"A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement"


Matthew0059
 Share

Recommended Posts

Introduction

[A Facebook note written for a few friends. Wanted to share.]

The Talk

I will depart from the standard formula of first citing scriptures and cite a somewhat famous talk by W. Cleon Skousen, titled "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". I have used the talk as a reference point for about a year now and have felt the Spirit's affirming touch the whole time.You can find the talk in written format here or download the audio here. I suggest the audio version, as the talk was extemporaneous and the written format doesn't edit everything out and can be difficult to fully comprehend without hearing Skousen's inflections, pauses, etc.

The great doctrines taught here were taught to Skousen by Apostle John A. Widstoe, who served as president of the European Mission from 1926-1932. Skousen served a mission to Great Britian in 1930, which is where he met and formed a lasting friendship with Apostle Widstoe.

The Scriptures

Before reading this section, I highly recommend that the reader first listen/read Skousen's account of the Savior's actions before, during, and after the Atonement (from Gethsemane to Golgotha).

Now, there are a few key doctrinal points contained in the talk that combine to form the foundation for our understanding of the God-Science behind the Atonement. What I will do is list, summarize, and make a case for each point of doctrine. It should be noted that I don't go into every doctrine that Skousen does nor do I cite nearly as many references. This is intended as a brief overview of the key principles, so that one can begin to grasp the grand majesty of it all.

I repeat: I highly recommend reading/listening to the talk itself!

The Source of God's Power is His honor

D&C 29:3636 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

Why the Atonement was necessary

2 Nephi 9:6-10

6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

The Father (Elohim) cannot save us

Acts 4:10-12; 2 Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The two fundamental building blocks of everything, Intelligence and Matter

Nephi 2:14

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

Intelligence is independent and eternal

D&C 93:29-30

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Intelligences are organized according to a hierarchy of glory

Abraham 3:19

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Matter is capacitated to receive intelligence

Journal of Discourses 7:2 Pg. 3; Brigham Young:

"If people understood true philosophy - eternal philosophy, they would understand that there is an eternity of matter. Astronomers estimate that there is between us and the nearest fixed star matter enough from which to organize millions of earths like this. There is an eternity of matter, and it is all acted upon and filled with a portion of divinity. Matter is to exist; it cannot be annihilated. Eternity is without bounds, and is filled with matter; and there is no such place as empty space. And matter is capacitated to receive intelligence." (Source)

All intelligences follow the commands of God

D&C 88:42-45

42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Matter is the tabernacle of God

D&C 93:33-35

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

One being cannot atone for the sins of another

Alma 34:11-12

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

The Father has rules he must follow, or He would cease to be God

Alma 42:13, 22, 25; Mormon 9:19

[All these verses contain the phrase "or He would cease to be God" if He ____________ (fill in the blank)]

Fitting the Jigsaw Puzzle Together

Now, once these foundation doctrines have been set, a few facts become clear:

-The idea that Christ's Atonement worked according to the laws (rules) of Justice (or 'quid-pro-quo'; so much suffering for so much death) is absolutely false- it could not have worked according to the laws of Justice, for no man can fulfill the law of Justice by having another take punishment in his place. The Atonement must have operated according to the principle of 'Mercy'. This fact is well attested to in the Bible but the details are "hammered out" in the Restoration Scriptures.

-All of Creation is made up of matter that has been infused with Intelligence at the most fundamental of levels. The Intelligence in the "dumb" matter around us is far less than the Intelligence that we, as Spirit Beings, possess- but it still possesses all the eternal principles of intelligences. Therefore, all matter possesses a basic sense of 'right' and 'wrong'; 'charity' and 'hate'; 'justice' and 'mercy'.

-The Father, if He is to maintain His illustrious position as the great Arbiter of Heaven, must maintain the confidences of the lesser intelligences that willingly follow Him. In other words, He must abide by all the laws that pertain to the exalted sphere which He inhabits. He cannot break those laws or He would lose the confidences of the lesser intelligences. The lesser intelligence's confidence in the Father is what constitutues the Father's honor, or power. If He broke those laws, "He would cease to be God".

-One of the laws that Father must obey is that no filthy (sinful) thing can enter into His presence. Therefore, as we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, we are all filthy and unfit to enter into His kingdom and would be damned eternally to be subject to Satan except for the Atonement.

The Eternal Problem

Now, we are ready to learn: What is the Atonement?

As mentioned earlier, alll intelligences have the capacity to feel mercy, sorrow, etc. (see Nephi's vision wherein he states that he heard the very Earth "groaning" because of the wickedness of her inhabitants). It is their sense of justice that keeps the Father from being able to break the Laws of the Exalted Sphere. However, they also have a sense of mercy.

In each Creation, there is a Messiah appointed to bear the burdens of the sins of the world (see Abraham 3). Although He is blameless and sinless, He must suffer all the brutality and punishment for Sin and Death without reviling. It is the most brutal and painful thing to see- a Sinless One willingly sacrificing Himself for the sake of lesser beings. It is the ultimate act of charity and love. The whole earth- and every single intelligence contained therein- is witness to the Christ's suffering (see the accounts of the earth's response to the Crucifixion in 3 Nephi). Because Christ is lifted upon the cross and suffers for the sins of the world, he draws all men (and intelligences) to Him, to see and bear witness of Him.

Now, what is the point of all this; of this Creation itself? The point is the progression of all of Father's spirit children, to have the oppurtunity to come to an Earth made of matter and experience all things pertaining thereto, that they may become more like Him. However, because of the inherent traps and pitfalls pertaining to an Earth life, we are all guaranteed to sin and therefore fall short of the glory and requirements of God. The entire purpose of Messiah's mission to us is to save us from our sins.

Now, it is an eternal law that whatsoever a man achieves and works for, if he follows all of God's laws during the course of his work, is his forever. It cannot be taken from him, as it is his by his eternal Right as a free agent unto himself. Because Messiah's sole mission is to save us from our sins, if we were kept back from our Heavenly home it would break the laws of Justice, as Messiah would be robbed of the rightful fruits of His labor (us). There are two unstoppable forces of Eternal Justice baring down on one another.

What is the way out?

The Infinite, Eternal Atonement

This is the Great Truth of the Atonement!

Christ, having willingly descended below all things for our sake and having drawn every intelligence in Creation to bear witness to it, won the honor and compassion of every one of those Intelligences. Therefore, so long as Christ does not break the Eternal Law that guides His sphere of existence, every intelligence will honor him as Father (or, a Worthy One greater than themselves). Therefore, when it comes time for a lesser being (us) who has passed all of the tests of Faith on the Eternal Son, Jesus Christ, to come up higher and progress in our eternal glory, it is Christ who tells all those even lesser intelligences who would be angry at our ascencion because of our wickedness:

"Not for their sake, but for Mine: won't you let them come up?"

