A Question About The Atonement

[JLHPROF]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

This is one of the fundamental errors in viewing the necessity of the atonement.  Sin is not simply about offending God.  Sin is about transgressing law.  And even God, as powerful and forgiving as he is cannot remove the penalty for transgressing law just by forgiving us.

 

The scriptures are clear - the wages of sin are death.  Just one sin, any sin, has a price attached.  No person with a sin upon them can enter God's presence.  And eternal law requires those under mortal sin to remain in the grave.  Not because he won't let them live, but because eternal law prevents it.  So the price attached to that sin still has to be paid.

 

The mercy comes in that by offering a sinless sacrifice to pay the price and bring about resurrection of a sinner.  God could personally forgive us in our sins but the sins would still be on our heads and the price would still have to be paid by us.  God cannot (and will not) violate the eternal law that places a punishment on a sinner.  The price has to be paid.  It's unavoidable even if God forgives us.  And praise to our Savior that he paid the irrevocable price of our sins if we accept him and that makes the Father's mercy efficacious.

[teddyaware]

Its a model that spoke to and worked for that author, and that society. But it was just one attempt to explain Atonement with a picture. It offers one solution to the questions of why and how. While accepting the what of his message (atonement saves us), the why and how doesn't hold up or resonate for me when pressed further to its implications.

Are the followings words of Jesus Christ also "a model that spoke to and worked for that author (Jesus Christ)" in the year 1829, but no longer holds up or resonates for you?

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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19)

[mtomm]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

I haven't read all of the comments yet but I just wanted to say that I've had this question for eons and it makes me feel like I just don't the atonement.  Anyway, you are not alone!  Now I'll go read the comments and see if I can finally find an answer that makes sense. 

[David T]

Would justice be served if the judge just decided to be merciful on the murderer and reward him with wonderful blessings because he was truly sorry for what he had done?

That is mercy, but it comes at the expense if justice. No sane person would look at such an example and suggest the murderer got what he deserved (which is the definition of justice).

I know you believe that justice cannot be served if someone else is punished for another's sin, but is justice served if that sin is simply forgiven and no punishment is given at all?

Your view of the atonement does not seem anymore just than Duncan's.

So what is the answer? How can justice be served while mercy is also extended?

The problem is so many of us are us are used to thinking of Justice as merely punitive, and not restorative. What if divine justice is more about restoring the essence of what was unjustly taken away, and less about inflicting punishment on the one who did the wrong?

Just because the inflictor of the wound does not have a punishment inflicted upon them (Mercy) is does not mean that the wound unjustly inflicted will not be compensated for (Justice).

If a mother was given the choice between having the murderer killed, or having her son restored to life, what would she prefer? What would more properly restore the broken order of things?

The Atonement promises justice - that emotional and spiritual (and, in the Resurrection, ultimately physical) losses will be restored. I believe that in the eternal scheme of things, punishments are self-inflicted, and not decreed/imposed by an outside force. It is the Atonement that will draw one towards God's love, and eventually, to be changed by it.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[Coreyb]

If I, as a father, punish my innocent son for something my daughter did, does that make me a good Father? Would I be a champion of Justice?

As a father, if your child were guilty of wrong and an older more mature child had compassion on their younger sibling, volunteering them self to take the punishment you would mete out to the guilty child in exchange for a sincere apology, would you be a "good father" if you agreed to the arrangement?

[halconero]

If someone steals a car, imprisoning my innocent brother and letting the known assailant off free doesn't constitute Justice. That is injustice to the extreme. The mercy/justice model doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Alma 34 actually addresses this issue when it says that Nephite law doesn't take a murderer's brother and kill him for his brother. Neither would that be the means of the Atonement.

 

Rather, Amulek teaches that Jesus the Son of God had to be sacrificed as he was "infinite and eternal." In other words, if Jesus had been a perfect man, but not the Only Begotten, he could not have performed the atonement.

