The Meaning of Atonement


Grunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:28 AM, Rob Osborn said:

You must think Alma the younger was the same. (Hint: he wasnt, and neither am I)

I consider myself still a wretched man, a great sinner that occasiobally the Lord has tender mercies on me. Its humbling to say the least.

BTW, you sound a little like Laman and Lemual there

 

Rob – I would take you first to Hebrews Chapter 5 then to Chapter 7.  I have an impression that you may not understand the context of various scripture revelation as such relation relates specifically to the Law, the Ordinances and the Covenants.  I am thinking that you think all scripture are the same in the context of doctrine rather than law.  Take a close look at verse 12 of chapter 7.

Now I will ask you if you think there is any possible difference in the context of Alma the younger and Paul (who wrote Hebrews and other New Testament books of scripture).  Do you personally understand or believe doctrine taught in scripture has any reference or dependency on the Law under which the people lived?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I will agree with that. A thought came up I would like to share- every law, principle and ordinance along with covenants that God has ever given to man is to advance him to the very being He is, to prepare him to take the next step towards exaltation. Thus- no law, principle or ordinance or covenant that God has given, or ever will give to man will ever lead him to some other place or kingdom where man will not become just like the Father or a place where the very physical presence of God is absent. 

Something to contemplate as one thinks of kingdoms and eternity.

Elder Bednar spoke at our Sacrament Meeting awhile back (his son lives in our Ward), and he intimated, as you just did, that the ordinances are designed to take us to Christ, and so the purpose of the Gospel is to move us from ordinance to ordinance in that direction--from baptism to receiving the Holy Ghost to partaking of the sacrament to being ordained to the Aaronic priesthood to ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood to anointing and endowment in the temple to marriage, etc.

Now, while the ordinances and the gospel are designed to move God's children in that direction, they don't compel movement in that direction, nor are people compelled to enter into those elevating and ascending ordinance. Some people wont accept some or all of the ordination, and some people will receive the ordinances but not plant them in fertile and continually nourished soil (the parable of the seed comes to mind),  and other may eventually turn away from and be ashamed of the ordinances (as with the fruit of the tree of life and the Great and Spacious Building in Lehi's dream); while other people will endure to the end in letting the ordinance work the Lord's will.

How all that works its way out in the manner in which the heaven(s) may be configured, can be the subject for potentially fruitless debate. What is meaningful and important is that we, personally, strive to move from ordinance to ordinance, planting each in rich faith and behavioral soil, towards Christ, and encourage others to do likewise for their benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Rob – I would take you first to Hebrews Chapter 5 then to Chapter 7.  I have an impression that you may not understand the context of various scripture revelation as such relation relates specifically to the Law, the Ordinances and the Covenants.  I am thinking that you think all scripture are the same in the context of doctrine rather than law.  Take a close look at verse 12 of chapter 7.

Now I will ask you if you think there is any possible difference in the context of Alma the younger and Paul (who wrote Hebrews and other New Testament books of scripture).  Do you personally understand or believe doctrine taught in scripture has any reference or dependency on the Law under which the people lived?

 

The Traveler

Not sure what you are getting at. You quoted me in reference to something else. Im a little confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Elder Bednar spoke at our Sacrament Meeting awhile back (his son lives in our Ward), and he intimated, as you just did, that the ordinances are designed to take us to Christ, and so the purpose of the Gospel is to move us from ordinance to ordinance in that direction--from baptism to receiving the Holy Ghost to partaking of the sacrament to being ordained to the Aaronic priesthood to ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood to anointing and endowment in the temple to marriage, etc.

Now, while the ordinances and the gospel are designed to move God's children in that direction, they don't compel movement in that direction, nor are people compelled to enter into those elevating and ascending ordinance. Some people wont accept some or all of the ordination, and some people will receive the ordinances but not plant them in fertile and continually nourished soil (the parable of the seed comes to mind),  and other may eventually turn away from and be ashamed of the ordinances (as with the fruit of the tree of life and the Great and Spacious Building in Lehi's dream); while other people will endure to the end in letting the ordinance work the Lord's will.

