More or less along Mjberkey’s and Rameumptom’s lines, I’d say that Benjamin’s “natural man” is a reference to our too-automatic refusal of the basic state of grace that has always already been given to us. We’ve been redeemed, but we hate that fact and rebel against it—that’s the natural man. Paul uses the same language and the same idea in his first letter to the Corinthians….

Would you think it better asked: “now that sin has been committed, what must be done to restore the relationship between man and God?”

They are related in the sense that “restorative justice” might restore a balance that has been upset by sin, but the balance of restorative justice is a balancing of relationships, not a balancing of crime against punishment. Restorative justice if more about the outcome than whether the punishment fits the crime. The question is not, what punishment fits this crime, the question is, now that sin has been committed, what must be done to restore fairness that sin has offended? This scriptural sense of justice is more consistent, incidentally, with the character of God, as well. If I, as imperfect as I am, am able to forgive someone without insisting that they suffer a punishment appropriate to his or her offense against me, I seriously doubt that God is not able to, and I have serious reservations with a concept of justice that makes God less able to forgive than I am.

This concept of justice also makes so much more sense in the “mercy cannot rob justice” conversation. If justice is nothing more or less than insisting on punishment for crime, then mercy (a willingness to forego punishment) will always rob justice unless it is ignored completely. The atonement does not fix it because inherent in the concept of retributive justice is that the punishment is inflicted on the guilty party.

For all others who accept even a minimal amount of the atonement, they are rescued from that second death. As Joe has noted, we are in sin because we refuse to embrace the atonement on God’s terms. We are spoiled rotten brats, who pout because we cannot have happiness in our own way. Yet that path leads us out of the light of Christ and Holy Spirit, the source of life, light, and real happiness. Only in coming to our senses and realizing that what God offers is actually better for us, are we ready to accept the atonement and grace. To the level we embrace the atonement may determine the level of glory we receive.

I find it interesting in studying ascensions, how some are brought close in to the presence of the Lord, while others see him at a distance. In Alma 36, the prophet talks of his conversion, and when he sees the Lord, it is not face to face, but from a distance he can see the God on his throne. He is rescued from death and hell, but perhaps is still a long way off from close proximity with God. Later, as Alma is actively living the gospel and preaching it to others, the angel who condemned him returns and tells him he is accepted. I would suppose, had he seen the Lord’s throne on that day, he would have been up close and personal.

(1) We begin in Eden, with a commandment and associated punishment: Don’t eat the fruit; in the day you do eat it, you’ll die. (This first detail is most helpfully outlined in the last part of Alma 12.)

(2) Adam and Eve do eat the fruit, but rather than immediately inflicting the punishment (death), God casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden and prolongs their days in order to provide a space of probation. (This is initially articulated in the middle of 2 Nephi 2, but it is also the focus of the last part of Alma 12.)

(3) The state of probation thus produced, however, isn’t terribly fair, because human beings, as mortal or death-bound, end up being carnal, sensual, and devilish. This seems to be because death, more than anything else, marks their individuality (no one can take my death from me). At any rate, the idea that the dawn of death in the world is what somehow produces sin is affirmed in the basic doctrine of the Fall. (This is articulated over and over again in the Book of Mormon, but it perhaps most profoundly set forth early in 2 Nephi 9.)

(4) In order to trump these circumstances, the plan of redemption includes the resurrection of Christ, which redeems the flesh by overcoming death. The would-be necessity of sin is thus canceled; the possibility of goodness emerges. (This is perhaps the most consistent claim in Book of Mormon theology of atonement. It’s best outlined, however, in 2 Nephi 2; 2 Nephi 9; and Alma 42.)

That’s the basic idea, and I’m hoping this helps.

At any rate, I don’t think there’s a strong sense in the Book of Mormon that sin leads to death. Rather, being-toward-death is what gives life to sin by orienting us to selfishness. The resurrection, by overcoming the death that most radically individualizes or particularizes us, opens up the possibility of being-toward-something-besides-death—that is, opens up the possibility of atonement. (I’ll note here, without enough detail to stage a defense, that there’s no strong distinction between resurrection and atonement in the Book of Mormon. There’s only the one event—the resurrection—and the atonement is effected in its entirety by that event.)

As we cycle through this pattern, we become Celestial through sanctification of the Holy Ghost. The HG causes a “mighty change of heart” (Mosiah 4:1-4, 5:-14) that has us no longer wanting to do evil, but good continually. To the level our hearts have changed, we will wish to do good: whether on the Telestial, Terrestrial or Celestial level.

While the Book of Mormon may not directly use the terms justification and sanctification, the teachings, IMO, are still there. When Alma believes and repents, he is cleansed from his sins and brought into the presence of God (Alma 36). We see this pattern with Enos, the people of Benjamin, the converted Lamanites, etc. Anti-Nephi-Lehi noted that his people were saved and freed from their sins (made sinless/justified) through the grace of Christ.

I believe Alma 13 (cf 9-13)speaks to justification and sanctification, as regarding the temple:

“Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God” (Alma 13:11-12).

We are washed clean through the blood of Christ, which is justification. We are purified or sanctified through the Holy Spirit (Alma 13:11-12).

First, I don’t think the Book of Mormon has a doctrine of justification. This is unmistakably a central term in Paul’s writings (one he draws from the Hebrew Bible), and it plays a major theological role in both the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (in the Book of Moses, anyway), but it doesn’t seem to have a soteriological emphasis in the Book of Mormon. I think that’s probably important to understanding the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of grace. There isn’t a re-righteous-ification for the Nephites, just an initial overturning of the rule of death….

I’m also rather nervous about the idea that “keeping commandments” determines “the level of salvation we receive.” I suspect it’s much more a question of how we go about the commandments than of which commandments we keep. The celestial kingdom, on my reading, is what comes to those who respond to grace in a certain way, the terrestrial kingdom to those who respond to grace in another way, and the telestial kingdom to those who respond to grace in still another way….

Where keeping commandments comes in isn’t in being saved, but in the level of salvation we receive. D&C 88 tells us that if we have a “portion” of the Celestial Kingdom in us, we will receive a fullness, and this is true for the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms, as well. For a person who has completely rejected the grace of Christ, there is no choice but to allow him to receive the second death – as there is nowhere else for him to go. Commandments cannot save us. They can only help us become more Christ-like, so we can receive a greater portion of grace in a kingdom of heaven. That is why the obedience comes after the covenant and ordinance.

In thinking about the final major point you quote from Robinson, I think it’s worth understanding how Robinson was effectively directing an old, familiar (mis)understanding of the atonement in precisely the right direction.

I think this is best understood in light of Robinson’s swimming parable (at least as it’s described here). As I see it, Robinson’s key (correct) insight is that grace is always on offer, regardless of our works, and this is important because learning to stop refusing grace can be a learned behavior, for various reasons (temptations of the flesh and the idea Aristotelian idea of habit perhaps illustrate this best, esp. because of the light modern science sheds on habits and addictions, even if some of the scientific conclusions are overzealous and misguided…).

So, if I’m not being clear: although I think the bicycle parable is of limited use, I think the swimming parable is much more useful and helpful. And seeing how both of these (ultimately conflicting) parables inflect Robinson’s thought, can help separate the wheat from the tares (or consistencies and inconsistencies) in his thought.