The Meaning of Atonement

[Rob Osborn]

In regards to Christs atoning power, all he saves will be completely cleansed and forgiven of every single sin and go on into perfection. Only the sons of perdition will remain filthy. All one has to do to become a son of perdition is continue to deny Christ and the atonement remaining unrepentant.

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, brlenox said:

Let's expand our perception of how the Lord describes murderers and who might be considered such....

 

This was a wonderfully informative answer to the first part of my question. Do you have any thoughts to share regarding Christ needing to offer himself as a sacrifice, or rather his needing to give up his life as a requirement in making the Last and Great Sacrifice?

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Perhaps missing from the discussion of @wenglund and @brlenox concerning justice and mercy: is law and agency.   There is no justice without law – neither is there a Kingdom or agency unless there is law.  We become individually conscripted to the law by our agency.

For the purpose of salvation and agency we have law.  There is Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial Law.   Likewise, there is Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial justice, mercy and agency.  In order for all these “things” to be; there must be a law giver and a proctor of the law for the law to be “fulfilled” and justice, mercy and agency applied according to those that conform, accept and apply the law to enable their citizenship in a kingdom.  Jesus is both the law giver and proctor of Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial Law.  Those that do not abide by the Law given by Jesus become “subject” to Lucifer and the Law for which he is both giver and proctor.

 

The Traveler

Also seemingly missing is how covenants, commandments, and rituals factor in, yet perhaps they are included under "the law"?

Thoughts?

Even though this thread may be heading us way off into the mechanical weeds of atonement  (so to speak), I am enjoying and enriched by what I am learning. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, brlenox said:

I mentioned in an earlier post that I reference the law that Adam and Eve transgressed in the Garden of Eden as the Law of the Garden.  Specifically, of course it entails the ideology of be fruitful and multiply and do not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, inherent in the simplified rendition of the law is the implied "or".  "Or" if you do it will require that you are exiled and charged with a very severe crime which will define your relationship to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ hereafter. My last post is beginning to elaborate but it is always better a slow approach to allow discovery over blurting the whole deal out.

 

I have a different concept about Eden and the fall than what most seem to realize.  You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction.  What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Also seemingly missing is how covenants, commandments, and rituals factor in, yet perhaps they are included under "the law"?

Thoughts?

Even though this thread may be heading us way off into the mechanical weeds of atonement  (so to speak), I am enjoying and enriched by what I am learning. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

First – do not confuse ordinance with ritual.  I believe ordinance encompasses more.   To become a citizen of a Kingdom there are a number of “things” that must take place.  First, we must become qualified.  Second, we must both join the kingdom and become accepted as a participant (legal citizen).

I believe the Celestial Kingdom is a divine society of freedom, liberty and justice for all its Citizens.  I believe the Celestial Kingdom is the only kingdom where its citizens enjoy freedom, liberty and justice.    This is because I believe only Celestial Law fulfils freedom, liberty and justice.  Those that cannot abide Celestial Law are bound by the law and are subject to justice.

Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”  I believe this references the law (in particular, Celestial Law).   To prepare us for Celestial Law we are given several preparatory laws (like the Law of the Gospel, The Law of Sacrifice, the Law of Chasity and others).  Our preparation includes ordinances – beginning with Baptism.  Note that when someone is given the Holy Ghost the ordinance also includes a declaration of membership in the “Kingdom of G-d” as established on earth via the Kingdom’s Vassals chosen and carinated (ordained) by the Suzerain or his designated Vassal given the Keys of the Kingdom.  This is not a meaningless jester but a binding covenant that gives the “disciple” 3 distinct promises (also part of the Abraham covenant and law).  They are – 1. A promise Land (right to place in the Celestial rheum).  2. Protection from Enemies and being plundered by enemies (forgiveness of sins and prevention from Satan taking control of one’s inheritance).  3. Enduring posterity - meaning endless “seed” and eternal life.

In response, the “disciple” promises to remain loyal and faithful in all things to the sovereign King or supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom.  These things define the Law, the ordinances and the everlasting covenant.  Note that an enduring posterity necessitates marriage as prescribed by the law.

Note in passing – I have yet to find any other claim to provide citizenship in the divine kingdom of G-d.  Without revelation, they do not seem to understand the Kingdom of G-d or it laws, ordinances and covenants.  But they seem to be obsessed only with doctrine and thus deny the power of the kingdom.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

 

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have a different concept about Eden and the fall than what most seem to realize.  You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction.  What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal.

