Damnation

[brlenox]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

• Satan's plan was to save everyone. God's plan was that some would be damned.
• God's word determines law.
• We are not accountable for Adam's transgressions.
• The fall is a temporary state.
• The Atonement is "incomprehensible and inexplicable" (https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=incomprehensible+and+inexplicable+atonement).

That's it. That's all I've offered. Which of these ideas is contrary to your enlightened view anyhow? I remain at a loss as to why you deem these views inferior ones.

That's the point I have been making I gave you a list of my responses which should have at least been representative of the next step in the conversation.  I'll do a little work here and illustrate. 

1. Satan's plan was to save everyone. God's plan was that some would be damned.

My response from my very first post:

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 1:32 PM, brlenox said:

Now I am not exactly agreeing with the idea that Satan wanted to destroy justice, as I lean more to the agency side of the debate.  However if justice were destroyed from our direction of looking at how it impacts us there would be no impact on God the Father as he has already administered a just decision when he condemned all of mankind as all were lost.  However, if he destroyed justice from the top looking down as to how it affected citizens of God's kingdom such as Christ, that would have the capacity to cause God to cease to be God and would have grave ramifications if he chose not to grant that justice.

I'm, of course, not positive if this is what you are indicating as the point we discussed Satan and God's plan but it is the only place that I can see as probable to your reference.  The essence is that I placed my emphasis on the justice portion of your comment.  You took it as a slight that I phrased my start this way, "If I might suggest a paradigm shift, you are looking at justice from the bottom up or in other words how justice treats mankind." I will tell you why that phrasing.  About 6 years ago while reading D & C 19"

Quote

 

D & C 19:6-12.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

 

This very small sample of God explaining in detail an expansion of the definition of a word, I believe to be a pattern for practically everything we know in the Gospel. In the case of “eternal” it is perceived by the masses to be simply forever in the sense of eternal as a range of time. We are after all time-based thinkers as a result of mortality and tend to evaluate perceived time element statements against a paradigm of relativity to a time line. However, when God explains the definition of eternal it morphs from a time based definition to a status or state of being based definition with absolutely no overlay of a time constraint at all. I am convinced that the terms Son of God, Firstborn of God, Creator, husbandman and any other title that describes deity and in fact probably any gospel principle, has layers of understanding - line upon line – precept upon precept layers of understanding.  Just as God clarifies the “why” for the reason he is expanding upon their understanding, I believe is applicable for every person who seeks to understand more than early precepts. Definitions of necessity will expand and if they do not you are not advancing. 

For instance considering D & C 19 above and applying that concept to creation if one was God and had an entirely different time paradigm than man, would our creative efforts be bound to the restrictive contemplations of mortality or would they embrace and fulfill the measure of the parameters of the sphere in which you reside as a God?

The challenge as I see it is that mortality enforces a paradigm of thought that naturally attempts to subject it's conclusions to a time element be it the time element of the scientists in billions of years or your paradigm of 6000 years. If Godhood does not truly subject time, then Godhood is subject to time. The brilliance of Doctrine and Covenants 19 is how it attempts to allow us to shift our perceptions of time as a factor which constrains our thinking into a possibility of something of an entirely different paradigm.

Most even as they read these verses in D & C 19 remain in a time based default even as God is trying to educate them to a non-time based perspective. We read the terms eternal and endless and continue on auto-pilot only seeing the implications of time and its passage. Most simply say something to the effect that, "okay so it doesn't necessarily mean “without end” when God talks about eternal and endless", using another time based constraint to define what God is stating.  However what is truly occurring here is that God is embracing time as an element of his status of being.  He is not subject to definitions of time as he, by his very essence, is not subject to the dictates of time based interpretations.

However, D & C 19 is trying to give a group of apostles (and any who will take the time to grasp it) a broader view of how God views eternity. This is distinctly different than a time bound view as it begins to focus man, those who grasp it, into a different paradigm of considering the things of God from an eternal perspective.  Recalling that God tells them that they must comprehend this eternal perspective BEFORE they can enter into his rest informs them of the vital nature of grasping this perspective and should alert a mature seeker of truth to seek until they understand this perspective. As entering into his rest is scripture speak for eternal life - the highest level of potential in this existence, this perspective is vital. 

While many are focusing on the time based eternal nature of the damned, what D & C 19 is trying to get illustrate is a state or condition that is not only the eternal time based equivalent of this state of the condemned but also is comprehended by the true nature of a fullness of eternal called exaltation. Thus while some will obsess over the narrow application of a time based determination for the damned, God is trying to get them to change their focus to the true comprehensive nature of the exalted.

In this small section of the Doctrine and Covenants we find a principle of interpretation of all things gospel.  We can understand them from our perspective such as eternal simply means forever.  That is looking from the bottom up.  However, if we truly wish to enter into his rest we must change our entire paradigm to top down.  We must see things as best we can from the purview of how God sees it or how he interprets the value of a process or element of the Gospel.

When I learned this principle I began to seek that I might understand things as God understands to the best of mans capacity to perceive such. I ask questions differently than I did before and I get answers differently than I did before. It completely alters the depth of understanding and the paradigm. 

