The Bitter Cup Of The Atonement

[AnthonyB]

Traveler,

Water came out because most of His blood had already been shed on the cross, the spear was to confirm he was dead. The water was probably the fluid from around the heart that occurs when a heart is under incredible stress.

What do you mean by the second half of your sentence?

[CrimsonKairos]

But the cross was not the only time and place that the blood of Christ was shed...

Really? Was there another time or place that Christ was killed? Did sinful men extinguish his life anywhere other than on the cross?

If so, I've never heard or read of such a thing. What do you mean?

p.s. I hope you're remembering that the phrase "shedding blood" or "blood being shed" is a scriptural term that always refers to killing, slaying, murdering, etc...

p.p.s. The phrase "shedding blood" is symbolic of killing and not always literal. In other words, you don't always have to stab or slice or pierce someone to kill them. An example is in Acts 22:20 where Paul refers to Stephen being stoned to death as Stephen having his blood shed: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (Acts 22:20) So it's really irrelevant whether blood came out or not when Christ was stabbed after he was dead. In case you missed it, blood did come out when the soldier stabbed Christ's corpse (see John 19:34).

[Traveler]

p.s. I hope you're remembering that the phrase "shedding blood" or "blood being shed" is a scriptural term that always refers to killing, slaying, murdering, etc...

The shedding of blood is associated with death but in some of the symbolism, including ancient blood sacrifice, blood was shed in "preparation" of the sacrificial death or killing.

The Traveler

[a-train]

Everyone I ask---and I've asked quite a few friends and siblings-in-law---believes that the sacrifice for sin took place in Gethsemane.

Do we really have Mormons who would say this statement is true: 'Jesus' death on the cross was not the sacrifice for our sins.'? If we do, I certainly have no objection to a correction.

Let me tell you what I mean when I say I believe sanctification is the over-arching goal we must attain if we are to dwell with God in celestial glory hereafter....

OK, so we are talking about two different arches here. The arch I was referring to was not a goal or set of goals which man must attain. The arch which the LDS call the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the work of Christ in raising man from a fallen, telestial, and mortal state, to immortality in the presence of God. God's Sacrifice of His Only Begotten is the keystone in that arch. The arch is NOT the requirements or objectives of those who are to be saved. What I am trying to find out is what term you would apply to that arch. What term would you use in place of 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ' as used by the LDS? If the overall work of Christ in making man at one with God is not to be called 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ', what should it be called and why? That is my question.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The shedding of blood is associated with death but in some of the symbolism, including ancient blood sacrifice, blood was shed in "preparation" of the sacrificial death or killing.

C'mon Traveler, you can't claim something like that without hooking me up with some scriptures. :) What leads you to believe what you wrote above? Examples from the Old Testament, or any book of scripture?

The arch which the LDS call the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the work of Christ in raising man from a fallen, telestial, and mortal state, to immortality in the presence of God...If the overall work of Christ in making man at one with God is not to be called 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ', what should it be called and why?

Gotcha.

Hmmm, I guess I'd call it The Mission of Christ. Something like that. Why? Because Christ was sent not just to die for us, but to teach us and correct us and perform miracles and establish his Church and call apostles and all the other myriad things he did.

I see all of that as being part of his mission as our Savior.

I really don't like having to choose a term to encompass everything Jesus did, does or will do for our salvation. The scriptures never do that as far as I can tell. It feels like I'm having to invent a term where no term would be sufficient, y'know?

The reason I like the "arch of sanctification" analogy is because everything we need to become exalted is made possible by the keystone of the atonement. Without the atonement, the other parts of the arch fall and are useless.

But by comparing the arch to everything Jesus did, with the keystone being his death, I don't think it translates the concepts well. I mean, let's say Christ's birth as a helpless mortal could be considered one stone in his mission or work to save us. Other things he did would be other stones. And you said the crucifixion would be the keystone.

The only problem with that analogy is that in a real arch, without the keystone the arch falls apart. But if Jesus hadn't been crucified, he still could have been born, raised Lazarus, healed the ten lepers, walked on water, etc.

So if we're looking for an analogy to all the works of Christ, I'd use a temple and not an arch. In a temple analogy, I'd say the atonement or crucifixion was the capstone (i.e. highest and most prominent part), with all the other works and things Christ did comprising the bricks, windows, doors, etc... Hence everything Christ did or taught all led up to the capstone, his death for our sins.

Does that make any sense?

[a-train]

OK,

So it seems you have no particular answer, and I don't expect to hold you to one. How about satisfaction? That has precedent, but it isn't synonymous with atonement (see below).

Now the LDS folks would not like 'The Mission of Jesus Christ' as a replacement for 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ'. I think most LDS would agree with you that 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ' would be a part of 'The Mission of Jesus Christ'. I certainly do.

The Saviour's work in creating the earth did NOT atone for the sins of mankind. His revelations to the ancient Patriarch's did NOT cover sins. It is understood that 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ' has reference to the work of Christ in propitiating for our sins and bringing about the reconciliation of man to God, this was the intention of the formulation of the term atonement by Tyndale in the first place.

The LDS perception of 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ' includes the Sacrifice for Sin offered by the Saviour, but it also includes the Sacrifice made by the Father in the giving of His Son, the work of the Saviour as our Advocate with the Father, and the work of Christ in bringing about the spirit of repentance in man, and the ultimate eternal reconciliatory effect of the Saviour's Sacrifice.

It should be noted that the seperation of the Saviour from His body and its placement in the tomb was temporary, but the Sacrifice for Sin is Infinite and Eternal. The giving up of the Ghost of the Saviour on the cross was presumably in a heartbeat, it took only an instant for our Creator to pass from this world into the spiritual realm. However, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is eternal. Clearly the Atonement of Jesus Christ means something more than simply His temporal death at calvary, just as the term atonement referred to much more in the OT than the instance of death in the sacrificial animal.

Is there a dictionary or thesaurus wherein sacrifice is listed as a synonym for 'Atonement'? It is NOT listed in any of the references I looked at, nor have I found sacrifice discussed in the etymology for atonement.

Now the Mormons aren't the only ones who consider the Atonement of Jesus Christ the way they do. Bruce R. McConkie didn't show up on the scene and produce an unprecedented definition of the term. Check Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary entry on the subject, printed 18 years before his birth:

Atonement

This word does not occur in the Authorized Version of the New Testament except in Rom. 5:11, where in the Revised Version the word "reconciliation" is used. In the Old Testament it is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf. By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected. When speaking of Christ's saving work, the word "satisfaction," the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word "atonement." Christ's satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God. Christ's work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by the punishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors. Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about. Christ's mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fulness of blessing to men. The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred. It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence of God's love to guilty men (John 3:16; Rom. 3:24, 25; Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9). The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Ex. 34:7; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2, 6; Rom. 3:5). This is God's plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know.

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Don't you think that using sacrifice as a synonym or definition for atonement would be a redefinition and not a return to an original use of the term?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

...this was the intention of the formulation of the term atonement by Tyndale in the first place.

This is where we differ. I don't particularly care what Tyndale meant or didn't mean. I care what the original Hebrew scriptures convey as relates to the purpose and concept of the Day of Atonement. You're trying to establish your definition of atonement by appealing to etymology, whereas I'm using the concepts within the scriptures themselves.

The Day of Atonement wasn't meant to symbolize everything Christ did in his role as our Savior. For example, Jesus is our Savior from death by virtue of his resurrection, yet resurrection isn't typified or foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement ritual. Resurrection is symbolized in the wave or heave offering that Israel was to make three days after the Passover feast.

What the Day of Atonement was for was to foreshadow and symbolize Christ's role and work as our Savior from sin. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's why I object to using the term "atonement" to encompass all the things that you and others would like it to encompass.