 

The Traveler

Basically I do not address the law at all as to what it's strictures were.  It could be never eat Neapolitan Ice Cream and don't pick your nose on Tuesdays and it would not interfere with the fact that the breech of the law caused a domino effect that the atonement was designed to rectify. It is the after effect of breeching the laws that I have been addressing. We also have avoided thus far identifying specifically what the sin was that Adam and Eve committed that resulted in their receiving a death sentence.  We have alluded to it in the last post or so answering Wades question but I haven't come right out and declared the burden that is all of our charge relative to the life of Christ. That said, about 8 months ago I began collecting the references and scriptural resources working on the nature of the two laws themselves and the peculiar situation they create of can and cannot obey.  So I do not have that as part of what I know, only what I am trying to gain insight to understanding.

If you have a working solution I would encourage that to be thrown in the mix of our discussion with any resources you use to validate your direction. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by brlenox

[brlenox]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

First – do not confuse ordinance with ritual.  I believe ordinance encompasses more.   To become a citizen of a Kingdom there are a number of “things” that must take place.  First, we must become qualified.  Second, we must both join the kingdom and become accepted as a participant (legal citizen).

I believe the Celestial Kingdom is a divine society of freedom, liberty and justice for all its Citizens.  I believe the Celestial Kingdom is the only kingdom where its citizens enjoy freedom, liberty and justice.    This is because I believe only Celestial Law fulfils freedom, liberty and justice.  Those that cannot abide Celestial Law are bound by the law and are subject to justice.

Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”  I believe this references the law (in particular, Celestial Law).   To prepare us for Celestial Law we are given several preparatory laws (like the Law of the Gospel, The Law of Sacrifice, the Law of Chasity and others).  Our preparation includes ordinances – beginning with Baptism.  Note that when someone is given the Holy Ghost the ordinance also includes a declaration of membership in the “Kingdom of G-d” as established on earth via the Kingdom’s Vassals chosen and carinated (ordained) by the Suzerain or his designated Vassal given the Keys of the Kingdom.  This is not a meaningless jester but a binding covenant that gives the “disciple” 3 distinct promises (also part of the Abraham covenant and law).  They are – 1. A promise Land (right to place in the Celestial rheum).  2. Protection from Enemies and being plundered by enemies (forgiveness of sins and prevention from Satan taking control of one’s inheritance).  3. Enduring posterity - meaning endless “seed” and eternal life.

In response, the “disciple” promises to remain loyal and faithful in all things to the sovereign King or supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom.  These things define the Law, the ordinances and the everlasting covenant.  Note that an enduring posterity necessitates marriage as prescribed by the law.

Note in passing – I have yet to find any other claim to provide citizenship in the divine kingdom of G-d.  Without revelation, they do not seem to understand the Kingdom of G-d or it laws, ordinances and covenants.  But they seem to be obsessed only with doctrine and thus deny the power of the kingdom.

 

The Traveler

Would you elaborate on your final sentence? I do not grasp your meaning.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

Would you elaborate on your final sentence? I do not grasp your meaning.

 

That more religious institutions (and theologians) are interested in discussing doctrines rather than divine Law.  Which is why ordinances have been changed and in some cases thought unnecessary - in particular marriage.  Marriage is not a doctrine but a principle of divine eternal law and covenant.  Because many think "doctrine"; they teach marriage as doctrine only binding until death.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

22 minutes ago, brlenox said:

We have covered a bit of this earlier when we discussed how

 

Basically I do not address the law at all as to what it's strictures were.  It could be never eat Neapolitan Ice Cream and don't pick your nose on Tuesdays and it would not interfere with the fact that the breech of the law caused a domino effect that the atonement was designed to rectify. It is the after effect of breeching the laws that I have been addressing. We also have avoided thus far identifying specifically what the sin was that Adam and Eve committed that resulted in their receiving a death sentence.  We have alluded to it in the last post or so answering Wades question but I haven't come right out and declared the burden that is all of our charge relative to the life of Christ. That said, about 8 months ago I began collecting the references and scriptural resources working on the nature of the two laws themselves and the peculiar situation they create of can and cannot obey.  So I do not have that as part of what I know, only what I am trying to gain insight to understanding.

If you have a working solution I would encourage that to be thrown in the mix of our discussion with any resources you use to validate your direction. 

