The plan of salvation according to 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 42

[Elefant]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

[inho]

So, are you saying that punishment for transgression is the only cause of misery?
What about sicknesses and natural disasters or accidents?
Are they too caused by the unrighteousness of people? If that is what you are saying, then it sounds a lot like prosperity gospel.

In my view, the world is full of thistles and thorns. We live in a fallen world. We have sorrow and hardship even when we are not punished for something we have done ourselves.

[Elefant]

The misery Im talking about is the one which comes through Gods judgement, as I said the remorse of conscience. This I would say is the only type of misery we take into afterlife and according to Alma 42 this is the punishment. Of course we suffer misery due to lifes circumstances which are not due to punishment. Yet this second type of misery is not eternal.

[Elefant]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

[brlenox]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

What I really need to know is are you in the room?

[Elefant]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

What I really need to know is are you in the room?

I dont understand your question.

[Lizzy60]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

What I really need to know is are you in the room?

I dont understand your question.

He's trying to make a joke about your user name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

It's too bad some people feel the need to distract from a serious gospel discussion just to try to joke about something inconsequential.

[brlenox]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

What I really need to know is are you in the room?

I dont understand your question.

He's trying to make a joke about your user name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

It's too bad some people feel the need to distract from a serious gospel discussion just to try to joke about something inconsequential.

Lizzy you always take things so personal ... and really I wasn't joking about you at all.

[brlenox]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

Nonetheless, In order to pull Lizzy out of her tizzy, I will provide something that I think is substantive to the conversation. In essence there is very little to disagree with here. It is a nice summation of certain generalities concerning faith and works. Frankly over the years, in many cases, the claims of Christianity and the LDS rebuttal are simply two sides not listening. It is like the "Why I stopped being a Feminist" thread where she finally realizes that she has established the boundaries of what she hears no matter what is said and that is the problem that creates the gulf. Lizzy, I think that is a thread that you would really enjoy.

Anyway, since LDS are the "enemy", Christians have concocted a standard response which attempts to create distance between the LDS and them. However, truth be told we pretty much agree with the grace discussion. However, we feel the need to toss out the works rebuttal because there is a touch of excessive emphasis on the "we can't save ourselves" element of the discussion from their side. Of course,when push comes to shove, I have yet to have this discussion with a genuine Christian, who is trying to live their gospel, who will not admit that they realize they must conform their lives to be in compliance with the commandments as a sincere effort to illustrate they are repentant sinners. It is difficult for them to use the word "works" when they admit this relationship because that undermines the whole accusation against the Mormons. However, I am convinced that most of the debate is two groups talking past each other as the concept of listening is devoid from the accusations and the rebuttals.

[brlenox]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

Now for my second substantive post to offset my two (or was it three ) efforts at childish humor. (but sometimes it's fun to be a little childish)

If I was going to try to make this discussion of value to an LDS audience I might consider several possibilities. First is the reference to Alma 42:18. Verse 18 could be evaluated a bit more and juxtaposed against verse 20 to find what are the distinctions. Does 18 refer to the same law as 20 or is it a different law? Even more prescient would be an explanation of why, of all sins, is murder referenced in the verse between the two different laws given unto man. Which interestingly is the same approach that Alma 34:11 takes. Does Alma 34:12 provide any insight as to the particular law that necessitated the requirement of an atonement? and why?

The distinctions of the two sets of laws that radically impact our existence is perhaps best delineated in Alma 12 with Alma's response to Antionah. However, what makes this discussion meaningful is when we begin to grasp and give greater meaning to the concepts "the law" as often we do not properly distinguish between the law which required the atonement and the laws which become subject to the atonement. And that discussion is extremely valuable when it comes to furthering our own understandings of faith and works. Yet this may not be the objective of the OP as it seems to focus on the debate between Christians and LDS concerning the tried and true faith and works argument.

[Elefant]

The thorns and thistles are given to aflict man and actually even tempt him to break the law. It would be to easy not to break the law without thorns and thistles.

What I really need to know is are you in the room?

I dont understand your question.

He's trying to make a joke about your user name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

It's too bad some people feel the need to distract from a serious gospel discussion just to try to joke about something inconsequential.

Thanks Lizzy for explaining the joke to me. Since I'm from the old continent and not native english speaking I didn't understand it.

[Elefant]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

Now for my second substantive post to offset my two (or was it three ) efforts at childish humor. (but sometimes it's fun to be a little childish)

If I was going to try to make this discussion of value to an LDS audience I might consider several possibilities. First is the reference to Alma 42:18. Verse 18 could be evaluated a bit more and juxtaposed against verse 20 to find what are the distinctions. Does 18 refer to the same law as 20 or is it a different law? Even more prescient would be an explanation of why, of all sins, is murder referenced in the verse between the two different laws given unto man. Which interestingly is the same approach that Alma 34:11 takes. Does Alma 34:12 provide any insight as to the particular law that necessitated the requirement of an atonement? and why?

The distinctions of the two sets of laws that radically impact our existence is perhaps best delineated in Alma 12 with Alma's response to Antionah. However, what makes this discussion meaningful is when we begin to grasp and give greater meaning to the concepts "the law" as often we do not properly distinguish between the law which required the atonement and the laws which become subject to the atonement. And that discussion is extremely valuable when it comes to furthering our own understandings of faith and works. Yet this may not be the objective of the OP as it seems to focus on the debate between Christians and LDS concerning the tried and true faith and works argument.

Thanks for insights brlenox. Actually I'm interested in the doctrin, not too much in the christian lds dilemma. That was just a comment by the side.

What two laws do you speak about. I'm very interested in that but can't fully grasp what two laws you mean.
Why should vers 18 talk about a different law than vers 20. And do not all sins neef an atonement?

And by the side, your Elefant in the room joke was pretty funny after Lizzy explained it to me! Nevertheless thanks to Lizzy too for defending the cause.

[brlenox]

Thanks for insights brlenox. Actually I'm interested in the doctrin, not too much in the christian lds dilemma. That was just a comment by the side.

What two laws do you speak about. I'm very interested in that but can't fully grasp what two laws you mean.
Why should vers 18 talk about a different law than vers 20. And do not all sins neef an atonement?

