "peace which passes all understanding". If you feel it, then you must be "in with God", and the atonement is extended to you because of your worthiness. That's the Mormon view. The Born Agains do not claim to be worthy of anything, but accept that belief in, confessing Christ Jesus, results in genuine forgiveness infinite and eternal: "not by any act of theirs, but by his good pleasure", etc. Aside from the differences in viewing our personal responsibility, our role, in getting efficacious blessings out of the atonement, we all agree that what Jesus Christ went through (goes through) on our behalf is something we don't want to experience, not even a little bit.

Here's a poser: IF you were convinced that the continued existence of the world depended on YOU, and that you would have to suffer some kind of eternal and continual outpouring of yourself to keep the world "running" for everybody else, "what would Jesus do?" The answer is obvious: he already does it. But would you do it? If you had the power and the decision is yours alone? If you refused, the world vanishes away, along with everyone and everything you love about it. Gone. We are all supposed to ask "what would Jesus do?" for everything else wherein we must decide how to act. It seems perverse that it should stop there, just so "a God" can do the rest for us. How will you live with yourself knowing that you exist only because "God" suffers it, literally?

That is why I can't get myself to believe in the atonement as a literal event. It points out illustratively how much "God" loves the world of humans, but an all powerful being would not have to suffer eternally just to keep "his" creation rolling.

I'm working into a mood, and hopefully a capacity, to research the history of evolving "atonement theory". I am convinced beforehand, because of my unbelief, that doctrines of the atonement are built upon earlier borrowed (even pagan) notions about "the suffering god(s)". Anybody know of a good book on the subject where I can start?...

[pogi]

That is why I can't get myself to believe in the atonement as a literal event. It points out illustratively how much "God" loves the world of humans, but an all powerful being would not have to suffer eternally just to keep "his" creation rolling.

I have never imagined that he is suffering eternally. He already paid the price of sin, he has already vanquished sin, he drank the bitter cup and finished his mission.

[CV75]

doctrines of the atonement are built upon earlier borrowed (even pagan) notions about "the suffering god(s)". Anybody know of a good book on the subject where I can start?...

“How to be a Jewish Mother: a very lovely training manual “ by Dan Greenburg

[Storm Rider]

It has never been my understanding that Jesus suffers eternally; he paid the price once and his suffering ended. Do you have any scriptural basis for saying that Jesus continues to suffer for man?

[LordUther]

I agree with the above, the Saviour suffered in the garden of Gethsemane, under torture & upon the cross. His death ended that suffering and his resurrection conquered all adversity.

[why me]

It has never been my understanding that Jesus suffers eternally; he paid the price once and his suffering ended. Do you have any scriptural basis for saying that Jesus continues to suffer for man?

Not only that but if he appeared to Joseph Smith with the father and did not seem to be suffering, I would think that this was proof that he isn't suffering. Interestingly, the catholics have a saint called Saint Faustina. She wrote a diary when she was a nun. In that diary which is widely read by catholics, one can see this sister receiving visitations from christ and christ seems to be always in suffering mode.

[Calm]

I agree with the above, the Saviour suffered in the garden of Gethsemane, under torture & upon the cross. His death ended that suffering and his resurrection conquered all adversity.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[pmccombs1]

It has never been my understanding that Jesus suffers eternally; he paid the price once and his suffering ended. Do you have any scriptural basis for saying that Jesus continues to suffer for man?

There are some who believe that God exists beyond time; that he sees the beginning and the end and that all of eternity is as one day to Him.

When today becomes yesterday, that day is not destroyed. There is still a moment in a living, real eternity in which Jesus suffers. Though we are not in that time, it is not gone. It is our language that puts beginnings and ending on things, yet the possibility is very real that in some past age, Jesus suffers for us still.

And that is also the importance of using our time wisely, for a wasted day cannot be erased. Perhaps we live in an eternal Now.

Edited July 29, 2013 by pmccombs1

[theplains]

Not only that but if he appeared to Joseph Smith with the father and did not seem to be suffering, I would think that this was proof that he isn't suffering.

I have never seen any authentic sources which show what expression Jesus had when he supposedly

appeared to Joseph Smith.

