Perfect Paradox - Chapter 5: To Answer the Ends of the Atonement

The kind of Holy Being necessary to answer the ends of the law has been the focus of prior chapters. As the totality of scripture attests, nothing short of a perfect, sinless, and infinite Son capable of enduring the penalty and pains of all sins and infirmities would suffice. Of Him, the sacred hymn affirms:

There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin.
He only could unlock the gate of heav’n and let us in (Alexander, 1985, p. 194).

When Christ offered Himself a sacrifice to answer the ends of the law, Lehi suggested that, in consequence of this accomplishment, the ends of the atonement were also answered:

And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement (2 Nephi 2:10).

Since, as suggested in a previous chapter, the expressions “ends of the law” and “demands of the law” are synonymous, then I suggest that the expression “ends of the atonement” must likewise be synonymous with the expression “demands of the atonement.” Applying this conclusion prompts the following questions:

1) Since the law of the demands of justice has two identifiable ends, does the atonement also have two expressly defined ends and, if so, what are they?
2) How does answering the ends of the law also answer the ends of the atonement?

Again, answers to these questions can only be found in the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion. Similar to the definition that several authors have given to the phrase “ends of the law,” the expression “ends of the atonement” has likewise been broadly defined. In his Book of Mormon lecture transcripts, scholar Hugh Nibley (1993) suggested that “permanent happiness and exaltation is the end, the object of the Atonement” (p. 266). Elder Orson Pratt (2000) made a similar suggestion (p. 101). They are correct. But as noted in prior chapters, it is Christ’s answering the ends of the law—not the ends of the atonement—that most appropriately brings such blessings. If, as suggested, Perfection is the end of the law to which happiness is affixed, then availing ourselves of the Lord’s answer to that end is what brings happiness and exaltation to us. Therefore, it might be useful to look beyond the broad, generic definition applied in the past and take a more pragmatic approach to see if the ends of the atonement can be more fully discovered.

If it is accepted that the law has two ends, then identifying those ends and how Christ answered them facilitates identification of the ends of the atonement, for, if answering the ends of the law answers the ends of the atonement, then each end of the law must correspond with each end of the atonement to answer it. This conclusion is important and worth repeating: If answering the ends of the law answers the ends of the atonement, then each end of the law must correspond with each end of the atonement to answer it. 

Having previously suggested that PERFECTION and BROKEN LAW are the ends of the law, I suggest that the ends of the atonement must then correspond with these ends. This would inevitably mean that happiness and punishment, which are affixed to the ends of the law, would also be affixed to the ends of the atonement. And, as Lehi noted, the fusing of the ends of the law and the ends of the atonement that comes about because of the intercession of God must then qualify the Holy One to stand as the just and merciful Judge of all men (see 2 Nephi 2:10).[1] Thus, I propose that answering the ends of the atonement had more to do with what Christ was to gain from the experience than with what we were to gain. It appears that answering the ends of the atonement was designed to qualify Christ to be our Just and Merciful Judge.

It is Alma’s counsel to his son Corianton that carefully blends the answering of the ends of the law and the intercession of God so that we may ascertain the ends of the atonement. In Alma 42:15, Alma instructed his son:

And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice.

And what was God to gain from this experience of intercession? Alma responded—“that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also”. In this verse, Alma affirmed that Christ not only answered the ends of the law for us, but He also made intercession to enable Himself to judge with perfect equity, justice, and mercy. After teaching the totality of Christ’s earthly experience, King Benjamin likewise concluded that “all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men” (Mosiah 3:10). Accordingly, I suggest that the ends, or demands, of the atonement are a PERFECT, JUST GOD and a MERCIFUL GOD and that these objectives were also answered when Christ answered the ends of the law.

Again, it is helpful to bring together all the concepts discussed so far and illustrate how the ends of the law and the ends of the atonement are answered in Christ. 