And by the side, your Elefant in the room joke was pretty funny after Lizzy explained it to me! Nevertheless thanks to Lizzy too for defending the cause.

We'll see how far I can get tonight, but if I do not complete then I will have to wait until tomorrow evening to post. I'll get started and see how far I get.

[brlenox]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

Now for my second substantive post to offset my two (or was it three ) efforts at childish humor. (but sometimes it's fun to be a little childish)

If I was going to try to make this discussion of value to an LDS audience I might consider several possibilities. First is the reference to Alma 42:18. Verse 18 could be evaluated a bit more and juxtaposed against verse 20 to find what are the distinctions. Does 18 refer to the same law as 20 or is it a different law? Even more prescient would be an explanation of why, of all sins, is murder referenced in the verse between the two different laws given unto man. Which interestingly is the same approach that Alma 34:11 takes. Does Alma 34:12 provide any insight as to the particular law that necessitated the requirement of an atonement? and why?

The distinctions of the two sets of laws that radically impact our existence is perhaps best delineated in Alma 12 with Alma's response to Antionah. However, what makes this discussion meaningful is when we begin to grasp and give greater meaning to the concepts "the law" as often we do not properly distinguish between the law which required the atonement and the laws which become subject to the atonement. And that discussion is extremely valuable when it comes to furthering our own understandings of faith and works. Yet this may not be the objective of the OP as it seems to focus on the debate between Christians and LDS concerning the tried and true faith and works argument.

Thanks for insights brlenox. Actually I'm interested in the doctrin, not too much in the christian lds dilemma. That was just a comment by the side.

What two laws do you speak about. I'm very interested in that but can't fully grasp what two laws you mean.
Why should vers 18 talk about a different law than vers 20. And do not all sins neef an atonement?

And by the side, your Elefant in the room joke was pretty funny after Lizzy explained it to me! Nevertheless thanks to Lizzy too for defending the cause.

I'm going to start by defining the parameters of my approach. I will tie it into the observations that you make concerning grace and works. That is very limiting as this material, if you work with it long enough to catch its full implications will completely alter the depth of your understanding of the atonement.

Second thing. I do not want to rob you of the benefits of discovery in the spirit. I can blab it all out but instead I will simply tie a few things together and ask you to discern the answers to the questions I pose. In this way the spirit can do the job I can never do and that is teach you to the point of true understanding.

We'll start with the verses you suggested Alma 42:18-20

Alma 42:18-20

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

The entire preceding verses in Alma 42: actually deal with verse 18. The law referenced there is the law that created the state that Adam found himself in after partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Alma 12:27-28, 32

27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

28 And after God had appointed that these things should come unto man, behold, then he saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them;

32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodness of God.

Now, really one should read the entire answer given to Antionah to put the depth to this but Alma 12:27 refers to the first law of the Garden which is is associated with your verse in Alma 42:18. That law was specific, had a command and a consequence for breech of the command which was rendered as illustrated in the trial scenario of the temple. The consequence was death as decreed by God the Father. That's it. That is the end and all of the first law, except for the clause about a redeemer.

Well, that is what Alma 12: 28 introduces the idea that God decided there was some further explanation that would be valuable to man. Verse 38 flushes it out a bit more with explanations of the NEW more detailed set of laws to which they would be subject. A primary difference is the first set of laws are overseen by God the Father in His kingdom of the Garden and the second set of laws are overseen by The Son and he is the law giver, collectively we can call them the law of Christ and the ideology is referenced here in D & C 88:21

D & C 88:21

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

So the law of Christ was a distinctly different set of laws that was designed to sanctify mankind in order that they might DWELL in the presence of the Lord God.

Now the questions. The atonement has of course several specific elements in the plan of salvation that it addresses. While really they are collectively accomplished to discuss them we must separate them out.

The first one is to bring us back into the presence of the Father from which we were banished. Not dwell, but simply to appear before him again to receive a judgement based upon our works.

This part of the atonement is the grace portion. We do nothing to earn it or to merit it individually. It is granted to all people regardless of their sins in this life.

This is also the broken law that required the atonement. Jesus Christ had to pay a price in order to overcome the death sentence that the Father had rendered unto all of his children and allow them to be brought back into his presence. Notice that this is not paying a price for sins at this point. It has nothing to do with our sins exactly as far as this discussion relates to the behaviors that we commonly call sins as they are responses to the Law of Christ.

The law of Christ is the portion that is subject to the atonement for in the process of fulfilling the requirements of the first law of the Garden, Christ also purchased for himself a certain privilege. I have only really found this discussed once in clarity and that was recently in the Face to Face that Elder Holland and Elder Eyring particpated in with the youth. Elder Eyring said it like this:

The atonement was something that Jesus Christ Did. It's not a thing itself. He atoned for our sins and he paid the price to allow us to be forgiven and to be resurrected...alright, so it's what he did that qualified him to give us forgiveness to change our hearts and it's the Holy Ghost that is doing that.It's not the atonement as if it is a thing itself.

The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us. And so when you feel forgiveness that is not the atonement - that's the Savior giving you a feeling of forgiveness because of the atonement.(President Henry B. Eyring, Face To Face, March 4th 2017 )

This is a very nuanced meaning and most that read it will simply assume it is the same phrase we so often hear that he paid the price for our sins. Which of course is absolutely correct but Elder Eyring is adding a new specificity that most have not considered and miss. Again he states: "The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us."

In other words sins do not have a value that one can say they are properly paid for individually. When we say he paid the price for our sins we are generally implying that a Stolen cookie is 1 drop of blood, lying to your mother is 20, murder is 45 and so on. However, once you add up the total you have a finite number that can be calculated. We say it this way because we don't really know what happened and the only thing we can really relate to is a finite reality. We don't quite grasp the infinite. However, we are told it must needs be an infinite atonement. Elder Eyring is granting insight that is very brilliant in his description that helps us see how the atonement worked. The sins we commit are ours. They don't exactly vanish into nonexistence. However, as they are offenses against the giver of the law Jesus Christ, the atonement permitted him to be put into a position that the Father described when he said, I have committed all judgement to the Son. The son earned the right to be the offended one. Now if someone slaps you in the face, justice will never deny you of the opportunity to forgive this offense against you. You have the right to justice, but justice recognizes that you as the one who was slapped own the offense. You can respond with demands of justice or you can forgive.

