The only problem with the tuition idea is that it means there is a figurative professor (who is not the Father or Son) who is demanding payment for resurrection lessons. I think the Father and Son already knew how to handle those teaching duties prior to 34 A.D., don’t you?

Perhaps God cannot cause us all to get new bodies. Christ as part divinity, could have had an exceptional learning curve, plus a perfect understanding of the power of the priesthood and was able to take up his own body – just as each of us, taught by Christ, will learn to take up our own bodies. He paid the price (tuition) to make it possible for us to learn, and have faith that we, human as he partially was, could do the same.

In other words, is there a moral reason that God created us, or did he do it just because he wanted to? If it was the latter, then we might say that all the commandments that God has given us are based not on a moral issue but simply on nothing more than His desire to produce trillions of us. In this case, good and evil are nothing more that what helps God to get the result he wants and what doesn’t. I don’t want to believe this, because it means there is nothing that is inherently good or evil. I want to believe in “Immutable Universals”, as Geoff put it. But I’m starting to think that it may be that good really is good simply because God says it is, not because there is an objective, moral reason, but simply because it helps God to accomplish his goals. I don’t like this idea. I want there to be truth, falsity, good, and evil that have nothing to do with what is convenient for spreading us across the universe.

I’ve always understood that we are co-eternal with God. Obviously we are at a different stage in our progression and God, being good, wants to help us along. He helped us transition from intelligences to spirits and then to bodies. His goals are simple and pure, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. His goals are based on eternal truths, formost is Charity/love/cooperation theory (whatever you want to call it). It is good to help others because they will help more others and one day may help you as well.

Its clear that in societies where competition and cooperation are healthy that the standard of living is higher than societies where competition dominates to the point of violence.

Moses 7:28-41 has a good description of what I believe is going on here, a depth of emotion not simply derived from the superiority of the Lord’s character, but further due to a metaphysical connection between us that is much deeper than marks on a judicial tally sheet.

I understand the Atonement to a degree, just as everyone else does and through my failures and successes I gain a greater understanding and as I do my faith grows (until the perfect day).

Blake – I read most of chapter seven in your book last night. I will post on your “Compassion Theory” of the atonement either tonight or tomorrow.

Mark – I really prefer the Atonement-as-ongoing-process model too. My problem is making sense of the climactic events in the Garden and on the cross.

I actually also lean toward that idea that the atonement “gradually rolls back the otherwise inevitable consequence of the second law, which is universal Death” but I haven’t yet put together a coherent theory/model that employs that idea.

J. – The idea that the atonement did something crucial for Christ would probably not find much resistance in the church on the surface. But unpacking the assumptions might start getting a bit dicey I think.

Dan – Thanks for the interesting facts. I look forward to reading your thoughts on justice, mercy, and agency. Those subjects are at the heart of the questions at hand.

a) I don’t think Mormon doctrine teaches god creates pseudo-copies of himself. According to Joseph we are all in some way uncreated and beginningless just like God is. Now as to our present form — that is a good question. I am of the opinion that worlds like this are part of the “One eternal round” pattern of God so he has always done these probations. (Of course I also suspect we have always been part of that process too..)

b) This question about Universals is a crucial assumption. Their acceptance (or not) makes a huge difference in the theories of atonement we can entertain I think.

c) I don’t think the resurrection as ordinance point really answers the question. If the Father has a resurrected body then why couldn’t do it himself? I can’t understand why Christ’s resurrection was necessary to get us all resurrected – at least I can’t see any direct connection between the two.

It is painful for Christ to enter into relationship with us because it is painful to be in relationship with us.

I don’t know why, but when I read that I started busting up laughing. And I’m at the library so that wasn’t such a good thing. I think it’s so funny because its so true.