Why do we need a sacrificed mediator?

[Traveler]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 10:32 PM, jasonnooson said:

Can someone help me understand why we would need a being to perform an atonement and be sacrificed for us and be our mediator?  I see questions similar to this often, but I feel I look at it uniquely and have not seen answers beyond the standard Sunday School answers.  

Here is the way I see it.

The Celestial Kingdom will be inhabited by those of us who have BECOME Celestial beings.  We become Celestial beings by practice.  By training here on Earth and changing our hearts and minds by serving others and all of the other training guidlines we often call "commandments." (Meaning the commandments are simply the guidlines Heavenly Father has revealed that, if followed, will help us become Celestial beings)

......

I believe all the answers are included in the gospel of Christ which is the essence of the Plan of Salvation.  The first element of the Plan of Salvation is “The Creation”.  Even in this first step many begin my misunderstanding.  The Creation is not about the origins of the physical empirical universe but rather the initiation of the covenant between man and G-d that brought about the Plan of Salvation.  However, your question deals with the second great principle of the Plan of Salvation – the Fall of Man.

The fall of man is a necessary step in the path or way provided by the plan of G-d in the great Plan of Salvation.  This step involved partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  This fall is symbolically represented in scripture with the man Adam and the woman Eve taking a bite out of the “forbidden” fruit. (Also the symbol graphic of Apple Corp.)  There are two elements to this knowledge.  One element of good the other element of evil.

Let us begin with the element of Evil.  Evil is death.  It is important to understand that evil will cause death.  In other words the knowledge of evil is to experience death.  There are two deaths – the first is the death of our physical body – the second death is to be exiled from G-d or to cast out of his presents.  It means to be expelled from the Kingdom (laws and covenants) of G-d.  The only access to G-d for someone exiled is through a mediator.   So gain a knowledge of evil it is required that a person suffer death.

The second part of the knowledge of the Tree of Good and Evil is to come to a knowledge of Good.  Not just any old idea of good but the complete and pure (perfect) good that is the love of Christ that we learn of or gain knowledge of through the atonement of Christ.  Like death being a principle of all mankind – so also is the final judgement and resurrection of mankind that is provided for mankind as a (free) gift from G-d.

Armed with the knowledge of Good and Evil as well as the gift of “Agency” we have the privilege to make our covenant and law desire known to G-d at what is called the Final Judgement – that must involve our proctor mediator in covenant that has made our experience in knowledge possible.  Thus we enter into covenant according to our knowledge and desire to complete the Plan of Salvation and our place in the kingdom of our choice.

This is but a surface scratch of some of the elements of the Great Plan of Salvation – of which we can only come to understand in this mortal existence through the only true Church that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I invite you to continue on the Path or Way of Christ and learn for your self – both through the sacrifice of Christ as well as sacrifices for the good and benefit of other you are called to perform as you continue in your covenants with G-d.

 

The Traveler

[jasonnooson]

22 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I would suggest that the mechanics of the Atonement are a mystery - that is, they cannot be known except through revelation and that revelation has not yet come. Prophets ancient and modern have used metaphors and analogies to get us pondering on it so that such knowledge may be "caught" rather than "taught". Of course, the failings of analogies is that they aren't the real thing (right, pa-atrick).

If He creates the law, I think it's valid to ask why did. He set it up so that His Son had to Atone. The law, as He made it is two-tiered: If you die in your sins you are damned; if you die with past sins you are forgiven. So why is there any need for the Atonement? From my experience (and I think this is what @estradling75 was getting at), part of the mechanics of leaving your sins in the past requires it - that is, you cannot get gold from lead without transforming the very elements, and it seems like the Atonement is the catalyst that transforms telestial beings to celestial. The scriptures refer to this as sanctification. (this may also only be the rule in this order of creation). Admittedly, this hasn't gotten us very far, because that just leads to asking why was this order of creation designed to require the Atonement? The question is still unanswered (so much for logic).