Christ is in the same position. He was the one that was "slapped" when they shed his innocent blood. He has every right to demand justice and in some cases he does. However, in some cases he recognizes that some would never have participated in the shedding of his innocent blood under any conditions and they valiantly prove themselves daily by their works. So it is this second set of laws called the law of Christ that is subject to works. We define our final place by how we respond to the shedding of his innocent blood. He then determines if we pay the price for our own sins or if he will forgive us. This one has the variable response that means it does not apply to everyone but only to those whom the Lord chooses. Thus when you say that all sins require an atonement we can say that while the atonement covered all sins there are some who will not receive the gifts the atonement offers and so their sins remain unpaid for. Mosiah 15 provides very clear insight into this condition:

Mosiah 15:12

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Now go back and read Mosiah 15 to find out the ones that actually receive the full benefit of his paying the price for his sins.

Review this verse from D & C 19 to grasp who it is that will suffer for their own sins:

D & C 19:16-18

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Now there are pages more to add to this but for now it will have to do. It is a bit sloppy and I have left out some things but read this and ponder it and tell me what you perceive and then if it seems appropriate we can delve into why murder is mentioned in Alma 42 and in Alma 34 as part of this issue of the atonement.

[Elefant]

God's purpose for us is happiness (2 Nephi 2:25). So he made a plan for this.

First of all happines had to come into existence. Happiness could not come into existence without misery (2 Nephi 2:11).

So God created a law with a punishment which is remorse (Alma 42:18). This remorse is misery. As now misery existed happiness could also exist (2 Nephi 2:23). But the way to happiness still had to be prepared.

Everybody sins and breaks the law (Romans 3:23) and receives punishment and experiences misery.

Some might try to keep the law in order to not receive the punishment but this is impossible because they have already broken the law. And obeying the law will not help them, because the law has no power to help them (Romans 3:20).

But God gave his Son to pay the debt (2 Nephi 2:26). Christ offers to the people that through faith in him he would pay the debt. But he tells them not to transgress anymore and this is where the works come in.

Works do not make a person righteous that has transgressed the law, Christ does. And works are part of repentance (Alma 42:22). I think this is the point that Paul wanted to make clear which other Christians misinterpret to not needing to do works.

Resume:
Law -> Punishment -> Misery -> Because of misery the possibility of happiness comes into existence -> Atonment -> Forgiveness -> Happiness

Now for my second substantive post to offset my two (or was it three ) efforts at childish humor. (but sometimes it's fun to be a little childish)

If I was going to try to make this discussion of value to an LDS audience I might consider several possibilities. First is the reference to Alma 42:18. Verse 18 could be evaluated a bit more and juxtaposed against verse 20 to find what are the distinctions. Does 18 refer to the same law as 20 or is it a different law? Even more prescient would be an explanation of why, of all sins, is murder referenced in the verse between the two different laws given unto man. Which interestingly is the same approach that Alma 34:11 takes. Does Alma 34:12 provide any insight as to the particular law that necessitated the requirement of an atonement? and why?

The distinctions of the two sets of laws that radically impact our existence is perhaps best delineated in Alma 12 with Alma's response to Antionah. However, what makes this discussion meaningful is when we begin to grasp and give greater meaning to the concepts "the law" as often we do not properly distinguish between the law which required the atonement and the laws which become subject to the atonement. And that discussion is extremely valuable when it comes to furthering our own understandings of faith and works. Yet this may not be the objective of the OP as it seems to focus on the debate between Christians and LDS concerning the tried and true faith and works argument.

Thanks for insights brlenox. Actually I'm interested in the doctrin, not too much in the christian lds dilemma. That was just a comment by the side.

What two laws do you speak about. I'm very interested in that but can't fully grasp what two laws you mean.
Why should vers 18 talk about a different law than vers 20. And do not all sins neef an atonement?

And by the side, your Elefant in the room joke was pretty funny after Lizzy explained it to me! Nevertheless thanks to Lizzy too for defending the cause.

I'm going to start by defining the parameters of my approach. I will tie it into the observations that you make concerning grace and works. That is very limiting as this material, if you work with it long enough to catch its full implications will completely alter the depth of your understanding of the atonement.

Second thing. I do not want to rob you of the benefits of discovery in the spirit. I can blab it all out but instead I will simply tie a few things together and ask you to discern the answers to the questions I pose. In this way the spirit can do the job I can never do and that is teach you to the point of true understanding.

We'll start with the verses you suggested Alma 42:18-20

Alma 42:18-20

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

The entire preceding verses in Alma 42: actually deal with verse 18. The law referenced there is the law that created the state that Adam found himself in after partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Alma 12:27-28, 32

27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

28 And after God had appointed that these things should come unto man, behold, then he saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them;

32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodness of God.

Now, really one should read the entire answer given to Antionah to put the depth to this but Alma 12:27 refers to the first law of the Garden which is is associated with your verse in Alma 42:18. That law was specific, had a command and a consequence for breech of the command which was rendered as illustrated in the trial scenario of the temple. The consequence was death as decreed by God the Father. That's it. That is the end and all of the first law, except for the clause about a redeemer.

Well, that is what Alma 12: 28 introduces the idea that God decided there was some further explanation that would be valuable to man. Verse 38 flushes it out a bit more with explanations of the NEW more detailed set of laws to which they would be subject. A primary difference is the first set of laws are overseen by God the Father in His kingdom of the Garden and the second set of laws are overseen by The Son and he is the law giver, collectively we can call them the law of Christ and the ideology is referenced here in D & C 88:21

D & C 88:21

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

So the law of Christ was a distinctly different set of laws that was designed to sanctify mankind in order that they might DWELL in the presence of the Lord God.

Now the questions. The atonement has of course several specific elements in the plan of salvation that it addresses. While really they are collectively accomplished to discuss them we must separate them out.

The first one is to bring us back into the presence of the Father from which we were banished. Not dwell, but simply to appear before him again to receive a judgement based upon our works.

This part of the atonement is the grace portion. We do nothing to earn it or to merit it individually. It is granted to all people regardless of their sins in this life.

