The Meaning of Atonement


Grunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Do you have a reference for that specific commandment? I can't seem to find it in my scriptures. If it is there, I would like to add it to my list of Garden Commandments.

I just found another commandment in Moses 4:18--i.e. Adam and Eve were commanded to remain with each other. However, perhaps that commandment was entailed in the command to "cleave unto they wife." (Moses 3:24)

Whatever the case, I found interesting this observation by the Gods about Adam and Eve: after they were created: "they shall be very obedient." (Abr 4:31)  

What makes this so interesting to me is that, in regards to the other creations, the Gods merely remarked that they "would be obeyed." (Abr. 4)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Tge law that was broken was that Adam and Eve were commanded to love and serve only God. They broke that law (transgressed) and the end result was sin.

There is a difference between "the Law" and commandments.  It does appear to me that there is a lot of confusion concerning this difference and that is why I asked the question.  But I will give you a clue - laws are transgressed and commandments are broken.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

There is a difference between "the Law" and commandments.  It does appear to me that there is a lot of confusion concerning this difference and that is why I asked the question.  But I will give you a clue - laws are transgressed and commandments are broken.

 

The Traveler

Read the scriptures I previously posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Why was Adam and Eve naked?

Perhaps there is a deeper reason, but to me it was  because that was the natural state in which they were created ( Moses 3:25Abr 5:19)

What I find curious is that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness (ibid.), but after the fall they felt the need to make aprons, and were afraid and hid themselves. Evidently they were not ashamed that they were naked because the didn't see that they were naked until after partaking of the forbidden fruit. (Moses 4:13,16-17)

One may reasonably wonder if their inability to see that they were naked prior to the fall, is what Lehi meant when he called them "innocent" (2 Ne 2:23)--i.e. an infant state (D&C 93:38), and what may have impeded or prevented them from obeying the command to be fruitful and multiply and become one flesh? I believfe so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is a difference between "the Law" and commandments.  It does appear to me that there is a lot of confusion concerning this difference and that is why I asked the question.  But I will give you a clue - laws are transgressed and commandments are broken.

 

The Traveler

I confess to being guilty of that confusion. I will have to research the difference. I am enjoying and growing from this Socratic experience. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Perhaps there is a deeper reason, but to me it was  because that was the natural state in which they were created ( Moses 3:25Abr 5:19)

What I find curious is that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness (ibid.), but after the fall they felt the need to make aprons, and were afraid and hid themselves. Evidently they were not ashamed that they were naked because the didn't see that they were naked until after partaking of the forbidden fruit. (Moses 4:13,16-17)

One may reasonably wonder if their inability to see that they were naked prior to the fall, is what Lehi meant when he called them "innocent" (2 Ne 2:23)--i.e. an infant state (D&C 93:38), and what may have impeded or prevented them from obeying the command to be fruitful and multiply and become one flesh? I believfe so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Naked is an interesting state when we consider that in the temple they are affirmed naked and then they have a garment made for them which we refer to as the garment of the Holy Priesthood. Somehow this garment of the priesthood is considered sufficient to negate their nakedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is a difference between "the Law" and commandments. 

Do you have in miind a collective vs individual distinction. In other words, "the Law" (Torah) is a collection or book of commandments? THis makes sens in light of the "transgress" vs "broken" distinction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brlenox said:

Naked is an interesting state when we consider that in the temple they are affirmed naked and then they have a garment made for them which we refer to as the garment of the Holy Priesthood. Somehow this garment of the priesthood is considered sufficient to negate their nakedness.

Likening the scriptures unto ourselves, this means that we are naked until we have the same garment made for us, along with the clothes of purity and the robes of righteousness and the crown of glory, if not also the helmet of salvation and breastplate of righteousness and faith, and armed with the sword of the spirit and word of God and Truth. As Paul declared, 

Quote

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. I so be the being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. (2 Cor 5:1-4)

Along the same lines as viewing "nakedness" as an absence of protection, the nakedness of Adam and Eve before the fall is different than after the fall. For before the fall, they could bear the glory of God's presence, whereas after the fall, they could not, but needed to be separated from Him and a veil to protect them, that is until they receive the "house from heaven" that is glorified to bear the presence of God's glory, lest they be found naked

So much light in a single word.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is a difference between "the Law" and commandments.  It does appear to me that there is a lot of confusion concerning this difference and that is why I asked the question.  But I will give you a clue - laws are transgressed and commandments are broken.