[halconero]

]The Atonement promises justice - that emotional and spiritual (and, in the Resurrection, ultimately physical) losses will be restored. I believe that in the eternal scheme of things, punishments are self-inflicted, and not decreed/imposed by an outside force. It is the Atonement that will draw one towards God's love, and eventually, to be changed by it.

 

This doesn't necessarily contradict the other understanding. Justice is both punitive and restorative. Punishment can be decreed and self-inflicted. Remember that the guilty will look up and say "thy decrees are just," in other words, they will recognize themselves that their own self-punishment is in compliance with divine decree.

 

Justice is also the law that governs mercy. The sinner who repents is meted forgiveness by law, and justice that is endemic to God and Jesus ensures this.

 

I also believe that law might not have to do so much with legalism as we see it, but a nature of the way things are.

[David T]

Are the followings words of Jesus Christ also "a model that spoke to and worked for that author (Jesus Christ)" in the year 1829, but no longer holds up or resonates for you?

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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19)

That doesn't say anything about forcing justice. It makes a claim that God suffered, and implores us to repent (turn towards God) so that we do not need to experience the depths of what he experienced. True sin brings suffering as a natural consequence. God wants to draw us away from that path.

[MiserereNobis]

I think Elder McConkie called it incomprehensible

 

Look!  A mystery in Mormonism!

 

We Catholics are not alone in saying things are mysteries, even some of the most important things (the nature of God, the atonement, etc).

 

A key part of the atonement for Catholicism is the fact that Jesus Christ IS God -- the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.  God Himself came to reclaim us.  The transcendent God incarnated and became immanent (solving the so-called transcendent problem, which is one of many fruits of the Incarnation).

 

C.S. Lewis uses the idea of "infection" -- the atonement infected humanity with God (just as humanity was infected by original sin from Adam) in order to turn us into the type of beings God wants us to be.

 

There are many different ways or models to look at the atonement in Catholicism.  I appreciate that.  I tend to look at it ontologically.  Sin is an ontological state of separation from God and the atonement reconciles that separation.  From this point-of-view sinful actions flow from sin, not the other way around.  So I can look into my heart and see sin -- the damaged, wounded part of my soul that wants to be its own reality instead of living in the reality of the Living God, the part of my soul that is "prone to wonder, prone to leave the God I love."

 

Granted, my appreciation of this model is based heavily on my draw towards the mystics, who say such things.

[Duncan]

That doesn't say anything about forcing justice. It makes a claim that God suffered, and implores us to repent (turn towards God) so that we do not need to experience the depths of what he experienced. True sin brings suffering as a natural consequence. God wants to draw us away from that path.

 

 

well, yes and no. I can be forgiven if I went out and robbed a Burger King but I still have to pay my debt to society and I think God wants that for me to repent, that's why I say that we are punished by our sins more so then for them. If I got away with it I can't escape God and maybe I wouldn't repent, i would keep doing it

Edited March 14, 2014 by Duncan

[Senator]

The Atonement promises justice - that emotional and spiritual (and, in the Resurrection, ultimately physical) losses will be restored. I believe that in the eternal scheme of things, punishments are self-inflicted, and not decreed/imposed by an outside force. It is the Atonement that will draw one towards God's love, and eventually, to be changed by it.

 

The Savior said Himself the he was lifted up that he may draw all men unto him.  I'm intrigued by that word draw.  It can interpreted as both a gentle and a forceful action. 

 

I have had this notion that the offering of the Son by the Father, was not made to appease the Father or some autonomous enforcer of the eternal laws, but rather the offering was made to appease us, to make amends for his culpability in all of our sufferings.  It was His plan after all.  How could a Father ask us to pass through that which He Himself would not pass?

[David T]

well, yes and no. I can be forgiven if I went out and robbed a Burger King but I still have to pay my debt to society and I think God wants that for me to repent, that's why I say that we are punished by our sins more so then for them. If I got away with it I can't escape God and maybe I wouldn't repent, i would keep doing it

I do believe the Church is designed to continuously point one towards the savior, and to understand his love greater. I think this is the ultimate purpose of ordinances. Landmarks to experience, look back to, and remember, concretely. It is rehabilitative.

