The verb "forgive" has two denotations. The first is to
cease feeling resentment when you are wronged. The second is to grant relief
from payment. When God talks of forgiving us, in which sense does he use the
word "forgive"? Let’s consider the second sense: to grant relief from
payment. They say that Jesus already paid the price of sin. If the price has
been paid, then there is nothing to forgive. For example, if a mysterious
benefactor paid the price of my mortgage, the mortgage company couldn’t
forgive me of the mortgage. After the price is paid, regardless of by whom,
there is nothing left to forgive. So clearly, being forgiven for sin isn’t
about being granted relief from payment.
On the other hand, the concept of God resenting us for sinning and
holding that resentment until we meet his demands isn’t very appealing
either.
I think I figured out the Mormons’ best answer to this paradox of
forgiveness. Perhaps you could say, Jesus didn’t really pay the price
of sin, but rather transferred the debt, like one bank buying my
mortgage from another. I still need to pay the mortgage, just to a different
person. So now we owe Jesus the price of sin rather than whomever we
otherwise would have owed it to. To whom would have we otherwise owed it? To
an impersonal, inflexible law that was decreed before the first God was
born—the law of Justice. Justice is incapable of forgiving us of
sin—the price must be paid—it cannot be forgiven. Jesus satisfied Justice by
paying the price of sin. We still owe the debt, we just owe it to Jesus
rather than to Justice. Unlike Justice, Jesus is capable of forgiving us of
our sins—of writing the debt off and taking the hit. But he is only willing
to do that if we jump through certain hoops.
That’s the best answer I can come up with. But it still leaves some
uncomfortable issues. Joseph Smith reported that Jesus told him,
Therefore I command you to repent--repent, lest I smite you by the
rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings
be sore--how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how
hard to bear you know not. 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; which suffering caused
myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and
to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit--and would
that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink. (D&C 19:15-18)
The first part of this that talks about Jesus smiting us with his wrath
and anger makes me wonder if God really does hold resentment against us for
our human follies, and that being forgiven is nothing other than getting God
to stop resenting us.
Be that as it may, the quote goes on to say that if we don’t repent we
must suffer, even as Jesus did. Now, Jesus being tortured somehow "paid" the
"price" of sin. For the record, that makes zero sense to me. I don’t see how
torture pays the price of anything. But perhaps that’s just my own limited
perspective, and torture really does pay the price of sin. Let’s say I don’t
repent of my apostate ways. Then I can look forward to some seriously
exquisite torture after I’m dead. By going through that, I will have paid
the price of my own sins. Then either one of two things will have happened.
Either my sins will have been paid for twice—once by Jesus and again by me
(would the law of Justice allow double payment like that?). Or, I will have
actually paid the price to Jesus, making his torture less by
suffering my share of it personally (Does not repenting and suffering for
our own sins marginally ease the pain that Jesus suffered?).
The image of a God being tortured in the name of love to "to pay the
price of sin" doesn’t make sense. It is a brilliant way to manipulate people
through guilt. But it doesn’t make sense.