The LDS perception of 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ' includes...

The scriptures do not ever, anywhere, say that the atonement of Christ is a condition or the result of Christ's mission as our Savior.

Atonement is always an action, a sacrifice, something that is done to attain a desired condition. Atonement is not ever portrayed as the desired condition itself.

Yet I see you wanting to use "atonement" to mean "salvation." The quote you included in your last post does this too, as we see here:

The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. (Easton's BD)

If scriptures used the term "atonement" instead of "salvation" then I think you'd have a basis for your argument. For example, the following scriptures originally said "salvation" but I've replaced them with the word "atonement" in bold type to show what I mean:

And thus he shall bring atonement to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. (Alma 34:15)

Or, in other words, I give unto you directions how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your atonement. (D&C 82:9)

If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of atonement. (D&C 6:13)

See what I mean? I see you and many others wanting to use the word "atonement" to describe the state of salvation, or exaltation. I think this is confusing and misleading. Atonement is not a state of being. Atonement is a sacrifice that makes possible the state of being which we yearn for, to wit, salvation or exaltation in God's kingdom.

... [atonement] also includes the Sacrifice made by the Father in the giving of His Son

The Father made a sacrifice in letting His Son depart the Heavenly Courts on High and be born as a mortal, but that mortal birth was not the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don't know why you keep insisting on lumping these concepts together. Where in scripture does it teach that the birth of Christ was in any way part of the atonement? I just think it's unnecessarily confusing the doctrine of atonement.

It should be noted that the seperation of the Saviour from His body and its placement in the tomb was temporary, but the Sacrifice for Sin is Infinite and Eternal.

And why? Because the one who sacrificed himself was infinite and eternal.

The giving up of the Ghost of the Saviour on the cross...took only an instant...However, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is eternal.

You're talking the "what," but you're neglecting the "why."

Why is the atonement eternal? Because Christ's death was sufficient to atone for or cover the sins of all the repentant spirit children of our Heavenly Father everywhere past, present and yet to be born. Why is it sufficient? Because Christ was a God, because he was perfectly innocent, and because the injustice and horror of his death will never cease to persuade God to forgive us if we repent.

Clearly the Atonement of Jesus Christ means something more than simply His temporal death at calvary,

I think its anything but clear. In fact on the contrary, the scriptures are clear that the atonement consisted of Christ allowing wicked men to shed his blood on Calvary.

...the term atonement referred to much more in the OT than the instance of death in the sacrificial animal.

You keep asserting that OT Day of Atonement ritual included more than the death of a suitable sacrificial animal and the sprinkling of its blood by the High Priest, but I fail to see why. I do not read that anywhere in scripture. What are you talking about when you say that?

Is there a dictionary or thesaurus wherein sacrifice is listed as a synonym for 'Atonement'? It is NOT listed in any of the references I looked at, nor have I found sacrifice discussed in the etymology for atonement.

Arrrrrggggg! Pardon my pirate-like-response, but this is what is frustrating to me. I try to keep the discussion scripture-centric since that is where the doctrine is laid out. Yet you and many others continue to try to settle the issue by appealing to dictionaries and Tyndale's supposed intent and thesauruses and etymology and non-canonical statements by GA's and practically everything but the scriptures.

I cannot understand why we can't keep this grounded in the good Word of God. Not that we can't add to the discussion by looking at outside sources, but when it comes down to pitting the scriptural definition of atonement against non-canonical sources, then I become frustrated and concerned. And that's when I feel the discussion becomes fruitless, as if we're "playing by different sets of rules."

Are the scriptures the final authority or not?

Now the Mormons aren't the only ones who consider the Atonement of Jesus Christ the way they do.

So when did the standard of verity become popularity? There are more non-LDS Christians than LDS Christians in the world, I guess that means the LDS Church is false.

Bruce R. McConkie didn't show up on the scene and produce an unprecedented definition of the term.

No, what Elder McConkie did was modify penal-substitution by asserting that the atoning blood of Christ was shed in Gethsemane.

Again, I don't understand this detour of saying that "lots of people endorse penal-substitution," and "LDS apostles endorse it." I don't care about any of that. I care about what the scriptures teach. Period. They don't teach penal-substitution and they don't support Elder McConkie's fallacious modification of the clear doctrine that the atonement of Christ took place on Calvary alone.

Check Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary entry on the subject, printed 18 years before his birth:

I don't care, bro. I care what the scriptures teach, and there is not one scripture that says the atonement of Christ is anything other than his death on the cross.

I've asked over and over for any scriptures that contradict the plethora of verses I've repeatedly produced, yet I have to see one person respond with scriptures that expand the atonement to include more than Christ's death on the cross.

But in Scripture usage the word [atonement] denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected.

This is from the Bible Dictionary quote you provided. My question is what scriptures is this guy talking about? He started his entry by noting that the word "atonement" occurs only one time in the Authorized Version of the New Testament. Yet he feels confident basing his assertion on one isolated verse?

I provided over 55 explicit scripture passages in my original post of this thread. That's not counting the many verses I listed that show that "shedding blood" is a scriptural term that refers to killing and not blood coming from pores.

55 scriptural excerpts. There is not one scripture that defines the atonement as anything other than Christ's death on the cross. Not one. I've asked for them, and I've looked for them, and I haven't seen them. Why, then, do you continue to try to justify or establish or defend the common LDS member's understanding of what "atonement" means when that perception is clearly in conflict with God's Word?

The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred.

This is patently false. If Christ died in my place, why then do I have to die? If Christ paid the penalty of sin (one of which is physical death), then why do any of us have to die? Why can't we just be translated and glorified in the twinkling of an eye?

Furthermore, if we truly don't have to suffer the penalty of our sins if we repent, then why did God give Pres. Joseph F. Smith the vision recorded in D&C 138 which states in part the following bit:

58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (D&C 138:58-59)

This is talking about the gospel having been taught to those in spirit prison who died without a chance of hearing it on earth. Note what it points out.

It says that even after they repent (v. 58) and accept the vicarious ordinances performed for them in temples (v. 58) they will still have to pay the penalty of their transgressions (v. 59) prior to being cleansed to the point where they can be judged by their works.

Now either D&C 138 is true or its a false vision. I think we both agree it's authentic.

Well then there must be a different repentant process and path to salvation for the spirits of the dead than there is for us living, because you would have me believe that I don't have to pay for my sins if I repent, all because Christ already paid that penalty for me.

How does that even begin to square with the scriptures, of which D&C 138 is only an example?

This is God's plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know.

Pardon me, but Easton nor anyone else is in a position to tell me what is or is not enough for me to know. I guess we don't need the teachings on the atonement from LDS scriptures, then, if we already had all we needed to know in the Bible.

Don't you think that using sacrifice as a synonym or definition for atonement would be a redefinition and not a return to an original use of the term?

In the scriptures, atonement and sacrifice are synonyms.

In non-canonical writings, atonement and sacrifice aren't always synonyms.

The scriptures came before Tyndale's translation or Easton's Bible Dictionary. So the original use (read: scriptural use) of "atonement" was as a synonym for "sacrifice." It was only later that men started defining atonement to mean something differently than how the scriptures define it.

Maybe I should just stop using the word "atonement" and go back to the Hebrew word "kaphar" to avoid confusion. I believe that through the kaphar of Christ, all men may be redeemed through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

If we can't use the word "atonement" as a place holder for the source word "kaphar" in Hebrew, without introducing non-scriptural concepts into the doctrine itself, then maybe we as a Church should cease using, saying and printing the word "atonement" in any official Church publications.

[a-train]

I only posted that dictionary entry to demonstrate that LDS Church leaders did NOT come along and re-define atonement. Thats it. Don't get emotional. Sheesh.