15 hours ago, wenglund said:

Do you have in miind a collective vs individual distinction. In other words, "the Law" (Torah) is a collection or book of commandments? THis makes sens in light of the "transgress" vs "broken" distinction.

This may simply be a semantic distinction, but I'll put it out there anyway.  Some religion professor of mine described it as not a "commandment" and not a "law.," but as an "action with a consequence." At the time, I didn't really understand the distinction at the time.  But it seems to have relevance here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wenglund said:

I confess to being guilty of that confusion. I will have to research the difference. I am enjoying and growing from this Socratic experience. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Commandments are given through the law which comes by and through the priesthood.  See Hebrews 7:11-12

Quote

11: If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If someone does not understand the difference between the Law and the commandments - they will be confused by Kingdoms of Glory, the resurrection - and a great many other principles of the Plan of Salvation.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im curious as to why no one commented on the scripture I posted equating commandments and laws as the same thing.

What is the law? Its what God commands. What are the commandments? The law.

The scripture you quoted mentioned "laws," and not "the law."  Evidently, this is an important distinction. 

Understandably,  this can be confusing because even the phrase "the law" is used in scripture in reference to individual/specific as well as a collection/general body of laws. For example, there is "the law of tithing" and "the law of Moses."

It is not unlike the word "covenant," which may refer to an individual/specific covenant, such as baptismal covenant, or it can be used collectively or in a general sense, such as with the "old covenant" and the "new and everlasting covenant."

The same is true for the word "priesthood," which can refer to an individual holder, or body of holders, and even general types of priesthoods, such as Aaronic and Melchizedek. 

My guess is that "the law" @Traveler has in mind falls into the latter set of examples I gave above, not coincidentally, but intentionally.

It can also be confusing because the terms "laws" and "commandments" are often used interchangeably in various languages, including Hebrew.

In fact, I did a scripture search of the word "transgressed," and it was used in relation to both "law" and "commandment." The same is true for "broken" and "break." They were both used in relation to laws and commandments.

Nevertheless, hopefully the explanation I have given will help alleviate some of the confusion as it has with me. Perhaps this graphic I posted earlier may be of additional help: 

The Falls.jpg

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In fact, I did a scripture search of the word "transgressed," and it was used in relation to both "law" and "commandment." The same is true for "broken" and "break." They were both used in relation to laws and commandments.

Yeah, when you transgress you break the known commandment which is the law. The result of which is sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, when you transgress you break the known commandment which is the law. The result of which is sin.

Transgress is to break a commandment which is a law.  I can agree with that.  This is not necessarily sin.

Sin is to know good and evil and to knowingly CHOOSE the evil action on PURPOSE, knowingly and in direct violation to the good.  This is a big difference.  You cannot choose the evil on purpose if you do not know good and evil to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 The result of which is sin.

I have already ridden that merry-go-round  with you, and it goes nowhere.productive. To each their own.

One final point on my part, as with words like law and commandment, the scriptures sometimes use the words "transgression" and "sin" interchangeably. However, according to my search, n terms of the fall, there isn't a single scripture that uses the word "sin."  They all refer to it as a transgression. That is significant to me. You are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I have already ridden that merry-go-round  with you, and it goes nowhere.productive. To each their own.

One final point on my part, as with words like law and commandment, the scriptures sometimes use the words "transgression" and "sin" interchangeably. However, according to my search, n terms of the fall, there isn't a single scripture that uses the word "sin."  They all refer to it as a transgression. That is significant to me. You are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Tgen why did they need to repent? I already quoted the scripture than Adam and Eve became carnal and devlish by listening to Satan over God. If there wasnt sin then there should be no cause for repentance and forgiveness. Adam and Eve transgressed the law and in so doing broke the commandment given them which is by definition sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Transgress is to break a commandment which is a law.  I can agree with that.  This is not necessarily sin.

Sin is to know good and evil and to knowingly CHOOSE the evil action on PURPOSE, knowingly and in direct violation to the good.  This is a big difference.  You cannot choose the evil on purpose if you do not know good and evil to begin with.

So, how then do you propose we ourselves sin for the first time? It has to start at least the first time right? 

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 11:30 AM, Traveler said:

 So then, there is another question – what law was broken? 

Did you means to ask, "What law was transgressed? ;)

Either way, we keep coming back to this same question. It was first hinted at by @brlenox. I then took a wild guess that apparently missed the mark and stirred up a lot of tangential discussion and confusion. And, now it surfaces again. Wouldn't it be nice to have a clear answer?