How all that works its way out in the manner in which the heaven(s) may be configured, can be the subject for potentially fruitless debate. What is meaningful and important is that we, personally, strive to move from ordinance to ordinance, planting each in rich faith and behavioral soil, towards Christ, and encourage others to do likewise for their benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is sort of above and beyond mortality means. Ordinance and covenants with their promises are designed entirely to advance not to stagnate a person. Its like accepting a promise to put the next foot out in faith and obedience brings the blessings of the motion. Then, once on solid ground the next step further we make a new covenant to take the next step. Stopping or failure to move forward is breaking the covenant. Its hard for us in mortality to understand this principle of filling the measure of our creation. Covenants are just that- the means, step by step, to fill that measure of our creation. As we move closer and closer to God we realize this principle and desire more and more to be just as He is. Its like standing in line on a hot day for ice cream and the line is really long. We dont stand there all afternoon just to finally make it to the order counter and say "nevermind". If we leave that line we receive none of the blessings eternally and instead gravitate to a different line and that line is Satans. 

It took me decades to understand this principle and it took a dream to understand. I had a dream where certain family members were dressed in holy white raiment and they thanked me and hugged me. I could clearly tell it was the next life as they were perfected, beautiful and glorious. Now, these same people here in mortality have utterly refused the gospel, completely dislike the church. Now they are in their old age and soon to go all the way of the earth to return to the dust from whence they came. I greatly marveled because Gods plan requires those whom are saved to come and follow Christ, in every wit. Not only that but part of filling our creation and covenants are to be married eternally. These are hard things to understand but they are true, eternally true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure what you are getting at. You quoted me in reference to something else. Im a little confused.

Not sure why you are confused.  Do you believe that the law at the time Alma the younger provided his prophesies; was the same law when Paul wrote Hebrews or other New Testament scriptures.?  Do you believe that Alma and his people were living the same law that has been given in these Latter-days?   I do not think you understand that Alma is associated with the Law of Moses and that Jesus fulfilled that law and that there has been a change in the law (Hebrews 4).  That change in the law will change the ordinances and the covenants and the doctrine (including priesthood as per Hebrews 7) associated with such a change – it does not appear to me that you understand what a change in the law in tells.

For example, all the revelations concerning the resurrection of the dead under the law of Moses speak only of the first resurrection.  I believe your confusion with the dichotomy of the resurrection all come from the Law of Moses, that was incomplete and therefore your dichotomy of the resurrection is incomplete – Which in this discussion is why you never quote a prophet of a  higher law.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not sure why you are confused.  Do you believe that the law at the time Alma the younger provided his prophesies; was the same law when Paul wrote Hebrews or other New Testament scriptures.?  Do you believe that Alma and his people were living the same law that has been given in these Latter-days?   I do not think you understand that Alma is associated with the Law of Moses and that Jesus fulfilled that law and that there has been a change in the law (Hebrews 4).  That change in the law will change the ordinances and the covenants and the doctrine (including priesthood as per Hebrews 7) associated with such a change – it does not appear to me that you understand what a change in the law in tells.

For example, all the revelations concerning the resurrection of the dead under the law of Moses speak only of the first resurrection.  I believe your confusion with the dichotomy of the resurrection all come from the Law of Moses, that was incomplete and therefore your dichotomy of the resurrection is incomplete – Which in this discussion is why you never quote a prophet of a  higher law.