There is more than one thing in play here: the definition of the noun 'atonement', the definition of the verb 'atone', and the definition of the 'the Atonement of Jesus Christ'. The one we are interested in is the latter, which is not in the Bible at all. It is in D&C.

Atonement is always an action, a sacrifice, something that is done to attain a desired condition. Atonement is not ever portrayed as the desired condition itself.

Perhaps I am way off here, but it seems to me that Leviticus 16 uses the term 'atonement' repeatedly as a noun, not an action. In fact, the OT uses the term 'atonement' extensively as a noun.

Lev. 17:11 says :'For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.' 'Atonement' is not defined here as the blood or the shedding of blood, but the shedding of blood makes the atonement. The sacrifice is not the atonement. The atonement is made by the sacrifice. This is throughout the OT. If an atonement is not the desired condition attained by the sacrifice, what, according to the scriptures, is?

Take a look at this verse: 'Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood.' (Alma 21:9)

If we had to use that verse as a definition of the atonement of Christ's blood, we would have to wonder if it was His death at all. This verse makes it seem that His atonement is something other than His death. Now don't go spinning that head and go thinking that I am referring to Gethsemane here. I am not.

If we are to let the scriptures define a given term, it should be understood that the term defined is not an english one, unless we are in the D&C. Check this: 'These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.' (D&C 76:69)

We don't read: 'who wrought out this perfect atonement which is the shedding of his own blood'. We read: 'who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood'. And what is 'this perfect atonement'? The answer is verse 51-70. That is ATONEMENT. That is Reconciliation.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

There is more than one thing in play here: the definition of the noun 'atonement', the definition of the verb 'atone', and the definition of the 'the Atonement of Jesus Christ'.

They are all related. Atone means to cover. Atonement means covering. Hence the atonement of Jesus Christ means the covering of Jesus Christ, the blotting out of our sins by Christ's death and his sprinkling his blood on the mercy seat in Heaven so to speak.

Perhaps I am way off here, but it seems to me that Leviticus 16 uses the term 'atonement' repeatedly as a noun, not an action.

You misunderstand my point. I wasn't necessarily objecting to using atonement as a noun instead of a verb. I was saying the scriptures don't use atonement as a noun that describes being back in God's presence, inheriting a fulness of His glory in the celestial kingdom.

Atonement is in the OT a covering for personal sins. In the NT the word appears once (depending on your version of the NT). In the Book of Mormon and D&C, atonement is portrayed as making remission of sin possible. This is in harmony with the OT concept of covering or blotting out.

I wasn't saying atonement can never be a noun. I was saying atonement is never used to describe the state of man being reconciled in celestial glory, which is how you seem to want to define it.

'Atonement' is not defined here as the blood or the shedding of blood, but the shedding of blood makes the atonement.

As above, I was not objecting to this. I was pointing out that in OT scriptures like Lev. 17:11 and others, atonement is the English place-holder for the Hebrew word "kaphar" which means to cover. So in the OT, "atonement" does not describe the concept of reconciliation, but merely the concept of a cleansing, and even those in the Telestial Kingdom will receive this cleansing (as I'll explain at the end of this post).

Atonement is in the OT the act of covering the abandoned sins of those who repent. There is more to being exalted in God's presence than having your sins remitted. There is more to being reconciled fully than remission of sins. Once we are cleansed, we are judged by our works, and unless our works qualify us to inherit eternal life through Christ's grace, we are not reconciled with God, are we?

In other words, we can have our sins remitted but fail to receive the temple ordinances which are required for exaltation. Hence atonement embraces only the remission of sin and not everything else that may or may not follow such cleansing.

The sacrifice is not the atonement. The atonement is made by the sacrifice.

In the wording of Lev. 17:11, yes. We know from the other scriptures that the sacrifice for sin was on the cross. Hence, the atonement (read: covering of sins) is not anything more or less than Christ's death for sinners. Christ's death makes possible the atonement/covering of our sins.

If an atonement is not the desired condition attained by the sacrifice, what, according to the scriptures, is?

Let's be clear. Atonement as a noun means "covering" in the OT. So it's essentially the concept of remission of sin. That is a condition. Okay. Remission of sin is not the same thing as exaltation, though. You can have sins remitted and not be exalted (as we'll see at the end of this post). Fine.

However, what makes remission of sin possible is Christ's death, alone. Not his birth. Not his Sermon on the Mount. Not his walking on water. It was his death (as I've shown extensively in my original post in this thread). This is why I object to including everything the Father or Son did or do or will do as part of the atonement.

Atonement never embraced exaltation, salvation, and all that jazz. Atonement makes all that jazz possible, but atonement is not all that jazz.

Take a look at [Alma 21:9]. This verse makes it seem that His atonement is something other than His death.

How do you get that? Christ said his blood was shed for the remission of sin (see the NT). Alma 21:9 which you quoted says: "there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood."

It was Christ's death---his life blood---that made the atonement for our sins. How does Alma 21:9 mean anything other than Christ's blood being shed? All its saying is that Christ's death, the shedding of his blood, is the atonement or covering for our sins.

We don't read: 'who wrought out this perfect atonement which is the shedding of his own blood'.

So when the scriptures refer to Christ's "atoning blood," what does "atoning" mean if not "covering" or "sacrificed?" And which scriptures inform you thusly?

And what is 'this perfect atonement'? The answer is verse 51-70. That is ATONEMENT.

No, verses 51-70 describe exaltation in the highest degree of celestial glory. That is my point. You use the word "atonement" to mean "salvation" or "exaltation." That is beyond the scope of what "atonement" refers to.

If "atonement" means exaltation or reconciliation in the highest degree, what does this scripture mean?

...the blood of the Son of our great God...shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. (Alma 24:13)

Applying your definition of "atonement" to this verse, it is our sins that are being "made at one" and not us; it is our sins that are being reconciled, not us; our sins are being exalted, not us.

However, if we keep in mind the Hebrew word which prompted the invention of the word "atonement," we read that Christ's blood was shed as a covering for our sins. This is in complete harmony with the rest of the gospel and LDS canon.

It is our sins that need to be atoned for or covered/blotted out. Hence Christ atoned for our sins--or made it possible to cover them--through his shed blood on the cross. God covers or remits or forgets our sins for the sake of His unjustly slain Son.

Jesus let sinful men shed his blood to atone for our sins---not our souls---to cover our sins, to blot out our sins, to erase them from the books that contain all our works, leaving only good works in our spiritual "file" at Judgment Day.

You know, I re-read D&C 76 and found something I think you missed. Let me go by sections here and you'll see that the atonement cannot possibly mean exaltation or perfect union or reconciliation with God in the highest degree of celestial glory. The following verses will show that D&C 76 uses "atonement" to describe those in even the Telestial Kingdom. Hence it makes more sense to interpret "atonement" to mean a covering or remission of sins, and not exaltation or perfect at-one-ment or union with God since heirs of telestial glory aren't "at one" with Christ let alone the Father.

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him; (D&C 76:40-42)

Okay, so Christ was crucified to cleanse the world from sin and unrighteousness. Note it makes no mention of exaltation, only cleansing at this point. It also says Christ died to cleanse and save all that the Father had put into his power. Who does this include? Everyone in every degree of glory, as we see below.

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment— (D&C 76:43-44)

Now here, salvation or being saved is a term that describes everyone BUT sons of perdition. So salvation refers to heirs of telestial glory as well as heirs of terrestrial and celestial glory too. And according to the first group of verses I quoted, Christ "saves" all those heirs of all those kingdoms through his being crucified for sins which allows him to cleanse the world (i.e. everyone but sons of perdition).