And it is those lesser intelligences who reply:

"Not for their sake, Jehovah, but for Yours: they may go up."

In his talk, Cleon offered the following as an example the principle of Atoning Mercy, taken from the life of Abraham Lincoln.

"There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.

"She says, 'President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?'

"President Lincoln said, 'For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.' And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.

"Does that touch the heart of compassion? Notice how that overcame the demands of justice. 'For her sake, I will spare him.' And so that’s what’s happened for us. And the salvation of Jesus Christ is very real and the price he paid was very terrible."

-Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, as good a man as Cleon Skousen was, I think his concepts on atonement are not well developed, and flawed in various areas. There are a variety of more modern theories of atonement that deal much better with scripture and the philosophical problems found in many of the theories. For example, Blake Ostler's Compassion Theory of Atonement is perhaps one of the best out there right now.

The purpose of the Atonement is "At One Ment" or to make us "of one mind" with God. We read in the Book of Mormon that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are "one God". This is very true. As a Godhead, they are so united in love, compassion, knowledge, faith, power, etc., that they are possibly greater together than apart. The purpose taught by the Book of Mormon, D&C, and temple endowment is to bring us back into the presence of God and have us be like him.

How is this done?

Hebrews and the BoM teach us that Christ went through all he suffered, so that he may know how to succor us. His power then, brought forth the resurrection. His suffering brought forth his vast understanding so he can heal us emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually.

The atonement began prior to this life and is on-going, with its apogee at Gethsemane and on the cross.

When we have faith and repent, Christ embraces us. He brings us into a one-ness with him. In doing so, he fills us with the Spirit, love and healing, while taking upon himself the pains of our life (whether from sin or struggle). It is like a drop of filthy water being placed in an ocean. The filth dissipates, making the drop clean, yet for a moment the ocean is affected by the filth.

I have written recently on justification and sanctification, and how it fits into all of this. We are made guiltless or clean by Christ's atonement, and are justified in his blood. We then must be sanctified by the Holy Spirit of Promise from one level of holiness to the next. Or as D&C 93 tells us of Christ, we must go from "grace to grace" receiving "grace for grace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, as good a man as Cleon Skousen was, I think his concepts on atonement are not well developed, and flawed in various areas. There are a variety of more modern theories of atonement that deal much better with scripture and the philosophical problems found in many of the theories.

Instead of brushing aside it all with a hand, and saying how you personally prefer another theory, perhaps you could point out where Skosusen's concepts are "not well developed" and "flawed". And what do you mean by "theories" (plural)?

I don't disagree with what you have stated (except the 'filthy drop of water in the ocean' analogy). But it is a very basic explanation that does not 'prove' Skousen's explanation wrong at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah lots of us around here like the Skousen/Widtsoe model of the Atonement. Some people hate it.

Check out: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/21570-skousens-intrepretation-atonement.html

BTW, Blake Ostler's Compassion Theory of Atonement in my opinion doesn't make sense. It just feels wrong.

And thanks for the .mp3 link to the Skousen talk!

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thanks for the .mp3 link to the Skousen talk!

You might enjoy this as well, then. It's the recording of an interview with Cleon from May 29, 2005, and Cleon talks a little bit about everything he's famous for:

Audio (left click to play; right click to 'Save Target As'

The interviewer is Brian Mecham (spelling?), administrator of from LatterdayConservative.com and LDSFreedomForumm.com. Brian gives information about the interview here.

EDIT: I read over your earlier thread- thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the version of the talk that cooles tried to rebut. It's not as good as either of the talks that you linked in the OP. Some of the keys to understanding the other "hidden" points of the doctrine- the existence of our 'little I AM'; our bodies being 'ours' not 'us'; and more- don't seem to be present.

Edited by Matthew0059
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of articles written regarding it. They show that Skousen misquotes Pres Kimball and others, takes terms out of context, and variety of other things Skousen is often noted for in many of his works (which is why most LDS scholars are not anxious to promote any of his writings, including political). There are good points to his talk, such as many of the questions he brings up regarding atonement. He may be correct on a few things, but his over-all theory has serious problems. His questions are good, his answers not so much. That much of the discussion is based upon taking scripture and prophets out of context, misquoting, or hearsay from Elder Widtsoe, is all very problematic. I would prefer starting from scratch with solid treatment of quotes and scripture, than try and build off of something that has these problems.

Next, I have a big problem with his theory, in that it makes God and Christ seem so powerless. Given that 1/3 the host of heaven totally rejected Christ and God, Skousen's power from honor concept would have left God's power devastated, shrinking by a third.

LDS Studies: Skousen and the Atonement

If Two Things Exist: No, brother Skousen, that’s not the Atonement

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Skousen-Williams.pdf

Some discussion previously on Skousen's theory at another blog, the comments are insightful:

Cleon Skousen’s “Intelligence Theory” of Atonement Lehi's Library

Here is an article by Blake Ostler on his concepts of atonement. His books On Mormon Thought give much more detail.

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, I have a big problem with his theory, in that it makes God and Christ seem so powerless. Given that 1/3 the host of heaven totally rejected Christ and God, Skousen's power from honor concept would have left God's power devastated, shrinking by a third.

In my interpretation, this concept is what gives God his power. Skousen argues that all matter honors God. Only the spirits that have rejected God and his plan of salvation do not honor him.

If you compare all the matter in our universe to the finite amount of spirits that chose to follow Satan, you will come to the conclusion that the intellligences that do not honor God are miniscule.

God is powerful because when He speaks the elements themselves obey. Although during this life we have the ability to disobey the will of God, during the final judgement every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess. We will all honor Christ.

We and the elements honor Christ because of who He is and what He did.

It is evident by the reading of Moses 4:1-3 that even Lucifer understood this simple concept. God's power is his honor.

And honor cannot be given. It must be earned. (This is what Lucifer could not and still does not understand)

Here is an article by Blake Ostler on his concepts of atonement. His books On Mormon Thought give much more detail.

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

The Crux of the Ostler model is found in a single sentence.

"Christ is not punished for our sins, nor does he bear our shameful guilt or moral culpability; rather, what he experiences is the pain and subsequent joy of entering into relationship of shared life and light with imperfect humans."

I don't buy it. And furthermore I have no idea what it means... It may make perfect sense to you and to Brother Ostler, but it does not explain why the Atonement (suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross) was necessary...

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have a moment, so it won't be long- but I appreciate you responding, Rameumpton.

The first blog (LDS Studies) lists rebuttals from Clyde J. Williams. Just glancing over the list, I see Williams accusing Skousen of fallacies that, if taken from a strictly logical standpoint, Joseph Smith would also be guilty of ('appeal to authority' being one of them). Plus, at least one of the supposed "fallacies" "rebutted" ("the idea that God's power is solely based on honor") is basically a direct quote from the Doctrine and Covenants!