By being perfect, Christ answered the Perfection end of the law and, thereby, became a Perfect, Just God. By suffering the ultimate penalty for broken law, Christ also answered the Broken Law end of the law and, thereby, became a Merciful God also. When Christ answered the demands of the law, He also answered the demands of the atonement which required that a perfect, just God and a merciful God result from the atonement experience. The divine attributes of perfection, justice, and mercy that qualify Christ to stand as the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead (see Moroni 10:34), I believe, were the underlying objectives or demands of the atonement.

From the foregoing (including previous chapters), it is demonstrated that Christ:

1) is the Word of the Justice of God;
2) is the Author of law;
3) atoned and intercedes for His children;
4) has always been perfect;
5) suffered the penalty of broken law;
6) is the Perfect, Just God; and
7) is the Merciful God, also.

Indeed, all truth is circumscribed into this One Great Whole, Jesus Christ! All happiness will be found in Him and all punishment will come at His hand.(D&C 84:102)

I’ve occasionally considered what I must have thought and what my primal response must have been when the God of Heaven came forward and proposed a plan of proxy wherein His Firstborn was to live a perfect life among mortals, be sacrificed for the sins of the world, and then suffer an ignominious death at the hands of wicked men. At first, such a suggestion may have seemed rather preposterous as it seems to strike at the very core of justice and, on face, appears contrary to the love, mercy, and civility of Him who was undoubtedly known as a perfect, just, and merciful Father. Did I ever question then whether this precise plan of redemption was really necessary—whether the blood of the Innocent One would have to be shed? Did I ever doubt that such an undertaking might be too much for one individual—too much for even the Great Jehovah? Did I ever consider then whether Christ was capable of living fully perfect, being tempted in all things and yet remain without sin? Did I ever question the ability of the Son of God to undauntedly take the pains, sufferings, and infirmities of every living creature of all the worlds created (see D&C 76:24, 42) without shrinking from the infinitely daunting task? In short, did I exercise faith in Jesus Christ long before His mortal sojourn and infinite offering was consummated?

It is sometimes suggested that, because we lived in the presence of God in the primeval life, there was no need to exercise faith. Scriptures suggest otherwise. We may not have needed to exercise faith in the existence of God, for we saw Him, lived with Him, and were taught of His ways—our knowledge was perfect in that thing and our faith was dormant (see Alma 32:34). However, that there was a need for us to accept His plan of
redemption and demonstrate faith in the One He chose to carry it out is without controversy. In a marvelous vision of the spirit world, President Joseph F. Smith saw the prophets of all preceding dispensations. Describing what he saw, President Smith wrote:

I observed that [the prophets of former dispensations] were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God. 

Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons [of faith, obedience, love, service, parenthood, and priesthood government] in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men (D&C 138:55-56; compare D&C 132:63).

Speaking of those lessons learned in the primeval existence and addressing the manner in which kings and priests are ordained, the prophet Alma declared:

And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place (McConkie B. R., Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 477) being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. 

And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. 

Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son (Alma 13:3-5).

These who received this high and holy calling after the order of God’s Son were called and prepared in the primeval world on account of their exceeding faith and good works. And in what thing was their faith placed and towards what worthy cause were their good works extended? Clearly, their faith was placed in the One chosen to carry out the Father’s Plan of Happiness—and their works were extended to defend and uphold the cause of truth.

Notwithstanding, there were undoubtedly those who refused to accept the Father’s plan and His Chosen Servant, chief of whom was Lucifer. He, and "a third part" whom he had persuaded, (see D&C 29:36) contended that another way was possible or, at minimum, preferable. Why would such a suggestion be made? First, Lucifer and his minions lacked faith in the Father’s Plan of Redemption. These doubters did not trust that the Great Jehovah could carry the sins and infirmities of all creatures. They did not believe that the ends of the law could be answered for them in Christ. Nor did these skeptics believe that Christ could live a completely perfect life and carry out every detail of the Father’s plan with exactness and, thereby, become a Perfect, Just God and a Merciful God also. Therefore, these faithless and rebellious spirits turned against the Only Begotten Son (see D&C 76:25). By doing so, these treacherous souls carried themselves beyond that point of no return wherein the Light of Christ that enables all men to seek repentance was held from them--the same as it is held from all those with whom the Lord is angry (see D&C 63:32). These mutineers joined the rebellion and made Perdition their father and, thus, became his sons.

