brlenox

Probably due to my poor communication skills but the overwhelming theme of the aspects of the atonement we are dealing with is the overcoming of he demands of the Law of the Garden and the implications of those demands on how the Father and the Son work through preserving the Fathers Kingdom and still permit mercy to claim it's own. We are only discussing a very specific section of the material I have on these things. We skipped over the detail aspect of the Fall and the court that was held to determine culpability and role assignment where agency is more clearly referenced as a distinct element of that process.

Let's expand our perception of how the Lord describes murderers and who might be considered such. Alma 5 is a record of Alma teaching: (Alma 5:2) 2 And these are the words which he spake to the people in the church which was established in the city of Zarahemla, according to his own record, saying: He is speaking to members of the church. He reiterates this in verse 6: (Alma 5:6.) 6 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell? Members of the church are in the audience as well as some non-members and these are accused of being murderers “and” guilty of great wickedness if certain conditions are not met. These conditions are more specifically spelled out in verse 14 of Alma 5: (Alma 5:14, 62.) 14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? 62 I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life. Now, clearly pointing to the audience, verse 23 indicates that all in the audience member and non-member alike would be considered murderers if they failed to be born again. Alma 5:22-23 22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you? 23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness? The general nature of the condemnation and strength of the point seems a castigation of all those that are not born again – all who are not born again are judged as murderers. Surely it cannot be construed that every one of the brethren who are members of the church are guilty of having plotted and carried the murder of another human being, yet in the context of this chapter it is clear that this is in regard to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as he pays the price for all of our sins with his own life. Our redemption requires his death and for us to waste that offering is to become complicit in the act. Nonetheless, I believe there are degrees of complicities. Bruce R. McConkie in the book “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith”, describes the most complicit in Christ’s death, the sons of perdition: In the Father's house are many mansions, many kingdoms, many degrees of glory and honor, many types and kinds of salvation. Jesus "saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him." These rebels are damned souls; these traitors become devils, angels to a devil, to dwell forever in misery in his kingdom. "They shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment." They are "the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power" after the resurrection; they are the only ones who shall not be "redeemed" from spiritual death "in the due time of the Lord, [and] after the sufferings of his wrath." (D&C 76:37-44.) As Alma expressed it: "They shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption." (Alma 12:18.)( McConkie, Bruce R.A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], 144.) However, there are still lessor degrees of complicity than that of being a murderer for not all who fail to receive a celestial glory are such. So what complicity remains? Another quote by Brigham Young expresses some aspect of these lesser charges: The wicked will endure the wrath of God and be “turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God.” What will be done with them there? Those who did not persecute the Son of God in the flesh while acting for themselves and following the direction of their own will—those who did not persecute the holy Priesthood of the Son of God—those who did not consent to the shedding of innocent blood—those who did not seek to obliterate the kingdom of God from the earth, will, by-and-by, be sought after. (Young, Brigham, October 9, 1859,Intelligence, Etc.October 9, 1859. JoD, V. 7, p.282-91) Sometimes it is a challenge to separate descriptions of those who are guilty of less from those who are sons of perdition. This takes a bit of effort, but by putting together a couple of verses and this Brigham Young quote it becomes more clear as to who it is that qualifies to be a son of perdition: "Giving endowments to a great many proves their overthrow, through revealing things to them which they cannot keep. They are not worthy to receive them. Brother Heber takes the lead in giving endowments, and you may ask, "Why do you give such folks their endowments?" To qualify them to be devils, if they wish to be. The plan of salvation is calculated to make devils as well as Saints; for by and by we shall need some to serve as devils; and it takes almost as much knowledge to make a complete devil as it does to fit a man to go into the celestial kingdom of God, and become an heir to His kingdom. We want to complete the education of a number of such fellows; (Young, Brigham, JD Vol.4, p.372, , June 28, 1857) To finalize this connect the dots process Hebrews provides the scriptural link that sustains what President Young is pointing too: Hebrews 6:6 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. In summary the sons of perdition are the only ones upon whom the second death has any effect. Brigham Young points out that the process of becoming a devil is a parallel process to seeking eternal life, in that one must be completely knowledgeable of spiritual matters and perhaps even have had their endowments and then to have turned away from those covenants with a sure knowledge of what they are doing with no regard for the life of Jesus Christ. Finally Hebrews 6 ties them to the act of killing Christ as their level of complicity. While it is too sad a commentary to add complete quotes, Glen L. Pace wrote a letter to the leaders of the Church concerning a particular type of abuse that he had been assigned to investigate in which he notes that many of the perpetrators wore facades of good serving in the church and in many cases regular temple attendees. Yet the purpose of the letter was to note activities that were so abominable as to make one shudder in disbelief. One can see then the potential that sons of perdition may be people of similar heart that would be active in their public church life but despicable in their private lives to a horrific degree. This is what drives Alma’s question’ of his brethren in verse 22: Alma 5:22-23 22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you? 23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness? A subtle pattern is observed here in that they are charged first for their blood stained garments. A temple example of those who do not keep the covenants of the Lord that would enable their garments to be washed clean in the blood of the Lamb[1]. The pattern then is the charge of innocent blood for which all the unrepentant are culpable but second is their own acts of filthiness committed by their own hands. The response in verse 23 is that these conditions of being stained with blood and filthiness are the conditions that describe murderers and others that fail of the forgiveness of the Lord. If you contemplate this it can lead you to what the sin for which Adam and Eve and Satan were judged for in the Fall and the degrees of severity in those judgements. This also adds meaning to why the just judgement of the Father was a charge which resulted in a death sentence being handed out. [1] Alma 13:11 11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

Good question. Your interpretation though can be expanded by a review of many scriptures of which I will provide a couple for consideration. The definition for murder that we are considering is that one provided for in the Old Testament. It provides for one description - murderer however, it describes two states of mind. Though Christ had to permit the act, the scriptures measure the state of being a murderer from the perspective of intent: Please consider: You'll note that verse 11 serves as the same definition to describe Son's of Perdition.

