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.

Perfect Paradox - Chapter 4: Broken Law and the Punishment Affixed

In the final paragraph of Chapter 3, I note:

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. The objective of this chapter is consider the demand that justice exacted of our Savior and the manner in which He satisfied it.

To understand the need for redemption, we must first accept that we are fallen. President Ezra Taft Benson (1988) explained: “Just as man does not really desire food until he is hungry, so he does not desire the salvation of Christ until he knows why he needs Christ. No one adequately and properly knows why he needs Christ until he understands and accepts the doctrine of the fall and its effects upon mankind” (p. 33). Unfortunately, when we look in the mirror, it is almost too easy to conclude that our fallen nature was designed to be an obstacle in our eternal progression. However, although the fall was contrary to God’s character, it was not contrary to His purposes. Rather, it was a divinely orchestrated event[1] that not only paved the highway to hell, but also set before us the pathway to perfection. “The aggregate of scriptures certifies that his transgression in the garden of Eden, although designated as a ‘fall’ was necessary to the advancement and spiritual progress of humanity on this earth, and Adam rightly should be honored, not denigrated” [2] Moroni and Paul therefore taught that God “gave unto men weakness” (see Ether 12:27) that His strength may be “made perfect in weakness” (see 2 Corinthians 12:9). In our “weakness,” salvation is made perfect whereby we experience the rich rewards of God’s grace. 

Paradoxically, it is the fall that brought about the conditions for redemption. It is in the curse of Adam that our eyes are opened and we experience joy in this life. Were it not for his transgression, there would be neither children nor knowledge of good and evil. Importantly, there would be no eternal life which God gives unto all the obedient (see Moses 5:10-11; compare 2 Nephi 2:22-25). Notwithstanding, it remains that, because Adam yielded, man’s nature became evil continually (see Ether 3:2) and subject to the will of the devil (see D&C 29:40). Hence, with one glorious exception, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “All are hardened,” Amulek recounted, “yea, all are fallen and lost” (Alma 34:9). As a result, every mortal experiences a two-fold fallen nature—one unconditional and another conditional. First, as a result of Adam’s choice, we unconditionally experience a first spiritual death for, at birth, all mankind are “cut off from the presence of the Lord and are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual” (Helaman 14:16). Second, because of the fall we are conditionally subject to a second spiritual death when we are judged to have knowingly transgressed God’s law and withdrawn from His Spirit that it may have no place in us (see Mosiah 2:36). 

Fundamentally, these first and second spiritual deaths are alike as both result in departure from God to one degree or another. Indeed, the first spiritual death is “that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual” (D&C 29:41). However, the first death is only temporary and incomplete[3] as we receive of the presence of God through the agency that gives life to all things. Further, because we are unconditionally cut off from the presence of God at birth and because this spiritual isolation results from Adam’s choice and not from any choice of our own, justice demands the atonement unconditionally restore us back to our primeval association with God. “Herein is a lawful adjustment between justice and mercy,” noted Elder James E. Talmage (1919). “We are mortal through no personal fault; we shall be made immortal without personal merit” (p. 50). Thus, this restoration back into the presence of God is universal; it comes to all of His children whether or not it is merited. Wrote the prophet Samuel: 

For behold, it . . . becometh expedient that [Christ] dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

Yea, behold, [Christ’s] death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first [spiritual] death . . . .

. . . yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord (Helaman 14:15-17). 

Confirming that this universal restoration to God’s presence extends equally to the wicked and the righteous, Moroni wrote:

And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death (Mormon 9:13).

As redemption from Adam’s transgression will restore us back to the presence of God and that sphere in which we were originally placed, only complete redemption from our personal sins will allow us to remain. Unlike redemption from Adam’s transgression, “Christ’s plan for saving the souls of men contemplates no universal or unconditional remission of sins” (Talmage, Vitality, 1919, p. 51). This redemption is conditional. “And then,” wrote Moroni, “cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still” (Mormon 9:14).[4] For those declared “filthy still,” then cometh the second death “which is a spiritual death; then is the time that whosoever died in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death” (Alma 12:16) for “they cannot be redeemed from the spiritual fall, because they repent not” (D&C 29:44). Therefore, “whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire . . . for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness” (Helaman 14:18).

