The Meaning of Atonement

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

Hey newsflash... unless you're posting on private message it's between you and the rest of the internet.  Fascists are uncool.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Hey newsflash... unless you're posting on private message it's between you and the rest of the internet.  Fascists are uncool.

My post was directed at him requesting from him. Its not of your concern.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My post was directed at him requesting from him. Its not of your concern.

One last time... this is a public forum.  There's no such thing as "not of your concern".  We don't have to have a concern to make comments on anything made in public.  @Vort, for example, found my comment of value and he's neither you nor @wenglund.  And you don't have to read, let alone respond to, everybody's comments, not even those directed at you.  Imposing your "The rules of the internet according to Rob" only makes you seem rude and works to your disadvantage.   But hey, I'm only some random plebe.  Say what you want to your desire...

Edited January 30, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

One last time... this is a public forum.  There's no such thing as "not of your concern".  We don't have to have a concern to make comments on anything made in public.  @Vort, for example, found my comment of value and he's neither you nor @wenglund.  And you don't have to read, let alone respond to, everybody's comments, not even those directed at you.  Imposing your "The rules of the internet according to Rob" only makes you seem rude and works to your disadvantage.   But hey, I'm only some random plebe.  Say what you want to your desire...

Whatever. I will be nice so...I love you too.

[wenglund]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:36 AM, Rob Osborn said:

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

Sorry if you were offended. That wasn't my intent. But, I wish you a good day as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Sorry if you were offended. That wasn't my intent. But, I wish you a good day as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Aye

[wenglund]

Earlier in the thread, @brlenox mentioned the "Law of the Garden," or the "Law of God the Father." I have been thinking of what all that law may have entailed, and as best as I could ascertain from the scriptures, here are some of the known commandments comprising that law--I have highlighted in bold several key commandments

1. Man to be created in the images and likeness of God. (Moses 226-27)
2. Man should have dominion over the animals. (Moses 2:26,28)
3. Man should be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. (Moses 2:28)
4. All seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing trees are to be meat from man. (Moses 2:29)
5. Clean herbs are to be food for animals. (Mises 2:30)
6. The Father deemed as good all the things the Son had made. (Moses 2:31}
7. The 7th day was sanctified. (Moses 3:3)
8. Man is to dress and keep the Garden. (Moses 3:13)
9. As an exception to command #4, man was forbidden to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though they could choose to do so with the understanding that they would die. (Moses 3:17)
10. It is not good for man to be alone. He needs a help meet.(Moses 3:18)
11. Man is to give names to animals, and the names would be acknowledged by the Father. (Moses 3:19)
12. In connection with commandments #'3 and #10, man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married. (Moses 3:24):
13. Adam and Eve were commanded to remain with each other. (Moses 4:18) However, perhaps this commandment was entailed in the command to "cleave unto they wife." (Moses 3:24)
14. Adam and Eve were commanded "hat they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship." (D&C 20:19)

We understand that the fall occurred because Adam and Eve transgressed command #9. This was an act of commission, and they received the consequence of death.

What I find interesting is that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were guilty of omission. They had yet to obey command #3 and also part of command #12--while we have reason to believe that Adam and Eve were married in the Garden, they hadn't left their Father, nor had they become one flesh (i.e. had children). In order to obey these two commands, they needed to disobey command #9.

I suspect that the reason they weren't punished for their omissions was because they still had the potential to obey those commands. There were no time constraints.

The point being, Adam and Eve transgressed one command so as to obey two other commands. By transgressing the one command, the caused death. By obeying the other commands, they caused life. As the good book says, "Adam fell that men might be..." (2 Ne 2:22-25)

Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 7, 2018 by wenglund
Added commandments

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Earlier in the thread, @brlenox mentioned the "Law of the Garden," or the "Law of God the Father." I have been thinking of what all that law may have entailed, and as best as I could ascertain from the scriptures, here are some of the known commandments comprising that law--I have highlighted in bold several key commandments

1. Man to be created in the images and likeness of God. (Moses 226-27)
2. Man should have dominion over the animals. (Moses 2:26,28)
3. Man should be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. (Moses 2:28)
4. All seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing trees are to be meat from man. (Moses 2:29)
5. Clean herbs are to be food for animals. (Mises 2:30)
6. The Father deemed as good all the things the Son had made. (Moses 2:31}
7. The 7th day was sanctified. (Moses 3:3)
8. Man is to dress and keep the Garden. (Moses 3:13)
9. As an exception to command #4, man was forbidden to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though they could choose to do so with the understanding that they would die. (Moses 3:17)
10. It is not good for man to be alone. He needs a help meet.(Moses 3:18)
11. Man is to give names to animals, and the names would be acknowledged by the Father. (Moses 3:19)
12. In connection with commandments #'3 and #10, man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married. (Moses 3:24):

We understand that the fall occurred because Adam and Eve transgressed command #9. This was an act of commission, and they received the consequence of death.

