The Meaning of Atonement

[wenglund]

On 2/2/2018 at 3:26 PM, estradling75 said:

Indeed... and had the story said that Eve/Adam went to God received and followed his modified instructions... then it would not have been Sin that caused the Fall. 

But you can't have Sin causing the Fall, but Sin not actually happening.  That is the Logical Paradox of the "it was not really a Sin side"

I don't believe sin caused the Fall, though transgression did. Anyway, part of what bolsters my confidence in Eve's statement is that it was included in the endowment, though not in scripture, which tells me it is something Father wished us to know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

Im curious as to how disobedience to the Father isnt sin.

[wenglund]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:03 PM, Vort said:

Yes, without question. The Fall is a necessary preconditon for man's redemption and eventual exaltation. On this point, the scriptures and the prophets are perfectly clear and unanimous. 

If it was the Father's will for Adam and Eve to fall, then isn't that as good as a commandment to fall? Or, in other words, didn't the Father tacitly command Adam and Eve to  die spiritually and physically, and enter a state of misery, if not also disobey another of his commands so that they could fall? I believe so. 

I see no way to get around the paradox or contradiction. At the very least,  the notion of a necessary fall in the context of a Plan of Progression, seems understandable, though contradictory or paradoxical on its face.

Besides, we have clear confirmation of the contradiction by way of  Lehi's profound counsel to his son, Jacob, which is summed up in the phrase, "For it must needs be that there is options in all things. (2 Ne 2:11)  In fact, more specifically, "...it must needs be opposition; even in the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life." (verse 15)

And, to me, this is the kicker: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen." (2 Ne 2:22) 

Here is the simple logic as I see it:

1. In order for the fall to occur, a transgression of the Father's commandment was required.
2. We all agree that it was the Father's will that Adam and Eve fall, which was tantamount to the Father commanding it.
3. Thus the Father commanded Adam and Eve to transgress one of his commandments--presumably the conditional command to not partake of the forbidden fruit. Or, in other words, obedience to the one commandment (or will of God) was in direct conflict or contradiction to obedience to the other commandment of God.

Granted, the logic doesn't force belief, though I find it compelling.

Once we understand the need for opposition, and thus can understand and accept the clear conflict between the Father's will and one of his commandments, it may seem perfectly reasonable, and even makes good sense, that disobedience to the one commandment would make possible obedience to other of God's commandments, such as "leave [F]ather and [M]other, and cleave unto on'es wire, and become one flesh, "  as Lehi went on to explain to Jacob in 2 Ne 2:22-25.

In short, the Father desired that Adam and Eve transgress so they would leave the Fathers presence and have children, as well as tightly receive the punishment of misery (v. 10), and this in order that they may experience joy. "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have Joy. (v. 25)

There is so much wisdom in this Book of Mormon chapter that one can feast on it seemingly endlessly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im curious as to how disobedience to the Father isnt sin.

If you understood the difference between transgression and sin, particularly as explained by Elder Oaks (cited several times earlier in the thread}, you could answer your own question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 4, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I find it curious the diversity of our beliefs regarding at least two of the  "three pillars of the atonement" or two of the "three gardens of the atonement?"

But, as the good book says, "there must needs that there  be opposition in all things." Evidently, this applies even among faithful members.

I count this as a positive because, were I not challenged on my beliefs, seemingly at every turn, I would have had no cause to consider them more deeply and thoroughly and from various perspective, nor be strengthened thereby. Had I not needed to dig, I would not have discovered pearls buried in my cognitive or epistemology back yard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If you understood the difference between transgression and sin, particularly as explained by Elder Oaks (cited several times earlier in the thread}, you could answer your own question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Theres an obvious disconnect here. One is either obedient and without sin or disobedient and sin. In Adam and Eves case they were disobedient and chose to follow Satan and as consequence they were shut out of Gods presence and God then sent messengers to teach them the gospel, that they needed to repent and be baptized to be reclaimed from their spiritual fall.

What else are we thus missing? 

[wenglund]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres an obvious disconnect here. One is either obedient and without sin or disobedient and sin. In Adam and Eves case they were disobedient and chose to follow Satan and as consequence they were shut out of Gods presence and God then sent messengers to teach them the gospel, that they needed to repent and be baptized to be reclaimed from their spiritual fall.

What else are we thus missing? 

The disconnect, at least from my point of view and that of the Church and its authorities, is that you, and perhaps others, seem not to understand that disobedience may consist either of transgression or sin, contingent, as explained by Elder Oaks,  upon the nature of the command that is disobeyed as well as the affixed punishment--i.e. whether the command prohibits something that is intrinsically neutral (such as "do not partake of the fruit") versus a command that prohibits something that is intrinsically evil (such as "thou shalt not murder") Transgressions separate us from, and cut us off from, the Father, while sins not only separate us and cut us off from the Father, they also corrupt our souls.

Are you beginning to make a connection? Is what has been missing finally been found?

Also, to my understanding, Adam and Eve did not follow Satan. Eve was beguiled (which is not the same as "follow'). while Adam was not. Both followed the Father and later the Son and his messengers. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 4, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

The disconnect, at least from my point of view and that of the Church and its authorities, is that you, and perhaps others, seem not to understand that disobedience may consist either of transgression or sin, contingent, as explained by Elder Oaks,  upon the nature of the command that is disobeyed as well as the affixed punishment--i.e. whether the command prohibits something that is intrinsically neutral (such as "do not partake of the fruit") versus a command that prohibits something that is intrinsically evil (such as "thou shalt not murder") Transgressions separate us from, and cut us off from, the Father, while sins not only separate us and cut us off from the Father, they also corrupt our souls.