So to answer your other question from the later post.  Yes after the same fashion that God revealed to these men that they could not enter into his rest unless they corrected a simple misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "eternal" then I have grown to feel that unless we make a similar change and try to understand the gospel from Gods perspective then we must forever by as those whom the Lord stated were falling short of correct understanding.  If however that became a paradigm change for you as it has for me, then I suspect that you might learn of things specific to your spiritual growth as God saw fit to teach you.  So it is the perspective that I feel matters most and from my perspective as based on my understanding of D & C 19 my material is very important, necessary to me and those who will put forth the effort to make the paradigm shift.  The very first time you learn something from His perspective you will marvel at how little you knew before just as I have done time and time again.   The other thing you will notice is that others who have a similar paradigm will understand more readily that perspective.  It is not an easy switch but well worth the effort.   

Now all of that to explain but a few words of my introduction but it simplifies out to I was inviting you to consider something from God's perspective (top looking down) and not our usual perspective (bottom looking up).  What you assumed I meant was about 2 pages shy of what I intended.

I am going to end this post and pick up the others in the next post as this concept is so important and profound I am hesitant to lose it in subject changes.

 

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I read both.

It came off to me that brlenox did not respect your, nor Vort's, points of view because he thinks they don't rise up to his level of intelligence.  He pretty much said it in words too.  Too many pages, I'm too lazy to go back and quote it.

You are being totally unfair but such is as it is...If you think to judge read the material I have posted on the atonement and ponder it prudently.  Then at least you will have a basis upon which to bloviate.

Edited November 15, 2017 by brlenox
I just wanted to use the word bloviate in a sentence

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As I've told you. I will not engage in an intellectual discussion with someone who views my thoughts as unworthy of being taken seriously. That would be an even bigger waste of time than this back and forth.

Anyhow, here are the gospel principles I've raise in this thread: 

• Satan's plan was to save everyone. God's plan was that some would be damned.
• God's word determines law.
• We are not accountable for Adam's transgressions.
• The fall is a temporary state.
• The Atonement is "incomprehensible and inexplicable" (https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=incomprehensible+and+inexplicable+atonement).

That's it. That's all I've offered. Which of these ideas is contrary to your enlightened view anyhow? I remain at a loss as to why you deem these views inferior ones.

1 is done on a previous post.

2.) God's word determines law.  Your original verbiage was to this effect, "The Folk Prophet inquires: Why not? Any action warrants a death penalty if a law is established. God established the law - if ye eat ye shall die. Therefore it warranted it."

To this I provided the following answer:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941141

Brlenox replies: It is not a just punishment and God is preeminently just.   It was a just punishment to cast them from the Garden of Eden.  However the figurative fruit consumption is not an adequate cause. There must be something that equalizes the condemnation. The additional aspect of the punishment is that they were cast to a telestial state.  You don't just go telestial as a holiday venture but telestial is reserved for those who cannot abide a terrestrial or celestial law.  Therefore as the garden of Eden was started as a higher kingdom, terrestrial, then what ever they did violated the law of that kingdom and they could no longer remain as per D & C 88.

Lectures on Faith encourage that in order to have faith in God we must know of his traits and attributes. That he is just is an imperative for us to exercise faith in him, for if we did not believe he was just how then could we depend that all will receive a fair and honorable judgment.  The principle is encapsulated in this verse from Alma:

Quote

Alma 42:18-19

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

Eating a fruit and then being condemned to death is not just and is borderline capricious in the implications of fairness. Romans 2 speaks to a similar expectation of just and righteous judgment that is specific to the nature of the behaviors under judgment.

Quote

Romans 2:6

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

I can't see where this in any way falls short of being a suitable answer.  You did not respond to it and have continue to state over and over that I failed to answer your question.  I could have said more that always possible for me but for some reason it meant the same as nothing to you as that is what you are saying I provided to the question.

 

Since these are long I will make each a separate response.

[zil]

I'm beginning to think that this "you're condescending", "no, you're intellectually lazy" back and forth may well prove to Rob Osborn that infinity is real after all.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, brlenox said:

1 is done on a previous post.

2.) God's word determines law.  Your original verbiage was to this effect, "The Folk Prophet inquires: Why not? Any action warrants a death penalty if a law is established. God established the law - if ye eat ye shall die. Therefore it warranted it."

To this I provided the following answer:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941141

Brlenox replies: It is not a just punishment and God is preeminently just.   It was a just punishment to cast them from the Garden of Eden.  However the figurative fruit consumption is not an adequate cause. There must be something that equalizes the condemnation. The additional aspect of the punishment is that they were cast to a telestial state.  You don't just go telestial as a holiday venture but telestial is reserved for those who cannot abide a terrestrial or celestial law.  Therefore as the garden of Eden was started as a higher kingdom, terrestrial, then what ever they did violated the law of that kingdom and they could no longer remain as per D & C 88.

Lectures on Faith encourage that in order to have faith in God we must know of his traits and attributes. That he is just is an imperative for us to exercise faith in him, for if we did not believe he was just how then could we depend that all will receive a fair and honorable judgment.  The principle is encapsulated in this verse from Alma:

Eating a fruit and then being condemned to death is not just and is borderline capricious in the implications of fairness. Romans 2 speaks to a similar expectation of just and righteous judgment that is specific to the nature of the behaviors under judgment.

I can't see where this in any way falls short of being a suitable answer.  You did not respond to it and have continue to state over and over that I failed to answer your question.  I could have said more that always possible for me but for some reason it meant the same as nothing to you as that is what you are saying I provided to the question.

 

Since these are long I will make each a separate response.

So your response is that because you believe something does or does not qualify as just, God is bound by that. Do I have that correct? 