This quote should have been in my response, again as a connecting bit of material as to how Christ joins that which is his and prevents the earth from being smitten with a curse.

My last question of you for the moment. We spent a bit on this thread discussing how worthless mechanics are to understanding. Much of what we have been doing is discussing what we might call mechanics. It basically takes the atonement from a 10,000 foot level down to a 10 foot level in certain respects acknowledging that we are only understanding that which we can formulate continuity for in our minds. The question is did this not, or will it not cause you to grow more to love your Savior and does it not garner a sense of profound awe at the magnificence of how God accomplished his goals by simply managing laws that might at a certain level have seemed restrictive to God but now we see he moves through the universe all things submitted to his authority. That's my question.

The figures have served their purpose. They are only to represent the stages of the fall and to illustrate the citizenship of Christ and why he alone can do what he does. Kingdom assignment is an entirely separate end of the spectrum. You are correct Adam and Eve represent all mankind except for little children who with Christ remains as citizens of God's Kingdom. Hence why it is such an abomination to claim they cannot be saved without baptism. The essence is that God the Father cannot save the citizens of his Kingdom and knowingly sends them to die even though they broke no laws and deserved no punishment. In essence the claim is that God the Father is a murderer and that is the abomination that is being perpetrated and why it is so offensive to God. IF you followed up on Grunts post about the more common theories of the atonement, the the material we just covered is where the divine infusion theory goes off. It does not capture this relationship to justice and mercy. I had never read these theories before but reading them and understanding the material very well it was evident on what points each had it's weaknesses. As to your question of how Adam and Eve are returned to the Kingdom of God through Christ. - excellent question, one that I did not understand until about 5 years ago. Again this requires another paradigm shift but you will recognize some sources of contributing answer material. Malachi speaks to the sealing power of which Elisha returned. Remember though that Malachi warns that this power must be returned "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." The curse then is what you are referencing. The way has been opened by the atonement to allow other laws to come to bear on our eternal existence. The doctrine of the priesthood embraces this material. The following verses will start to expand on this: I have a dozen quotes that walk through each step of what is occurring in this process. The verses above will hopefully get us moving in the right direction and following I will have to provide a couple of quotes. None of this material is me. It is all based on connecting the dots of insight found in scripture and prophetic utterance so I don't want to abuse the material by not showing how it connects to people of far more insight than I. They make the material meritable where my opinions would be worthless. The essence of this is that at some point after each dispensation has been welded together by the sealing power of an unbroken chain and then connected to the next dispensation that finally all dispensations will be turned over to Adam who is the presiding priesthood holder over all dispensations. Then is the point of greatest significance, after all of this is done it is infused with efficacy it does not possess until the kingdom is presented to Christ and then it will be sealed through priesthood authority to Christ. Now we cease to be separate from him but we are part of Him and as He alone has the right to return to His Father's kingdom all that is His and sealed by priesthood authority is required to be allowed passage into the Celestial kingdom as His rightful inheritance. One more quote just to add substance to my thoughts above. Your last paragraph is a bit rough. It may be just lack of time for idea buildup. Your are essentially though correct if I understand you correctly. I'll add this for now and let you work with it. Now that Christ owns the second set of laws as defined in Alma 12 by virtue of his atonement it is he that seeks justice for the broken laws which is the foundation of his building kingdom. Mosiah 15:12 defines a certain group in the phrase "these are they whose sins he has borne". Though Christ has paid a price that exceeds any level of the sins of all mankind, thus being an infinite atonement, only a certain group is permitted his greatest blessings and these do not suffer for their own sins as they are under the law of mercy for their repentance and obedience. Any that are unrepentant will suffer for their own sins as they will be fully under the law of justice as it applies to the second set of laws. Either way though the law of justice permits something that is the crux how Christ accomplishes these things. If you are the victim in a parking lot fender bender justice would demand that you be recompensed. However, justice will not prevent you from extending an act of forgiveness. As the victim you have the right to extend mercy of your own accord. This is why God requires that we forgive all who offend us. One cannot demand justice against his offenders and yet seek mercy from God for your own offenses. Whatever law you demand must be the law under which you yourself are judged. So the "these are they whose sins he has borne" can be forgiven of all their sins as they are repentant and have been obedient and valiant. However the rest must suffer "even as I have suffered which suffering caused myself even God to tremble because of pain." So At whatever time Christ feels adequate suffering by any given individual has been reached he can forgive them and permit the reward that suits them. We do not have time to cover the Sons of Perdition but there are a few issues there. This is it for now. Yes your understanding is still inadequate, which is discernible by the way you are phrasing your questions. Even part of what we have discussed is still not firmed up for you. So you will need to work on this material for sometime before the spirit makes it yours. However, you have come a long long ways and it feels like you have moved forward. Thank you for asking. If there are any more questions ... and in time there surely shall be, please feel free to ask. Also another note. Before anyone can grasp this material they have to be a a certain spiritual level and level of humility themselves. Over the years, I have found that 1 out of 50 will grasp the material while most will accuse you of being arrogant, condescending for the simple fact that you can say "no that is not correct" because you do of a fact know something. So if you do make this yours and the spirit weaves it into your soul it can still bring a bit of sorrow for the difficulty of sharing special material. Just a thought.

