The Atonement

[Duncan]

You have forgotten though that there is more to exaltation than merely being justified.   One must also be sanctified in order to become heirs of the kingdom with Christ.

 

Yes, such people who will not allow Christ's Atonement to pay for their sins will suffer and pay for them themselves-they will fulfill their debt to 'justice' completely.  They will be justified.  However, being justified does not equal being sanctified.  

 

Becoming holy is a process that only happens when a person accepts Christ and submits to Him.  These people who have suffered for their own sins won't necessarily have submitted to Christ.  They won't necessarily have become as a little child.  The spirit won't necessarily have the ability to purify them or refine them into holy beings through the grace of Christ.

 

All those things are necessary in order to become joint heirs with Christ.  A person can suffer for their own sins, but they cannot on their own, under such circumstances, become sanctified.  And without that, there is no true (or in other words, full) salvation.  

 

Christ truly is the only way.

 

 

I don't think in 20 lifetimes I could explain it as well as you!!! you have a gift!

Edited December 29, 2013 by Duncan

[CV75]

I see the Atonement as the infinite amount and nature of work that had to be done to undo what Adam and his posterity did in removing ourselves from the presence of God. This is discussed in the new President Smith lesson manual, Chapter 3, which aligns with the teachings in Alma 34.

 

Cleaning up someone else's mess always takes resources, wherewithal, effort and sacrifice; no way around it. To do it with a godly attitude, even more so.

 

The Lord's Atonement had to oppose and undo our selfishness in our perceived gain from sinning, hence the selflessness and sacrificial nature of it. It had to be as extensive in restoring order as our causing havoc, as voluntary in righteousness as our misdeeds (including our robbing others of their agency), and as comprehensive in understanding the light as our ignorance of or blindness to it. Hence the description the Savior gives about it in D&C 19 as infinite and eternal. The way He suffered is clearly a function of the accumulated wrongs of lesser souls, the workload simply demanded it, and He accepted that task.

[Duncan]

I see the Atonement as the infinite amount and nature of work that had to be done to undo what Adam and his posterity did in removing ourselves from the presence of God. This is discussed in the new President Smith lesson manual, Chapter 3, which aligns with the teachings in Alma 34.

 

Cleaning up someone else's mess always takes resources, wherewithal, effort and sacrifice; no way around it. To do it with a godly attitude, even more so.

 

The Lord's Atonement had to oppose and undo our selfishness in our perceived gain from sinning, hence the selflessness and sacrificial nature of it. It had to be as extensive in restoring order as our causing havoc, as voluntary in righteousness as our misdeeds (including our robbing others of their agency), and as comprehensive in understanding the light as our ignorance of or blindness to it. Hence the description the Savior gives about it in D&C 19 as infinite and eternal. The way He suffered is clearly a function of the accumulated wrongs of lesser souls, the workload simply demanded it, and He accepted that task.

 

 

My mind has been blown like two times today

[Tacenda]

I agree Duncan, Bluebell has some good stuff there!

Edited December 29, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

So you believe the scapegoat aspect of ancient Israel worship, as part of the law of Moses, was not implemented by God but was purely a human construct?

I believe the scapegoat sacrifices under the law of Moses was intended in a crude way to teach of a coming Messiah, it may have been used to impress the intelligences with the sacrifice, it was incapable of saving us.

[thesometimesaint]

Skousen's explanation centers the demands of justice around the uncreated intelligences that form the basis for everything. I'm sure you're aware of that one, right? Despite some people's irrational hatred of Cleon Skousen, its appeal is that it is the only explanation that explains the why and the how of the atonement, using Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP scriptures. I'm unaware of any other explanations (from GAs, or otherwise) that explain the how and why in a satisfactory way (in light of Joseph Smith's scriptural contributions).

 

Directly relevant to your OP, this explanation specifically begins by asking "Why did Jesus have to suffer like He did?"

To take upon himself all the death, sins, illnesses, tragedies, and travesties that happened from Adam forwards. To make us spotless, and without shame when we stand before God at Judgment.

[Stone holm]

To take upon himself all the death, sins, illnesses, tragedies, and travesties that happened from Adam forwards. To make us spotless, and without shame when we stand before God at Judgment.

That does not actually enlighten as to the why or how.

[thesometimesaint]

That does not actually enlighten as to the why or how.

 

Why? So we can return and be with God.

 

How? I have no clue.

