LDS Some questions regarding Mormon views on Atonement

[Jane_Doe]

If the Father is having a son tortured to teach the rest a lesson or for some metaphysical end, this is my conclusion. It seemed as if arbitrarily choosing one of his many sons to torture, instead of taking the burden upon himself, this becomes an act of dominion instead of love. Further why it would be necessary to sacrifice the son in this manner makes little sense then as well.
But from what others have said here of Mormon belief, it is a bit more nuanced than this, although I am still perplexed on how Atonement is seen to function.

With all do respect, your conclusions are very off base.

Christ alone could be the Savior, He volunteered for this before duty before being born on this Earth. It was not arbitrary, it was not out of some narcissistic urge, but for a Father's deep Godly love for all His children. The reason there must be a sacrifice is the same as every other Christian group: a perfect unblemished sacrifice must be made for the redemption of all the sins of the world.

 

[Jane_Doe]

This seems to imply it could have been any son of the Father, which conflicts with @withwonderingawe 's contention that Jesus was special and almost like the Father. Especially seeing that Jesus was only anointed God after being chosen for the Atonement according to my understanding of what has been written in this thread.

Wonderingawe's description is correct. Phoebe's is not.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

So it seems you hold to a form of Satisfaction Atonement like held by Anselm? That to maintain justice there must be retribution?
The difference is that in the standard Christian conception it would be God maintaining His Justice upon himself, while here it would be a form of communal punishment. Or alternately as Jesus is God of the earth, is he atoning to himself? Is Atonement then not to the Father at all?

I realise that you haven't finished answering yet though and often when you have less than the whole, a lot is missed.

I'm not sure how you see these as being different: a sacrifice must be made to satisfy justice. The Law is Christ's and the Father's for the are both Perfect and 100% divine.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

So it seems you hold to a form of Satisfaction Atonement like held by Anselm? That to maintain justice there must be retribution?
The difference is that in the standard Christian conception it would be God maintaining His Justice upon himself, while here it would be a form of communal punishment. Or alternately as Jesus is God of the earth, is he atoning to himself? Is Atonement then not to the Father at all?

I realise that you haven't finished answering yet though and often when you have less than the whole, a lot is missed.

I suppose to a point we do have a satisfaction atonement based on fulfilling the laws of Justice and Mercy but it's not some form of torture payment but one of sorrow for sin. In Alma 36 he describes his experience of suffering the pains of a damned soul. An angel appears to him and calls him to repentance, he is so overcome that he falls to the ground;

11 I was struck with such great fear and amazement lest perhaps I should be destroyed, that I fell to the earth and I did hear no more.
12 But I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.
13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.
14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.
15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.
16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

That is hell, it will be a great remembering of all the pain we caused others and we will wish we could just not exists at all, Alma goes on;

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.
18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.
20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!
21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy.

Our finite minds can not understand the Messiah's infinite atonement but somehow in those three hours Jesus took upon himself all of that bitterness, his soul was racked for ours. He felt the weight of our sorrow.

 

[withwonderingawe]

This seems to imply it could have been any son of the Father, which conflicts with @withwonderingawe 's contention that Jesus was special and almost like the Father. Especially seeing that Jesus was only anointed God after being chosen for the Atonement according to my understanding of what has been written in this thread.

what I said was

Yahweh was and is eternally righteous and so has always been qualified to be God and control the powers of God.

There was at some point before the creation of the physical earth a formal ordination.

“9 ….therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Since the Bible indicates this anointing took place I have to assume it was before Yahweh created this physical world.

 

[withwonderingawe]

2, Further related to the above point, does not ideas like Blood Atonement for certain sins that are too great for Jesus' Atonement point in this very direction? That more blood seems to be necessary for greater sins (at least in a perfect Theocracy according to what I have read on the subject according to LDS scholars)? Does this not significantly detract from the Atonement of Christ, leaving it but a deposit of propitiation which may someday run out?…..I can clearly see how Mormonism could justify Human Sacrifice and on reading about the Mountain Meadows massacre and the Blood Atonement, it seems the theology was heading in this direction.