What I find interesting is that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were guilty of omission. They had yet to obey command #3 and also part of command #12--while we have reason to believe that Adam and Eve were married in the Garden, they hadn't left their Father, nor had they become one flesh (i.e. had children). In order to obey these two commands, they needed to disobey command #9.

I suspect that the reason they weren't punished for their omissions was because they still had the potential to obey those commands. There were no time constraints.

The point being, Adam and Eve transgressed one command so as to obey two other commands. By transgressing the one command, the caused death. By obeying the other commands, they caused life. As the good book says, "Adam fell that men might be..." (2 Ne 2:22-25)

Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree. There is definitely some fuzzy logic going on. God never gives conflicting commands. I believe the accounts arent correct in when or how God gives the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Abraham perhaps has the most understandable doctrine in that after the earth was created the Gods come down to the earth and plan and discuss the placement of life and how they will, after that, command them to multiply and replenish the earth. It wasnt until the next day they actually create Man and place him in the garden and we arent told, prior to the fall, if God had actually yet commanded them to multiply yet.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. There is definitely some fuzzy logic going on. God never gives conflicting commands. I believe the accounts arent correct in when or how God gives the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Abraham perhaps has the most understandable doctrine in that after the earth was created the Gods come down to the earth and plan and discuss the placement of life and how they will, after that, command them to multiply and replenish the earth. It wasnt until the next day they actually create Man and place him in the garden and we arent told, prior to the fall, if God had actually yet commanded them to multiply yet.

God does not give conflicting command... But God does not tell us everything and due to our limited understanding some commands can appear to conflict, because we do not understand how they are resolved.

For example Abraham.  God told him all his promised blessing (which were many) would come through Issac.  Then he said Kill Issac.  Until we learned how the story ended we see a HUGE conflict... Created because we did not know the mind of God until the proper time.

I feel it is the same way with the Garden.  God did not give conflicting commands.  But we only know how the story unfolded from disobedience... we do not know what God could have done had they obeyed.

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

God does not give conflicting command... But God does not tell us everything and due to our limited understanding some commands can appear to conflict, because we do not understand how they are resolved.

For example Abraham.  God told him all his promised blessing (which were many) would come through Issac.  Then he said Kill Issac.  Until we learned how the story ended we see a HUGE conflict... Created because we did not know the mind of God until the proper time.

I feel it is the same way with the Garden.  God did not give conflicting commands.  But we only know how the story unfolded from disobedience... we do not know what God could have done had they obeyed.

Well, we know they broke the law by partaking of the fruit. One cannot be disobedient to one command and yet be obedient to God in another through that disobedience. Gods laws do not work that way.

[brlenox]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Earlier in the thread, @brlenox mentioned the "Law of the Garden," or the "Law of God the Father." I have been thinking of what all that law may have entailed, and as best as I could ascertain from the scriptures, here are some of the known commandments comprising that law--I have highlighted in bold several key commandments

1. Man to be created in the images and likeness of God. (Moses 226-27)
2. Man should have dominion over the animals. (Moses 2:26,28)
3. Man should be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. (Moses 2:28)
4. All seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing trees are to be meat from man. (Moses 2:29)
5. Clean herbs are to be food for animals. (Mises 2:30)
6. The Father deemed as good all the things the Son had made. (Moses 2:31}
7. The 7th day was sanctified. (Moses 3:3)
8. Man is to dress and keep the Garden. (Moses 3:13)
9. As an exception to command #4, man was forbidden to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though they could choose to do so with the understanding that they would die. (Moses 3:17)
10. It is not good for man to be alone. He needs a help meet.(Moses 3:18)
11. Man is to give names to animals, and the names would be acknowledged by the Father. (Moses 3:19)
12. In connection with commandments #'3 and #10, man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married. (Moses 3:24):

We understand that the fall occurred because Adam and Eve transgressed command #9. This was an act of commission, and they received the consequence of death.

What I find interesting is that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were guilty of omission. They had yet to obey command #3 and also part of command #12--while we have reason to believe that Adam and Eve were married in the Garden, they hadn't left their Father, nor had they become one flesh (i.e. had children). In order to obey these two commands, they needed to disobey command #9.

