A question about Oaks talk - who suffers?

[I Have Questions]

In a well known doctrine of the Church we’re taught…

The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross. It is impossible for us to fully understand how He suffered for all of our sins.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

But in his October 2023 Conference talk Oaks stated…

The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will ultimately inherit one of three kingdoms of glory, even the least of which “surpasses all understanding.”2 After a period in which the disobedient suffer for their sins, which suffering prepares them for what is to follow, all will be resurrected and proceed to the Final Judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

What was the point of the Atonement if we end up suffering for our sins regardless of it?

[Philo Sofee]

In a well known doctrine of the Church we’re taught…

The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross. It is impossible for us to fully understand how He suffered for all of our sins.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

But in his October 2023 Conference talk Oaks stated…

The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will ultimately inherit one of three kingdoms of glory, even the least of which “surpasses all understanding.”2 After a period in which the disobedient suffer for their sins, which suffering prepares them for what is to follow, all will be resurrected and proceed to the Final Judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

What was the point of the Atonement if we end up suffering for our sins regardless of it?

A good point. I would also add that the teaching of an infinite atonement is so misunderstood within the church as Oaks demonstrates it's hilarious. INFINITE covers all contingencies - ALL defects - ALL mistakes - ALL sins - ALL of everything both imaginable and unimaginable, it is why the infinite atonement taught by the supposed most correct book on the earth undercuts everything Oaks said here, and his pea brain is oblivious to the issue. It is humorous. He is right about one thing, it surpasses the understanding, as obvious from his so limited and limiting view. ALL the kingdoms shall be emptied and ONLY the upper of the total upper crust of Celestial glory will be had by absolutely every single person ever born, because of the infinite atonement. It is not the atonement that limits, but the church leaders as humans who do so because it elevates them, it makes them oh so much more special, oh so much more 2nd anointed and greater, grander, more exalted, more wonderful, more rich, more blessed!!!!
And yet, the infinite atonement levels the playing field and gives ALL GLORY, ALL kingdoms, ALL greatness, ALL power, ALL joy, and ETERNAL FAMILIES to ALL. And that so far surpasses their own meager intellect they will never teach that implication. The brethren are, as usual, entirely asleep at the wheel.

[tagriffy]

In context, Oaks seems to be speaking of those who end up in the telestial kingdom. Later in the talk, he says:

The revealing description of those assigned to the lowest of the kingdoms of glory, the telestial, is “he who cannot abide … a terrestrial glory.”20 That describes those who reject the Savior and have observed no divine limits on their behavior. This is the kingdom where the wicked abide, after they have suffered for their sins. These are described in modern revelation as “they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. …

Since he is talking about those who rejected the Gospel, the Atonement doesn't apply. Though Oaks doesn't specifically cite it, the reference to suffering before entering the telestial kingdom appears to be invoking D&C 19:16-17:

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent:

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I.

[I Have Questions]

I’d like to see Oaks explain to the Pope that Christ’s’ Atonement doesn’t apply to him because he isn’t a Mormon…

[tagriffy]

I would imagine Oaks thinks the Pope at worst ends up in the terrestial kingdom, which means the Atonement does apply to him.

[Moksha]

What was the point of the Atonement if we end up suffering for our sins regardless of it?

It establishes the Mormon Brethren as the ones who can eliminate Humanities suffering if they will but pay and obey.

[huckelberry]

What was the point of the Atonement if we end up suffering for our sins regardless of it?

I thought , well I got the idea from Paul and Jesus, that it is a foundation for a renewed life which destroys the evil in ourselves and grows the life with love inside us. We experience some suffering as a part of that process.

[toon]

I'm curious what, In Oaks' mind, this suffering consists of.

On the off chance that Mormonism is "true," then I'm headed for the telestial kingdom. And according to the Gospel of Oaks, I will need to suffer for my sins, at least for a period of time. What will this suffering be? Fire and brimstone? Catholics seem to have some idea, or at least Dante did. South Park taught me that I might end up getting raped by Saddam Hussein. But what is the real cost? I'd like to know, especially since it appears to be temporary. I mean some temporary cost may be well worth being able to hand out for all eternity with the cool people, as opposed to the self-righteous pricks like Oaks in the celestial kingdom.

[I Have Questions]

I'm curious what, In Oaks' mind, this suffering consists of.

On the off chance that Mormonism is "true," then I'm headed for the telestial kingdom. And according to the Gospel of Oaks, I will need to suffer for my sins, at least for a period of time. What will this suffering be? Fire and brimstone? Catholics seem to have some idea, or at least Dante did. South Park taught me that I might end up getting raped by Saddam Hussein. But what is the real cost? I'd like to know, especially since it appears to be temporary. I mean some temporary cost may be well worth being able to hand out for all eternity with the cool people, as opposed to the self-righteous pricks like Oaks in the celestial kingdom.

Here’s the beauty of what Oaks said - in the afterlife it’s eternal. So “time” is an irrelevance. Suggesting people will suffer for a time, shows Oaks either doesn’t understand how eternity works, or doesn’t believe in it.

[I Have Questions]

What was the point of the Atonement if we end up suffering for our sins regardless of it?

I thought , well I got the idea from Paul and Jesus, that it is a foundation for a renewed life which destroys the evil in ourselves and grows the life with love inside us. We experience some suffering as a part of that process.

It’s interesting. The Antonement is put forward (in Mormonism) as Christ suffering for all the sins of the world. What’s the point of Christ suffering and the individual suffering? In that scenario Christ has suffered unnecessarily.