I think you are referring to what Brigham Young called a ‘blood atonement’ or that some sins will not be covered and a man would have to die or be punished for his own sins, that only applies to a very specific sin and one has to work really hard to qualify.

Matt 12
31 ¶Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Heb 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Heb 10
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

To sin against the Holy Ghost one must be a baptized and endowed member of the Lord’s church “tasted of the heavenly gift”. Plus one must have had a powerful witness of the Holy Spirit, a vision or some kind of situation where they are no long walking by faith but by sight. Then they must commit the worst sin of murder. If you take a life you can not repent of it by restoring that life,

“1 John 3:15
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Some of the Mormon men who participated in the Mountain Meadow Massacre might qualified for this. I’m not their judge so I don’t know what was in their hearts. Some of the men were lied to about the situation yet other had a desire to spill blood and tried to justify what they had done. It’s in the Lord’s hands now so he’ll do the judging.

 

[Rescued One]

If the Father is having a son tortured to teach the rest a lesson or for some metaphysical end, this is my conclusion. It seemed as if arbitrarily choosing one of his many sons to torture, instead of taking the burden upon himself, this becomes an act of dominion instead of love. Further why it would be necessary to sacrifice the son in this manner makes little sense then as well.
But from what others have said here of Mormon belief, it is a bit more nuanced than this, although I am still perplexed on how Atonement is seen to function.

Oh, now I understand what you were saying! Thank you!

 

[Rescued One]

Where is the LDS scripture that says this: "Yahweh was and is eternally righteous and so has always been qualified to be God and control the powers of God," and when did LDS start calling Jesus Yaweh? According to Mormonism everyone existed eternally as intelligence, so if intelligences are unequal, who made them that way?

 

[Rescued One]

2, Further related to the above point, does not ideas like Blood Atonement for certain sins that are too great for Jesus' Atonement point in this very direction? That more blood seems to be necessary for greater sins (at least in a perfect Theocracy according to what I have read on the subject according to LDS scholars)? Does this not significantly detract from the Atonement of Christ, leaving it but a deposit of propitiation which may someday run out?…..I can clearly see how Mormonism could justify Human Sacrifice and on reading about the Mountain Meadows massacre and the Blood Atonement, it seems the theology was heading in this direction.


I think you are referring to what Brigham Young called a ‘blood atonement’ or that some sins will not be covered and a man would have to die or be punished for his own sins, that only applies to a very specific sin and one has to work really hard to qualify.

Matt 12
31 ¶Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Heb 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Heb 10
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

To sin against the Holy Ghost one must be a baptized and endowed member of the Lord’s church “tasted of the heavenly gift”. Plus one must have had a powerful witness of the Holy Spirit, a vision or some kind of situation where they are no long walking by faith but by sight. Then they must commit the worst sin of murder. If you take a life you can not repent of it by restoring that life,

“1 John 3:15
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Some of the Mormon men who participated in the Mountain Meadow Massacre might qualified for this. I’m not their judge so I don’t know what was in their hearts. Some of the men were lied to about the situation yet other had a desire to spill blood and tried to justify what they had done. It’s in the Lord’s hands now so he’ll do the judging.

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost couldn't require blood atonement. First of all, no human can make that judgment of another human. Second, blood atonement can't atone for an unforgivable sin.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Where is the LDS scripture that says this: "Yahweh was and is eternally righteous and so has always been qualified to be God and control the powers of God," and when did LDS start calling Jesus Yaweh? According to Mormonism everyone existed eternally as intelligence, so if intelligences are unequal, who made them that way?

You didn't read my second posting did you?

Why it comes from our Bible, perhaps Hebrews 1 isn't in your Bible??
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Yahweh/Jesus has always been righteous thus God the Father calls him God and anoints him with the Oil of Gladness.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
John 3: 35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He didn't always have 'all power' but had it given to him, then he created the physical world under the direction of the Father.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost couldn't require blood atonement. First of all, no human can make that judgment of another human. Second, blood atonement can't atone for an unforgivable sin.