 

The Traveler

I think you are thinking of something else. The doctrine of Jesus Christ has never changed. Its the same for Adam and for us. What is that doctrine? Here-

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3rd Nephi 11:32-40)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is sort of above and beyond mortality means. Ordinance and covenants with their promises are designed entirely to advance not to stagnate a person. Its like accepting a promise to put the next foot out in faith and obedience brings the blessings of the motion. Then, once on solid ground the next step further we make a new covenant to take the next step. Stopping or failure to move forward is breaking the covenant. Its hard for us in mortality to understand this principle of filling the measure of our creation. Covenants are just that- the means, step by step, to fill that measure of our creation. As we move closer and closer to God we realize this principle and desire more and more to be just as He is. Its like standing in line on a hot day for ice cream and the line is really long. We dont stand there all afternoon just to finally make it to the order counter and say "nevermind". If we leave that line we receive none of the blessings eternally and instead gravitate to a different line and that line is Satans. 

It took me decades to understand this principle and it took a dream to understand. I had a dream where certain family members were dressed in holy white raiment and they thanked me and hugged me. I could clearly tell it was the next life as they were perfected, beautiful and glorious. Now, these same people here in mortality have utterly refused the gospel, completely dislike the church. Now they are in their old age and soon to go all the way of the earth to return to the dust from whence they came. I greatly marveled because Gods plan requires those whom are saved to come and follow Christ, in every wit. Not only that but part of filling our creation and covenants are to be married eternally. These are hard things to understand but they are true, eternally true.

You will recall that Lehi also had a dream, where people were not only in a line for ice cream (acrually, it was for the most delicious of fruit), but they had passed through a variety of challenges fog and dangerous waters, etc.), and when they got up to the counter, and partook of the ice cream, they were ashamed and went away.

So, who to believe? Lehi or Rob Osborn?Tough call! ;)

Again, though, whatever one chooses to believe about the afterlife. As long as one takes hold of the iron rod, repents, obeys God, and seeks after Christ, then that is good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You will recall that Lehi also had a dream, where people were not only in a line for ice cream (acrually, it was for the most delicious of fruit), but they had passed through a variety of challenges fog and dangerous waters, etc.), and when they got up to the counter, and partook of the ice cream, they were ashamed and went away.

So, who to believe? Lehi or Rob Osborn?Tough call! ;)

Again, though, whatever one chooses to believe about the afterlife. As long as one takes hold of the iron rod, repents, obeys God, and seeks after Christ, then that is good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah me and Lehi are saying the same thing. Take note that there is only one reward in Lehis dream- the fruit. All else is lost. One either gets the fruit or he is lost. If they never come and enjoy the fruit then they remain lost and become Satans.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given our earlier discussion about falls and ascension, there is a new Interpreter Foundation article by Jeffrey M Bradshaw, titled: "How Does Moses 5-8 Illustrate the Consequences of Keeping and Breaking Temple Covenants One by One?

Here is the summary for the article (bolded mine(:

Quote

Summary: Because the book of Moses tells the story of the Creation and the Fall of Adam and Eve, it is obvious to endowed members of the Church that the book of Moses is a temple text, containing a pattern that interleaves sacred history with covenant-making themes. What may be new to many Latter-day Saints, however, is that the temple themes in the book of Moses extend beyond the first part of this story that contains the fall of Adam and Eve — their “downward road.” There is a part two of the temple story given in the book of Moses that describes an “upward road” that is to be climbed by making and keeping an ordered sequence of temple covenants. Significantly, Moses 5-8 appears to have been structured so as to present the consequences of both keeping and breaking specific temple covenants one by one.

The general principle of ascending to heaven and descending from heaven is found in other faith. This is the Ladder of Divine Ascent  icon  (12th century)

240px-The_Ladder_of_Divine_Ascent_Monast 

I like the concept of not only the same stairs going up and down, but the down stairs are upside down from the up stairs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah me and Lehi are saying the same thing. Take note that there is only one reward in Lehis dream- the fruit. All else is lost. One either gets the fruit or he is lost. If they never come and enjoy the fruit then they remain lost and become Satans.

You may think you are saying the same things, but I see a number of differences. Yes, some of the people were lost in the mist, and others were lost after falling away into forbidden paths, . However, some people were in the Great and Spacious building wearing exceedingly fine dress  mocking, and having a grand old time. Yet other people drowned in the fountain on their way to the Great and Spacious building. Others wandered in strange roads. Laman and Lemuel were seen at the head of the river. We aren't told what became of them other than they didn't come to Lehi and the tree.

