4.27.2014

Perfect Paradox - Chapter 3: Perfection and the Happiness Affixed

In the prior chapter, PERFECTION was identified as one end of the LAW that Christ answered. Coming to this conclusion naturally invites us to more thoroughly consider how He answered it. Such is the purpose of this chapter. In later chapters, what His answer to this end means for us will also be considered.

It has been previously noted that unto every kingdom is given a law with certain bounds and conditions, and that all who abide not in those conditions are not justified. In a related passage, the Lord instructs that all who secure a blessing at His hand must abide the law appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof (see D&C 132:5). Hence, to obtain God’s greatest gift (see D&C 14:7), we must abide the law that governs where God is. In preparation for this strict celestial standard, the Lord gives us charge to be perfect “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (JST Matthew 5:50).[1]

Taken literally, this duty is staggering. It bewilders even the most devout disciple. Perhaps, more than others, this celestial standard weighs heavily upon the true disciple because only he or she truly senses what is at stake. Thus, this command must be patiently and appropriately viewed as no person, save Jesus only, has ever concluded this life fully justified, sanctified, and preserved by law. While in mortality, we mustn't become overzealous about what is yet to be done—it is far more important that we are headed in the right direction than knowing how long it is going to take us to get there. When it comes to perfection, we must view it—although afar off—with an eye of faith and see “this mortal body and corruption raised to incorruption” (Alma 5:15);[2] we must gaze into the eternities and view our potential to know as God knows and be known as He is known.

But, however anxious this dictate may make us, we are not at liberty to mitigate the directive by making it “measure down” to our fallen nature. The command is to be taken literally and every effort should be made to comply. Robert Millet (1989) rightly observed:
We are never justified in lowering the lofty standard held out to followers of the Christ. Nor are our actions or attitudes approved of God if we suggest that the Savior did not mean what he said when he called us to the transcendent level of perfection. Our task is not to water down the ideal, nor to dilute the directive. Rather, we must view our challenge with perspective, must see things as they really are, but also as they really can be (p. 89).
This command to be perfect applies not only to us, but it applied to God’s Son as well who, more than any of His children, was of a mind to work out His own salvation with fear and trembling (see Philippians 2:12; compare Mormon 9:27) and “supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death” (Hebrews 5:7).[3] Atonement for the sins of others required a payment by One who first possessed the capacity to save Himself. Without that capacity, Christ could not save us. Thus, of particular significance to Him whose personal salvation rested in His own perfection, it was requisite that Jesus be fully obedient to gospel law and free from sin. Expressing this requirement, Elder McConkie (1981) commented:
He had to work out his own salvation by doing on earth the will of the Father in all things. ‘Though he were a Son,’ Paul says, ‘yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered’ (Heb. 5:8), meaning that ‘The Lord Omnipotent’ himself had to overcome the world and stand against all opposition before he could (and again it is Paul’s language) be ‘made perfect’ (Heb. 5:9) in the ultimate and absolute sense of the term; that is, ‘perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect’ (p. 54).
To the time that Jesus matured and demonstrated His capacity to suffer temptations of every kind and yet remain without sin (see Hebrew 4:15; compare 1 Peter 2:22), the very Plan of Redemption hung in the balance. The upholding of all things was fixed on the moment when He alone would purge our sins (see Hebrews 1:3) and resuscitate the dead. Thus, it was not only in Gethsemane, on Golgotha, or in the Tomb that the great Plan of Redemption was wrought out. In preparation for those hours of agony wherein He fully paid the penalty for broken law, Christ lived in pre-mortality (McConkie B. R., 1981, p. 208), and thirty-three years in mortality, in complete, sinless perfection—an essential accomplishment for Him to answer the ends of the law and consummate an infinite atonement.

From this broader perspective, Christ began His work of redemption in His first estate, an estate where He was known as Jehovah. He continued it in mortality, in His suffering, by His death, and through His resurrection. And as His works never cease, His redemptive work, in preparation for that time when He shall place all things under His feet (see D&C 88:114), will not cease. Not only were His final days in mortality triumphant as rightly observed by any Christian but, as is often overlooked, His entire pre- and post-mortal existence has been miraculous; incredible beyond belief.