[Rob Osborn]

No one can ever pay the price themselves for sins. This is a fact. As long as one does not accept Christ no suffering on their own will nor ever can pay the price. Because it requires a perfect and sinless lufe to gain immortality no mqn ia possible to undo his own sins. This tells me that the atonement is about something else than Christ suffering for anothers sins.

[Acris Venator]

I don't subscribe to the scapegoat concept of the Atonement or that Heavenly Father set the terms of the justice prescribed. That requires us to believe that Heavenly Father would have voluntarily established rules which required the torture and cruel death of His Son. That is an argument which is morally bankrupt.

 

If Jesus did indeed observe the Father perform a similar atoning sacrifice in another universe (as suggested by John 5:19) then I agree that it is not likely that God the Father set the terms. He simply upheld them, in full partnership with a willing volunteer who understood his answer to the call.

[Rob Osborn]

I tend to believe that Satans rebellion is an anomaly in the heavens rather than the norm. As such, the conditions set forth for this earth are different than normally happen.

[Stone holm]

I tend to believe that Satans rebellion is an anomaly in the heavens rather than the norm. As such, the conditions set forth for this earth are different than normally happen.

Possibly, somehow I think not. Not sure who plays the opposition role in that case.

[Rob Osborn]

Possibly, somehow I think not. Not sure who plays the opposition role in that case.

Who syas there has to be opposition in the form of evil in order for there to be good? What happens when the works of Satan are destroyed and evil no longer exists? Will good also cease to exist? Absolutely not. Opposition in all things is meant that the potential for it has to be possible, not that it actually must exist. What about before Satan became evil, did evil as a presence exist to tempt Satan?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[Stargazer]

Skousen's explanation centers the demands of justice around the uncreated intelligences that form the basis for everything. I'm sure you're aware of that one, right? Despite some people's irrational hatred of Cleon Skousen, its appeal is that it is the only explanation that explains the why and the how of the atonement, using Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP scriptures. I'm unaware of any other explanations (from GAs, or otherwise) that explain the how and why in a satisfactory way (in light of Joseph Smith's scriptural contributions).

 

Directly relevant to your OP, this explanation specifically begins by asking "Why did Jesus have to suffer like He did?"

 

Absolutely!  When I listened to Skousen's talk on the Atonement it made perfect sense, and gave me the first rational explanation of it.

 

That being said, and apparent rationality aside, is Skousen's interpretation correct?  That's the question, but I happen to be convinced of it.

[Stargazer]

Bingo! You know how few can go through the reasoning in the Church? Yes, the problem starts with the notion that HF actually made the rules of the game we call the Plan of Salvation. If HF made up the rules, who would make he rules require the bloody torture and killing of His own Son? And what would be the point of sacrificing Your Son just to make You feel better about your other Spirit Children? So there had to be an external reason, and the plan was a type of recipe developed over generations of gods. Christ said there was no greater act love than than to lay down ones life for another. But, HF already knew about the love that Christ was capable of so He could not have been the person that Christ was trying to convince. Skousen argued it was the intelligences of the universe that Christ had to convince. He also had to live a perfect life. Having lived a perfect life He was entitled to a fullness of joy, the purpose of His sacrifice was to prove to the intelligences of the universe that His joy would not be full without the companionship of His siblings. The purpose of our testing is to establish that we can be trusted to not abuse the authority which we will receive by reason of this Grace which He has bestowed upon us. The key to it all this is Christ's love. But, whether this reasoning is right or wrong, it is the depth of the thinking involved. Our members deserve to be taught more than just platitudes like " It was to fulfill the demands of justice" or "It was to carry out the Will of the Father" etc.

 

Amen.

 

I would quibble about whether this was a "recipe" that was "developed" and so on, but this restatement of yours is very elegant and has the ring of truth.  Thank you for posting it!

Edited December 30, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Yes, Skousen moves the discussion from God being a sadist to God winning a popularity contest. I guess it's a step in the right direction..

 

 

 

It's not a popularity contest. 

 

As you may or may not remember, God can cease to be God.  Says Father Lehi, anyway, and I believe him.  God is a moral being, and his Kingdom is held by virtue of that morality.  If that morality is ever called into question, then it's over.  Skousen says that this isn't going to happen because God knows how to avoid it -- but the way it could happen would be for God to permit mercy to rob justice.  And "mercifully" allowing a sinful being to escape eternal punishment would do it.