I wonder if Jeffery M Bradshaw, in his excellent book, "Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve (In God's Image and Likeness 1), may provide a clue when he speaks of the Everlasting Covenant that predated the Creation.

Quote

Similar in function to the digression of Moses 3:5, the narrative aside of Moses 4:1-4
temporarily interrupts the flow of events in order to provide the interpretive framework
for the story that follows.10 We learn that the real beginning of things was not in the first
moment of Creation, but rather in a series of preparatory events with a premortal covenant
at its crux. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: “Everlasting covenant was made between
three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of
things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called
God the first, the Creator, God the second, the Redeemer, and God the third, the witness
or Testator.”11
Textual traces alluding to an everlasting covenant with universal scope have been explored
by scholars. According to Murray, the central feature of this “cosmic covenant” was: “… a
belief which ancient Israel shared with neighboring cultures… in a divinely willed order
harmoniously linking heaven and earth. In Israelite tradition this was established at
Creation, when the cosmic elements were fixed and bound to maintain the order… Human
collaboration in this task was effected by maintaining justice with mercy and by ritual
actions, in which kings played the leading part.”12....

The annual Day of Atonement was given to ancient Israel in order to renew the everlasting
covenant that has been repeatedly broken by man.23 The power to repair, bind, or seal was
vested in the high priest, whose role was to secure the bonds of the covenant. The high
priest himself represented the seal or bond which held the covenant in place, the one who
wore the Name with power to bind or loose the covenant bond on earth and in heaven.24
The temple rites of the Old Testament anticipated fulfillment in the Atonement of Jesus
Christ, the “mediator of the new covenant.”25 (pp 216-220)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Did you means to ask, "What law was transgressed? ;)

Either way, we keep coming back to this same question. It was first hinted at by @brlenox. I then took a wild guess that apparently missed the mark and stirred up a lot of tangential discussion and confusion. And, now it surfaces again. Wouldn't it be nice to have a clear answer?

I wonder if Jeffery M Bradshaw, in his excellent book, "Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve (In God's Image and Likeness 1), may provide a clue when he speaks of the Everlasting Covenant that predated the Creation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Of all the laws or commandments given in the Garden only one came with the declaration of punishment should it be breached.  Since we see that punishment was enacted then at the very least it was surely breached and in that day they died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, how then do you propose we ourselves sin for the first time? It has to start at least the first time right? 

Once you know good and evil...you can sin.  It is the first time, you knowing good and evil of a decision, decide to do evil anyways.

As for transgression, just because it is not a sin does not waive the penalty.

For example, if a child puts their hand onto a hot burner, it still burns them.  However, the atonement takes care of that.  On the otherhand, for a sin where we chose to do evil, in that light we must also choose to do the right, which is to repent.

In this we can see this example in the law.  Police officers have a right to make a judgement call.  They do this quite often when issuing a ticket.  For example, they clock you going 80 mph in a 70 mph zone.  They have officer judgment where, though you broke the law, depending on the circumstances, they may use their own judgment not to issue you a ticket.  YOU BROKE the law, you have earned the punishment, but they can decide to not issue it.

Or, you inadvertently commit a crime.  It was not on purpose, therefore, many judges take this into account and issue a lesser penalty instead of imposing the punishment they might have if it was done intentionally, or at times the law counts it as a lesser crime if done unintentionally vs. a heavier crime if it was done intentionally (ex...manslaughter vs. 1st or 2nd degree murder).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

Of all the laws or commandments given in the Garden only one came with the declaration of punishment should it be breached.  Since we see that punishment was enacted then at the very least it was surely breached and in that day they died.

Yes, that commandment was definitely breached.  But, I sense that the breach affected more than just the specific command. To me, it breached "the Law" or "Eternal Covenant" as also happens when we transgress or sin.

Furthermore, I sense that there was another "Law" and "Eternal Covenant" in play, which was obeyed by virtue of Adam and Eve's transgression, though not like, or maybe quite the opposite,  when we transgress or sin, except perhaps when we descended from the heavens and enter edmortality.

It is that nagging notion of paradoxical or contradictory Laws,/Covenants, 

I say I "sense" these things because, as you can probably tell, I am not certain, and haven't researched or thought things through enough to say with more surety. And, so, the learning goes on.

Thanks, -Wade Engound-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wenglund and @brlenox

 

I have read your recent post carefully.  I will add my thoughts. 

Assumption #1.  What we know of what took place in what we call the pre-existence is by design and necessity both vague and incomplete.  I believe the vagueness is related to maximizing our second estate or mortal experience.  Often, during testimonies or spiritual witnesses the phrase “I know that” precedes various declarations that I have come to personally believe to be more of a work in process than a resolute conclusion.