I suspect that the reason they weren't punished for their omissions was because they still had the potential to obey those commands. There were no time constraints.

The point being, Adam and Eve transgressed one command so as to obey two other commands. By transgressing the one command, the caused death. By obeying the other commands, they caused life. As the good book says, "Adam fell that men might be..." (2 Ne 2:22-25)

Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What an excellent effort.  As one area of the atonement I have yet to flush out, I have wanted to explore the nature of the commands given to Adam and Eve to see if there could be gleaned greater understanding concerning how they interact one with another.  Your list will become a starting place for me and has saved me some effort...thanks.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we know they broke the law by partaking of the fruit. One cannot be disobedient to one command and yet be obedient to God in another through that disobedience. Gods laws do not work that way.

I agree.

I am on your side on this one... Adam and Eve sin, broke the command, and needed Christ Atonement.

To many members spend alot of time trying to split hairs between a Sin... and a Transgression when there is no difference.  The reason they do so is because they are struggling with the false idea that God's plan "required" sin.  And they have this false idea because we only know what happened in the Garden (not what could have been).

A more proper understanding is not that God'd Plan "requires" sin... but rather God's plan "handles" sin.  (It would not be much of a plan if it could not)

 

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I agree.

I am on your side on this one... Adam and Eve sin, broke the command, and needed Christ Atonement.

To many members spend alot of time trying to split hairs between a Sin... and a Transgression when there is no difference.  The reason they do so is because they are struggling with the false idea that God's plan "required" sin.  And they have this false idea because we only know what happened in the Garden (not what could have been).

A more proper understanding is not that God'd Plan "requires" sin... but rather God's plan "handles" sin.  (It would not be much of a plan if it could not)

 

I can agree with that. It is of my opinion that in the garden God had not yet given them the command to mulitply and Lucifer snaked in and did things out of order that caused Adam and Eve to sin. Now, of course God knew this before it happened and thus why he gave the command at the time not to partake of the tree of knowledge- he knew Satan would come tempting Adam and Eve.

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can agree with that. It is of my opinion that in the garden God had not yet given them the command to mulitply and Lucifer snaked in and did things out of order that caused Adam and Eve to sin. Now, of course God knew this before it happened and thus why he gave the command at the time not to partake of the tree of knowledge- he knew Satan would come tempting Adam and Eve.

That is a possibility...

I don't see it as necessary though... It is also possible that had they strove to obey all the commands they would have been given greater light and knowledge on exactly what else needed to happen.  (Like the angel stopping Abraham and an animal being provided)  But we do not have any idea of what this would have entailed because it is not what happened.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. There is definitely some fuzzy logic going on. God never gives conflicting commands. I believe the accounts arent correct in when or how God gives the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Abraham perhaps has the most understandable doctrine in that after the earth was created the Gods come down to the earth and plan and discuss the placement of life and how they will, after that, command them to multiply and replenish the earth. It wasnt until the next day they actually create Man and place him in the garden and we arent told, prior to the fall, if God had actually yet commanded them to multiply yet.

This depends on your interpretation of the Bible in some instances.  There are those that believe it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have children while in the state that they were in while in the Garden of Eden.  As such, it was impossible for them to actually obey the Lord to have children.

Thus, comes the great half-lies of the adversary.  They need to eat of the tree of good and evil.  The quandary, if they do so, they will be able to have children, if they choose not to, then they are unable to obey one of the lord's commands.

Why would the Lord do such a thing?

Because it creates a win/win situation.  No matter which path they choose or what way they go, the plan goes forth. 

Of course, we have NO evidence that this is the case (some use the verse in the Book of Mormon which talks about Eve discussing children and the fall...but that in theory could also be discussing the idea that Adam choose to go with her or some other explanation one may come up with) conclusively, but it is a situation some have theorized upon.

Another one may deal with the Atonement.  The Lord had done nothing to merit punishment except for being born of Adam.  He was sinless.  As per the Laws of the Father, he could not be punished for any sins.  However, we know in the Garden that he took upon himself the sins of the world...and hence, we see that he was punished.  This is an apparent conflict of the Law vs. the Law.  It had been proclaimed in the Law already that he would be the Messiah and as such, this would occur.  This is also a conflict of the Law.

It was necessary, in order for men to be saved.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. There is definitely some fuzzy logic going on. God never gives conflicting commands. I believe the accounts arent correct in when or how God gives the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Abraham perhaps has the most understandable doctrine in that after the earth was created the Gods come down to the earth and plan and discuss the placement of life and how they will, after that, command them to multiply and replenish the earth. It wasnt until the next day they actually create Man and place him in the garden and we arent told, prior to the fall, if God had actually yet commanded them to multiply yet.

