A logical explanation of how the atonement works.

[Cookies]

Nataliya, check out the way some others defined agency in this thread- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31149&p=431761&hil ... cy#p431761" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Specifically this part-

Because we do not have agency if we are prevented from experiencing the consequences of our actions, good or bad. I am quoting Elliaison who said,

There is another reason in which the consequences of our actions must fall upon us. That is our agency. There are four requirements for an individual to truly make a choice or have agency. They are:

Opposition or at least 2 choices – 2 Nephi 2:11-13 - “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.”
Consequences must also vary according to the choices. – 2 Nephi 2:10 - “the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed”
Man must have a desire toward one of the choices. – 2 Nephi 2:16 - “Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.”
Man must have the ability to chose for themselves. – 2 Nephi 2:27 - “Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.”

These four things are necessary for man to have agency, without agency there can be no justice. If we were to remove the consequences of our actions, then we have removed our agency.

If that's correct and it's true that Jesus took our (eternal) consequences from us, than he must have also taken away our agency. Definitely something to think about, especially if you consider what Katmr said earlier in this thread.

"Satan has no role in atoning for our sins but I can see how he would love nothing more than to claim part of that role from our Savior. I'm sorry you are unable to see the deception at this time."

I can agree that Satan probably wants to weasel his way into our view of the role of our Savior. How do we know he hasn't already?

[freedomforall]

If your looking for a logical explanation on how an innocent person could have paid for all peoples' sins and you will not accept it until you receive a 'logical explanation' which, let's be honest here...anything outside what you have already accepted as your truth is illogical to you. Simply put, you do not accept or believe in the Atonement as it was made by Jesus Christ our Savior. I am only left to feel sorry for you. I too, wish you well on your journey.

+1

[freedomforall]

I'll have to take a break from posting here for awhile. I'll respond to other posts if I'll have time.

The best way, instead of scrutinizing Christ and His Atoning sacrifice for us, which in the first place, is quite disrespectful, to solve our inquiries...is to ask God directly.

James 1:5-8
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

upbraid:
1. to reprove or reproach angrily
2. to find fault with

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

[Simon]

The one thing I dont understand, Nataliya, is why it seems more logical to you to trust a few vague scriptures in the old testament, that are not even that expressive, but reject an huge amount of other scriptures and modernday revelation that are pretty clear on the matter.

The goat of Azael was not sacrificed, but sent into the wilderness. It was not Christ, since he was sacrificed. I tend to believe it is mostly a symbolism of sending our sins, and the devil to where they belong, by our rightousness.

[katmr]

Christ was sacrificed but still He lives. He rose again. The following thoughts are taken from a another site but I'll post a few of them here. (I also added a couple things for clarity.
Also, the two goats used were to be without blemish and similar as possible.

-Both goats made one sin sacrifice because one goat could not completely represent the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ
-One goat was slain for their sins
-The other lived and removed their sins as far as the east is from the west.
-The death and resurrecton of Christ
-Christ and Satan were never equals.
-Satan was never without blemish and both goats were to be without blemish.
-The scapegoat was the representation of God removing the sins of Israel.
-The slain goat was for the propitiation for the sins.
- Though Christ was slain, yet he rose again and he lives to be our substitute and remove our sins.

When someone is a scapegoat, the word scapegoat by very definition, is someone who is innocent and didn't do the wrong taking the blame (for lack of a better word) of someone else who is
guilty.

[katmr]

This is an excellent source for scriptures clarifying how Christ is the one that represent both goats.

http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_stu ... azazel.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Simon]

So, when both goats represent Christ, do they represent two possibilities, or two aspects of his atoning sacrifice? What think ye?

I have not studied that particular topic in depth yet, but so far do I rather tend to believe that the two goats represent two aspects, or roles Christ himselfe plays in this atoning sacrifice.. Mayby one rather referes to the spiritual, the other rather to the physical aspect? Could it represent the actual mission of Christ to teach people to abandon their sins, and on the other hand preparing a way that his teachings can be accomplished through the sacrifice?

Could there be a relation to Abraham not killing Isaac, but instead an goat?