In other words, there are a variety of outcomes, some better or worse than others.

But, you see what you need to see, and the same for me. The good news is that regardless of how we choose to see the afterlife, it matters little if we repent, obey God, and seek after Christ.

This will be my final word on the fruitless dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

You may think you are saying the same things, but I see a number of differences. Yes, some of the people were lost in the mist, and others were lost after falling away into forbidden paths, . However, some people were in the Great and Spacious building wearing exceedingly fine dress  mocking, and having a grand old time. Yet other people drowned in the fountain on their way to the Great and Spacious building. Others wandered in strange roads. Laman and Lemuel were seen at the head of the river. We aren't told what became of them other than they didn't come to Lehi and the tree.

In other words, there are a variety of outcomes, some better or worse than others.

But, you see what you need to see, and the same for me. The good news is that regardless of how we choose to see the afterlife, it matters little if we repent, obey God, and seek after Christ.

This will be my final word on the fruitless dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

None of those strange roads, mists, spacious building, etc, is heaven. There is only one outcome for salvation- the tree of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the critical connection between the Fall and the Atonement. And, given that the Fall occurred because of transgression. I thought it worth noting something I learned in Sunday School this morning. @Vort might appreciate this, if he doesn't know already.  The original or old meaning of the word "transgression" was: ""a going over, a going across,...step across, step over; climb over, pass, go beyond," (see HERE) "Trans" means "across, beyond" (ibid) and gress means "step" (see HERE)

Today it means to violate the law--or in other words, stepping across or stepping over the law.

Why might this be of significance?

Well, in the modern sense of the word,  the fall came about because Adam and Eve transgressed God's command (they violated his prohibition against partaking of the tree of know;edge of good and evil, and thus deserve the stated consequence of death).

However, in the old sense of the word, the fall, itself, was a transgression, in that Adam and Eve voluntarily stepped across (or down) from immortality into mortality,, from a celestial or terrestrial (depending upon your point of view) world or garden into the telestial world.

Furthermore, while it has yet to be clearly revealed as to whether we violated a command of God that resulted in our being born into a fallen state, nevertheless we have transgressed in that we have voluntarily, through birth into mortality, stepped down (fallen) from a celestial world (the spirit world) into the telestial world, from immortality into mortality, with the attendant consequence of death.

Under the old definition of "transgression," then, Adam and Eve are symbolic of us.

And, since all of us have transgressed (fallen down and can't get up on our own), we have need of redemption and a redeemer to raise us back up, stepping from the telestial mortality to the kingdoms of immortality (or in Robs case, kingdom of immortality).

Looking at transgression this "old" way seems more of a noble rather than rebellious or defiant quest. And, it marks the beginning of a number of noble transgressions or quests: such as Noah's "crossing over" with the flood (Gen 7-9), Abraham leaving his father's house and "stepping across" to a strange land (Abraham 1-2), or Moses' exodus "stepping across" from Egypt into the wilderness (Exodus), or Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to the wilderness (1and 2 Nephi), or the Saints crossing the plains, etc.

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Given the critical connection between the Fall and the Atonement. And, given that the Fall occurred because of transgression. I thought it worth noting something I learned in Sunday School this morning. @Vort might appreciate this, if he doesn't know already.  The original or old meaning of the word "transgression" was: ""a going over, a going across,...step across, step over; climb over, pass, go beyond," (see HERE) "Trans" means "across, beyond" (ibid) and gress means "step" (see HERE)

Today it means to violate the law--or in other words, stepping across or stepping over the law.

Why might this be of significance?

Well, in the modern sense of the word,  the fall came about because Adam and Eve transgressed God's command (they violated his prohibition against partaking of the tree of know;edge of good and evil, and thus deserve the stated consequence of death).