To more fully appreciate the miracle of Christ’s perfection, it is helpful to consider the declaration of the messenger to the prophet Nephi: “Look and behold the condescension of God” (1 Nephi 11:26)! Notwithstanding His unique primeval status, Christ was born of a virgin and inherited, from her, attributes of mortality. In this condescension, His primeval judgment was taken away (see Acts 8:33) and He came as man, taught Elder James E. Talmage (1982), to experience—
all the natural conditions of mortality; He was born as truly a dependent, helpless babe as is any other child; His infancy was in all common features as the infancy of others; His boyhood was actual boyhood, His development was as necessary and as real as that of all children. Over His mind had fallen the veil of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the remembrance of primeval existence is shut off. The Child grew, and with growth there came to Him expansion of mind, development of faculties, and progression in power and understanding (p. 105).
The sacred record further reports that He grew up with His brethren and served under His stepfather. He was often portrayed as characteristic in appearance—possessing neither form, comeliness, nor beauty that the multitude should desire (see Isaiah 53:2). So common was His appearance that the multitude esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God (see Isaiah 53:4).[4] Notwithstanding that He came “in his glory, in his might, majesty, power, and dominion” (Alma 5:50; compare Alma 9:26, 13:24), the Son of God “emptied” Himself of these attributes in mortality, thus, was God veiled in flesh.[5] But, as He “grew up to manhood,” taught President Lorenzo Snow (1901), “it was revealed unto Him who He was, and for what purpose He was in the world” (p. 3). Isaiah compared His development to a tender plant under the personal care of a Gardener (see Isaiah 63:2). Of His childhood, the New Testament is brief and simply expresses that He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52).

Notwithstanding these mortal characteristics inherited from His mother, the Son of Man “spake not as other men, neither could he be taught; for he needed not that any man should teach him” (JST Matthew 3:24-25). Notwithstanding that He “was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), Christ was no ordinary man. He was God Almighty, the King of heaven and earth (see Alma 5:50) and, in the same sense that all mortal men have fathers (McConkie B. R., 1981, p. 294), He was sired by God and partook of the same nature and is a member of the same house and lineage of His Eternal Father (McConkie B. R., 1981, p. 9). Concerning their relationship, as cited by Elder McConkie (1981), the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve declared:
The Father placed his name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned his words and acts were and are those of the Father (p. 64).
He is the Word of God or, in other words, the Divine Expression of His Father. “In every state of existence,” confirmed Elder McConkie, “he was and is the possessor and personification of every godly attribute and characteristic in its fulness and perfection” (p. 197). Thus, it is rightly concluded that the Father and Son are one “in a sense far greater than merely being one in purpose” (p. 5).

In the primeval world, Jehovah was God . . . the God with whom all the patriarchs conversed. In mortality, He maintained this appointed position (see Alma 9:26; compare Mosiah 15:1), but of this reality, the world was blind. Even during infancy and childhood, Christ continued to be the Light of the world and the One through whom the light was sent to fill the immensity of space (see D&C 50:27; compare D&C 88:7-13). Neither in His birth and life nor in His death and resurrection do we see that which is common. I am not suggesting that Jesus was so different from the rest of humanity that He could not live like us and be our example in all things. But viewed in proper perspective, everything about Him was unique and uncommon, and necessarily so—He was to undertake a singular work that none other could.

