The Atonement

[CV75]

The whole discussion of justice and mercy makes very little sense, because justice was never served by beating the innocent.

Even the innocents fall into the pit of death (people die in infancy). This "beating the innocent" serves justice because death is one of many previously agreed-upon conditions of mortality. Immortality on the other hand, is merciful because it was also previously known that none of the innocents but Jesus could acheive it without a Savior. So it is just that the innocents should die before receiving the mercy of becoming immortal. it is even just that Jesus should die before becoming and making everyone else immortal, because He brings justice and mercy together--He went down into the pit and performed the necessary work, which is only just.

 

Facing injustice in mortality is another just condition of our probation, and thus serves justice.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

You may find this interesting. Its not LDS scripture but it is quite profound. From Harry Baker-

 

14. And unto his redeemed he will deliver the title deeds of their eternal estates; for all the fulness of the Father's kingdoms are the heritage of the righteous; and their birth-right of free-agency abideth in them forever, as in the Son.

15. And to this end, even that man might inherit all things, Jesus Christ came into the world to suffer for them, and be lifted up before them, that they might see him suffer, and thus seeing him suffer, might know of the fullness of the measure of his love for them, yea, that they might marvel and be astonished.

16. For He unto whom was given the cup of gall in His cry of thirst, suffered greater extremes than any man, and drank deeper of the cup of bitterness which the Father had prepared for Him; that his Son might show forth the depths of their infinite love and be exalted to sit at the right hand of Eternal Power.

17. And if the sacrifices and the pains which he suffered, both of body and of mind, like unto which no man could suffer; behold, I say unto you, that if so great a love for men, cannot prevail upon them to acknowledge their Creator, and walk in obedience to his wishes, there is no power in the heavens or upon the earth that can save them that are thus created in the likeness of God.

18. For Omnipotence did truly exhaust the possibilities of the natural world, that the children of men might be persuaded to love Jesus Christ, and believe him to be the Only Begotten of the Father, sent into the world for their redemption and exaltation.

19. Verily, verily, now I say unto you again, that it is impossible for infinite mind, to associate together the deeds of men and of angels and of good and evil spirits, into any natural sequence of living events upon the earth, subjecting a creature to the test of greater extremes than those which the Son of God endured for man's sake. Wherefore, he went below all things, and endured all things, even all things which are, or ever can be. Wherefore, ye know that he is God.

20. And thus do the works of the Son justify the blessings of the Father on the one hand, and the wrath of God on the other; and declare the glory and the power and the dominion of the Father and the Son forever more.http://newrevelations.net/firstmessage.html

[Rob Osborn]

I think that is not necessarily correct.

 How so? For to say otherwise would be to say that an evil entity first had to exist to tempt Lucifer otherwise Lucifer could not have fallen. We do not have to have evil exist as an entity tempting us for us to be righteous.

[DJBrown]

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?

 

This is where the difference between sanctification and justification comes in.  To be justified is to have the sins washed away.  To be sanctified is to have the desire to sin removed.  I don't think sanctification can occur outside of the agency of the individual.  So, every person will pay for his or her sins for which we have not repented, whether we like it or not.  But God cannot, nor does He want to force us to accept Him or eternal truth.  We will all, ultimately, reside where we are comfortable.  And that should not be surprising- it happens in this life in every culture and every organization.

[DJBrown]

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.

 

I think there are two things that are being conflated in this discussion.  Intelligences- not all intelligences are spirit children of God.  Every material entity has intelligence- rocks, molecules, atoms, etc.  And I think Skousen was saying that the non-human intelligences of the universe must be appealed to for us to be given glory and an inheritance in God's kingdom.  I think people are getting confused here.

 

It is not that Christ has to appeal to all of us humans in order for the demands of justice to be satisfied.  The atoms (and sub-atoms, etc.) must be convinced to go along with our forgiveness and ultimate inheritance.  The atoms that will make up our celestialized bodies must be willing to go along with that outcome.  And that is where Christ's suffering comes in- His suffering is what convinces those intelligences (not human spirits or 'intelligences') to go along with the unfair result of our celestial glory.  None of us deserve celestial glory in the true economy of the universe.  But because of Christ's suffering and the natural desire of the elements of the universe to honor Him, they go along with His bestowing grace upon us and ultimately, our eternal life.

[Ahab]

The atonement is all about someone coming down here to do the will of our Father in heaven so we can know what that is like and follow that person's example so that we can do his will too and then return to our Father in heaven and live like he does.

 

It's all about living the best kind of life to be lived.

I answered the question in the OP in post #2, folks.  What are you going on and on about here?  Didn't you see what I wrote?