The general consensus on this board seems to be that God is not the law-giver, but rather the law-teacher. That is, the laws of progression already existed and He is mentoring us to make the most of them. If this is the case, then your obejection is, frankly, nonsense. Using @zil's gravity example, I could just as well ask, "What law requires that I fall off a cliff when I run over the edge? Natural Law that everyone is subject to? Then it seems that Natural Law would be that so long as I keep running and don't look down I won't fall. I don't understand how a Natural Law would require that I fall even if I'm unaware of the lack of solid earth under my feet." If eternal law requires payment, then it requires payment. As with all such laws, we accept it and use it to our advantage. This particular model fits in very well with what the scriptures describe as justification. Of course, this is also frustrating because there is no "why", it just is. Not only is the question unanswered, but it is also unanswerable.

Of course, I return back to my opening paragraph. All this may just be gibberish. If the weighty "why" of the Atonement is to be answered, it is to be answered by God.

Mordorbund,

Great reply, thank you.  I agree with almost all of your response.  I believe that our Heavenly Father is more of a law-teacher.  One of the things I love about the doctrines of the church are how much sense they make.  With few exceptions, when I ponder on a doctrine long enough I can see how that particular doctrine would adhere to some natural law.

The main exception is the Atonement.  It seems to be an anomoly (as I am sure you will say that it is just that).  There seems to be no president for it.  There seems to me to be no earthly example that logicaly supports it.  I understand that it is possible that it just IS the way it IS and we just don't understand it.  But just like with the law of gravity, we refuse to accept that it just IS.  We try to come up with explanations that would explain the results of gravity.  We don't just accept it.  

I do not believe in just accepting any doctrine.  I believe all doctrine can be understood logically because God is logical.  And you may be right, there may be no way to comprehend it without direct revelation. However, I have found God usually does not just give us revelation for free.  It comes after struggling with a question ourselves first, and then he adds knowledge.  

You basically summed up the answer pretty well, which is: I don't know.  You don't know.  It appears to be a natural law that the law-teacher has told us about and requires revelation for the full answer.  However, it still doesn't make sense to me so I will continue to strive to adjust my understanding of natural law and doctrine until my view of natural law fits with what we know about the Atonement.

[jasonnooson]

17 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

@jasonnooson

Your OP question here is very in depth one, and very multi-faceted.  Honestly, I find the currency "I owe money" angles not so helpful for addressing this subject.   I'd rather run with your current Olympic analogy--

"Bob" wants to be an Olympic athlete (aka celestial being) on the soccer team (because this is a team effort).  On day one of training, Bob is trying to listen to his coach, but screws up, and kicks the ball in the wrong direction: right into his teammate's skull, shattering it.  Teammate then dies.  Bob, shattered by the trauma of killing his friend, falls to pieces and never plays soccer again, let alone as an Olympian.  

That's what happens when we are in charge, even the coach (Christ) sitting on the sidelines telling us what to do.

It's a good thing Christ is more than a sit-on-the-sidelines coach!  In addition to coaching us, Christ runs in as the Great Physician, healing the teammate's shattered skull: using His great and marvelous power to save that boy's life.  He knows what to do: He learned it all, He felt all the wounds, He's taken all of the pain upon Himself, and can Heal any wound.  The teammate not only lives- but is better than ever, reshaped and marveling at Christ's power.  Teammate embraces Him, and goes on to be a fantastic Olympian.

But it's not only the teammate who Christ saves: He also saves Bob, whom without Christ in this critical moment would never have played soccer again.  Christ Heals Bob of the trauma caused by nearly killing his friend, absolving him of that guilt.  Christ then teaches Bob how to be better: how to control his power and direct his kicks to help the team and not hurt anyone else.  Christ doesn't do this from the sidelines-- He stands shoulder to shoulder with Bob, holding Bob as He demonstrates each motion again and again (because Christ's already won every single gold medal).  Working shoulder to shoulder with Christ as his coach, physician, teammate, and friend, Bob finally becomes the athlete he dreamed of being.

Does that make sense?  Why Bob needed Christ?

I agree with all of that.  The problem is that nothing in your analigy requires Christ to suffer and be killed to do what he did for the soccer players.  Everything in your story can come just by looking to Christ, following his example.  No where in your story did you mention the coach having to suffer and die for what he ended up doing.  That is where the logic of the Atonement ceases to make sense to me.