However, in the old sense of the word, the fall, itself, was a transgression, in that Adam and Eve voluntarily stepped across (or down) from immortality into mortality,, from a celestial or terrestrial (depending upon your point of view) world or garden into the telestial world.

Furthermore, while it has yet to be clearly revealed as to whether we violated a command of God that resulted in our being born into a fallen state, nevertheless we have transgressed in that we have voluntarily, through birth into mortality, stepped down (fallen) from a celestial world (the spirit world) into the telestial world, from immortality into mortality, with the attendant consequence of death.

Under the old definition of "transgression," then, Adam and Eve are symbolic of us.

And, since all of us have transgressed (fallen down and can't get up on our own), we have need of redemption and a redeemer to raise us back up, stepping from the telestial mortality to the kingdoms of immortality (or in Robs case, kingdom of immortality).

Looking at transgression this "old" way seems more of a noble rather than rebellious or defiant quest. And, it marks the beginning of a number of noble transgressions or quests: such as Noah's "crossing over" with the flood (Gen 7-9), Abraham leaving his father's house and "stepping across" to a strange land (Abraham 1-2), or Moses' exodus "stepping across" from Egypt into the wilderness (Exodus), or Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to the wilderness (1and 2 Nephi), or the Saints crossing the plains, etc.

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, with this view we better start baptizing our infants. I have different take on "transgression". I see the fall by Adam and Eve as actual willfull sin. They knowingly broke the commandment of God. By choosing to follow Satan (a form of worship) through his temptations they chose to become carnal sensual and devilish. The fall was twofold- physical and spiritual. Their fall was spiritual because by choosing evil over good they became disconnected or "dead" to the things of righteousness. Transgression means to be disobedient to a known commandment. People can sin either in ignorance to the law or in transgression knowing the law. A sin in transgression is worse in that one knowingly crosses the bounds set before him. This is Adam and Eves downfall and now they need to repent and be baptized (born again) to the things of righteousness (spiritual life; walking in the newness of life). 

This is paramount to understanding in that little children come into the earth spirituallly alive and remain so until they become accountable and then sin which at that point they spiritually fall. Not understanding this principle has led many a generation to the false belief that their newborn children enter mortality in a spirirually dead condition qnd thus the need to baptize them unto a new spiritual birth (born again) so that their soul isnt destined to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, with this view we better start baptizing our infants.

Quite the contrary.  There is no sin, let alone need for cleansing,  in noble quests out of obedience to God's commands. Rather,  they are worthy of honor and glory. 

As will be seen below, the Book of Rob reads quite differently than my scriptures and Church teachings.

Quote

I have different take on "transgression". I see the fall by Adam and Eve as actual willfull sin. T

As expected, I disagree. Given the more contemporary definition, I accept Elder Oak's differentiation between "transgression" and "sin"--it is the difference between violation a legal prohibition and violating an inherent wrong or evil. (see HERE

Quote

They knowingly broke the commandment of God.

In my scriptures, they willfully violated a divine conditional prohibition in order to obey God's command.

Quote

By choosing to follow Satan (a form of worship) through his temptations they chose to become carnal sensual and devilish.

 

In my scriptures, Eve was beguiled by Satan, but Adam was not. Neither chose to follow Satan, nor did they worship him in any respect. Rather, they continued to seek the Father through the Son. In fact, enmity was place between Satan and the seed of Adam and Eve. (Moses 4:22-25)

Quote

The fall was twofold- physical and spiritual. Their fall was spiritual because by choosing evil over good they became disconnected or "dead" to the things of righteousness.

The fall did indeed bring about physical and spiritual death. However, the spiritual death directly associated with the fall was separation from the Father. Further spiritual death came by way of sin, which was post fall --though only for some and not all of the people born on earth--given the law of mercy made possible through the atonement, those who haven't reached the age of accountability, either in chronological age or mental capacity, do not suffer the further spiritual death because they are incapable of sin. Were  the spiritual death you mentioned a consequence of the fall, then children would need to be baptized. In other words, if your belief were correct, then it would require the very thing you falsely assumed about my beliefs. 