Interestingly, the catholics have a saint called Saint Faustina. She wrote a diary when she was a nun. In that diary which is widely read by catholics, one can see this sister receiving visitations from christ and christ seems to be always in suffering mode.

I have seen various art depictions of Jesus, and even Mary, that show they were more

sad than happy. Not what you would expect with all the angels worshipping Him in

heaven. My dad has a portrait in his bedroom with the Madonna and child. This imagery

makes it harder for him to view Christ as Lord and Savior.

Regards,

Jim

[TOmNossor]

Questioning Beast,

I am quite convinced that I do not understand the atonement. As one who has (and does) deeply hurt those around me, I am quite convinced that forgiveness is MIRACULOUS. An event beyond human understanding makes possible the reconciliation of man to God, of man to man, of .... The atonement is infinite and beyond our human understanding precisely because it is divine and the merely human is incapable of bringing about what the atonement brought about. You can only give me forgiveness when I do not deserve it because if I deserved it then it would not be forgiveness at all. How non-human is that!!!

That being said, there is much to recommend attempted understanding of these divine concepts. I do not believe things merely because they are unbelievable.

I personally think there is much to Ostler’s “Compassionate Theory of Atonement.”

Here is a lot about this (and it is also in volume 2 of Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God -I think).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblakeostler.com%2Fdocs%2FAtonementInMormonThought.pdf&ei=qej2Uca0JqqViQL0lIGwDA&usg=AFQjCNHzPlSfZYcxKUVLUeBCg4aieG9F4Q&sig2=0C4-na0vPBsQgEAUfU0kTg&bvm=bv.49967636,d.cGE

To get you started on exploring theories of atonement here is a brief paragraph:

(1) atonement is like being acquitted in a court of law and therefore accepted as in right covenant relationship with God (the doctrine of justification by faith – Rom. 3:21-4:25; 1 Cor. 1:30);

(2) atonement is like having the price of one’s release from slavery paid by a charitable benefactor (the doctrine of redemption – Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14);

(3) atonement is like being reconciled from alienation and healing a breach of relationship between friends (2 Cor. 5:18-19; Col. 1:20-21);

(4) atonement is like a sacrificial offering of a paschal lamb or other offering that expiates or eradicates sin (Heb. 10:12; 1 Cor. 5:7);

(5) atonement is like a military victory over forces of evil (Gal. 1:4; Col. 2:15)

However, such word-pictures give rise to numerous notions that often don’t work well together. They give rise to numerous questions that aren’t answered by such metaphors.

For a more detailed description of the various theories, you can read Blake’s book or this Thang thread is good:

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/

I have little doubt that it will be possible to find hints of atonement thought pre-Christ. I am not presently aware of hints that are stronger than things like pagan roots for the Kyrie Eleison or the temple ceremony, but I am fully confident that when one looks one can find.

If there are pre-Christian roots that were clearly causal rather than coincidental, I as a LDS would of course recognize we believe that prophets knew more about Christ then most Christians believe and it would be far tougher for non-dispensationalists to deal with such things.

In any case, you said,

I'm working into a mood, and hopefully a capacity, to research the history of evolving "atonement theory". I am convinced beforehand, because of my unbelief, that doctrines of the atonement are built upon earlier borrowed (even pagan) notions about "the suffering god(s)". Anybody know of a good book on the subject where I can start?...

I expect you will find. I fear that I too find things about Catholicism that point to the need for a restoration because as a LDS I am/was looking. I am really unsure why one would so welcome unbelief as to seek it, but I have faith that God can walk with you just the same.

I hope at least the first part of this post will be welcome AND helpful on your question. And may God be with you.

Charity, TOm

[canard78]

I'm working into a mood, and hopefully a capacity, to research the history of evolving "atonement theory". I am convinced beforehand, because of my unbelief, that doctrines of the atonement are built upon earlier borrowed (even pagan) notions about "the suffering god(s)". Anybody know of a good book on the subject where I can start?...

Then don't be surprised if that's the conclusion your research leads you to.

[mfbukowski]

Charity, TOm

Very good to see you! It's been years!

I don't want to derail the thread but I recall a story you posted - perhaps at Catholic answers- in a previous discussion about how God can guide us with a "true testimony" to join another church if indeed that suits his overall plan.