Now in verse 50 a new section begins which describes those who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just, i.e. the Church of the Firstborn, those who inherit a fulness of the Father's celestial glory. It's actually a list of the requirements that such souls had to meet to qualify for this glory. These criteria include, starting in verse 51:

51: Receive testimony of Jesus, believe on his name, be baptized.

52: Receive Holy Spirit by laying on of hands.

53: Sealed by Holy Spirit of promise (which entails obedience, partaking of ordinances, enduring to the end).

Then verses 54-68 describe the glory and reward of these exceedingly faithful and obedient servants. Finally, we come to verse 69 which says:

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

That says that Christ's blood was shed as an atonement, correct?

And we know that Christ's blood was shed on the cross, correct?

And we know that verses 40-44 explain that Christ was crucified to save everyone BUT the sons of perdition, correct?

Well the clarification comes when we tie verses 40-44 to verse 69 in syllogism form, like so:

A - Christ was crucified for the sins of the world, to cleanse and save all but the sons of perdition (vv. 40-44).

B - Christ made a perfect atonement through having his blood shed which means his crucifixion (v. 69). So...

C - Everyone in the Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms are saved by the perfect atonement of Christ's shed blood (vv. 40-44, 69).

Or we could say:

IF Christ made the atonement by having his blood shed, and...

IF Christ had his blood shed on the cross to save everyone but sons of perdition...

THEN by definition anyone NOT in outer darkness has atonement through Christ.

Telestial Kingdom dwellers aren't "at one" with the Father or the Son, yet Christ made a perfect atonement for them too on the cross and cleansed them from their unrighteousness if we combine the teachings from verses 40-44 and 69.

That is why I disagree with using "atonement" to describe exaltation or celestial glory.

D&C 76:40-44, 69 really shows that atonement is nothing more or less than the covering of our sins, and it is this atonement which even those in the Telestial Kingdom will receive.

Thus, the atonement of Christ was accomplished on the cross through his death, and the atonement of Christ on the cross is what procures Telestial glory for heirs of the lowest degree. How, then, can we define atonement to mean exaltation in God's presence?

Atonement is the covering of sin. That's all. See?

[a-train]

Perhaps I am ambiguous, and I wish to clear that up. This is my position: Atonement is NOT a synonym for salvation. Atonement is NOT a synonym for exaltation. It is NOT a synonym for sacrifice or shedding of blood.

Atonement is a reconciliation or a state of reconciliation from an estrangement, a reconciliation propitiated by a covering or repair of the source of the estrangement. In the case of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the estrangement is between man and God. The source of the estrangement is man's sin or rebellion against God. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the reconciliation of man to God made possible through the propitiation of sin, which propitiation is the shedding of the blood of Christ. Thus, the Atonement of Jesus is through the blood of Christ, it is not synonymous with it.

...atonement of our sins. (Alma 24:13)

Applying your definition of "atonement" to this verse, it is our sins that are being "made at one" and not us; it is our sins that are being reconciled, not us; our sins are being exalted, not us.

OK, so put 'cover' in this phrase: 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ'. Is it Jesus or our sins that are being covered? We all know what the Anti-Nephi-Lehite king was referring to. There is no single english word of which I am aware that could be substituted for every instance of the term 'atonement' within the scriptures without changing the intended meaning of any passage. But even in the case of Alma 24:13, reconciliation could fit easily.

The language of the OT is such that the idea conveyed in the term 'atonement' is not the sacrifice itself, not the propitiating power of the sacrifice, but the state of propitiation and reconciliation which comes as a result of the sacrifice. This is evident in the use of the term. The scriptures say that the sacrifice 'makes an atonement'. They do not say that the sacrifice IS the 'atonement'.

So what you are saying is that a sacrifice makes a sacrifice? That the shedding of blood makes a shedding of blood? Are you telling me that the OT is full of this redundancy? That the availing principle of the shedding of the blood of beasts is only to make a shedding of the blood of beasts? That the 'Atonement' made by Christ through the shedding of His blood is the shedding of His blood?

Would you read the verse this way: 'These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect 'shedding of his blood' through the shedding of his own blood.'?

A lie could 'cover' a sin. In fact, we call that a 'cover up'. 'Atonement' is something much more grand. It is actual reconciliation, not just a covering. The term 'covering' was deficient in conveying the Hebrew term and this is a point where LDS and other Christians have agreed from day one. If Tyndale had commited some great error in formulating that term, why is it used within so much modern revelation? It does NOT mean covering alone. It does NOT mean sacrifice at all. It was used by Tyndale, the scriptures, and the latter-day prophets to mean the reconciliation made possible by the sacrifice.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Thus, the Atonement of Jesus is through the blood of Christ, it is not synonymous with it.

Jesus Christ was crucified to atone for the sins of the world. To cover the sins of the world. To blot out the sins of the world. To erase the sins of the world.

Once our sins are blotted out, we may then go on to partake of the ordinances that reconcile us to God in celestial glory, or we may not.

Atonement is about blotting out sins which may or may not lead to reconciliation. It depends on what we do once our sins are remitted.

OK, so put 'cover' in this phrase: 'The Atonement of Jesus Christ'. Is it Jesus or our sins that are being covered?

First off, it wouldn't be "cover" but "covering" that replaces the noun "atonement." It would read: "the covering of Jesus Christ." I know you are aware that Christ's death was to cover our sins and not to cover himself, so your question is pretty ludicrous.

Let me list this once more, which words substitute for which words:

atone = cover (verb)

atoning = covering (verb)

atonement = covering (noun, i.e. "a covering")

If you follow those rules, you can replace the words atone, atoning or atonement with cover, covering (verb) and covering (noun) and it always makes sense. That is the sense of the original Hebrew words. Hence it is that Isaiah taught:

I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee. (Isa. 44:22)

Blotting out; covering; erasing; remitting. These related concepts embrace the purpose of Christ's death. So the verse you have been quoting repeatedly lately (which is one of my favorites) would read like so if "atonement" were substituted out:

...Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...wrought out this perfect covering through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69)

D&C 76:43 shows that everyone's sins will be covered/blotted out (except sons of perdition) by the "atonement" of Christ, by his shed blood. However, not everyone will be reconciled to God in His Celestial Kingdom. That is the difference.

There is no single english word of which I am aware that could be substituted for every instance of the term 'atonement' within the scriptures without changing the intended meaning of any passage. But even in the case of Alma 24:13, reconciliation could fit easily.

Okay, let me ask this so we're clear on what you mean by "reconciliation."

When you say "reconciliation," I think of the Latin roots of the word which mean "to bring back together," and to me that implies being brought back into God's presence to dwell in celestial glory. Is that what you mean by reconciliation? If not, what do you mean?

When I say our sins are covered or blotted out, I'm talking about our sins being remitted, about us being justified so it's "just as if I'd" never sinned. Is that what you mean by reconciliation? If not, what?

Would you read the verse this way: 'These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect 'shedding of his blood' through the shedding of his own blood.'?

My point has been that Christ atoned for our sins on the cross.

My point has been that Christ's atoning blood was shed on the cross, and nowhere else.

My point has been that the atonement of Christ was effected by his death on the cross, and not anything else.

You, on the other hand, assert that the atonement for sin was brought about by all kinds of things beyond and in addition to Christ's death on the cross. There is no scriptural support for this.

A lie could 'cover' a sin. In fact, we call that a 'cover up'.

Oh geez, gimme a break bro. A lie cannot conceal a sin at Judgment Day. I can play this word game too:

A prostitute can sell herself and use that dirty money to pay her son's debt to the local drug lord, thus reconciling the drug lord and her son. I guess the atonement cannot possibly mean reconciliation if reconciliation can be made in any way other than righteous ways.

It is actual reconciliation, not just a covering.

So define "reconciliation." As I showed earlier, D&C 76 says that even those in the Telestial Kingdom benefit from the atonement of Christ which cleanses them of their sins.