None ever were perfect but Jesus,” taught the prophet Joseph Smith (1997); “and why was He perfect? Because He was the Son of God, and had the fulness of the Spirit, and greater power than any man” (p. 346). “His words and deeds,” wrote Elder McConkie (1981), “his teachings and miracles, his triumph over the tomb—all that he did and said—all things appertaining to him have neither equal nor parallel among all the billions of souls who have breathed or shall breathe the breath of life on planet earth” (p. xviii). No other person possessed the divine powers and attributes of the Father so completely. No other conception or birth will transcend the holiness and glory that attended those simple events recorded in the Gospels. No other child received the personal attention and tutoring that the Savior of mankind received from His Father. Gratefully, God took particular interest in this Son in whom His Plan of Happiness was fixed—in whom was vested salvation for Himself, for you, and for me. When all who claim to be lords and all who claim to be gods are considered, both heaven and earth must proclaim that this Man is Lord of lords, King of kings, and God of gods!

Ironically, it is commonly thought that Christ came as “fallen man” so that He could overcome the fall and know how to succor us in our weakness. Recently, in an effort to determine how widespread was this view, I asked my students how many believed Christ came as fallen man? Forty percent of those questioned raised their hand in the affirmative and many remained uncertain. Few deviations rob a person of faith more than this one—the humanizing of God is more than slightly destructive to our faith.

Christ may have taken on the form of man (see Philippians 2:8),[6] but He did not take on the nature of man. He may have condescended (see 1 Nephi 11:26), but He did not fall. Christ may have stepped down from grace, but He did not fall from grace. Rather, as Elder James E. Talmage (1982) reminded: “[Christ’s] advancement was from one grace to another, not from gracelessness to grace; from good to greater good, not from evil to good, from favor with God to greater favor, not from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance and propitiation” (pp. 105-106).

Abinadi taught that the form which Christ took upon Himself was not the form ordinarily ascribed to man. Rather, he affirmed that His image was “the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God” (see Mosiah 7:27). Defining what it means to be created after the image of God or after the image which man was created in the beginning, President Joseph F. Smith (1936) declared:

Man has descended from God. In fact, he is of the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also (p. 8).[7]
From this statement, it is to be understood that Adam was most literally a son of God—the literal offspring of His body (see Moses 6:22). And, in the day that God created him, Adam possessed a tabernacle of flesh and bone but was, nevertheless, spiritual because he remained in that sphere in which God had placed him (see Moses 3:9) and was a living soul (see 2 Nephi 9:13); immortal and incorruptible (see Alma 11:45; compare 1 Corinthians 15:44 and D&C 88:27-28). When Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, he acted outside that sphere in which God had placed him (see D&C 93:30) and, thereby, became fallen man—mortal, corruptible, and separate from God.

With the exception of Christ, every person born to this earth has descended through this lineage and inherited death. Christ, however, did not inherit death. Rather, from Mary He inherited the power to die, or power over His life. For though He was crucified through weakness inherited from His mother (see 2 Corinthians 13:4), to Christ, death was a choice (see 1 Nephi 19:10), not a demand enforced upon Him. The same is true of all the pains, afflictions, sicknesses, and infirmities suffered by Christ—He suffered and “took upon Him” these things (see Alma 7:11-13) by choice. Attributes, traits, and expressions that are otherwise viewed as the weakness of man were capacities inherited by God through Mary that He might know, according to the flesh, how to succor His children.

Properly viewed, the qualities Christ obtained from His mother were attributes of power, not oppressive traits of a fallen nature. Although immortal and incorruptible, from His mother Christ inherited the power to suffer, bleed, and die—not in the same sense that we do these things, but rather that He might have compassion for His children, that He might atone for their sins, and that He might conquer death. The Son subjected His flesh to the will of the Father so completely that every mortal trait He possessed was adapted into its divinely intended use (see Mosiah 15:1-7). To Him, the weakness of man was strength and represented the course by which He would offer Himself as a willing sacrifice for sin and triumph over evil. Although characteristic of mortals, even His precious blood represented neither corruption nor a claim on His life. Rather, it marked His capacity to atone and satisfy the demands of justice by shedding that blood. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16)!