 

The only way to allow a sinful being to escape eternal punishment would be for that punishment to be assumed by a sinless being (who is capable of it because he has no sins for which he himself must pay), and then that sinless and yet punished being becomes capable of giving grace to sinful but repentant beings, enabling them to escape punishment legitiimately.  But only those who are repentant can be given that grace.

 

The difference between orthodox trinitarian Christians and us on this point is that they say that God cannot cease to be God (there is no mechanism for it in their view), and is thus forcibly moral for all of eternity.  In other words, God has no choice in the matter.  On the other hand, we believe God to be a being who is perfect by choice, who is capable of falling from power, but will not. 

 

I'm sure that there are lots of LDS out there who would drop their jaws at this post, but I am reasonably certain I speak that which is true.

[Stargazer]

My problem with understanding the atonement revolves around Christ taking upon himself our sins. If he took them then surely he has them. Although sinless himself he now has my sins, so surely he is no longer sinless? He suffered for them but does that erase them? If so, then anyone who fails to repent will do the same. They will suffer for the sins they carry until paid for. Surely then they will be sin free and heirs to the celestial kingdom just as Christ was?

 

No, he did not take upon him our sins.  It's a faulty restatement of the situation.  Christ took upon himself the punishment that a sinful being would be required to suffer.

 

There are those who say that Christ's suffering was an additive suffering -- that he suffered for my sins, and he suffered for yours, and he suffered for Stone Holms's sins, etc.  But this is not what the scripture says.

 

DC 19:16-18

 

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 bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink

 

 

You'll note that Christ is not speaking here of having suffered more than anyone else.  He makes it quite clear that you will have to suffer just as badly as He did, if you don't repent.  The superior virtue of Christ's suffering as compared to your suffering is not in the degree or the severity, but in that you will deserve it and He did not.  Also in that your suffering for your sins does not remove them, they are still accounted against you, for all that you have paid for them -- but if you allow through your repentance Christ's suffering to stand in for yours, well in that event you also get justification, meaning that it is as if you had never committed those sins.   You are clean, in other words.

 

On this point, I suggest you read "Justification and Sanctification" by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.  As he says:

 

 

Because of “the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice,” Jesus Christ can satisfy or “answer the ends of the law” on our behalf. Pardon comes by the grace of Him who has satisfied the demands of justice by His own suffering, “the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). He removes our condemnation without removing the law. We are pardoned and placed in a condition of righteousness with Him. We become, like Him, without sin. We are sustained and protected by the law, by justice. We are, in a word, justified.

 

But those who suffer for their own sins instead of taking Christ's sacrifice upon themselves (through repentance and baptism) are not justified.  They have, as it were, paid their debt to society (as we sometimes say about criminals who have served their allotted time in prison and paid their fines).  But they remain ex-convicts, and are not worthy of elevation.  Those who take Christ upon themselves not only do not suffer, they become clean, and if one is to continue the analogy with the human criminal justice system, they are those who are pardoned by the Governor, or the President, or for you Brits, the Queen (upon the advice of her ministers). 

 

I'd suggest reading Elder Christofferson's article above in its entirety.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

The current model of the atonement which most members accept, the penal theory, has a major problem. It would have us believe that suffering magically remits sin. This is simply not the case. If I suffer a million years my suffering does not free me from my sinful nature, nor the attendant consequences. The same holds for Christ, his suffering alone has never, and will never, free me from my sins. There is only one way I can be free. It is to change my ways (ie repent). Thus suffering is the penalty for sin but it is not the way to freedom, repentance is. 

 

Yes, I agree completely!  But without Christ's suffering, no amount of repentance would be sufficient to save us.

 

Further, each sin does not have a certain amount of required suffering. When I steal I do not incure 10 pain units which must be endured. Neither does my repentance transfer the balance of the pain units to Christ (Alma 34:11-12). What a messed up notion. We would never accept such a false concept in our legal system why do we accept it when talking about the atonement?

 

I would hesitate to compare our legal system's level of justice with that of God's, but this idea of additive sinfulness, and additive punishment for said sins is totally faulty, as you say.  In fact, all sins are equal in the sense that any committing even only one of them makes us unworthy to live with God in eternity.  The only difference bertween one sin and another is the difficulty of repentance for it.  It is nearly impossible to repent for murder, perhaps, but much less difficult to repent for theft.