I will tell the story briefly as I remember it. A friend of yours was a Mormon, (as I recall) who felt a strong spiritual confirmation to join another church (the Presbyterians as I recall) and did so. He remained a faithful Presbyterian and moved up in influence in the church, and was eventually selected to participate in an Ecumenical council with some Mormons because of his background.

The council was effective, and helped to soften some animosity between the two churches.

Later, after the council, he felt called to return to the LDS church and did so. He was convinced that indeed it was his mission to follow the Spirit to make both changes so that he could help the two churches become closer.

Did I get some of that right? Anyway, welcome back and really good to see you!

[Questing Beast]

I have never imagined that he is suffering eternally. He already paid the price of sin, he has already vanquished sin, he drank the bitter cup and finished his mission.

All things are as one with God, correct? Time is measured only to man, not God. All of existence is as a single day to God. All things are before his face continually. That can only mean that at some level the atonement is constant. It couldn't be a once-off event on an insignificant planet that took less than 24 hours and was then a done deal, for all of creation, end of story. Such a view is both simplistic and lacking realistic imagination, imho....

[Questing Beast]

It has never been my understanding that Jesus suffers eternally; he paid the price once and his suffering ended. Do you have any scriptural basis for saying that Jesus continues to suffer for man?

See my scriptural response to pogi above....

[Questing Beast]

Questioning Beast,

I am quite convinced that I do not understand the atonement. As one who has (and does) deeply hurt those around me, I am quite convinced that forgiveness is MIRACULOUS. An event beyond human understanding makes possible the reconciliation of man to God, of man to man, of .... The atonement is infinite and beyond our human understanding precisely because it is divine and the merely human is incapable of bringing about what the atonement brought about. You can only give me forgiveness when I do not deserve it because if I deserved it then it would not be forgiveness at all. How non-human is that!!!

The "atonement" doesn't have to be a painful, unsolicited sacrifice. To believe that "God", the very Cause of Existence, is required by some immutable mandate transcending "himself", to undergo what the scriptures attempt to describe as "the atonement", is to my mind a belief in a less than all-powerful god. All suffering and Joy originate with "God", since all Existence does also. That means that yes, "God" suffers continually with "his" creation, because we cannot experience emotions and states of being foreign to "God". But it is quite a different matter to assert that to "SAVE" us, "God" was compelled to condescend, or else we would be lost forever; and that the process of saving required infinite suffering, and eternal application, i.e. neverending suffering, specific to "God" alone. There's something out of kilter with that doctrine, vis-a-vis "God Is omnipotent".

And then there is the other part of my OP: if saving the world depended on you submitting to the same, i.e. doing what Jesus did, would the world continue or end? Shouldn't we be willing to do our part, no matter how small it is? Instead, we flee from suffering and the imperfection that causes it, and hope that Jesus Christ will take it all on himself. We do this, facilely assuming that an "infinite and eternal atonement" means that a once-off less than 24 hour bout of suffering pays for every imperfection in creation, forever. That doesn't work logically. I thought that cause and effect had to more or less balance out. How can 24 hours on earth cover all imperfections/sins, etc., throughout all of creation for all eternity? That's why Mormon exegesis includes speculation that an "eternity" is more like an epoch, only "longer", and that each "eternity" requires an "infinite and eternal atonement". Trying to wrap your mind around what is going on with that is of course inadequate to the point of being impossible. So "it is a mystery". Why not just accept that "God" intends for everyone to be joyful, and that this world of humans includes endless scenarios to teach us what is joyful and what is not. It looks at the moment as if some/many people are being the opposite of joyful, and causing a great deal of misery in others at the same time, but that is all temporary as the scenario is. Once we get away from "being there" (here), we see what we have learned so far. Right now, not so much.

... I am really unsure why one would so welcome unbelief as to seek it, but I have faith that God can walk with you just the same.

I hope at least the first part of this post will be welcome AND helpful on your question. And may God be with you.