In mortality, Christ, in the most literal sense, took on the nature of His Father. Thus, the form and likeness of man which Christ took upon himself was akin to the image of man in the beginning—immortal, incorruptible, and free from sin, yet possessing power over life and death. Confirming this conclusion, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (1954-1956) noted, “it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin” (p. 126; Vol 1).[8] Unlike us, Christ did not experience spiritual death (see JST John 14:30). Unlike us, He never experienced personal sin and had no need for repentance (see JST Hebrews 7:26). Unlike us, in Him “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9; compare D&C 93:16-17), “for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (Colossians 1:19). Unlike us, Christ merited the grace He received of His Father. And unlike us, “Jesus Christ: Who, being in the form of God . . . made himself of no reputation,[9] and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7).

The scriptures declare that fallen man is evil continually (see Ether 3:2); is subject to the will of the devil (see D&C 29:40); is fallen and lost (see Alma 34:9); comes short of the glory of God (see Romans 3:23); is cut off from the presence of God and considered dead both as to things temporal and to things spiritual (see Helaman 14:16); is carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature (see Alma 42:10); and is an enemy to God (see Mosiah 3:19). Never, never . . . no never, was Jesus any of these!
How infinite that wisdom, the plan of holiness,
That made salvation perfect and veiled the Lord in flesh,
To walk upon his footstool and be like man, almost,
In his exalted station, and die, or all was lost
(Phelps, 1985, p. 175).
Despite lacking details of Christ’s physical development, profound insight into His spiritual growth can be gained from a revelation given to Joseph Smith concerning things previously revealed to John, the Lord’s cousin. In Doctrine and Covenants 93, we read concerning Christ:
I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest.
And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him (D&C 93:3-5, 11-14, 16-17).
Interesting concepts concerning Christ as the Father and the Son are revealed in these verses. First, in the primeval world, Christ merited and was given the fulness of His Father’s power and glory. Second, as a condition of His condescension, Christ took on the form of man and, thus, became the Son of God. Third, during mortality He received of His Father and performed His Father’s works and, in this sense, was also the Father. Fourth, Christ received not His Father’s fulness at first, but received grace for grace and grew from grace to grace until He received His Father’s fulness. Finally, the Father dwelt in Him, not in person, but through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit and, thus, in the fulness of His attributes, power, glory, and purpose.

The scriptural declaration that Christ performed His Father’s works and received of His Father grace for grace is of indispensable value for we must, in like manner, come unto the Father in the name of Christ (see D&C 93:19-20). As a religious principle, grace is invariably viewed as a divine gift, or unearned favor, for which we can do nothing to merit, or as the withholding of a just punishment. Often, grace is appropriately attributed to the mercy and love of Jesus Christ extended through His atonement. However, the grace extended to the Son by His Father was not a divine gift for which Christ could do nothing to merit, nor was it the withholding of a just punishment. Rather, this grace was the enabling powers of the Father extended to Christ in response to the grace or enabling powers that Christ, in turn, extended to the children of men. Hence, the concept of “grace received for grace extended” (i.e., grace for grace) creates a reciprocal relationship between the giver and the receiver of such grace.[10] This reciprocal relationship between Christ and His Father is best expressed by McConkie and Ostler (2000) in their commentary, Revelations of the Restoration:
Grace is divine help, or in other words, enabling power and strength that comes from God. The Savior increased in grace as he lived the commandments of God and blessed the lives of others. His growth was accelerated above that of his fellowmen because of the reciprocal nature of receiving strength of the Spirit when extending grace. That is, he called upon his Father for power and strength to bless others in their need. In answer to his prayers, he was empowered and grew beyond his previous abilities, thus, receiving grace for grace. Christ was foremost in reaching out in compassion to others. Therefore, he received greater grace from God in his efforts than any other person. He increased his capacity to give with each experience, continuing ‘from grace to grace’” (pp. 672-673).
To presume that the bestowal of God’s enabling powers upon His Son required nothing on the Savior’s part is scripturally unsound for, as with all gifts, receiving is more than a passive performance (see D&C 88:33). Receiving is secured in the giving. Thus, Christ received that which His Father gave and, in turn, gave that which He received. In this, Christ set the example for us. We must likewise receive the gifts of God and, in turn, extend them to others if we are to receive grace for grace. Our receiving of these gifts must go beyond the mental exercise of simple acceptance; it must bring us “unto repentance and good works, that [we] might be restored unto grace for grace, according to [our] works” (Helaman 12:24).

