The Meaning of Atonement

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd say that I don't know if the introduction of the natural man was the ONLY way, nor do I know if the experience of the fallen world was the ONLY way.  But I'd assume that these were the BEST way or else, the Lord would not have chosen this path.

As for the fall of man, our doctrine teaches unambiguously that it was an absolutely necessary step in our progression. So that much, at least, seems clear.

[Rob Osborn]

47 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In other words, strait and narrow is the gate to progress (i.e. "change"), and wide is the way to damnation (i.e. preserve things as they are and stay the same).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have always found this interesting in that wide indeed is the way leading to damnation but in the end few will end up still on that course and almost all will find the strait and narrow way.

[Rob Osborn]

Tge fall was going to happen regardless if Lucifer fell or not. A "natural man" is its own temptor.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Tge fall was going to happen regardless if Lucifer fell or not. A "natural man" is its own temptor.

I am not sure that this quite rises to the level of doctrine. But for the record, at least in my own understanding of such things, I agree with Rob in this.

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I am not sure that this quite rises to the level of doctrine. But for the record, at least in my own understanding of such things, I agree with Rob in this.

This seems ill thought.  At what point do we become a natural man - after a fall.  Thus waiting to become a natural man so we can be tempted by the flesh bodes an awful long wait. 

[wenglund]

On 2/14/2018 at 3:43 PM, Vort said:

As for the fall of man, our doctrine teaches unambiguously that it was an absolutely necessary step in our progression. So that much, at least, seems clear.

To me, the fall, itself, consisted of becoming a natural man. If so, then, by logical extension, doesn't that mean that the natural man was unambiguously necessary?

To me, the union of the spirit with the natural body is the primary locus through which man experiences the opposition necessary in all things (the will of the spirit vs the will of the flesh), and which in turn enables meaningful agency. 

The fallen or natural man gave cause to be separated from the Father, and prevents us from seeing him and being in his presences, which i n turn gave place for faith that is necessary to come to see or understand things far better than were they always before our eyes--i.e the kind of knowledge that can only come by becoming.

In other words, the natural man was needed to become like God, knowing good from evil.

Thus, it isn't just that each of us needed to obtain a body to become like our glorified and resurrected Father, we needed a natural or fallen body in order to eventually become perfected like him.

Granted, there are some who come to earth for such a brief time that, for them, obtaining a body was all that seems needed. However, for the vast majority of us, being clothed with the natural man for a long while, was needed for the highlighted reasons stated above, and to allow a probationary period to be tested and hopefully bring the flesh into subjection to the spirit,--i.e. become one God, as exemplified by and made possible by the Son. (Mosiah 15:1-9, see also Rom. 8:1-23; Gal 4:29; 5:16-25;  6:8).

;Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

To me, the fall, itself, consisted of becoming a natural man. If so, then, by logical extension, doesn't that mean that the natural man was unambiguously necessary?

To me, the union of the spirit with the natural body is the primary locus through which man experiences the opposition necessary in all things (the will of the spirit vs the will of the flesh), and which in turn enables meaningful agency. 

The fallen or natural man gave cause to be separated from the Father, and prevents us from seeing him and being in his presences, which i n turn gave place for faith that is necessary to come to see or understand things far better than were they always before our eyes--i.e the kind of knowledge that can only come by becoming.

In other words, the natural man was needed to become like God, knowing good from evil.

Thus, it isn't just that each of usneed to obtain a body to become like our glorified and resurrected Father, we needed a natural or fallen body in order to eventually become perfected like him.

Granted, there are some who come to earth for such a brief time that, for them, obtaining a body was all that seems needed. However, for the vast majority of us, being clothed with the natural man for a long while, was needed for the highlighted reasons stated above, and to allow a probationary period to be tested and hopefully bring the flesh into subjection to the spirit,--i.e. become one God, as exemplified by and made possible by the Son. (Mosiah 15:1-9, see also Rom. 8:1-23; Gal 4:29; 5:16-25;  6:8).

;Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, for what reason did Lucifer fall? Did he know good from evil? Agency and the knowledge of good and evil it appears was known and accessed by us before physical man fell.

[brlenox]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, for what reason did Lucifer fall? Did he know good from evil? Agency and the knowledge of good and evil it appears was known and accessed by us before physical man fell.

Moses 7:32

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

[wenglund]

On 2/16/2018 at 2:55 PM, Rob Osborn said:

So, for what reason did Lucifer fall? 

Moses 4:1-3

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Moses 7:32

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

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

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

That is a good point for consideration.

[wenglund]

On 2/16/2018 at 2:55 PM, Rob Osborn said:

So, for what reason did Lucifer fall? Did he know good from evil? Agency and the knowledge of good and evil it appears was known and accessed by us before physical man fell.

 

On 2/16/2018 at 3:09 PM, brlenox said:

Moses 7:32

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

 

On 2/16/2018 at 3:27 PM, Rob Osborn said:

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

This is great Rob and brlenox. Clearly, agency predated the Fall.

So, how do I square this with my claim that "To me, the union of the spirit with the natural body is the primary locus through which man experiences the opposition necessary in all things (the will of the spirit vs the will of the flesh), and which in turn enables meaningful agency."?

Setting aside for the moment the question whether Satan knew good from evil, you will note that I used the qualifier of "meaningful" in relation to agency,which doesn't deny the prospect of agency prior to the fall, just meaningful agency. By "meaningful" I have in mind agency on a considerably grander scale--which I intend to explain over the next several posts.

I believe that understanding the critical differences in agency pre-fall as contrasted with that post-fall, will provide useful insights into the fall, itself, and its necessity as well as the atonement and the intended end of our progression. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, wenglund said:

So, how do I square this with my claim

I'm not sure if "meaningful" is the correct term for what I believe you're trying to say.  (correct me if I'm wrong). 

I'd ask, is there a difference between knowing "good and evil" vs "right and wrong"?  I believe there is.  They were not given enough intelligence (in the gospel sense) to discern between good and evil.  But they were given enough intelligence to choose between "right and wrong."  Hence sin vs transgression respectively. It may seem like splitting hairs again.  But consider what a child understands.

A child knows between right and wrong, mostly because a parent tells them so.  Adam and Eve knew two commandments simply because Father said so.  They knew the consequences because Father told them.  Apart from obeying Father, did they really understand the concepts of good and evil and how obeying or disobeying effected such esoteric concepts or their eternal destiny?  No.  They lacked the intelligence (wisdom, light, and knowledge) to do so.

But somewhere in that confusion and seemingly contradicting commandments, they exercised faith.  And it was faith in God. That act was unique.  Just as contradictory were the commandments they were given, their ability to exercise faith in God was what both caused their fall as well as their ability to progress.  And this had to be a choice that was made independently in the sphere in which they were placed.

[wenglund]

As I understand it, agency is the capacity of an individual to act according to their own will--i.e. make choices as they see fit.  

Now, I don't wish to get into a debate as to whether there is free will or not, or determinism vs indeterminacy.  Rather, I assume that there is a semblance of free will, or at the very least we all act as if there is free will.

That having been said, then in order for agency to exist on a fundamental level, all that is needed is a choice and the liberty of individuals to act on that choice. 

At this fundamental level, the choices don't even need to be between good and evil. It can be between good and good, good and better, etc. Using a simple fruit analogy: If an  individual is given the option to freely choose between two identical apples, the agency exists on a fundamental level. 

The same is true with a choice between two sweat fruit, such as between a Honeycrisp or a Gala apple, or between an apple and a peach..

Maybe another level of agency exist where an option of bitter is added to the sweet, or an option of evil or bad is added to the good.