Let's look at this image and see if we can get our thousand words out of it. I am going to forgo scriptures and quotes as that seems to be where people get bored and the posts get long. The first image represents Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden interacting freely with God and Jesus Christ. They do something wrong. We have not discussed what that is and it is helpful but not necessary at this moment. Still the King of the Kingdom - God the Father - convenes a court to try the three individuals involved with breaking the law of the King. It is his law and he is responsible to see to its adjudication and to ensure that justice is rendered. The source for this is the temple. He questions the three individuals and determines three levels of culpability. We won't go into this either for now. However, the law has been served and justice has been rendered and the crime was determined to be of such serious nature that a death penalty is warranted. The one individual is banished and the two are exiled with the promise of a Savior. The end result is image number 2. Man is spiritually dead. They no longer have free access to God the father as he has exiled them from His kingdom. Thus they no longer have claim on The Father as he has in not so many words stated that if you cannot abide the law of my kingdom (D & C 88:22) you cannot remain here. So they are remanded over to a telestial state which based on their crime is the only kingdom that will abide their actions. Figure three is very important. Figure 3 illustrates that during Christ's time on the earth he remains a citizen of God the Fathers Kingdom as he has never broken the law of the Garden of Eden. It also indicates that man remains outside of God the Fathers Kingdom but that Christ reigns as the king of this lower kingdom in which man resides. Now the process of actually being crowned the king, requires Christ accomplish somethings. We don't have time but there are laws in Judaism, ie the Old Testament, that defines how heir-ship is achieved. One of them is that the heir must complete the tasks that his Father gives him. Now, we learn in the very first story of the Old Testament from Cain and Abel that when innocent blood is shed, that innocent blood has claim on the law giver for justice. Hence we note Jehovah rehearsing to Cain that his brothers blood cried out from the earth and a penalty was enacted based on the claims for justice. Anytime any of us are unjustly treated we have the right of claim for justice of our King, Jesus Christ. There are numerous scriptures outlining this relationship which we are forgoing in deference to brevity. So when innocent blood of mankind is shed we look to our law giver. However in the case of Christ he becomes the ultimate case of innocent blood being shed and it is mankind that sheds that blood. This is the crux of the issue with Justice and Mercy. When Christ's innocent blood cries out it cries out to the King of the kingdom to which he remains a citizen. On all the earth, The Savior is the only member of God the Fathers kingdom who remains under his law and protection. All - everyone of the rest are under ban of exile and actually are enemies to God (for now from a legal perspective of the law). Christ when he exercises his appeal to his Father for Justice sets the conditions of what occurs next. Mankind has already been exiled and so the demand for justice places the Father in a position opposed to mankind. Justice demands that something be done to repair the Son. He has been innocently hung on a tree and suffered intense and horrific pain which is required but we will bypass that as well in this abbreviated review. As a citizen of God the Fathers kingdom, justice demands recompense (D&C 112:30-34) to the Savior. The Father is held to the demands of Justice at this point. If he should offer up mercy to mankind then justice would be robbed and because he failed as the law giver and adjudicator of his kingdom, of which Christ is a Citizen, he would cease to be God because the King is accountable to sustaining and providing for the law of his kingdom or else the kingdoms members would question the laws of the kingdom in which they reside and would withhold their sustainment of their King. However, Christ is the murdered one. He is the victim and as such when he looks to his Father for justice, his intense level of suffering has earned him certain privileges (D&C 45:4) By the demands of the Laws of justice a murderer can demand the life of the one (s) who murdered him. So justice demands that the victim be granted that which is within the bounds of the law to grant. So and here is the brilliance of the plan, Christ says that he will be made whole if the lives of those who murdered him will be remanded to him for judgment. He requests mercy for all mankind. Now we have justice demanding that Christ be made whole and Christ has requested mercy. Now we have the demands of the laws of Justice demanding mercy as their full payment. Now the Father is able to fulfill the demands of justice by offering mercy and justice is not robbed and God the Father is now exactly were he wanted to be - able to offer mercy to his children upon the conditions that will be established in the second set of laws - the law of Christ. Thus the law of God the Fathers Kingdom remains intact and mercy satisfies justice. I'll stop for now. Really this should inspire a dozen more questions as one ponders upon as there are many things that pivot from here. As the final clue I will leave you with the words of Elder Eyring as earlier: Now there is a remarkable principle that will only be visible if your understanding is adequate and heart desirous but it takes us to the next aspect of how things work.