Second, Professor Brent Top (1988) suggests that Lucifer’s motives to amend the Father’s plan stemmed from pride and his fear of the prospects of having to offer himself as a sacrifice of supreme suffering and from his inability to meet the demands of justice that required that such a sacrifice be offered by a perfect, infinite being. “It seems Lucifer knew,” states Brother Top, “that if mankind had agency, he, Lucifer, could not be the redeemer, for he recoiled from the responsibilities of redemption. He was a coward, a liar, an egotist; and thus, through his cleverly worded plan, he ‘sought to destroy the agency of man’” (p. 119).

Based on these conclusions, I suggest that lack of faith, rooted in pride, was the sin of Lucifer, our common enemy, and his rebellious league and it is the sin of all those who likewise suffer themselves to be overcome by his power (see D&C 76:31-32). For them, it is “as though there had been no redemption made” (Moroni 7:38).[2]

While I cannot, in meticulous detail, describe all of Lucifer’s proposed amendments to the Father’s plan, as scriptures concerning such are somewhat vague, I think this much can be concluded—that he sought to:

1) destroy the agency of man (see Moses 4:3);
2) take the kingdom of our God and His Christ (see D&C 76:28);
3) be the son that would redeem all mankind that one soul should not be lost (see Moses 4:1);
4) obtain the power of God (see D&C 29:36 and Moses 4:3)
5) enter heaven without complying with gospel law;
6) exalt his throne above the other children of God;
7) become part of the assembly of the gods; and
8) become like God himself with all honor, power, and glory (see Isaiah 14:13-14).[3]

Joseph Smith (1977) taught that the contention in heaven arose simply because “Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him” (p. 130). Certainly, the devil was not a complete fool and must have presented a compelling argument to attract so many followers. Explaining why so many followed, Robert Matthews (Top, 1988) makes the following observation:

When we talk about our relationship to the Savior and our redemption, we must begin with the premortal life. I think we often miss the real issue of the contention in the spirit world that eventually led to the War in Heaven. We talk about it as though Lucifer were going to force everybody to obey. Most people don't want to be forced. As I see it, the real issue is that Lucifer would guarantee their salvation. He promised salvation without effort, without excellence, without hard work, without individual responsibility. That’s the lie that he promulgated in the pre-earth councils. That so-called shortcut to salvation captivated many gullible and lazy spirits. They wanted something for nothing . . . . On that basis Lucifer led away many spirits (p. 123).

Supporting this notion set forth by Brother Matthews, Joseph Smith (1844) affirmed that Lucifer set proposed a counter- plan in the heavenly council that was designed “to save men in their sins” (p. 758). Elder Orson Pratt (1854-1886) also taught that Lucifer proposed to “redeem them all in their sins” (pp. 288, Vol. 21). And President Brigham Young (1982) likewise concluded that “if you undertake to save all [as was Lucifer’s claim], you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption” (p. 54).

Interestingly, the message of nearly every Book of Mormon antichrist affirms what appears to be their master’s cunning plan of minimal effort and diminished punishment. Nehor, for example, taught “that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4). The Amalekites and Amulonites echoed the words of Nehor: “We believe that God will save all men” (Alma 21:6). Zeezrom likewise taught that God shall “save his people in their sins,” (Alma 11:34; compare Helaman 5:10) and Korihor whistled the same tune declaring that “whatsoever man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17).