So would you describe being in the Telestial Kingdom as being "reconciled to God?" If so, then we're arguing semantics and I mean what you mean when I say "covering."

If Tyndale had commited some great error in formulating that term, why is it used within so much modern revelation?

One reason might be for the same reason that the English edition of the Book of Mormon is published in King James English: it's what the people were familiar with, it was the dominant language of scripture, etc.

Tyndale chose to use the word "atonement" to stand in for "kaphar" in English editions of his Bible translation. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and recorded the D&C, there was no other word used in any other translation of the Bible to stand in for the word "kaphar," so what word is the Lord supposed to use to refer to the animal sacrifice in the OT and his Son's crucifixion, without confusing his Church members in the process?

Words don't always have the same meaning, you know. Context, context, context. Here's an example where the word "salvation" means different things even within the same book of scripture (the D&C).

If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation.(D&C 6:14)

And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God. (D&C 14:7)

This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom; (D&C 88:4)

So "salvation" is used in the first verse as a synonym for "eternal life" in the second verse, which in turn is a synonym for the "celestial kingdom" in the third verse. So "salvation" can refer to dwelling in the celestial kingdom.

But wait! What about this?

[Christ] glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him. (D&C 76:43)

That claims that everyone except the sons of perdition in outer darkness are saved by Christ. So D&C 76 teaches that even if you end up in the telestial kingdom, you've received salvation through Christ.

But I thought "salvation" meant being in the celestial kingdom? Oh no, an internal contradiction! The Church is false!

*dramatic pause*

Or...it could be because one word can mean different things in different contexts, and the Lord can use the word "atonement" without having to mean what Tyndale wanted it to mean.

It does NOT mean covering alone.

Sure it does. Christ's atoning blood was shed to make remission of sins possible. Period. Christ said as much, repeatedly, as here:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28)

It does NOT mean sacrifice at all.

You're quite right. The Hebrew word "kaphar" does not mean "sacrifice." I'm not sure why you're still going on about this.

It was used by Tyndale, the scriptures, and the latter-day prophets to mean the reconciliation made possible by the sacrifice.

Again, what do you mean by "reconciliation?" In other words, give me a pragmatic defintion.

Are those in the Telestial Kingdom reconciled to God?

How about those in the terrestrial kingdom?

Or only those in the celestial kingdom?

What do you mean by "reconciliation" within the framework of eternity and the degrees of glory?

[a-train]

The sons of Perdition are 'the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.' (D&C 76:37-39)

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the reconciliation to God of all but the Sons of Perdition. Those of the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms are only there because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. They are heirs of salvation through the blood of the Lamb. They are partakers of the Atonement. They are reconciled to God. They are in the Presence of the Saviour and/or the Holy Ghost. They are reconciled to Them, they are at one with Them, they sit with Them again.

In your opening post you said:

Question #1: What do the scriptures tell us about atonement?

Answer #1: Atonement is a sacrifice offered to bring forgiveness of sin.

Now you say:

The Hebrew word "kaphar" does not mean "sacrifice." I'm not sure why you're still going on about this.

Now, I'm not sure what your position is.

What does 'atonement' mean? If it means 'cover' and nothing more and nothing less, then why was 'cover' felt to be an ineffective translation by Tyndale? If Tyndale was incorrect all along and the appropriate english translation should have been 'cover', then why did Joseph Smith not only fail to make such a correction in the JST, but also use the faulty term throughout the translation of The Book of Mormon and within modern revelation?

Tyndale chose to use the word "atonement" to stand in for "kaphar" in English editions of his Bible translation. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and recorded the D&C, there was no other word used in any other translation of the Bible to stand in for the word "kaphar," so what word is the Lord supposed to use to refer to the animal sacrifice in the OT and his Son's crucifixion, without confusing his Church members in the process?

The Wycliffe Bible used 'send prayers' which was obviously deficient. It was as if the 'kaphar' made was a petition rather than a reconciliation.

The Douay Rheims Bible followed a similar pattern as did the Wycliffe. Lev. 16:10 was rendered: 'But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat, he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness.'

Lev. 16:10 in the Geneva Bible which came after Tyndale (this was the version on the Mayflower) said this: 'But the goat, on which the lot shall fall to be the Scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make reconciliation by him, and to let him go (as a Scapegoat) into the wilderness.' However, it DID use 'atonement' in other verses.

It is certain that alternatives to 'atonement' were used to translate 'kaphar' in Bibles extant in Joseph Smith's time.

The definition of 'atonement' in the english language was given long before the birth of Joseph Smith and has not changed since. He used it in the same manner it was used previous to the Restoration.

Oh geez, gimme a break bro. A lie cannot conceal a sin at Judgment Day. I can play this word game too:

A prostitute can sell herself and use that dirty money to pay her son's debt to the local drug lord, thus reconciling the drug lord and her son. I guess the atonement cannot possibly mean reconciliation if reconciliation can be made in any way other than righteous ways.

Precisely. Atonement is a lot more than just a cover. That is why 'cover' was felt inappropriate. The cover of the Sacrifice of the blood of the Lamb of God is much more than just an opaque sheet that causes a blemish to go unseen, it actually reconciles, it actually heals. An atonement is much greater than a cover.

Now I understand that you feel that the death of the Saviour on the cross was the whole of the Sacrifice for Sin. But, the point I am making is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is something more than that Sacrifice. It is also the application of that Sacrifice to the sins of man and the reconciliation of man to God made possible by that application. This is the definition of 'atonement' in our dictionaries and in our scriptures.

Don't you think that confining the meaning of 'atonement' to 'cover' would be deviating from the precedent rather than returning to it?

-a-train

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

The shedding of blood is associated with death but in some of the symbolism, including ancient blood sacrifice, blood was shed in "preparation" of the sacrificial death or killing.

C'mon Traveler, you can't claim something like that without hooking me up with some scriptures. :) What leads you to believe what you wrote above? Examples from the Old Testament, or any book of scripture?

I believe we are talking about the Hebrew term “Olah” sacrifice or burnt offering. Olah comes from the root “Ayin-Lamed-Hei” which means ascension. The sacrifice was performed in three parts:

1. The pouring out, spilling or shedding of blood upon the alter. The blood is then burned, usually with oil.

2. The burning of the animal (often still alive) until all is consumed – Symbolic of complete submission to G-ds will. ( note reference to Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane)

3. The death and ascension to G-d of the sacrifice that is carried to G-d in the smoke and odors.

The Olah offering was made from cattle, sheep, goats or birds depending on the wealth of the person offering the sacrifice – often made in agreement with the priest. This is also know as the sin offering and was given to expiate sin.

Please note the importance in the symbolism – that the sins of the one for which the offering was given was not considered complete or the person pure until the ascension to G-d of the sacrifice. Even though it is said in scripture that the sin was paid by the “shedding of blood” the sacrifice for sin required all three parts for the purification. Note the problem of King Saul and other sacrifices that were unacceptable signifying that there is more involved than the shedding or “spilling” of blood.

It is my impression that your view is too narrow if you exclude the blood spilt in Gethsemane as part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. My opinion.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the reconciliation to God of all but the Sons of Perdition. Those of the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms are...reconciled to God. They are in the Presence of the Saviour and/or the Holy Ghost.

Okay. See, this whole time when you said "God" I thought you were referring solely to Heavenly Father. So when you say that the atonement reconciles man to "God," you mean either Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, correct?

If that's your position, then when you say "reconciled" and when I say "covered" we mean the same thing. In other words, everyone's sins will eventually be remitted (except sons of perdition). Not everyone will be exalted.