We know that, post fall, Adam and Eve were not dead to the things of righteousness, in part because  that form of death wasn't included among the curses, (see Moses 4:22-25), but also because the very first things they did following their being expelled from the Garden were in obedience to God's command. (Moses 5:1-12): 

Quote

Transgression means to be disobedient to a known commandment. People can sin either in ignorance to the law or in transgression knowing the law. A sin in transgression is worse in that one knowingly crosses the bounds set before him. This is Adam and Eves downfall and now they need to repent and be baptized (born again) to the things of righteousness (spiritual life; walking in the newness of life). 

This is paramount to understanding in that little children come into the earth spirituallly alive and remain so until they become accountable and then sin which at that point they spiritually fall. Not understanding this principle has led many a generation to the false belief that their newborn children enter mortality in a spirirually dead condition qnd thus the need to baptize them unto a new spiritual birth (born again) so that their soul isnt destined to hell.

 This somewhat contradicts what you said earlier. Either the spiritual death that you mentioned came in consequence of the fall (which applies to all mankind born on earth), or it is a consequence of sin (or as you confused it with transgression, or knowing violation of the law). It can't be both. Take your pick.

Either way, you not only missed the point of my post, but your beliefs are quite foreign to mine. So, I don't know if there would be much gained by pursuing it further, particularly in light of the lack of productivity in discussing our differences earlier in the thread. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Quite the contrary.  There is no sin, let alone need for cleansing,  in noble quests out of obedience to God's commands. Rather,  they are worthy of honor and glory. 

As will be seen below, the Book of Rob reads quite differently than my scriptures and Church teachings.

As expected, I disagree. Given the more contemporary definition, I accept Elder Oak's differentiation between "transgression" and "sin"--it is the difference between violation a legal prohibition and violating an inherent wrong or evil. (see HERE

In my scriptures, they willfully violated a divine conditional prohibition in order to obey God's command.

 

In my scriptures, Eve was beguiled by Satan, but Adam was not. Neither chose to follow Satan, nor did they worship him in any respect. Rather, they continued to seek the Father through the Son. In fact, enmity was place between Satan and the seed of Adam and Eve. (Moses 4:22-25)

The fall did indeed bring about physical and spiritual death. However, the spiritual death directly associated with the fall was separation from the Father. Further spiritual death came by way of sin, which was post fall --though only for some and not all of the people born on earth--given the law of mercy made possible through the atonement, those who haven't reached the age of accountability, either in chronological age or mental capacity, do not suffer the further spiritual death because they are incapable of sin. Were  the spiritual death you mentioned a consequence of the fall, then children would need to be baptized. In other words, if your belief were correct, then it would require the very thing you falsely assumed about my beliefs. 

We know that, post fall, Adam and Eve were not dead to the things of righteousness, in part because  that form of death wasn't included among the curses, (see Moses 4:22-25), but also because the very first things they did following their being expelled from the Garden were in obedience to God's command. (Moses 5:1-12): 

 This somewhat contradicts what you said earlier. Either the spiritual death that you mentioned came in consequence of the fall (which applies to all mankind born on earth), or it is a consequence of sin (or as you confused it with transgression, or knowing violation of the law). It can't be both. Take your pick.

Either way, you not only missed the point of my post, but your beliefs are quite foreign to mine. So, I don't know if there would be much gained by pursuing it further, particularly in light of the lack of productivity in discussing our differences earlier in the thread. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

I find so much wrong with your post I am not sure where to begin. Basic doctrinal errors.

Let me just ask- why was it necessary for Adam and Eve to repent after they partook of the forbidden fruit?

If little children are spiritually dead upon entering earth, what is their spirit dead to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right off the bat, I really don't like how he's written this piece. I'm looking for a summary of it and it doesn't seem to be at the beginning and it's not at the end. And at the beginning, he starts this story up and it really just sounds like a load of waffling.

