Pres. Nelson's Atonement quotation

[Duncan]

Yestarday Pres. Nelson said that "Don't be confused, it is not the Atonement which saves us, it is Jesus Christ" How does that make sense in light of the 3rd AOF which says,  "'We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." How are we saved?

[bluebell]

He was trying to get people to more fully realize that the term "the Atonement" is incomplete. It is "the Atonement of Christ" that saves, not the Atonement. 

There is no Atonement without Christ. There is no grace without Christ, no strengthening power without Christ, no salvation without Christ. That was his point.  The Atonement is a tool used by Christ to bring about our reconciliation with God. It does not exist on its own. It cannot be separated from Christ.

We sometimes think in shorthand but doing it to much can cause us to lose perspective. Doing it in regards to the Atonement and Christ can cause us to forget (or for children, never fully realize or comprehend) that we are not dependent upon the Atonement to save us. We are dependent upon Christ, who performed the Atonement, to save us. 

Edited April 2, 2017 by bluebell

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Yestarday Pres. Nelson said that "Don't be confused, it is not the Atonement which saves us, it is Jesus Christ" How does that make sense in light of the 3rd AOF which says,  "'We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." How are we saved?

It is not an impersonal, mechanical act of enduring suffering that saves us, it is a very real man who endured that suffering out of infinite and eternal love who saves us. It is the man Jesus Christ who is our Savior, not an abstract concept of suffering that seems to be floating in space.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rongo]

I think that going out of your way to emphasize that it is Christ's atonement is redundant. We all know that Christ wrought the atonement. That is the central message of the Book of Mormon. I see going out of our way to emphasize this akin to wringing our hands over how often Christ is mentioned in sacrament meeting --- to the point of nearly establishing quotas. I've found (in other sacrament meetings besides mine --- I have a say in mine) that a lot of other gospel topics, including the Restoration, or God the Father, etc., are de-emphasized when there is a self-conscious hyper-focus on Christ*. And I think that this stemmed from 1980s "Mormons aren't Christians" emphases from sectarian anti-Mormons.

* It goes without saying that we need to put a proper focus on Christ. I just don't think that that means that we need to make every talk about Christ and the atonement, to the neglect of other important topics of the Restoration. Or, that we act like we're dancing while being pistol-whipped by critics who say we aren't Christian.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that going out of your way to emphasize that it is Christ's atonement is redundant. We all know that Christ wrought the atonement. That is the central message of the Book of Mormon. I see going out of our way to emphasize this akin to wringing our hands over how often Christ is mentioned in sacrament meeting --- to the point of nearly establishing quotas. I've found (in other sacrament meetings besides mine --- I have a say in mine) that a lot of other gospel topics, including the Restoration, or God the Father, etc., are de-emphasized when there is a self-conscious hyper-focus on Christ*. And I think that this stemmed from 1980s "Mormons aren't Christians" emphases from sectarian anti-Mormons.

* It goes without saying that we need to put a proper focus on Christ. I just don't think that that means that we need to make every talk about Christ and the atonement, to the neglect of other important topics of the Restoration. Or, that we act like we're dancing while being pistol-whipped by critics who say we aren't Christian.

Elder Nelson disagrees with you.  

[CMZ]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that going out of your way to emphasize that it is Christ's atonement is redundant. We all know that Christ wrought the atonement. That is the central message of the Book of Mormon. I see going out of our way to emphasize this akin to wringing our hands over how often Christ is mentioned in sacrament meeting --- to the point of nearly establishing quotas. I've found (in other sacrament meetings besides mine --- I have a say in mine) that a lot of other gospel topics, including the Restoration, or God the Father, etc., are de-emphasized when there is a self-conscious hyper-focus on Christ*. And I think that this stemmed from 1980s "Mormons aren't Christians" emphases from sectarian anti-Mormons.

* It goes without saying that we need to put a proper focus on Christ. I just don't think that that means that we need to make every talk about Christ and the atonement, to the neglect of other important topics of the Restoration. Or, that we act like we're dancing while being pistol-whipped by critics who say we aren't Christian.

I don't recall President Nelson saying that nothing else should ever be talked about.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Yestarday Pres. Nelson said that "Don't be confused, it is not the Atonement which saves us, it is Jesus Christ" How does that make sense in light of the 3rd AOF which says,  "'We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." How are we saved?

Several Hebrew terms lie behind the ritual action:

Hebrew kippur “atonement” (as in Yom Kippur “Day of Atonement”) was a regular Israelite temple rite, as well as an integral part of every covenant renewal ceremony, as in Mosiah 3:5 – 4:8, and 1QS ii, 25-iii, 12.