Hence, when I talk about sins being covered or blotted or remitted, I'm talking about what you're talking about when you say the atonement is about reconciliation (since you don't limit that to Heavenly Father or the celestial glory).

In your opening post you said [Atonement is a sacrifice offered to bring forgiveness of sin]. Now, I'm not sure what your position is.

My original position addressed the use of the term "atonement" wherein the average LDS member uses the word "atonement" to describe Christ bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane, not the state of reconciliation or covering that you and I are now talking about.

In essence, rank and file LDS members truly do use the term "atonement" as a synonym for "sacrifice for sin." They say, "Christ's atonement in Gethsemane paid the price of my sins," and so forth.

However, you and I have come to define "atonement" differently now, and that is why I was asking you why you were still picking at my original definition since I'd long ago conceded that in our discussion, "atonement" referred to covering (or now, reconciliation).

I still think if you ask the average LDS member in Sunday school, they will tell you that the atonement constituted Christ bleeding from every pore, thus equating it to a sacrifice for sin (which of course didn't take place in Gethsemane).

It is certain that alternatives to 'atonement' were used to translate 'kaphar' in Bibles extant in Joseph Smith's time.

Yup. Thanks for educating me. I didn't know.

The definition of 'atonement' in the english language was given long before the birth of Joseph Smith and has not changed since.

The problem comes with how people use the term "atonement." In my experience, most LDS members use the word "atonement" as a verb, not a noun. So in class when they talk about "the atonement of Christ in Gethsemane," they mean, "the act performed by Christ in Gethsemane," even though I now agree that atonement isn't a synonym for sacrifice.

I think you'd be surprised by how many LDS members use "atonement" to refer to the sacrifice for sin itself. Try this: ask some friends or acquaintances in your ward or stake, what the atonement of Christ is. I'm confident that their response will basically equate to: "It's the sacrifice for sin in Gethsemane."

I think the reason for this is that members confuse the concepts from LDS scriptures like this with NT scriptures like this:

I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world. (Mosiah 4:7)

And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me. (Moses 7:47)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8)

Based on personal experience, I think people read those and go, "Oh, the atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world, and Christ is considered slain from the foundation of the world. Hmmm, I guess that means atonement is the same as Christ being slain or sacrificed."

Now we both agree that is incorrect, but most LDS members I know use atonement solely to refer to the sacrifice for sin. Either the act of being sacrificed as in, "Christ's atoning blood," or the completed sacrifice as in, "the atonement of Christ."

Have you never encountered this use among members you know? Not that it changes what atonement really means, but I'm curious if you know what I'm talking about.

Atonement is a lot more than just a cover.

I think we agree more than I originally thought. Basically, in order to be reconciled in any of the three degrees of glory, our sins must be remitted. For our sins to be remitted, they must be blotted out or covered. When I say that atonement is the covering of sins, I'm talking about the fact that those in the degrees of glory will eternally have their past sins covered or forgotten by God.

So essentially we're both referring to those in the degrees of glory. I'm just focusing more on why they're allowed to be there (remission of sin) and you're focusing more on the fact that they are there. It's a trivial distinction, I think. We pretty much mean the same thing.

Atonement = reconciliation = sins remitted

...the Atonement of Jesus Christ is something more than that Sacrifice. It is also the application of that Sacrifice to the sins of man and the reconciliation of man to God made possible by that application.

I see what you mean now. I started out this thread using the word "atonement" as most members I know use it: to refer to the sacrifice for sin itself, and not the remission of sins or reconciliation that flows as a result of that sacrifice.

I was not using the word "atonement" accurately, as the scriptures use it. I think when people hear someone say, "The atonement redeems mankind," they think "atonement" in that sentence is a synonym for "sacrifice for sin," since interpreting it to mean, "The reconciliation redeems mankind" is a little redundant.

But I agree, you were right, I was incorrect in my original use of the term.

Don't you think that confining the meaning of 'atonement' to 'cover' would be deviating from the precedent rather than returning to it?

Understand, when I say "cover" I am referring to the remission of sins, the blotting out of sins. We cannot be reconciled unless our sins are remitted. First I thought you meant exaltation when you said reconciliation. Now that I know you apply reconciliation to everyone in all the degrees of glory, I think we mean the same thing.

We are reconciled or qualified to dwell in one of the three degrees of glory by having our sins remitted. Do you still think we mean different things?

I believe we are talking about the Hebrew term “Olah” sacrifice or burnt offering.

I disagree. The Day of Atonement sacrificial animal was eventually burned outside the camp, true, but it was not a burnt offering or the oft repeated sin offering.

A sin offering was burned on the altar of sacrifice, not outside the camp. Sin offerings represented personal repentance, not Christ's sacrifice for sin. Otherwise I liked your break-down of the "olah" symbolism.

Even though it is said in scripture that the sin was paid by the “shedding of blood” the sacrifice for sin required all three parts for the purification.

Again, I think you're confusing the sin offerings that Israel offered throughout the year as part of the repentance process, and the Day of Atonement sacrifice for sin which only the High Priest could offer. Sin offerings were burnt on the altar. The Day of Atonement goat was not. They were different rituals with different symbolism.

Note the problem of King Saul and other sacrifices that were unacceptable signifying that there is more involved than the shedding or “spilling” of blood.

King Saul was not authorized to sacrifice nor did he have the priesthood authority necessary to do so. I don't think it's that he didn't go through the actual motions correctly, he simply acted outside his authority.

It is my impression that your view is too narrow if you exclude the blood spilt in Gethsemane as part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. My opinion.

Again, the term "spill blood" and "spilling blood" and "spilt blood" are phrases that refer to killing, as here:

Yea, I say unto you, great are the reasons which we have to mourn; for behold how many of our brethren have been slain, and their blood has been spilt in vain, and all because of iniquity. (Mosiah 7:24)

Now I cannot recall the words which I have spoken, therefore as the Lord liveth, ye shall not depart except ye depart with an oath that ye will not return again against us to war. Now as ye are in our hands we will spill your blood upon the ground, or ye shall submit to the conditions which I have proposed. (Alma 44:11)

And it came to pass that we did camp round about the city for many nights; but we did sleep upon our swords, and keep guards, that the Lamanites could not come upon us by night and slay us, which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt. (Alma 57:9)

I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom; and verily, I say, even as many as have believed in my name, for I am Christ, and in mine own name, by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded before the Father for them. (D&C 38:4)

No matter how you slice it, Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane is not equivalent to "having his blood spilled," or "having his blood shed." That's my point. LDS members too often refer to Gethsemane's agony with terms that refer to murder and killing, and Christ did not die and was not killed in Gethsemane.

The blood that came from Christ's pores in Gethsemane was not the blood which was shed or spilt for the remission of sins.

[a-train]

I am definitely concerned about your ward CK. But, not as much as I am about the some of the wards in northern Missouri who are into some major apostate stuff. There is little doubt that a great many members of the Church have a lot to learn, but I don't have many folks around me that think that the Sacrifice for Sin was offered in Gethsemane alone.

Now, if a great many use the term 'Atonement' to refer to that Sacrifice rather than its effect, I am unaware and I'll ask around. I'll start with the unwitting missionaries from Utah as my guinea pigs.

Still, even if the term is applied to the Sacrifice of Sin as well as the effect of reconciliation to God, this is not to cause alarm. Remember, Easton's 1897 Bible dictionary said this also: 'Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf.'

So if we accept the normalcies of the use of the term for what is now centuries, it can neither be confined to the effect of our LORD's Sacrifice nor to the Sacrifice itself, but is an all encompassing term.

Understanding that the Atonement refers to our reconciliation to God through Christ gives real meaning to Pauls words to the Roman saints in Romans 5:10-11: 'For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.' Indeed, those who have obtained the gift of the Holy Ghost have now received the atonement.