This is also the broken law that required the atonement. Jesus Christ had to pay a price in order to overcome the death sentence that the Father had rendered unto all of his children and allow them to be brought back into his presence. Notice that this is not paying a price for sins at this point. It has nothing to do with our sins exactly as far as this discussion relates to the behaviors that we commonly call sins as they are responses to the Law of Christ.

The law of Christ is the portion that is subject to the atonement for in the process of fulfilling the requirements of the first law of the Garden, Christ also purchased for himself a certain privilege. I have only really found this discussed once in clarity and that was recently in the Face to Face that Elder Holland and Elder Eyring particpated in with the youth. Elder Eyring said it like this:

The atonement was something that Jesus Christ Did. It's not a thing itself. He atoned for our sins and he paid the price to allow us to be forgiven and to be resurrected...alright, so it's what he did that qualified him to give us forgiveness to change our hearts and it's the Holy Ghost that is doing that.It's not the atonement as if it is a thing itself.

The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us. And so when you feel forgiveness that is not the atonement - that's the Savior giving you a feeling of forgiveness because of the atonement.(President Henry B. Eyring, Face To Face, March 4th 2017 )

This is a very nuanced meaning and most that read it will simply assume it is the same phrase we so often hear that he paid the price for our sins. Which of course is absolutely correct but Elder Eyring is adding a new specificity that most have not considered and miss. Again he states: "The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us."

In other words sins do not have a value that one can say they are properly paid for individually. When we say he paid the price for our sins we are generally implying that a Stolen cookie is 1 drop of blood, lying to your mother is 20, murder is 45 and so on. However, once you add up the total you have a finite number that can be calculated. We say it this way because we don't really know what happened and the only thing we can really relate to is a finite reality. We don't quite grasp the infinite. However, we are told it must needs be an infinite atonement. Elder Eyring is granting insight that is very brilliant in his description that helps us see how the atonement worked. The sins we commit are ours. They don't exactly vanish into nonexistence. However, as they are offenses against the giver of the law Jesus Christ, the atonement permitted him to be put into a position that the Father described when he said, I have committed all judgement to the Son. The son earned the right to be the offended one. Now if someone slaps you in the face, justice will never deny you of the opportunity to forgive this offense against you. You have the right to justice, but justice recognizes that you as the one who was slapped own the offense. You can respond with demands of justice or you can forgive.

Christ is in the same position. He was the one that was "slapped" when they shed his innocent blood. He has every right to demand justice and in some cases he does. However, in some cases he recognizes that some would never have participated in the shedding of his innocent blood under any conditions and they valiantly prove themselves daily by their works. So it is this second set of laws called the law of Christ that is subject to works. We define our final place by how we respond to the shedding of his innocent blood. He then determines if we pay the price for our own sins or if he will forgive us. This one has the variable response that means it does not apply to everyone but only to those whom the Lord chooses. Thus when you say that all sins require an atonement we can say that while the atonement covered all sins there are some who will not receive the gifts the atonement offers and so their sins remain unpaid for. Mosiah 15 provides very clear insight into this condition:

Mosiah 15:12

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Now go back and read Mosiah 15 to find out the ones that actually receive the full benefit of his paying the price for his sins.

Review this verse from D & C 19 to grasp who it is that will suffer for their own sins:

D & C 19:16-18

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Now there are pages more to add to this but for now it will have to do. It is a bit sloppy and I have left out some things but read this and ponder it and tell me what you perceive and then if it seems appropriate we can delve into why murder is mentioned in Alma 42 and in Alma 34 as part of this issue of the atonement.

Thanks very much for this awesome teachings. Let's see if I understood this. In my words from what I learned:

There was a first set of laws given in the garden, that was not to eat the fruit and procreation. This first set was broken. The punishment is physical death. This part is fully covered by Christ to bring us back to God, also if it is only for judgement. This is where Grace acts.

The second set of laws is the sanctifying law which is essential for repentance.

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Keeping this law sanctifies you to be able to live in a celestial sphere. This second law demands works or justice will demand us. These are the second commandments which were given, those after the fall?

Question: Does spiritual death come by transgression of the first or the second set of Laws? Physical death obviously comes by transgression of the first.

Have I understood anything correctly here?

And to answer your question: yes I'm in the room.

[Sarah]

brlenox, I appreciate your thoughts on this topic and hope you continue to elaborate.

I've been wondering about the plan of redemption and the need for a Savior, and wondering why our Father's plan is the way it is, and why it cannot resemble our own experience of parenthood, where we essentially are saviors to our own children in the roles of judge -executing justice at times - and savior - forgiving them and helping them progress. Why couldn't the plan involve everyone suffering for their own sins for example in order to overcome? I'm feeling right now that a couple of things were important enough that something else was needed to reach the glorious level of our Father. We needed to experience a mortal body and the included death sentence, and also, our agency was so important that we had to choose for ourselves (in the Garden) to descend to this state of mortality or death, which from your explanation makes clear there is a distinction between this and the sinful state. For some reason Father couldn't voluntarily place us in that condition. Do you have any thoughts on this?

[gclayjr]

Sarah,

Why couldn't the plan involve everyone suffering for their own sins for example in order to overcome?

At some level it does! The problem is that we are incapable of truly "undoing" the results of our actions. If you were to steal my wallet. You could return it. You do everything in your power to make me whole, but it will never undo what you did. Only Christ's sacrifice can do that.

On the other hand, you could become promiscuous and get syphilis, and earnestly seek the blessing of repentance via Christ's atoning sacrifice, and receive it, but you will still have syphilis.

The only natural consequences that Christ's sacrifice takes away is the condemnation of our soul, and a price due to eternal justice, that most of us don't fully understand. Otherwise, we still have to pay for the consequences for all of our deeds, good, or bad.

Maybe that is one reason that in the end it is more important where we are going, rather than where we are at.

Regards,

George Clay

[Sarah]

Sarah,

Why couldn't the plan involve everyone suffering for their own sins for example in order to overcome?

At some level it does! The problem is that we are incapable of truly "undoing" the results of our actions. If you were to steal my wallet. You could return it. You do everything in your power to make me whole, but it will never undo what you did. Only Christ's sacrifice can do that.

On the other hand, you could become promiscuous and get syphilis, and earnestly seek the blessing of repentance via Christ's atoning sacrifice, and receive it, but you will still have syphilis.

