The Atonement

[Kabane52]

Hi guys. I hear LDS talk about "the Atonement" quite a bit. I'm interested to know precisely what this constitutes. How exactly, according to LDS theology, does Christ atone for the sins of man?

[onefour1]

Hi guys. I hear LDS talk about "the Atonement" quite a bit. I'm interested to know precisely what this constitutes. How exactly, according to LDS theology, does Christ atone for the sins of man?

Prior to the creation of this earth, we humans that exist on this earth lived with our heavenly father as spirit children. When God created the earth and placed Adam and Eve on the earth in their physical bodies, the earth was in a celestial state, and Adam and Eve could enjoy the physical presence of the Father and the Son and they were immortal. After Adam partook of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, the earth and its inhabitants were placed in a fallen state and Adam and Eve became mortal and subject to death. They had fallen from the glory of God and no longer enjoyed his presence. All living things on the earth became subject to death because of the transgression of Adam and Eve. From that time forth, God sent angels to minister unto his children on earth to teach them to repent and to come unto him. Because of eternal law, man was in a fallen state and there was no way for man to redeem himself. But God himself provided a savior for mankind in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ would come to the earth, suffer all manner of temptation, sorrow and pain and live a sinless life. As a man who lived a sinless life, Jesus was not deserving of the pain and sorrow he suffered. Before Jesus was crucified, he went with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane. There he took upon himself the pain and suffering of all the sins of mankind. Jesus suffered so much, that he bled from every pore of his body. But Jesus did not deserve all the suffering he went through. It was unjust that Christ should suffer because he lived a sinless life.

The recompense for the suffering Jesus went through, was that he was given the right to forgive the sins of others upon the principle of repentance. So in the Doctrine and Covenants we read:

D&C 19:15-19
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

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

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

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

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


So Jesus has made it so that now, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It is there for the taking. All we have to do is repent of our sins by keeping the commandments of the Lord. And this is what Jesus taught about repentance and keeping his commandments:

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Through repentance of sin and obedience to the commandments of God, we can once again can live in the physical physical presence of the Father and enjoy a fullness of his glory.

[Kabane52]

So, is it that our sin incurred a punishment that Christ took upon Himself? Penal substitution? Or are you simply saying that Christ was given the right to forgive sins because He had unjustly suffered? Sort of a "recompense" to Christ?

[nrajeff]

So, is it that our sin incurred a punishment that Christ took upon Himself? Penal substitution? Or are you simply saying that Christ was given the right to forgive sins because He had unjustly suffered? Sort of a "recompense" to Christ?

I think it might be both, plus the fact that His mortal life and suffering gave Him empathy for people's circumstances, making Him a good, fair judge.

[Cerebrum123]

Don't forget that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, and that LDS "scriptures" technically agree with him(I have a thread on this issue, but there haven't been many responses, especially ones that explain things very well). This makes it so God sinned by breaking His own rules, and forcing His own son to pay for it, not very "godly" if you ask me.

[OtherCheek]

Don't forget that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, and that LDS "scriptures" technically agree with him(I have a thread on this issue, but there haven't been many responses, especially ones that explain things very well). This makes it so God sinned by breaking His own rules, and forcing His own son to pay for it, not very "godly" if you ask me.

No doctrine in the LDS Church teaches that Adam is the same person as our Father in Heaven.

[Bill the Cat]

The Mormon version of the atonement also included the garden where Jesus was betrayed.

[Cow Poke]

No doctrine in the LDS Church teaches that Adam is the same person as our Father in Heaven.

Whether or not Smith had secretly taught the doctrine, the first recorded explanation of the doctrine was by Brigham Young, who first taught the Adam–God doctrine at the church's spring General Conference on April 9, 1852. This sermon was recorded stenographically by George D. Watt, Young's private secretary, who was an expert in Pitman shorthand.[23] Watt published the sermon in 1854 in the British periodical Journal of Discourses, in a volume endorsed by Young and the church's First Presidency.[24]

In Watt's transcript of the sermon, Young said he intended to discuss "who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary", a subject which he said "has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day".[25] The transcript reads:

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.