• "Since the festival meant close encounter with God, the need for purification, atonement and forgiveness was readily acknowledged . . . . The ministry of atonement carried out annually by the post-exilic high priest was largely inherited from the king."*

In each case the atonement (whether performed by Jesus or the Israelite high priest) is vicarious, as in the Wave-Sheaf ritual (celebrated at the Jerusalem Temple the morning of Jesus' Resurrection), Hebrew hēnîp, tĕnûpâ, “wave-offering” = Ugaritic np, npy “atonement, expurgation, purification, expiation.”

The Hebrew term šillûm “repayment, recompense” appears in Alma 11:16-17,** as well as in Isaiah 34:8, Hosea 9:7, Micah 7:3 = Akkadian tašlimtu “payment” = Ugaritic tšlm “redemption, payment, atonement.”

*  Blake Ostler, Dialogue 20/1 (Spring 1987):92-93 (66 -123), quoting John H. Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah (London: SPCK, 1979), 11,33; cf. Ezekiel 45:17; 1 Kings 8.

**  “Shiblum” is an error of the 1830 edition.  The Original Manuscript reads Shillum.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that going out of your way to emphasize that it is Christ's atonement is redundant. We all know that Christ wrought the atonement. That is the central message of the Book of Mormon. I see going out of our way to emphasize this akin to wringing our hands over how often Christ is mentioned in sacrament meeting --- to the point of nearly establishing quotas. I've found (in other sacrament meetings besides mine --- I have a say in mine) that a lot of other gospel topics, including the Restoration, or God the Father, etc., are de-emphasized when there is a self-conscious hyper-focus on Christ*. And I think that this stemmed from 1980s "Mormons aren't Christians" emphases from sectarian anti-Mormons.

* It goes without saying that we need to put a proper focus on Christ. I just don't think that that means that we need to make every talk about Christ and the atonement, to the neglect of other important topics of the Restoration. Or, that we act like we're dancing while being pistol-whipped by critics who say we aren't Christian.

We at least need a balance. Conference this year seems to be all about Jesus it seems. What's wrong with more Jesus talks during Sacrament? Speaking from experience, maybe your ward has that balance.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Tacenda

[Rain]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

Is the use of "even" in the following context a uniquely North American Mormon thing?

". . . our beloved president, even Thomas S. Monson . . ."

". . . our Savior and Redeemer, even Jesus Christ . . ."

I don't think any other people use this redundant expression. Whom did it start with, I wonder?

Today I was wondering if I was missing some important meaning for "even". It's use has been talked about for some time,  but I've never understood why.  Maybe, since as Bluebell mentioned, it is in the bible there is some kind of Greek or,Hebrew context we are missing? 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Rain

[Rain]

I have to admit I don't understand why Elder Nelson talked about his subject.  Are there really people, in our church,  who ever think of the atonement separate from Christ? I can't recall a single time when I got that impression.  So it makes me wonder if I was missing something in his talk.  

I do have to laugh about the idea of it being similar to the idea of Christ in sacrament though since I am one who struggled with that.  Long time ago it was talked about in conference though.  Perhaps you just had to be in certain wards to get it.  Then perhaps maybe we need to be in certain wards/areas to get why President Nelson was talking about what he talked about.  

Edited April 3, 2017 by Rain

[bluebell]

This was actually one of my favorite talks. It seems like a little thing but when you think about it from a different perspective it becomes significant.

What if we were talking about a fireman and a hose.  How would it sound for people to stand up and testify about the power of the hose?  How confusing would it be for children to hear constantly about how the hose saved someone or offered someone hope?

It would be weird to always be talking and teaching about the hose and rarely mentioning the firefighter, especially if the firefighter suffered and died saving people. 

It wouldn't be right to focus on the hose alone. It would be a very incomplete understanding of where salvation came from, and meaning to or not, it would show a measure of ingratitude for the fireman and his sacrifice. 

Elder Nelson was pointing out that it's the same with our Savior and the Atonement. It's not ok to always focus on the means the Savior used to save us and leave out the Savior. 

I had never thought of that before, but it rings very true to me. Having sn accurate understanding of the separation between the Savior and the Atonement can help bring us closer to Him.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

This was actually one of my favorite talks. It seems like a little thing but when you think about it from a different perspective it becomes significant.

What if we were talking about a fireman and a hose.  How would it sound for people to stand up and testify about the power of the hose?  How confusing would it be for children to hear constantly about how the hose saved someone or offered someone hope?