The only natural consequences that Christ's sacrifice takes away is the condemnation of our soul, and a price due to eternal justice, that most of us don't fully understand. Otherwise, we still have to pay for the consequences for all of our deeds, good, or bad.

Maybe that is one reason that in the end it is more important where we are going, rather than where we are at.

Regards,

George Clay

I wonder why it had to be the Son and not the Father though, to be able to fix, recompense, make restitution for etc. the things that we could never do on our own, He being the parent. I'm thinking out-loud, but perhaps because the Law of Sacrifice required death and the Father could not do that. Only one who had a mortal body could fulfill that aspect of the Law.

[brlenox]

brlenox, I appreciate your thoughts on this topic and hope you continue to elaborate.

I've been wondering about the plan of redemption and the need for a Savior, and wondering why our Father's plan is the way it is, and why it cannot resemble our own experience of parenthood, where we essentially are saviors to our own children in the roles of judge -executing justice at times - and savior - forgiving them and helping them progress. Why couldn't the plan involve everyone suffering for their own sins for example in order to overcome? I'm feeling right now that a couple of things were important enough that something else was needed to reach the glorious level of our Father. We needed to experience a mortal body and the included death sentence, and also, our agency was so important that we had to choose for ourselves (in the Garden) to descend to this state of mortality or death, which from your explanation makes clear there is a distinction between this and the sinful state. For some reason Father couldn't voluntarily place us in that condition. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Sarah, I will come back to this but I have stretched myself thin being involved in too many threads at once, something I usually guard against but wasn't thinking a couple of days ago at work and started too many things.

Your questions are right up to the edge of what we are seeking to understand.
I will try to work on this tomorrow as I have a couple of images that illustrate how the atonement works and how justice and mercy juxtapose to define the perfect necessity of a Savior and precisely how they work together to make the atonement effective. I'll try to get it done and get it out.

[brlenox]

Thanks very much for this awesome teachings. Let's see if I understood this. In my words from what I learned:

There was a first set of laws given in the garden, that was not to eat the fruit and procreation. This first set was broken. The punishment is physical death. This part is fully covered by Christ to bring us back to God, also if it is only for judgement. This is where Grace acts.

The second set of laws is the sanctifying law which is essential for repentance.

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Keeping this law sanctifies you to be able to live in a celestial sphere. This second law demands works or justice will demand us. These are the second commandments which were given, those after the fall?

Question: Does spiritual death come by transgression of the first or the second set of Laws? Physical death obviously comes by transgression of the first.

Have I understood anything correctly here?

And to answer your question: yes I'm in the room.

brlenox, I appreciate your thoughts on this topic and hope you continue to elaborate.

I've been wondering about the plan of redemption and the need for a Savior, and wondering why our Father's plan is the way it is, and why it cannot resemble our own experience of parenthood, where we essentially are saviors to our own children in the roles of judge -executing justice at times - and savior - forgiving them and helping them progress. Why couldn't the plan involve everyone suffering for their own sins for example in order to overcome? I'm feeling right now that a couple of things were important enough that something else was needed to reach the glorious level of our Father. We needed to experience a mortal body and the included death sentence, and also, our agency was so important that we had to choose for ourselves (in the Garden) to descend to this state of mortality or death, which from your explanation makes clear there is a distinction between this and the sinful state. For some reason Father couldn't voluntarily place us in that condition. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I am going to answer these two posts jointly as the answers apply to both. We need to focus on the first set of laws first to really comprehend what is going on. That will help answer Sarah’s question about the necessity of a Savior and the manner in which the suffering for sins was distributed. Here is an image that I used to visualize aspects of the Fall and naturally it address conditions in the Garden of Eden.

Fall_1.png (563.14 KiB) Viewed 1256 times

This is an image of the Garden of Eden but it represents it as when it was a portion of the Fathers kingdom before the fall. As part of the Fathers kingdom we have Adam and Eve and Christ who can freely mingle about in each other’s presence with God the Father. However, we must keep focus on the fact that this is God the Fathers kingdom and Adam and Eve and Christ are citizens of his kingdom. The Father is the Law Giver, and the Law Enforcer.

The best way to observe how this relationship works is by observing the temple narration. It is the Father that gives the two laws, 1.) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2.) do not partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is the Father who calls the trial and who asks for an accounting from Adam and Eve and Lucifer. It is the Father that weighs the testimonies of the three accused and renders a judgement. It is the Father that sees to the execution of that judgement. All of this because as this is His Kingdom he has the responsibility to see that the laws of His kingdom are followed and maintained. If He did not then all of the other citizens of his Kingdom would lose confidence in Him. They would not trust that God would exercise perfect justice to protect the sanctity of His Kingdom. They would lose confidence that they could rely on the Father to protect and defend their rights as obedient citizens of His kingdom. This is all very important to let seep into your soul as you ponder the implications of the Fall.

When Alma 42 reminds us that if God let mercy rob justice then he would cease to be God, it is this set of circumstances that is being discussed. Justice demanded that Adam and Eve and Satan be dealt with because they broke the law. If in any way it appears that God is showing undue favoritism by allowing mercy to just let them stay or come back without addressing the demands of justice then the citizens of his kingdom would simply cease to support him as God having lost all confidence that he would maintain order in the kingdom.

We could go through the entire Adam and Eve trial scenario as there are some very interesting observations there but I am going to try to stay focused on this for the moment. I am going to make this the end of this post to make it contained. I will post the next image in a second post to follow.

[brlenox]

Post number 2:

FAll_2.png (551.97 KiB) Viewed 1256 times

This image represents the state of things immediately following God’s judgement of Adam and Eve. They have been judged and the punishment affixed to their transgression was to be exiled as citizens of his kingdom. They can no longer dwell in his presence – this is spiritual death. As well, in the absence of his life giving light they were consigned to a state of slow death – this is the physical death that is the lot of man.

Notice that in this image it illustrates that Adam and Eve are no longer citizens of God’s kingdom and he has banished them from his presence, however, Jesus Christ is still a member of His Fathers kingdom. They reside in His Celestial estate. Christ is still a citizen and he is entitled to all of the blessings of being a citizen. His Father is the advocate of everyone in his kingdom. He sees to the demands of the laws of his holy kingdom and ensures that each citizen is protected by justice should there be any breech of law. Thus he remains the advocate of Jesus Christ as he is a citizen of his kingdom.