 

I would suggest that the Eden epoch is symbolic.  That when the fall took place, all the covenant spiritual children of G-d were exiled from the Father’s kingdom and became citizens of a “lessor” kingdom over which Jesus was the appointed vassal and mediator with the Father.  All was by plans put into place, finalized and approved before the man Adam was sent as a fallen soul to earth.  We have been exiled for at least 6,000 years – and many long greatly to return home and not just to end our mortal state.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

I would suggest that the Eden epoch is symbolic.  That when the fall took place, all the covenant spiritual children of G-d were exiled from the Father’s kingdom and became citizens of a “lessor” kingdom over which Jesus was the appointed vassal and mediator with the Father.  All was by plans put into place, finalized and approved before the man Adam was sent as a fallen soul to earth.  We have been exiled for at least 6,000 years – and many long greatly to return home and not just to end our mortal state.

 

The Traveler

Just wondering ... I am recognizing a bit of Gileadi in some of your commentary.  Is he a reference point you are using?

[brlenox]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I would suggest that the Eden epoch is symbolic.  That when the fall took place, all the covenant spiritual children of G-d were exiled from the Father’s kingdom and became citizens of a “lessor” kingdom over which Jesus was the appointed vassal and mediator with the Father.  All was by plans put into place, finalized and approved before the man Adam was sent as a fallen soul to earth.  We have been exiled for at least 6,000 years – and many long greatly to return home and not just to end our mortal state.

 

The Traveler

This is a new thought to me.  That mankind as a whole was remanded to a lower level at the time of the Fall. Do you have any resource material for me to consider?

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

This was a wonderfully informative answer to the first part of my question. Do you have any thoughts to share regarding Christ needing to offer himself as a sacrifice, or rather his needing to give up his life as a requirement in making the Last and Great Sacrifice?

Thanks, -Wade Englund

This was one of the most challenging areas of spiritual inquiry for me.  In my mind I formulated a very simplified scenario, stripped of all the what ifs and maybe's,  that if Christ was walking down the road one day and camel broke loose from its tether and began careening down the road with its camel cart in tow and Christ did not hear it coming and so it collided with him and ran him over and he died, why would that not be an adequate offering for sin?  In general, all things are the same except for the suffering.

Maybe he takes three days and lays dying in an Israeli hospital suffering horribly.  Neither would that be an adequate sacrifice for sin.  

So I began piecing together from the scriptural resources and any apostolic commentary I could to solve the puzzle.

Quote

The Savior’s suffering in Gethsemane and His agony on the cross redeem us from sin by satisfying the demands that justice has upon us. He extends mercy and pardons those who repent. The Atonement also satisfies the debt justice owes to us by healing and compensating us for any suffering we innocently endure. “For behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Nephi 9:21; see also Alma 7:11–12). (Redemption, Christofferson, D. Todd, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April Conference 2013)

The principle here, we discussed earlier but we can come back to it again.  The essence is that there is something about the expectations of justice that insist that suffering that is not justly deserved be recompensed.  Here Elder Christofferson is outlining the principle as it relates to mankind but of necessity it must relate to the Savior as well.  We see the same principle in this Hebrews verse: 

Quote

Hebrew 11:35

35Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

What an interesting understanding but the implications are that some would not seek deliverance from being tortured and suffering great pain as they knew that this gave them greater rights in the resurrection.
 

Quote

Alma 7:13

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

So we now see the same principle as it applies to Jesus Christ.  Part of what justice demanded was that if he suffered in behalf of mankind that he was building a foundation upon which to predicate his request of the Father.  It gave him rights of request to seek something equal to the measure of his suffering.  So where Alma predicts this aspect of the atonement we see in D & C 45 the actual reference which validates this is exactly what the Savior uses as part of his justification for the rights to the children for whom he has suffered:
 

Quote

D & C 45:4-5

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

Really if we are discerning this mirrors a specific aspect of Mosiah 15 that we discussed earlier where his suffering is specific to the particular blessing of allowing "they whose sins he has borne" to return to the Celestial kingdom. 

The essence of all of this is what I have come to understand as the law of justification as it relates to Christ.  We each in the course of our existence build up justification claims, if we suffer without cause, then Elder Christofferson informs us that justice requires a recompense.  Matthew 5: couches it more specifically if we suffer in the name of Christ, "when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

If we take all of these little pieces and put them together we see a principle unfolding as to the requirement of Jesus Christ's suffering was, at least in part, to justify his request of his Father that he had a legitimate claim in seeking all become his. This ideology is embraced in this quote by Brigham Young:

 

Quote

We are not our own, we are bought with a price, we are the Lord’s; our time, our talents, our gold and silver, our wheat and fine flour, our wine and our oil, our cattle, and all there is on this earth that we have in our possession is the Lord’s ... (Young, Brigham, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.176)

Now at this point I feel that this is a correct summation, however, I do not have a sense of completeness in my understanding on this one and so continue to revisit it from time to time as I encounter further scriptural or apostolic commentary which adds to the ideology. Again understanding this element of the atonement causes me to observe how willing Christ was to do whatever it took to redeem mankind.  He suffered horribly and all that willingly and for such as I.

