I am reminded of a quote by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (who is referenced in the OP): “Now, the atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.”

In this case, I see “broken” as a horse is broken, i.e. tamed. In our free will, we submit to the taming events of life, reach out to the Christ with contrite heart, and the Christ extends grace to us in response. Salvation then is the emergent self from that purifying or “refiner’s fire” of circumstance, reaching to God, and God’s responding grace.

With regards to free will I also think there are many things that often are more linguistic issues rather than really about content. But I also know many people are buying into Open Theism and I’ll confess I’m pretty skeptical of the arguments marshaled there.

Jerry one thing I’ve noticed with recent discussions on Grace, particularly Nephi’s “after all you can do,” is how infrequently people tie in with the type of Judaic practice they follow. While there is a certain anticipatory Christianity to the Book of Mormon there’s also an issue of whether people read it too much in terms of Protestant views of Romans. This Protestant Romans lens some use to reinterpret Mormonism can lead to a certain quietism that verges near cheap grace. (Not everyone agrees with me of course) Effectively the question is how comfortable does grace make us and how uncomfortable it must make us in order to transform us. In a sense both must be at work yet each can obviously have negative aspects.

For them, and presumably for us, Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” of the plan of salvation, a phrase actually used in Jarom 1:2. The atonement was the core of the plan, the bridge between the limits of human ability to change behavior and the reality of God’s actual existence that, as God’s children, we inherited; and Jesus’ life and ministry as the model for how humans could choose to behave.

The disciples in the Book of Mormon understood this and lived by it. Though they had been given the performances and ordinances of the Mosaic law, even they, like Paul after the mortal ministry of Christ, understood that faith in Jesus Christ gave them hope for salvation, not the performances of the law itself. Obedience to the law and commandments demonstrated this faith, and gave the path to walk and the rod to hold on to. The fruit of the tree was the goal, the transformative grace from Christ (2 Nephi 10; 25:25).

Grace is not a Mystery, nor is God, for the disciples in the Book of Mormon. It is accessed directly through faith and prepares a disciple for judgement in front of Christ, the only righteous and authorized judge because of the atonement. Protestants (at least the ones I met on my LDS mission) tend to look at grace as a “judgement-free” zone, where believers call upon Christ and therefore escape accountability. Not so the Christians in the Book of Mormon; standing “before the” pleasing bar of God” was exactly what they spent their lives preparing for, hence their view of this mortal life as a preparatory existence.

This is why I see the statement by Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon “is the most correct” as pointing to its role in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Neither the Old or New testaments are sufficient to help humans understand the Christ, the aronement, or grace.

Happy Hubby, but did you think that God helped you accomplish his commandments with the spirit? That was constantly talked about. Did you think that God gave this world for us before we came here to help us progress? All those are grace, just not described as grace in typical Mormon rhetoric.

JR, there are some disagreements over nuances of grace I fully admit. I don’t think that means we don’t accept grace, just that we quibble about it – much like some disagree with Luther’s “by faith alone” yet still feel they accept grace. I’ll admit I have some issues with Robinson’s theology myself. Yet I feel I still accept grace.

I believe that Eastern Orthodox also believe infants come into this world free of the taint of original sin. So , the term “orthodox Christians” is used too broadly in this case.