Adam and Eve no longer are citizens and for all intents and purposes are outcasts and no longer can look to the Father to advocate in their behalf because, to execute justice, the Father was required to have them leave his kingdom.

However, in his final decree God the Father turns the new Kingdom in which Adam and Eve will finish out their days before dying over to his Son Jesus Christ. At this point the Father is done with the requirements of justice for the breech of Adam and Eve. They are outcasts and now they are Christ’s issue to deal with. This is the end of the elements of image two and of this post. Next is to follow.

[brlenox]

Post number 3:

Fall_3.png (511.01 KiB) Viewed 1256 times

This image shows the new conditions after the fall, but it serves as a visual of some very important observations that we do not think about as well as we should.

First and most important thing to observe is that Christ remains a citizen of the Fathers kingdom. He has broken no laws and he has not been banished from his Fathers Kingdom. Thus their relationship remains the same. Christ looks to the Father to advocate in behalf of the laws of His Father’s kingdom. His Father is obligated to protect the citizens of his kingdom. If anything occurs, if any laws are broken Christ expects that his father will see to the demands of Justice and deal with the situation as is the requirement of the lawgiver / king.

The second thing is to recognize that this defines the juncture where Alma 12 defines that we are under the second set of laws or the Law of Christ. Christ, now as the King of this kingdom is the law giver.

This image also illustrates that Christ is our advocate with the Father only through him can we hope to be reconciled to the Father. He will plead our case to the Father but there are the conditions of his law which influence that process.

Now in order for this all to become clear we still must focus on the fact that Christ is still a citizen of God the Father kingdom and appeals to him as the Law Giver for his blessings and needs under the law of His Fathers Kingdom where he is still a fully entitled member of that society. Now this set’s us up to see the next phase of the atonement and that is how Judgment and mercy intersect and work.

End of post …on to judgment and mercy.

[brlenox]

Post number 4

I am generally going to have to leave out some of the scriptures that validate this material in hopes that your own familiarity with the scriptures I mention will bring them to recollection. Otherwise this just becomes too long and unwieldy to read through.

First let’s review the primary 3 parts of the Atonement

1.) Repairing the breech so that man can return to the presence of the Father.
2.) Resurrection–which gave Christ power over death and hell and allowed man to retain his physical body.
3.) Acquiring the right to judge mankind.

Previously when exploring Alma 34, this concept of the “demands of justice” has been used as a requisite explanation for why there must be an exacting for the price of broken laws that require a payment. Most commonly when we consider the demands of justice, we think of it in terms of the exacting of a punishment for man’s sinful behaviors until such price as those sins demand is compensated by suffering. For us we almost exclusively see justice as not a good thing for man because he is one who sins and finds himself in an awful predicament because now the law demands we pay the price.

Now honestly this is a very limiting perspective because we don’t get to see how it is really the Law of justice that saves us and makes the atonement possible. I’ll explain as we go along but it is necessary that you pause and ponder these things to really grasp the weight of these matters. Take your time and do it right and you must retain the observations associated with the three images we have already discussed.

A starting point for consideration is 2 Nephi 2.

(2 Nephi 2:26-27.)

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 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; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

If we carefully analyze these two verses we note that associated with the Messiahs role, fulfilled in the fullness of time, is freedom from the demands of the punishment that is associated with the fall. His sacrifice, infinite and eternal, is sufficient for the eternal law of the Garden of Eden which was breached resulting in the expulsion of all mortals from the presence of God the Father.

Now think very carefully about this. 2 Nephi is discussing that a key factor in the atonement was to pay the price of the first law so that its impact on us could be overcome. We are not even discussing paying a price for our sins under the second law yet. All of the suffering, all of the descending below was to simply get us back to a state where we could enter into the Fathers presence again to be judged a final time. This time when we return however, we will individually have a tally sheet of obedience and disobedience to consider in the case against us. This tally sheet is based on how we received the second law – the Law of Christ. In this instance, since Christ is the law giver, and he is the King of our sphere, he is the one that we have claim on to defend his law especially as it relates to us individually or how well we individually did in conforming with the conditions of his law. And because he is fully worthy as a citizen of Heavenly Fathers kingdom he has the rights to stand before his King – His Father – and plead for consideration of his claim.

Effectively, this is the price for sin that Christ paid in behalf of all. It wasn't that sin itself was exacting a price but because the price paid to satisfy the law of the Garden placed Christ in a position to address our sins personally. President Elder Eyring states it this way:

The atonement was something that Jesus Christ Did. It's not a thing itself he atoned for our sins and he paid the price to allow us to be forgiven and to be resurrected...alright, so it's what he did that qualified him to give us forgiveness to change our hearts and it's the Holy Ghost that is doing that.It's not the atonement as if it is a thing itself.

The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us. And so when you feel forgiveness that is not the atonement - that's the Savior giving you a feeling of forgiveness because of the atonement.(President Henry B. Eyring, Face To Face, March 4th 2017 )

Because the demand of justice imposed by the Law of the Garden of Eden is fulfilled all of those who suffered in mortality for Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden are no longer held accountable to be forever kept from God’s presence.

Now this brings us to a key and critical point. How does justice get it’s requirement by Christ’s suffering? We have to follow closely here and carefully observe how several laws of kingdom play off of each other.

First we need to establish why the suffering cannot be specifically for sin it is inclusive of it but not for it only. Hold on, just bear with me and this all makes sense in the end.

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 exactly 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 we can't understand how the atonement works so we may not try hard enough to understand what can be understood. Alma 34 however 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 a correct and properly ordered law even 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. Some focus on this scripture as reinforcing the ideology that man cannot suffer for the sins of another man – also true. And the verse does say that but it is adding to that observation another caveat that a just law cannot require someone who is not guilty of an offense to pay the price of that offense – it would be unjust. However, to focus on only this portion is to miss the fact that there is a reason the Lord is using an example with which the people are familiar.

Using the observation that the Law is properly constructed and a “just” law helps Alma get to his next couple of points. 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 – or a X amount of sin = X amount of suffering condition. It does not work this way. Something of a greater magnitude must take place which addresses the issue differently than we tend to think.

Alma 34:11-16

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.

