I've been chewing on this bone for a while, but I don't think I've said anything on this topic on my blog yet recently, so I will just explain:::
The Mormons are constantly or often talking about or mentioning Jesus Christ's supreme sacrifice -- The ATONEMENT, or HIS Atonement for our sin.
So, according to my dictionary, this means that Jesus Christ repaid for our wrongs, that Jesus Christ made restitution for the wrong-doings of the world.
But in my experience, the Mormon church doesn't understand this concept.
I confessed to my bishop of masturbating and looking at porn. I did not find instant forgiveness or loving embrace --- I was punished for my sin.
So ----- What the **** was Jesus Christ's atonement for if it didn't get me off the hook for my sin?
Jesus Christ atoned so I could suffer the penalty for myself as well - is that right?
Sometimes, when I examine Mormonism, though I forget the exact doctrine they explain I understand what they think to mean::::: Jesus died so that you'd never do that in the first place, or he died so you'd never do it again.
The problem with this is, however, that nothing about Jesus Christ's sacrifice ever stopped you from committing the sin, and regardless of if it's an addictive sin or not nothing about Jesus' atonement will stop you from committing that sin ever again --- you are expected to not sin under your own power, which means saying "Jesus' atonement was to end sin" seems like a pretty stupid statement.
Anyway, yeah, Jesus atoned for us in that he paid the reparation, Jesus made the restitution for our wrongdoing.
Yet somehow the bishop seems to think that when I come into his office to confess sin that it's OK to punish me for what I did. If the bishop represents God, this doesn't make sense because Jesus' already took the hit for me and God and I were to be reconciled rather than facing an angry God. If the bishop represents the church then it still makes no sense because in D&C 64 we are to forgive all men.
Joseph Smith clearly explained that we are to cease to find fault and to forgive all men. I can pretty much mostly agree with that actually.
But in practice, in my experience, LDS people are always trying to find the flaws in people, always criticizing, and don't simply just forgive things.
Basically, the church lauds Jesus' atonement but doesn't really understand it or implement it into their practises.
The church lauds Joseph Smith's teachings of not finding fault and forgiving, but they often end up doing the exact opposite of what Joseph Smith said.
So yeah, the LDS church says one thing and then, often, just does another.
When I went in to the bishops office, under my understanding of LDS doctrine I was expecting to be swiftly and frankly forgiven.
Nope --- I just learned that the atonement actually had no power to repay for my little and essentially meaningless sin, I had to "repay" on my own.
Doesn't make any bloody sense, but that's how it was.
OH --- and what's really interesting, I had accepted Jesus sacrifice, and if I had to repay Jesus for suffering on my behalf then I had already offered to serve him all my life to appease Him ------
And though I offered to repay Jesus by serving him all my life---- the church rejected me.
It was strange ---- the church didn't accept that Jesus atonement repaid for my sin, nor did they accept that I was gonna work for Jesus to "thank" (or repay) Him for what he did for me.
The church was just completely senseless.
There are other things I could discuss about the situation I faced back in those days, but I'm not sure I want to make a blog post that long to explain.
I'll just say it's strange, or even fraudulent, how the Bishop told me to FORGIVE the Liability's yet he also told me not to talk to them anymore.
This is in direct CONTRADICTION to was LDS prophet Spencer W Kimball taught about forgiveness.
The Bishop set me up for disaster --- to forgive but then not actually forgive is seriously condemned, and this is what the bishop ordered me to do.
Anyway, yeah, I don't believe in Mormonism anymore.