Many good insights. Justice does demand mercy is correct, Alma 41 gives us insight into this. However Alma 41 is applicable to the Law of Christ. Nonetheless, whatever is by the law of Christ is also merited by the Law of God the Father which I call the Law of the Garden. So pre-fall. Your second sentence is also correct. Your third sentence is he crux of the issue of the mechanics of the mercy - justice paradigm. It is important in considering this one to separate the requirements of the Law of the Garden, which is a key factor of what the Atonement accomplishes. IT reconciles us to the Father based on the breech of the first law. Your fourth paragraph slides into overlapping the demands of the law of the garden and the blessings of the Law of Christ which only prevails because the atonement was effective. We have to separate the demands of each to put proper perspectives in place. In Alma 12 the first law has already been adjudicated. The death sentence has been rendered. Technically in a legal sense God the Father has exiled us from his kingdom. Again, purely from a legal sense we no longer have any claim on God the Father - he has rendered judgement and the judgement was death. Rectifying this is only accomplished by satisfying the demands of the first law of the Garden which the atonement accomplishes. Keep in mind though that the breech of the law of the Garden predates our sins. Some price is being demanded that when satisfied activates the second set of laws mentioned in Alma 12. The mechanics of that transition is very significant and brilliantly accomplished. It is very helpful if you can change your focus from mans perspective and put it on God's perspective. It is his mind you are trying to see into to make this connection. I am going to leave you with this as you are doing so very well. I have to spend a few moments out working on the Car before I lose daylight...so I will check back.

If you can touch that, you have gotten the essence of the spiritual sense of the matter which is not dependent on necessarily understanding the how it is accomplished. Any idea on how God the Father would achieve getting Justice to demand mercy? Your father seems a profoundly insightful man. Not many would choose such an impacting methodology.

Brigham Young once made a statement that he wasn't worried about teaching some things that perhaps he should not as he knew that the people would not be able to grasp what he taught unless the spirit was with them to teach them. While I may not come near to the mysteries as Brigham, I have found this to be consistently true. To that point, I believe yours is matched. Yet, there are even those who may be ostensibly worthy by virtue of their obedience and diligence in keeping the commandments and yet they do not learn anything new for, what might be deemed disinterest or simply laziness. It does take work to make it ones own understandings. I can explain some things and yet most cannot turn around and then explain them to another for while they can see how the material is correct, they cannot teach that which they have not given heed and diligence into acquiring. You commented earlier on your experience on forums...mine has been that there is not much to worry about for distracting from doctrinal study. Few seem interested in actual doctrinal study and are more interested in opinions.

Wade, you are thoughtful person, thank you for inquiring. I provided a list of just a few things here: If by chance any of these subjects interest you feel free to choose one. The Mercy and Justice relationship is perhaps my favorite of the list. For the most part though no one thing enables one to better seek Christ etc as is the nature of your inquiry. You are seeking Christ in the very process of seeking any aspect of the atonement. However, some things increase that sense of awe of God and His Son's brilliance and wisdom. People are always saying God is limited by law and that he has to obey certain ones without option. However, after one gains insight as to how the Lord juxtaposes laws against themselves and how he positions requirements and such he can accomplish whatever he wants. The laws help maintain order in the kingdoms but they do not limit his hand. There are a dozen other things that are elevated. Another is the sheer genius of scripture. So much is right before us in the forms of allegory and types and shadows and they just dance just outside of our periphery. Those who have stated they need no more understandings, shall most likely have none, but should one inquire of the Lord the scriptures are rich with insight. Anyway let me know what interests you on the list or if you have another burning question in your heart ask that. Chances are that I may have covered just about anything you can conceive and if not then it provides something else for me to study.

For a particular reason this post stayed with me all night and I've decided to give it a bit of play. From the perspective of an outsider looking in it has a class feel to it. This forum is a small little group of what appears to be a few long timers. When I first came here just a few weeks back it seemed lucky to get one response in a day. Of late that has accelerated a bit and there is almost a flurry of posting here. Usually Forum's appreciate a bit of life in the posting patterns as that is what they are there for. However, to achieve that it usually means you have to have a few different types of personalities and capabilities. I have both. However, what struck me odd about this little bit of "net nannying" was 2 situations that I have observed while being here. The first was one of my earlier contributions of significant merit of which only @zil even took the time to analyze what was presented. Otherwise I was heaped upon with childish bantering and labeling and even after an invitation to just deal with the material it abated not. No one said a word in defense of the "new guy" no one came to his aid to call the sillyiness of the wolves off...nothing. I persevered through what I considered small minded responses. I can hold my own even amongst wolves. However, the one that got me was last week. I watched as @Vort and a couple of others made it a personal vendetta to abuse @Rob Osborn over and over and to the point of idiocy. Relentless in the unnecessary accusations and pushing and shoving that made you think you were on a fourth grade playground while "the group" was responding to someone who had gotten in their way because they were different. Where was the net nanny then? And I'm not just meaning Zil but anyone. Instead there seemed a consensus of crucify him , crucify him, and no one came to his aid. I watched and waited and prepared to say something but I dropped off the forum for a few days as I became quite ill. So, I say something now. If all you folks are looking for is to have more people like yourselves, then I suspect this forum can drop right on back to a one post a day forum where no one says anything controversial or even of any spiritual depth or even a touch of the profound for that matter as you gang up and pile on in your derisions and sequestering drive the ones not like you away. That's not to say that I am implying that Rob and myself (worlds apart on doctrine, but similar in other ways) for instance are not without responsibility. We are a touch off, a tad different, a hair out of place. Perhaps I should let Rob speak for himself, but at least for me these things are all true and then some. However, the ways I am off are nothing compared to the value of the spiritual insights that I once in a while contribute...but of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want everyone to think that I think you're all losers and immature little blighters. I just concluded an interaction with @zlllch which was a delight. We were frank, direct, could say our piece and never once did he hold up the "you hurt my feelings, you big meany" sign so that all of the sudden you had to start walking on egg shells. There is nonetheless always room for improvement in my interactions but I really do not see things such as what @zil points out in this post. If someone said those things to me I would laugh and appreciate the little points of personality they injected into the process and move on through. However, it is obvious that you folks aren't like me and probably equally obvious I'm not going to change anytime soon to be like you. Let the fun begin....