Since Christ grew from grace to grace and yet always remained in a state of perfection (i.e., in that sphere in which His Father had placed Him), perfection must then be viewed as a relative state measured according to one’s adherence to light and truth received. President Brigham Young, as cited by McConkie, Millet, and Top (1992), explained:
Those who do right, and seek the glory of the Father in heaven, whether they can do little or much, if they do the very best they know how, they are perfect . . . . ‘Be ye as perfect as ye can,’ for that is all we can do . . . . To be as perfect as we possibly can according to our knowledge is to be just as perfect as our father in Heaven is. He cannot be any more perfect than he knows how, any more than we. When we are doing as well as we know in the sphere and station which we occupy here we are justified (p. 78).
We needn’t get carried away with President Young’s comments and presume that God is perfect only in a relative sense. God is the Divine Standard; perfection is measured according to His fulness. His knowledge is infinite and complete (see 2 Nephi 9:20). And He possesses an “infinity of fulness” (see D&C 109:77). However, considering President Young’s notion of relative perfection, Christ began mortality, and remained throughout, in a justified state by complete and immediate compliance to every ray of gospel light He received according to the sphere He occupied. But I suggest this was not all. [11] Elder Heber C. Kimball (1854 - 1886) also concluded that “truth is the sanctifier of those who love it and are guided by it . . . . Truth is an attribute of the nature of God. By it he is sanctified and glorified” (pp. 209, Vol. 11). “It is the truth of heaven,” confirmed Elder McConkie (1979-1981), “the very word of God, his everlasting gospel—which sanctifies the souls of men” (pp. 114, Vol. 4).[12]

Elder Wilford Woodruff (1990) further taught that “whatever law anyone keeps, he is preserved by that law, and he receives whatever reward that law guarantees unto him” (p. 10). In other words, gospel truth and law is a preserver, rewarder, sanctifier, and glorifier of those who keep it and, thus, He who was perfectly governed by celestial law was not only justified thereby, but was also “preserved . . . and perfected and sanctified by the same” (D&C 88:34). By pure truth, perfect obedience, ingenuous motive, and sacred bestowal,[13] Christ grew from perfection to perfection and was sanctified by truth and glorified by His Father until He received the fulness of His Father—a fulness that “no man receiveth . . . unless he keepeth his commandments” (D&C 93:27). “By strict obedience,” the hymn states, “Jesus won the prize with glory rife: Thy will, O God, not mine be done, adorned his mortal life” (Snow E. R., 1985, p. 195).

Although the Pharisees and Sadducees were rarely united in purpose, on one occasion they were “gathered together” to confront the Lord concerning the law:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:35-40; compare D&C 59:5).
This instruction to love God with heart, might, mind, and strength may lead some to espouse the view that an emotional love of God is sufficient to be saved or to be entitled to grace. However, the love the Lord is referring to in these verses is not simply an emotional affection. This love of which He speaks is demonstrative. This love is not only felt, intellectually experienced, and verbally expressed. Rather, this love is reflected in our conduct and attitudes. President Howard W. Hunter (2002) described this love as a complete soul-stretching endeavor:
He loves the Lord with all his heart who loves nothing in comparison of him, and nothing but in reference to him, who is ready to give up, do, or suffer anything in order to please and glorify him. He loves God with all his soul, or rather with all his life, who is ready to give up life for his sake and to be deprived of the comforts of the world to glorify him. He loves God with all his strength who exerts all the powers of his body and soul in the service of God. He loves God with all his mind who applies himself only to know God and his will, who sees God in all things and acknowledges him in all ways (p. 1).
The Savior said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21). These assertions establish that a seamlessness exists between love of God and adherence to His laws. An emotional love of God does not grant a general dispensation from obedience to His laws—the existence of one does not compensate for absence of the other. Rather, divine love is the product of obedience and devotion. Confirming this, the apostle John wrote:
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked (1 John 2:3-6; compare 2 John 1:6).
Continuing with this subject and speaking of the “law and the prophets” to the Nephites, the Lord explained: “Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets” (3 Nephi 15:10). In more recent years, we have received the Lord’s severe reminder: “And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments. Behold, this is according to the law and the prophets” (D&C 59:21-22). Based on the Savior’s words given to these various dispensations, I suggest the “law and the prophets” can be viewed as “a love of God as demonstrated by obedience to His commandments and a love for others as demonstrated in service to them.” Love of God is the first and great commandment and obedience to His commands is the first law of heaven. By sound application of these two principles, Christ was perfected.