Unlike the first spiritual death, the second death is permanent—worlds without end, those who are made full partakers[5] thereof will be cast out never to be brought back into the presence of God (see D&C 76:31-37, 44-49) “for do ye suppose,” wrote Mormon, “that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation may come” (3 Nephi 28:35)? Such will be condemned to endure a torment that never ends because they persist in their own carnal nature and go on in the ways of sin and rebellion. Over such, the devil has all power and they are as though there was no redemption made (see Mosiah 16:5).[6] These are they who “abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, [therefore they] cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still” (D&C 88:35). Neither conformance to gospel law (see D&C 88:21), nor the mercies of Christ (see Moses 7:39), nor suffering the penalty of justice and judgment (see D&C 82:4)[7] will sanctify to the least degree these filthy souls. Wherefore, Christ saves all except them (see D&C 76:44), for all the remainder will be heirs of salvation (see D&C 76:88)[8] and consigned to that kingdom, the conditions of the law of which they are willing to abide (see D&C 88:20-24, 38-39).

Sin is defined as the transgression[9] or avoidance[10] of law and, in the strictest sense, may be committed inadvertently or in ignorance. President Harold B. Lee (Conference Report, 1973) described sin as “the heaviest burden that one has to bear in this life” (p. 177). Unfortunately, this fact is not always self-evident, especially to those buried in the pleasures of sinful living.[11] More often than not, the price of sin is delayed, thereby, veiling the toll of wickedness for a season (see 3 Nephi 24:13-15). But although the wheels of justice may grind slowly, they grind exceedingly fine and none shall escape.

As reassuring as it is to know that justice will someday avenge the blood of the righteous, infinitely more comforting is the doctrine that justice will not stand as a witness against those ignorant of God’s laws—that “where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation” (2 Nephi 9:25). Considering the fact that each has come to this earth fully ignorant of God’s laws, this doctrine ought to lend substantial comfort. Elder James E. Talmage (1984) explained:

[I]t is plain from the scriptural doctrine of human responsibility and the unerring justice of God, that in his transgressions . . . man will be judged according to his ability to comprehend and obey law. To him who has never been made acquainted with a higher law the requirements of that law do not apply in their fulness. For sins committed without knowledge—that is, for laws violated in ignorance—a propitiation has been provided in the atonement wrought through the sacrifice of the Savior; and sinners of this class do not stand condemned, but shall be given opportunity yet to learn and to accept or reject the principles of the Gospel (pp. 52-53).

Be this as it may, sins of any sort, whether inadvertently committed or maliciously intended, cannot be ignored in the economy of God’s plan. Every sin exacts a cost and every sin must be counted and paid for. Even little children must rely on the merits of Christ; for by nature, King Benjamin taught, they become carnal (see Alma 42:10): 

And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent (Mosiah 3:16-17).

Little children and those who have no law are alive in Christ (see Moroni 8:22) and in Him they are spiritually quickened and sanctified (see D&C 74:7), for as by nature they fall, even so in Christ is the curse of Adam taken from them (see Moroni 8:8). Indeed, the little ones have no need for repentance because Christ will save them (see JST Matthew 18:11). 

On the other hand, when individuals violate their conscience and act contrary to, or fail to act in accord with, the light and knowledge they’ve received, they are under condemnation. Thus, where understanding exists and gospel laws are broken or avoided despite that understanding, no unconditional propitiation exists and other conditional terms must apply. Emphasizing this provisional nature of the atonement, Jesus said to certain Jews: “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” (John 9:41). 

Whether salvation comes through a conditional or unconditional propitiation in the atonement, the fact remains that all are guilty until declared innocent through the blood of Christ. That declaration has already been made for certain souls, like little children who die in infancy, whereas, it is pending the outcome of mortality for others who, like us, must place their trust in the Lord, be diligent in keeping His commandments, and continue in faith even until they are, at last, safely dead (see Mosiah 4:6-7). 