[bluebell]

David-  (sorry, my quote function isn't working on my laptop and I'm getting tired of posting on my phone)

 

I don't believe that justice is only punitive, but I do believe that that is one aspect of it. I don't believe we can just pretend that that aspect of the principle doesn't exist and that justice is only restorative and nothing more.  

 

The ultimate definition of justice has to do with fairness.  Giving a dead child back to a mother answers one part of justice (it is fair to her and fair to the murdered child), but it does not at all address the murderer (and what would be fair to him or her).  I don't believe that justice can be served without addressing the one who caused the imbalance in the first place as well.

 

To simply restore the murder victim to life does not negate the injustice done.  It does not suddenly make what happened 'fair' and while it restores the murdered to an equal state before the sin, it does not restore the murderer.  It fixes the sin, but does not fix the sinner.  He or she is still a sinner, is still unclean, even if the sin has been undone. 

 

Justice only as a restorative principle answers one half of an equation that I believe must be addressed in whole or it cannot be just.

[Tacenda]

Look!  A mystery in Mormonism!

 

We Catholics are not alone in saying things are mysteries, even some of the most important things (the nature of God, the atonement, etc).

 

A key part of the atonement for Catholicism is the fact that Jesus Christ IS God -- the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.  God Himself came to reclaim us.  The transcendent God incarnated and became immanent (solving the so-called transcendent problem, which is one of many fruits of the Incarnation).

 

C.S. Lewis uses the idea of "infection" -- the atonement infected humanity with God (just as humanity was infected by original sin from Adam) in order to turn us into the type of beings God wants us to be.

 

There are many different ways or models to look at the atonement in Catholicism.  I appreciate that.  I tend to look at it ontologically.  Sin is an ontological state of separation from God and the atonement reconciles that separation.  From this point-of-view sinful actions flow from sin, not the other way around.  So I can look into my heart and see sin -- the damaged, wounded part of my soul that wants to be its own reality instead of living in the reality of the Living God, the part of my soul that is "prone to wonder, prone to leave the God I love."

 

Granted, my appreciation of this model is based heavily on my draw towards the mystics, who say such things.

I must be Catholic then! 

[David T]

Does it serve God's purposes to inflict a punishment that is merely punitive and not reformative?

If God could reform his children without whipping them with a stick, would he do that? Or would he whip them with a stick anyway just because of the idea they needed to be punished?

I think we as humans are for more interested in having someone punished to fulfill our notion of 'Fair' than God is. It makes many of us feel better to see someone who harmed us suffer. We like seeing people "get theirs", even if "Getting theirs" just makes them even more bitter, and harder to redeem.

I think that's something we (including I) need to get over, and seek to repent of.

Again, I really think a big part of the way Jesus was killed was to reveal that God doesn't demand violence upon man, but man forces violence upon an innocent God.

Man's laws are, by societal necessity, punitive.I see God's authentic measures as reformative, restorative, and redemptive.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[JLHPROF]

Look!  A mystery in Mormonism!

 

We Catholics are not alone in saying things are mysteries, even some of the most important things (the nature of God, the atonement, etc).

 

Oh Mormonism has plenty of mysteries.  What I like about Mormonism is we are encouraged to try to come to conclusions about them through study and prayer (although we are asked not to preach our conclusions).  Other religions seem more content to just say "it's a mystery" and move on as if it was unknowable.

However, there is a trend in the last 100 years to move away from trying to comprehend the mysteries, but back the early days of the Church Mormon's would talk freely about doctrinal mysteries, something I wish we still did a bit more.

 

As for the atonement, when we are told "we cannot comprehend it" I think that is less doctrinal and more spiritual.  I think we can absolutely understand the doctrine of the atonement.  But I doubt we can ever comprehend the eternal and spiritual methods by which it operates.

[teddyaware]

Look!  A mystery in Mormonism!

 

We Catholics are not alone in saying things are mysteries, even some of the most important things (the nature of God, the atonement, etc).