There might be some gems in there, but the whole foundation seems shoddy. You cannot find Eternal Truth based on the faulty reasoning of Greek Logic!

The entire talk from "If Two Things Exist" I've never seen. It's inferior to the one I linked in the OP. It also seems to be a secondhand transcript (we don't know, because the author of "ITTE" never cites where he got his talk from (if he does I missed it)) of a talk. If that talk was extemporaneous, such as the one linked to in my OP, than the quotation marks and the 'fudging' of direct quotes are far more excusable, as they're A) not Skousen's work and B) the talk was extemporaneous.

I don't have time to read the rebuttal from Williams.

Next, I have a big problem with his theory, in that it makes God and Christ seem so powerless. Given that 1/3 the host of heaven totally rejected Christ and God, Skousen's power from honor concept would have left God's power devastated, shrinking by a third.

Not if you took the time to understand what Skousen is talking about 'Intelligences'. He just doesn't mean you and I, nor does he anywhere say that all the 'hosts of heaven' as described in Abraham are all the intelligences that honored the Father.

Plus, the fact that God gets His power from His honor is in the Doctrine and Covenants, plain as day. Also, the fact that if God broke the Law of the sphere in which He inhabits (acted dishonorably, in other words) than He would fall is also in the scriptures- mostly in the Book of Mormon.

What seems to be threatened is an incomplete understanding of God's nature and character, not God Himself.

And that's the gist of these "rebuttals". They take an extemporaneous talk, treat it like it was a scholarly paper, and then rip it to shreds. I'm sure that makes them feel better about themselves, but it's poor sportsmanship.

And if Ostler's theory can be summed up in the sentence that mikbone copied, then Ostler knows little about the Eternal Philosophy that Brigham Young encouraged.

(Sorry to be so blunt/rude; that's how I write (blunt) and then go over and 'nicen' it up. I don't have time to do that right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew,

The difference between Joseph Smith and Cleon Skousen is Joseph was and is sustained as a prophet of God. So, yes, he could appeal to authority whenever he said, "thus saith the Lord". Skousen, otoh, is misquoting, using hearsay as gospel doctrine, and taking things out of context in order to "appeal to authority".

My take on "intelligence" is anything that the Light of Christ moves upon to give greater capability. Therefore, an atom is an intelligence in that as it forms it has specific characteristics. Then, as a molecule, the atom with associate atoms, now has greater capabilities it did not have before. Eventually, matter (including spirit) is formed into higher and higher forms until it reaches a sentient state (spirit). Gaining a body is just the next step in developing higher forms of organized intelligence.

MikBone,

God gains his power from faith and priesthood. Check out the Lectures on Faith regarding the power of faith. Check out the D&C and PGP for priesthood power.

That God is the "Most Moved Mover", I agree with. Yet this isn't the source of his power. That God infuses all things with the Light of Christ, and therein all things have order and organization to some level or another is based upon whom he is, and not upon who or what honors him.

I believe along with the Book of Abraham that the Gods commanded then waited to be obeyed. I'm just not sure it is to the level that Skousen suggests. I think it is more of an issue of the Gods forming higher forms of intelligence (atoms -> molecules -> higher forms) one step at a time, and it takes some time to do all the creating and forming. I do not believe in ex nihilo Creation, where God snaps his fingers and ¡boom! it suddenly is all in place. I believe the Creation took millions and billions of years, with the first life appearing more than a billion years AFTER the beginning of the earth's creation. I then believe that God (or the Gods) used evolution to develop life on earth over billions of years. That requires patient waiting as things are allowed to transpire. Finally Adam was placed upon the earth when all was ready.

This is very different than what Skousen proposes. That God is only God because he is honored is very problematic. Indeed, if all the universe rejected him, he would still be God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MikBone,

God gains his power from faith and priesthood. Check out the Lectures on Faith regarding the power of faith. Check out the D&C and PGP for priesthood power.

Honor, Faith, and Priesthood are words that we use to communicate concepts. There is no question that faith and priesthood are necessary to have the power of God, but what about truth, accountability, righteousness, intelligence, and wisdom? Faith and priesthood without these other attributes (and more) is powerless.

We have faith in God and follow his commandments because we know that he is correct. We know that the gospel the the only way to experience joy. We know that if we follow the plan of salvation we will be rewarded accordingly. We Honor God and realize that He is perfect and that He will never do anything to harm us.

Read Moses 4:1-3 and D&C 29:36.

In these verses it is pretty obvious that Jesus Christ recognizes that honor is a great governing principle of power.

It is because of the Atonement that we have hope of Eternal Life. When we partake of the Sacrament we honor Jesus Christ for what He did for us, we pledge our lives to Him, and hope that He will accept us despite our weakness and give us strength such that we can overcome sin and thus be cleaned and be able to reunite with Him and our Father. We honor him and his act of atonement. If he had not atoned, if he had failed in Gethsemane and upon the Cross what situation would we be in???

That God is the "Most Moved Mover", I agree with. Yet this isn't the source of his power. That God infuses all things with the Light of Christ, and therein all things have order and organization to some level or another is based upon whom he is, and not upon who or what honors him.

D&C 88:6-7 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ.

You may not see it as I do. But the above scripture implies that the light of Christ actually exists because of the Atonement. No doubt the light of Christ existed prior to the atonement but it must have been somewhat invested from the Father. When Jehovah stood forth and accepted the position of Savior during our pre-mortal existence the Light of Christ was ignited. But it was the act of Atonement itself that made the Light of Christ possible. As Skousen wrote, "Immediately afterwards he said, 'it is finished!' And then, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' At that moment Jesus became the Christ." The First 2,000 years, Skousen p. 296

There is something to do with the Atonement that invests the atoner with power, glory, & honor. The elements obey Jehovah because He is who He is. He is the creator (organizer), the Savior, the Father's chosen. When the Lord speaks, the elements that he created recognize his voice and obey. We should too.

Where did the Father's power come from? I agree with john 5:19, Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse and B. H. Roberts intrepretation. I believe that Elohim himself had previously performed an atonement and had been a Savior prior to becoming who He currently is. Blake Ostler by the way does not believe that the Father was a Savior. New Cool Thang Yes, God the Father does have a Father

I believe along with the Book of Abraham that the Gods commanded then waited to be obeyed. I'm just not sure it is to the level that Skousen suggests. I think it is more of an issue of the Gods forming higher forms of intelligence (atoms -> molecules -> higher forms) one step at a time, and it takes some time to do all the creating and forming. I do not believe in ex nihilo Creation, where God snaps his fingers and ¡boom! it suddenly is all in place. I believe the Creation took millions and billions of years, with the first life appearing more than a billion years AFTER the beginning of the earth's creation. I then believe that God (or the Gods) used evolution to develop life on earth over billions of years. That requires patient waiting as things are allowed to transpire. Finally Adam was placed upon the earth when all was ready.

