What did the LDS Jesus die for, exactly?

[Five Solas]

Another thread took an interesting twist on the oft-debated subject of “free agency.”  Rather than risk thread derailment, I thought the topic merited its own.  So here we go--

The quote (I’m sure Kenngo1969 won’t mind) was intended to refute the free part of free agency. He wrote: It's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it.

For it.  It being agency.  Jesus spilled his blood & died for agency, what LDS (back when I was a kid) used to call "free agency." 

I never heard this before and I admitted as much.  Another poster jumped in and provided a number of passages from Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Book of Moses to make the case that the LDS Jesus certainly did die for agency.  He finished his post by excoriating me for what he takes to be my willful ignorance.  Apparently every good LDS already knows this.  You can find it here.  

But is this really commonly understood by LDS - that their Jesus died for agency?  What do you think?  Did he die for something else?  Or for a bunch of things?  To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS. 

--Erik

[Calm]

Jesus died for us so we can live with our Father again.

https://www.lds.org/manual/2015-outline-for-sharing-time/february?lang=eng

In order to choose and eventually choose to live with him, we must have the option to choose wrong/sin.  But sinning without redemption would remove us from our Father eternally as well as removing agency.  Sin, in and of itself, serves no good purpose so it would be meaningless for Christ to die just so we could sin.  It is meaningful for us to make choices though, we can learn from our mistakes/sins, we can learn to make better choices or at least we learn what choices we truly want to make in the end.  

Agency serves God's purpose and is the ultimate demonstration coupled with the Atonement of his love for us.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/agency-and-love?lang=eng

Edited February 13, 2017 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

OK, here comes some serious heresy. The following accepts that we don't really have a clear knowledge of the historical Jesus, his teaching, and the events of his life.

In terms of theology, I find the idea that God requires the justice for sin an unreasonable doctrine. Considering we can forgive one another without requiring punishment of the offender, I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that either God or a set of of physical laws require it. For example, if my son punches my daughter in the face and comes to me to make things right, if I and his sister only require him to say sorry or perhaps don't require anything to forgive him (that sometimes happens with the most stubborn of children), there isn't some injustice in the family that brews under the surface. Instead, the act is eventually forgotten and everyone gets on like it never happened. Neither does the boy have some hidden guilt weighing him down for the rest of his life (I could imagine situations where an unhealthy family, personal, or religious mechanism would preserve that guilt, but frankly, people let stuff slide all the time and it becomes water under the bridge, forgotten and past). I do believe that we should learn from our mistakes, but that is different than suffering for our sins.

Christ's death, to me personally, is a symbol that we can freely forgive each other and ourselves. God, through Jesus, teaches us that he himself is willing to take on our guilt and suffering, and that has made the human race a happier and more productive species who feels empowered to both change themselves and to forgive others. In other words, there didn't need to be an actual blood atonement to enable human change and forgiveness, but Christ's contribution through his death was to help us tap into the practical applications of these concepts. I know that's not how Christians traditionally understand Christ's sacrifice for sin, but I find that to be a sustainable interpretation.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Kenngo1969]

As Erik, aka Five Solas, posted in the other thread:

Quote

Regarding my reference to "free agency" and your reply "it's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it"--I've never heard LDS suggest their Jesus died for agency.  To tell you the truth, it was always a little vague what exactly he did die for--but I sure don't recall anyone answering the question with the word "agency"--as you just did.  Do others see it this way?  If so, probably merits its own thread. 

Erik, I invite you to read The Book of Mormon (the actual book, not the stage play that lampoons it (while lampooning all other things Mormon, as well)). Therein, we find the following in 2 Nephi 9:7-9 (my emphasis added):

Quote

 

7 Wherefore, it [Christ's atonement] must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man [i.e., Adam and Eve suffering physical death and spiritual death, the latter being separation from God, being banished from His presence] must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto jsecret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

 

 

 

To sum up: Jesus died and was resurrected.  Because Jesus died and was resurrected, therefore, all of humankind will be resurrected, as well.  If there were no resurrection, our spirits automatically would become subject to the devil.  Sure as heck sounds like a loss of agency to me, but, then, simple minds, and all that.  