What exactly is this article proposing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find so much wrong with your post I am not sure where to begin. Basic doctrinal errors.

Let me just ask- why was it necessary for Adam and Eve to repent after they partook of the forbidden fruit?

If little children are spiritually dead upon entering earth, what is their spirit dead to?

Yes, they would be spiritually dead upon entering earth if not for the atonement of the Lord.  This is because they are children of Adam (or from his bloodline) and hence inherit his curse.  However, they are, of themselves, incapable of sinning (much like Adam and Eve in the garden, which is why it is referred to as a Transgression).  As such, little children are incapable of sinning, and are saved due to the Lord's Atonement...

From Moroni 8

Quote

For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the aword of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

And it goes beyond little children which makes it VERY interesting in it's application, however it also further explains the WHYs and hows of it...also from Moroni 8

Quote

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, they would be spiritually dead upon entering earth if not for the atonement of the Lord.  This is because they are children of Adam (or from his bloodline) and hence inherit his curse.  However, they are, of themselves, incapable of sinning (much like Adam and Eve in the garden, which is why it is referred to as a Transgression).  As such, little children are incapable of sinning, and are saved due to the Lord's Atonement...

From Moroni 8

And it goes beyond little children which makes it VERY interesting in it's application, however it also further explains the WHYs and hows of it...also from Moroni 8

 

Why were Adam and Eve cast out of the garden? Because they disobeyed. Here-

18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;
            19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.
            20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man. (D&C 20:18-20)

The scriptures infer here that Adam and Eve began to love and serve Satan (worship Satan). This was their transgression and why they were kicked out of the garden. This is the same thing that happens to us in our own personal spiritual fall. Here-

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.
            5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.

(Mosiah 16:3-5)

These scriptures speak of that carnal man who are in sin and rebellion against God. Adam and Eve partook of this same nature as these scriptures point out. "Transgression" is breaking the known law. Adam and Eve broke that law and became spiritually fallen having subjected themselves to the devil by listening and obeying him becoming carnal and devilish. God commanded them that they should obey Gid, lusten only to him and none other. Adam and Eve disobeyed. Because of that they needed the atonement and the gospel to reclaim themselves from hell through repentance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle of spiritual death needs some attention here. "Spiritual death" is different than physical death in that in physical death our body becomes unresponsive to our spirit, the heart stops beating and tissues die. In spiritual death our spirit doesnt lie down like our physical body does at death. Instead, our spirit becomes "unresponsive" to the Spirit of God. This unresponsiveness is manifest in no longer listening to the spirit. In this manner a person becomes dead to good works. They no longer are performing Gods will, no longer being an instrument in Gods hands. Once one repents and are baptized they become "born again" to the things of righteousness. They walk in newness of life. Thus, a born again Christian is no longer spiritually dead, no longer in their spiritually fallen condition. This is what these scriptures are referring to-

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;
            26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. (Mosiah 27:25-26)

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (Romans 8:6)

When we sin we spiritually fall and need repentance. That fall happens initially slowly and progresses from there. Children who are unaccountable are alive (spiritually alive). We thus do not become spiritually dead until we sin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find so much wrong with your post I am not sure where to begin. Basic doctrinal errors.

Like I said, the Book of Rob reads quite differently than my scriptures (which I cited)

Quote

Let me just ask- why was it necessary for Adam and Eve to repent after they partook of the forbidden fruit?

My scriptures contain no such claim (repentance for Adam and his posterity came later after the angel declared it unto them--D&C 29:42). I can't answer for the Book of Rob.

Quote

If little children are spiritually dead upon entering earth, what is their spirit dead to?