Charity, TOm

Thank you. I am not seeking unbelief. I am seeking to understand why I believe the way that I do, which is severed from the dogmatic, organized religions approach so bound to our species' history. For I do believe that "God" does not, and never did, institute singular religion with oracles placed between "himself" and individuals. I believe that "God" is directly connected to each of us, always and forever, thus we do not need all the controlling gobbledygook that comes with organized, dogmatic religions. Mormonism is hardly an exception, being one of the most controlling, dogmatic religious paradigms ever created....

[urroner]

D&C 19:2,6-12.16-18

2. I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

15 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.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

What I get from these verses is that Christ's suffering for our sins has ended, especially in view of what verse six says, "Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment...."

[The Nehor]

That is why I can't get myself to believe in the atonement as a literal event. It points out illustratively how much "God" loves the world of humans, but an all powerful being would not have to suffer eternally just to keep "his" creation rolling.

I do not know of any faith that teaches such an atonement......

[pogi]

All things are as one with God, correct? Time is measured only to man, not God. All of existence is as a single day to God. All things are before his face continually. That can only mean that at some level the atonement is constant. It couldn't be a once-off event on an insignificant planet that took less than 24 hours and was then a done deal, for all of creation, end of story. Such a view is both simplistic and lacking realistic imagination, imho....

The wage of sin, or in other words, the suffering that comes of sin is spiritual and physical death (Rom 6:23). Christ is neither spiritually nor physically dead, therefore he is no longer suffering for sin. Christ lives!

It is a simplistic view, but my dad always taught me to "keep it simple stupid."

[urroner]

Time to God is measured differently from our time, I believe for two reaons:

1. He is immortal and time perception to an immortal is very different for that of on whose time is limited.
   
2. The temporal dimension His time is measured by is a different temporal dimension than ours. He can be outside of our TD and thus he might be able to see beginning to end of our TD in some way. He might have the ability to move forwards and backwards in our TD. I feel that He is an extra-dimensional being which means He is subject to physical laws which we can't even begin to comprehend.
   

[Storm Rider]

All things are as one with God, correct? Time is measured only to man, not God. All of existence is as a single day to God. All things are before his face continually. That can only mean that at some level the atonement is constant. It couldn't be a once-off event on an insignificant planet that took less than 24 hours and was then a done deal, for all of creation, end of story. Such a view is both simplistic and lacking realistic imagination, imho....

"realistic imagination" is a novel concept I have never heard about. Who gets to determine between what is realistic imagination and what is not? You are taking a selection of comments given for vast array of contexts and then creating your own conclusion to meet your predetermined objective. There was a single price to pay for all sin; that price has been paid. Each sin that you commit does not increase the price of the atonement and does not cause the Savior new pain. The effects of the atonement are constant, but the price paid was a singular event.

[LordUther]

All things are as one with God, correct? Time is measured only to man, not God. All of existence is as a single day to God. All things are before his face continually. That can only mean that at some level the atonement is constant. It couldn't be a once-off event on an insignificant planet that took less than 24 hours and was then a done deal, for all of creation, end of story. Such a view is both simplistic and lacking realistic imagination, imho....

I happen to agree with you that an Exalted Being lives beyond the bounds of time & exists at every point in space time simultaneously, and so as such it is possible that our Saviour does at all times remember his suffering in Gethsemane but how vast is eternity? Think of all the joyous experiences the Saviour has experienced through His existence. The council in Heaven, the creation of Earth, his resurrection & conquest over sin & death, the joy He takes in every small act of kindness that is performed, His joy in seeing us, His younger brothers & sisters, fulfilling their destiny and becoming exalted themselves, the fruition of all the marvellous works & wonders that have been, are now and will be performed in His name. His joy as he himself becomes a Heavenly Father and starts his own plan of salvation, as we who prove ourselves do the same. All the joyous moments that have no beginning or end would surely swamp the pain & suffering he suffered in the garden through to his death on the cross. In His exaltation that moment would be but a blink of the eye & swamped by all the other glorious moments he has experienced.

[TOmNossor]

Very good to see you! It's been years!

I don't want to derail the thread but I recall a story you posted - perhaps at Catholic answers- in a previous discussion about how God can guide us with a "true testimony" to join another church if indeed that suits his overall plan.