I say "maybe" because the addition of the "negative" options doesn't, in itself, make much of a difference absent sufficient knowledge of the "bad" or "good"--i.e the long-term adverseness of the "bad" or rewards of the "good." For example, if you place two buttons before a two-year-old, one marked with an "L" for "life" an the other marked with a "D" for "death," and they are told nothing, the two-year-old might push either one. because they have the fundamental level of agency that is simply a choice.

Even a minimal amount of knowledge  won't change  the level of sophistication of agency much. For example, If you give most any child under the age of 8-years-old the choice between a steady diet of candy vs. a steady diet of vegetables....Whereas, with ample knowledge and perhaps a dose of sad experience, the parents would likely make a quite different choice. Each has the agency to choose, but a higher level of knowledge adds a layer of sophistication to the agency.

{addendum:  Hence, the fall down to the natural man provided a level of agency far greater and more meaningful than the agency prior to the fall.]

--continued below--

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To a point, the same is true for incentives/disincentives, as demonstrated through the Pavlovian effect and other related social-science experiments. 

I say "to a point" because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. By this I mean that when the incentives or disincentives are so extreme, the choices become virtual "no-brainers." For example, iwere the "L" and "D" buttons put in front of a mentally healthy and rational adult, and the adult knew with certainty that pushing the "L' button would make them automatically win a $100 million lottery, whereas pushing the "D" button would cause a slow drip of acid starting from the lower body up to the head, and this until the adult died, there would still be a choice and agency, but not really or not meaningfully.

Furthermore, the number and variety of choices make a difference in the meaningfulness or level of agency. If one only had one choice that you are given to make throughout your existence, such as whether to do the will of the Father and follow the Plan of his chosen Son, or do the will of the other son, and follow him; with the understanding that the former would mean eternal progression while the latter meant eternal hell. Or, even if one is given the multiple choices to eat either of the variety of delicious fruit or partake of the bitter fruit, where the former assured eternal life and the later death. Each of these would pale in comparison to the countless choices between good and evil, sweet and bitter, etc. throughout human life. Each has agency, but the human level of agency seems on orders of magnitude far greater.

--continued--

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But somewhere in that confusion and seemingly contradicting commandments

I only think its confusing for us because we arent unserstanding it right.  

[wenglund]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when you combined the number of choices with moderated or deferred or potentially eliminated consequences (both in terms of incentives and disincentives), agency takes on an even higher level of meaningfulness or sophistication.

By this I mean that mercy, made possible by the infinite and eternal sacrifice of the Son,  not only enabled recovery from "bad" choices, but it also provides conditions, a probationary state, where people are more free and less inhibited to make "bad" mistakes--something they wouldn't have had were God to immediately flip the "hell" switch at the first instance of a "bad" choice.

And, just as Satan is prevented from tempting mankind beyond their capacity to resist or overcome making "bad" choices, mercy and the veil prevent incentivizing heaven beyond our capacity to resist. 

The freedom to sin without immediate and serious consequences, and the ability to somewhat get away with sinning, allows for a very high level of agency.

This is somewhat made more manifest through the transition from the old law to the new law. While the potential end result of adultery may be greater under the new law (given that even lusting in one's heart may bring on condemnation), violators are no longer being stoned to death, and thus mankind feels more at liberty to commit adultery (as witnessed by the pervasive numbers in the later days) --i.e. they have greater agency.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when you combined the number of choices with moderated or deferred or potentially eliminated consequences (both in terms of incentives and disincentives), agency takes on an even higher level of meaningfulness or sophistication.

By this I mean that mercy, made possible by the infinite and eternal sacrifice of the Son,  not only enabled recovery from "bad" choices, but it also provides conditions, a probationary state, where people are more free and less inhibited to make "bad" mistakes--something they wouldn't have had were God to immediately flip the "hell" switch at the first instance of a "bad" choice.

Just as Satan is prevented from tempting mankind beyond their capacity to resist or overcome making bad choices, mercy and the veil prevent incentivizing heaven beyond our capacity to resist. 

The freedom to sin without immediate and serious consequences, and the ability to somewhat get away with sinning, allows for a very high level of agency.