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, jasonnooson said:

I agree with all of that.  The problem is that nothing in your analigy requires Christ to suffer and be killed to do what he did for the soccer players.  Everything in your story can come just by looking to Christ, following his example.  No where in your story did you mention the coach having to suffer and die for what he ended up doing.  That is where the logic of the Atonement ceases to make sense to me.

Jason,

I suggest that this is a doctrine you need to take on faith. We don't have complete logical arguments of proofs for many things that the scriptures and prophets teach us.

Think, learn, and study about it - for sure. I am also completely in favor of science and human reasoning as ways of discovering truth.

But some things we don't have all the answers for yet. What we do have is revelation direction from God and from the Holy Spirit, which is a different, and better in most ways, method of obtaining truth.

As you continue to study and continue to be obedient, God will give you a more full understanding if you seek it and pray for it. The answer are out there, but usually in the case of spiritual knowledge, God must give the answers to you.

I suggest you start with the following scriptures:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/atone-atonement?lang=eng&letter=a

The following quote may help. I recommend reading the whole talk - in context, these quotes make more sense:

Quote

Before using terms like truth, knowledge, intelligence, education, and wisdom, I stress at the outset that the scriptural insights concerning these terms or definitions of them give us, as Latter-day Saints, an added understanding of these concepts. These differ from those of the world—markedly, in some respects...

Latter-day Saints know that certain knowledge comes only by revelation and, therefore, is only “spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14–16.) ...

... gaining knowledge and becoming more Christlike “are two aspects of a single process.” (C. Terry Warner, in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4:1490.) This process is part of being “valiant” in our testimony of Jesus. Thus, while we are saved no faster than we gain a certain type of knowledge, it is also the case that we will gain knowledge no faster than we are saved! (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 217.) So in our different understanding of knowledge and truth, behaving and knowing are inseparably linked.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/04/the-inexhaustible-gospel?lang=eng

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by tesuji

[zil]

4 hours ago, jasonnooson said:

I believe all doctrine can be understood logically because God is logical.

So did I.  Until God taught me to believe first and understand second.  It was painful and difficult, but once it started, I knew it had to be done.  And I came to understand a lot more than just the logic of the thing I previously didn't understand.  If you are fortunate, and will allow it, God will teach you the same thing.  I believe it is something we all must learn, even those of us who are highly logical or rational in nature.

Why did Christ have to suffer and die?  Because those are the consequences of sin - the very things he was overcoming.  He wasn't sacrificed to someone or something, he made a sacrifice, of everything which was his (life and glory), he gave it all up, so that he could overcome death and the consequences sin, and then take back what was his (life and glory), and offer them to us on conditions he defined, rather than conditions we couldn't meet (the ones celestial law defines).

[Jane_Doe]

5 hours ago, jasonnooson said:

I agree with all of that.  The problem is that nothing in your analigy requires Christ to suffer and be killed to do what he did for the soccer players.  Everything in your story can come just by looking to Christ, following his example.  No where in your story did you mention the coach having to suffer and die for what he ended up doing.  That is where the logic of the Atonement ceases to make sense to me.

What good is a doctor if he hasn't ever felt pain?

To answer this question, I'm going to go with a real-life example (warning: not prettiness coming up).

When I was a kid, one of my teachers was a serial child molester, who used his position of trust to gain access to victims.  My repeated "encounters" with him left me deeply deeply scared-- I dealt with sucidial depression and a deep blood lust starting at age 7.   Through two decades of close communion with Christ, I was finally able to be healed.  I also reached the point of being able to forgive "the monster".   But my forgiveness does not mean pain he caused just vanished: rather I relinquished having to hold the grudge-- having to be the one to point the finger and say "you did this!".  I relinquished that chore to Christ, who will stand at judgement day on my behalf and be able to recount EXACTLY all the damage the monster caused.  He will hold the monster accountable for everything he did.  