To anyone who may agree with Erik that I'm simply preaching heresy here, my apologies.  Please feel absolutely free to attack my heresy, and even to attack me for proclaiming it.  (Oh, and I voted for "c," both of the first two options.)  

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

I chose both on the survey.
He died as payment for our sins.
He died to RESTORE agency that we lost because of our sins.
If we were to die in our sins we could never return to be with God, never be resurrected, and as fallen beings we could not choose any future for ourselves as our bodies would remain in the grave.

His death for our sins and the principle of agency are inseparably intertwined.   I think the issue here could be that we are looking at the wrong side of agency. 
It was not our agency to choose good from evil that Christ's death gave us.
Adam and Eve's "death" gave us that agency.
Christ's death restored the agency to make choices for our future where our sins would have made any choices we make ineffectual. 
We could never be 100% perfect.  Adam's death gave us agency to choose good from evil, but Christ's death gave us agency to life or death, progress or stagnation.

[Five Solas]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Jesus died for us so we can live with our Father again.

https://www.lds.org/manual/2015-outline-for-sharing-time/february?lang=eng

In order to choose and eventually choose to live with him, we must have the option to choose wrong/sin.  But sinning without redemption would remove us from our Father eternally as well as removing agency.  Sin, in and of itself, serves no good purpose so it would be meaningless for Christ to die just so we could sin.  It is meaningful for us to make choices though, we can learn from our mistakes/sins, we can learn to make better choices or at least we learn what choices we truly want to make in the end.  

Agency serves God's purpose and is the ultimate demonstration coupled with the Atonement of his love for us.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/agency-and-love?lang=eng

"Jesus died for us..."  That sounds great at first glance.  I'm important (and I'm sure my self-esteem is at least as healthy as yours).  And if someone were to die for me--that would really drive home the point, so to speak.  So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

But then this moment of flattery might pass.  And your reader could be left with the thought--what was so wrong with us to begin with, that Jesus would suffer and die our behalf (and in an extraordinarily shameful and agonizing manner)?  You write about choice.  And you write about learning from "mistakes," figuring out what we "truly want," etc.  Like with that old girlfriend/boyfriend--the one where we decided we wanted something else.  And you assert Agency + Atonement = God's love.  But does any of this really answer the question?  Are you suggesting Jesus died so we could be free to make mistakes, recover and learn thereby?  Would that not trivialize the cross? 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK, here comes some serious heresy. The following accepts that we don't really have a clear knowledge of the historical Jesus, his teaching, and the events of his life.

In terms of theology, I find the idea that God requires the justice for sin an unreasonable doctrine. Considering we can forgive one another without requiring punishment of the offender, I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that either God or a set of of physical laws require it. For example, if my son punches my daughter in the face and comes to me to make things right, if I and his sister only require him to say sorry or perhaps don't require anything to forgive him (that sometimes happens with the most stubborn of children), there isn't some injustice in the family that brews under the surface. Instead, the act is eventually forgotten and everyone gets on like it never happened. Neither does the boy have some hidden guilt weighing him down for the rest of his life (I could imagine situations where an unhealthy family, personal, or religious mechanism would preserve that guilt, but frankly, people let stuff slide all the time and it becomes water under the bridge, forgotten and past). I do believe that we should learn from our mistakes, but that is different than suffering for our sins.

Christ's death, to me personally, is a symbol that we can freely forgive each other and ourselves. God, through Jesus, teaches us that he himself is willing to take on our guilt and suffering, and that has made the human race a happier and more productive species who feels empowered to both change themselves and to forgive others. In other words, there didn't need to be an actual blood atonement to enable human change and forgiveness, but Christ's contribution through his death was to help us tap into the practical applications of these concepts. I know that's not how Christians traditionally understand Christ's sacrifice for sin, but I find that to be a sustainable interpretation.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK, here comes some serious heresy. The following accepts that we don't really have a clear knowledge of the historical Jesus, his teaching, and the events of his life.