Almost from birth, we possess sinful tendencies. As Brigham Young (1854-1886) correctly noted, “there are no persons without evil passions to embitter their life” (pp. 160, Vol. 8). Consequently, we often find ourselves opening the door to temptation (see Moses 5:23), even if only to look upon it. In microscopic, almost imperceptible, ways, each of us at one time or another, and in some degree or another, participates in unholy thoughts or errant behavior, all of which constitute sin. We don’t have to commit the heinous crime of murder to be guilty of the rather transparent sin of anger; we don’t have to overtly commit adultery to be guilty of private immoral thoughts; and we don’t have to curse God to be guilty of prayers that lack real intent (see Moroni 7:9). 

This proclivity to sin has caused me to wonder: “Does my fallen nature mean that I am irrevocably disposed to sin?” Frankly, this seems like a shallow question as perfection seems so far removed. Although the customary response to this question is “nobody’s perfect,” Joseph Smith (1980) pointed out that “although it was foreordained [that man] should fall, and be redeemed, yet after the redemption it was not foreordained that he should again sin” (p. 33).[12]

In other words, Joseph taught that the first spiritual and temporal deaths stemming from Adam’s transgression were the only divinely-intended and orchestrated results of the fall—personal sin was not a part of God’s plan.[13] Rather, personal sin is contrary to His plan even though patience and longsuffering can be shown to the one entrenched in it. Jesus is our Prototype and, as such, has shown that “it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin.” (1891, pp. 2, Lecture 5). We are therefore commanded to choose God as our Father (see Moses 7:33) and avoid evil of every kind (see Alma 12:32). Indeed, we are commanded to be perfect and are reminded that God cannot wink at iniquity, much less tolerate it (see D&C 1:31).[14]

Concerning sin and the demands of justice, Hyrum Andrus (2003) writes: “The rule of law requires a strict enforcement of justice when it has claim on transgressors . . . . [W]henever a law is broken a payment must be made—somewhere, somehow, sometime—according to the penalty[15] prescribed by the truth and equity of law” (p. 190). This payment is always exacted in the form of a mandatory and unyielding punishment. “Unlike the changeable laws of man, the laws of God are fixed and permanent,” declares Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “‘irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world’ (D&C 130:20).” Continuing, Elder Oaks (2002) explains: “These laws are likewise concerned with justice . . . . According to eternal law, the consequences that follow from the justice of God are severe and permanent. When a commandment is broken, a commensurate punishment is imposed. This happens automatically. Punishment prescribed by the laws of man only follow the judge’s actions, but under the laws of God the consequences and penalties are inherent in the act” (pp. 114-115). 

Acting alone, justice is uncompromising; if law is broken, a punishment must be suffered by the offender. The ultimate penalty for offending gospel law is to suffer a complete spiritual death wherein we become “like unto [the devil], and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God” (2 Nephi 9:9) worlds without end. Such is our final destiny so long as our personal sins are upon us. 

Is there any possible escape from this awful penalty and judgment? Is there any provision in the Father’s plan that tempers or averts this ultimate penalty for personal sin? In the total arithmetic of justice, there is no escape from the penalty and punishment inflicted for broken law. No sin, however secret or minute, will bypass Him who knows all things, including the heart and mind of man. As Lehi taught, the punishment is affixed and must be suffered. However, although there is no escape from justice, its penalty can be placed on another not guilty of the offense; on one who is willing and qualified to suffer that penalty in the offender’s place. It is by proxy that justice was satisfied and we escape the full punishment of law. 

Christ, chosen and born of an Eternal Being and possessing grace for grace all of His Father’s attributes, was the only One fully sanctioned, willing, and qualified to answer the full penalty for broken law. It required someone unique to suffer such a burden for it exacted suffering even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death, “for behold,” taught King Benjamin, “blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people” (Mosiah 3:7). “The cumulative weight,” confirmed Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1985), “of all mortal sins—past, present, and future—pressed upon that perfect, sinless, and sensitive Soul! All our infirmities and sicknesses were somehow, too, a part of the awful arithmetic of the Atonement (p. 92)” Thus, Amulek concluded that this great and last sacrifice could not be “a sacrifice of man . . . but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). It must be the sacrifice of God.[16]

Christ’s atonement is infinite—infinite in suffering, scope, and time; infinite because it lasts for all time;[17] infinite because it extends to an infinite number of God’s children of every color, race, creed, and nation; infinite because, with few exceptions, it covers sin of every kind and degree; infinite because it was performed by Christ, an Infinite Being! If it were not for His person and character, there would have been no atonement. Describing the nature of the atonement, Elder Russell M. Nelson remarks:

It was . . . infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in scope—it was to be done once for all. And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him. It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension.

Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus was an infinite Being.[18]

Notwithstanding His sinless and perfect life, Christ set His face like flint (see Isaiah 50:7) and suffered the full, uncompromising penalty for broken law. Justice and Judgment passed over His soul, declared Him clean every whit, and then exacted a punishment that only He could bear, “even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of the Almighty God” (see D&C 88:106).[19] Thus, Christ’s ordeal in the Garden and on the Cross was not the proximate result of a contest between good and evil, even though the terrors and temptations of Satan no doubt added to the price paid to appease justice and to carry sicknesses, pains, sorrows, and afflictions of every kind. Rather, this was a holy sacrifice wherein He willingly descended below all things. He suffered the sentence of justice and not the verdict of an evil foe.[20] He accepted and suffered the penalty as predetermined and enforced by His Father. That is what makes this affair all the more difficult to think on.

From the beginning, the shedding of Christ’s blood was in the covenant of the Father (see Moroni 10:33). It was God who gave His Son (see John 3:16)[21] and the Son who gave His life, thereby, concluding the awful accord reached between two Gods in the beginning.[22] And although all created things act and exist by virtue of this pivotal event (see 2 Nephi 2:12-13), it was concluded in solitude and without pomp and circumstance. Even His nearest friends (see John 15:13-16) remained in the outer court (see Matthew 26:38) as the great High Priest “went a little further” (Matthew 26:39) into the holy place[23] to offer Himself without spot to His Father (see Hebrews 9:6-18). It was then that He stood in our place as if we were there and suffered the precise penalty and punishment we would have suffered as if He were guilty. His lips touched the very cup from which the wicked shall drink, even the cup of the wrath of God (see Mosiah 3:26). Truly, He “eateth and drinketh with . . . sinners” (Mark 2:16). Yet, by so doing, the enmity that resulted from the fall was slain and peace with God was made for us (see Ephesians 2:15-17).[24] Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Surely He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. And surely, the Lord laid on Him the iniquities of us all (see Mosiah 14:4-6).[25]

Keith H. Meservy (Draper, 1990) writes: “Justice is satisfied when the Messiah bears our griefs, carries our sorrows, is wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, bears our chastisement, has our iniquities laid on him, is oppressed and taken from prison and judgment, fathoms our travail of soul, and bears our iniquities. Suffering for us, he satisfies justice, which makes the pleasure of the Lord prosper” (p. 168). Why is justice satisfied by the infinite sacrifice? Because Christ is infinite and because His offering was voluntary! A freewill offering was necessary to preserve justice in the eternal sacrifice. The divine offering could not be an instance wherein the wrath of Almighty God was imposed upon an unwilling soul—for this Soul was pure and sin-free. Thus, although Christ was chosen from the beginning (see Moses 4:2), it was requisite that He also declare, “Here am I, Send me,” (see Abraham 3:27) to show forth His willingness. “He was not coerced or required to make this sacrifice,” declared Elder Hugh B. Brown (1962). “His . . . agency was in no way infringed or trammeled. It was a freewill, love-inspired offer, which could have been withdrawn at any time. It was optional until the very time of his crucifixion” (p. 108).[26] Until he spoke the final words, “It is finished (see John 19:30); Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” (see Luke 23:46) the offering remained revocable and incomplete. Appropriately and reverently, we sing the sacred tune: 

His precious blood he freely spilt; His life he freely gave, 
A sinless sacrifice for guilt, a dying world to save (Snow E. R., 1985, p. 195). 