 

In the most simple terms, Christ's atonement allowed him to be with us in this fallen world. Christ, "ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;...The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things" (D&C 88:6, 13). Because of Christ's atonement the Spirit strives with man and we are free to choose liberty and eternal life or death.

 

Agree 100%

[Coreyb]

Okay. Who can explain the Atonement without making Heavenly Father look like a sadist? No platitudes allowed.

Isn't it ourselves that keep each other out of the presence of the Father by demanding that justice fall upon all those who have chosen to offend us?

 

And the Lord said: What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood cries unto me from the ground.  Moses 5:35

 

Don't even the elements of  the earth (or intelligences of the universe for Skousen fans) demand recompense for the deeds done in their presence?

 

And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? Moses 7:48

 

It seems to me that it is not God who demands that justice be paid in full, but everyone and everything else. That is why we have this commandment...

 

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. Doctrine & Covenants 64:10

 

We are required to forgive those who have sinned against us as a prerequisite for our own sins to be forgiven.

 

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12

 

Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? Matt 18:32-33

But there is more to it than just *** for tat at the judgment bar. We must become one...

 

Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. D&C 38:27

 

...Just like the Gods are.

 

 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. John 17:11

 

That means to become perfect...

 

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt 5:48

 

...Just like Jesus did.

 

Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. 3 Nephi 12:48

 

Becoming perfect puts us in harmony or "oneness" with other perfect beings, like our Father and His Son. That means we must be perfectly one with each other, or at least with everyone else who wants to.  Remember the transitive property of equality? If A=B and B=C, then A MUST EQUAL C. As the ruler of His kingdom, it is up to our Father to decide who becomes His heirs, thus...

 

I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; D&C 1:31

 

He cannot give His power to those will not forgive the debts of others or who are in debt either to another of His Children, to other living things...

 

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

 

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Genesis 8:5-6

...or to the very intelligences/ elements of earth. Murder is the ultimate example, but all sin must be atoned for in the same way...

 

For the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23

 

Have you ever imagined that someday you may be in line for your keys to a mansion on a celestialized earth, and the guy in front of you is the guy who on earth raped your daughter, got drunk and killed your husband in an auto accident, swindled your elderly mother out of her retirement savings, stole your genius idea that made millions, or even just took your high school sweetheart? Then to realize that in order to inherit your thrones, dominions and powers of all heights and depths, you must not hold ANY ILL FEELINGS toward this person! Why is this jerk here?! What about Justice?! Every innocent victim has a rightful claim to Justice

 

But behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction. Jacob 3:1

 

God cannot save you both, unless you are reconciled to each other, and therefore, to Him. How can he chose between two of his children who both want to be saved and exalted? That is why He sent His Son...

 

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; D&C 19:16

 

...so that we can all be unified and feel justified, with God, His Son, and each other. I cannot repay everyone I have stolen from, recant all the lies I told, heal every wound I have inflicted both physically and spiritually, nor give back the virtue I have taken, but my Christ can. He chose to suffer everyone's heartbreak and carry everyone's burden, not because His Father needed Him to do it, but because we need Him to.  I choose to make covenants with Him, and pray that those I have offended, and those who have offended me will choose to do so as well, so that someday we can look each other in the eye and have no strife between us, only Love Unfeigned.

[janderich]

It's not a popularity contest. 

 

As you may or may not remember, God can cease to be God.  Says Father Lehi, anyway, and I believe him.  God is a moral being, and his Kingdom is held by virtue of that morality.  If that morality is ever called into question, then it's over.  Skousen says that this isn't going to happen because God knows how to avoid it -- but the way it could happen would be for God to permit mercy to rob justice.  And "mercifully" allowing a sinful being to escape eternal punishment would do it.

 

The only way to allow a sinful being to escape eternal punishment would be for that punishment to be assumed by a sinless being (who is capable of it because he has no sins for which he himself must pay), and then that sinless and yet punished being becomes capable of giving grace to sinful but repentant beings, enabling them to escape punishment legitiimately.  But only those who are repentant can be given that grace.

 

The difference between orthodox trinitarian Christians and us on this point is that they say that God cannot cease to be God (there is no mechanism for it in their view), and is thus forcibly moral for all of eternity.  In other words, God has no choice in the matter.  On the other hand, we believe God to be a being who is perfect by choice, who is capable of falling from power, but will not. ...