In terms of theology, I find the idea that God requires the justice for sin an unreasonable doctrine. Considering we can forgive one another without requiring punishment of the offender, I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that either God or a set of of physical laws require it. For example, if my son punches my daughter in the face and comes to me to make things right, if I and his sister only require him to say sorry or perhaps don't require anything to forgive him (that sometimes happens with the most stubborn of children), there isn't some injustice in the family that brews under the surface. Instead, the act is eventually forgotten and everyone gets on like it never happened. Neither does the boy have some hidden guilt weighing him down for the rest of his life (I could imagine situations where an unhealthy family, personal, or religious mechanism would preserve that guilt, but frankly, people let stuff slide all the time and it becomes water under the bridge, forgotten and past). I do believe that we should learn from our mistakes, but that is different than suffering for our sins.

Let's use a different example. Let's say that your son got mad at his friend for interfering with his girlfriend so in an emotional fit grabbed a gun and went over to the boy's house and shot him in the low back crippling him for life. What does justice demand? An apology? If so, then you believe that we should get rid of our tort law so no one can sue anyone? Justice demands equality. That involves reparations etc. That is why the old law was an eye for an eye. Your position would simply destroy our legal system. What should God do if an aggrieved party comes to Him? Pat them on the back and say, it'll be alright in the end? Jesus taught a higher law that it is better to forgive someone, than to seek justice, but what if one party demands justice rather than an apology? Do you really believe God can just pat them on the head and tell them it'll be alright? This is where a Savior/atoner can meet the demands of justice. 

I did not fully understand the atonement for many years. I'll be the fist to say that it can be difficult to understand, so please don't be offended by my efforts here. I am not trying to be patronizing, etc - I'm just trying to offer a little of what I finally have come to understand. I proffer that the atonement is Yeshua's most profound teaching. I too used to think like you. I thought why does God need a Savior? Why doesn't He just forgive sinners? or simply impose justice, punishments, etc? I began to think there was something else going on than just the usual explanation. I pose it has to do with understanding the nature of God.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Another thread took an interesting twist on the oft-debated subject of “free agency.”  Rather than risk thread derailment, I thought the topic merited its own.  So here we go--

The quote (I’m sure Kenngo1969 won’t mind) was intended to refute the free part of free agency. He wrote: It's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it.

For it.  It being agency.  Jesus spilled his blood & died for agency, what LDS (back when I was a kid) used to call "free agency." 

I never heard this before and I admitted as much.  Another poster jumped in and provided a number of passages from Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Book of Moses to make the case that the LDS Jesus certainly did die for agency.  He finished his post by excoriating me for what he takes to be my willful ignorance.  Apparently every good LDS already knows this.  You can find it here.  

But is this really commonly understood by LDS - that their Jesus died for agency?  What do you think?  Did he die for something else?  Or for a bunch of things?  To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS. 

--Erik

Why don't you save us the trouble and go to all the verses in the Book of Mormon that pertain to the atonement and poimt out what you perceive to be doctrinal errors?

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

"Jesus died for us..."  That sounds great at first glance.  I'm important (and I'm sure my self-esteem is at least as healthy as yours).  And if someone were to die for me--that would really drive home the point, so to speak.  So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

But then this moment of flattery might pass.  And your reader could be left with the thought--what was so wrong with us to begin with, that Jesus would suffer and die our behalf (and in an extraordinarily shameful and agonizing manner)?  You write about choice.  And you write about learning from "mistakes," figuring out what we "truly want," etc.  Like with that old girlfriend/boyfriend--the one where we decided we wanted something else.  And you assert Agency + Atonement = God's love.  But does any of this really answer the question?  Are you suggesting Jesus died so we could be free to make mistakes, recover and learn thereby?  Would that not trivialize the cross? 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

Just because you're confused about what Cal is saying doesn't mean she's conflicted. 