I love it.

Now, with this understanding of what it means to make an atonement, would you say that the preparations of the sacrificial animal and the application of its blood to the various fixtures of the tabernacle are part of that work? Doesn't it seem reasonable to say that the sprinkling of the blood in the holy of holies is just as much a part as is the stroke of the knife upon the animal? Doesn't the appropriate selection of the animal(s) to be presented at the gate also have a part in making that atonement?

We have more than one place in our scriptures where we can read of sacrifices which did not make an atonement due to some neglect of procedure based in personal pride. Doesn't this mean that the appropriate preparations and the handling of the remains of the sacrificial animal are just as much a part of the making of the atonement as is the instance of its killing? And doesn't this also mean that the selection, preparation, and application of the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb of God is also just as much a part of the Great Atonement as is the instance of the death of the Lamb?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I am definitely concerned about your ward CK.

It's not just my ward, a-train. I've lived as an adult in three different states and my combined experience (including my mission) is that members think the atonement is the sacrifice. :)

I don't point that out for any reason other than to explain why I took the approach I did in my original post in the first section where I said atonement was a sacrifice for sin. If I could do it over, I think now I'd change the name of this thread to "The Bitter Cup of the Sacrifice for Sin."

That was my main emphasis, trying to show how the scriptures explain that the sacrifice for sin took place on the cross alone.

I'll start with the unwitting missionaries from Utah as my guinea pigs.

Hahaha, excellent.

Still, even if the term is applied to the Sacrifice of Sin as well as the effect of reconciliation to God, this is not to cause alarm.

I know, it just makes any discussion of the atonement incredibly confusing (as we've seen) since apparently it is valid to refer to the atonement as both the condition of being reconciled and also the sacrifice that effects the reconciling. B)

So if we accept the normalcies of the use of the term for what is now centuries, it can neither be confined to the effect of our LORD's Sacrifice nor to the Sacrifice itself, but is an all encompassing term.

Agreed. Personally I'd prefer that both the sacrifice for sin and the state of reconciliation had their own unique terms instead of sometimes sharing "atonement" as their moniker. Oh well. Doesn't change the doctrine I guess.

Now, with this understanding of what it means to make an atonement, would you say that the preparations of the sacrificial animal and the application of its blood to the various fixtures of the tabernacle are part of that work?

In OT terms, I guess. I mean I see the High Priest sprinkling the blood as symbolizing Christ's work as our Mediator, pleading his death for us sinners, using his spilt blood to appease God's Just demands. The parallel is striking between the Day of Atonement sprinkling of the spilt blood on the mercy seat, and the prayer Jesus offers in D&C 45:3-5.

Taking into account the whole process of reconciliation (sacrifice => mediation => reconciliation) I wouldn't see the "sprinkling of blood" as part of the sacrifice, no, anymore than Christ pleading our cause before God is a part of the sacrifice for sin.

That was the purpose of my original post, to show that the sacrifice for sin comprised Christ's blood being shed, and nothing more or less. However, can atonement (read: reconciliation) be effected with just a sacrifice but without mediation? No.

So if you're defining atonement as the state of being reconciled, I'd say the sprinkling of blood is part of the atonement process, sure.

But if you're defining atonement as the sacrifice for sin itself (as I was doing in the OP), then no, I wouldn't say the sprinkling of blood was part of the sacrifice itself. Once the animal was dead and it's blood was shed, the sacrifice was complete, though the process of reconciliation wasn't. Does that make sense?

Doesn't the appropriate selection of the animal(s) to be presented at the gate also have a part in making that atonement?

If by atonement you mean reconciliation, sure. However, the scriptures portray the sacrifice for sin as spilling the life blood of a goat in the OT, and shedding the life blood of God's Lamb in the NT. So again, as my OP shows, the act of sacrificing is by definition the act of killing a suitable offering.

I am not saying, though, that merely killing the offering is all that reconciliation requires. There is the "sprinkling" so to speak as Christ acts as our Mediator and pleads our case, our repentance, our cleansing, etc.

And doesn't this also mean that the selection, preparation, and application of the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb of God is also just as much a part of the Great Atonement as is the instance of the death of the Lamb?

Again, if by Great Atonement you're referring to reconciliation, then yes, all those things you're talking about could be rightly included as part of the "atonement" or process of reconciliation.

But to be clear, I would not include all those things you list as parts of the sacrifice for sin itself. All the sacrifice for sin consisted of was shedding the blood of Christ on the cross.

Now I think we've arrived at a point of clarity here, a-train. Remember our differing arch analogies? I think we were both "correct" but we were defining the atonement in the two different ways we've delineated thus far.

When I said the atonement was the keystone in the arch of sanctification/exaltation, I was defining the atonement as the sacrifice for sin itself, i.e. the crucifixion.

When you said the GA's would likely call the crucifixion the keystone in the arch of the Atonement, you were defining atonement as reconciliation and all that entails.

Now I would feel comfortable accepting either analogy, as long as I made clear how I was defining the word "atonement" in each case.

[a-train]

Personally I'd prefer that both the sacrifice for sin and the state of reconciliation had their own unique terms instead of sometimes sharing "atonement" as their moniker.

I really think that the state of reconciliation is the Atonement and the Sacrifice for Sin is the Sacrifice for Sin. The Sacrifice for Sin makes the Atonement possible. The Atonement makes salvation and exaltation possible. So everything hinges on the Sacrifice for Sin. I think that the Atonement encompasses the Sacrifice for Sin. So, we are getting into trouble if we start to say that the Atonement is the Sacrifice for Sin and nothing more. Perhaps you are right and a great bit of LDS folks have that narrow view of the Atonement, but I don't know.

Now, just a little more clarification. Would you say that 'atone' and 'make an atonement' are similar? Is it like saying 'reconcile' and 'make a reconciliation'? I think the latter phrases make more of an object of it. It is as if Jesus created something. He didn't just reconcile man to God, he made a reconciliation. It is as if the reconciliation is a bridge that can be crossed time and time again, or one at a time by many people in succession.

'Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.'

'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'

Did Jesus make the Atonement Himself, or did Jesus make Himself the Atonement? Perhaps He is the Reconciliation in a sense. In one sense Jesus is the Atonement. No doubt He is at one with God and if we come unto Him, we come unto the Father.

Now forgive me, but I have to ask: Is it possible that some of the LDS folks who you thought were saying 'Sacrifice for Sin' when they said 'Atonement', were really saying Atonement, as in the all encompassing reconciliation of Christ which includes but is not limited to the Sacrifice for Sin?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Okay, I just typed up a lengthy response and guess what? When I went to submit reply, I got a screen saying, "You're not logged-in." Arrrrrgggghhhh! I had just logged-in prior to responding!

Well, the substance of my post was that there is a difference between these two questions:

"What is atonement?"

"What is the atonement?"

If you ask the first, you're creating the impression that "atonement" is a thing, not an act.

If you ask the second, you're creating the impression that "atonement" is an act, not a thing.

Would you say that 'atone' and 'make an atonement' are similar?

Sure, but that's just my opinion. Its not an explicit doctrine in the scriptures. In fact, I don't see much of a difference between saying Jesus made reconciliation, and Jesus reconciled man to God.

Did Jesus make the Atonement Himself, or did Jesus make Himself the Atonement? Perhaps He is the Reconciliation in a sense. In one sense Jesus is the Atonement.

This type of defining feels like we're formulating a modern Nicene Creed on the atonement. What's important to me is that I know from the scriptures that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for the remission of my sins, and that as a result I can receive exaltation through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Is it possible that some of the LDS folks who you thought were saying 'Sacrifice for Sin' when they said 'Atonement', were really saying Atonement, as in the all encompassing reconciliation of Christ which includes but is not limited to the Sacrifice for Sin?