Remarkable.

Edited January 3, 2018 by brlenox

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Also seemingly missing is how covenants, commandments, and rituals factor in, yet perhaps they are included under "the law"?

Thoughts?

Even though this thread may be heading us way off into the mechanical weeds of atonement  (so to speak), I am enjoying and enriched by what I am learning. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thus far we have been careful to not expand the subject too far too fast so that we have at lest a moment to allow a hint of saturation to take place.  This is heady material that we want to last in our understandings so that we can continue to build on it in the multitude of ways.  However, I think Elder Packer makes a comment that is germane to your thoughts:

Quote

 

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

 

Everything gospel takes on living substance because of the atonement. The ordinances, covenants and other aspects of gospel significance are downstream from the efficacy of that great sacrifice. It is not that they are missing we just only have so much time to properly develop each leg of this process without excessive dilution and subsequent loss of priority.  I will toss in one quote that speaks in what I considered a profound way to your inquiry:

Quote

As men [and women] pursue the goal of eternal life, they first enter in at the gate of repentance and baptism, thereby taking upon themselves the name of Christ.They then gain power to become his sons and daughters, to be adopted into his family, to be brethren and sisters in his kingdom. Baptism standing alone does not transform them into family members, but it opens the door to such a blessed relationship; and if men so live as to obtain the Spirit and are in fact born again, then they become members of the Holy Family. Then, if they press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, keeping the commandments and living by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, they qualify for celestial marriage, and this gives them power to become the sons [and daughters] of God, meaning the Father. They thus become joint-heirs with Christ who is his natural heir. Those who are sons [and daughters] of God in this sense are the ones who become gods in the world to come. (D&C 76:54–60) They have exaltation and godhood because the family unit continues in eternity. (D&C 132:19–24). (McConkie, Bruce R.,Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:474.)

 

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I have a different concept about Eden and the fall than what most seem to realize.  You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction.  What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal.

 

The Traveler

I have thought about this for a bit since this afternoon.  First questions are relative to fundamental LDS theology.  One of Joseph Smith's great departures from traditional Christianity was that a location existed for the Garden of Eden and it was in Missouri not the Middle East.  We have quotes from Joseph that at some future date the tree of life will be returned to the earth and from it healing power will go out to a ravaged world.  The Church has been engaged for many years in building up Adam-ondi-Ahman a secondary site to the Garden of Eden etc. etc. etc.

I have had a few times in my life where I found a line in my line upon line or a precept in my precept upon precept which was errantly laid and over time what alerted me was the fact that from the line or the precept that I laid would spring a direction of thought that in order to be perpetuated and allowed to expand would come into more and more LDS theology that had to be explained away in order to preserve the wrong line or precept.   

Now I do not have a clue what this part of your statement above means, "You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction.  What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal." I am hoping for further explanation and supporting material to guide me in coming to understand your intent.

However, I do recollect that last week, maybe the week before you made a statement on a different thread that you believed in evolution.  If that is why you have to have a non literal go to for the Garden of Eden, and perhaps even Adam and Eve I would expect then to me that is analogous to an errant thread in your paradigm fostering an arm of thought that in order to be sustained requires certain adjustments be made to LDS theology in order to sustain the evolution priority.  For me that was an alarm that required me to readjust my paradigm of thought.  If this is relative to your take on the Garden of Eden I wonder why it is not alarming to you as well.

[brlenox]

On 1/1/2018 at 6:24 PM, Grunt said:

I appreciate this dialogue.  It makes me look up half the things you folks are talking about, but I suppose that's the idea.

If you are finding things and learning new stuff be sure to toss it back out here into the mix.

[Traveler]

57 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have thought about this for a bit since this afternoon.  First questions are relative to fundamental LDS theology.  One of Joseph Smith's great departures from traditional Christianity was that a location existed for the Garden of Eden and it was in Missouri not the Middle East.  We have quotes from Joseph that at some future date the tree of life will be returned to the earth and from it healing power will go out to a ravaged world.  The Church has been engaged for many years in building up Adam-ondi-Ahman a secondary site to the Garden of Eden etc. etc. etc.