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

"Jesus died for us..."  That sounds great at first glance.  I'm important (and I'm sure my self-esteem is at least as healthy as yours).  And if someone were to die for me--that would really drive home the point, so to speak.  So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

But then this moment of flattery might pass.  And your reader could be left with the thought--what was so wrong with us to begin with, that Jesus would suffer and die our behalf (and in an extraordinarily shameful and agonizing manner)?  You write about choice.  And you write about learning from "mistakes," figuring out what we "truly want," etc.  Like with that old girlfriend/boyfriend--the one where we decided we wanted something else.  And you assert Agency + Atonement = God's love.  But does any of this really answer the question?  Are you suggesting Jesus died so we could be free to make mistakes, recover and learn thereby?  Would that not trivialize the cross? 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

I amended my previous post to emphasize both Christ's death and resurrection, lest anyone believe I am "trivializing the cross." There has only been one person in the history of the earth who was sinless from his birth until his death (lest I be accused of "trivializing the cross.")  Calm is neither confused nor conflicted just because she doesn't accept your self-serving gloss on what she wrote. According to the Book of Mormon scripture I quoted earlier, without the atonement (lest I be accused of "trivializing the cross"), our time here on earth would have utterly been wasted (assuming we got any in the first place) because, at death, our spirits automatically would have become subject to Satan.  (Sounds like a pretty important reason for the atonement to me, lest I be accused of "trivializing the cross.")  

Your gloss on what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think of the atonement, how they feel about it, and whether it is central to Latter-day Saint theology is what "trivializes the cross" and cheapens the atonement, Erik. Not what they think, how they feel, and the atonement's actual centrality to Latter-day Saint theology.   Have fun mercilessly pulverizing those evil straw men.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Edited to correct an error in the chronology of events.

[thesometimesaint]

SEE https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/upon-the-cross-of-calvary?lang=eng

[Rivers]

I don't think any of us can fully grasp the scope and nature of the atonement.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

--Erik

Who is trivializing our savior and the atonement here anyway?

[Anakin7]

    Jesus Died for my personal sins - omission,commission,faults,shortcomings,physical-emotional pain,suffering,all the dumb stupid mistakes I make because of my inherited adamic nature.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

The only answer which is totally logical and which relates to our private experience of what the atonement does for us:

He died (if he did) so that we can believe our sins are forgiven.  Even if he did not exist, the belief alone is enough to change our lives.  This is the ultimate meaning of "We are saved by faith alone"

Those who believe that are exactly right even though they do not understand the implications of the actual words they say.

I have a testimony that the atonement is real and that he really did all that for us spiritually, but the above is the only answer which satisfies every possible apologetic attack.  I personally testify that the truth is as the LDS church teaches- but as an apologetic position- I believe MY paradigm satisfies both the LDS requirements and is philosophically sound 

It works for believers and atheists alike and is indisputable.

That the atonement actually happened of course is not provable scientifically.  Some explanation is necessary to show belief in the atonement to be "rational" even for those who are non- believers.

The fact that the belief itself heals souls is indisputable in my opinion.  It is again, like the placebo effect.  It works and has worked in the lives of billions and like the alleged "placebo effect" it cannot be proven scientifically.  BUT the placebo effect still works, indisputably. 

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK, here comes some serious heresy. The following accepts that we don't really have a clear knowledge of the historical Jesus, his teaching, and the events of his life.

In terms of theology, I find the idea that God requires the justice for sin an unreasonable doctrine. Considering we can forgive one another without requiring punishment of the offender, I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that either God or a set of of physical laws require it. For example, if my son punches my daughter in the face and comes to me to make things right, if I and his sister only require him to say sorry or perhaps don't require anything to forgive him (that sometimes happens with the most stubborn of children), there isn't some injustice in the family that brews under the surface. Instead, the act is eventually forgotten and everyone gets on like it never happened. Neither does the boy have some hidden guilt weighing him down for the rest of his life (I could imagine situations where an unhealthy family, personal, or religious mechanism would preserve that guilt, but frankly, people let stuff slide all the time and it becomes water under the bridge, forgotten and past). I do believe that we should learn from our mistakes, but that is different than suffering for our sins.