[freedomforall]

The one thing I dont understand, Nataliya, is why it seems more logical to you to trust a few vague scriptures in the old testament, that are not even that expressive, but reject an huge amount of other scriptures and modernday revelation that are pretty clear on the matter.

The goat of Azael was not sacrificed, but sent into the wilderness. It was not Christ, since he was sacrificed. I tend to believe it is mostly a symbolism of sending our sins, and the devil to where they belong, by our rightousness.

It appears that Nataliya has abandoned the thread. Sure has been a lot of pot stirring going on lately. I give honor, praise and glory to my Savior, Jesus Christ, for He is Lord and King.

[Cookies]

The best way, instead of scrutinizing Christ and His Atoning sacrifice for us, which in the first place, is quite disrespectful, to solve our inquiries...is to ask God directly.
[/b]
James 1:5-8
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

upbraid:
1. to reprove or reproach angrily
2. to find fault with

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Did you mean to use the word "scrutinizing" here? :-\

[freedomforall]

The best way, instead of scrutinizing Christ and His Atoning sacrifice for us, which in the first place, is quite disrespectful, to solve our inquiries...is to ask God directly.
[/b]
James 1:5-8
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

upbraid:
1. to reprove or reproach angrily
2. to find fault with

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Did you mean to use the word "scrutinizing" here? :-\

scru·ti·nize
To inspect critically.

I think the word is applicable. Anyone looking for a logical reason for the atonement, in my book, is scrutinizing critically the purpose for it instead of seeing it for what it is and for, and being extremely grateful for it. And then used effrontery in comparing it to Azazel is a travesty. I can provide the meanings of effrontery and travesty if necessary. :-B

[Cookies]

The best way, instead of scrutinizing Christ and His Atoning sacrifice for us, which in the first place, is quite disrespectful, to solve our inquiries...is to ask God directly.
[/b]
James 1:5-8
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

upbraid:
1. to reprove or reproach angrily
2. to find fault with

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Did you mean to use the word "scrutinizing" here? :-\

scru·ti·nize
To inspect critically.

I think the word is applicable. Anyone looking for a logical reason for the atonement, in my book, is scrutinizing critically the purpose for it instead of seeing it for what it is and for, and being extremely grateful for it. And then used effrontery in comparing it to Azazel is a travesty. I can provide the meanings of effrontery and travesty if necessary. :-B

No thanks, I have Google. ;)

I think of scrutiny as taking out the trash. You have to spend time gathering it first. I don't think finding fault is ALWAYS a bad thing.
Other definitions say it's finding fault TOO READILY, and that IS a bad thing IMO.

The story we are taught about the Atonement makes some pretty big claims. I think it deserves a reasonable and understandable explanation. I find it strange that people will just accept that they will never understand the Atonement and move on to other subjects. Why not? Why can't we understand it? I mean, I don't think it's 100% necessary to, but I believe in modern revelation. I believe the God who created heaven, and Earth, and all things therein, is quite capable of explaining the atonement in a comprehensible way.

So ask God Nataliya, I second that!

Unless of course your intent for starting this thread was to start conversation about our view of the Atonement, and convince others to consider that we just might have gotten this one wrong too. (It has been known to happen.)
If that's the case, thanks.

[Simon]

The story we are taught about the Atonement makes some pretty big claims. I think it deserves a reasonable and understandable explanation. I find it strange that people will just accept that they will never understand the Atonement and move on to other subjects. Why not? Why can't we understand it? I mean, I don't think it's 100% necessary to, but I believe in modern revelation. I believe the God who created heaven, and Earth, and all things therein, is quite capable of explaining the atonement in a comprehensible way.

So ask God Nataliya, I second that!

Unless of course your intent for starting this thread was to start conversation about our view of the Atonement, and convince others to consider that we just might have gotten this one wrong too. (It has been known to happen.)
If that's the case, thanks.

I couldnt agree more with you...Gods glory is intelligence, light and knowledge.. and by being invited to become as God, we are likewise invited to obtain the knowledge and understanding he has. Never, ever should we be satified with anything until we have understood it.