From these servants of sin, we begin to get a flavor of the doctrine advertised by Lucifer in the primeval war. In each case, these antichrists suggested that there would be no lasting punishment for sin and that all men would be saved “in their sins” and “not one of them will be lost.” What they taught was a system of “redemption” without justice. In short, Lucifer promised salvation without law, justice, judgment, or mercy—for even mercy cannot operate without sins to forgive or punishments to temper.

Standing opposite these faithless spirits, there were those who, when approached by the Adversary in the primeval war, faced him eye-to-eye and did not flinch. Aside from these faithful, it has also been suggested by many that among the hosts involved in the heavenly war there existed those who, although not altogether drawn away after the persuasions of Lucifer, lacked faith in, or otherwise did not defend, the Father’s Plan and His Chosen Servant with the utmost of fidelity.[4] It is likely that these “faith-deficient spirits” did not cross the line of demarcation that separated the hosts of heaven and, thus, were permitted to enter mortality and dwell among us, for the scriptures teach that there were certain men, who were before of old (i.e., in the primeval world) “ordained” to something of less than greatness (see Jude 1:4). Paraphrasing Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (1957-1966), perhaps there are among us those who were not faithful in keeping their first estate but who, nevertheless, “did not sin away their right to receive bodies and come to earth and receive the resurrection” (pp. 186, Vol. 2).[5] Perhaps, as President Heber J. Grant (1989) taught, there are those who come “into this world without any particular degree of energy or desire to labor for their fellows and for the spread of righteousness . . . because of their failure to have kept their first estate with diligence and with fidelity” (p. 192). Perhaps, as Elder Orson Pratt (2000) suggested, “among the two-thirds who remained, it is highly probable, that there were many who were not valiant in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father, and through their sincere repentance and reformation” (pp. 53-54).

Of case in point, we have Cain who, even before he was born, merited the name Perdition (see Moses 5:24). How did he merit such a dreadful designation prior to mortal probation? Was he less than valiant in his first estate? Speaking pointedly of Cain’s primeval disposition and associations, Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1965 - 1973) wrote:

From the scriptural records available to us, from the sermons of the Prophet, and from a knowledge of the revealed requisites for becoming a son of perdition, we know that Cain was a liar and a rebel in pre-existence; that, like Lucifer, he had power and influence there (pp. 196, Vol. 3).

Was one who was a liar and a rebel in pre-existence actually permitted to enter mortality? Apparently so! Addressing Cain’s primeval character further, Elder McConkie (1965 - 1973) noted:

That son of Adam, though a friend of Lucifer in pre-existence, did manage to gain mortal birth. He could have hearkened to his Father Adam and walked in the strait and narrow path. But instead he chose to follow a course which he had already charted, in a very real sense, in his first estate, an estate where he had been known as Perdition (pp. 715, Vol. 1).

Indeed, it appears that this rebel and friend of Lucifer slipped through the veil of forgetfulness and was permitted to enter his mortal probation. And if him, who else of similar disposition was permitted to enter their mortal probation? History may bring a few to the minds of everyone.

Like Cain, who came to this earth possessing the disposition and character he developed in his primeval life, we are also born into this life possessing the disposition and character developed in our first estate and we will similarly leave this second estate possessing that disposition and character developed here (see Alma 34:34). Simply stated, just because we were born into mortality is not evidence that we were perfect angels in our pre-earth life. Clearly, our birth into mortality evidences that we did not cross the battle line that was drawn to separate Lucifer and his following from the remainder. But, the existence of good, evil, and agency in the primeval world suggests that there were varying degrees of obedience and devotion to God and His plan in the primeval world (see Abraham 3:22-23: compare D&C 138:55) that spills over into mortality.

Despite our limited understanding concerning the particulars of Lucifer’s proposals, in light of the demands of justice and the demands of the atonement, we can, with absolute certainty, conclude that Lucifer’s primeval proposals would not work. If anything, attempting to discover just how Lucifer’s proposals were going to work to “save” God’s children “in sin” is nothing short of an intellectual dilemma. It’s like trying to make heads or tails of a one-sided coin. At best, Lucifer’s plan was a contradiction. His plan offered no atonement and no reconciliation. It recommended “clemency” without satisfying justice. It was the coward’s way out. One chosen to implement Lucifer’s proposals could never have answered the ends of the law or the ends of the atonement and become our perfect, just, and merciful judge. Such a one could never have possessed the power to “save” us even in our sins—for “saving” us “in sin” is an awful contradiction.