But what if the monster changed his ways?  What if the monster had an honest repentant re-birth-- no longer a monster, but a disciple of Christ?  I do not know (I haven't had contact in 20 years), but for the sake of example, let's hypothetically say he had.  His crimes were serious, and no amount of "I'm sorry's" would ever make the pain go away  by itself.  Neither could I relinquish my pain by just pretending it didn't happen: because it did, and it was real, and it was horrible.  For me to pretend that it didn't exist is for me to lie, let alone for God to pretend it doesn't exist.  This pain must be acknowledged and paid for.  To just "wave it away" is to pretend my life story doesn't exist, and God cannot lie that way.

So who takes the the blame?  Who suffers for the monster's crimes?  An unrepentant monster would suffer himself.  But the re-born disciple of Christ?   Christ Himself takes on the punishment- He takes the blows, He feels every thing which happened to me, all of the monster's shame & guilt-- He takes it.  This does 5 things:

1) Acknowledges my pain (again, just waving it away is to lie)

2) Allows the re-born Christian to go free

3) Gives Christ the knowledge of exactly how I feel, and exactly how the guilty feels.  

4)  Armed with His knowledge of our pain, Christ can now succor both me and a repentant re-born disiciple.

5) Armed with His knowledge of our pain, Christ can fully justly judge the non-repentant monster: He knows the pain, and the punishment.

[Awakened]

15 hours ago, jasonnooson said:

I agree with all of that.  The problem is that nothing in your analigy requires Christ to suffer and be killed to do what he did for the soccer players.  Everything in your story can come just by looking to Christ, following his example.  No where in your story did you mention the coach having to suffer and die for what he ended up doing.  That is where the logic of the Atonement ceases to make sense to me.

Christ needed to die to gain power over death. Same thing for sin and the suffering that comes with it. Why it exactly had to be done this way is a little unknown. However, after having thought about this, I've come to the firm conclusion that suffering and sin has to go SOMEWHERE. If it could just be vanished away immediately, it would render sin completely meaningless. And without sin and suffering, there is no contrast to happiness and obedience. Then there would be no law. And if there is no law, there is no order. And if there is no order, there is no God.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Awakened

[Faapefuoe]

Just some thoughts, in addition to good ideas already discussed.

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

 

I feel like Jesus, in the midst of suffering in the Garden, had the same wondering that is being expressed in the original question.  The Father HAS the power to make ALL things possible, surely there must have been some other way?  This does little to help understand the why, but it validates the question for sure! 

 

I'm not sure what is meant by natural law? Does the "law of sacrifice" help explain the needfulness of Christ's suffering and death? At least some piece of it.  ??

 

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

 

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

^Of course I feel like he needed to die so that I would be absolutely certain that He loves me. 

 

Oh it is wonderful . . .

 

 

[james12]

20 hours ago, jasonnooson said:

I agree with all of that.  The problem is that nothing in your analigy requires Christ to suffer and be killed to do what he did for the soccer players.  Everything in your story can come just by looking to Christ, following his example.  No where in your story did you mention the coach having to suffer and die for what he ended up doing.  That is where the logic of the Atonement ceases to make sense to me.

I of course do not have complete conclusions. But I do like to think, and I like this question about why Christ had to suffer and be killed. So let me start with one thought.

Within each one of us are two competing natures. One is more directly under the influence of Satan (the flesh) and the other is more directly under the influence of the Father (the spirit). In order to overcome destruction found in this fallen world, the flesh (decaying form) must become subject to the spirit (life). This is what Abinadi taught as given in Mosiah 15, "And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,...Yea, even so he shall be lead, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men." (Mosiah 15:5,7-8). The way Christ, and we, gain victory over destruction is to subject ourselves to said destruction and then gain victory over it through the spirit. Christ was the first of all to achieve victory in this manner. Because he has accomplished this task he will likewise show us the way. 

Now then, a few supporting quotes on the matter to ponder.