But, to understand the atonement logically is not complete knowledge. When we were in the preexistence, we knew how mortality would look like, for we were prepared and taught about it for eons, but we didnt truely know what it was like until we had the actual experience. The same it is with the atonement, only when we have seen the Lord in vision, and how he experienced the atonement, will we truely know and understand.

The Lord invites all of us to have these experiences, and to learn by faith.

When I think about the atonement, it makes total logical sense to me.. In fact, mayby at times we like to make it much more complicated than it actually is. But, to really comprehend it, we need to learn from the Lord, from vision, from angels, by faith.

Faith, to me, does not mean to act against logic, but to me, it means to act upon truths the Lord has clearly revealed to us though they may contradict worldly logic. Look at the life of Christ, and how many curious things he did.. where they all logical according to worldy understanding?

I believe it is vital for us to understand that God does not work upon telestial laws, and therefore does he also not use a telestial logic. For us, to understand all of Gods dealings, we have to be in this world, but not from this world. We need to look a little deeper, at times even beyond humanlogic.

Trying to explain celestial glory by telestial logic is like trying to explain to a blind person how the world looks like by pictures. The only thing that will help him to comprehend by himselfe is by leaving his blind world, and by opening his eyes, and by seeing the truths, and how they truely are, which is impossible to do without faith.

The Lord repeatatly invites us to come unto him, the source of all knowledge and understanding, and receive the light and the wisdom we need. To me, it is more than logical to follow this invitation, especially if I desire to comprehend the one act that made even him, the greatest, to shrink and to tremble.

[freedomforall]

The story we are taught about the Atonement makes some pretty big claims. I think it deserves a reasonable and understandable explanation. I find it strange that people will just accept that they will never understand the Atonement and move on to other subjects. Why not? Why can't we understand it? I mean, I don't think it's 100% necessary to, but I believe in modern revelation. I believe the God who created heaven, and Earth, and all things therein, is quite capable of explaining the atonement in a comprehensible way.

So ask God Nataliya, I second that!

Unless of course your intent for starting this thread was to start conversation about our view of the Atonement, and convince others to consider that we just might have gotten this one wrong too. (It has been known to happen.)
If that's the case, thanks.

I couldnt agree more with you...Gods glory is intelligence, light and knowledge.. and by being invited to become as God, we are likewise invited to obtain the knowledge and understanding he has. Never, ever should we be satified with anything until we have understood it.

But, to understand the atonement logically is not complete knowledge. When we were in the preexistence, we knew how mortality would look like, for we were prepared and taught about it for eons, but we didnt truely know what it was like until we had the actual experience. The same it is with the atonement, only when we have seen the Lord in vision, and how he experienced the atonement, will we truely know and understand.

The Lord invites all of us to have these experiences, and to learn by faith.

When I think about the atonement, it makes total logical sense to me.. In fact, mayby at times we like to make it much more complicated than it actually is. But, to really comprehend it, we need to learn from the Lord, from vision, from angels, by faith.

Faith, to me, does not mean to act against logic, but to me, it means to act upon truths the Lord has clearly revealed to us though they may contradict worldly logic. Look at the life of Christ, and how many curious things he did.. where they all logical according to worldy understanding?

I believe it is vital for us to understand that God does not work upon telestial laws, and therefore does he also not use a telestial logic. For us, to understand all of Gods dealings, we have to be in this world, but not from this world. We need to look a little deeper, at times even beyond humanlogic.

Trying to explain celestial glory by telestial logic is like trying to explain to a blind person how the world looks like by pictures. The only thing that will help him to comprehend by himselfe is by leaving his blind world, and by opening his eyes, and by seeing the truths, and how they truely are, which is impossible to do without faith.

The Lord repeatatly invites us to come unto him, the source of all knowledge and understanding, and receive the light and the wisdom we need. To me, it is more than logical to follow this invitation, especially if I desire to comprehend the one act that made even him, the greatest, to shrink and to tremble.

