brlenox

Few people understand the story of Uzzah in it's fullness preferring to cite the concept of steadying the Arc and thinking they have covered the essence of what the story has to offer. The story is far from limited to that singular interpretation but is instead a process of making individual decisions that take one further and further away from the instructions of the Lord until finally the Lord must reign in the constant malfeasance of the people in authority and Uzzah is sacrificed in order to bring the people back into line. In principle it is similar to Wade's ideology. Additionally, we need not be afraid of at least accepting the obvious for its possible implications on the whole of the narrative. We know for instance that Adam and Eve were organized in a celestial state. We also know that the Garden of Eden was a Terrestrial State. Why would Adam and Eve be placed in a terrestrial State? We may not have at our fingertips an explicit statement that says that Adam and Eve were placed in a Terrestrial State because he could not spell the word celestial. However we have principles that describe certain others who are rewarded with a terrestrial state and the reason why: Is it possible that, even though they possessed celestial bodies, once they were organized into physical bodies that they fell below the requirements of a Celestial state in that they had not received baptism by fire and of the spirit. They haven't sinned or anything. They have not otherwise erred but a Celestial state of an accountable being is only available to one who has received these baptisms. So we see even Christ required such though he also had never sinned. Finally, after the fall and their transgression they are remanded to a state of the telestial existence as that is the only location where those who shed innocent blood can dwell. While I am not arguing Wade's ideas are perfectly correct, as I do not know having not given any more consideration other than to the creation of this post and some tangential considerations, I nonetheless recognize the obvious observation that Adam and Eve traveled completely down the list of Kingdoms from the top unto the bottom a level at a time and they have the opportunity to reverse and return along the path they came. I am sure that he is correct that each one of these stations was merited and not arbitrarily assigned as that is not God. Whether it is exactly as I am illustrating here, I do not know - I am simply drawing upon some similar thoughts and knowledge of the words of the prophets which could be construed in this fashion. Based on your theology that everyone is saved, none of this is even plausible to you unless you ignore an awful lot of commentary from apostles and prophets. However, I can see something of possibility in these things.

Wade can correct me if I am wrong, but when I read his first description of his thoughts, though he used the term "Falls" I did not take it that he was actually referencing conditions of the equivalent as the actual fall. What I got out of it was that with each changing aspect of their existence they were moving further away from the Father. Thus he was seeing each new set of conditions as a "fall" to a state further from God until finally they moved beyond a threshold which then required a change of magnitude which we consider the actual fall. There may be some merit in examining each individual state for the implications of the conditions of that state. For instance some folks have difficulty with the Lectures on faith where it refers to Christ and the Father as the God Head and they claim that Joseph was evolving his ideology of a Godhead. For myself, I have wondered, if the necessity of the "Holy Ghost is not required until after the fall when mankind is remanded to a telestial state as He, the Holy Ghost, fills the gap of contact with man when telestial mortality becomes his state of existence. He did not operate in the same fashion during Christ's time on the earth; after the judgment the Holy Ghost has influence over the telestial state; I question whether he will function in the millennium in the same fashion since Christ will be dwelling on the earth during that time period after the earth receives it's paradisaical glory ie terrestrial glory; the same glory of the Garden of Eden where I also do not perceive his role being represented. Thus the Godhead as a original concept may have only included the Father and the Son. If this should flush out part of the evidence is the state of the Garden of Eden, and the state of existence prior to the Garden being states that do not seem to support the role of a Holy Ghost in the fashion as he operates in a telestial state. So examining the changes in Adam and Eve's increasingly distant and changing relationship with the Father may provide a vantage for different perceptions. That's what I got out of it anyway.

I think your idea sounds great. I know for me that sometimes when I am studying the way the spirit will teach is that I have am image portrayed to my mind. I then start recreating the image until the image and the perceived understanding match up. In the images I provided, The only one that was provided in my minds eye was the third one which emphasized the ideology of Christ's citizenship. That was the point I was being taught. The privileges that remain his precisely because he remains a citizen of His Fathers kingdom, under His Fathers care was the focus and change of perspective for me which opened venues for consideration and completely shifted multiple levels of understanding. The other two images I added only as tools for explanation. However, if you lose the citizenship point, or never get it, then the justice and mercy paradigm, parts of resurrection, which we have not discussed, tend to loose the clarity of what enables various aspects of the atonement to take place. I would like to see your efforts as they do not form the image in my mind that they may have formed in yours. The process of developing the images is sometimes some of the best revelation you receive on a subject and as the images take form, the spirit continues to teach. As well every change of perspective invites a broadening of understanding. So, please develop yours and share them.