This is somewhat made more manifest through the transition from the old law to the new law. While the potential end result of adultery may be greater under the new law (given that even lusting in one's heart may bring on condemnation), violators are no longer being stoned to death, and thus feel more at liberty to commit adultery (as witnessed by the pervasive numbers) --i.e. they have greater agency.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agency is the power of action. The antonym I have best found for agency is "captivity". The destruction of agency is on that spiritual level where Satan leads us captive down to hell. The Savior, through his atoning sacrafice, makes it possible to break those chains of spiritual captivity dependent of course upon obedience to the gospel. The atonement thus does preserve agency. But, all it does is break those chains and places us again in that freedom of power of action. Obedience preserves agency whereas disobedience destroys agency.

[wenglund]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if "meaningful" is the correct term for what I believe you're trying to say.  (correct me if I'm wrong). 

I am not sure that "meaningfulness" is the right word either. I picked the word off the cuff in order to complete my thoughts and get them posted. Hopefully the notion can still be conveyed until the correct word is chosen.

Quote

I'd ask, is there a difference between knowing "good and evil" vs "right and wrong"?  I believe there is.  They were not given enough intelligence (in the gospel sense) to discern between good and evil.  But they were given enough intelligence to choose between "right and wrong."  Hence sin vs transgression respectively. It may seem like splitting hairs again.  But consider what a child understands.

A child knows between right and wrong, mostly because a parent tells them so.  Adam and Eve knew two commandments simply because Father said so.  They knew the consequences because Father told them.  Apart from obeying Father, did they really understand the concepts of good and evil and how obeying or disobeying effected such esoteric concepts or their eternal destiny?  No.  They lacked the intelligence (wisdom, light, and knowledge) to do so.

Well said, and I agree. How can one truly know evil until they have experienced their own son brutally murdered, or be privy to similar experiences as parents? 

Like with the levels of agency that I roughed out above, I think that in terms of the knowledge of good and evil there are also varied levels . To me, the level of agency and knowledge that Adam and Eve had in the Garden (call it the level of knowing right from wrong) was nominal in comparison to what they gained after the fall. Certainly, the pre-fall level couldn't be likened unto that of God.

And, your child analogy is wonderfully apt. The knowledge and thus agency of an infant is worlds apart from that of a mature and successful adult... ...and so is the level of responsibility. Where much knowledge and agency is given, much is expected.

What interest me most about the presumed levels of knowledge and agency, is that it not only gives greater purpose and meaning to, and need for the fall, but also the atonement as well.

Had @Rob Osborn and @brlenox not raised the point about agency existing pre-fall, it would have never occurred to me that the fall and mercy were both a means for expanding and heightening free agency. Much appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Agency is the power of action. The antonym I have best found for agency is "captivity". The destruction of agency is on that spiritual level where Satan leads us captive down to hell. The Savior, through his atoning sacrafice, makes it possible to break those chains of spiritual captivity dependent of course upon obedience to the gospel. The atonement thus does preserve agency. But, all it does is break those chains and places us again in that freedom of power of action. Obedience preserves agency whereas disobedience destroys agency.

I agree, though I hasten to add that, in my estimation, the atonement not only places us again in the freedom of power of action, it also enables an increase of that freedom and power of action. 

I believe, in its own way, the fall also enabled an increase in freedom of  power of action along with risk of captivity.

In fact, as I see it, the fall and the atonement were both needed to enable optimum levels of agency  

There seems to be a risk/reward relationship. By way of agency, the high risk of captivity enabled by the fall allowed for the high reward of partaking of the divine nature--as Elder Bednar puts it. 

This is, in part, why Satan's plan was destined for damnation. No agency, no risk, no reward.