 

A key part of the atonement for Catholicism is the fact that Jesus Christ IS God -- the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.  God Himself came to reclaim us.  The transcendent God incarnated and became immanent (solving the so-called transcendent problem, which is one of many fruits of the Incarnation).

 

C.S. Lewis uses the idea of "infection" -- the atonement infected humanity with God (just as humanity was infected by original sin from Adam) in order to turn us into the type of beings God wants us to be.

 

There are many different ways or models to look at the atonement in Catholicism.  I appreciate that.  I tend to look at it ontologically.  Sin is an ontological state of separation from God and the atonement reconciles that separation.  From this point-of-view sinful actions flow from sin, not the other way around.  So I can look into my heart and see sin -- the damaged, wounded part of my soul that wants to be its own reality instead of living in the reality of the Living God, the part of my soul that is "prone to wonder, prone to leave the God I love."

 

Granted, my appreciation of this model is based heavily on my draw towards the mystics, who say such things.

In Mormonism, the mystery of Christ' s atonement is not in the rationales, purposes, practical details and effects of the atonement. For Elder McConkie, the mystery of the atonement is how did Christ, in the very limited span of time that it took for Him to first enter Gethsemane and finally give up the ghost on the cross of Calvary, successfully make a saving sacrifice that is infinite in duration and eternal in quality and scope. The scriptures teach us that without Christ's atonement men would suffer endlessly for their sins, but somehow the Saviour satisfied the demands for endless justice in a very brief period of time.

Edited March 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Coreyb]

There's something I'm wondering about in relation to the atonement and the plan of salvation as well. (Sorry if this should be in a different thread, but I feel it is close enough to post here.)

 

As far as I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the atonement was decided as part of the plan of salvation before mankind ever came to have physical bodies. The idea was that by coming to earth and using our agency to accept the atonement and follow the gospel we could achieve exaltation. But in order for that to happen we need a perfect being to be sacrificed in our place. I get the traditional orthodox christian view of how this works (Jesus as part of a trinity, existing as one within God and a distinct type of being from humans; even within mystical branches of christianity the idea is of being subsumed in the divine more than becoming a separate divine being).

 

But in the LDS church, it is taught that we (including Jesus) are all sons of Heavenly Father. My confusion comes from this point. How is Jesus qualitatively different from us? Jesus didn't have a need to come to the mortal sphere, live in it and accept any kind of salvation in order to become perfect. He was able to offer himself from the beginning as a perfect sacrifice. I take it from this that Jesus never had any need for mortality to become like Heavenly Father and become part of the godhead. So why was it necessary for the rest of us at all to go through the process of mortality and accepting of the atonement?

I think that Jesus Christ was completely vulnerable to sin in mortality, and thus was susceptible to complete failure in His mission. James Talmage talks about this a little bit in "Jesus the Christ", and says that had Christ failed He would have become a son of perdition. I don't know about the perdition part, but I believe He was completely vulnerable to failure. This leaves us with the question, had God prepared another way for us? I think it possible that other messiahs had been prepared, but that's my own personal heresy . Neal A. Maxwell asks a similar question...

 

Did Jesus hope there might be, as with Abraham, a ram in the thicket? We do not know, but the agony and the extremity were great. The sins and the grossness of all mankind were falling upon someone who was perfectly sinless, perfectly sensitive. This pleading to the Father included the doctrine he had taught in his ministry as Jehovah to Abraham and Sarah. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14). He had taught it in his mortal messiahship: “All things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23). Hence, this resounding plea. And then came that marvelous spiritual submissiveness: “Nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36).   -Neal A. Maxwell, "A Choice Seer" March 30, 1989

 

This also makes the whole temptations of Christ story very dramatic, as well as this scripture...

 

 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.  Alma 7:11

 

Does this mean that He was tempted with Murder, adultery, abuse of power, pedophilia, greed, homosexuality, alcohol abuse, gluttony, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? I think so. He didn't need salvation in the same sense as we do,(salvation from our sins) because he remained sinless, but He had to work out his own salvation and exaltation. It is true that He was considered God from the beginning, (to be fair, He considered men to be gods from the beginning as well, Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?), but I believe that He operated in His Fathers name and through His power. This is why He said to His disciples...