I have had a few times in my life where I found a line in my line upon line or a precept in my precept upon precept which was errantly laid and over time what alerted me was the fact that from the line or the precept that I laid would spring a direction of thought that in order to be perpetuated and allowed to expand would come into more and more LDS theology that had to be explained away in order to preserve the wrong line or precept.   

Now I do not have a clue what this part of your statement above means, "You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction.  What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal." I am hoping for further explanation and supporting material to guide me in coming to understand your intent.

However, I do recollect that last week, maybe the week before you made a statement on a different thread that you believed in evolution.  If that is why you have to have a non literal go to for the Garden of Eden, and perhaps even Adam and Eve I would expect then to me that is analogous to an errant thread in your paradigm fostering an arm of thought that in order to be sustained requires certain adjustments be made to LDS theology in order to sustain the evolution priority.  For me that was an alarm that required me to readjust my paradigm of thought.  If this is relative to your take on the Garden of Eden I wonder why it is not alarming to you as well.

 

I believe in evolution because every life that exist springs from evolution.   Not a single counter example.  You and every other life from evolves from a single cell.  Even Jesus evolved from the conception of a single cell to become a complex living child.

But concerning Eden – I am of a notion that Eden speaks symbolically of a pre-existence.   Adam in Hebrew means mankind.  I believe we all choose to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and with Adam and Eve became fallen.  We are fallen mortals by our own just choice and agency - not by an unjust consequence of birth.  That the fall was and remains an integral and always necessary part of the perfect divine Plan of Salvation that all must partake to know good from evil in preparation for Celestial Law – not a bandage to correct an untended mistake.  We know and taste evil in death – thus the knowledge of evil is symbolic of death – both as a fallen mortal and as exile from the Father.  The knowledge of good is to know through our experience of the atonement and sacrifice of the Father and the Son to redeem all the sins of fallen mortal man and to bring about the merciful resurrection of all (though unworthy) that choose the Father’s Plan of Salvation.   We are all partaking symbolically of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Eden epoch is about our covenant of salvation with G-d.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe in evolution because every life that exist springs from evolution.   Not a single counter example.  You and every other life from evolves from a single cell.  Even Jesus evolved from the conception of a single cell to become a complex living child.

But concerning Eden – I am of a notion that Eden speaks symbolically of a pre-existence.   Adam in Hebrew means mankind.  I believe we all choose to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and with Adam and Eve became fallen.  We are fallen mortals by our own just choice and agency - not by an unjust consequence of birth.  That the fall was and remains an integral and always necessary part of the perfect divine Plan of Salvation that all must partake to know good from evil in preparation for Celestial Law – not a bandage to correct an untended mistake.  We know and taste evil in death – thus the knowledge of evil is symbolic of death – both as a fallen mortal and as exile from the Father.  The knowledge of good is to know through our experience of the atonement and sacrifice of the Father and the Son to redeem all the sins of fallen mortal man and to bring about the merciful resurrection of all (though unworthy) that choose the Father’s Plan of Salvation.   We are all partaking symbolically of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Eden epoch is about our covenant of salvation with G-d.

 

The Traveler

Reviewing your statement on evolution and that all evolves from a single cell is potentially a very singular to you definition of Evolution. If you mean the traditional form of evolution of academia then we have something different. I'm not going to really move in the direction of evolution in this thread.  For myself, that I may be as clear as you have been, evolution (Darwinian) is an abomination and was Satan's rightful claim via the law of opposition to restore as powerful a deterrent to bringing God's children unto Christ as the Gospel was to bringing them unto Christ. So we understand each other on that point.

It is correct that we all  choose to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and it is of no consequence the degree of our first sin as it is counted the severity of the transgression of Adam and Eve.  The ideology of God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin is predicated upon the repercussions of first sin as whether it is eating a pomegranate, or stealing an Oreo from the cookie jar etc it still results in a breech of celestial law and requires the shedding of innocent blood to restore the breech. 

However, that does not take place until the age of accountability.  If I am understanding that you are saying that they were removed from God's presence and partake of the tree in some fashion prior to birth, what you describe makes the doctrines of baptism for little children less than eight years of age an okay doctrine when because of their innocence it is an abomination - something I explained tangentially in an earlier post.

As I understand what you are saying, It also does not square with that to which parents are held accountable - to teach their children right from wrong. 