[Stone holm]

I answered the question in the OP in post #2, folks.  What are you going on and on about here?  Didn't you see what I wrote?

This isn't an answer its just a platitude. It provides no insight as to why either Gethsemane or the crucifixion were necessary.

[djones]

Wow, thank you so much for sharing your insights Coreyb. Yours is one of the most beautiful explanations of the reason why we needed the atonement I think I've ever seen. You really hit it on the head. I've always loved Skousen's explanation as it was the only one that ever made any sense to me. But your comments make it even more personal. I really think it was indeed us who demanded that an atonement be made and not God. When we think of God being the one that required it, it makes him seem so mean and arrogant.

 

So let's see....our father "supposedly" loves us beyond what we can comprehend, BUT he purposely sent us here knowing that we'd fail, won't let a single one of us come back to him because we will be unclean and "not good enough to be in his presence" and so to fix that problem he's going to send his favorite son to be brutally massacred for us and that will somehow fix everything and then we'll be able to come back. Now remind me why it is that we want to live with this father of ours forever and ever? He sounds like a big jerk! Growing up I always thought "Well, if he loves us so much why didn't he come down himself? Why send someone else to do your dirty work?" When we think of the doctrine this way, God doesn't sound very loving at all!

 

Sorry if that offended anyone but I've always struggled with the "why" of the atonement. If God makes all the rules, then why can't he just change them? But I really do believe that he doesn't make the rules but He does have to obey eternal law. People have mentioned Alma and the "God would cease to be God" scriptures. Here's how I like to think of that one. Is it theoretically possible that God could fall? Well of course it is. He has his agency. The whole program is based on agency, even for him. But he never will. How do we know that? Well I know that the same way that I know I'm never going to intentionally hit myself in the head with hammer. Do I have the power to do it? Why yes I do. But barring a severe mental breakdown I know for an absolute, 100% fact, that I'm never going to. Well, God doesn't have any mental breakdowns and He and all of us know that he's never going to cease to be God. But I do believe he has the power to.

 

So at the end of the day, the real purpose for the atonement is indeed for us to be reconciled to each other and to God. Jesus didn't have to do it but chose to because of his great love for us and so that a perfect judgment could occur. The father has given all judgment into the hands of the son. Why? Because Christ is the only one who CAN judge us. He's the only one who truly knows what we've been through and can decipher the real intention of our hearts.

 

And I don't subscribe to the belief that we added to Jesus' suffering each time we sin either. It was an infinite atonement. He suffered as much as was humanly (inhumanly....godly) possible. There could be no further suffering possible. So if I commit 1 sin or 1 million sins, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference to Jesus. He suffered infinitely regardless of how many I do. But somehow, he knows intimately the sins I do commit and knows exactly how I feel and why I did them. There's so many things we just can't comprehend but knowing a little better the "why" makes it so much sweeter.

[Alvino]

Sorry if that offended anyone but I've always struggled with the "why" of the atonement. If God makes all the rules, then why can't he just change them? But I really do believe that he doesn't make the rules but He does have to obey eternal law. People have mentioned Alma and the "God would cease to be God" scriptures. Here's how I like to think of that one. Is it theoretically possible that God could fall? Well of course it is. He has his agency. The whole program is based on agency, even for him. But he never will. How do we know that? Well I know that the same way that I know I'm never going to intentionally hit myself in the head with hammer. Do I have the power to do it? Why yes I do. But barring a severe mental breakdown I know for an absolute, 100% fact, that I'm never going to. Well, God doesn't have any mental breakdowns and He and all of us know that he's never going to cease to be God. But I do believe he has the power to.

 

The moral rightness or wrongness of God's decision to have Jesus come and die for us was the issue for you, no? Are saying "Because all the Gods did it" or "Because if God didn't do it he would lose his status as God so he had to have his own son sacrificed" good enough reasons to you? Because those say absolutely nothing about whether sacrificing your own son (having him sacrificed, rather) is right or wrong.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Alvino

[Tacenda]

I like the idea that God is spirit, still looks human though but came down and took another body of flesh and bones and sacrificed Himself. And he didn't already know what Eve and Adam's choice would be. They made it and it in turn made it so He would have to atone for them and the rest of the world.

[Stone holm]

I like the idea that God is spirit, still looks human though but came down and took another body of flesh and bones and sacrificed Himself. And he didn't already know what Eve and Adam's choice would be. They made it and it in turn made it so He would have to atone for them and the rest of the world.

Contrary to our doctrine,.

[Tacenda]

Contrary to our doctrine,.

I know, but it's how I like to view Him.