Christ's death, to me personally, is a symbol that we can freely forgive each other and ourselves. God, through Jesus, teaches us that he himself is willing to take on our guilt and suffering, and that has made the human race a happier and more productive species who feels empowered to both change themselves and to forgive others. In other words, there didn't need to be an actual blood atonement to enable human change and forgiveness, but Christ's contribution through his death was to help us tap into the practical applications of these concepts. I know that's not how Christians traditionally understand Christ's sacrifice for sin, but I find that to be a sustainable interpretation.

These are human inventions.

We cannot understand it- the key was empathy

We need to envision someone who has already been there before and taken it all and survived and upon whom we can place all blame and pain

The issue was what we needed to believe and God gave us the belief we needed.   How he did that is his business

I do not believe we can possibly understand how God "really" does things, but I know HE knows what we need to believe and are capable of believing.   I think this applies to the atonement.

I am going with the fideists on this one.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

"Jesus died for us..."  That sounds great at first glance.  I'm important (and I'm sure my self-esteem is at least as healthy as yours).  And if someone were to die for me--that would really drive home the point, so to speak.  So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

But then this moment of flattery might pass.  And your reader could be left with the thought--what was so wrong with us to begin with, that Jesus would suffer and die our behalf (and in an extraordinarily shameful and agonizing manner)?  You write about choice.  And you write about learning from "mistakes," figuring out what we "truly want," etc.  Like with that old girlfriend/boyfriend--the one where we decided we wanted something else.  And you assert Agency + Atonement = God's love.  But does any of this really answer the question?  Are you suggesting Jesus died so we could be free to make mistakes, recover and learn thereby?  Would that not trivialize the cross? 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

OK then believe it applies to everyone EXCEPT you.

Now do you feel better?

Agency is our answer to your belief that we are all sinners and deserving of hell- we find that preposterous and incompatible with a loving Father.

Yet unclean things cannot enter heaven, so the paradigm goes.  So to make it consistent, there must be a way to account for our mistakes and sins.  The atonement is one answer to that paradigm.  Sounds pefectly consistent to me if you don't think God would let innocents burn in hell forever for not hearing the name of JESUS

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Guest]

"The LDS Jesus", you mean Jesus, as there is no difference, he died to atone for the sins of all mankind 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

Not impressed with your interpretation of my post.  How could you get it so wrong?  Others seem to understand it easily enough, so I am assuming it is reader's issues and so won't be putting more effort into explanation at this time.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

"Jesus died for us..."  That sounds great at first glance.  I'm important (and I'm sure my self-esteem is at least as healthy as yours).  And if someone were to die for me--that would really drive home the point, so to speak.  So go Jesus!  Make it about--me. 

But then this moment of flattery might pass.  And your reader could be left with the thought--what was so wrong with us to begin with, that Jesus would suffer and die our behalf (and in an extraordinarily shameful and agonizing manner)?  You write about choice.  And you write about learning from "mistakes," figuring out what we "truly want," etc.  Like with that old girlfriend/boyfriend--the one where we decided we wanted something else.  And you assert Agency + Atonement = God's love.  But does any of this really answer the question?  Are you suggesting Jesus died so we could be free to make mistakes, recover and learn thereby?  Would that not trivialize the cross? 

You seem conflicted, Calm. 

--Erik

Here's a clue: Your self-serving gloss ("self-serving," in this context, meaning that its purpose is simply so you can score cheap rhetorical points against your interlocutors) on what Cal wrote =/= What Cal wrote.  And simply because members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understand certain aspects of the atonement differently than you do and than your like-minded fellows do, that doesn't mean that we "trivialize the cross."  (And to avoid accusations that I am "trivializing the cross," I edited my earlier post to note that Jesus died, then was resurrected.)  I'm not sure how it "trivializes the cross" to say that without Christ's atonement, including His death and resurrection, our spirits automatically would have become subject to the devil (as the Book of Mormon scripture I quoted earlier points out).  It would seem, rather than "trivializing the cross," that that scripture, instead, makes it central to our theology.  You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you.  