I can respect that you see it that way. For my part, I see the gospel riddled with necessary paradoxes, including conflicting commands. To me, in order for the Plan to proceed and the fall to occur, there had to be a conflict. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I agree.

I am on your side on this one... Adam and Eve sin, broke the command, and needed Christ Atonement.

To many members spend alot of time trying to split hairs between a Sin... and a Transgression when there is no difference.  The reason they do so is because they are struggling with the false idea that God's plan "required" sin.  And they have this false idea because we only know what happened in the Garden (not what could have been).

A more proper understanding is not that God'd Plan "requires" sin... but rather God's plan "handles" sin.  (It would not be much of a plan if it could not)

 

Actually, the reason we (including the Church's lesson material and statements from General Authorities) draw the important distinction between transgression and sin is because there are different penalties associated with each. Understanding this is helpful to understanding the atonement and the mechanics of justice and mercy,.particularly as they relate to children under the age of accountability. In other words, this important distinction is needed to distance our beliefs from much of the Christian world in terms of "Original Sin" and the related "infant baptisms."

That having been said, what reason do you and @Rob Osborn have for believing that God would not give conflicting commandments?

And, given your belief, how do you explain the fall being a part of God's commanded Plan? If the plan required a fall, and if the fall required transgression, how could there not be a conflict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, we have NO evidence that this is the case (some use the verse in the Book of Mormon which talks about Eve discussing children and the fall...but that in theory could also be discussing the idea that Adam choose to go with her or some other explanation one may come up with) conclusively, but it is a situation some have theorized upon.

Actually, it is spelled out fairly clearly (at least to me) in the passage I cited earlier, 2 Ne 2:22-25.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

33 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I can respect that you see it that way. For my part, I see the gospel riddled with necessary paradoxes, including conflicting commands. To me, in order for the Plan to proceed and the fall to occur, there had to be a conflict. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Its part of the old school of thought that in order for us to advance there has to be a Satan. And, in order for there to be a Satan God has to create that Satan knowing all things from the beginning to the end. This is all old philisophical debate. God does not require a Satan to advance us. It was a known fact that our natural carnal natures would cause us to fall. The plan fir a redeemer was in place and understood by all before evil came about. I personally believe our circumstances here on this earth are unique and different than has happened on other spheres. And this because Satan himself and his fall is unique in the heavens- not something that has ever occurred on such magnitude. As such, our situation and circumstances within that plan are unique. 

God never gives a conflicting command. All his commands always follow the pattern of only one way possible and that one way never includes breaking a divine command.

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Actually, the reason we (including the Church's lesson material and statements from General Authorities) draw the important distinction between transgression and sin is because there are different penalties associated with each. Understanding this is helpful to understanding the atonement and the mechanics of justice and mercy,.particularly as they relate to children under the age of accountability. In other words, this important distinction is needed to distance our beliefs from much of the Christian world in terms of "Original Sin" and the related "infant baptisms."

That having been said, what reason do you and @Rob Osborn have for believing that God would not give conflicting commandments?

And, given your belief, how do you explain the fall being a part of God's commanded Plan? If the plan required a fall, and if the fall required transgression, how could there not be a conflict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its like learning to walk. If one thinks he can learn to walk without falling hes mistaken. Its going to happen. So it is with the fall, man was destined to fall because, like learning to walk, you have to start somewhere and without experience and knowledge mistakes are destined to happen.

[wenglund]

Speaking of conflicting commands, there are two points I wish to underscore and expand upon my previous post.

First, in relation to command #12 (man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married--Moses 3:24), while we tend to rightly view this as a command to get married and have children, I think we may overlook the part of the command to leave father and mother. As I see it, the Father is commanding Adam and Eve to leave his presence, or in other words, to leave the Garden. He was commanding them to die-i.e. -transgress his command and partake of the forbidden fruit, so that they could get on with their life together as mortals. And, in a sense, he has done the same to us as spirit children. We are commanded, by virtue of the Plan, to leave our Father and Mother, and enter mortality.

I will explain the second point when I get a moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Speaking of conflicting commands, there are two points I wish to underscore and expand upon my previous post.

First, in relation to command #12 (man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married--Moses 3:24), while we tend to rightly view this as a command to get married and have children, I think we may overlook the part of the command to leave father and mother. As I see it, the Father is commanding Adam and Eve to leave his presence, or in other words, to leave the Garden. He was commanding them to die-i.e. -transgress his command and partake of the forbidden fruit, so that they could get on with their life together as mortals. And, in a sense, he has done the same to us as spirit children. We are commanded, by virtue of the Plan, to leave our Father and Mother, and enter mortality.