You are right, the grace of the atonement does not cover this sin.
Heb 6
"If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

What does that mean? How can we crucify Jesus again?

Well he said; "..... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt 25

In Mormon doctrine if the person admits guilt and pays for his own sin by submitting to an act of capital punishment his soul will not be left in hell/ outer darkness. He may crawl his way into the Telestial Kingdom. But again, this only applies to a Mormon who has "tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost".

 

[Rescued One]

You are right, the grace of the atonement does not cover this sin.
Heb 6
"If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

What does that mean? How can we crucify Jesus again?

Well he said; "..... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt 25

In Mormon doctrine if the person admits guilt and pays for his own sin by submitting to an act of capital punishment his soul will not be left in hell/ outer darkness. He may crawl his way into the Telestial Kingdom. But again, this only applies to a Mormon who has "tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost".

There is no forgiveness. No reward of a Telestial Kingdom even in Mormonism.

The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven.

• Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men:Matt. 12:31–32; ( Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10; )
• It is impossible for those who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost to renew them again unto repentance:Heb. 6:4–6;
• If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins:Heb. 10:26;
• If ye deny the Holy Ghost and know that ye deny it, this is a sin which is unpardonable:Alma 39:5–6; ( Jacob 7:19; )
• They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves:D&C 76:30–35;
• The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, which is shedding innocent blood after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant:D&C 132:26–27;
• 
  
• https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/unpardonable-sin

The sin against the Holy Ghost, in Mormon belief, is the only sin that will keep a person out of heaven. People who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost are doomed to "Outer Darkness," or hell, for eternity after their resurrection. Mormons believe in the principle of eternal progression, and those who commit this sin are stopped in their progression. Cain was the first person to commit this sin, and he is a son of perdition, condemned to Outer Darkness.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Sin_Against_the_Holy_Ghost

 

[withwonderingawe]

There is no forgiveness. No reward of a Telestial Kingdom even in Mormonism.

The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven.

• Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men:Matt. 12:31–32; ( Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10; )
• It is impossible for those who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost to renew them again unto repentance:Heb. 6:4–6;
• If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins:Heb. 10:26;
• If ye deny the Holy Ghost and know that ye deny it, this is a sin which is unpardonable:Alma 39:5–6; ( Jacob 7:19; )
• They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves:D&C 76:30–35;
• The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, which is shedding innocent blood after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant:D&C 132:26–27;
• 
  
• https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/unpardonable-sin

The sin against the Holy Ghost, in Mormon belief, is the only sin that will keep a person out of heaven. People who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost are doomed to "Outer Darkness," or hell, for eternity after their resurrection. Mormons believe in the principle of eternal progression, and those who commit this sin are stopped in their progression. Cain was the first person to commit this sin, and he is a son of perdition, condemned to Outer Darkness.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Sin_Against_the_Holy_Ghost

Cain did not submit to a capital death, he didn't offer to give up his own life. It was all me, me, me. David on the other hand felt true remorse for what he had done, his soul will not be left in hell.

Part of it has to do with how much the person knew to be true and how much they walked by faith.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

2, Further related to the above point, does not ideas like Blood Atonement for certain sins that are too great for Jesus' Atonement point in this very direction? That more blood seems to be necessary for greater sins (at least in a perfect Theocracy according to what I have read on the subject according to LDS scholars)? Does this not significantly detract from the Atonement of Christ, leaving it but a deposit of propitiation which may someday run out?…..I can clearly see how Mormonism could justify Human Sacrifice and on reading about the Mountain Meadows massacre and the Blood Atonement, it seems the theology was heading in this direction.


I think you are referring to what Brigham Young called a ‘blood atonement’ or that some sins will not be covered and a man would have to die or be punished for his own sins, that only applies to a very specific sin and one has to work really hard to qualify.

