If Jesus had to pass through the atonement to understand our troubles and sorrows, then either:
1) God had to pass through something similar; or
2) Jesus knows things the Father does not; or
3) the premise is false — a perfect understanding is possible without experiencing the atonement.
What say ye?
This week’s question courtesy of Ryan Bell.
I think your wording of your statements could be improved.
“If Jesus had to pass through the atonement to understand our troubles and sorrows, then either:”
Because Jesus passed through the atonement he DID suffer all our troubles and sorrows and therefore has a complete understand of them.
Did he have to in order to understand us? That is a different question than did the FATHER have to in order to understand us.
The Father is at a much higher level of progression that Jesus so what he needs in order to understand us is not necessarily what Jesus needs in order to understand us.
Also, it is difficult to completely separate the Godhead. They do work together as one. How do we determine who actually “answered” a prayer, for instance. We prayed to the Father, through Christ, and the Holy Ghost the means to feel God. Aren’t they all of one mind when a question is answered or a miracle happens?
So wouldn’t the Father know everything the Jesus Christ knows?
Oh the folly of trying to describe an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely dimensional, eternal deity in earthly space-time terms, but here goes: Even the premise of the premise is false. We freely chose to enter a world of troubles and sorrow. Jesus rescues us from our fallen state. He does not have to understand our fallen state to do so just as I don’t have to experience drowning to rescue someone who can’t swim. I think the drama in the atonement is that it was not guaranteed that Jesus would succeed in his mission and the Almighty might have lost his literal son in addition to all mankind. But, just as in The Matrix, G-d is independent of his creation, including time. So, Satan could never win because had Jesus failed (as previous Neos had failed), G-d gets infinite do overs.
I’m working on a version of the endowment based on The Matrix. It’s a great mythological construct that already includes HM in the G-dhead.
Steve, I agree that it seems silly to think that Jesus had to experience the atonement to understand our pains. There should be many other ways a being so powerful could accomplish that understanding. And yet that concept is bedrock doctrine, stated in more than one scripture, and repeated frequently by the prophets.
I tend to believe that the Atonement enabled Christ to comprehend our sufferings. Most people take this just as his being mortal and suffering. I tend to think that it was more than this, with a focus on Gethsemene.
From Alma 7 we read:
There are things that cannot be learned by the Spirit, even though he “knoweth all things”. It boils down to empericism – emperical vs. factual knowledge.
While I tend to think that the atonement was necessary, not only for our judgement, but for Christ’s assumption of the role of Father, many see the fact that Christ is our judge as opening the oportunity for universal Fatherhood.
Some seem to think that Jesus suffered all combinations and permutations of pain, sickness, etc. I don’t think that such is necessary. I see no reason to think that Jesus knows exactly how childbirth feels. He was beaten, scourged, and crucified–a healthy dose of pain. He suffered more than any mortal person could suffer. That it wasn’t in exactly the same place in the body, or didn’t feel exactly the same is irrelevant, in my opinion.
JKS says:
“The Father is at a much higher level of progression that Jesus so what he needs in order to understand us is not necessarily what Jesus needs in order to understand us.”
This is a false doctrine that refuses, with much consternation to the Prophet and Apostles, I’m sure, to go away. I believe Elder McConkie gave a prominent talk refuting this idea, but we don’t even need Elder McConkie to spell it out for us. It just doesn’t make sense.
If there are levels of more and less progression within Godhood, then that implies that lesser-progressed Gods have finite wisdom/knowledge/power, and this contradicts the very nature of God, which is infinite. It also requires that Godhood is subject to temporal constraints of time and space, i.e. the Father embarked on the only path of progression before the Son, and so possesses superior wisdom/knowledge/power. However, Elder Maxwell used to say – non-doctrinally – that God exists outside of time, and this is what allows Him to be omniscient and omnipresent.
And though it is often so easy to use cinematic contructs as metaphors for the Gospel, the Priesthood, and Eternity, Godhood simply transcends the Force.
God is not a Jedi Knight, and mortality is not a Matrix.
(And yes, Revenge of the Sith ROCKS. I plan on seeing it many, many times).
The tone of this thread seems to suggest that it was necessary for Christ to comprehend all of mortality’s sorrows and pains, IN ORDER to bring about the Atonement. However, I suspect that this is a subtle twist of the Truth. I think it is likely that Christ could have successfully redeemed all mankind by virtue of His perfection while in the flesh. Suffering our *punishment* as also part of His propitiation for our sins, and a necessary part of our redemption.
The “bonus” of further understanding our trials and sorrows allows Him to play a more personal role in each individual’s life. As the scripture in Alma says, it enables Him to both feel greater compassion for us, and to know how to better succor us.
I don’t know about the second reason, since an omniscient being surely would not struggle with knowing how to succor, and I utterly can not understand the first. If it were me who bore the burden of sin for even one other person, my tendency would be to say “suck it up, you wimp! I was able to hack it, so why can’t you!”
I suppose this is yet another testament to His greatness – that rather than indignation or exasperation, He is filled with compassion and mercy.