I will tell the story briefly as I remember it. A friend of yours was a Mormon, (as I recall) who felt a strong spiritual confirmation to join another church (the Presbyterians as I recall) and did so. He remained a faithful Presbyterian and moved up in influence in the church, and was eventually selected to participate in an Ecumenical council with some Mormons because of his background.

The council was effective, and helped to soften some animosity between the two churches.

Later, after the council, he felt called to return to the LDS church and did so. He was convinced that indeed it was his mission to follow the Spirit to make both changes so that he could help the two churches become closer.

Did I get some of that right? Anyway, welcome back and really good to see you!

Hello again. I hope to pop in briefly and occasionally, we will see if I can make that happen.

I am pretty sure that I never said I personally knew this person, but I remember one of the details you mention above that is not true of the person I think I referred to before so I probably invented that detail.

Roger Keller was a Presbyterian minister. He became a LDS. I believes he was called by God to be a Presbyterian minister (and I remember him claiming this in some written thing on the Internet), but he was not a LDS when he became a Presbyterian. I vaguely remember that detail that you remember, so perhaps I thought I saw something and offered that mistakenly. I cannot think of anyone else I might have mentioned to better fit so I think it was Roger Keller. This is from an old FAIR conference.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2168567/posts

As I interact with more and more people who have deep and wonderful faith, I am not less convinced that the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of God’s gospel that seekers will recognize as teaching God’s truth most fully either before or after their death; but I am convinced that Presbyterian ministers like Roger Keller heed God’s call and worship Him in Spirit and Truth. I also see God as being so much bigger and greater than I can understand. I am still somewhat uncomfortable with the path that involves rejecting God and railing against theism, but I am not convinced that God does not use such a path for greater good (even the greater good of the rejecter). Still it is not a path that I would recommend.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Hello QB.

I am not sure you read Ostler’s article on his theory of atonement. I think he addresses the idea that God need not extract a pound of flesh to bring about some state of affairs if God was omnipotent.

The "atonement" doesn't have to be a painful, unsolicited sacrifice. To believe that "God", the very Cause of Existence, is required by some immutable mandate transcending "himself", to undergo what the scriptures attempt to describe as "the atonement", is to my mind a belief in a less than all-powerful god. All suffering and Joy originate with "God", since all Existence does also. That means that yes, "God" suffers continually with "his" creation, because we cannot experience emotions and states of being foreign to "God". But it is quite a different matter to assert that to "SAVE" us, "God" was compelled to condescend, or else we would be lost forever; and that the process of saving required infinite suffering, and eternal application, i.e. neverending suffering, specific to "God" alone. There's something out of kilter with that doctrine, vis-a-vis "God Is omnipotent".

Within the LDS tradition there is a vein of thought that explains suffering primarily through the limits of God’s omnipotence. I am not a fan of this thought, but I gladly worship with folks who think this incorrect IMO thing.

All but the most committed Calvinists believe that God is not so powerful that He can bring to pass your free actions. There are limits upon God’s omnipotence IF we have power to bring about our free actions.

I think God has given us the ability to reason and reasoning is important. I am not sure when our difficulties with understanding things like why atonement is described as painful crosses from the God-approved use of reason to the my-way-is-better than God’s use of reason, but I am quite convinced I can fall into that trap.

Now, one of the aspects of the atonement theory Ostler advocates that I find very compelling is that the pain experienced and described in atonement scriptures is associated with being in relationship with sinful people. Sin creates pain. We can live in our sins and suffer the pain associated with them OR we can embrace the love Christ offers us and release this pain to Him. That embracing of Christ frees us from much of the pain sin creates because when we completely do this we no longer hold the guilt and damage within ourselves. But, the cost (for Christ) of loving us and knowing perfectly how sinful our choices are is pain. Christ didn’t need to experience this pain. He could just love the Father and receive the love of the Father, but he chose to love us and that hurts.

As someone who hurts the ones I love (and more importantly the ones who love me) with my poor choices I can see a lot of natural truth in the above view.