Possessing attributes of mortality, Christ suffered all that a mortal can endure. Possessing attributes of immortality, He suffered all that God can endure “which suffering caused . . . [Him], the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:18). Of His pains, we have nothing to compare. “The suffering he undertook to endure, and which he did endure,” noted President Marion G. Romney (1969), “equaled the combined suffering of all men” (p. 57). Commensurate with the truth, light, and power He possessed, Christ suffered the “pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Nephi 9:21).[27] And more so—He bore the sins of the entire universe that through Him all might be saved whom the Father has put into His power and made by Him (see D&C 76:41-42), even all the worlds that are and were created (see D&C 76:24) “whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last, are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours” (Smith J. , Times and Seasons, 1843, p. 83). Of Christ’s agony, Elder James E. Talmage (1982) provides this unique perspective:

It is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable . . . . He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused Him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing. No other man, however great his powers of physical or mental endurance, could have suffered so; for his human organism would have succumbed, and syncope would have produced unconsciousness and welcome oblivion . . . .

In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world . . .. 

From the terrible conflict in Gethsemane, Christ emerged a victor. Though in the dark tribulation of that fearful hour He had pleaded that the bitter cup be removed from His lips, the request, however oft repeated, was always conditional; the accomplishment of the Father's will was never lost sight of as the object of the Son’s supreme desire. The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which He had successfully passed (pp. 568-569).

By His suffering, justice was satisfied and the end of the law that required a punishment for sin was answered for those who repent and believe on His name. And when He answered the ends of the law, Lehi taught that He also answered the ends of the atonement (see 2 Nephi 2:10). It is this doctrine which I address in the following chapters. 

WORKS CITED

Andrus, H. L. (2003). Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Revised ed.). Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 

Benson, E. T. (1988). A Witness and a Warning. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 

Brown, H. B. (1962, April 6, 7, and 8). Conference Report, 106-108. 

Draper, R. D. (Ed.). (1990). A Witness of Jesus Christ: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Old Testament. Salt Lake City: Deserert Book Company. 

Lee, H. B. (1973, April 8). Conference Report. 

Maxwell, N. A. (1985, April 7). Conference Report. 

Oaks, D. H. (2002). With Full Purpose of Heart. Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Deseret Book Company. 

Romney, M. G. (1969, October 4). Conference Report. 

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

Smith, J. (1891). The Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons, Co., Printers and Publishers. 

Smith, J. (1980). The Words of Joseph Smith: The contemporary accounts of the Nauvoo discourses of the Prophet Joseph. (A. F. Ehat, & L. W. Cook, Eds.) Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center. 

Snow, E. R. (1985). How Great the Wisdom and the Love. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Talmage, J. E. (1919). The Vitality of Mormonism. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 

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. 

Talmage, J. E. (1984). A Study of the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. 

Young, B. (1854-1886). Journal of Discourses (Vol. 21). Liverpool, London, England: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot. 

ENDNOTES

[1] It is instrumental to recall that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was planted by God (see Moses 3:9). 

[2] See LDS Bible Dictionary under the heading “Adam,” 604. 

[3] But for the atonement, this “first judgment [of a spiritual and temporal death] which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration” (2 Nephi 9:7). 

[4] In this verse, I believe all the revealed kingdoms are illustrated. I suggest that they who are righteous are those of a celestial nature, whereas, those who are happy appear to be those of a terrestrial nature. I further suggest that they who are unhappy are those of a telestial nature, whereas, they who are filthy still are clearly those sons of perdition who inherit a kingdom of no glory (compare D&C 88:96-102). 

[5] There are those who will have “their part” in the second death. These are they of the telestial glory. For them, this second death will not be permanent (see D&C 63:17-18). 

[6] In the final sense, this second death will be pronounced only upon the wicked following their resurrection and judgment. 

[7] Compare D&C 63:17 and D&C 138:59. 

[8] Compare D&C 138:59. 

[9] Such as sins of commission (see 1 John 3:4). 

[10] Such as sins of omission (see James 4:17). 

[11] Even to the righteous, the pleasures of sinful living may seem a little unfair. Malachi wrote: “And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered” (Malachi 3:15). 

[12] Compare Moses 6:53-54.

[13] Nevertheless, according to the foreknowledge of God, provision was made to redeem us from personal sin on conditions of repentance (see D&C 138:19). 

[14] Compare Alma 45:16. 