This is very different than what Skousen proposes. That God is only God because he is honored is very problematic. Indeed, if all the universe rejected him, he would still be God.

I think that you mis-understand Skousen and Widtsoe. Widtsoe obviously believes in a prolonged creation that took at least "many millions of years." Evidences and Reconciliations, Widtsoe, p. 149

I am unsure why you suggest that Skousen believes in a ex nihilo creation...

God is God because of who He is and what He did. The universe does not reject him. We humbly accept Jehovah as our Savior, and hope to follow him and maybe even one day, become as he is.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew,

The difference between Joseph Smith and Cleon Skousen is Joseph was and is sustained as a prophet of God. So, yes, he could appeal to authority whenever he said, "thus saith the Lord". Skousen, otoh, is misquoting, using hearsay as gospel doctrine, and taking things out of context in order to "appeal to authority".

I understand the difference quite well, and agree that there surely is a difference between Cleon and Joseph.

Surely, however, you see how your statement would appear folly to someone not of our faith, or who does not believe all the things that you do. The logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", from the standpoint of Greek reason, applies just as much to Joseph Smith as it does to Skousen. That is why I said, and I maintain, that attempts to find Eternal Truth is impossible according to the rules of Greek Logic- you must follow the keys to finding truth that are in the scriptures to learn Eternal Truth! (And that is no wonder, concerning Greek Logic- Aristotle, the "father" of modern logic, was the philosophical "grandchild" of Socrates, who "proved" that there are no teachers of virtue (which is blasphemy against God and Christ). It was Jewish inheritors of the Greek "synhedrion" (thee Pharisees of the Great Sanhedrin) who hated and crucified Christ. It was Greek Statecraft (which had been absorbed by Rome at the time) and thought that lead to the formation of the wicked Catholic Church- the great scourge of Europe, who went about destroying the native peoples and erasing their cultural memory, while keeping their subjects in base ignorance.)

By the way, I still don't buy the "misquoting" as a valid reason to be wary of Skousen's theory. I still can't find the source of the talk that ITTE Blog rebuts. It doesn't read like Skousen's writing- but it does read like Skousen's speaking. If he was speaking, he was probably speaking extemporaneously. I haven't been able to get a hold of Skousen's paper on the Atonement that accompanied "The First 2,000 Years" (or was it "The Third Thousand Years"? I forget...), but by far the best, most comprehensive talk from Skousen on the subject (that I've seen) is the one given in Texas in 1980- the one I linked in the OP. In it he never mentions Kimball but only Widstoe himself as the only contemporary authority that supported his theory, and doesn't attempt to quote Widstoe's words directly as authoritative. He does, however, cite the scriptures and for the crux of the argument- that 'intelligence' is actually one of the two great building blocks along with 'matter', and that 'matter' is capacitated to receive 'intelligence'- cites Brigham Young, the BoM and the D&C.

My take on "intelligence" is anything that the Light of Christ moves upon to give greater capability. Therefore, an atom is an intelligence in that as it forms it has specific characteristics. Then, as a molecule, the atom with associate atoms, now has greater capabilities it did not have before. Eventually, matter (including spirit) is formed into higher and higher forms until it reaches a sentient state (spirit). Gaining a body is just the next step in developing higher forms of organized intelligence.

I don't disagree with your statement necessarily, but there are a few things yet lacking. For example, the fact that our bodies (the body which is not us, but ours) are under the control of a "central intelligence" and our bodies are made up of matter that comes into the body, is integrated into the body, does it's function, 'dies', and is then taken out of the body. The whole body is not 'one' intelligence, but all under the authority and guidance of one intelligence.

If we take this model down, we see that every particle of matter we know of is made up of even smaller particles of matter, which must of themselves be possessed of some form of 'intelligence'. If we take this model up, we approach God.

This is very different than what Skousen proposes. That God is only God because he is honored is very problematic. Indeed, if all the universe rejected him, he would still be God.

If all the universe rejected Him, why would they do that? Why, because he betrayed the trust they had in Him (remember that even among all His currently wayward children, 'every knee will bow' and submit to the authority of God; they will 'honor' Him and His judgments). Would He still be God if he changed His ways and broke the laws of the sphere in which He operates? No; the scriptures say 'he would cease to be God'. And why would He cease to be God? Because the lesser intelligences no longer honor Him- therefore, they will not listen to Him nor heed His commands! So long as God doesn't Fall, however, those intelligences will always honor Him. Why? Because he "loved them first" and is perfect in dispensing Light and Truth and Justice. The intelligences that utterly reject God (Perdition and the Sons thereof) are destined to Outer Darkness, which is not a "kingdom of glory".

This (the source of God's power being His honor) is not unusual: observe the athlete in sport. What makes him a good athlete? He has obeyed the laws that govern healthy body function (including all the parts of the body: muscle, bone, nerves, skin, etc.). All the various parts of his body follow his command: when he tells his arms to swing a bat at a baseball, they swing (and swing well). When he tells his legs to run and jump, they run and jump (and do so well). Would he still be a 'good' athelete (or could he even be called an 'athlete') if his legs and arms stopped working (such as paralysis), or if his skin sloughed off, or if his muscles rebelled and disconnected from the bone? No, he could not be called an 'athlete' then, as he could not perform the functions of an 'athlete'.

I just read Ostler's summary of Skousen's model at "Atonemment in Mormon Thought". I don't want to be unduly harsh, but Ostler is clearly ignorant of what Skousen actually believed and taught.

From this sentence, which seems to be the crux:

"However, when [the intelligences] see the suffering of a person who is entirely innocent and without sin whom they love, they are revolted by their own demand for justice. They see, in effect, that their demand for justice is itself a form of injustice and refusal to forgive. Their demand for justice is thus appeased and replaced with a change of heart that leads the intelligences to be merciful."

His summary is completely, totally off. I doubt Ostler actually listened to the talk or read it. He might have skimmed through it, or read another's review of it. The example Skousen offers in the 1980 speech (which Ostler cites), of Abraham Lincoln and the mother who had one son left, clearly demonstrates how Skousen claims the Atonement works: although one person did something that is worthy of death, the cause of a second person is so much greater that the great punishment can be waived for the sake of the second being.

The intelligences are not "revolted" by their own demands for justice; that demand for justice is "swallowed up" in their love and honor for Christ (sense of mercy), who specifically asks them "Will you let this sinful one come up (progress), for my sake? I will be robbed of my reward otherwise." Not all intelligences have the self-awareness to guage their feelings of justice against their feelings of mercy.