As you can tell, I put a lot of credence in someones thought development and whether it follows patterns of scripture and prophetic utterance.  Thus far I have been a little disappointed that you have not provided any sustaining witnesses for most of your observations and there seems a very strong element of self-affirmation. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by brlenox
an evolving post...

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'm not going to really move in the direction of evolution in this thread.  For myself, that I may be as clear as you have been, evolution is an abomination and was Satan's rightful claim via the law of opposition to restore as powerful a deterrent to bringing God's children unto Christ as the Gospel was to bringing them unto Christ. So we understand each other on that point.

It is correct that we all  choose to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and it is of no consequence the degree of our first sin as it is counted the severity of the transgression of Adam and Eve.  The ideology of God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin is predicated upon the repercussions of first sin as whether it is eating a pomegranate, or stealing an Oreo from the cookie jar etc it still results in a breech of celestial law and requires the shedding of innocent blood to restore the breech. 

However, that does not take place until the age of accountability.  If I am understanding that you are saying that they were removed from God's presence and partake of the tree in some fashion prior to birth, what you describe makes the doctrines of baptism for little children less than eight years of age an okay doctrine when because of their innocence it is an abomination - something I explained tangentially in an earlier post.

As I understand what you are saying, It also does not square with that to which parents are held accountable - to teach their children right from wrong. 

As you can tell, I put a lot of credence in someones thought development and whether it follows patterns of scripture and prophetic utterance.  Thus far I have been a little disappointed that you have not provided any sustaining witnesses for most of your observations and there seems a very strong element of self-affirmation. 

 

We all die - sometimes even little children under the age of accountability.  There is no exception; all justly taste the consequence of sin - which is death.  This is according to covenants and choices made in the pre-existence.  The atonement of Christ redeems all sins of everyone so that we can be resurrected.  Even the unaccountable sins of little children who are redeemed through the atonement.   Without the Atonement little children would remain fallen along with all the rest of us.  G-d would be unjust if anyone tasted death without a transgression of the law.  Therefore, children are redeemed through the atonement – not for what they have done or not done but only because of Christ.

Part of the repentance process is to forsake sin; including sins we may not commit during our mortal probation.  Though all mankind’s sins have been redeemed if all sins are not forsaken they will blemish a soul for eternity.  Children are not accountable for anything until they are accountable, so dying before they are accountable does not require baptism nor does it prove G-d is unjust.  We all (including little children) taste the wages of sin; which is death.  And little children that are unaccountable will also taste the atonement and resurrection.  All (including little children) willingly taste (partake) the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - And all Celestial beings forsake sin.

I am suggesting that with the fall – Jesus became the G-d of all G-d’s exiled and fallen spirit children.  Jesus became our mediator and even the angles that are sent to man come from his presents (not from the Father) to Adam and all mankind.  Hopefully you can remember being taught how this is done by the sacred covenants you make with G-d in his holy house.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 3, 2018 by Traveler

[wenglund]

On 1/1/2018 at 7:59 PM, brlenox said:

So when innocent blood of mankind is shed we look to our law giver.  However in the case of Christ he becomes the ultimate case of innocent blood being shed and it is mankind that sheds that blood.  This is the crux of the issue with Justice and Mercy.  When Christ's innocent blood cries out it cries out to the King of the kingdom to which he remains a citizen. On all the earth, The Savior is the only member of God the Fathers kingdom who remains under his law and protection.  All - everyone of the rest are under ban of exile and actually are enemies to God (for now from a legal perspective of the law).  Christ when he exercises his appeal to his Father for Justice sets the conditions of what occurs next.  Mankind has already been exiled and so the demand for justice places the Father in a position opposed to mankind. Justice demands that something be done to repair the Son.  He has been innocently hung on a tree and suffered intense and horrific pain which is required but we will bypass that as well in this abbreviated review. As a citizen of God the Fathers kingdom, justice demands recompense (D&C 112:30-34) to the Savior.  The Father is held to the demands of Justice at this point.  If he should offer up mercy to mankind then justice would be robbed and because he failed as the law giver and adjudicator of his kingdom, of which Christ is a Citizen, he would cease to be God because the King is accountable to sustaining and providing for the law of his kingdom or else the kingdoms members would question the laws of the kingdom in which they reside and would withhold their sustainment of their King. 