And then there is the other part of my OP: if saving the world depended on you submitting to the same, i.e. doing what Jesus did, would the world continue or end? Shouldn't we be willing to do our part, no matter how small it is? Instead, we flee from suffering and the imperfection that causes it, and hope that Jesus Christ will take it all on himself. We do this, facilely assuming that an "infinite and eternal atonement" means that a once-off less than 24 hour bout of suffering pays for every imperfection in creation, forever. That doesn't work logically. I thought that cause and effect had to more or less balance out. How can 24 hours on earth cover all imperfections/sins, etc., throughout all of creation for all eternity? That's why Mormon exegesis includes speculation that an "eternity" is more like an epoch, only "longer", and that each "eternity" requires an "infinite and eternal atonement". Trying to wrap your mind around what is going on with that is of course inadequate to the point of being impossible. So "it is a mystery". Why not just accept that "God" intends for everyone to be joyful, and that this world of humans includes endless scenarios to teach us what is joyful and what is not. It looks at the moment as if some/many people are being the opposite of joyful, and causing a great deal of misery in others at the same time, but that is all temporary as the scenario is. Once we get away from "being there" (here), we see what we have learned so far. Right now, not so much.

Again, I think the second great commandment invites us to absorb sin energy just as Christ ultimately absorbs ours. A wonderful Methodist man has absorbed some of my sin energy. As I struggled to navigate life’s challenges he became a mentor for me. To the extent I could, Christ absorbed much of the sin energy my actions created, but this man was there for me too. I remember wondering how he could love so much, but the answer is that some of the sin energy I off-loaded on him he shuttled to Christ. He was following the second great commandment to love me, but it was Christ’s love for Him that gave Him strength I hope I am beginning to realize in my life (allowing me to shuttle sin energy from those I love too, rather than becoming overwhelmed by the pain they cause me).

Thank you. I am not seeking unbelief. I am seeking to understand why I believe the way that I do, which is severed from the dogmatic, organized religions approach so bound to our species' history. For I do believe that "God" does not, and never did, institute singular religion with oracles placed between "himself" and individuals. I believe that "God" is directly connected to each of us, always and forever, thus we do not need all the controlling gobbledygook that comes with organized, dogmatic religions. Mormonism is hardly an exception, being one of the most controlling, dogmatic religious paradigms ever created....

I personally think Mormonism is one of the most DEMANDING religious paradigms ever created, precisely because we are called to sacrifice our ALL. But, I consider Mormonism to be among the lease dogmatic religions. As I mentioned above, there are LDS who hold that God’s power is so limited that this is the response to the “problem of evil.” I VERY MUCH disagree with this view, but I think God’s love provides sufficient reason to worship Him and if that works for the guy next to me in the pew then I find no reason to drum him out of the church, report him to the ..., or ....

I do not feel controlled, but I suggest that is just a paradigm. I choose to work within the CoJCoLDS. I like to say “yes” when the missionaries call and ask for rides, but I say “no” when I need to say “no.” I spent last Sunday shoveling dirt and mud instead of going to church because the mire was in the building (my wife’s school flooded), but then I grabbed the missionaries and visited my home teaching families. It was all a choice. I could have napped, attended church, or shoveled dirt. When I am honest with myself, I know I am not controlled.

Anyway, I think Ostler responds to many of the atonement concerns you express (in a faithful LDS way), but he presents no evidence that the atonement is a teaching Christians borrowed from Ugaritic texts so perhaps there are other places you would like to study.

Charity, TOm

[pogi]

All things are as one with God, correct? Time is measured only to man, not God. All of existence is as a single day to God. All things are before his face continually. That can only mean that at some level the atonement is constant.

I don't pretend to know how God experiences reality. While he may have all of history, present, and future continually before his face, this is not to say that he is viscerally experiencing them all at once, all of the time. God himself has said that there may be a limit to what is before his face. He said, when we repent, he will remember our sins no more. This, to me, assures me that he is not continually and constantly suffering for my sins. Christ may "remember" our unrepentant sins, but that is not the same as suffering for them constantly.

[Questing Beast]

D&C 19:2,6-12.16-18

What I get from these verses is that Christ's suffering for our sins has ended, especially in view of what verse six says, "Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment...."

It is speaking of "our" suffering, it won't be without an end. Christ is not speaking of his suffering. There is nothing in it to suggest that the atonement was a done deal within 24 hours on Earth. As already pointed out, time is present, beginning and end, with God. That means that if literally true as presented by Judeo-Christianity, the atonement is constantly present....