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'm, of course, not positive if this is what you are indicating.

Point 1 was referencing the OP. The very first post on the thread that I started.

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, brlenox said:

That's the point I have been making I gave you a list of my responses which should have at least been representative of the next step in the conversation.  I'll do a little work here and illustrate. 

1. Satan's plan was to save everyone. God's plan was that some would be damned.

My response from my very first post:

I'm, of course, not positive if this is what you are indicating as the point we discussed Satan and God's plan but it is the only place that I can see as probable to your reference.  The essence is that I placed my emphasis on the justice portion of your comment.  You took it as a slight that I phrased my start this way, "If I might suggest a paradigm shift, you are looking at justice from the bottom up or in other words how justice treats mankind." I will tell you why that phrasing.  About 6 years ago while reading D & C 19"

This very small sample of God explaining in detail an expansion of the definition of a word, I believe to be a pattern for practically everything we know in the Gospel. In the case of “eternal” it is perceived by the masses to be simply forever in the sense of eternal as a range of time. We are after all time-based thinkers as a result of mortality and tend to evaluate perceived time element statements against a paradigm of relativity to a time line. However, when God explains the definition of eternal it morphs from a time based definition to a status or state of being based definition with absolutely no overlay of a time constraint at all. I am convinced that the terms Son of God, Firstborn of God, Creator, husbandman and any other title that describes deity and in fact probably any gospel principle, has layers of understanding - line upon line – precept upon precept layers of understanding.  Just as God clarifies the “why” for the reason he is expanding upon their understanding, I believe is applicable for every person who seeks to understand more than early precepts. Definitions of necessity will expand and if they do not you are not advancing. 

For instance considering D & C 19 above and applying that concept to creation if one was God and had an entirely different time paradigm than man, would our creative efforts be bound to the restrictive contemplations of mortality or would they embrace and fulfill the measure of the parameters of the sphere in which you reside as a God?

The challenge as I see it is that mortality enforces a paradigm of thought that naturally attempts to subject it's conclusions to a time element be it the time element of the scientists in billions of years or your paradigm of 6000 years. If Godhood does not truly subject time, then Godhood is subject to time. The brilliance of Doctrine and Covenants 19 is how it attempts to allow us to shift our perceptions of time as a factor which constrains our thinking into a possibility of something of an entirely different paradigm.

Most even as they read these verses in D & C 19 remain in a time based default even as God is trying to educate them to a non-time based perspective. We read the terms eternal and endless and continue on auto-pilot only seeing the implications of time and its passage. Most simply say something to the effect that, "okay so it doesn't necessarily mean “without end” when God talks about eternal and endless", using another time based constraint to define what God is stating.  However what is truly occurring here is that God is embracing time as an element of his status of being.  He is not subject to definitions of time as he, by his very essence, is not subject to the dictates of time based interpretations.

However, D & C 19 is trying to give a group of apostles (and any who will take the time to grasp it) a broader view of how God views eternity. This is distinctly different than a time bound view as it begins to focus man, those who grasp it, into a different paradigm of considering the things of God from an eternal perspective.  Recalling that God tells them that they must comprehend this eternal perspective BEFORE they can enter into his rest informs them of the vital nature of grasping this perspective and should alert a mature seeker of truth to seek until they understand this perspective. As entering into his rest is scripture speak for eternal life - the highest level of potential in this existence, this perspective is vital. 

While many are focusing on the time based eternal nature of the damned, what D & C 19 is trying to get illustrate is a state or condition that is not only the eternal time based equivalent of this state of the condemned but also is comprehended by the true nature of a fullness of eternal called exaltation. Thus while some will obsess over the narrow application of a time based determination for the damned, God is trying to get them to change their focus to the true comprehensive nature of the exalted.

In this small section of the Doctrine and Covenants we find a principle of interpretation of all things gospel.  We can understand them from our perspective such as eternal simply means forever.  That is looking from the bottom up.  However, if we truly wish to enter into his rest we must change our entire paradigm to top down.  We must see things as best we can from the purview of how God sees it or how he interprets the value of a process or element of the Gospel.

When I learned this principle I began to seek that I might understand things as God understands to the best of mans capacity to perceive such. I ask questions differently than I did before and I get answers differently than I did before. It completely alters the depth of understanding and the paradigm. 

So to answer your other question from the later post.  Yes after the same fashion that God revealed to these men that they could not enter into his rest unless they corrected a simple misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "eternal" then I have grown to feel that unless we make a similar change and try to understand the gospel from Gods perspective then we must forever by as those whom the Lord stated were falling short of correct understanding.  If however that became a paradigm change for you as it has for me, then I suspect that you might learn of things specific to your spiritual growth as God saw fit to teach you.  So it is the perspective that I feel matters most and from my perspective as based on my understanding of D & C 19 my material is very important, necessary to me and those who will put forth the effort to make the paradigm shift.  The very first time you learn something from His perspective you will marvel at how little you knew before just as I have done time and time again.   The other thing you will notice is that others who have a similar paradigm will understand more readily that perspective.  It is not an easy switch but well worth the effort.   

Now all of that to explain but a few words of my introduction but it simplifies out to I was inviting you to consider something from God's perspective (top looking down) and not our usual perspective (bottom looking up).  What you assumed I meant was about 2 pages shy of what I intended.

I am going to end this post and pick up the others in the next post as this concept is so important and profound I am hesitant to lose it in subject changes.