However, Christ is the murdered one. He is the victim and as such when he looks to his Father for justice, his intense level of suffering has earned him certain privileges (D&C 45:4) By the demands of the Laws of justice a murderer can demand the life of the one (s) who murdered him.  So justice demands that the victim be granted that which is within the bounds of the law to grant.  So and here is the brilliance of the plan, Christ says that he will be made whole if the lives of those who murdered him will be remanded to him for judgment.  He requests mercy for all mankind.  Now we have justice demanding that Christ be made whole and Christ has requested mercy. Now we have the demands of the laws of Justice demanding mercy as their full payment.  Now the Father is able to fulfill the demands of justice by offering mercy and justice is not robbed and God the Father is now exactly were he wanted to be - able to offer mercy to his children upon the conditions that will be established in the second set of laws - the law of Christ.  Thus the law of God the Fathers Kingdom remains intact and mercy satisfies justice.

I have been thinking about this more in-depth since you wrote it, and assuming it is correct (I have no reason at this point to believe it isn't),  I realized that the "brilliance of the plan" is made all the more meaningful when considering that Christ rightly could have chosen justice (i.e. life for life), but decided instead for mercy, thereby showing his unfathomable depth of love for mankind and also for his Father,  particularly given the unimaginable suffering he endured, and the last and great sacrifice he made so as to enable him to make that decision. Thus, Christ has set a powerful example for us to follow (we love him because he first loved us).

It is also made more meaningful in recognizing that his choice was in accordance with the two greatest commandments upon which hang all the law and the prophets (Mt. 22:36-40), thereby setting an example of obedience.

Furthermore, in addition to the things I listed previously as (understandably) missing thus far in the conversation, is the end (i.e. the ultimate objective) of the law(s)-.To me, the notions of justice and mercy can't fully be comprehended without that critical context.  The end of the law (including justice and mercy), as well as the objective behind the related covenants, commandments, ordinances, priesthood and orders, etc., is to progress us towards Christ and enable us to become like him.

With this in mind, it may be understood that Christ made the choice for mercy rather than justice so as to meet the end of the law(s), which is also the end of or objective for the Plan, and thus in accordance with the Plan. In other words, the brilliance of the plan was that it not only provided mercy in a way that didn't rob justice, and even in a way where mercy was demanded by justice,  but also in a way that satisfied the end of the law (had Christ chosen justice, the end of the law would have been frustrated).  The Plan provided a way, in Christ, for the plan to be made feasible and not frustrated.

Spectacularly and almost incomprehensibly profound!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 3, 2018 by wenglund

[brlenox]

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

I have been thinking about this more in-depth since you wrote it, and assuming it is correct (I have no reason at this point to believe it isn't),  I realized that the "brilliance of the plan" is made all the more meaningful when considering that Christ rightly could have chosen justice (i.e. life for life), but decided instead for mercy, thereby showing his unfathomable depth of love for mankind and also for his Father,  particularly given the unimaginable suffering he endured, and the last and great sacrifice he made so as to enable him to make that decision. Thus, Christ has set a powerful example for us to follow (we love him because he first loved us).

It is also made more meaningful in recognizing that his choice was in accordance with the two greatest commandments upon which hang all the law and the prophets (Mt. 22:36-40), thereby setting an example of obedience.

Furthermore, in addition to the things I listed previously as (understandably) missing thus far in the conversation, is the end (i.e. the ultimate objective) of the law(s)-.To me, the notions of justice and mercy can't fully be comprehended without that critical context.  The end of the law (including justice and mercy), as well as the objective behind the related covenants, commandments, ordinances, priesthood and orders, etc., is to progress us towards Christ and enable us to become like him.

With this in mind, it may be understood that Christ made the choice for mercy rather than justice so as to meet the end of the law(s), which is also the end of or objective for the Plan, and thus in accordance with the Plan. In other words, the brilliance of the plan was that it not only provided mercy in a way that didn't rob justice, and even in a way where mercy was demanded by justice,  but also in a way that satisfied the end of the law (had Christ chosen justice, the end of the law would have been frustrated).  The Plan provided a way, in Christ, for the plan to be made feasible and not frustrated.

Spectacularly and almost incomprehensibly profound!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A couple of times I have reflected on this very concept thinking I needed to point that out as that is a very key aspect and tell of who Jesus Christ is.  That you got there on your own is far more satisfying to me.  Props to you...

[mordorbund]

On 1/1/2018 at 8:24 PM, Grunt said:

I appreciate this dialogue.  It makes me look up half the things you folks are talking about, but I suppose that's the idea.

While such dialogue may provide insights, it's worth noting that @brlenox's pet model is no more official doctrine than Skousen's.

[Grunt]

16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

While such dialogue may provide insights, it's worth noting that @brlenox's pet model is no more official doctrine than Skousen's.