[SamIam]

For myself, I think Alma has the most specific explanation of the atonement available.  The ideology that Christ died for our sins is perfect ideology but generally the verses that use this terminology do not indicate how our sins are covered.  Alma makes the effort to be very exacting, however we tend not to see it. So many have bought off on the statement that we do not understand how the atonement works that they repeat the mantra over and over that he died for our sins but since we can't understand how the atonement works so we may not try hard enough to understand what can be understood.  I am convinced that Alma understands it perhaps to the most perfect understanding in scripture and I think we can understand his implications if we work at it. Alma 34 has an interesting way of approaching the subject which requires a bit of a paradigm shift to note.

Alma 34:11-16           

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another.Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

 12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

The essence here is that they have a law and it is described as just, which means it is according to the patterns of heaven.  It expresses a just condition for paying the penalty for wrong behavior.  Justice cannot except nor require someone other than the perpetrator of a crime to pay its penalty.  Verse 12 basically is saying that  since this correct condition exists "THEREFORE" the demands of justice cannot be met by the suffering of the Savior in a quid pro quo expectation - something of a greater magnitude must take place which addresses the issue differently than we tend to think.

Alma 34:13-14

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

The germane contribution is that the law of Moses was designed to point to this last great sacrifice and this last and great sacrifice would fulfill every expectation of the Law of Moses.  Not the law of justice - just the law of Moses.

Alma 34:15

           15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which over powereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may

           have faith unto repentance.

This is the key, where it states "this being the intent of the last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy".  "To bring about the bowels of mercy" occupies the functional position of the more common statement to pay the price for our sins but it is a more exacting description.  Something that is being accomplished in the atonement is permitting Christ to claim the right and privilege of offering up mercy or forgiveness for sins.  Once the capacity for mercy is in place then men can exercise faith that they may be able to benefit from the new conditions that can overcome the demands of justice.

Alma 34:16

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

The question becomes in what way did the suffering of Christ pay a price sufficient to enable the Savior to lay claim to the right to exercise mercy upon conditions of repentance. 

Reviewing the Garden of Eden narrative God the Father gives a law, the law is broken and God the father convenes a trial to address the broken law.  As the King of the kingdom it is the Fathers role to give the law and see to its proper execution and to render judgment in the event of a breach.  In the case of Adam, Eve and Satan, each receives a fitting judgment for their degree of culpability in causing the fall.   

Then as described in Alma 12 The new laws that govern the probationary period are given.  This time the law giver is Christ. So when the laws are broken he is the offended one and is the one who has the right to render judgment - just as the Father did in his kingdom before the fall.  However there is one more caveat that requires this attached image to explain.

What seals this privilege as his is reverse application of the law of justice. From the first story of the Old testament the scriptures introduce us to a key facet of the atonement and that is that innocent blood can make claims upon the lawgiver.  Abel's innocent blood cries out to the Lord and the lawgiver requires Cain pay a penalty.  Thus we see the lawgiver has another responsibility and that is to ensure that when any of his subjects innocently suffer he must sustain the law to their benefit.

The attached image serves to illustrate conditions after the fall.  The father remains in his kingdom on top.  Adam and Eve are in the fallen kingdom on the bottom.  Christ remains a citizen of his Fathers kingdom having never broken the law of the Garden and as well he is a member of the fallen world of Adam and Eve acting as our advocate.

When Christ's suffers and his innocent blood is shed he is still a citizen of the Fathers Kingdom. 

We always tend to view justice from our perspective as fallen man as it is applied to condemn us for our sinful behavior.

However, justice as it applies in the Kingdom of the Father requires that the Law giver - God the Father to see to the shedding of innocent blood of one of the citizens of his kingdom - Jesus Christ.  Because Christ has suffered greatly, in fact beyond the capacity of mortal man to endure, he is now in a position to request something of the Lawgiver of the Kingdom in which he is a Citizen and the Lawgiver must apply the law of justice to see that the claimant is justly dealt with.  In essence the Father says to the Son, what will it take to make you whole according to the law.  These people have shed your innocent blood and their lives are forfeit as murderers.  The Father is bound to apply the law of justice to make his Son whole.  The Son can demand justice and be satisfied in several ways however the means which he chooses is that he says to the Father that since their lives are forfeit because of the offense which I have suffered then I claim the right to all of their lives.