 

 ..All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Matthew 28:18

 

..only after His Resurrection and visit to His Father. After His mortality He was exalted and became co-equal with His Father, symbolized by this saying.

 

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.  Revelation 3:21

 

So no, Christ needed mortality just like everyone else, but didn't have a "normal" human experience either pre-mortally, mortally, or post-mortally.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Coreyb

[rlds_coc_lds]

 

So no, Christ needed mortality just like everyone else, but didn't have a "normal" human experience either pre-mortally, mortally, or post-mortally.

 

Thanks Coreyb, that makes a lot of sense. I guess the only thing that still remains a mystery (and may always) is the what made Jesus qualitatively different than the rest of us. Jesus was the Creator, so how did He become the Creator? Was it simply being the first spirit to be born to Heavenly Father? Is there any source that is very explicit about LDS doctrine on this subject?

[teddyaware]

I think that Jesus Christ was completely vulnerable to sin in mortality, and thus was susceptible to complete failure in His mission. James Talmage talks about this a little bit in "Jesus the Christ", and says that had Christ failed He would have become a son of perdition. I don't know about the perdition part, but I believe He was completely vulnerable to failure. This leaves us with the question, had God prepared another way for us? I think it possible that other messiahs had been prepared, but that's my own personal heresy . Neal A. Maxwell asks a similar question...

 

Did Jesus hope there might be, as with Abraham, a ram in the thicket? We do not know, but the agony and the extremity were great. The sins and the grossness of all mankind were falling upon someone who was perfectly sinless, perfectly sensitive. This pleading to the Father included the doctrine he had taught in his ministry as Jehovah to Abraham and Sarah. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14). He had taught it in his mortal messiahship: “All things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23). Hence, this resounding plea. And then came that marvelous spiritual submissiveness: “Nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36).   -Neal A. Maxwell, "A Choice Seer" March 30, 1989

 

This also makes the whole temptations of Christ story very dramatic, as well as this scripture...

And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. Alma 7:11

Does this mean that He was tempted with Murder, adultery, abuse of power, pedophilia, greed, homosexuality, alcohol abuse, gluttony, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? I think so. He didn't need salvation in the same sense as we do,(salvation from our sins) because he remained sinless, but He had to work out his own salvation and exaltation. It is true that He was considered God from the beginning, (to be fair, He considered men to be gods from the beginning as well, Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?), but I believe that He operated in His Fathers name and through His power. This is why He said to His disciples...

..All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18

..only after His Resurrection and visit to His Father. After His mortality He was exalted and became co-equal with His Father, symbolized by this saying.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Revelation 3:21

So no, Christ needed mortality just like everyone else, but didn't have a "normal" human experience either pre-mortally, mortally, or post-mortally

.

One of the things often overlooked when considering the atonement is that Christ needed to experience the atonement as much as we need its benefits and blessings. The following verse from D&C 88 reveals that Christ needed to descend below all things, that He might through His own experience comprehend all things. By virtue of learning everything there is to know about both the positive and negative spheres of existence, through the atonement, the education of Christ was made infinitely and eternally complete. He is God and there is nothing to know save He knows it. Through the great education Christ gained during His sacrifice, He is known as the Light of Truth and the Saviour of the world...

6 He that 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;

Edited March 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

I think to make the comparison fair, we have to assume that the thing being forgiven is something that irrevocably shuts out all options for your child to ever return home to you again, no matter how powerful you are—let’s say he dies in connection with committing his infraction(s).

You can certainly forgive him in your heart, but there is no way can you retroactively control the offensive choices that resulted in his death and others’ misery. There is no way you can get him to either live life over correctly or bring him home again.

But let’s say in your grief you fantasize that you can retroactively control his choices (not only that one deadly choice, but all the good and bad choices that led up to that fateful day) and spare him -- but by so doing, you realize you would be changing him into someone that stopped acting on his own, to the point that you would no longer even recognize him as your child.