You know, I have written two response to this thus far and I just can't put them out there. It is not my nature to do an outright critical analysis of an individual. The fact that you posture in virtually every post makes it easy to go back and pull up what you said here or there and illustrate a bit of duplicity. However, when all is said and done the online persona that is Carborendom is not probably a very good characterization of who you really are. And for me to take an online criteria and build a case with it is just playing the game. I realize the limitations of this medium and it would be silly to characterize as you what you appear to be online. Just as it is quite interesting to see how you folks have been with me. If I had to go through life with my personal acquaintances, my ward, and my family thinking of me as you folks do, I would only be able to like myself half as much as I do. OF course that is still 5 times more than you folks could tolerate. But nonetheless, I'm going to let you be and not take this to a personal level. I have to admit that the temptation to poke the bear is always hard for me to resist as it is kind of fun to make certain comparisons for the predictable responses. So, I can't say I'm any angel when it comes to a bit of self-serving humor. In generalized characterizations I might be a bit excessive but I can't make it overtly personal which is what I would do if I took this post to a serious response. I do appreciate that you took the time to be candid - I so appreciate candor but I prefer it with a talent for comprehension and insight as opposed to posturing. Anyway, have a great evening. Always willing and wishing that folks would illustrate or indicate specifics as to the doctrine we have shared where they find issue but I realize no one is willing to go to the trouble to do the work that is necessary to call up proper sources to show a different possibility when I lay out as comprehensive of a case as I do. So it is much easier to attack me for the easy target that I am as opposed to the doctrine. But that's apparently the way it goes...

I would ask that you consider this quote as part of the context for your quote above: You are conflating an unintended extrapolation from Elder McConkies talk by wresting your quote to mean something that he is not intending to convey. Yes there is much about the atonement that is and will remain incomprehensible, including aspects of how justice and mercy interact. However, my take on your presentation of the quote you have provided is as a Stop sign, don't even try, you will not understand. Case in point is the material I have tried to share. It is not new doctrine, and as always I am showing you and others the path of my process as I examine the words of prophets and scriptures. I'm just a connect the dots guy. Nothing new just showing you and others whats out there to be considered. It only seems like new doctrine because you choose not to understand the doctrine that is available to be understood. I do not provide "new revelation" I simply put the pieces of others, far more insightful than I, together. It is only new because it is new to you. Elder McConkie speaks to his concerns that many only have a superficial understanding of the atonement which is apparent as a common state of many. However, then he gives you the task, he tosses the gauntlet...IF ... IF... IF we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must know the atonement as they did, and we must live as they lived, then he gives you the invitation to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement. Or perhaps be as the priests of Baal: I'm no Elijah, but I wonder if he is not being a bit condescending as he pokes fun at the ignorant, prideful, arrogant priests of Baal who presume to know that which they obviously do not. But they march along, jumping and hooting and hollering and focusing on all the wrong things. ..."that Elijah he's such a koo koo head and soooo condescending...I have half a mind to go over and conk him in the head ... oooh but I might just break a nail, oh that would be such a tragedy. Let's just stand here and call him names." Well, do you hope to have the faith of Enoch and Elijah? Do you hope to understand the atonement as they did? Have you studied Moses 7 to see what knowledge of the atonement did for Enoch - completely changed him as a man and he goes from condemning his brethren on the earth and casting them off as dross and seeing nothing but their wickedness, to a state that he describes as "his heart stretched wide as eternity" and he understood...he understood something that has been lost here and it is unfortunate. You have no idea of the worth of even just the tiny bit I have tried to share with you here - but I hope that someday, on your own perhaps, you may cross the barriers of ignorance to understanding the atonement and accept Elder McConkie's invitation to you and me alike to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement.

In my response to @Vort, I mentioned D & C 19 where this is exactly the case and the Lord declares such and then he provides a deeper sense of the mechanics of the process for clarity. Interesting indeed. Perhaps you might elucidate on your perceptions on proper scope and channels of revelation.

I do recall your initial diatribe against all things mechanistic which was naught but personal opinion. I illustrated how much of what we consider unique to LDS doctrine where the mechanical understandings that Joseph Smith added from his expanded insight. We delved a bit into D & C 19 if memory serves as well for it's mechanical contributions to specific understandings and the explanation it provides of why they needed a better mechanical understanding or they could not enter into his rest. I provided several reasonable examples and illustrations from scripture that were very sensible and sustainable and which were not based on my free thinking opinions about the matter but spiritually formed scriptural based understandings. You claim that I glossed over it but in that your memory has failed you. You simply made no rebuttal to this well considered response as I recall. If you can review this response, I think you will find it is a bit more than a gloss over. It is also the one which @zil jumped it to defend your honor as I chided you for the seeming energy of your denunciation of all things mechanical. If her response was a distraction to you and caused you to miss the actual topic we were discussing, then please feel free and review it now as it is not lacking in material that might be worthy of our discussion. Perhaps you are referencing some other post of yours which I missed. If so simply show me the way and I will correct.