It would be weird to always be talking and teaching about the hose and rarely mentioning the firefighter, especially if the firefighter suffered and died saving people. 

It wouldn't be right to focus on the hose alone. It would be a very incomplete understanding of where salvation came from, and meaning to or not, it would show a measure of ingratitude for the fireman and his sacrifice. 

Elder Nelson was pointing out that it's the same with our Savior and the Atonement. It's not ok to always focus on the means the Savior used to save us and leave out the Savior. 

I had never thought of that before, but it rings very true to me. Having sn accurate understanding of the separation between the Savior and the Atonement can help bring us closer to Him.

I kind of wonder if his idea has something to do with the usual Plan of Salvation charts with the circles and most diagrams leave out Christ altogether and doesn't explain what the Plan of Salvation is, just where you came from, where you are now and where you could go

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This was actually one of my favorite talks. It seems like a little thing but when you think about it from a different perspective it becomes significant.

What if we were talking about a fireman and a hose.  How would it sound for people to stand up and testify about the power of the hose?  How confusing would it be for children to hear constantly about how the hose saved someone or offered someone hope?

It would be weird to always be talking and teaching about the hose and rarely mentioning the firefighter, especially if the firefighter suffered and died saving people. 

It wouldn't be right to focus on the hose alone. It would be a very incomplete understanding of where salvation came from, and meaning to or not, it would show a measure of ingratitude for the fireman and his sacrifice. 

Elder Nelson was pointing out that it's the same with our Savior and the Atonement. It's not ok to always focus on the means the Savior used to save us and leave out the Savior. 

I had never thought of that before, but it rings very true to me. Having sn accurate understanding of the separation between the Savior and the Atonement can help bring us closer to Him.

I get the hose analogy and completely agree with what you are saying about it,  but it actually makes me more confused because I just don't find people who talk about it and don't talk about Christ. I just did a pinterest search, thinking maybe there are a lot of people who don't talk about Christ when they talk about the atonement,  but was actually how surprised how rare it was they the atonement was mentioned without Christ - the one time being a map of the plan of salvation. 

Which leads me to believe you got a deeper understanding of the talk than I did,  which doesn't surprise me considering my state today. 

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I kind of wonder if his idea has something to do with the usual Plan of Salvation charts with the circles and most diagrams leave out Christ altogether and doesn't explain what the Plan of Salvation is, just where you came from, where you are now and where you could go

I read your post after I wrote mine. Makes me laugh.  Maybe you are right! 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Rain

[Duncan]

Just now, Rain said:

I get the hose analogy and completely agree with what you are saying about it,  but it actually makes me more confused because I just don't find people who talk about it and don't talk about Christ. I just did a pinterest search, thinking maybe there are a lot of people who don't talk about Christ when they talk about the atonement,  but was actually how surprised how rare it was they the atonement was mentioned without Christ - the one time being a map of the plan of salvation. 

Which leads me to believe you got a deeper understanding of the talk than I did,  which doesn't surprise me considering my state today. 

Bluebell needs to write a book, "the Book of Bluebell"

Edited April 3, 2017 by Duncan

[Garden Girl]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We at least need a balance. Conference this year seems to be all about Jesus it seems. What's wrong with more Jesus talks during Sacrament? Speaking from experience, maybe your ward has that balance.

Hello Tacenda... 

You get me Tacenda... you're always complaining that we don't emphasize the Savior enough... this conference focused on Jesus and you're complaining about that... Conferences usually have a "theme" or focus for continuity... talks tend to emphasize various aspects of that theme... for instance sometimes it focuses on service... sometimes on families.. sometimes on missionary work, etc.

I loved this conference...

GG

[Garden Girl]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Bluebell needs to write a book, "the Book of Bluebell"

Yeah, and you could probably learn something from it... 

GG

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Tacenda... 

You get me Tacenda... you're always complaining that we don't emphasize the Savior enough... this conference focused on Jesus and you're complaining about that... Conferences usually have a "theme" or focus for continuity... talks tend to emphasize various aspects of that theme... for instance sometimes it focuses on service... sometimes on families.. sometimes on missionary work, etc.

I loved this conference...

GG

I don't think she was complaining about having too much Jesus. I think she recognized it was there,  appreciated it and wishes sacrament meetings were more like that. 

[Garden Girl]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I don't think she was complaining about having too much Jesus. I think she recognized it was there,  appreciated it and wishes sacrament meetings were more like that. 