 

I cannot see how this has anything to do with the plain fact that Satan's plan was to save everyone and God's plan was that some would be damned. Or, to put it another way (one of many similary explanations) "It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication" https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng

I don't see how looking at it from God's point of view or otherwise changes the fact of the matter that God's plan included the idea that some would not achieve exaltation, whereas Satan's plan suggested that all would.

Are you suggesting that if I looked at this from God's point of view I'd actually understand this plain point is mistaken? Or when push comes to shove, is the entirety of your entries here really a big thread jack?

Edited November 16, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As I've told you. I will not engage in an intellectual discussion with someone who views my thoughts as unworthy of being taken seriously. That would be an even bigger waste of time than this back and forth.

Anyhow, here are the gospel principles I've raise in this thread: 

• Satan's plan was to save everyone. God's plan was that some would be damned.
• God's word determines law.
• We are not accountable for Adam's transgressions.
• The fall is a temporary state.
• The Atonement is "incomprehensible and inexplicable" (https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=incomprehensible+and+inexplicable+atonement).

That's it. That's all I've offered. Which of these ideas is contrary to your enlightened view anyhow? I remain at a loss as to why you deem these views inferior ones.

3. We are not accountable to Adams transgression. 

Essentially I made a statement similar to this one pulled from page two and part of one of theses last responses.

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 12:40 PM, brlenox said:

"As I have pointed out a couple of times now, we are trying to take this in a chronological fashion. At this point we are simply trying to establish the things that can be derived at from scripture and prophetic commentary and a few Jewish sources concerning the Fall.

There of course is more detail in those locations but the point of it was that I am only talking about points relative to the fall not the entire plane of salvation. Of course we are not accountable to Adams transgression, but the reality is it caused a fall, 'stop' the reality is that fall imposed conditions on all of us 'stop'. This is one of those places I got the impression you just weren't following along.  I have said over and over that we are trying to establish specifics, details, where the rubber meets the road of the FALL.  You kept wanting to imply that these conditions as I was applying them to the fall were to be understood by me to mean that they were forever.  Every person who knows even the most limited LDS theology knows  we do not believe in accountability for Adam's transgression.

4.) The fall is a temporary state. 

I am going ahead and putting this here as the answer is the same as above. Since I have not said anything to the contrary, It is becoming more clear to me that you are not tracking on the conversations at all.  Of course it is a temporary state, by stating the obvious and ignoring that I have stated my chronological approach to the subject it really does seem you are just being polite.  engaging in conversation about something that seems to be of little import to you as you are missing way too much.

5.) The atonement is incomprehensible and inexplicable.  Here is the answer I provided the first time:

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 2:31 PM, brlenox said:

It is always a sad thing for me to see but you can tell when someone is just being polite and evincing interest when really they have reached the extent of their participation.  I will go ahead and post the Avenger of Blood material because it is such a wonderful example of a type and shadow in scripture.  For some just the realization that such exist is enough to cause them to seek harder in the future for the pearls of knowledge that can be had with not just a little but a lot more effort in striving in the spirit to find the hidden gems.  Nonetheless in your final polite pulling of the screen door closed you state:

"That's why the Atonement is often spoken of in terms of "incomprehensible and inexplicable".

Does that mean that you think you have learned all you can about the atonement and all that remains is "incomprehensible and inexplicable". Or do you suppose that you could with a bit of opening of desire and effort and prayer and earnest ambition, do you suppose you could learn maybe just one more thing? While there may be and certainly are elements that will remain "incomprehensible and inexplicable" are you full up of all that is available or is there a few more items that perhaps might have escaped your earlier efforts?

...now he gently pushes the door closed and I take the hint and leave...but...wait...If you decide to peak through the glass to make sure I have left for certain in the spirit of any good missionary I am going to leave a little dangly on your door nob, a rubber band through a hole pamphlet to blow in the breeze until you should chance crack the door just a hint (he might be watching) and reach through and take the final thought into ...consideration...or to the kitchen trash where all such pamphlets go...The Avenger of Blood ... coming to a door knob near you...

This answer does not even require your link to a talk that calls the atonement "incomprehensible and inexplicable" I have already acknowledged that in my post that there are elements that are such.  And thus far this is classic TFP for my interactions.  I simply call you out on the absurdity of your observation and I know beyond doubt that you can see what you are doing here. You completely ignore the logic and reasonableness of my observation.  I could ask the question again but it is not necessary.  You know the point I make here is absolutely correct, that you do not know everything that you could know about the atonement except for the fact you want to be disingenuous and pretend to some other level of intent.  These kinds of subtleties are intellectually dishonest.  Now don't respond to my comments here until you clearly address what I said in my quote...did I not address your question, did I not call you out on an absurd observation?

As well here is the link to the post you provided where you addressed this question and several others:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941152

 Review your responses, note the tone.       

 

 

 

[brlenox]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I cannot see how this has anything to do with the plain fact that Satan's plan was to save everyone and God's plan was that some would be damned. Or, to put it another way (one of many similary explanations) "It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication" https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng

I don't see how looking at it from God's point of view or otherwise changes the fact of the matter that God's plan included the idea that some would not achieve exaltation, whereas Satan's plan suggested that all would.

Are you suggesting that if I looked at this from God's point of view I'd actually understand this plain point is mistaken? Or when push comes to shove, is the entirety of your entries here really a big thread jack?