[15] The imposition of a penalty is necessary to encourage compliance to law. In an article entitled, Morality and Marriage in the Book of Mormon, Rodney Turner states: “An unenforced law has no practical existence; it is only a façade of justice. Worse, not enforcing a law tends to cloud the legitimacy of all laws” (Nyman & Tate, The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy, 1990, p. 273). In connection, Elder Orson Pratt (1854-1886) posed the following question: “could He not give a commandment, without affixing a penalty?” In response, Elder Pratt continued: “He could not: it would be folly, even worse than folly, for God to give a law to an intelligent being, without affixing a penalty . . . . Why? Because all intelligent beings would discard the very idea of a law being given, which might be broken at pleasure, without the individuals breaking it being punished for their transgression” (pp. 283, Vol. 1). 

[16] “Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another,” stated Amulek. “Therefore, there can be nothing short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world” (Alma 34:11-12). 

[17] Just because the atonement is infinite does not mean Christ’s must suffer forever. Contrary, such suffering seems to have been reserved for the sons of perdition, not the Son of God. I don’t know where or how these rumors get started, but lately I have heard it taught that Christ suffers every time someone sins as if the vicarious work of Christ’s atonement will never end. No doubt the Lord may “groan within himself” and be “troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel” (see 3 Nephi 17:14). Notwithstanding, the pains that Christ faced in Gethsemane and on Golgotha were “once suffered” (see 1 Peter 3:18). It was there and then that He “partook and finished” His preparations unto the children of men (see D&C 19:19). The apostle Paul wrote: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the meridian of time hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die . . . ; So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many . . .” (Hebrews 9:25-28). 

[18] Nelson, “The Atonement,” Ensign, November 1996, 35.
[19] Compare 3 Nephi 11:11.

[20] Apparently, Satan interjected himself into the events of that night to exact all his awful terrors whilst Christ undertook to gain the victory. Concerning this ‘supreme contest with the powers of evil,’ Elder James E. Talmage wrote: “In that hour of anguish Christ met and overcame all the horrors that Satan, the ‘prince of this world’ could inflict. The frightful struggle incident to the temptations immediately following the Lord’s baptism was surpassed and overshadowed by this supreme contest with the powers of evil” (see Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 613). Elder Boyd K. Packer likewise notes: “He, by choice accepted the penalty for all mankind for the sum total of all wickedness and depravity . . . . In choosing, He faced the awesome power of the evil one who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane” (see Packer, Ensign, May 1988, 69). 

[21] Compare D&C 45:4 and D&C 20:21.

[22] If, as expressed by Jacob, the offering of Isaac by his father Abraham was a “similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son,” (see Jacob 4:5) then we may suppose that the atonement wrought out by Jesus Christ was as much a trial for the Father as it was for His Son. Recalling the words of the Apostle Paul, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac,” gives us a glimpse that more than one God was tried by the awfulness of the atonement. How difficult it must have been for the Father to allow His Most-Beloved’s triple pleading, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” (see Matthew 26:39, 42, 44) to go unanswered. Such apparent forsaking for our sakes makes us love Him all the more and Jesus no less. Elder Melvin J. Ballard provided this interesting sentiment concerning the Father’s response to His Son’s sacrifice: “In that hour I think I can see our dear Father behind the veil looking upon these dying struggles until even he could not endure it any longer; and, like the mother who bids farewell to her dying child, has to be taken out of the room, so as not to look upon the last struggles, so he bowed his head, and hid in some part of his universe, his great heart almost breaking for the love that he had for his Son. Oh, in that moment when he might have saved his Son. I thank him and praise him that he did not fail us, for he had not only the love of his Son in mind, but he also had love for us. I rejoice that he did not interfere, and that his love for us made it possible for him to endure to look upon the sufferings of his Son and give him finally to us, our Savior and our Redeemer. Without him, without his sacrifice, we would have remained, and we would never have come glorified into his presence. And so this is what it cost, in part, for our Father in Heaven to give the gift of his Son unto men” (Hinckley B. S., p. 155). 

[23] “This sacred spot,” said Elder McConkie (1985), “like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from where Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance” (p. 9). 

[24] Compare Colossians 1:20.
[25] Compare Isaiah 53:4-6 and D&C 18:11.

[26] Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of His offering, the Savior declared that He was commanded of His Father to lay His life down that He might take it again: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:17-18). 

[27] Compare D&C 18:11 and 1 John 2:2.