A. It's called having fun. People take themselves entirely too seriously and should be able to handle a bit of jesting, joviality, and merrymaking. b.) "God's truths are learned through humility and obedience. God's truths are ALWAYS learned that way, and in no other way. So perceiving the mechanical workings of divine will is of no importance unless God decides you need to learn that, in which case he will reveal it to you." If you can see my comments as "condescending or at least mocking" then perhaps it is just a filter issue. However the sense of the underlined above is what I am specifically referencing. The entire tone of Vort's comments are to denigrate mechanical understandings and that's fine with me. Heck we are just comparing our perceptions and his are wonderful for him and mine a wonderful for me ... and superior as well

This is a good observation and I appreciate that you have added the weight of a resource of merit. Of necessity we all have to make decisions about what a verse or story is trying to teach us. As I think through the one you provide above, I rummage through my head for ideologies that might lend themselves to overlay to the story as I never trust myself or anyone to simply get the proper take aways without considering other words of God that might assist me in proper conclusions. A daunting task. In this story above I can find in my head signs of believers as a caveat of being healed thus I know the man is a believer. I can see other scriptures that where faith is manifest power can be exercised - this man has faith. I recall another that acts of healing were to glorify the Father - in this instance Christ has glorified his Father. Another New Testament reference indicates that Christ miracles testified of his divinity - this man has become a witness to those who inquire of him that the Son God has manifest his divinity in his healing. I also recollect that those who inquire and other like them reject this witness...subsequently Christ is Crucified, a sacrifice wrought and salvation won. What I cannot find is any overlay that would sustain a perspective that understanding mechanics is a liability of any form. In fact this is the first time I have ever attempted a thought process in quite this fashion though it is foundational to how I form gospel understandings. I've just never done a in 1 minute how many scriptural potentials can one see in this instance kind of thing. Frankly I think this is kind of a red herring and perhaps not an issue at all just something we have stumbled upon to debate about. Intent frames all the efforts we make. God looks upon those things in our hearts and determines if we are truly seeking Him and His Kingdom and moving in the appropriate course to get there. Perhaps what Vort was saying is that he sees in those who beat themselves into explanations of tedium and facts as those who are seeking to aggrandize to themselves praise and glory for their intellectual prowess. Or those who seek only to possess tools to beat others over the head with their much knowing. In as much as this is their intent, I am in agreement. However, one of the great things Joseph Smith does so frequently is he addresses mechanics. His mechanics took a God who was so small that he could fit into a thimble and made of him a being of flesh and bone. The mechanics of this body was that it is spirit filled and has no blood. Joseph taught us the same of His Son. He gave us insight into the mechanics of just how the Holy Ghost as a spirit is able to touch our lives in ways that resurrected being was not. The King Follet discourse is a feast of mechanical insights that I guess some would write off for such but for me it is a marvelous, marvelous piece of revelation. Yeh...I'm thinking this is debate over mechanics is indeed a Non sequitur.

Whoa...got a live one here...I think there is a certain element of truth to some of your observations but perhaps you might consider some mitigating considerations. First, what you have stated is an opinion, a robustly presented one, I'll give but not much more than that. As well you have logic there that may apply to you but does not at all apply to me. But it is yours and thus perhaps it is right for you. The assumption that truths concerning mechanics can't be "learned through humility and obedience" and the subsequent implication that those seeking such are not humble and obedient is a bit whackadoodle for my tastes and I cannot see why that would be a natural perspective for anyone to take. However, to move my observations from the realms of low valued opinion to perhaps a little higher standard I would like to reference Doctrine and Covenants 19 for it's illustrative contribution to this effort. I'm sure you'll recognize the context here as where God is explaining "eternal" and the implications of how eternal works. The first thing I want to focus on is the underlined portion where he states essentially that you need to have a more precise understanding in order "that you may enter into my rest.". "Enter into my rest" is scripture speak for calling and election, exaltation or other such terms which mean you hit the JACKPOT! You win! you da big Kahuna now boy! You get the picture... The point is there is something they need to understand or they will be found short and in the end unable to enter into his rest. This knowledge is very significant for them. What is interesting now then is that God introduces them to an remarkably different paradigm. He removes the word eternal from a time based narrative and he basically brings it back to a mechanical understanding. Eternal means it is of Me. It ceases to be time based at all in fact and it becomes a term defined by status. The mechanics of something being declared as eternal is not to be defined as that something is never ending. It is to be defined as this thing is under the umbrella of things authored by an eternal God. Now most will stop here if they are lucky to even grasp this much but the implications of this discovery are so profound as to completely allow an individual to realize that if he is to think after the manner of God that he has to completely change his paradigm. Men live under the onus of a time based paradigm. We live moving from one chronological marker to the next. We are born and then from here we make each year by the arrival of a birthday. We turn eight and we are baptized. We hit twelve and perhaps you remember being ordained a deacon, Sixteen and we date, 19 for a mission and so on and so. Our entire paradigm is time based. So we hear the word eternal and we bring it through our filter and it means that the events marked by the passage of time will never cease for one subject to eternal damnation. What's fascinating though is God brings time back to him and makes it subject to his greatness. He is not subject to time but time is subject to Him. From this perspective he does not see things as we do at all. Time is only measured unto man is what the scriptures state but if man is going to ever accomplish thinking like God he is going to have to try to crawl out from under the conditions that errant understandings of what things mean to God versus what they mean to man imposes on the limitations of his thoughts. The final caveat is: I do not see a Mechanical understandings notwithstanding clause here in the least. However, I do see an if they hearken to God clause...I think that is the priority here.