And, while obedience is a critical factor in activating the chain-busting power of the atonement, increased knowledge and development in other aspects of life  are also liberating and empowering  of action.  The fewer choices you know about, the less choices you have, and thus the less freedom and power you have to act  Knowledge is power--including the power to act. And, a child has less power to act in many ways than an adult, just as a poor nobody in podunk Utah has less power to act than a celebraty in Hollywood or a billionare in Bellevue Wash. and the same is true for the risk of captivity.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

28 minutes ago, wenglund said:

What interest me most about the presumed levels of knowledge and agency, is that it not only gives greater purpose and meaning to, and need for the fall, but also the atonement as well.

We all knew in our pre-earth state that we would fall and need a Savior. That was a given, even before Lucifer fell. The fall was indeed necessary just as the atonement itself was also necessary. I think the interesting part here is that Satan thought he could either destroy the plan or destroy Gods kingdom by causing the Savior to fall spiritually- give into temptation. What he failed to acknowledge is the Saviors ability to remain perfect (the actual power of God to break Satans everlasting chains).

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This is, in part, why Satan's plan was destined for damnation. No agency, no risk, no reward.

I agree with everything in your post except for this one statement that I quoted. 

Satans plan was one of captivity. His plan was to enslave Gods children into his power eternally. Its in fact still the same plan he uses today. So, on the one hand you have yhe Fathers plan that preserves and broadens agency while on the other you have Satans plan to destroy mans agency by bringing them down into captivity.

The key in all this is that it never was nor is Satans plan to save any of Gods children. God knew this and thus stated the facts that those who choose to follow Satan have their agency destroyed.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree with everything in your post except for this one statement that I quoted. 

Satans plan was one of captivity. His plan was to enslave Gods children into his power eternally. Its in fact still the same plan he uses today. So, on the one hand you have yhe Fathers plan that preserves and broadens agency while on the other you have Satans plan to destroy mans agency by bringing them down into captivity.

The key in all this is that it never was nor is Satans plan to save any of Gods children. God knew this and thus stated the facts that those who choose to follow Satan have their agency destroyed.

Sounds good. However, I don't see how this disagrees with the part of my statement you quoted--which says nothing about Satan wishing to save any or even some of God's children. It is silent about Satan and salvation. Rather, it only speaks of damnation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'd ask, is there a difference between knowing "good and evil" vs "right and wrong"?  I believe there is.  They [Adam and Eve] were not given enough intelligence (in the gospel sense) to discern between good and evil.  But they were given enough intelligence to choose between "right and wrong."  Hence sin vs transgression respectively. It may seem like splitting hairs again.  But consider what a child understands.

A child knows between right and wrong, mostly because a parent tells them so.  Adam and Eve knew two commandments simply because Father said so.  They knew the consequences because Father told them.  Apart from obeying Father, did they really understand the concepts of good and evil and how obeying or disobeying effected such esoteric concepts or their eternal destiny?  No.  They lacked the intelligence (wisdom, light, and knowledge) to do so.

I should have mentioned this earlier, but not only is your point salient, but it indirectly adds meaning to the atonement and explains why it had to be infinite and eternal, in part because had the atonement not occurred and applied retroactively to the past as well as future,  it wouldn't have mattered that the pre-fall Adam and Eve (and post-fall children under age 8) lacked knowledge and sufficient agency. Justice would have required eternal expulsion from  God's presence  just as with the third of the host of heaven.

However, because of the atonement, mercy retroactively tempered justice, and while expulsion of Adam and Eve (and their mortal posterity)  from God's presence was still necessary, it need not be eternal.

This raises the question whether the retroactive power of the atonement would extend mercy to the third of the host of heaven such that their expulsion wouldn't be eternal?

I think not, and this because I figure that the physical body is required for the tempering conditions of mercy to apply, though I will have to think it through a bit more to explain why.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

This raises the question whether the retroactive power of the atonement would extend mercy to the third of the host of heaven such that their expulsion wouldn't be eternal?

Something to think about but those who followed Satan had the chance to repent so to speak and follow Christ but, as eternal pattern shows, there comes a deadline where the final ruling is sealed and for that 1/3 that day passed.