I recognize that.  I enjoy this discussion not because I accept it as fact, but because my knowledge is so limited it gives me a starting point for my own research.  Without that point it all looks overwhelming to me.  

[brlenox]

37 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

While such dialogue may provide insights, it's worth noting that @brlenox's pet model is no more official doctrine than Skousen's.

With one difference.  I am meticulous about having the words of apostles and prophets and scripture to reinforce considerations, directions, and conclusions.  You do not have to believe me, but it is very wise to consider their thoughts in these matters. These are the tools that allow the spirit to guide in the process of understanding.  What you are classifying as my "pet theory" is a collection of "pet theories" of apostles and prophets.  I do not claim a fullness of understanding but I do know that I am not making empty guesses, self-affirmations, and otherwise in a vacuum and it maintains the integrity of the gospel standard without wandering off into oddball considerations.

So, while I am willing to grant some degree of agreement with your observations, where you can separate official doctrine from official sources of LDS apostolic resources and commentary would be a better distinction. However, my guess is that you have never studied anything, and documented it and prepared it sought insight to the degree that I have this material and much more. Perhaps if you took the kind of effort that it takes to understand these things you might be a tad more generous and recognize how well reinforced these observations are but anyone can be a critic - I believe that is worth noting as well. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by brlenox

[mordorbund]

8 minutes ago, brlenox said:

With one difference.  I am meticulous about having the words of apostles and prophets and scripture to reinforce considerations, directions, and conclusions.  You do not have to believe me, but it is very wise to consider their thoughts in these matters. These are the tools that allow the spirit to guide in the process of understanding.  What you are classifying as my "pet theory" is a collection of "pet theories" of apostles and prophets.  I do not claim a fullness of understanding but I do know that I am not making empty guesses, self-affirmations, and otherwise in a vacuum and it maintains the integrity of the gospel standard without wandering off into oddball considerations.

<sigh>

8 minutes ago, brlenox said:

However, my guess is that you have never studied anything, and documented it and prepared it sought insight to the degree that I have this material and much more. Perhaps if you took the kind of effort that it takes to understand these things you might be a tad more generous and recognize how well reinforced these observations are but anyone can be a critic - I believe that is worth noting as well. 

Intense studying, documenting, and sourcing is not really one of my gifts. Nor am I skilled at synthesizing, unifying, and making plain gospel principles. Do you think regular study would win me over to your side? Or do you think I might legitimately come up with a different model?

Or was your guess at my level of understanding a subtle way of saying your belt buckle (or cowboy hat) is larger than mine?

[brlenox]

32 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

<sigh>

Intense studying, documenting, and sourcing is not really one of my gifts. Nor am I skilled at synthesizing, unifying, and making plain gospel principles. Do you think regular study would win me over to your side? Or do you think I might legitimately come up with a different model?

Or was your guess at my level of understanding a subtle way of saying your belt buckle (or cowboy hat) is larger than mine?

The size of your hat is apparent and surely I cannot compete with even the stylish way in which you adorn yourself in said hat.  Because the size of your hat is clearly more impressive than my own , I would never presume that I could wear your hat nor would I see any value in tipping my hat by pointing out things about your hat that I simply do not know. Is it a true hat? Is it sanctioned by the official act of a hat making committee? Did you buy it in France? Is it made of sheepskin? Is the rim decorated with clever little markings made by leather punches and awls? You see, I really do not know anything about hats, especially yours.  So, in wisdom, I forgo commentary about something I simply have not put the effort into understanding to the degree that you clearly have as it is obvious that you excel far beyond my capacity.  Were I to challenge your hat lore and understandings somehow it would seem a small and puny thing to do with my clear lackings in hatmanship.  

No, I do not have a hat like yours nor a belt buckle for that matter, but I respect the fact that clearly you, my dear man, are the purveyor of the finest that hats have to offer. If the day ever comes forth that I can intelligently comment on hats maybe then I'll feel a little more like I have something legitimate to offer concerning hats.  However until then, I will quietly observe and genuinely appreciate that you have earned the rights to much higher standard of privilege and that your commentary on hats does not require or benefit from a naysaying faux-leather coat wearing hombre like myself. If in your commentary on hats you say something that I do not understand, I will inquire and be taught of the master that which I lack. I would not dream of detracting with negative observations that I cannot provide any form of confirming source to validate my observations. 

No it is all too apparent that I don't wear a hat like you do. <sigh>

Edited January 3, 2018 by brlenox