Quote

"The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God." What does that have to do with it? The status of the Father goes back to another order of existence, obviously way back there. He [the Son] was coceived by the power of God, a godly power which is not of this earth and has nothing to do with this earth at all. This is a place where men dwell in perishable flesh, a condition designated as "the Son." Not second rate, but completely dependent. ...The flesh is not against the spirit but "subject to the Spirit," we are told. When mortals become totally subject to God, they will have passed the test and are ready to go on. You have to be subject - that's the thing. "...the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation." This is saying that you belong to this same category. He came to the same category as you. He was tempeted just as much as you are, etc. You don't have to give in, but we all do because that was the Fall. That's where Adam did give in. This is necessary for experience, knowing the good from the evil. (Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester 2, p. 82)

Quote

That is the very doctrine Abinadi taught - that the Father (the spirit) in Christ gave direction and had to be obeyed, while the Son (the flesh) in Christ had to yield and obey (Jeffery R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant p. 191)

Quote

For he [Christ] must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:25-26)

 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, zil said:

So did I.  Until God taught me to believe first and understand second.  It was painful and difficult, but once it started, I knew it had to be done.  And I came to understand a lot more than just the logic of the thing I previously didn't understand.  If you are fortunate, and will allow it, God will teach you the same thing.  I believe it is something we all must learn, even those of us who are highly logical or rational in nature.

Why did Christ have to suffer and die?  Because those are the consequences of sin - the very things he was overcoming.  He wasn't sacrificed to someone or something, he made a sacrifice, of everything which was his (life and glory), he gave it all up, so that he could overcome death and the consequences sin, and then take back what was his (life and glory), and offer them to us on conditions he defined, rather than conditions we couldn't meet (the ones celestial law defines).

I have found that the things of G-d are always logical.  When I have thought something to defy logic it has always turned out to be that I was missing critical points to complete the logic.  Likewise I have always found things that are false to have critical logic flaws.  Often I have been fooled by missing a flaw and thought something that was not true to be logical but learned later of the missed flaw.

Perhaps this is in part why I think mathematics to be one of what I call the 3 great pillars of “Magic”.  Using the language of mathematics, it is impossible to mathematically lie by intentionally being deceptive.  The very act of deception in mathematics is such a blatantly obvious flaw that is immediately seen by anyone knowing mathematics that is paying attention.

I have found the Gift of the Holy Ghost to be an amazing assist in seeing and understanding the pure logic of G-d, his Gospel and his Plan of Salvation.  I have discovered that there are many that are so led by desire to believe something rather than to appreciate the logic of truth that they will, in essence, stand in the logic of the bright sun at noon day and declare it night.

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

On 8/10/2016 at 11:41 AM, jasonnooson said:

 With few exceptions, when I ponder on a doctrine long enough I can see how that particular doctrine would adhere to some natural law.

If you're looking for some natural law corollary, you should consider birth. CS Lewis finds the messiah dies/others live motif a prominent part of the Atonement (as well as other ancient deity - he refers to it as the corn king) and is surprised that Jesus only draws attention to it once (the corn reference - the theme is certainly there). Elder Faust describes the birth process as women descending into the valley of the shadow of death. A salmon cannot become a mother without dying for her children. The scriptures speak of the Atonement in terms of Christ giving birth through His death.

In terms of the law of justice, instead of thinking in terms of an abstract that has to be paid, you could consider the bonds that are formed with mutual suffering. I hope @Jane_Doe doesn't mind me using her example. If she does, then I'll restate this in more general terms. This doesn't explain why Jesus had to die, but it does explain why He had to suffer. Jane has reached a point where she can forgive her abuser. How long did it take you to forgive Jane's teacher? Have you already done it? Do you need a few minutes or hours or days to process exactly what happened before you can forgive him?

Have you realized yet that it's a trick question? You can't forgive him because he hasn't wronged you. The most you can forgive him for is for harming someone you care about, and that's only to the extent that you care about Jane and other people. By taking on Himself the full consequences of sin (and it occurs to me that some of those may include death, so that might be why that's there) Jesus has qualified Himself to forgive. It's not a light thing for Jesus to forgive the abuser (if He does forgive him).

I think your natural law includes such stipulations of fairness that if something is taken from an individual, it is that individual's right to reclaim the item or forgive the grievance. It is not the right of another to extract it after it has been forgiven. The abuser mentioned above has taken innocence (and all that comes with it) from Jane AND from Jesus. It is their right, and their right only, to determine his fate.