I mean no disrespect Simon, I just think the correct word used here is "of". We are not supposed to be of the world. I think your view of the Atonement is tremendous and well thought out. Faith is essential in most all that we do and believe, as God planned it. I sometimes wonder just how many members have it written in their PB to learn to walk by faith. It must be necessary.

Heb. 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Seeking Christ and activating the Atonement is like turning an ignition key in an automobile. We must initiate the action.

[Simon]

Thank you ffa, you are correct, it should be "of", my english still isnt perfect (;

[freedomforall]

Thank you ffa, you are correct, it should be "of", my english still isnt perfect (;

You're doing wonderful, Simon, I just wasn't sure if you knew the correct phraseology. You're English far surpasses any German I may know which might be all of two words.
Are you in a ward or branch?

[Simon]

Thank you ffa, you are correct, it should be "of", my english still isnt perfect (;

You're doing wonderful, Simon, I just wasn't sure if you knew the correct phraseology. You're English far surpasses any German I may know which might be all of two words.
Are you in a ward or branch?

Ward and hopefully future stake ;)

[brlenox]

When I think about the atonement, it makes total logical sense to me.. In fact, mayby at times we like to make it much more complicated than it actually is. But, to really comprehend it, we need to learn from the Lord, from vision, from angels, by faith.

The Lord repeatatly invites us to come unto him, the source of all knowledge and understanding, and receive the light and the wisdom we need. To me, it is more than logical to follow this invitation, especially if I desire to comprehend the one act that made even him, the greatest, to shrink and to tremble.

Simon I am intrigued by a sense of possible understanding that you may be conveying but is not explained in that we maybe haven't covered something that evinced from you a response that could be measured.

Of course there are numberless elements of the atonement that often are ignored by most under the burden of accepting that we can never understand the atonement. Perhaps we can't understand it completely I must agree but I have found that if we will ask questions of the Lord we can understand a hundred times more than we generally do. Thus, I don't mean to quiz you or such but in an effort of me understanding what you understand of the atonement I thought I would venture a specific question just to see where you are.

Most of the time when we discuss Justice there is a tendency to see justice as the condemnation of man, because being subject to a response to our sinful behavior justice is what demands us being accountable to those actions, which of course we could not be so an atonement was provided. My question is simply that how is justice not our condemnation but the primary pivot point for why Christ's sacrifice is able to save us? In other words does justice demand the merciful response or does justice condemn mankind?

[therockpile]

I think the totality of the atonement is too large for our complete understanding and so vast that even a partial understanding is difficult.

Myself, I prefer Cleon's intelligence theory. It has it's short comings but most critics seem to confuse the fact that all intelligences know justice when they see it (but we have great difficulty articulating it) with god being governed by those under him. I do not beleve this counter argument is valid.
To illustrate the theory he gives this example in the speech:

Let me just give you an example now as I finish of Abraham Lincoln. I just want to show you how this happens every day in real life. If you want to see how intelligence overcomes the demands of justice, watch this. There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.

She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.
The whole text can be foundhere
And some counter arguments:
http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... t.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://iftwothingsexist.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?t=20668" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brlenox]

I think the totality of the atonement is too large for our complete understanding and so vast that even a partial understanding is difficult.

Myself, I prefer Cleon's intelligence theory. It has it's short comings but most critics seem to confuse the fact that all intelligences know justice when they see it (but we have great difficulty articulating it) with god being governed by those under him. I do not beleve this counter argument is valid.

I first heard the Cleon Skousan presentation back around 1981. For the longest time I thought it was the best explanation of the Atonement I had ever heard. For the most part it holds together pretty well but you have hit one of two points on the head for where it errs. It troubled me from the very beginning concerning the other intelligence's exercising some control over God the Father. Moses 7 is the doorway to properly understanding that relationship and it is not as I understood what Cleon was expounding. Perhaps he means something different than what I thought but since you characterize the same way as I did then at least two of us in the world heard it the same way. Nonetheless I'll be the first to say that words do a poor job of explaining the more precise understandings of the atonement and in fact only upon the principles of revelation can anyone understand it properly.

The second thing is concerning how when justice is really operating it requires our salvation and not our condemnation in the end of its application. The cleverly constructed reference to this reality is found in Alma 41.