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. Alma is trying to lead us along the path between what we understand as just and the actual means by which the Atonement overcomes the limitation of justice expectations that the payment for sin is upon each person’s head and it would not satisfy the demands of justice to have anyone else to pay for those sins. At this point I really recommend just keeping on reading and pondering this over as it is a paradigm shift which is a challenge to negotiate but if you get to the end and all of the pieces are known then come back and reread it and things will slip into place better.

From man’s perspective, the atonement pays the price for our sins. That’s our investment of concern and what is particularly meaningful to us. For us justice is an unsavory requirement because we seem to mess up so often in this life that we are a bit worried that the punishment is not something we want to deal with. So it is the message that accompanies the command to repent as it provides the assurance that our sins will be forgiven. In a manner of speaking, one could say that it is expressed in a milk fashion so that those that are receiving the teachings of Christ can easily grasp why repentance works and have faith in the process knowing there is a means to gain freedom from their sins.

The question though is that the full effect of the atonement from God’s perspective? If a person wanted to know the meat of the atonement and how it works is there provision to enable those of mature spiritual understanding the option of grasping more insight from the scriptures and the spirit? From God’s perspective far more is accomplished by virtue of the atonement. 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 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.

Fall_3_Stick.png (62.28 KiB) Viewed 1243 times

This image is a watered down image of my original one in post number 3 and 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 of the Father’s role as King in his kingdom he must see to the demands of justice in behalf of his citizens. Because Christ has suffered greatly, in fact beyond the capacity of mortal man to endure, he is now in a position to appeal to the Lawgiver for Justice. As well since it is He, Jesus Christ that was offended, it was His blood that was innocently shed he is in a position to ask 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.

It is important to take a moment and flip your usual perspective. Instead of looking at justice as it applies to us and our sins, we need to look at justice and how Christ also has a claim on it as a citizen of God the Father’s kingdom, for his undue suffering. In essence the Father says to the Son, what is required 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. As President Eyring states it, Christ is claiming the right to judge us and forgive if he chooses according to agreed upon terms.

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. Christ has completely changed the dynamics here. Now the justice as it is functioning in the Fathers Kingdom demands that the Son be allowed to be made whole. The Father has already put a death sentence on mankind and Christ basically says that since their lives are forfeit, (because death is the penalty for murder) he would like to claim the right to judge them according to his law and for those that meet the full conditions of his law he would like 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 because the Savior said that was what would make Him whole. 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 because his blood being shed was an offense against his person. 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.

Another set of verses that seems to hold a similar inference of meaning is this one found in 3 Nephi:

3 Nephi 27:13-16

14. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15. And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. [3 Nephi 27:13–16]

In other words, justice may not allow a person or a God to suffer for crimes committed by someone else, but justice will always allow the person who was offended by the abuse to be forgiving. Verse 16 above indicates that if they repent and are baptized Christ will forgive and you will not suffer for your sins.

Mosiah 15:11-12

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

So while the atonement placed Christ in a position to forgive anybody and everybody infinitely he defined conditions for how and who will receive his forgiveness. Everyone else will suffer for their own sins:

D & C 19:16-19

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

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

However, we still have to keep in mind that the other price that the atonement paid, that no man who had sinned could ever pay was the opportunity to dwell in the presence of God. So while a person may suffer for their sins based on the demands of justice, that remains an inadequate sacrifice to pay the price of the Garden of Eden where God banished all mankind from his presence. So even though a person should pay for his own sins it still falls short of what the Savior had to suffer to bring those who are his sheep back into the presence of God.

I have left a couple of things out which expand this further. One is why does eating the fruit of a tree warrant a death sentence in the first place? What really is the sin of the Garden of Eden?

The second thing is the Malachi statement that if the sealing power was not returned “I come and smite the earth with a curse” and how that ties into the atonement as there some additional tie ins here that make everything work together. Perhaps we can get to these later if it seems like this material is hitting home.

[Sarah]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this up. Your explanations were clearly written, and I feel like I can comprehend the atonement and the laws surrounding it so much better now. Do continue on with those further questions. It does seem interesting to me that we would all voluntarily be banished from Father's Kingdom, assuming we understood beforehand what was to occur in the Garden and Christ's role in redeeming us.

[Elefant]

Post number 4

I am generally going to have to leave out some of the scriptures that validate this material in hopes that your own familiarity with the scriptures I mention will bring them to recollection. Otherwise this just becomes too long and unwieldy to read through.

First let’s review the primary 3 parts of the Atonement

1.) Repairing the breech so that man can return to the presence of the Father.
2.) Resurrection–which gave Christ power over death and hell and allowed man to retain his physical body.
3.) Acquiring the right to judge mankind.

Previously when exploring Alma 34, this concept of the “demands of justice” has been used as a requisite explanation for why there must be an exacting for the price of broken laws that require a payment. Most commonly when we consider the demands of justice, we think of it in terms of the exacting of a punishment for man’s sinful behaviors until such price as those sins demand is compensated by suffering. For us we almost exclusively see justice as not a good thing for man because he is one who sins and finds himself in an awful predicament because now the law demands we pay the price.

Now honestly this is a very limiting perspective because we don’t get to see how it is really the Law of justice that saves us and makes the atonement possible. I’ll explain as we go along but it is necessary that you pause and ponder these things to really grasp the weight of these matters. Take your time and do it right and you must retain the observations associated with the three images we have already discussed.

A starting point for consideration is 2 Nephi 2.

(2 Nephi 2:26-27.)

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 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; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

If we carefully analyze these two verses we note that associated with the Messiahs role, fulfilled in the fullness of time, is freedom from the demands of the punishment that is associated with the fall. His sacrifice, infinite and eternal, is sufficient for the eternal law of the Garden of Eden which was breached resulting in the expulsion of all mortals from the presence of God the Father.

Now think very carefully about this. 2 Nephi is discussing that a key factor in the atonement was to pay the price of the first law so that its impact on us could be overcome. We are not even discussing paying a price for our sins under the second law yet. All of the suffering, all of the descending below was to simply get us back to a state where we could enter into the Fathers presence again to be judged a final time. This time when we return however, we will individually have a tally sheet of obedience and disobedience to consider in the case against us. This tally sheet is based on how we received the second law – the Law of Christ. In this instance, since Christ is the law giver, and he is the King of our sphere, he is the one that we have claim on to defend his law especially as it relates to us individually or how well we individually did in conforming with the conditions of his law. And because he is fully worthy as a citizen of Heavenly Fathers kingdom he has the rights to stand before his King – His Father – and plead for consideration of his claim.