Perhaps so... I don't mean to be unfair.  I guess my sacrament meetings are different than hers... maybe it's our bishop.  He assigns the topics and we do have regular talks on the Savior and aspects of his life and our relation to him... and during F&T mtg, the admonition is given "And now the time is yours for your Christ centered testimonies..."  I'll tell you, that put a stop to a lot of the travel/health-monies. personal problems, etc (unless they can relate it to their faith in and relationship to the Savior, etc.  And years ago his predesessor put a stop to parents whispering in the ears of their small children). 

GG

 

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Tacenda... 

You get me Tacenda... you're always complaining that we don't emphasize the Savior enough... this conference focused on Jesus and you're complaining about that... Conferences usually have a "theme" or focus for continuity... talks tend to emphasize various aspects of that theme... for instance sometimes it focuses on service... sometimes on families.. sometimes on missionary work, etc.

I loved this conference...

GG

I wasn't complaining about this conference being about Jesus, loved that part, and have zero complaints.  It must just be my ward, we will be lucky to have talks about Jesus on Easter. Sorry this is a huge hang up I have.

If you're ever in Utah maybe you could see what I mean. Of course I have skipped some Sundays of late. Maybe this conference will serve to be a good example.

ETA: I see that Rain saw it differently, although these days I'm having trouble putting sentences together. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Perhaps so... I don't mean to be unfair.  I guess my sacrament meetings are different than hers... maybe it's our bishop.  He assigns the topics and we do have regular talks on the Savior and aspects of his life and our relation to him... and during F&T mtg, the admonition is given "And now the time is yours for your Christ centered testimonies..."  I'll tell you, that put a stop to a lot of the travel/health-monies. personal problems, etc (unless they can relate it to their faith in and relationship to the Savior, etc.  And years ago his predesessor put a stop to parents whispering in the ears of their small children). 

GG

 

GG, nearly every F&T meeting in my ward has the little ones baring their testimonies, some in their parents arms. And everyone just loves it, they think it's so sweet. I keep remembering that it's been said that they should wait till they are at least eight. But apparently my bishop thinks it's just fine...so be it. 

[Calm]

Shove an anonymous letter under your bishop's door with the instruction on it, Tac, if you can't tell your bishop straight out you think it would be more in line with church instruction.  Either that or sit back and enjoy them.

[Garden Girl]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wasn't complaining about this conference being about Jesus, loved that part, and have zero complaints.  It must just be my ward, we will be lucky to have talks about Jesus on Easter. Sorry this is a huge hang up I have.

If you're ever in Utah maybe you could see what I mean. Of course I have skipped some Sundays of late. Maybe this conference will serve to be a good example.

Hello Tacenda... I'm glad you saw this conference... I hope you'll keep attending on Sundays... if my ward rarely had talks about the Savior, I'm sure I'd feel very much the same as you... and not all conferences are so clearly or directly focused on the Savior... although He is behind all of our purpose in everything we do.  I too loved it..

GG

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shove an anonymous letter under your bishop's door with the instruction on it, Tac, if you can't tell your bishop straight out you think it would be more in line with church instruction.  Either that or sit back and enjoy them.

Well, they are cute dontcha know!

I don't mind it as long as they are given a chance to have their own testimony one day and not what they're told to say.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Garden Girl said:

Perhaps so... I don't mean to be unfair.  I guess my sacrament meetings are different than hers... maybe it's our bishop.  He assigns the topics and we do have regular talks on the Savior and aspects of his life and our relation to him... and during F&T mtg, the admonition is given "And now the time is yours for your Christ centered testimonies..."  I'll tell you, that put a stop to a lot of the travel/health-monies. personal problems, etc (unless they can relate it to their faith in and relationship to the Savior, etc.  And years ago his predesessor put a stop to parents whispering in the ears of their small children). 

GG

 

I really do think that different wards have things different.  I really only had a problem in one ward for about 10-11 months and then on occasion in another ward, though that ward just had some off people and the rest were more Christ centered.  

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wasn't complaining about this conference being about Jesus, loved that part, and have zero complaints.  It must just be my ward, we will be lucky to have talks about Jesus on Easter. Sorry this is a huge hang up I have.

If you're ever in Utah maybe you could see what I mean. Of course I have skipped some Sundays of late. Maybe this conference will serve to be a good example.

ETA: I see that Rain saw it differently, although these days I'm having trouble putting sentences together. 

It's not a Utah thing. Most Utah wards, I would guess,  never had a problem. Even some wards I have attended outside of Utah have had off weeks though I've never been there enough weeks to see a pattern. 

I would guess that if you started attending reglar again you might see a change in your ward. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Rain