So God is beholden to all the little intelligences running around. If he does not make those intelligences happy then he falls from his standing as God, i.e. loses the popularity contest.

 

Alma is the one who refers to God ceasing to be God (Alma 42:13, 22-23). By so doing he is proving that law is eternal. This is a classic form of argument, reductio ad absurdum. There is law because if not God would cease to be God. It is absurd to believe that God would cease to be God, and so law is eternal. We must not twist his point. He is not acknowledging that God can cease to be God, quite the opposite. If such were the case, then who is to say that God has not fallen? We can have no faith in a being who could fall at any time. 

 

Lehi uses the same type of argument (2 Ne 2:13) also in regards to law. However, in it he does not say, "God would cease to be God" but rather, "And if these things are not there is no God". Clearly there is a God. We do not work backwards from Lehi's statement and say "perhaps there might be no God". So why then do we do it with Alma's statement?

 

Addition: God is not beholden to you or me for his power. This is such a false notion that I can't believe it has gained any traction. We sinned. We created the injustice. God did not have to send his Son in order to retain his power in the universe. Christ did not have to die for God, only for us. All that would have happened is that we would have fallen not Him. Isaiah's words our instructive, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4-5).

Edited December 30, 2013 by janderich

[Stone holm]

Who syas there has to be opposition in the form of evil in order for there to be good? What happens when the works of Satan are destroyed and evil no longer exists? Will good also cease to exist? Absolutely not. Opposition in all things is meant that the potential for it has to be possible, not that it actually must exist. What about before Satan became evil, did evil as a presence exist to tempt Satan?

I think that is not necessarily correct.

[Tacenda]

So God is beholden to all the little intelligences running around. If he does not make those intelligences happy then he falls from his standing as God, i.e. loses the popularity contest.

Alma is the one who refers to God ceasing to be God (Alma 42:13, 22-23). By so doing he is proving that law is eternal. This is a classic form of argument, reductio ad absurdum. There is law because if not God would cease to be God. It is absurd to believe that God would cease to be God, and so law is eternal. We must not twist his point. He is not acknowledging that God can cease to be God, quite the opposite. If such were the case, then who is to say that God has not fallen? We can have no faith in a being who could fall at any time.

Lehi uses the same type of argument (2 Ne 2:13) also in regards to law. However, in it he does not say, "God would cease to be God" but rather, "And if these things are not there is no God". Clearly there is a God. We do not work backwards from Lehi's statement and say "perhaps there might be no God". So why then do we do it with Alma's statement?

Addition: God is not beholden to you or me for his power. This is such a false notion that I can't believe it has gained any traction. We sinned. We created the injustice. God did not have to send his Son in order to retain his power in the universe. Christ did not have to die for God, only for us. All that would have happened is that we would have fallen not Him. Isaiah's words our instructive, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4-5).

So agree with this! And keep thinking that it really is that God is spirit and took on a body of flesh, and is a three in one God. It feels so much more powerful to me, more encompassing and big, and unbelievable, and my mind is unable to understand because He is THAT capable!

[CV75]

Have you ever imagined that someday you may be in line for your keys to a mansion on a celestialized earth, and the guy in front of you is the guy who on earth raped your daughter, got drunk and killed your husband in an auto accident, swindled your elderly mother out of her retirement savings, stole your genius idea that made millions, or even just took your high school sweetheart? Then to realize that in order to inherit your thrones, dominions and powers of all heights and depths, you must not hold ANY ILL FEELINGS toward this person! Why is this jerk here?! What about Justice?! Every innocent victim has a rightful claim to Justice

I'm tying together 3 things I just came across today:

 

I jhappened to be reading in Alma 14: "But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day." (verse 11). I imagine the fire these souls were cast into as a pit (lake of fire) they cannot climb out of.

 

I also read an article about forgiveness in the January Ensign, which indicates that forgiving is not forgetting. So if the innocent rightly want the life and agency that were robbed from them, they will forgive and the Lord will restore them at the last day. The guilty can only righty want life and agency upon repentance. The innocent do not cry against them out of a lack of forgiveness, but out of memory of what they have lost and lack the power to regain. The guilty of course repent and remain foriven but with the memory of what they have done, as a lesson learned in forgiveness and forgiving themselves.

 

I was also reading more in Chapter 3 of the priesthood class manual http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-3-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng:

 

"Let us illustrate: A man walking along the road happens to fall into a pit so deep and dark that he cannot climb to the surface...