Perhaps the great 'problem' is that Skousen's theory (which I would call the truth) requires a basic understanding and belief in the principle of Eternal Progression, as hinted at by Joseph Smith in the King Follet Discourse. If one rejects this principle, there is really no basis on which to ground Skousen's explanation of the Atonement, as there are questions it raises that cannot be adequately answered otherwise. Anyone who refuses to take the step of faith in believing these greater things (which were taught by the early Brethren, but because of the unbelief of the Mormon people have been lost to our general unerstanding) will find probllems with the 'Intelligence theory'.

Another problem may be that the 'intellectuals' at BYU (they're the ones who seem to hate Skousen so much) want a whole, complete theory of the Atonement that explains everything in light of the revelations we currently have. We have so little- what is contained in our scriptures is still almost entirely 'milk'- that any true explanation of how the Atonement was wrought will of necessity require one to believe and accept that which isn't laid out plainly in the scriptures, but what must be sought for and obtained personally by a personal relationship with the Lightgiver (God).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you talk with LDS scholars, while not all agree with Ostler's Compassion Theory, they all pretty much agree with his assessment of Skousen's theory. I've had many discussions over the past 7 or 8 years with a variety of LDS scholars, including on Skousen, and they will pretty much all say that for the time he did his work, it was okay. However, much better models on the atonement now exist, Ostler's model being one of them.

Ostler wrote three very thick volumes on philosophy and Mormonism, which are generally well regarded - with some exceptions to his thoughts on the KFD, but it is more in conjunction with God's progression, not ours. His review of Skousen is considered much more solid than you think. And I agree with it, in that there are many flaws in Skousen's thinking.

Why would the universe reject God? Why did Satan and so many others reject God? Because they felt betrayed by him! Being honorable and receiving honor are two entirely separate things. God could be God, and based on the reasonings of Satan, the universe could choose to reject God, feeling it was betrayed or was being dealt with unfairly by God. But we don't see that occurring. Atoms and molecules are not sentient beings that can respond to issues of honor. Only spirits, mortals, angels and gods are sentient (so far as we know), and so we should be careful applying such a capability to any other elements, etc. A rock obeys the law of gravity because it has no other choice. Mankind can find ways to overcome the law of gravity, and often does. One is sentient, the other is not.

There is more than you think available for us in the scriptures. Skousen just did not employ the scriptures much, but mostly went on one of his interesting tracks that filled his life with theories, conspiracies, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the universe reject God? Why did Satan and so many others reject God? Because they felt betrayed by him!

Hmm...

I think you are WAY off base here.

Perhaps they felt betrayed. I have no idea what feelings Satan and the 1/3 host had.

But I know that they were not betrayed. God presented all of the pre-mortal spirits with the plan of salvation for our benefit. They rejected God and his plan. It was their decision.

btw... What in the heck is an LDS scholar?

Both Skousen and Ostler were/are attorneys. They are not General Authorities. Both have published literature (Skousen much more). You saying that many of the 'LDS scholars' that you have had conversations with agree with Ostler and that Skousen is dated, don't really boslter your position...

The Widtsoe / Skousen model makes sense to me and has greatly helped my personal faith in God.

The fact that Ostler does not understand the KFD and continues to misintrepret it to substantiate his own ideas makes me want to dismiss his entire work.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...

I think you are WAY off base here.

Perhaps they felt betrayed. I have no idea what feelings Satan and the 1/3 host had.

But I know that they were not betrayed. God presented all of the pre-mortal spirits with the plan of salvation for our benefit. They rejected God and his plan. It was their decision.

Motives aside, Satan and his host provide us with an example of intelligences not giving honor to God. Did that make God less-powerful? Does that honor then go to whoever the intelligence offers it? or is it lost forever?

How many intelligences must give God honor in order for Him to maintain His glory? If only 1 intelligence gives him honor, is He still God? Does He remain God even over those intelligences that reject Him and give Him no honor?

I do agree with some aspects of Skousen's ideas - primarily that there is some (finer) matter that acts and some matter that is acted upon. This idea though, that God is God only so long as He is being honored rubs me the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with your statement necessarily, but there are a few things yet lacking. For example, the fact that our bodies (the body which is not us, but ours) are under the control of a "central intelligence" and our bodies are made up of matter that comes into the body, is integrated into the body, does it's function, 'dies', and is then taken out of the body. The whole body is not 'one' intelligence, but all under the authority and guidance of one intelligence.

If we take this model down, we see that every particle of matter we know of is made up of even smaller particles of matter, which must of themselves be possessed of some form of 'intelligence'. If we take this model up, we approach God.

What "central intelligence" is our body under? What "one intelligence" is all over the body with authority?

I think you might have that wrong. We are dual beings in this state. Spirit and body as independently acting entities, in most cases, acting opposite each other. The body itself has a pull towards carnal things. We are told that Satan has dominion over all things of the earth, our body being one of those things. This is what creates the test we are in, spirit versus body. Your own consciousness is a very very tiny portion of everything your brain is doing right now. Just like a computer, all the calculations the computer makes does not come up on the computer screen. Our thought is similar, we are not aware of all the little subconscious calculations as it doesn't come up to our consciousness.

Another example of this is from what we know about neuroanatomy. If the anterior temporal lobes of someone was destroyed either by infection or stroke etc. they become hypersexual. Is that the "one intelligence" driving that hypersexuality? I am sure you would say no. If bilateral lateral hypothalamic nuclei were destroyed a person becomes anorexic, is that the "one intelligence" driving that or the now disinhibited arcuo-hypothalamic fibers and related hormones?

When a person become hungry at the end of a fast sunday, is that the "one intelligence" driving that thought? When one desires power and fame, is that the "one intelligence"? When a person goes into clinical depression or has a manic episode, is that the "one intelligence"? When a person starts to lose memory and cognitive ability over their lifetime is that the "one intelligence" causing that?

We are not "one" intelligence beings, we are dual beings at the moment. I think this is a basic teaching that is critical to the purpose of this life and the test we face. This is what makes the natural man an enemy to God because the default is to follow carnal desires. In other words, the most overwhelming force of intelligence we have right now is the circuitry of our brain. The spirit, in a quiet, still voice kind of way can alter choices we make but the drive is from our body, our brain. One day, we hope to be a unified being of spirit and body and have fullness of joy in that setting, but we are not that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motives aside, Satan and his host provide us with an example of intelligences not giving honor to God. Did that make God less-powerful? Does that honor then go to whoever the intelligence offers it? or is it lost forever?