In my scriptures, their spiritual death consists merely of a veil of separation from the Father--metaphorically represented by the casting out of Adam and Eve from the Garden (D&C 29:41). They have need to be redeemed from that spiritual and physical death, though not from spiritual death by sin since they cannot sin, which redemption came by way of the Only Begotten. (D&C 29:46-48) Again, I can't answer for the Book of Rob.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Like I said, the Book of Rob reads quite differently than my scriptures (which I cited)

My scriptures contain no such claim (repentance for Adam and his posterity came later after the angel declared it unto them--D&C 29:42). I can't answer for the Book of Rob.

In my scriptures, their spiritual death consists merely of a veil of separation from the Father--metaphorically represented by the casting out of Adam and Eve from the Garden (D&C 29:41). They have need to be redeemed from that spiritual and physical death, though not from spiritual death by sin since they cannot sin, which redemption came by way of the Only Begotten. (D&C 29:46-48) Again, I can't answer for the Book of Rob.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Before we go any further can I please ask you to stop referring to everything I say with "Book of Rob". Its incredibly insensitive and not Christlike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Before we go any further can I please ask you to stop referring to everything I say with "Book of Rob". Its incredibly insensitive and not Christlike.

Don't be silly. If you don't like the Book of Rob, then how about the gospel of Rob?  

The point being, I don't recognize your beliefs as anything close to the gospel I am familiar with, and I seem to share that view with pretty much every other member of the Church participating on this thread.

Besides,  I don't know who better to attribute your seemingly unique beliefs to than you. Own them.

Either way, what would be the value in going further? It isn't like we will change each others mind, nor is your way of viewing things the least bit enlightening to me--except in underscoring my own beliefs when contrasted with your's.To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Don't be silly. If you don't like the Book of Rob, then how about the gospel of Rob?  

The point being, I don't recognize your beliefs as anything close to the gospel I am familiar with, and I seem to share that view with pretty much every other member of the Church participating on this thread.

Besides,  I don't know who better to attribute your seemingly unique beliefs to than you. Own them.

Either way, what would be the value in going further? It isn't like we will change each others mind, nor is your way of viewing things the least bit enlightening to me--except in underscoring my own beliefs when contrasted with your's.To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good day to you then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wenglund said:

Don't be silly. If you don't like the Book of Rob, then how about the gospel of Rob?  

The point being, I don't recognize your beliefs as anything close to the gospel I am familiar with, and I seem to share that view with pretty much every other member of the Church participating on this thread.

Besides,  I don't know who better to attribute your seemingly unique beliefs to than you. Own them.

Either way, what would be the value in going further? It isn't like we will change each others mind, nor is your way of viewing things the least bit enlightening to me--except in underscoring my own beliefs when contrasted with your's.To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Good day to you then.

 

I don't see how "The Book of Rob" is an insult more than a descriptor.  Saying "The Gospel According to Brother X" is oftentimes used in our ward.  We even had a speaker just last Sunday say, "This is Gospel according to Brother X" referring to himself right there on the pulpit.  It's basically differentiating a statement as taught by the prophets as opposed to a statement from one's own personal revelations on the matter that doesn't have backing from the prophets.  We are advised not to teach according to our own gospel on the podium or in Sunday School but sometimes in my ward, somebody takes from one's personal experiences as a means to get to a bigger point.  I'm not fond of it but at least they do admit that it is Gospel according to Brother X rather than pass it off as prophetic teaching.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

I don't see how "The Book of Rob" is an insult more than a descriptor.  Saying "The Gospel According to Brother X" is oftentimes used in our ward.  We even had a speaker just last Sunday say, "This is Gospel according to Brother X" referring to himself right there on the pulpit.  It's basically differentiating a statement as taught by the prophets as opposed to a statement from one's own personal revelations on the matter that doesn't have backing from the prophets.  We are advised not to teach according to our own gospel on the podium or in Sunday School but sometimes in my ward, somebody takes from one's personal experiences as a means to get to a bigger point.  I'm not fond of it but at least they do admit that it is Gospel according to Brother X rather than pass it off as prophetic teaching.

 

The wsy Wade was responding was offensive to me. Its between him and I. Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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