A third thing that is a must understand is how the law of the God the Father affects mankind as illustrated in the Garden and how the law of Christ affects mankind and the expectations of each.

When you state "I do not believe this counter argument is valid" to what do you refer?

[SuHwak]

I haven't read everyone's post yet (some of them are way too long, the Gospel should be simple?). The way the Atonement works is in my mind as follows:

In the beginning Father represents perfect Justice. We are His spiritual children. This posed a dilemma, because all of us (except One) could not live life in perfection, and must be lost. But we couldn't progress either.

Christ came in, and offered Father to buy us as His own. This way He owns us instead of Father, and all responsibility of us falls on Him instead of on Father. But because Christ bought us, He Himself could not be bought, and was still Fathers responsibility. This is why Christ absolutely needed to live the perfect life. One sin, and Christ would have not been able to return to Father, and endure His presence, but take all of us down to hell.

But because He lived a perfect life and suffered the Atonement, all glory to the Father, and He finished His work. Now the price was paid in full for us. And because He bought us, he can also judge us, and cast us away to hell, or reward us with any glory, all according to our actions. Because He took al responsibility, Father cannot exact justice on us, because we are no longer Fathers, but we are Christ's. And now after He (Christ) has judged us, He can be our advocate with the father*, and present us spotless before the Father.

*This being a civil court, not a criminal one

Again, in my view its as simple as that.

[therockpile]

I think the totality of the atonement is too large for our complete understanding and so vast that even a partial understanding is difficult.

Myself, I prefer Cleon's intelligence theory. It has it's short comings but most critics seem to confuse the fact that all intelligences know justice when they see it (but we have great difficulty articulating it) with god being governed by those under him. I do not beleve this counter argument is valid.

I first heard the Cleon Skousan presentation back around 1981. For the longest time I thought it was the best explanation of the Atonement I had ever heard. For the most part it holds together pretty well but you have hit one of two points on the head for where it errs. It troubled me from the very beginning concerning the other intelligence's exercising some control over God the Father. Moses 7 is the doorway to properly understanding that relationship and it is not as I understood what Cleon was expounding. Perhaps he means something different than what I thought but since you characterize the same way as I did then at least two of us in the world heard it the same way. Nonetheless I'll be the first to say that words do a poor job of explaining the more precise understandings of the atonement and in fact only upon the principles of revelation can anyone understand it properly.

The second thing is concerning how when justice is really operating it requires our salvation and not our condemnation in the end of its application. The cleverly constructed reference to this reality is found in Alma 41.

A third thing that is a must understand is how the law of the God the Father affects mankind as illustrated in the Garden and how the law of Christ affects mankind and the expectations of each.

When you state "I do not believe this counter argument is valid" to what do you refer?

Even as I typed that i thought it may not be clear. Sorry about that. I was refering to this statement of mine "critics seem to confuse the fact that all intelligences know justice when they see it... with god being governed by those under him"
I think this gets to what makes god the father all powerfull. If his honor is his power as indacated in D&C 29:36 then what is honor? I think Cleon and cirtenly some of this critics may have taken this to mean the honor of others but it could more cleanly mean god's honnering of true princaples otherwise we would see that god has power because of some form of a popularity contest.

*Edit
ive been thinking about this after I posted. It seems that any argument for inteligences to not be yelding to the will of god by choice subverts the beleve of free will and makes god one who rules by simply asserting his will over others. Therefore... what? i reverse my position on this? This ilistrates the need to understand at a fundamintal level what the chareter and attrabutes of an inteligences is what the relationship is between inteligences, spirits and the relationship between both and eternal truths exp. inteligences. For these aspects of the gosple there is little known. Do inteligences have a more strict love of truth but less power to act? analigus to how we had a more strict love of truth when in spirit but not the power to succed or fail as we do now? does this first estate constitute our first opertunity for decent away from eternal principals? and our seccond a more extream measusre of that opertunity? of so what does this tell us about the atonement.