Yes, when the 1/3 host rejected the plan of salvation and followed Lucifer it did make God less-powerful and consequently made Lucifer more powerful. A war was begun and there have been many casualities. But then again if you look into the future at the final outcome. The souls that have sided with God are becoming stronger and stronger. We are being strengthened by our adversities, by this conflict with Satan. We are becoming more and more invested in Elohim's plans, ideas, and many of us want to become like He is. Many will sacrifice all that we have or even our lives to follow his will. Jesus followed Elohim completely and based upon Moses 4:2 and the great intercessory prayer John 17, it is obvious that Jesus created Glory by being the Savior and that that Glory has been given to the Father as well. It appears that Glory has a property that allows it to be shared or multiplied. That it is synergistic

Lucifer does have much power. And it seems that he has chrisma enough to retain the leadership of the 1/3 host. But does he have their respect and honor? I dont know but I doubt it. I like the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Lucifer found in Isaiah 14: 12-20. It appears that Lucifers plan is unsustainable. But I could be wrong.

What made Hitler such a successful dictator? Was it his strength, his chrisma, or the fact that he convinced people to follow him and to carry out his will? Why is a sitting president with such a poor approval rating so powerless to enact policy or lead a nation?

"Authority doesn't come from a rank"

“Where does it come from?”

“From the men who give it to you. That’s the only way to get it.”

The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson

How many intelligences must give God honor in order for Him to maintain His glory? If only 1 intelligence gives him honor, is He still God? Does He remain God even over those intelligences that reject Him and give Him no honor?

I dunno. Elohim is who He is. He is the greatest scientist who can manipulate all the laws of the Universe. If everyone in our pre-mortal existence had rejected the plan of salvation would his Glory be less? Yes. Whould his knowledge be less? No. If he had no followers would he still be God? Probably not, the defination of God according to Webster is: 'the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

But you know that the vast majority of his children honor him. And we know that at least one of his children (Jehovah) has followed him completely. I believe that there will be many more of his children that will continue to follow him. I can imagine a future where there are hundreds of thousands of his children that create their own galaxies and continue other plans of salvation. Each one of those sons and daughters will become all-powerful and heap Glory upon Glory upon God. Moses 1:38-39

I cannot imagine a scenario where God would ever act in an unwise manner such that He would lose his glory, power. And I will continue to honor him eternally. So will you btw.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw... What in the heck is an LDS scholar?

Both Skousen and Ostler were/are attorneys. They are not General Authorities. Both have published literature (Skousen much more).

It is someone who professionally puts a secular interpretation (on top of their own spiritual interpretation as it can never really be purely secular) on LDS spiritual matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you talk with LDS scholars, while not all agree with Ostler's Compassion Theory, they all pretty much agree with his assessment of Skousen's theory. I've had many discussions over the past 7 or 8 years with a variety of LDS scholars, including on Skousen, and they will pretty much all say that for the time he did his work, it was okay. However, much better models on the atonement now exist, Ostler's model being one of them.

Ram:

Do not forget that the whole Church is under condemnation for "vanity and unbelief". It's been that way since year 2, and hasn't been lifted- and our general community is still extremely ignorant of the ways of God. It doesn't matter what the "learned men" of BYU say, who think that their much learning and degrees equate to Eternal Knowledge.

(By the way, Skousen's workwas well-regarded and accepted by the prophets. I can find documentation proving that, if you'd like. If it's the BYU professors and intellectuals vs. the prophets, I think most Mormons would go with the prophets. Besides, we all know how BYU seems to breed apostate professors- nothing about being a 'Mormon intellectual' gives one a pass on wisdom.)

Ostler wrote three very thick volumes on philosophy and Mormonism, which are generally well regarded - with some exceptions to his thoughts on the KFD, but it is more in conjunction with God's progression, not ours. His review of Skousen is considered much more solid than you think. And I agree with it, in that there are many flaws in Skousen's thinking.

Ostler doesn't even understand the basic premise of Skousen's model. I can prove it. I believe I already have.

There is more than you think available for us in the scriptures. Skousen just did not employ the scriptures much, but mostly went on one of his interesting tracks that filled his life with theories, conspiracies, etc.

Right... Skousen didn't employ the scriptures much... Which is why McKay wanted him as a Religion Professor at BYU...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "central intelligence" is our body under? What "one intelligence" is all over the body with authority?

I AM. Where are "you" located? Are "you" in your hand? Is your center of awareness in your foot?

Is your foot "you" or "yours"?

I think you might have that wrong. We are dual beings in this state. Spirit and body as independently acting entities, in most cases, acting opposite each other.

All spirit is matter. You have one body with many, many parts and layers. What part of you survives after death, and is in control of the ressurected body?

I would offer a more full reply, but the computer I'm on has 1 minute remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikbone, I was not "way off base" in describing how the rebellious felt. You are correct that God did not betray them. But just as a rebellious teenager feels betrayed by his parents, even though the parent desires the best for the child, it does not mean the child does not feel betrayed. Perhaps you should actually read what I write, rather than reading things into what I write. It really helps with communication.

Matthew, I do not say that LDS scholars are perfect or know everything. What I do know is that many of them work for BYU or CPART, which are both sponsored by the Church. Skousen never was in such a position. And it is just as likely that he was one of those intellectuals you seem to condemn.

While some prophets may have agreed with him, not all do. And comparing dead prophets with living ones who support the work of the BYU scholars of today, does not put you in good light. Those scholars strongly support today's prophets and apostles. And they are supported by those prophets and apostles. Yes, it is all theory, but some theories hold up better than others do. And something a dead prophet or apostle said is only as valid as the living prophets agree and actively teach it or support it.

BTW, how do you know the church is still under condemnation for vanity and unbelief? Are you quoting dead prophets and applying them to BYU scholars of today? You realize all those scholars hold temple recommends, some of them have been bishops, high councilors, etc? They know the scriptures better than you do. And I've heard many of them share their testimonies, so I know they do believe. Vanity is in the eye of the beholder. For all I know, You or I may be as vain or more vain than they are. As it is, you are judging their character without knowing any of them (as far as I know), while I'm judging the theory of Skousen and using scholars' ideas to judge his theory, also. IOW, they are not judging Skousen. In fact, many of these scholars are good friends with Mark Skousen, Cleon's son!

Skousen was a good Latter-day Saint. He tried to expand the knowledge of the Church in some areas with his own theories. Today, those theories do not add up, as we find new truths and information that explain things better, and with a more solid foundation of evidence.

Since the discussion is now going to ad hominem attacks on good LDS members whose bishops and stake presidents consider them just as worthy of a temple recommend as you or I, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The prophets have lots of confidence in the scholarship we are building in BYU, and I find it sad that people would go to such extents as ad hominem to support their own views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard an Apostle or Prophet give his opinion or Apostolic thoughts on Skousen's work and for the life of me, I can't understand how modern scholarship so-called has some how refuted Skousen's views.