I will explain the second point when I get a moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

God has nver commanded man to spiritually fall.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its like learning to walk. If one thinks he can learn to walk without falling hes mistaken. Its going to happen. So it is with the fall, man was destined to fall because, like learning to walk, you have to start somewhere and without experience and knowledge mistakes are destined to happen.

Falling accidents do happen when learning to walk. However, I don't think that Adam and Eve accidentally partook of the fruit, nor accidentally fell. As I understand it, they both made a conscious decision to partake, one of them even knowing full well that it was against God's command and what would be the consequence.. Reasonable people tend not to consciously decide to fall when learning to walk. So, to me, your analogy doesn't work.

As always, though, you are free to view it otherwise. To each their own.

Quote

God has nver commanded man to spiritually fall.

It depends on one's definition of "spiritual fall." If one rightly defines "spiritual fall" as separation for the Father, then command #12 commands both a physical and spiritual fall.

You may not agree, and that is your prerogative. I happen to find an awe-inspiring richness of insights in the way I have been given to view it, particularly when likening the scriptures unto ourselves..To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Actually, it is spelled out fairly clearly (at least to me) in the passage I cited earlier, 2 Ne 2:22-25.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I believe I addressed that, and that is the crux of what I stated.

However, that verse in itself can be read in various ways.  One, in how I utilized it to demonstrate the two commandments that I believe are exactly how you interpret them...but one cannot say that theirs is the ONLY way to interpret it.  As such, it is not conclusive evidence. 

It can also be read, starting in verse 22 that if Adam had not fallen he would have remained in the Garden of Eden.  Eve, on the otherhand, would have been cast out.  As she was cast out, and Adam remaining in the Garden, nothing would have changed.  No children would have been able to come about.  Because he fell, he remained with Eve.

A reading of it in this way indicates that Adam KNEW that if he did not fall, there would be no children.  Thus, he chose to partake of the fruit after Eve, because he realized that he must do so if Men might be...as verse 25 infers.

This is probably just as valid an interpretation as the one that indicates that there were conflicting commandments.  I think the strongest strength of using this set of verses if found in verse 23. 

In this, it utilizes the words they, rather than he, and indicates that when it is speaking of Adam, it is speaking of Adam and Eve collectively rather than singularly.  However, it does not negate the other interpretation, merely strengthens the interpretation you favor that is of the idea that they were in a state of innocence in the garden and were unable to have children in the state that they existed in the Garden.

Unfortunately, both interpretations (and others) can all be utilized or seen in those verses.  I'm not arguing they are the correct interpretation, but I cannot say that mine is right and theirs is wrong conclusively, as there is not conclusive evidence. 

You could say it is similar to the theory of evolution...a Non-Religious idea.  In this, we have bones that we can trace (and now, DNA evidence even) the history of men and the status of evolution.  We have the slow changes that evolved through time.  One could say, the hundreds of pieces of evidence showing this evolution is all circumstance, but the strength of it shows that the DNA and skeletal evidence supports the scientific theories of evolution...at least for the past 50-60 thousand years.  Of course, this is also up to one's interpretation.  One could say that each step that they uncovered are related species, but are NOT part of an evolutionary chain from a kind of species of Ape to Mankind.  There are also alternate explanations of evolution, or even how men were created or came to be.  In this, there is no conclusive evidence either, despite what one side or the other may say about the matter.

The evidence in both these instances can be used to support multiple ideas and multiple theories.  We can think as we desire, and we can express our opinions (as I did above, and as I expressed as opposing opinion that interprets the same scripture completely differently in this post).

[Rob Osborn]

45 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Falling accidents do happen when learning to walk. However, I don't think that Adam and Eve accidentally partook of the fruit, nor accidentally fell. As I understand it, they both made a conscious decision to partake, one of them even knowing full well that it was against God's command and what would be the consequence.. Reasonable people tend not to consciously decide to fall when learning to walk. So, to me, your analogy doesn't work.

As always, though, you are free to view it otherwise. To each their own.

It depends on one's definition of "spiritual fall." If one rightly defines "spiritual fall" as separation for the Father, then command #12 commands both a physical and spiritual fall.

You may not agree, and that is your prerogative. I happen to find an awe-inspiring richness of insights in the way I have been given to view it, particularly when likening the scriptures unto ourselves..To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Spiritual falls means one is sinning and need repentance.