To the contrary, God’s plan is courageous. It is a plan of justice, law, atonement, intercession, and reconciliation—a plan wherein the offenses of many are covered by the offending of One—a plan wherein justice is satisfied and preserved in the supremely divine injustice—a plan wherein mercy is ignited in the unmerciful act. As I have contemplated further the plan, nothing less than this offering made by the Father and the Son would be sufficient to demand our attention and focus our emotions. 

Perfect Injustice, if such a contradiction can be tolerated, has been known only once. It was shown perfectly in Christ’s intolerable suffering for mankind. Likewise, “true charity [or perfect love and mercy],” declared Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (1997), “has been known only once. It is [likewise] shown perfectly and purely in Christ’s unfailing, ultimate, and atoning love for us.” (p. 336). Only in the atonement do we see “perfect injustice” and “perfect mercy” fully and simultaneously expressed in a single act. Truly, the atonement is the ultimate contradiction and divine expression where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine. This ultimate contradiction of justice and divine expression of love makes the Plan of Redemption work. Not only is mercy ignited by this supreme injustice but, strangely enough, this injustice willingly suffered by the Just and Holy One is the mechanism that upholds the justice of God in the salvation of His children.

Only the supreme sacrifice of a perfect, just and merciful God could answer the ends of the law and the ends of the atonement and bring salvation to men. God is perfect! God is just! God is merciful! Thanks to God, He is our Eternal Judge. Truly, “life evermore we’ll know through thee, Our Friend” (Dougall, 1985, p. 181).

WORKS CITED

Alexander, C. F. (1985). There Is a Green Hill Far Away. Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Dougall, H. W. (1985). Jesus of Nazareth, Savior and King. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 181.

Grant, H. J. (1989). Collected Discourses: 1892-1893 (Vol. 3). (B. H. Stuy, Ed.) Woodland Hills, Utah: BHS Publishing.

Holland, J. R. (1997). Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.

McConkie, B. R. (1965 - 1973). Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Deseret Book Company.

McConkie, B. R. (1966). Mormon Doctrine (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Bookcraft.

Nibley, H. W. (1993). Teachings of the Book of Mormon--Semester 1: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to a Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988 - 1990. Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.

Pratt, O. (1854-1886). Journal of Discourses.

Pratt, O. (2000). The Seer. Salt Lake City: EBorn Books.

Smith, J. (1843, February 1). Times and Seasons.

Smith, J. (1844, December 25). Times and Seasons, V.

Smith, J. (1977). Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (A. P. Burton, Ed.) Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.

Smith, J. F. (1957-1966). Answers to Gospel Questions (Vol. 4). Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.

Top, B. L. (1988). The Life Before. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft.

Young, B. (1982). Discourses of Brigham Young. Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Deseret Book Company.

ENDNOTES

[1] It is because of this intercession, that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto His Son (see John 5:22). He suffered the penalty for every sin of every person. Therefore, He possesses the legal right and the power to establish the terms of repentance and judge each person’s compliance with those terms. 

[2] Compare Alma 12:18 and 3 Nephi 29:7. 

[3] Compare D&C 29:36 and Moses 4:1-4. 

[4] It is most useful to compare the war in heaven with the characters and sequence of events in Alma 2. When doing so, one almost gets the impression that the author of Alma 2 intended to illustrate the primeval war in a mortal setting. 

[5] See also Clark, Conference Report, 6 October 1956, 83-84; Pratt, Orson, The Seer, 54; and Christiansen, “Man is God’s Greatest Creation,” BYU Speeches of the Year, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 24 March 1964, 5.