Assumption #2.  What currently is taking place in our mortal experience is an “continuation” of what preceded it.  At first blush this may seem to be a most obvious assumption but then (at least it seems to me) that most assumptions made (especially within the religious community) of what preceded our “birth” are fantastical, magical events that have nothing what-so-ever to do with anything empirically learned.

I must pause for a moment here because there are some terms passed around, mostly within the religious community that I think can be misleading.  The First term is carnal.  A living member of what we call animals that eats the flesh of other animals is called a carnivore.  The term carnal means “of the flesh” but mostly in regards to sexual pleasures.  So, a carnal person is someone that finds pleasure in sexual activities.  The other term is sensual.  The root of this term is the five senses of sight, touch, taste, hearing, and smell.  (some argue there are more than 5 but that is a useless tangent in my mind).  Again, the religious context of sensual usually carries with it as sexual context that contains one or more of the 5 senses.  So, the terms “carnal” and “sensual” in religious meaning have Satanic inclinations.  This is so odd and illogical to me because of the divine commandment given to man to “multiply” and “replenish” the earth – which could only be accomplished through sexual indulgent of the opposite human genders.  Plus, the fact that Satan is not a physical being – or is he????? (But that is a whole other discussion of pure speculation)

In LDS theology we are taught that the “everlasting” covenant includes the marriage between these two opposite genders.  This then bring me to Assumption #3.  That is, that part of what was going on the in pre-existence involved marriage.  Isaiah teaches us there are 3 parts of the plan of salvation or gospel.  They are the Law, the Ordinances and the covenants.  We also learn in LDS theology that there is a progression or preparation of Law, Ordinances and Covenants that get those that follow the “path” or “way” of G-d that will eventually lead to the Law, Ordinances and Covenants of “Eternal Life”.   For example, we are taught that many of the ordinances performed in mortality are not the coronations of our “eternal glory” but rather an ordinance preparation that will be completed at a later time.

Assumption #4.  As we lived in the pre-existence with G-d the Father – it was impossible to gain a knowledge of evil.  G-d instructed us that to “touch” or “taste” evil would be a transgression of the Law of our pre-existence state.  We also know that all things have opposites and therefore we could not have knowledge of good without the knowledge of evil.  I believe the knowledge of evil is the tasting of death.  And so, it was that the children of G-d faced a great paradox.  That paradox was that the only way to gain a knowledge of evil (death) was to transgress the law.  I believe G-d carefully explained all this to us and warned us of the dangers of sin and transgressing the law – G-d could not force us, we had to decide ourselves.  But he also explained that there was a way to overcome sin and death – but that involved even greater pain and suffering than would be experienced with death.  It also involved a redemption or payment for sins that we could not accomplish through any pain and suffering on our own.

Assumption #5.  Satan attempted to take advantages of the situation to gain power and position himself to become the supreme Suzerain (usurping G-d the Father of his place and glory).  To be successful he would need to destroy the marriage covenant of “oneness”.  I think that the Eden epoch given us in scripture are mere threads and pieces in a much larger tapestry that we see and know very little of.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, wenglund said:

Furthermore, I sense that there was another "Law" and "Eternal Covenant" in play, which was obeyed by virtue of Adam and Eve's transgression, though not like, or maybe quite the opposite,  when we transgress or sin, except perhaps when we descended from the heavens and enter edmortality.

There are no scriptures stating that they obeyed a law by breaking another. The scriptures state that it was known man would fall before Lucifer fell from heaven.  It seems logical and obvious that it was only a matter of time before man would fall and in so doing the main purpose of the plan allows man to be reconciled to God after his enevitable fall. Even though in order to grow requires trial and error, this doesnt mean that the error part is a law of God commanding us to be evil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There are no scriptures stating that they obeyed a law by breaking another. The scriptures state that it was known man would fall before Lucifer fell from heaven.  It seems logical and obvious that it was only a matter of time before man would fall and in so doing the main purpose of the plan allows man to be reconciled to God after his enevitable fall. Even though in order to grow requires trial and error, this doesnt mean that the error part is a law of God commanding us to be evil.

 

Nobody is suggesting that God commanded them or us to do evil. Quite the contrary. If God commands us to transgress one of HIs commands, that is counted as righteousness, not evil

As for scriptures, they are there, but hidden in plan sight, only to be viewed by those with eyes to see. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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