Matt 12
31 ¶Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Heb 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Heb 10
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

To sin against the Holy Ghost one must be a baptized and endowed member of the Lord’s church “tasted of the heavenly gift”. Plus one must have had a powerful witness of the Holy Spirit, a vision or some kind of situation where they are no long walking by faith but by sight. Then they must commit the worst sin of murder. If you take a life you can not repent of it by restoring that life,

“1 John 3:15
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Some of the Mormon men who participated in the Mountain Meadow Massacre might qualified for this. I’m not their judge so I don’t know what was in their hearts. Some of the men were lied to about the situation yet other had a desire to spill blood and tried to justify what they had done. It’s in the Lord’s hands now so he’ll do the judging.

The fact that a concept like Blood Atonement exists, implies that the Atonement might not be sufficient for all. If certain sins are beyond its redemptive power, it implies a limited Atonement.
This means that at some point the Atonement might need to be repeated seeing that individuals need to do mini-atonements for their own sins. It also takes away from the finality of Jesus' act. It speaks to a universal applicability of the subject of Atonement, thay anyone could have been the sacrifice if sufficiently righteous. Why then can multiple sacrifices not store up sufficient sorrow? One could argue that a mass human sacrifice of fairly righteous could then equate to the Atonement.

This seems to be the big problem in my mind with a non-trinitarian atonement doctrine.

If we consider Jesus as the God of this world who atones to himself, this clears it up a bit. However this begs the question of relation to the Father and if such atonement atones the individual to the Father also. Why incite creation for the other Intellegences who then merely atone within its framework? How does this relate to their progression with the Father? Especially in light of a Satisfaction-style atonement, how is the Father then different from a tyrant demanding sorrow for a perceived wrong? He is after all separate from the whole process then.

Where do the intellegences come from then? If multiple pre-existent souls existed, were they always there? If from the Father and mother, where did they come from? Does this not need a Summus Dei or higher God idea?

I am still very confused on this mormon theology. Whenever I google it, I mostly get articles on Blood Atonement which just muddies the water.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Cain did not submit to a capital death, he didn't offer to give up his own life. It was all me, me, me. David on the other hand felt true remorse for what he had done, his soul will not be left in hell.

Part of it has to do with how much the person knew to be true and how much they walked by faith.

This again implies that individual Sacrifices could be made. Does this not run the risk of Suicides for Atonement by well-meaning people scared by the weight of their sins?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

With all do respect, your conclusions are very off base.

Christ alone could be the Savior, He volunteered for this before duty before being born on this Earth. It was not arbitrary, it was not out of some narcissistic urge, but for a Father's deep Godly love for all His children. The reason there must be a sacrifice is the same as every other Christian group: a perfect unblemished sacrifice must be made for the redemption of all the sins of the world.

The difference is that Jesus would be sacrificed at the will of another, even if both were gods or at the will of a Law. In Trinitarianism, God is sacrificed Himself for His creation. God acts to maintain His own Justice.

Is the Law above God himself? Of course not. Therefore, why is the Father insisting on this act by a subordinate deity not strange to you? He does maintain the Law then, but it becomes a requirement upon another, he becomes an executioner instead of the executed. Even if the victim was willing, the very fact that a victim is required is thrown into question.

Unless the Law is above the Father also, but from whence does it come then? Who made the Law or is it implied?

It is significantly different from standard Christian conceptions. I don't mean to offend, but I still don't understand how the Metaphysics could work in this manner.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not sure how you see these as being different: a sacrifice must be made to satisfy justice. The Law is Christ's and the Father's for the are both Perfect and 100% divine.

In Satisfaction theology, a sacrifice is required to leave Justice intact, but this is done by the wronged party itself. Instead of merely forgiving and thereby leaving the injustice, punishment is exacted, but as God himself does this, it shows consequences and eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth without it being carried by another. It therefore is forgiveness with justice. God forgives the crime but exacts vengeance for it without the guilty suffering or anyone else.

If the Father and Jesus are separate, it merely becomes the exaction of Justice on a proxy instead of a supreme act of forgiveness. The wronged party must also be the one to be punished for it - for forgiveness to occur and not vengeance only.