On the flip side, it allows us mortals to be better able to trust Him. Knowing that He conquered my trials gives me greater hope that – with His help – I can conquer them as well.
Ultimately, my sense is that the redemption part of the Atonement did not depend upon His feeling my frustration and road rage during my afternoon commute. He accomplished this without taking that further step. But, having successfully redeemed us all, He went further and won the bonus prize, as well – the blessing of which is that individuals can have greater faith and trust in Him.
Christ also said he has done nothing, save what he has seen the Father do. (Can’t find the scripture reference.) So the Father must have also been involved in an Atonement.
Jared,
The Book of Mormon is fairly explicit that Christ assumed everyone’s pains. There’s the Alma quote above and there is this from 2nd Nephi 9
I think the reality of Christ taking on all sorts of pain is partly why He can be held up as the example for all, even if He is a he.
John C.,
I’m not trying to set up limitations on the atonement. What I object to is the implicit idea that in accomplishing the atonement, Christ lived a billion lives suffering every possible cause of pain in every flavor–physically, emotionally, and spiritually. I just don’t think such a thing is needed–I don’t think it diminishes the atonement at all. It is sufficient for me to know that he personally experienced the same types of problems and pain that I experience, both in his mortal life, and some extra ones vicariously (I’ll backtrack on childbirth. Given its prominent role in life, I think he probably did feel it.), and that they were more than I would be able to take.
Janey – While Joseph Smith referred to it (John 5:19) a couple of times before it, his most famous refference and the discourse from which we tend to gather the most insight is the King Follet sermon.
I say this topic is irrelevant to anything.
I’m with Janey on this one. The Father comprehends these things, since according to Joseph Smith He Himself was a Savior.
In not-quite-as-specific-as-I’d-like support of Alma and John C., let me add Hebrews 2:17-18 and 4:15.
“17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested (tempted) by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested (tempted)…. (4:15) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested (tempted) as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
annegb,
“I say this topic is irrelevant to anything”. Au contraire.
D&C93:19 might help you understand the importance of the topic, as well as “And this is life eternal…”.
Mosiah15:1-12 might help in understanding this principle. Personal opinions aside, there was not one part of the atonement that was not required nor one part that was superfluous. All was needed and all was done.
Now all we have to do is acknowledge it and obey.
As to the earlier comment about the Saviour having the possibility of failing… NOT EVEN IN THE EQUATION!!!
At some point we have to get real about the nature of Godhood. If failure was a possibility, then “hope” is an illusion because failure can occur at any step in our progression, since (according to that thinking) God is not all knowing. If He is not omniscient, then what else about Him is an illusion?
Larry,
In rebutting me (and I’m not saying I’m right, as per the first sentence in my comment above), haven’t you just taken away Jesus’ free agency not to complete his mission? Why is G-d pained by earthly events if there is no drama to our existence? When we feel the rejoicing in heaven when we repent and come to Jesus, why is there rejoicing if there is no drama to it all? Also your approach seems to restricts G-d to His space-time creation and our own universe, as most or perhaps all conventional descriptions of G-d do. In effect, McConkieite attempts at thought control to put certain aspects of human imagination of deity off limits is an artificial limitation on G-d Himself.
Jim, I don’t see the false doctrine you warn us of.
We know that the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate beings to the Father.
We know that their power is contingent upon His.
Christ had no perfected body until after His resurrection; the Holy Ghost still doesn’t have one.
I see no heresy in assuming — and even treating as reasonable — the idea that the Father is greater in progression, in glory and authority and majesty, than either the Son or the Holy Ghost. In fact, I would see the OPPOSITE view closer to a heresy: The official trinitarian views which concentrate on equalizing and co-empowering the three beings at the expense of the clear understanding from scripture of a hierarchy among them.
When are we going to add HM to the G-dhead and temple instruction?
Steve,
If one is taking a purely mortal perspective on all this then you might have an argument.
Given that it is an eternal plan, then an eternal perspective has to be taken, in my opinion.
The agency that the Saviour exercised to allow Him to be worthy to perform the atonement occurred while you and I were exercising our agency, in less obedient fashion, in the premortal world. He came here as the Son of God, with personal contact with His Father.
The pain the Father suffered was in watching what His Son had to endure to fulfill the atonement, not in wondering whether or not He would succeed.
The suffering the Saviour endured required that quality of Godhood that the Father gave Him. It never crossed His mind to fail or that failure was an option.
When the plan was presented in the Council in Heaven, it was not a “let’s hope this works” approach. When it was shown to ancient prophets, it was not “if He proves faithful”. It was and is a forgone conclusion that the atonement would occur as described, with no “ands”, “ifs”, or “buts” about it. Otherwise, “hope” is just a wishy-washy thinking, not the defininitive knowledge that we have that His promises are real and will be realized.
To have been less than this would have nullified creation. (see 2Ne:1-13, also 2Ne.11:7)
The play was written before we came here and the end was known. That is how the Lord was able to show Enoch and Moses the world (people) from beginning to the end and issue prophecies that come to pass.
If you missed the pre-earth existence (which you didn’t)you missed the drama. It is not so much about the drama here. This is only the second act, for all of us.