You are interjecting Satan's plan as if that is a point I have commented on at all.  You'll note that I basically caveat in the beginning that I did not really give much consideration of this material on Satan's plan. Let's just call this what it is, it wasn't intentional but I wasn't attracted to your points on Satan's plan.  When you mentioned justice though that grabbed my attention, and so again not intentionally but basically I hi-jacked the thread to move in a direction that I wanted to make. (Oh I just noted that you did notice that I did not speak to your material and yes...it turns out it was a really big thread jack.) I never referenced Satan's plan other than in my explanation of the Judgement of Adam and Eve - another point that you requested I speak to.  So we at just talking past each other on that subject as I have said about three different ways now. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

3. We are not accountable to Adams transgression. 

Essentially I made a statement similar to this one pulled from page two and part of one of theses last responses.

There of course is more detail in those locations but the point of it was that I am only talking about points relative to the fall not the entire plane of salvation. Of course we are not accountable to Adams transgression, but the reality is it caused a fall, 'stop' the reality is that fall imposed conditions on all of us 'stop'. This is one of those places I got the impression you just weren't following along.  I have said over and over that we are trying to establish specifics, details, where the rubber meets the road of the FALL.  You kept wanting to imply that these conditions as I was applying them to the fall were to be understood by me to mean that they were forever.  Every person who knows even the most limited LDS theology knows  we do not believe in accountability for Adam's transgression. 

I followed you very well on that point. What I don't follow is how in my asking you to explain, accordingly, that we are "punished" by being sent into mortality for Adam's transgressions fits into that mold means I was just being argumentative.

4 minutes ago, brlenox said:

4.) The fall is a temporary state. 

I am going ahead and putting this here as the answer is the same as above. Since I have not said anything to the contrary, It is becoming more clear to me that you are not tracking on the conversations at all.  Of course it is a temporary state, by stating the obvious and ignoring that I have stated my chronological approach to the subject it really does seem you are just being polite.  engaging in conversation about something that seems to be of little import to you as you are missing way too much.

If you recall the idea I was pursuing was that I thought the punishment-for-murder analogy was less than ideal. I wasn't addressing it beyond that matter. The fact that you turn that into a belief that I'm not tracking otherwise implies your inability to understand me, not the other way around. You can't seem to move past my wanting you to clarify specific analogies without interpreting it as an overall inability or unwillingness to look at the whole. That indicates a shortsightedness on your part, not mine.

10 minutes ago, brlenox said:

5.) The atonement is incomprehensible and inexplicable.  Here is the answer I provided the first time:

This answer does not even require your link to a talk that calls the atonement "incomprehensible and inexplicable" I have already acknowledged that in my post that there are elements that are such.  And thus far this is classic TFP for my interactions.  I simply call you out on the absurdity of your observation and I know beyond doubt that you can see what you are doing here. You completely ignore the logic and reasonableness of my observation.  I could ask the question again but it is not necessary.  You know the point I make here is absolutely correct, that you do not know everything that you could know about the atonement except for the fact you want to be disingenuous and pretend to some other level of intent.  These kinds of subtleties are intellectually dishonest.  Now don't respond to my comments here until you clearly address what I said in my quote...did I not address your question, did I not call you out on an absurd observation?

Once more, you are the one reading into my comments. Why is it that I believe the atonement to be incomprehensible (as has been stated by authority after authority) is automatically interpreted by to to mean I'm unwilling to explore any thinking around it? That's you making crap up about me that isn't true. The statement I made is factual. The Atonement is incomprehensible and inexplicable. That is a fact. If you want to tell me that fact is wrong we can debate the matter. If you want to translate it, as you like to do with my comments, to mean I'm unwilling to look at anything beyond pure lobotomized ignorant bliss on the matter then we can't really move forward, because that interpretation of yours is an ignorant fact-free opinion -- something you supposedly disdain.

So yes, I am well aware that you consider my answer that I admit I cannot know everything about how the atonement works is absurd. And I didn't ask you a question about this. You asked me. You asked me to explain things like "What exactly was the price that you claim Christ paid...and why was it exacted? Why does Christ suffering horrific pain pay for anything?" and I replied by stating the obvious, that the Atonement is difficult for us to understand. And you presumed that meant I wasn't willing to read on the matter any further or discover greater knowledge? Well that is false. I don't know what else to say when someone accuses me of being unwilling to learn more because I understand that any given thing is likely never going to be truly understood in this life. It's just a wrong statement. Not true in any way shape or form. What else am I to make of it when accused of such a thing that is so blatantly and egregiously mistaken? But I did reply. I told you that you that I thought it was strange to tell me how uninterested I was when I was showing interest.

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

You are interjecting Satan's plan as if that is a point I have commented on at all.  You'll note that I basically caveat in the beginning that I did not really give much consideration of this material on Satan's plan. Let's just call this what it is, it wasn't intentional but I wasn't attracted to your points on Satan's plan.  When you mentioned justice though that grabbed my attention, and so again not intentionally but basically I hi-jacked the thread to move in a direction that I wanted to make. (Oh I just noted that you did notice that I did not speak to your material and yes...it turns out it was a really big thread jack.) I never referenced Satan's plan other than in my explanation of the Judgement of Adam and Eve - another point that you requested I speak to.  So we at just talking past each other on that subject as I have said about three different ways now. 