So the mormon view would be the Father exacting vengeance upon Jesus and Jesus lovingly sacrificing himself to maintain divine Law, but nowhere does Forgiveness enter the process, merely Retribution.
Please help me to clarify if what I have said is correct or not.

 

[withwonderingawe]

This again implies that individual Sacrifices could be made. Does this not run the risk of Suicides for Atonement by well-meaning people scared by the weight of their sins?

No our Father in Heaven knows each of us and what is in our hearts. What in the world is "outer darkness" for if not for some who do not repent. We're talking about a soul who like the devil knows God but spits in his eye. God would love to offer him mercy but he refuses it.

Our miss understanding each other might lie in that you see heaven and hell while we see outer darkness and three kingdoms of glory. Only in the Celestial Kingdom does one receive "eternal life" or life as the Eternal God lives it.

If the murderer will submit to capital punishment then he is showing God he has real remorse for his sin and so he is saved out of "outer darkness' mercy has been applied but he has no eternal life in him so he is not allowed back into the presence of the Father.

Committing suicide is not submitting to capital punishment.

 

[withwonderingawe]

In Satisfaction theology, a sacrifice is required to leave Justice intact, but this is done by the wronged party itself. Instead of merely forgiving and thereby leaving the injustice, punishment is exacted, but as God himself does this, it shows consequences and eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth without it being carried by another. It therefore is forgiveness with justice. God forgives the crime but exacts vengeance for it without the guilty suffering or anyone else.

If the Father and Jesus are separate, it merely becomes the exaction of Justice on a proxy instead of a supreme act of forgiveness. The wronged party must also be the one to be punished for it - for forgiveness to occur and not vengeance only.

So the mormon view would be the Father exacting vengeance upon Jesus and Jesus lovingly sacrificing himself to maintain divine Law, but nowhere does Forgiveness enter the process, merely Retribution.
Please help me to clarify if what I have said is correct or not.

You have an odd way of looking at it, "vengeance" is not a Mormon word, not one I would have chosen to describe the atonement. I did a word search of the Book of Mormon and found the word vengeance is used 13 times and never in the sense of atonement but in the sense of an earthly calamity.

Perhaps you could explain how you think the atonement works and what the following verses mean to you.

Heb 5
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

The word perfect means to be complete and thoroughly finished. In Luke 13 Jesus says "and the third day I shall be perfected" he was talking about his own resurrection.

Acts 5;
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Because of the sacrifice Jesus offered for us God the Father raised him up to have a glorified resurrected, exalted and perfect body. If he had not done this he himself could not have attained this completion.

In John 17 there is a little line "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them" Those who prove faithful and return to the Father's presence though the mercy Jesus offers bring glory to Jesus who then glorifies the Father.

He did it out of love for us first but the by product was his own exaltation and glorification.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The difference is that Jesus would be sacrificed at the will of another, even if both were gods or at the will of a Law. In Trinitarianism, God is sacrificed Himself for His creation. God acts to maintain His own Justice.

Mormons believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son (John 3:16). This is not a cop out. As a parent, I would testify that it is MUCH harder to give your child than yourself (and my love is not nearly as vast as the Father's).

And Christ is 100% divine God as well. He's just not the Father.

Therefore, why is the Father insisting on this act by a subordinate deity not strange to you?

Christ is only subordinate to the Father in that He acknowledges the Father for guidance (Luke 22:42), not due to less power.

He does maintain the Law then, but it becomes a requirement upon another, he becomes an executioner instead of the executed. Even if the victim was willing, the very fact that a victim is required is thrown into question.

You are very off base here...

Unless the Law is above the Father also, but from whence does it come then? Who made the Law or is it implied?

It is God's Law.

It is significantly different from standard Christian conceptions. I don't mean to offend, but I still don't understand how the Metaphysics could work in this manner.

You're not offensive (a nice change on this subforum), but seem to be confusing yourself. Who do you think Christ was praying to in Luke 22:42? (Maybe that will help us connect).