[Simon]

When I think about the atonement, it makes total logical sense to me.. In fact, mayby at times we like to make it much more complicated than it actually is. But, to really comprehend it, we need to learn from the Lord, from vision, from angels, by faith.

The Lord repeatatly invites us to come unto him, the source of all knowledge and understanding, and receive the light and the wisdom we need. To me, it is more than logical to follow this invitation, especially if I desire to comprehend the one act that made even him, the greatest, to shrink and to tremble.

Simon I am intrigued by a sense of possible understanding that you may be conveying but is not explained in that we maybe haven't covered something that evinced from you a response that could be measured.

Of course there are numberless elements of the atonement that often are ignored by most under the burden of accepting that we can never understand the atonement. Perhaps we can't understand it completely I must agree but I have found that if we will ask questions of the Lord we can understand a hundred times more than we generally do. Thus, I don't mean to quiz you or such but in an effort of me understanding what you understand of the atonement I thought I would venture a specific question just to see where you are.

Most of the time when we discuss Justice there is a tendency to see justice as the condemnation of man, because being subject to a response to our sinful behavior justice is what demands us being accountable to those actions, which of course we could not be so an atonement was provided. My question is simply that how is justice not our condemnation but the primary pivot point for why Christ's sacrifice is able to save us? In other words does justice demand the merciful response or does justice condemn mankind?

When we read the scriptures, justice is often used with multiple meanings. But to answer your question in very short terms, I believe that justice serves both, to condemn the wicked, and to justifiy the rightous. In most cases within the scriptures though, justice mainly referes to Gods judgements for the wicked, but we also find other scriptures that show how justice also serves th rightous.

2 Nephi 9:46

46 Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment

The entire plan of redemption and its set conditions is proove of Gods justice, though in most cases, Gods justice is to describe Gods punishments. Taking a greater view though, we see that in the end God is neither our condemner, nor our judge, but in truth we are our own judges. What I beieve happens when we stand before God to be "judged", is that while standing in his pure presence, we will obtain the proper view of our life lived upon earth, and will be our own condemner and tormentor.

Mosiah 3:25

25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of bmisery and cendless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.

Or put in other words, we will truely awaken and view ourselves as we have truely been, and no longer can we deny our just judgement.

Mosiah 2:38

38 Therefore if that man arepenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the dpresence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and epain, and fanguish, which is like an unquenchable gfire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

But yes, justice also serves obtaining everlasting salvation

Mosiah 5:15

...that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who dcreated all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

Or put in other word, justice allows mankind to be judged according to their works, wether they be good, or wether they be evil ( Alma 41:3-7 ), and justice allows all men to come back into Gods presence to be judged ( Alma 42:23 )


What I find so vital to understand about the atonement, in regards to Gods justice, is that God would not be enthroned with justice, or mercy, if not he, himselfe, had atoned for the sins of this world. This sacrifice was neccesary so that Christ could obtain the keys over justice and mercy, or, over rightous and just judgement for all mankind.

Alma 42

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself aatoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of cjustice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a emerciful God also

I like to view justice as it is well described in Lehis dream, justice represented by the gulf that divided the rightous from the wicked. I that sense it serves both, and places the creature not just where it belongs, but also where it wants to be most.. Intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence, mercy claimeth his aswell as justice clmaimeth his.

Finally, it may sound a little paradox, but to the rightous, mercy also is justice, and to the wicked, justice also is mercy .. But that is another story, if interested ;)

[brlenox]

Most of the time when we discuss Justice there is a tendency to see justice as the condemnation of man, because being subject to a response to our sinful behavior justice is what demands us being accountable to those actions, which of course we could not be so an atonement was provided. My question is simply that how is justice not our condemnation but the primary pivot point for why Christ's sacrifice is able to save us? In other words does justice demand the merciful response or does justice condemn mankind?

When we read the scriptures, justice is often used with multiple meanings. But to answer your question in very short terms, I believe that justice serves both, to condemn the wicked, and to justify the righteous. In most cases within the scriptures though, justice mainly refers to Gods judgement for the wicked, but we also find other scriptures that show how justice also serves the righteous.