This D & C verse provides insight:

            D&C 45:3–5

           3. Listen to [Jesus Christ] who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

           4. Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

           5. Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life

The degree of his suffering justifies his request and so the law of justification is also, as required, satisfied.  Now the law of justice as it is functioning in the Fathers Kingdom demands that the Son be allowed to exercise mercy on the conditions that he establishes which is repentance.  In other words justice is not robbed because the price of justice in the case of Christ's innocent blood being shed demands mercy as defined by the Savior. As Moroni observes:

Moroni 7:27

27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men?

 28 For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens.

As the Father has committed all judgment to the Son, and the Son is the Lawgiver all breaches of the law are offenses against the Savior.  Just like you and I when someone offends us and breaks a law to our harm we can exercise the principle of forgiveness or we can demand that they be "exposed to the whole law of justice" as Alma states in verse 16.  Christ has a criteria and as Mosiah 15 states there is a group "whose sins he has born".  So while his suffering does not equate to x number of drops of blood to equate to x number of sins it does place him in a position to pardon or forgive an outstanding debt if the conditions are suitable.

Jeremiah 33:8

8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.

The use of the word pardon accurately indicates that the charges of sin remain until the Savior acts in his capacity of Lawgiver and pardons according to his set conditions.  Their payment or that which Christ bore was the suffering necessary to enable him to justly request of his Father that he might extend mercy to those who honored His life and would never have contributed the shedding of his innocent blood.

Recently, D. Todd Christofferson observed:

The Savior’s suffering in Gethsemane and His agony on the cross redeem us from sin by satisfying the demands that justice has upon us. He extends mercy and pardons those who repent. The Atonement also satisfies the debt justice owes to us by healing and compensating us for any suffering we innocently endure. “For behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Nephi 9:21; see also Alma 7:11–12). (Redemption, Christofferson, D. Todd, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April Conference 2013)

Edited February 14, 2017 by SamIam
Punctuation, better wording

[SamIam]

On 2/12/2017 at 6:55 PM, Five Solas said:

Another thread took an interesting twist on the oft-debated subject of “free agency.”  Rather than risk thread derailment, I thought the topic merited its own.  So here we go--

The quote (I’m sure Kenngo1969 won’t mind) was intended to refute the free part of free agency. He wrote: It's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it.

For it.  It being agency.  Jesus spilled his blood & died for agency, what LDS (back when I was a kid) used to call "free agency." 

I never heard this before and I admitted as much.  Another poster jumped in and provided a number of passages from Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Book of Moses to make the case that the LDS Jesus certainly did die for agency.  He finished his post by excoriating me for what he takes to be my willful ignorance.  Apparently every good LDS already knows this.  You can find it here.  

But is this really commonly understood by LDS - that their Jesus died for agency?  What do you think?  Did he die for something else?  Or for a bunch of things?  To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS. 

--Erik

Because the Atonement had the effect of preserving every aspect of the plan of salvation, of course it preserved agency, and it preserved faith, and it preserved the earth as the celestial kingdom, and the terrestrial and telestial as well.  It may have preserved Oreo cookies as well. Why one would see agency as a key focal point of the atonement is unclear to me. Surely agency is one of the greatest gifts given of God for his children and many scriptures attest to it's significance.  Still though the infinite reach of the atonement far surpasses the ideology that it preserved agency as the significant focal point.

[Five Solas]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

"The LDS Jesus", you mean Jesus, as there is no difference, he died to atone for the sins of all mankind 

Okay, no difference.  We all agree Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, that our Eternal, Unchanging God came into human history as a man (the Incarnation), and that He died in our place for our sin. 

Wait a second, did anyone notice that poll at the top...?

;0)

--Erik

PS.  I don't like to use "Mormon Jesus" as it seems condescending and that's really not my intent (this may come as surprise to some of you who don't appreciate my style or humor).  So if not "LDS Jesus" - what should I use to designate the deity Joseph Smith described--So that Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then inherits what God did before.  Serious question, what would you prefer?

[CV75]

On 2/12/2017 at 8:55 PM, Five Solas said:

To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS.

Now that you are not LDS, what is not fuzzy?