 

"...The Savior comes along, not subject to that pit, and lowers the ladder. He comes down into the pit and makes it possible for us to use the ladder to escape.

 

"In his infinite mercy, the Father heard the cries of his children and sent his Only Begotten Son, who was not subject to death nor to sin, to provide the means of escape."

 

In addition to how these three points tie in with your comments, the reason "He comes down into the pit" (descends below all things, suffers all things suffered by all those helpless ones in the pit) -- rather than just lower the ladder and direct those in the pit to climb upward -- is to actually displace and assist those fallen souls in the pit. He displaces all their fallen intelligence with His own exalted intelligence, and since He is "more intelligent than they all", He has the capacity to displace and assit each one individually to exit the pit. Then, because He has completely displaced the pit, there is no more pit, there is nothing to climb out of and He simply steps forward when "it is finished." The motive, of course, is love.

[longview]

Questions posed in red > > >

No, he did not take upon him our sins.  It's a faulty restatement of the situation.  Christ took upon himself the punishment that a sinful being would be required to suffer.

So He took the "Punishment" upon Himself and then was slain on the cross.  He was punished as He was holding "our punishment" in Himself?  Sounds like a very awkward exercise in logic.

 

There are those who say that Christ's suffering was an additive suffering -- that he suffered for my sins, and he suffered for yours, and he suffered for Stone Holms's sins, etc.  But this is not what the scripture says.

I agree that the scriptures do not support this.

 

You'll note that Christ is not speaking here of having suffered more than anyone else.  He makes it quite clear that you will have to suffer just as badly as He did, if you don't repent. 

This is false doctrine.  The General Authorities and the scriptures have taught that Christ took upon Himself the sins of ALL of human history.  Not only that but He also paid for ALL the non sinful accidents, diseases, natural calamities, and any other kinds of chaos.   It even has been stated that other earths benefited from this ONE Atonement here on our earth (this earth proved to be the most wicked of the planets).  It has been taught in the BoM that no person is capable of being punished to account for his own sins (even as someone said in this thread that this person was to suffer for a million years).  It still would not have the cleansing power and exalting effect of Christ's Atonement.  Only a GOD could perform this Atonement.  Jesus was half human from His mother Mary and half from the DNA of His Father Elohim.

 

The superior virtue of Christ's suffering as compared to your suffering is not in the degree or the severity, but in that you will deserve it and He did not.  Also in that your suffering for your sins does not remove them, they are still accounted against you, for all that you have paid for them -- but if you allow through your repentance Christ's suffering to stand in for yours, well in that event you also get justification, meaning that it is as if you had never committed those sins.   You are clean, in other words.

But it truly was unimaginably severe!  The Atonement was necessary in order to permit the Plan to proceed, for us to have the experience of mortality on this fallen world, the Telestial.

 

On this point, I suggest you read "Justification and Sanctification" by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.  As he says:

I have two shifts today so I have to run.  But I will read it later.  I am sure you and I will have different takes on his talk.

 

 

But those who suffer for their own sins instead of taking Christ's sacrifice upon themselves (through repentance and baptism) are not justified.  They have, as it were, paid their debt to society (as we sometimes say about criminals who have served their allotted time in prison and paid their fines).  But they remain ex-convicts, and are not worthy of elevation.  Those who take Christ upon themselves not only do not suffer, they become clean, and if one is to continue the analogy with the human criminal justice system, they are those who are pardoned by the Governor, or the President, or for you Brits, the Queen (upon the advice of her ministers). 

I agree with this.

 

I'd suggest reading Elder Christofferson's article above in its entirety.

[Stone holm]

One of the problems here is this focus on punishment, rather than consequences. Christ's sacrifice was proof of His love. Because of His love, and His entitlement to joy, that the intelligences are willing to overlook our imperfections and we escape the consequences. The whole discussion of justice and mercy makes very little sense, because justice was never served by beating the innocent. That is a silly notion and is an idea spawned by a steady diet of platitudes. What we are talking about is the intelligences in their various limited capacities being able to discern the relationship between ourselves and Christ. Do you believe for one second that Christ is demanding that we fawn upon Him and grovel, etc. I certainly do not, but I do believe we have to by our actions, our mental attitude, and our heart felt feelings have to demonstrate our love and affection for Him and what He stands for to the intelligences. His judgment will merely confirm what we have demonstrated.