It was merely the OP that I listed as one of the gospel points I've made. If your discussion was unrelated, so be it. I included it to be thorough in case that was related to the core of what you seem to think about my ideas that are unenlightened.

That's all I'm trying to get at here. Let's just take it as a matter of fact for the sake of argument that you're views are more enlightened. I cannot see how that makes anything I have said about doctrine mistaken.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So your response is that because you believe something does or does not qualify as just, God is bound by that. Do I have that correct? 

I do believe that yes and I provided you with a couple of sources to validate that perception.  If you do not believe that then it would help me find credence in your thoughts if you can provide source for your insight.

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I do believe that yes and I provided you with a couple of sources to validate that perception.  If you do not believe that then it would help me find credence in your thoughts if you can provide source for your insight.

Well, that's refreshing. At least a partial understanding.

I think that your belief in the just/unjust nature of something (as with all mankind) is subject to a very great lack of understanding and ability. So whereas I accept that God must be just and that it is an eternal law independent of His will, I do not believe that our independent understanding of what is and isn't just has a great deal of weight in the matter. So as much as I believe that what is just/unjust is not explicitly defined by God, it is explicitly understood by God, and so it is by His word that we may know what justice is. If a premise that something is not just stems from the philosophies of man then it is suspect, no matter how well reasoned. If, however, that premise stems from God's word then it may be trusted despite the level of understanding. I believe that is also true of our attempts to rationalize God's actions -- if it stems from God's word then we can trust it, it if stems from our own perceptions of justice alone then it is suspect.

Incidentally, and I asked this before, so if you replied I apologize, but what make you of the requirement for a dunk in water, the penalty for forgoing such being the death penalty? I know you addressed children not needing baptism but that doesn't seem relevant to the fact that if you claim it is injustice to assign the death penalty for something as arbitrary such as eating fruit, then how is baptism any less arbitrary?

 

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I followed you very well on that point. What I don't follow is how in my asking you to explain, accordingly, that we are "punished" by being sent into mortality for Adam's transgressions fits into that mold means I was just being argumentative.

If you recall the idea I was pursuing was that I thought the punishment-for-murder analogy was less than ideal. I wasn't addressing it beyond that matter. The fact that you turn that into a belief that I'm not tracking otherwise implies your inability to understand me, not the other way around. You can't seem to move past my wanting you to clarify specific analogies without interpreting it as an overall inability or unwillingness to look at the whole. That indicates a shortsightedness on your part, not mine.

Once more, you are the one reading into my comments. Why is it that I believe the atonement to be incomprehensible (as has been stated by authority after authority) is automatically interpreted by to to mean I'm unwilling to explore any thinking around it? That's you making crap up about me that isn't true. The statement I made is factual. The Atonement is incomprehensible and inexplicable. That is a fact. If you want to tell me that fact is wrong we can debate the matter. If you want to translate it, as you like to do with my comments, to mean I'm unwilling to look at anything beyond pure lobotomized ignorant bliss on the matter then we can't really move forward, because that interpretation of yours is an ignorant fact-free opinion -- something you supposedly disdain.

So yes, I am well aware that you consider my answer that I admit I cannot know everything about how the atonement works is absurd. And I didn't ask you a question about this. You asked me. You asked me to explain things like "What exactly was the price that you claim Christ paid...and why was it exacted? Why does Christ suffering horrific pain pay for anything?" and I replied by stating the obvious, that the Atonement is difficult for us to understand. And you presumed that meant I wasn't willing to read on the matter any further or discover greater knowledge? Well that is false. I don't know what else to say when someone accuses me of being unwilling to learn more because I understand that any given thing is likely never going to be truly understood in this life. It's just a wrong statement. Not true in any way shape or form. What else am I to make of it when accused of such a thing that is so blatantly and egregiously mistaken? But I did reply. I told you that you that I thought it was strange to tell me how uninterested I was when I was showing interest.

This is a point where we have to explore a bit further if you and I are going to be able to come to any sort of consensus.  Context is everything so let's look at this exact exchange for one final examination.

On 11/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

On 11/9/2017 at 1:21 PM, brlenox said:

If you achieve everything in this life that you are going to achieve and it is adequate to get you eternal life then why not let you come back whether an atonement or not? Who says to God that is not right?  How does innocent blood change the conditions to make them favorable for your return?  What exactly was the price that you claim Christ paid...and why was it exacted? Why does Christ suffering horrific pain pay for anything? If you can put that into LDS theology juxtaposing the laws the enable and deny based upon conditions then we have understanding, otherwise we are just repeating what we have heard our entire life "Christ paid the price" without really taking the time to figure out what paying the price really means.

Yep. That's why the Atonement is often spoken of in terms of "incomprehensible and inexplicable".

I gave you a list of questions which ask concerning specific elements of potential future insight that I am obviously of the mindset that I can provide.  Keeping in mind that this is the end of your post, for some reason you make no effort to answer the questions and I am left to consider that the reason is manifest in your answer that you consider this things ""incomprehensible and inexplicable".  You make no further inquiry, and I am hoping you will be perfectly honest here...is there not a solid and decisive sense of a cavalier attitude here?  If I had said that to you, you would be all over me making some accusation about my uppity attitude.  I chose to ignore it for response but your attitude is as clear as clear mountain water filled with giardia.  It is cocky and irreverent and I don't think that is at all difficult to perceive.