I like Skousen and his "theory" of the Atonement and have felt the Spirit when reading it in the First Two Thousand Years. Though, I am not so keen on some of what is presented in the book itself....

Regarding the Atonement, why scholarship? Why not Spirit and revelation? Why not revelation directly from the Prophet? One would think something as all encompassing and eternally important as the Atonement wouldn't need to be refuted or argued by Scholars, but we clarified by the mouth of a Living Prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I AM. Where are "you" located? Are "you" in your hand? Is your center of awareness in your foot?

Is your foot "you" or "yours"?

All spirit is matter. You have one body with many, many parts and layers. What part of you survives after death, and is in control of the ressurected body?

I would offer a more full reply, but the computer I'm on has 1 minute remaining.

In this life my body is dust and will always be dust. My foot belongs to this earth, it is not mine, just borrowed. I have stewardship over it right now but it is not mine and therefore not really me.

My center of awareness right now is mostly in the circuits of the reticular activating system of the brain and through the intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus that projects to the dorsomedial nuclei of the thalamus and then through all of the circuits of the cortex. My spontaneity and random contemplative thoughts mostly come from the frontal lobes, the part of the brain that provides personality. That circuitry is, I believe, recorded and influenced by the spirit but it definitely is not in control of it. If my spirit was in control of my body I would be like Jesus and I would probably be translated right off the earth. I am like everyone else here, mostly controlled by the carnal, corrupted circuits of the body and struggling to have the influence of the spirit play a role in my life. But, I would say 99% of who I am here is what I was given temporarily here in the form of this corrupted body.

Upon resurrection the situation is different, then the spirit is perfectly united with the perfected body (not a corrupted one) and in complete control. Jesus had a begotten body and therefore, He truly is the I AM, of this world as His spirit was in control of His body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since the discussion is now going to ad hominem attacks on good LDS members whose bishops and stake presidents consider them just as worthy of a temple recommend as you or I, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The prophets have lots of confidence in the scholarship we are building in BYU, and I find it sad that people would go to such extents as ad hominem to support their own views.

To my shame, I fear this is partly true. I've been de-toxing off of SSRI's over the past few weeks and as of a week ago I was getting over-zealous about this topic. My apologies. My intent in starting this thread was never to bash on the LDS professors and I feel bad that I ended condemning all for the works of a few.

Matthew, I do not say that LDS scholars are perfect or know everything. What I do know is that many of them work for BYU or CPART, which are both sponsored by the Church. Skousen never was in such a position. And it is just as likely that he was one of those intellectuals you seem to condemn.

Actually, Skousen did work as a professor at BYU for a time- instated by President McKay himself. Cleon Skousen was also given a direct commandment from President McKay to teach the people of the Church on how to "work together by the Law" (of the Gospel)- it was this commandment that eventually led to the creation of the Freeman Institute, and it was right in line with the books Skousen had written on the subject of modern government (that is Communism vs. American Constitutionalism). The Naked Communist was expressly quoted and endorsed by President Mckay and Ezra Taft Benson (who would be President at a later time) in General Conference for 3 years in a row (1959-1961)- not to mention similar such "conspiracy" works, such as "None Dare Call it Conspiracy".

While some prophets may have agreed with him, not all do. And comparing dead prophets with living ones who support the work of the BYU scholars of today, does not put you in good light.

Okay- find me a living prophet who specifically, publicly has endorsed any of the current professors, and present him as evidence.

I will raise you this evidence with the remarks given at Cleon Skousen's funeral by none other than Thomas S. Monson, who said (among other things):

"Everyone he spoke to, everyone he taught, is closer to Christ than before they met Cleon Skousen... He (Cleon Skousen) has lived a wonderful life, extended, look at all these years, but he has never ever deviated... and the song that Cleon Skousen is hearing: ‘well done thy good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." ("An Open Letter to Detractors of W. Cleon Skousen and His Work")

Those scholars strongly support today's prophets and apostles. And they are supported by those prophets and apostles. Yes, it is all theory, but some theories hold up better than others do.

I find it interesting that in all our back-and-forth, you have only ever offered evidence that others have given for why Skousen's theory is wrong. You did offer other discussions, and I have now read the response from Williams. I will post a response to it as time permits (hopefully right now). I'm forced to use the public library, which has time restraints, and I can only get to it sporadically (hence the delay in my response).

And something a dead prophet or apostle said is only as valid as the living prophets agree and actively teach it or support it.

So, the doctrines of plural marriage or eternal progression, which cannot be said to be "actively" taught or supported, are not valid? Do we wipe the slate of knowledge clean every time we have a new President?

Whence derives the authority of the Church and the teachings of the scripture- from God, or from man (prophets)? This teaching of yours- that old teachings are valid only so long as they are agreed upon by living prophets- is false. It is the truth of said teachings that determine their validity. If the entire Church should go into apostasy and the President loudly declared that Joseph Smith was never a true prophet, it would be the Church, not Joseph, that was in error. GOD forbid that should ever happen.

BTW, how do you know the church is still under condemnation for vanity and unbelief? Are you quoting dead prophets and applying them to BYU scholars of today?

Well, I'm quoting scriptures (D&C 84:55), which are still canon. That particular scripture hasn't been removed from the canon, and the modern prophets fully support the current canon. Furthermore, Ezra Taft Benson reminded us, in 1984, that said condemnation hasn't been lifted (I believe that was in 1984).

Now, was that condemnation no longer valid in the intervening time between Joseph's death and Ezra Taft Benson's life? No, that condemnation was valid. Therefore, until that condemnation is lifted (and I submit that we will know it- GOD will let us know via the prophets) we are still under said condemnation.

You realize all those scholars hold temple recommends, some of them have been bishops, high councilors, etc?

I am not saying those scholars are liars- yet merely having a temple recommend or holding high position means little in the Church today. John Dehlin purportedly holds a recommend, despite a very vocal lack of faith and belief in the basic tenents of the Church, which are normally required for a temple recommend. I personally have known unworthy men who hold a temple recommend and entered the temple- many other members have similar stories. We hear frequently of bishops, High Councilmen, occassionally Stake Presidents or GA's that are excommunicated for disobedience.

Besides... You know of the history of ex'd intellectuals and scholars from BYU. I will not accuse them all of error, but you cannot claim they all are correct or even honest in their hearts.

You will notice that the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of a great judgment of death to come upon members (at some future time) who have claimed to know Him but have not, who have blasphemed His name in the midst of His house (D&C 112:26). How can someone blaspheme in the midst of the Lord's House unless said blasphemer was an active, supposedly faithful member of the Lord's Church?

They know the scriptures better than you do. And I've heard many of them share their testimonies, so I know they do believe.