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I hope @Jane_Doe doesn't mind me using her example.

Not at all     Your post was very eloquent.  

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[zil]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Have you realized yet that it's a trick question? You can't forgive him because he hasn't wronged you. The most you can forgive him for is for harming someone you care about, and that's only to the extent that you care about Jane and other people. By taking on Himself the full consequences of sin (and it occurs to me that some of those may include death, so that might be why that's there) Jesus has qualified Himself to forgive. It's not a light thing for Jesus to forgive the abuser (if He does forgive him).

Sometimes people forget that this scripture is quite literal: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt 25:40)

[Edspringer]

On 10/08/2016 at 9:39 AM, LeSellers said:

It might be more accurate to say that He (Christ) inherited His power over death by virtue of the Father's DNA. There may be others out there who believe this, but as far as I have been able to tell, we're the only Christians who really believe that Jesus is the actual Son of the Father. (We do not know, in spite of a lot of speculation on the subject, exactly how that happened, but Mary's DNA gifted Him mortality, and Father's immortality, both traits essential to the sacrifice that makes the Atonement possible.)

Lehi

You're right, LeSellers. Thanx for the awesome insights!

The reason why I used the term gave referring to the power Jesus got from His Father is because of the scripture in John 5:25: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in hilmself".

[Edspringer]

On 09/08/2016 at 1:08 PM, jasonnooson said:

Edspringer,
Thank you for the post and for the numerous references.  
Just a couple additional points.
Referencing the paragraph which starts “But after the separation…”:  
If we follow all of Heavenly Father’s commandments, believe in Christ’s teachings and learn to be like him, why would we be devils?  We wouldn’t be devils, we would be like Christ.  I don’t see how some suffering in a garden changes the fact that we would not be devils, but Christ like.  
“But what power could do that?” How about the same being who created us.  Our Heavenly Father.  He is all powerful, but he couldn’t allow a Christ like being to return to him unless he performs a sacrifice of his Son?  To Whom did he sacrifice his son?  Who external to our Father unlocked the door and allowed our Father to accept the Christ like “devil” into his kingdom?  You would say “Christ”, but later you say that Christ got the power to perform the atonement from the Father.  So that becomes a circular argument.  
In reference to “We, for ourselves, can do nothing. Everything happens by and through the power of God Almighty, by and through the power of the atonement. Can our works make us go to Heaven? No, but there’s plenty to do on our own. Basically we have to align our will with the will of the Father, Who knows all.”:
At first you say we can do nothing, but then it says we must align our will to the will of the Father.  Which is it?  Our whole purpose for this life is to learn to align our will to the will of the Father.  That is way we have opportunities to learn here.  That is why the Brother of Jared was asked by Christ what he wanted him to do instead of just telling him how to fix his problem.  So if we have learned to align our will to the will of our all might Father in Heaven, why is our Father still not allowed to allow us into his kingdom without sacrificing his Son to….to what?
 

Thank you again for all of the references.  I will look into them.

1 - This is a teaching given by Jacob to illustrate what would have happened if there was no atonement. We would come to earth, die and be restored no more. Our spirits and bodies would be separate forever and we would become miserable, like the devil.

2 - No circular argument at all, my friend. Our Savior had all the attributes to perform the atonement because the Father gave Him power over death, so that’s one of the reasons He was so well qualified to perform an infinite atonement. The BOM doesn’t put it in a contradictory way, neither do I. It doesn’t lead us to confusion. The doctrine of the atonement is plainly taught in the BOM for everyone to understand it. 

3 and 4 - Please read, ponder and pray about the references I suggested. Ask our Father in Heaven to enlighten your understanding and touch your heart concerning the atonement. I'm sure He will answer your prayers, if they are sincere. 

Best wishes

[UtahTexan]

We can discuss and debate the issue all day long.  And debates are fun.  But the actual answer is easy:  It is the Father's Plan.  Like it, hate it, accept it, reject it....it does not matter...it is the Father's Plan....and anything about that is way above my pay grade.