To illustrate, Christ’s baptism is a textbook demonstration of His resolute compliance to gospel law and love for God. John, knowing that the person requesting baptism was beyond reproach, hesitated at the Savior’s request and forbad Him saying: “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness [i.e., to answer the “perfection” end of the law]” (Matthew 3:14-15). Of this event, Nephi explains: “I would ask of you . . . wherein the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized with water? Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding that he being holy . . . according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments” (2 Nephi 31:6-7). In everything He did, Christ’s love for His Father was demonstrated by subjection to His will and law. This He did to answer the Perfection end of the law.

“Who . . . can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure, and who was as holy as he was,” asked the prophet Joseph (1834)? In response, he answered:
He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven—no deceit was in his mouth, neither was guile found in His heart” (p. 152)! He descended in suffering below that which man can suffer . . . and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin” (Smith J. , The Doctrine and Covenants, 1891, pp. 2, Lecture 5).
Christ was justified, sanctified, and preserved by truth, sinlessness, sacred bestowal, and perfect obedience to gospel truth and, thereby, fully answered, for himself, the end of the law that requires perfection. Because of this, the resurrected Lord declared: “Therefore, I would that ye should be perfect, even as I, or your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (3 Nephi 12:48).

Following His resurrection, Christ was in all respects perfect like unto His Father. “The attributes of one are the attributes of the other,” declared Elder McConkie (1981); “the character of each is the same; and both are possessors of the same perfections in their eternal fulness” (p. 198). What is meant by perfections, declared Joseph Smith (1891), “is the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature” (p. 50). In other words, explained Elder McConkie (1972), “where every attribute and every characteristic is concerned, the Lord is perfect and in him is embodied the totality of whatever is involved” (p. 7). Continuing, Elder McConkie (1981) wrote:

The Messiah is truly ‘like unto God.’ (Abr. 3:24). He was such in preexistence; he is such now as he sits on the right hand of the Majesty on high; and what is of special concern to us in our Messianic studies, he was the possessor of the same character, perfections, and attributes while he dwelt as a mortal among men. Indeed, the very fact that Jesus of Nazareth enjoyed these godly graces and manifested them in the acts of his life—as he taught truth, as he wrought miracles, as he lived without sin, and as he atoned for the sins of others—the very fact that he pursued such a course is one of the great evidences that he was all that he claimed to be: the Son of God (p. 198).
Other than Himself, Christ had no savior on whom to rely for salvation. Therefore, He answered the Perfection end of the law for Himself. Having answered this demand, the law could make no further requirements of Him. Notwithstanding, He voluntarily chose to answer the other end of the law—that end which requires uncompromising punishment for broken law.