Interesting observation. For these many years that I have studied the atonement I have sought the mechanical understandings. For myself it is the lack of mechanical understandings that prompts individuals to say that we just don't understand the atonement precisely because it doesn't make sense that mercy is not robbing justice when it prevails, it makes no sense that if God the Father can forgive us after the atonement why does his Son have to die. Why can't he just forgive us if we accomplish the same growth and his Son doesn't die?etc. It is the mechanical that explores these issues and if one successfully navigates the process there are answers to these questions. I agree though that in the rehearsal of the mechanical one can loose sight of the spiritual and so it is incumbent to pull the two together as once one does grasp the mechanisms God used to bring all these things about one can only grow in ways not accessible through any other venue as one observes how all things are subject to the Father and that he manages the law with flawless brilliance to achieve his goals.

Wade is absolutely correct. The easy take from the Atonement narrative is the juxtaposition of Justice and mercy. Ostensibly Justice demands payment according to definitions contained within the law that is breached. In the Old Testament if one murdered intentionally, the built in payment for justice was that your own life was forfeit. Thus the demands of the law made no allowance for negating the payment of that penalty otherwise Justice would be robbed. However, God recognizes the difficulty and so does Christ. Thus between them they use other laws to overcome the demands of the law of justice. I put this quote up earlier from President Eyring and it gives the clue in the underlined portion as to how you get around the demands of Justice: Any one care to take a shot at articulating how this might work?

I'm going to let this one slide at this point. I think we have both put a lot of effort into this and I see where you are coming from and you probably see where I am coming from. I feel badly for thread jacking this entropy bound Adam and Eve evolution thread which is violating the Laws of Biogenesis by its very sustainment.

Thanks for the mention @zil however, I removed the majority of my material from the thread you mentioned simply due to the reception I received. It just seemed the wrong tone for a thread for material that has taken many years to grasp. As well I have taken a different approach in this thread. I have learned one too many times that one cannot replace hard effort and diligent study for giving the spirit a chance to illustrate principles that are being sought and whenever I try to simply just explain it without allowing for discovery it brings out those who wil not receive.

This is a challenge to put into words and have it make sense but I'll try. One of the Key aspects of the Atonement was to repair the breech caused by Adam and Eve transgressing the Law that was given them in the Garden of Eden. Their judgment was to be removed from the presence of God the Father which is the equivalent of spiritual death. The atonement is what allows all of us to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven. So Christ's pays the price to allow us to come back into the presence of the Father. This price is exacted by the first law of the Garden of Eden as that was the one that was broken. However, all of yours and I's sins are after the fact of the first law of the Garden. They do not exist as part of the burden of the price exacted by the first law of the garden of Eden. Is the price being paid then the result of sins that were not even committed? Or is something else being addressed? Question number 1. We tend to look at justice as the bad guy in the scenario because we are always looking at it from our perspective of justice demands we suffer for our sins. However what if justice is the reason the atonement works. Go back to the first real story in the Bible where Cain slays Able. It begins teaching us of the atonement in the very first story and we learn something. We learn that innocent blood can make demands on the law giver and so Able's Blood cries out unto the Lord for justice. Right? Completely change your paradigm and now focus on Jesus Christ as the innocent blood that was Shed. Don't look at justice for how it impacts us for our sins but look at justice for how it empowers Christ because he has no sins and dies innocently. When he cries out for justice, who is obligated to answer that plea? What does that imply? Question number 2. I am out of time for the moment but I'll toss out a couple of things: Again, the only way to understand the atonement is to completely reverse the paradigm and look at it from God the Fathers perspective. Your question is from the perspective of man. Man sins - he deserves to be punished - case closed. However suffering as it plays into the effectiveness of the atonement is that when an innocent person, in this case Christ suffers, when he did not sin, then he is building a claim which is made to the law giver to whom he is subject. Notice above that Christ cites his suffering as part of what has to be considered by the Father when he stands as our advocate. His suffering gives him rights that he would not have otherwise and those rights play into his ability to have expectations of his Fathers consideration. Consider this verse as well: Now for a final thought about how suffering justly or because you broke a law simply pays the demands of the law, however that means that if one suffers when one broke no law then that must be addressed and recompensed. So where you are seeing suffering as penalty it has a bonus side for those who are repentant. Because there is much suffering where you did no sin you also get to make an appeal to your law giver which is different than Christ's Law giver as described in Alma 12. Yours is Jesus Christ. Contemplate these words by L. Todd Christofferson:

For perhaps 12 or so years Cleon Skousen's version of the atonement, which he claims was taught him by Apostle Widstoe, was the best thing I had ever run into on the atonement. It was infinitely better than the average members response of "we just can't understand the atonement". I applaud Cleon for at least acknowledging that there is so much more that we can understand about the atonement and setting an example of making the effort to go beyond the no fly zone. That said, few people will ever put the effort into the process to understand where Cleon misses the mark. You actually are at the root of the issue now as Cleon mis-emphasizes the role of God's creations in the narrative giving them far too much "power" in the process of God remaining God. His emphasis places God at the mercy of all of the intelligences and it simply is not that way. And in fact properly understood that part of Cleon's narrative fades away into obscurity. Nonetheless, there is not much information out there that really delves into the Atonement and I consider it a doctrine that has so many moving parts that it is purely the exhausting efforts of years of study that provides the necessary fodder for the spirit to teach you of these things. When I study, I write in a Thesis sort of format. I have been working on my atonement document for, I think it is going on ten years now and it is over 600 pages long. The challenge becomes that even after you learn the material there is very little opportunity to share as without building on the line upon line foundation others cannot grasp the fascinating intricacies that becomes the greatest event to ever take place. I can give you the benefit of some of the questions to ask that must be understood before you can work your way through the process. You must grasp the material of the Fall. 1.) Who is the law Giver in the Garden. Who is the judge in the Garden? 2.) Why was a death sentence an appropriate judgement for Adam and Eve? Why was Satan cast out, when Adam and Eve were allowed a Savior. What kind of people dwell in a telestial state. Why is that state an appropriate place for fallen mankind? 3.) What does Alma 12 provide us in understanding about who becomes the lawgiver and the second set of laws we must now conform to. Why is this significant 4.)What does the story of Cain and Able teach us about the privilege accorded to those who have shed innocent blood? 5.) What really is Alma 34:11-16 saying. You'll have to make a paradigm shift just to grasp it. 6.) What prevents God the Father from exercising mercy without Christ shedding his blood? Why can't he just say, "Never mind Son, just pick the friends you like and bring them on home"? 7.) If mercy cannot rob justice, but justice requires a specific breach be rectified then the only way for justice to not be robbed is for justice to demand mercy. Otherwise mercy cannot fulfill the demands of justice because justice has its specific requirements. It is not a substitution program. How is that accomplished? 8.) Why would God cease to be God if mercy robbed justice? 9.) The best quote I have ever found which indicates that Elder Eyring clearly understands a key element of the atonement is this one: Most will read it and not see anything of significance. Expand on this quote for what it is really saying and one of the key elements of the atonement will be manifest - this is related to number 5 above. I could go on with more questions but this is enough for your first five years of study...

I never have the mettle to work with articles on metal.