For me it helps to look at it from the angle of the Lawgiver. You may be observing something similar but it is coming at it from a different perspective than is my approach. The first Law is broken by all who are as Adam and Eve when they breach the law of the celestial kingdom and are exiled. For the most part this is a far as we have really gotten with a detailed analysis. We have far to go to get to how the second set of laws acts upon mankind. We have only really been advancing the scenario in an orderly fashion...well kind of as we have brutalized this part for lack of resources to illustrate...all in all there was only one judgment of death on the Garden of Eden at the trial of Adam and Eve and that judgement decreed both a physical and spiritual death. I don't believe we discussed the trial that was held and such to put the proper perspective on these things but everything stems from the judgement of Adam and Eve and Satan. I think what you have encapsulated is fine for this as a tying off point. It is not quite the same as my perspective but I think it works well enough.

I am surprised that we are not hearing from you @Vort. I genuinely would like to see the elements of the material that I have posted that you find disagreeable. Or even that to which you feel agreeable.

I'll just shortcut this to get to a tie off point. I'll provide none of my usual scriptures or quotes but the essence is that the sin of the Garden of which Adam and Eve were required to receive the sentence of death and then be remanded to a telestial state was based on the Avenger of Blood scriptures and the definitions of what it is to be a murderer in the Old Testament. What ever behavior violated the law of a celestial kingdom required that who ever it was that behaved in that fashion would be expelled from the kingdom. However, this would necessitate that innocent blood must be shed in order that they could be brought back into the presence of God. Every person who comes into this existence, except for the unaccountable ones, are subject to the innocent blood that was spilled in their behalf. Alma 5 if carefully understood illustrates the issue is that we have a charge of murder hanging over our head. Deuteronomy 19 explains the two levels of murderer and collectively all of the additional avenger of Blood material in the Old Testament defines the plan of salvation and how the murderers will be judged. The probationary period allows everyone to define their response to that blood. Some are ambivalent or unconcerned. They live life and pay no mind to the Savior. Others would serve him but are deceived...then there are the one who are valiant in sustaining and building the kingdom of God. These are they who sins he bore (Mosiah 15:12 ) So whenever we sin for the very first time after achieving accountability, technically we become as Adam and Eve and are deserving of the conditions of the Fall. Alma 12 explains that after that point it becomes expedient that we understand the new set of commandments to which we become subject during this probationary period where basically we declare the degree of our consideration of the shedding of the innocent blood made in behalf of all mankind. This second set of commandments are the ones of our sins that Christ is the arbiter for. I apologize for having butchered this whole presentation but I did not want to leave the mistaken notions evident and associated with this material as if they were acceptable interpretations. It is choppy but I hope makes sense.

Just an amendment to this thought as it is not what I have tried to convey. Christ and those who do not reach the age of accountability are never banished as they have done nothing to breach God's law being innocent. Otherwise when we reach the age of accountability then is the only opportunity that an individual has to fall under God's judgment with sin. Little children et. al. that are innocents are subject to the conditions of a mortal birth and must be redeemed from that corrupt state.

Having considered upon your words for the past few hours the thing that rises to the top, so to speak, is this statement above. I invite you to become teacher and show what aspects you find disagreement with as that might perchance be an edifying conversation. Thank you in advance.

Wade, I apologize for not getting to the material, but I have determined that this site is just not the place for a public airing of sacred material. I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction and if you want to take it off forum let me know and I am more than happy to continue sharing whatever interests you. Thanks for your kindness.

My my, what a tragedy this truly is. If you had taken half the time you took in this to denigrate me and undermine what ever image it is that you have, if you had taken half that time to study out the doctrines of the atonement we have been sharing here, you and I would be having an entirely different discussion. Maybe your focus would be less on me and more on that which matters. Whoever it is that has created this sort of angst in you, it can't be me as I do not know you that well and you surely do not know me, but someone has left you hurting. I am sorry to what ever degree I have contributed to your suffering and do hope for the best for you. As I said I do not truck in opinions so I have little to say in response to your exceptional efforts here. I do hope you can find some peace.

If that is the case, then I wonder if you are simply just talking for the sake of talking. We here what you are saying and out of the blue you are talking mainstream Christianity as if it is a true understanding doctrine and without any indication that you are switching in and out of lanes between LDS and other errant doctrines. In this response here: You toss out several interpretations under the lead ideology of "our assumptions play out in illogical ways." So from there on I am of the impressions that you are discussing "our assumptions" as LDS when none of what you said can be construed as such. ... and I repeat I have never heard a soul teach "Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross" in an LDS Church. If the only recollections you have are of individuals who like yourself have unique understandings and who cannot back up their observations from the words of prophets or sound interpretation of scriptures, then it is nothing...nothing, absolutely nothing.