WORKS CITED
Hunter, H. W. (2002). The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 
Kimball, H. C. (1854 - 1886). Journal of Discourses, 26. 
McConkie, B. R. (1972, January 4). The Lord God of Joseph Smith. BYU Speeches of the Year. 
McConkie, B. R. (1979-1981). The Mortal Messiah. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 
McConkie, B. R. (1981). The Promised Messiah: The first coming of Christ. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 
McConkie, J. F., & Ostler, C. J. (2000). Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company. 
McConkie, J. F., Millet, R. L., & Top, B. L. (1992). Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Vol. 4). Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. 
Millet, R. L. (1989). By Grace are we Saved. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. 
Phelps, J. A. (1985). O God, The Eternal Father. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Smith, J. (1834, April). The Elders of the Church in Kirtland, To Their Brethren Abroad. Evening and Morning Star, 2(19). 
Smith, J. (1891). The Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons, Co., Printers and Publishers. 
Smith, J. (1997). Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings. (L. E. Dahl, & D. Q. Cannon, Eds.) Salt Lake City, United States: Bookcraft. 
Smith, J. F. (1936, September 19). Church News. 
Smith, J. F. (1954-1956). Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 3). (B. R. McConkie, Ed.) Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Bookcraft. 
Snow, E. R. (1985). How Great the Wisdom and the Love. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Snow, L. (1901, April 5). Conference Report. 
Talmage, J. E. (1982). Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 
Woodruff, W. (1990). The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff. (G. H. Durham, Ed.) Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. 

ENDNOTES
[1] It is often overlooked that this command to be perfect was not given to the Nephites until after they were reminded by the Lord that “in me are all fulfilled” (3 Nephi 12:46). 
[2] Compare Alma 32:40, Hebrews 11:13, and Ether 12:19
[3] Comments made in the transcript of the Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament infers that verse 7 and 8 of Hebrews 5 are allusions to Melchizedek and not to Christ. However, Melchizedek was a “type” of Christ and Elder McConkie (1985, p. 316) appropriately connects these versus also to Christ.
[4] Then again, it is impossible to think that there was not in His appearance something of a quiet majesty that was apt to draw their gaze. 
[5] The prophet Joseph Smith (1948-1950) taught that a personage of glory with a physical body can withhold the outward manifestation of his glory if he decides (pp. 392, Vol. 3); contrast D&C 129:6
[6] Compare Mosiah 13:34. It was God who came down to make an atonement (see Mosiah 15:1) and, although He came in the form of man, Alma reminded us that he came “in his glory, in his might, majesty, power, and dominion . . . . Behold the glory of the King of all the earth; and also the King of heaven shall very soon shine among all the children of men” (Alma 5:50; compare Alma 9:26; Alma 13:24; 1 Nephi 11:28; and Mosiah 3:5). “And even after all this, they shall consider him a man” (Mosiah 3:9). 
[7] In this same article, President Smith stated that “man is created in the image of God . . . , man was born of a woman, Christ was born of a woman . . . , Adam, our earthly parent, was born of a woman, the same as Jesus, and you and I” (p. 2). Brigham Young (1854-1886) likewise taught that God “created man as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be” (p. 122; Vol. 11). 
[8] Joseph Smith further taught that “all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also” (D&C 93:30). This verse clearly describes the state of man in the beginning and prior to the fall. In every state of existence, Christ was independent in that sphere in which God placed Him, to act for Himself, and not to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:26). And because He continued sinless and remained in that sphere in which God placed Him, He maintained His God-given independence and brought salvation to Himself. 
[9] The Greek word for “reputation” as used in this verse is kenosis, meaning “to make empty.” 
[10] This type of relationship is illustrated in a passage expressing the reciprocal relationship that exists between Christ and the Spirit of truth: “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14-15). 
[11] Compare D&C 43:9-10
[12] Thus, concerning his disciples and all those who shall believe on Him through their word, Christ prayed: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth . . . . And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (John 17:17, 19). 
[13] Without sacred bestowal, there can be no sanctification. Confirming this even for Christ, Paul wrote: For him whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to his own image, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, him whom he did predestinate, him he also called; and him whom he called, him he also sanctified; and him whom he sanctified, him he also glorified (JST Romans 8:29-30). 

Worship

Inasmuch as this blog pertains to my thoughts, it is appropriate that I post a link to a Devotional address entitled WORSHIP I delivered in November 2011 at BYU - Idaho. Rather than rewrite an entire article on the subject, my thoughts (which have not changed) are adequately summarized in this devotional presentation. (Click on "WORSHIP" above to obtain access).

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.