Your state of mind at this point seems to scream I don't care about the answers to the questions you pose and I am not interested in finding out.  Else wise would not the proper response be something along the lines of these are questions I have not thought about perhaps you could share what you have determined on these matters.  IF you can't see that then never mind my social ineptitudes...I bow to your greater social ineptitude. 

Again please be honest and sufficiently introspective in your response to this observation.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, brlenox said:

You are being totally unfair but such is as it is...If you think to judge read the material I have posted on the atonement and ponder it prudently.  Then at least you will have a basis upon which to bloviate.

Are these fighting words?  I couldn't tell.  English is only my 3rd - or 4th language if you count dialect variations - so passive aggressive statements couched in pedantic English is a hit or miss with me.  Sometimes I see the insult, sometimes it just goes right over my head. 

And see... this is why I harped on the way you present yourself.  I don't mind fighting words from people I know.  I can discern their intent from previous experience and I dish it right back depending on the banter.  Fighting words from people I don't know, though... ermm... just comes out as rude.

In any case, I wasn't unfair, partially nor totally.  And it wasn't a judgment.  It is an observation.  Do you understand what I'm trying to say?  That's how you came out in your manner of reply.  If that wasn't your intent, then maybe you can tell us why you would say things like... paraphrased.  1.) they don't spend as much time researching as I do so their arguments are shallow (most people that engaged you in discussion are VERY VERY well versed on the topics you've discussed), 2.) they are going against the words of the prophets, not mine (the same people are VERY orthodox in their observance of the commandment to follow and sustain the prophet).

There are only 2 reasons I can come up with why you would say this especially after I endorsed TFP's character:  1.)  you think you're smarter/more righteous than TFP because you think his responses doesn't rise up to your level of research,  so you concluded that he must not be knowledgeable in the gospel and he does not follow the prophet  2.)  you got offended so you got catty.  Since you averred that you don't get offended, then it would be the first reason.

In any case... this is my last attempt at trying to explain to you what we see from your communication.  You're a newbie and therefore we don't have any other means of discerning your character. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

This is a point where we have to explore a bit further if you and I are going to be able to come to any sort of consensus.  Context is everything so let's look at this exact exchange for one final examination.

 

I gave you a list of questions which ask concerning specific elements of potential future insight that I am obviously of the mindset that I can provide.  Keeping in mind that this is the end of your post, for some reason you make no effort to answer the questions and I am left to consider that the reason is manifest in your answer that you consider this things ""incomprehensible and inexplicable".  You make no further inquiry, and I am hoping you will be perfectly honest here...is there not a solid and decisive sense of a cavalier attitude here?  If I had said that to you, you would be all over me making some accusation about my uppity attitude.  I chose to ignore it for response but your attitude is as clear as clear mountain water filled with giardia.  It is cocky and irreverent and I don't think that is at all difficult to perceive.

Your state of mind at this point seems to scream I don't care about the answers to the questions you pose and I am not interested in finding out.  Else wise would not the proper response be something along the lines of these are questions I have not thought about perhaps you could share what you have determined on these matters.  IF you can't see that then never mind my social ineptitudes...I bow to your greater social ineptitude. 

Again please be honest and sufficiently introspective in your response to this observation.

My honest introspective response to this observation is no different than what I explained already. You're making things up about me. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[brlenox]

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, that's refreshing. At least a partial understanding.

I think that your belief in the just/unjust nature of something (as with all mankind) is subject to a very great lack of understanding and ability. So whereas I accept that God must be just and that it is an eternal law independent of His will, I do not believe that our independent understanding of what is and isn't just has a great deal of weight in the matter. So as much as I believe that what is just/unjust is not explicitly defined by God, it is explicitly understood by God, and so it is by His word that we may know what justice is. If a premise that something is not just stems from the philosophies of man then it is suspect, no matter how well reasoned. If, however, that premise stems from God's word then it may be trusted despite the level of understanding. I believe that is also true of our attempts to rationalize God's actions -- if it stems from God's word then we can trust it, it if stems from our own perceptions of justice alone then it is suspect.

Incidentally, and I asked this before, so if you replied I apologize, but what make you of the requirement for a dunk in water, the penalty for forgoing such being the death penalty? I know you addressed children not needing baptism but that doesn't seem relevant to the fact that if you claim it is injustice to assign the death penalty for something as arbitrary such as eating fruit, then how is baptism any less arbitrary?

 

Okay, I consider this another extremely important juncture.  In your observations above there is some serious backsliding here.  I wondered if this would occur on this issue and here it is.  You made an observation in the same post as your YEP post and you provided some nuances of conviction that oppose what you have written above.  Here is your post:

On 11/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Please, do share your view on the matter.

On 11/9/2017 at 1:21 PM, brlenox said:

How come God the Father cannot do this? 

I'll confess that I do not know the complete answer to this, but I feel quite confident that it stands unrevealed -- probably beyond our mortal ability to understand. But, I do think I understand, in principle, that God's laws are natural ones. He must be just because if He isn't then we cannot trust Him and if we cannot trust God...well...that's quite the pickle isn't it now? If God can be unfair and lie and cheat and randomly be a respector of persons then what is there to actually have faith in?

Why, along the lines of things that we don't understand, is baptism required to return to God beyond His say so? Why did God make that a condition? Seems like a pretty random thing to have to obey to me. Doesn't really help anyone -- utilitarianistically speaking (yeah...I just made that word up).