2 Nephi 9:46

46 Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment

The entire plan of redemption and its set conditions is proof of Gods justice, though in most cases, Gods justice is to describe Gods punishments. Taking a greater view though, we see that in the end God is neither our condemner, nor our judge, but in truth we are our own judges. What I believe happens when we stand before God to be "judged", is that while standing in his pure presence, we will obtain the proper view of our life lived upon earth, and will be our own condemner and tormentor.


What I find so vital to understand about the atonement, in regards to Gods justice, is that God would not be enthroned with justice, or mercy, if not he, himselfe, had atoned for the sins of this world. This sacrifice was neccesary so that Christ could obtain the keys over justice and mercy, or, over rightous and just judgement for all mankind.

Finally, it may sound a little paradox, but to the righteous, mercy also is justice, and to the wicked, justice also is mercy .. But that is another story, if interested ;)

I would definitely like to hear more concerning the final thought you have above. However, what you have written throughout is very well done and moves in a very good direction. Still I think we can tighten it up a bit.

Really it translates as specificity. The essence of the problem is that justice was served already when God the Father delivered a judgement of death for all mankind as a result of the actions in the Garden which warranted death. Where the issue comes in is the subsequent desire to override that act of justice with a merciful response without compromising the laws of God the Fathers kingdom which demanded the death penalty in the first place. What could possibly be the impact of eating the fruit that would warrant a death penalty?

Knowing the following:

Mosiah 29:12

12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

Ostensibly eating a pomegranate simply does not justly deserve a punishment of death. We know that sin was occurring in the preexistence and it wasn't until a specific action occurs that man's judgment of exile is implemented. We also know that little children are innocent so the atonement enables their return without any potential of a penalty imposed. Of course there is something shielded behind that symbolism that we must understand or we have difficulty understanding what the exact trigger is that permits God the Father to juxtapose the law of justice against the law of mercy. To say it another way, Justice demands a price be paid. How does God the Father get justice to demand mercy as the price so that it fulfills the demands of Justice?

Whatever this issue is it is something that places us individually under the law of the Garden and demands that each of us warrants consideration of a just rendering of a judgment of death (except children). This is one reason we do not see the explanation for what Adam and Eve specifically did in the garden as the action actually varies from person to person but what the result is of that action regardless of exactly what it is causes the same threshold to be crossed that demands our death. And so we are all under a just charge of death unless somehow we can get justice satisfied by granting mercy. Why? Of course the obvious answer is we sin however, how does the sin of telling a tiny lie to cover a slight indiscretion and a huge evil such as murdering someone both equal a just rendering of a judgement of death and what is the trigger?

This is difficult to put in a question and answer format so if I am not getting there with my questions let me know and I will come at it from a different direction.

[Simon]

I would definitely like to hear more concerning the final thought you have above. However, what you have written throughout is very well done and moves in a very good direction. Still I think we can tighten it up a bit.

Really it translates as specificity. The essence of the problem is that justice was served already when God the Father delivered a judgement of death for all mankind as a result of the actions in the Garden which warranted death. Where the issue comes in is the subsequent desire to override that act of justice with a merciful response without compromising the laws of God the Fathers kingdom which demanded the death penalty in the first place. What could possibly be the impact of eating the fruit that would warrant a death penalty?

Knowing the following:

Mosiah 29:12

12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

Ostensibly eating a pomegranate simply does not justly deserve a punishment of death. We know that sin was occurring in the preexistence and it wasn't until a specific action occurs that man's judgment of exile is implemented. We also know that little children are innocent so the atonement enables their return without any potential of a penalty imposed. Of course there is something shielded behind that symbolism that we must understand or we have difficulty understanding what the exact trigger is that permits God the Father to juxtapose the law of justice against the law of mercy.

To say it another way, Justice demands a price be paid. How does God the Father get justice to demand mercy as the price so that it fulfills the demands of Justice?

I am not certain wether I catch excactly what you are after ( due to my english )... But I will simply answer what I think your question is.