...and yet, if you analyze this particular engagement which is like so many others, no one was speaking in your direction. I'm just engaged in an exchange with another poster and you read something I wrote and you take it a certain way - condescending. The prophet participant, I can't remember his exact name did the same thing. I encouraged him to focus on the specifics of our discussion and in his next post I am condescending and from there, even though he tossed the first stone, every Tom, Dick and Harry, finds me condescending. I am subscribed with various intents that are not my own. My confidence in my knowledge is the result of cultivating the prophets and the scriptures with extreme strictness. I can show you the path of my thoughts because I know what they have said and I am confident in their spiritual gifts to guide me and my spiritual gifts of discernment and guidance to know truth. I have never encouraged anyone to believe me, however, I use the words of the Prophets and apostles because they should not be ignored and glossed over. People should believe them. If you are going to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at my "deep truths" then show some integrity and illustrate and teach me with your expertise in scripture study and knowledge of the words of the prophets where I am in error. If you cannot, then own up to it and stop the casting of stones. Until you can rise to the level of the conversation be it in the form of a student or a teacher then there is only empty opinions of no worth for you to share. There is no further need for you to provoke me, I can never win in a battle of opinions, I deplore them so much, yet they reign supreme here. However, if you wish to engage in sharing of knowledge and genuine understandings of worth then feel welcome to join in any conversation in which I am engaged.

Be specific ... cryptic is not communication.

We all are stand-up people. I have seen a lot of personalities represented here and they are just like me and you trying to make it through each day, keep food on the table, find time for our families and be decent servants of the Lord. Nonetheless, while it is tragic, there are degrees of maturity manifest that seem unnatural. If I were to respond to @Vort's bating immediately @zil would show up to defend him and chastise me for stepping out of bounds. I do tire of my style of commentary being constantly under attack. Perhaps, I'm wrong but I do not believe Wade perceives me to be condescending, but I compliment him sincerely for actually doing something that these others cannot - he studies it out, he reflects on the gospel, and he finds value were it manifests and discards the rest. If @wenglundthought I said something to him that was wrong then he should be the one to tell me. Instead somebody who should have just moved on instead of actually being condescending and accusatory want's to poke me in the eye with his stick. Yeah, I'm convinced he is a standup guy just as you are but for whatever reason it seems he is hiding behind a veiled sense of offense that is rather easily triggered by the mannerisms of my style of communication...or perhaps actually knowing something well as I do is intimidating to one who has nothing but opinions of which one soiled one is of me.

Why do you behave this way? I really do not understand. By the way, the new avatar was a huge improvement.

You do a wonderful job of inching along building your line upon lines...You are right up against the definition of what caused Adam and Eve to fall, the reason it was a death sentence. I covered this material in one of my very first posts on this site, but felt the material was not appreciated in the process and removed it. Before we can go much further we will need to resurrect that material and discuss it. Tonight is datenight and I'll be out of pocket but perhaps by tomorrow I can get something out there. I may try a little different approach as you have done a great job at being intuitive and it is better by far when individuals ponder their way to understanding.

Fifty years in the church and I have never heard nor deduced another claiming that Christ had to suffer spiritual death. Were you of a different religious background before becoming LDS? Your theology concerning Christ becoming sin...this is all extra-LDS doctrine. First the Catholics and then subsequent Christian religions sought to justify the Father withdrawing his presence on the conclusions that Christ was somehow unworthy to have his presence having become anathema for taking on Him our sins. That is not LDS doctrine. Thereafter seems just intellectual machinations. Your comparisons to light and God having to shut off light in order to forsake him, seem a bit presumptuous for me at this time. As always if you would guide me to what resources you are using to come to your conclusions perhaps they might assist me in understanding your perspective. Of the material I recognize that you have opined it all seems to have its root in non-LDS doctrine.

I am not quite following the entirety of your question or thought. It does follow that man was not born in sin because of preexistent behaviors. When we come into this existence we are born pure. (Doctrine and Covenants 29:46—50) However, that does not mean that man did not sin in the preexistence and thus many failed to keep their first estate but still were able to progress to the receipt of a body. Others were not even permitted that for the degree of their rebellion. (SOP)

You're right. He's probably not armed for that.

Your missing the point. The issues with the word heuristics comes to bear quite often from those religious scholars who are trying to justify trinitarian doctrine. To them the original translation read as God forsaking God and for those of a traditional Christian background they had to work with the definitions to keep their errant doctrine in place.

I don't know...Let's see the paper. And if you give me your exbishops phone number I will followup with him. Really I will.