Effectively, this is the price for sin that Christ paid in behalf of all. It wasn't that sin itself was exacting a price but because the price paid to satisfy the law of the Garden placed Christ in a position to address our sins personally. President Elder Eyring states it this way:

The atonement was something that Jesus Christ Did. It's not a thing itself he atoned for our sins and he paid the price to allow us to be forgiven and to be resurrected...alright, so it's what he did that qualified him to give us forgiveness to change our hearts and it's the Holy Ghost that is doing that.It's not the atonement as if it is a thing itself.

The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us. And so when you feel forgiveness that is not the atonement - that's the Savior giving you a feeling of forgiveness because of the atonement.(President Henry B. Eyring, Face To Face, March 4th 2017 )

Because the demand of justice imposed by the Law of the Garden of Eden is fulfilled all of those who suffered in mortality for Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden are no longer held accountable to be forever kept from God’s presence.

Now this brings us to a key and critical point. How does justice get it’s requirement by Christ’s suffering? We have to follow closely here and carefully observe how several laws of kingdom play off of each other.

First we need to establish why the suffering cannot be specifically for sin it is inclusive of it but not for it only. Hold on, just bear with me and this all makes sense in the end.

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 exactly 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 we can't understand how the atonement works so we may not try hard enough to understand what can be understood. Alma 34 however 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 a correct and properly ordered law even 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. Some focus on this scripture as reinforcing the ideology that man cannot suffer for the sins of another man – also true. And the verse does say that but it is adding to that observation another caveat that a just law cannot require someone who is not guilty of an offense to pay the price of that offense – it would be unjust. However, to focus on only this portion is to miss the fact that there is a reason the Lord is using an example with which the people are familiar.

Using the observation that the Law is properly constructed and a “just” law helps Alma get to his next couple of points. 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 – or a X amount of sin = X amount of suffering condition. It does not work this way. Something of a greater magnitude must take place which addresses the issue differently than we tend to think.

Alma 34:11-16

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.

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. Alma is trying to lead us along the path between what we understand as just and the actual means by which the Atonement overcomes the limitation of justice expectations that the payment for sin is upon each person’s head and it would not satisfy the demands of justice to have anyone else to pay for those sins. At this point I really recommend just keeping on reading and pondering this over as it is a paradigm shift which is a challenge to negotiate but if you get to the end and all of the pieces are known then come back and reread it and things will slip into place better.

From man’s perspective, the atonement pays the price for our sins. That’s our investment of concern and what is particularly meaningful to us. For us justice is an unsavory requirement because we seem to mess up so often in this life that we are a bit worried that the punishment is not something we want to deal with. So it is the message that accompanies the command to repent as it provides the assurance that our sins will be forgiven. In a manner of speaking, one could say that it is expressed in a milk fashion so that those that are receiving the teachings of Christ can easily grasp why repentance works and have faith in the process knowing there is a means to gain freedom from their sins.

The question though is that the full effect of the atonement from God’s perspective? If a person wanted to know the meat of the atonement and how it works is there provision to enable those of mature spiritual understanding the option of grasping more insight from the scriptures and the spirit? From God’s perspective far more is accomplished by virtue of the atonement. 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 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.

Fall_3_Stick.pngThis image is a watered down image of my original one in post number 3 and 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 of the Father’s role as King in his kingdom he must see to the demands of justice in behalf of his citizens. Because Christ has suffered greatly, in fact beyond the capacity of mortal man to endure, he is now in a position to appeal to the Lawgiver for Justice. As well since it is He, Jesus Christ that was offended, it was His blood that was innocently shed he is in a position to ask 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.

It is important to take a moment and flip your usual perspective. Instead of looking at justice as it applies to us and our sins, we need to look at justice and how Christ also has a claim on it as a citizen of God the Father’s kingdom, for his undue suffering. In essence the Father says to the Son, what is required 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. As President Eyring states it, Christ is claiming the right to judge us and forgive if he chooses according to agreed upon terms.

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. Christ has completely changed the dynamics here. Now the justice as it is functioning in the Fathers Kingdom demands that the Son be allowed to be made whole. The Father has already put a death sentence on mankind and Christ basically says that since their lives are forfeit, (because death is the penalty for murder) he would like to claim the right to judge them according to his law and for those that meet the full conditions of his law he would like 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 because the Savior said that was what would make Him whole. 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 because his blood being shed was an offense against his person. 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.

Another set of verses that seems to hold a similar inference of meaning is this one found in 3 Nephi:

3 Nephi 27:13-16

14. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15. And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. [3 Nephi 27:13–16]

In other words, justice may not allow a person or a God to suffer for crimes committed by someone else, but justice will always allow the person who was offended by the abuse to be forgiving. Verse 16 above indicates that if they repent and are baptized Christ will forgive and you will not suffer for your sins.

Mosiah 15:11-12

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

So while the atonement placed Christ in a position to forgive anybody and everybody infinitely he defined conditions for how and who will receive his forgiveness. Everyone else will suffer for their own sins:

D & C 19:16-19

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

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

However, we still have to keep in mind that the other price that the atonement paid, that no man who had sinned could ever pay was the opportunity to dwell in the presence of God. So while a person may suffer for their sins based on the demands of justice, that remains an inadequate sacrifice to pay the price of the Garden of Eden where God banished all mankind from his presence. So even though a person should pay for his own sins it still falls short of what the Savior had to suffer to bring those who are his sheep back into the presence of God.

I have left a couple of things out which expand this further. One is why does eating the fruit of a tree warrant a death sentence in the first place? What really is the sin of the Garden of Eden?

The second thing is the Malachi statement that if the sealing power was not returned “I come and smite the earth with a curse” and how that ties into the atonement as there some additional tie ins here that make everything work together. Perhaps we can get to these later if it seems like this material is hitting home.

There is so much to understand in it and I surely have some more questions about it, but for the moment I need to ponder these things in my mind. Thank you for the effort. I'm impressed by your skills to put words together. May God bless you.