I believe that the Father received his justice by and through Jesus Christ. We know that if Christ had not sacrificed himselfe in our behalf, all would be in vain, no matter what we did. All men would be exposed a 100 % to Gods justice

Alma 42:14

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

Now, we know that it was through Christ, or his atonement, that mercy came into the world, and that the purpose and power of Christs mercy was, and is the power that can overpower justice

Alma 34:15-16

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 overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

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 eredemption.

To answer your question, the Father obtained justice, or on other words, the demands of justice were satisfied in and through Jesus Christ

Mosiah 15:9

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

Christ has set the conditions under which mercy can saisfy the demands of justice. If we do not abide to Christs conditions, we will be exposed to the full justice of the Father, and by that will have to suffer even as Christ has suffered, which caused even him to shrink, and to bleed from every poore.


Mosiah 15:26-27

26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

27 Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim.

The thing I am convinced of is that no matter how good we think we are, we are simply not in the least position to pay any price that could satify the Father. All we can and should do is to live according to Christs conditons, which is faith unto repentance. The price the Father required was so high, that only the sacrifice of a perfect, innocent God was able to satisfy him. There was no other way, nor other name by which the demands of justice could be satisfied.

Whatever this issue is it is something that places us individually under the law of the Garden and demands that each of us warrants consideration of a just rendering of a judgment of death (except children). This is one reason we do not see the explanation for what Adam and Eve specifically did in the garden as the action actually varies from person to person but what the result is of that action regardless of exactly what it is causes the same threshold to be crossed that demands our death. And so we are all under a just charge of death unless somehow we can get justice satisfied by granting mercy. Why? Of course the obvious answer is we sin however, how does the sin of telling a tiny lie to cover a slight indiscretion and a huge evil such as murdering someone both equal a just rendering of a judgement of death and what is the trigger?

This is difficult to put in a question and answer format so if I am not getting there with my questions let me know and I will come at it from a different direction.

Due to time I cant go too much into depth now, but here just one thought. When we look at sins, we like to categorize them into really evil ones, and really tiny ones.. And, of course, there is in deed a difference to them. But one thing we may not always be aware of, is that no matter how tiny my sins are, they still cause a huge gulf between who God is, and between who I am.. Wether I am a murdurer, or wether I just told a little lie, when both sinners are to stand before God, both will be nothing compared to his glory, his perfection and his excalted being. Simply put, all of us are far away from being as Christ is, but only when we actually are as Christ is, can we please the Father... So, who of us cann be called good? Or who of us can be called better than the other?

The real question is how does the Lord view us, and how does he look upon any of our sins? Fact is that if we did not have Christ and the atonement, it wouldnt matter what sin we comitted, for all sin, wether small or great would keep us away from the presence of the Father, and all sin would cause me to die the second death. In the end all sin is rebellion, trangression and war against God, and God cant look at any sin in the least degree of allowance.

Most probably I have not answered your question .. But mayby just try asking again ;)

[Nataliya]

When you sign a contract to buy a car, do you need to comprehend all the details of how excactly the car works? I would say this is nearly impossible for a usual cardriver, but also unneccesary. All we need to know is that the car does works, and how it works for the functions we need, and best also to know how to drive it.. All else simply has no priority and will only serve a greater purpose once we have understood the vital and basic functions. The purpose of the car is to help you move, just as the atonement is to help us progress. We have been given all we need to know, and all the rest will come once we have understood that.

Besides that do I want to point out that I did not say it is impossible to understand the atonement, I only said it is impossible to understand it by our own logic alone.. Revelation has to take place.

What if the contract that you're offered to sign would require you to pay with your agency/free will? Also, according to the terms of the contract, you would not be able even to look at the car, you'd have to take a word for it and to believe that there was a car, and that it was in a perfect shape, and that someday after you gave your agency away and worked very hard and did everything that the seller told you to do, you might get it. BTW, you'd probably never hear or see the seller. But you might be able to hear people that got to talk to him or to read their books that got corrupted after they wrote them. If you'd be smart enough to sort out the truth in those books and to believe and to act on it, you'd have a better chance of meeting the seller in person someday.

BTW, no one has ever driven or even seen this car, and no one knows exactly how it is built and how it can work.