So too do the devils know and quote scripture better than man, and so too do the devils believe. I am *NOT* saying that scholars are devils- but I am showing you that the measuring rods you are using, of temple recommends, scriptural knowledge and belief, et al, can return false positives. Such is the nature of using fallen logic (Greek logic; what the modern universities call "reason" and the basis for all of the scholarly work now done) as the basis of our search for Truth. I suggest we employ a method similar to the one found in Alma 32.

I wish to re-state that I have painted all the professors of BYU with a brush far too black. I have made the egregious error of condemning the whole for the works of the few, and for that I apologize to them all. Those who disagree with Skousen cannot be fairly said to be wicked in any degree because of their disagreement. I never intended to imply such, but I did. Again, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this life my body is dust and will always be dust. My foot belongs to this earth, it is not mine, just borrowed. I have stewardship over it right now but it is not mine and therefore not really me.

Rightly spoken; I agree.

So, which part of you is yours? Which part of you does the Lord most desire to be given to Him, and why does HE want that part of us? Which part of you existed with God "in the beginning"?

My center of awareness right now is mostly in the circuits of the reticular activating system of the brain and through the intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus that projects to the dorsomedial nuclei of the thalamus and then through all of the circuits of the cortex. My spontaneity and random contemplative thoughts mostly come from the frontal lobes, the part of the brain that provides personality. That circuitry is, I believe, recorded and influenced by the spirit but it definitely is not in control of it.

Now, if you want an interesting exercise that will greatly expand your understanding of heavenly and spiritual things, take your knowledge of the brain and apply the principle that all temporal things were made in the likeness of that which is spiritual (D&C 77:2).

Fast for a few days beforehand, asking that the Father will give to you understanding concerning how the workings of your brain can help you gain hidden pearls of knowledge concerning the workings of your spirit. Ponder on everything you have learned, and make room for the Spirit to whisper new knowledge to you.

If you do this exercise, which is a pattern whereby all men may receive knowledge and wisdom, you will find your understandings of the workings of God and His Kingdom greatly expanded (if you haven't done this already).

If my spirit was in control of my body I would be like Jesus and I would probably be translated right off the earth.

Just some food for thought:

If Jesus' spirit was in complete control of His body at all times (which I agree it was), and that is a prerequisite for translation, why was Jesus not translated at any time but made to suffer bitter agony?

Conversely, was Moses' and Aaron's spirits- or the spirits of any other translated beings- wholly in control of their physical bodies to the level of Christ when they were translated?

I am like everyone else here, mostly controlled by the carnal, corrupted circuits of the body and struggling to have the influence of the spirit play a role in my life. But, I would say 99% of who I am here is what I was given temporarily here in the form of this corrupted body.

What kind of "body" is the physical body in similitude of? Is that first kind of "body" the most basic structure within which GOD resides? What is the tabernacle of GOD?

Now, in the scriptures, when the LORD refers to a part of Himself- such as "His body" or "His arm"- which part does he refer to as He Himself as opposed to "something that is His"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rightly spoken; I agree.

So, which part of you is yours? Which part of you does the Lord most desire to be given to Him, and why does HE want that part of us? Which part of you existed with God "in the beginning"?

Now, if you want an interesting exercise that will greatly expand your understanding of heavenly and spiritual things, take your knowledge of the brain and apply the principle that all temporal things were made in the likeness of that which is spiritual (D&C 77:2).

Fast for a few days beforehand, asking that the Father will give to you understanding concerning how the workings of your brain can help you gain hidden pearls of knowledge concerning the workings of your spirit. Ponder on everything you have learned, and make room for the Spirit to whisper new knowledge to you.

If you do this exercise, which is a pattern whereby all men may receive knowledge and wisdom, you will find your understandings of the workings of God and His Kingdom greatly expanded (if you haven't done this already).

Just some food for thought:

If Jesus' spirit was in complete control of His body at all times (which I agree it was), and that is a prerequisite for translation, why was Jesus not translated at any time but made to suffer bitter agony?

Conversely, was Moses' and Aaron's spirits- or the spirits of any other translated beings- wholly in control of their physical bodies to the level of Christ when they were translated?

What kind of "body" is the physical body in similitude of? Is that first kind of "body" the most basic structure within which GOD resides? What is the tabernacle of GOD?

Now, in the scriptures, when the LORD refers to a part of Himself- such as "His body" or "His arm"- which part does he refer to as He Himself as opposed to "something that is His"?

Being in the similitude or likeness or image of something doesn't make it equal or the same. I am not sure if that is what you are implying. If I have a flight simulator program that is not the same as an airplane even though it is made to imitate or be in the likeness of it. Our body, in and of itself, cannot ever be like God. This body is just an opportunity to have some experiences to show that if we are good stewards of small things we may be able to handle stewardships over bigger things, i.e. - if one does well on a flight simulator they likely will do well flying a plane with further instruction.

If a person is translated, obviously, they are not in their mortal, carnal, corrupted body any longer. So, then we are not talking about the same situation. It is in that altered situation though that a person can see clearly and really be themselves. Showing that in our current state, we are not really ourselves and we cannot fully act for ourselves, the carnal animalistic part of our dual being also acts.

Jesus had a different body, the Only Begotten body to accomplish His mission here on Earth. I could not understand it and it hasn't been revealed all the reasons why that was necessary but it was different from yours and my body, that is for sure.

Bottom line though is that our spirit does not control our body otherwise we would really be ourselves in this life, which is pure, righteous God obeying individuals, all of us. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The flesh is weak because it gives into primitive carnal desires, like sleep.

When a newborn baby cries for the first time, is that the spirit telling the body to cry or the body in control? When a newborn suckles for the first time is that the spirit instructing the body what to do or is it the body driving those desires itself? When you desire to eat food on Fast Sunday, is that your spirit wanting food or your body? When you see a hot woman (or man, whatever the case may be) walk down the street and certain thoughts pop into your head, was that the spirit putting those thoughts there or did they originate in the brain, the body? When a person feels euphoria from using drugs, is that the spirit feeling that and responding that way or is it the body? When a person is forgetful about things they have learned in the past, is that the spirit forgetting or the body? When a person feels the urge to fall asleep in Sacrament meeting is that the spirit or the body? ... we can go on and on.

I can tell you 100% that my body is not wired or made with the same likes and dislikes as my spirit, it does not "think" the same way as my spirit, it does not act the same way as my spirit. That is the struggle of this life, that is the test, who will win out in this test of wills.

In a resurrected state or that state which God is in, the situation is different. Then the body is in harmony with the spirit. But, we were not talking about that situation. And we do not know much about the tabernacle of God, that body, all we know is that it has flesh and bones and no blood and we are in its image. We do not know how it is wired or operates etc. That is something, I believe, we will not know or need to know in this life. So what is the tabernacle of God, we cannot say right now other than those small features I mentioned. It certainly isn't like our body now, though, other than maybe its image.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share