Sure, anything is possible. Again, it comes down to the difference in these two phrases:

The doctrine of atonement = implies that "atonement" is a thing, not an act.

The doctrine of the atonement = implies that "atonement" is an act, not a thing.

I've never heard anyone discuss this doctrine by saying merely, "atonement." They always say, "the atonement," and the way they use it in Sunday school lessons and personal discussions is in the context of "atonement" being an action, not the state of reconciliation.

I say that only to explain the difference I've detected in personal encounters. I'm not trying to establish one position or the other as the ONLY valid position or definition of what "atonement" can mean.

[a-train]

The doctrine of atonement = implies that "atonement" is a thing, not an act.

The doctrine of the atonement = implies that "atonement" is an act, not a thing.

I think this is the root of the whole misunderstanding. I don't think everyone sees any implication in 'the doctrine of the atonement' that it is an act and not a thing. I see this:

'atonement' = thing

'the atonement' = thing

Like I said, I'll do some carefully thought out questioning to get a sense of what others around me think of when they say 'the atonement'. Do they think of an action that gives a desired consequence or a desirable consequense to an action? I'll let you know what I find. Hopefully I am clear that I see it as a desirable consequence to an action which encompasses the action itself, but it is not the action or subject of the action itself.

-a-train

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have the same opinion as James E. Talmage. He wrote that the atonement of Christ began in Gethsemane and He paid the full debt for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.

"[While on the cross] At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: " . . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence . . ." (Jesus the Christ, pages 660-661)

Christ's final words on the cross were, "It is finished. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." He then bowed His head, and voluntarily gave up His life.

[Abraham]

Hello,

BRM taught as well as early Aposltes that Christ revisited, reexperienced, and relived all that he had suffered in the Garden while being crucified. I appreciate the insightful contemplation but it seems like we are trying to split the Atonement into three parts (if not more) and isolate each one as being 'the' atonement' a noun or atonement being the act and so forth. One puzzling question I have often had is, and I have read this before also, is that the curcifixion was not a bloody experience, especially compared to 'bleeding from every pore' in Gethesemane. The reference to paying for our sins on the cross may apply to the culmination of the atonement but I will have to carefully meditate to see if it is there that his blood was spilt for us (not to mention the flogging). Trodding the wine press alone is a worthy comparison if you know how wine was pressed by groups of people stepping into huge 'grape 'boxes' as it were. Of course I do not mean to demean the severity of the crucifixxion I just don't want to miss the Garden either. Perhaps we are missing the point when we micro-analyze the components. (See II Ne Ch 9). Also, Christ was one of dozens if not many more who were crucified, some as you know hanged on their crosses for days . The punctuation of atoning for a univers of sin/disease/depression/pain/ etc. made it time for him to return to his Father of his own volition. (See Alma 7:11-12) I hope I have added some principles of value and have not detracted from your poignant thoughts.

Regards,

[Still_Small_Voice]

Also, Christ was one of dozens if not many more who were crucified, some as you know hanged on their crosses for days.

The Romans used crucifixion on tens of thousands of people. When a rebellion of ten of thousands of slaves happened in the Roman Empire with Sparticus, the uprising was eventually crushed. The roadsides were then lined with thousands of slaves on crosses. There were many such incidents in the history Roman Empire. It was quite brutal.

[a-train]

The Romans used crucifixion on tens of thousands of people. When a rebellion of ten of thousands of slaves happened in the Roman Empire with Sparticus, the uprising was eventually crushed. The roadsides were then lined with thousands of slaves on crosses. There were many such incidents in the history Roman Empire. It was quite brutal.

And now it is the United Nation's turn to build a brutal empire killing hundreds of thousands and torturing unconvicted prisoners.

-a-train

[Abraham]

Their is no evidence that in the scriptures that is, that Calvary was on a hill. You know the hymn, "There is a Green Hill Far Away." well there is evidence that suggests that for ridicule value and convenience that Christ was crucified just outside the city wall so the visitors and onlookers could get the message, and mock the Christ (Jesus of course). That makes sense (but logic has no value here) that they would not have walked an extended distance with the cross etc.

I wish I could comprehend what he paid for me. So terrible, so necessary.

Best regards,

Abraham

[CrimsonKairos]

BRM taught as well as early Aposltes that Christ revisited, reexperienced, and relived all that he had suffered in the Garden while being crucified.

Based on speculation. I prefer to discern doctrine through the revelations of God in the LDS canon. :)

...it seems like we are trying to split the Atonement into three parts (if not more) and isolate each one as being 'the' atonement' a noun or atonement being the act and so forth.

What I've tried to show is that the Sacrifice for Sin was on the cross alone. Period. To this give all the scriptures witness. Everything else you will read or hear from the writings of modern GA's is conjecture and theory unsupported by holy writ. And that's fine, I simply decline to let others think for me if what they think contradicts the scriptures.

One puzzling question I have often had is, and I have read this before also, is that the curcifixion was not a bloody experience, especially compared to 'bleeding from every pore' in Gethesemane.

This is the common mistake LDS members make. They think that Christ's blood being shed implies the loss of a large volume of physical blood. As I've shown through the scriptures, "blood being shed" is a phrase that means "to kill or slay or murder." It doesn't have to involve actual arterial spray or large volumes of blood leaving the body.

In Acts 22:20 Paul refers to Stephen being stoned to death as Stephen's blood being shed. Its not about how much blood is drained from the body; its about what blood is shed, and its the life blood that was shed on the cross. That is the point. Christ was slain by sinful men for the remission of sin. He didn't have to lose x pints of blood for the sacrifice to be valid.

This is all explained in the scriptures, yet all too often LDS members don't search the scriptures. Instead, they sup on Ensign articles and feast on speculation. To each his or her own.

The reference to paying for our sins on the cross may apply to the culmination of the atonement but I will have to carefully meditate to see if it is there that his blood was spilt for us (not to mention the flogging).

Again, you're missing the point. Its not about where actual blood was forced from the body. Blood shed and spilling blood all refer to killing and slaying. They are special phrases whose use in the scriptures is unanimous and they do not mean literally cutting someone to make them bleed out.

They are phrases that refer to killing someone by symbolically removing their life blood (which is also a metaphor for life, not actual plasma and hemoglobins).

So determining where the Sacrifice for Sin took place cannot be effectively accomplished if we use the standard of: "Where did Christ bleed the most or lose the most actual blood?"

The standard is: "Where was Christ's life blood shed or spilled? Where did he die?"

The answer---as the scriptures highlight repeatedly---is that the Sacrifice for Sin occurred on Calvary when Christ gave up the ghost on the cross.

Of course I do not mean to demean the severity of the crucifixxion I just don't want to miss the Garden either.

Good. I think Gethsemane is incredibly significant and touching. Its simply not where the Sacrifice for Sin took place. Gethsemane is where Christ prepared to atone through his death on the cross.

Also, Christ was one of dozens if not many more who were crucified, some as you know hanged on their crosses for days.

Christ was the only Being innocent of sin in all of Heavenly Father's wide stewardship, and hence his murder was the only unjust death to ever occur, his the only innocent blood ever to be shed by sinful men. That is why his death is so prominent, meaningful and powerful.

As Rev. 5 says, Christ was slain to receive power, and has redeemed us to God through his death.

And now it is the United Nation's turn to build a brutal empire killing hundreds of thousands and torturing unconvicted prisoners.

Okay, did someone kill a-train and hack his account and start posting in his place? Because recently all I've heard is government conspiracy theories and complaints of economic oppression and communist take-overs and now this stuff is spilling over into a thread about our Lord Jesus Christ's death on the cross.

This strikes me as incredibly inappropriate and ridiculous. Just my opinion, though. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks so.