I have determined that this is a wicked, wicked website...twice now I have lost a lengthy post. I think it might relate to just having an open window for an excessive period of time or perhaps it is my browser but I have not had this issue with other sites. But it is probably to your advantage as my recovery will have to be more brief and concise that I was going for before. Observing your process is very instructional as to why we are miles apart in certain respects. On one hand it is a moot point as we both are in agreement that the best quote for public dissemination made it into the second addition. However for you to get there you had to pick a fight with Elder McConkie and toss him off the cliff of your self-determined more erudite analysis. So since you’re the bully here, I am going to take courage and pronounce in Elder McConkies defense that you are in error. Yet if we ultimately agree in the end product then how can you be so wrong, you ask? Alas, keeping pace with your palpitating heart, I’ll provide insight. I have mentioned that I have spent over 20 years trying to grasp the "manner of the Jews" in how they understand scripture since I first read Elder McConkie implicate that understanding as required to truly possess the insight necessary to interpret Isaiah: One of the reasons many of the Nephites did not understand the words of Isaiah was that they did not know “concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.” (2 Ne. 25:1.) And so it is with all Christendom, plus many Latter-day Saints. Nephi chose to couch his prophetic utterances in plain and simple declarations. But among his fellow Hebrew prophets it was not always appropriate so to do. Because of the wickedness of the people, Isaiah and others often spoke in figures, using types and shadows to illustrate their points. Their messages were, in effect, hidden in parables. (2 Ne. 25:1–8.) (McConkie, Bruce R., Ten Keys to Understanding Isaiah) It is interesting to me that you found yourself a superior judge of scripture interpretation over the individual who is arguable the greatest theologian of this dispensation, second only to Joseph Smith. To claim that Elder McConkie did not “accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures” is actually enough to render your entire response of limited objective value. That you consider yourself a better judge of scriptural accuracy than Elder McConkie - I can’t even fathom such a comparison. However, your analysis also shows much lacking understanding of the great significance of types and shadows as means of illustrating their points. It is best to let them be what they are as opposed to whittling them down to a single standard of interpretation. This is not so much your fault as it is the indoctrination of how to think established by Western Academia which eschews multiple right answers of dependent value preferring to determine the answer that is of superlative value. Scripture simply does not open up for this type of approach. The concept of PRDS is the Jewish equivalent of line upon line precept upon precept but the added insight, if one will genuinely apply it, is invaluable to altering the paradigm of how we tend to look at scripture. Is it not the strength of scripture that its very use of said symbols gives it life and allows for expanding understandings that can change anytime the spirit would have you see nuanced or extremes in meaning. There are times when Elder McConkies expectations of the church of the devil being the Roman Catholic Church would be the clear proper interpretation for certain insights that the spirit might provide. Especially if we add one verse you neglected to reference as you were developing your definition of Great and abominable and church of the devil. Let’s take a look at that source: 1 Nephi 13:34 34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. I’m not even going to develop this as it is too clear too miss for the Roman Catholic Churches role in the apostasy and the subsequent birth of the harlots born of the great harlot. If this is not the Roman Catholic Church then please explain who it is. When you can provide no other reasonable explanation, perhaps you can explain why you might boldly proclaim that interpreting this verse as the Roman Catholic Church would be found as not “accurately reflect[ing] what is contained in the Scriptures.” These ideologies are called types and as it is developed in these chapters that touch specifically on the great and abominable church specifically as it relates to the Roman Catholic church this is part of the breakdown of the type. However, that is only one aspect of the type of an abominable institution established by the devil. There are other aspects as well, aspects that we do not want to prejudice our perception of by pre-calculating expectations. There are times it is speaking of any institution not the church of God, we want to retain that understanding as well as it is part of the type that is being spoken too. Additionally, it can embrace a concepts of Governments co-opted by Satan’s manipulation of evil men, this is another aspect of the type that is exceptionally important be preserved. Depending on the question any one of these elements comprising the type may be the only suitable answer. Another aspect of the type of these verses is they give insight to how the Lord views the great and abominable church and the harlots. Contrary to your earlier comments, they are abominations. There is no need to water this down as “not all churches are evil” simply because that is the current social paradigm. They are abominations and will be destroyed in time. Fundamentally one might see the process of evaluation that you have selected as a good, better, best model. I’m sure that though you discounted the various provisions of the type you can see them. However, each one was discounted in favor of the generic one that replaced it in the revision – you claim doctrinal inaccuracy - opinion. I claim in search of a more tactful presentation. Let’s observe a quote: "There were about fifty items that Elder Kimball wanted Elder McConkie to revisit... They dealt with tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.... Elder Kimball was a wise mentor who taught [Elder McConkie] the difference between being right and being appropriate.... Elder Kimball's list of things that needed changing [was] much less extensive than the changes that were made in the second edition.... "The report submitted to the First Presidency by Elder Spencer W. Kimball indicates that he checked changes made on fifty-six pages, all of which he approved. He did not indicate a single instance of doctrinal disagreement with what was written."(Horne, Dennis, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings, pp.65-66.) Now, I will take a moment to mention what I consider the most egregious issue. It has become popular in recent decades to undermine apostles and prophets, the modern day “stoning” of those chosen of the Lord. The good, better, best way we tend to look at things placed you in a position of judge to evaluate scriptural accuracy when it wasn’t even necessary. The nature of scripture with its types and shadows and profound symbolic implications should never be constrained by a Western style paradigm but as we are not truly taught the manner of the Jews in scripture study, we draw upon more self-determined means of evaluation. In a nut shell, the Jewish mentality is that each level of understanding builds on the previous and though an understanding may be higher on the spiritual plane it still preserves the integrity of the earlier levels and never supplants it. Your approach was to render impotent particular interpretations opting that one was better than all the rest. However, that process placed you as a judge and jury when there was no cause for such. That is the fundamental difference in how you and I view the comments of apostles and prophets. In my mind they are all correct, I simply have to get the spirit of the moment which caused them to speak in the manner they did and then I take that bit of insight and begin creating a spectrum of contributing insights until I have a much more complete grasp of the topic than if I had simply selected the one that appealed to me the most. To borrow insight from each of them allows me to grow and expand in understanding. To tend to the selection of one that appeals to me means I am simply maintaining the status quo and wasting the opportunity to expand in knowledge. As Nephi points out there is great value in trying to see things as the Jews: 2 Nephi 25:5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

In these discussions we find ourselves dancing all around, what I consider the most obvious issue. The issue is time. We use radiometric dating modalities to give values to the periods of time passed for certain events which are heavily impacted by cosmic influences. We see a pattern in scripture of a transitionary process from a state of eternal to a state of mortality. You references the age of Noah at 950, which transitions to around 550 for the next generation and then to 220 or so down to the age of current man at around the Exodus. However, life span seems related to when you were conceived as if the materials of creation of a body were of a higher quality the closer to the beginning of the fall than over periods of a downward spiral to current mortal standards. As to date we have no means of noting how the laws of physics would operate in an eternal sphere and how they would change in a transitional process to our current applications I wonder how misleading applying the current laws of physics might be when applied to a period of existence very, very near to the beginning of the fall. When this planet was nigh unto Kolob, where the greater levels of cosmic influence (i.e. God living in eternal burnings) exponentially higher which appears to be better tolerated by eternal beings. As matter began to corrupt was the impact of cosmic radiation of far greater intensity thus producing scales of change that when measured against current expectations show the passage of great lengths of time in a period of time of far less duration than can be achieved in the current model? What ever else might be involved surely the change in accounting of time bears some sway on these matters.

I suspect that you are referencing the loss of telomere data with each replication, which is a contributing factor of aging which is a by product of fallen man in a state of dying. I wonder if it is a reasonable comparison to compare a known state of dying with a presumed eternal state. Perhaps I need the other half of the argument.