You state, "He must be just because if he isn't then we cannot trust him and if we cannot trust God...well that's quite the pickle isn't it. If God can be unfair and lie and cheat and randomly be a respecter of persons then what is there to actually have faith in?"  This is a correct observation.  My observation of what you are stating here is, to trust Him we would have to be able to determine that he is just.  To support your first statement I provide in your behalf some material from the Lectures on Faith:

Quote

 

Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life.

2 Let us here observe, that the real design which the God of heaven had in view in making the human family acquainted with his attributes, was, that they through the ideas of the existence of his attributes, might be enabled to exercise faith in him, and through the exercise of faith in him, might obtain eternal life. For without the idea of the existence of the attributes which belong to God, the minds of men could not have power to exercise faith on him so as to lay hold upon eternal life. The God of heaven understanding most perfectly the constitution of human nature, and the weakness of man, knew what was necessary to be revealed, and what ideas must be planted in their minds in order that they might be enabled to exercise faith in him unto eternal life.

7 Thirdly, Justice. Psalms 89:14: Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne. Isaiah 45:21: Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take council together: who has declared this from the ancient time? Have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior. Zephaniah 3:5: The just Lord is in the midst thereof. Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King comes unto thee: he is just, and having salvation. (Lectures on Faith Lecture 4)

 

Now, my point is between these two renditions there is some commonality in terms and word usage.  However, and this is very key, there is a different spirit in your first response that is not in your second.  They feel different.  The spirit in your second observation does not, as Joseph would say, "taste" like good doctrine.  It feels like you have intellectualized your way further from truth than nearer. If you can discern that spirit and encourage further your choice to only listen to that nature of spirit things will be much different for your interactions with others.

Baptism:

Quote

In the Church the word ordinances usually refers to rites and ceremonies that the Lord has given us for our salvation, guidance, and comfort (see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 548–49). These ordinances are physical actions that symbolize spiritual experiences. By taking part in them we receive the spiritual power we need to change our lives. For example, baptism represents, among other things, a washing away of sins following true repentance.

Quote

President Wilford Woodruff said: “No [one] will receive of the celestial glory except it be through the ordinances of the House of God” (in Journal of Discourses, 19:361; see also D&C 84:20–22). Ordinances that are necessary for us to return to Heavenly Father include baptism, confirmation, the sacrament, conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood (for brethren), the temple endowment, and temple marriage.

I'm guessing that none of this is new and you already know these points but just in case here they are.  I wonder if you are not asking why something as arbitrary as dunking in water should be determined as meaningful.  Why not flying kites instead.  IF that is what you are asking, I still think Elder McConkies observation has merit.  Ordinances are physical actions that symbolize spiritual experiences."  baptism symbolizes death and a new life and is an excellent symbolic representation.  Beyond that explanation I do have some thoughts based on other material but it doesn't really change the foundational statement by Elder McConkie and I am not prepared to back up any further observations with good resources.

 

 

[brlenox]

Have you read the material?

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox

[brlenox]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My honest introspective response to this observation is no different than what I explained already. You're making things up about me. 

It is enough.  Thanks for the interaction.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Have you read the material?

The material is irrelevant to my point.  Having read the material, therefore, is also irrelevant to my point.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

That's not because of you.  That's because of @Just_A_Guy.  He's a lawyer.  He is... shall I say... Presidential.  You can insult him straight to his face and he will give you some Latin phrases that will make you go bowing down to his greatness not realizing you were just insulted 10x worse. 

 

Sic semper tyrannis?

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sic semper tyrannis?

Thank you Google.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

I'm out.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

Forgive me for what I thought was a short post ... for me anyway.  I am expecting to sway opinions.  However you will have to put a little effort into what is not much of a post to understand.  I am sorry that to get my points across I do not have the gift of brevity but I feel I am not even answering if I do not illustrate the thought process. Another imperfection, however you may note, I took the time to work my way through your post of almost (within 30 seconds of read time) similar length to respond to you. Perhaps you might do me the same courtesy.  The post is a good one if you can ponder the implications.

I think you took my statement as indicating frustration at you.  It was not.  I'm genuinely tired since I've been pretty busy at work, getting very little sleep for three weeks now.  In another thread, I completely blanked over a couple of posts that other posters had entered which addressed my question in that thread.  It was just a big blur to me.  

I was asking you in all humility for your help to understand you.  I simply asked you to be more clear and quite obvious because I was just plain too sleepy and was zoning out too much as I read.  But you took it as an attack.  Sorry. 

I guess it's beneath you to speak to someone as intellectually lazy as I am who can't take the time out of my busy schedule and get sufficient sleep to take yet more time out of my busy schedule to extract out a cryptic response to a very simple question.  But at least you changed your position to suit your needs.  You didn't intend to sway any opinions before.  But now you do.  Thank you.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think you took my statement as indicating frustration at you.  It was not.  I'm genuinely tired since I've been pretty busy at work, getting very little sleep for three weeks now.  In another thread, I completely blanked over a couple of posts that other posters had entered which addressed my question in that thread.  It was just a big blur to me.  

I was asking you in all humility for your help to understand you.  I simply asked you to be more clear and quite obvious because I was just plain too sleepy and was zoning out too much as I read.  But you took it as an attack.  Sorry.

I feel you, brother.  3 weeks for me too.  Plus a bad case of SAD.  It was 45 degrees in Florida yesterday.  I don't thrive for too long under 70.  I've been hanging out here to stop myself from being too self-focused.