Does this not address the subject, OC?

[Bill the Cat]

Whether or not Smith had secretly taught the doctrine, the first recorded explanation of the doctrine was by Brigham Young, who first taught the Adam–God doctrine at the church's spring General Conference on April 9, 1852. This sermon was recorded stenographically by George D. Watt, Young's private secretary, who was an expert in Pitman shorthand.[23] Watt published the sermon in 1854 in the British periodical Journal of Discourses, in a volume endorsed by Young and the church's First Presidency.[24]

In Watt's transcript of the sermon, Young said he intended to discuss "who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary", a subject which he said "has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day".[25] The transcript reads:

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.

Does this not address the subject, OC?

I think that came from under the bus...

[Sparko]

Claiming that the Ancient of Days refers to Adam, when the Bible says it refers to God, kinda shows you wrong OC. Cerebrum is right.

[Cow Poke]

I think that came from under the bus...

Yeah, but it's not just ANY old Mormon mumbling from under the bus... it's the longest serving... but.... yeah.... under the bus nonetheless.

[Kabane52]

I'm not too interested in what the earliest LDS prophet believed exactly. I want to know what is meant when the average Latter-day Saint talks about the "Atonement." The words means totally different things for a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian. Is the LDS view more or less similar to one of these three perspectives, or is it another entirely different view?

[OtherCheek]

Does this not address the subject, OC?

The Adam-God theory is not any part of LDS doctrine. Never was either. In order to be counted as "doctrine" it would need to be approved unanimously by the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. And no one really knows what Brigham was talking about except himself, and he is dead. The theory was never expanded or expounded upon by the Church leadership. Enough said.

[OtherCheek]

I'm not too interested in what the earliest LDS prophet believed exactly. I want to know what is meant when the average Latter-day Saint talks about the "Atonement." The words means totally different things for a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian. Is the LDS view more or less similar to one of these three perspectives, or is it another entirely different view?

It is probably best for you to decide for yourself how similar or different our view of the atonement of Christ is from other churches and church doctrines.

I try to align my view with what the scriptures say on the matter. From what I have been taught, the Atonement of Christ is a universal atonement, (this does not mean universal salvation, however), and an infinite atonement. He atoned for the sin of Adam so that this sin is not imputed upon his posterity, but instead we are answerable for our own. He atoned for the sins committed in ignorance, by those who have not been taught the gospel or who have not been taught correct principles. He atoned for children so that they cannot sin until they become accountable and knowledgeable and culpable. He atoned for fallen nature so that one day the lamb and the lion will lie down together without ire. He atoned for all the sins of all mankind. But for this last category, only those who are penitent and seek repentance, will receive forgiveness and be cleansed by the power of the Atonement. Christ through His atonement has the power to cleanse and make holy, without spot. He as the power to exalt those who give heed to all his words. He has the power to understand us in our extreme suffering. He has earned the right to judge us. He has the authority to send the Holy Spirit to comfort us in times of distress. And there is much more, if I think about it. This verse from the BoM sums up what I believe about Christ's atonement. Not a sin has been committed that Christ did not atone for, but the efficacious-ness is conditional for those who have sinned knowingly, and they must repent, or the atonement cannot work in their lives.

Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary has to say on the topic:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/ato...g=eng&letter=a

[Cow Poke]

The Adam-God theory is not any part of LDS doctrine. Never was either. In order to be counted as "doctrine" it would need to be approved unanimously by the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the ease with with you can throw teachings of your Church under the bus, EVEN when they were taught by the longest serving "Prophet" of your Church.

And no one really knows what Brigham was talking about except himself, and he is dead.

Yup -- that's a "prophet" for ya... just blubbering away and teaching stuff that ya'll have to handwave away.

The theory was never expanded or expounded upon by the Church leadership.

Brigham Young is NOT considered "Church leadership"?????

Enough said.

Actually, OC, it says WAY more than you would like it to say. BTC called it!

I think that came from under the bus...