God is “all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc.” by virtue of His proper exercise of agency. He is the God of agency, so He will not use His agency to overrun the agency of co-eternal intelligences or change the consequences of their agency. He is also the God of Exaltation, and so will not descend into mortality again to retrieve us.

For this reason, He required an Intermediary to come into our world to experience and vicariously, on His own, remake our choices so as to undo all the spiritual and temporal death we bring upon ourselves. His Son, who had not yet experienced immortality Himself, was the only one qualified to perform that service, and you already know the “mechanics” of that. His Son was able to do this without interfering with our agency, because He faced and overcame all our tests, trials and temptations directly and beside our experience, not in lieu of it, and so did not violate of our co-eternal identity. Which fortunately includes the capacity to repent if given the God-granted (grace-granted) opportinity!

[Coreyb]

Thanks Coreyb, that makes a lot of sense. I guess the only thing that still remains a mystery (and may always) is the what made Jesus qualitatively different than the rest of us. Jesus was the Creator, so how did He become the Creator? Was it simply being the first spirit to be born to Heavenly Father? Is there any source that is very explicit about LDS doctrine on this subject?

Not sure, but I would presume that it was a result of His volunteering to be a Savior. There is something romantic about the creator laying down his own life to save his creation. Also, I don't think He was the only being that created this world.

 

And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens,    Abraham 5:4

[Darren10]

If someone steals a car, imprisoning my innocent brother and letting the known assailant off free doesn't constitute Justice. That is injustice to the extreme. The mercy/justice model doesn't make any sense to me.

 

What is the one who receives the punishment is exalted by you for it as well as enabling the culprit to become exalted fro m it as well? I think you would be the epitomy of justice and mercy and you would receive the greatest glory.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

The atonement is to satisfy the demands of justice. God must follow his laws, just as we do...so if he is all powerful, it is because he too has to follow the laws that he ordained. His power, just as ours does comes through being righteous. As scriptures tell us he is the "Man of Holiness". Someone had to meet the demands of justice...and Christ is the only one who could perform this sacrifice. A really good read on the topic is 2 Nephi 9-10. These two chapters were a sermon delivered by Jacob; addresses the atonement better than any before or after in all of scripture. This is why we love Christ so much for doing this for us all. Read these two chapters, and it will paint a wonderful picture.

[janderich]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

I completely agree with what Kevin provided in post #11 wherein he said that Christ suffered in order to enter our lives in a very literal at-one-ment.

 

In order to be with us more personally than even a loving mother is with a son, he chose to experience our lives. He, in some way unfathomable to me, experienced our joys and our deepest sorrows. The scriptures testify that he ascended above all and descended below all in order to comprehend all things and be in all things (D&C 88:6). I believe that it is through his atonement that we are able to have the Spirit in our lives (John 16:7). I believe without this we would have long ago been angels to a devil. Because we, of ourselves can not change, cannot lift ourselves out. Without him our first sin would have led us on a continual path downward. Christ testifies, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches; He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing (John 15:4-5).

 

Our problem is that we think we are the ones who make all the changes, that we can improve ourselves by sheer will power. But it is the Spirit of the Lord working in us. And when we give up the pride, and give up the selfishness we can start to see it. In fact, I think we will grow in leaps and bounds if we humbly follow his way.

 

So repentance is nothing more then change, brought about by Christ's atonement. When we change we do not deserve to suffer any more. Change opens up the flood gates of mercy. God works by the law of the harvest, whatever we reap we sow. When we break law we encure consequences. These consequences cause us pain. But when we change we no longer deserve the punishment. The law can no more demand punishment. Mercy takes hold and overpowers justice (Alma 34:15). 

 

See, we have gotten side tracked with this penal substitution concept, thinking that somehow our repentance transfers the punishment to Christ. What a false notion. Alma blatently tells us that it is not right and yet we still hold to it (Alma 34:11-12). Alma's point is not that Christ is the exception to the rule. No, it is that Christ is infinitely and eternally at one with us. Since one person cannot pay for another's crime Christ had to be with us completely, and he is.