Are you beginning to make a connection? Is what has been missing finally been found?

Also, to my understanding, Adam and Eve did not follow Satan. Eve was beguiled (which is not the same as "follow'). while Adam was not. Both followed the Father and later the Son and his messengers. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But they did follow (listen and obey) satan. God commanded them thay only God should they serve and obey. Adam and Eve disobeyed. Thats sin my friend. No way around that fact. Its why they fell. They gave into Satan and his temptations and obeyed and served Satan over God. Thus Adam and Eve became fallen spiritually. Its the same exact thing that happens to us in our own spiritual falls- we give into Satans temptations and thus become miserable.

Interesting to all this is that after Adam and Eve obey Satan they seek to hide from God. Typical actions and the byproduct of sin.

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

I don't believe sin caused the Fall, though transgression did. Anyway, part of what bolsters my confidence in Eve's statement is that it was included in the endowment, though not in scripture, which tells me it is something Father wished us to know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So if it was not Sin... why did they need a Savior?  If it wasn't sin but Transgressions still need the Savior's Atonement to bring them back in to the presence of God then what is then there is no real difference between Sin and Transgression.  After all we already have sins that the repentance for can be summed up as "Don't do that again"

As for Elder Oaks he splits hairs between something being inherently wrong, and something wrong because it is forbidden.  I understand the difference. Per the scripture the test of this life is to see if we obey God.  It does not matter if we disobey God on a matter that is inherently wrong or just forbidden, it is still disobedience.  

So let change the wording of my point because you are so hung up on the word Sin.

You can't have a Fall caused by disobedience without disobedience being present... That is a Logical Paradox.  This type of fall is what we see and what we know.  We understand it so well that Fall is a synonym for disobedience/sin

That is not the point that myself and others are making.

God's plan also has to have a path for if people choose Obey.  If it does not it is a crappy plan.  Adam and Eve being stuck in the Garden because they obeyed God makes no sense.  There had to be a way for them to move forward in obedience.  The problem we have was that it was not the path chosen so we do not see it.  

Lets give an example... Lets say Abraham choose not to sacrifice Issac as command.  The story we would then have would be about the consequence of Abraham's sin.  We would not know about the Angel that was ready to stop him, nor the animal that was prepared.

For Adam and Eve we do not know what their "Angel" would have been because that is not the choice they made.  Is is possible that had they Obeyed God would have given the command to eat of the fruit at a later date?  Sure... maybe...  I don't know.  All we can really do is speculate

Edited February 4, 2018 by estradling75

[wenglund]

9 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So if it was not Sin... why did they need a Savior? 

For the same reason children under the age of 8 need a Savior. Everyone born into mortality need to be saved from physical death and spiritual death (separation from the Father) even if they have not, nor could not, sin.

Quote

 If it wasn't sin but Transgressions still need the Savior's Atonement to bring them back in to the presence of God then what is then there is no real difference between Sin and Transgression.

Actually, there is an important difference (not to be confused with "splitting hairs"). As explained earlier, while transgression separates us from the Father, sin not only separates us, but it also corrupts and defiles our soul. It is the corrupting and defiling of the soul that brings on the second spiritual death--which, unless it is repented of and cleansed by the blood of Christ, will be everlasting in its damnation. Children may transgress, but they cannot sin. Repentance and baptism are required to cleanse the soul of corrupting sin, but it isn't necessary for transgression.

If transgression and sin were the same thing, as you suppose, then children under 8 would have need of baptism. Again, we LDS do not believe in "original sin," nor do we believe in infant baptism, which is why, in part, we (except perhaps you and Rob) draw an important distinction between transgression and sin.

Think of it this way. If priesthood holders have been asked to wear a white shirt and tie to church, and were they to dress otherwise, it would be a transgression, and not a sin. Their soul wouldn't have been corrupted, particularly if they had good reason not to wear a white shirt or tie. Whereas, they have been commanded not to have sex outside of marriage, and were they to do so, it would be a sin, and would corrupt their soul.

But, as always, you are free to see it otherwise. My view is certainly not definitive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

But they did follow (listen and obey) satan. God commanded them thay only God should they serve and obey. Adam and Eve disobeyed. Thats sin my friend. No way around that fact.

It is not uncommon for people to confuse opinion with fact, particularly dogmatists.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is it possible that Adam and Eve were under the age of 8-years-old when they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell (all dramatic depictions notwithstanding)?

If they were below the age of accountability, then could they have sinned? What about transgressed?

If, in the Garden, they would have remained forever under the age of 8 (2Ne 2:22) except they transgressed, could they have kept the command to multiply and become one flesh (i.e. have children)?

I ask because, even though we don't know the age at which Adam and Eve were created, though we may reasonably assume that whatever the age at which they were created, they would have remained in that same state within the Garden (ibid), we understand from verse 23 that they were in a state of innocence (i.e. knowing no sin),  and so they were effectively, in terms of the commands of God, under the age of accountability. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Is it possible that Adam and Eve were under the age of 8-years-old when they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell (all dramatic depictions notwithstanding)?

If they were below the age of accountability, then could they have sinned? What about transgressed?

If, in the Garden, they would have remained forever under the age of 8 (2Ne 2:22) except they transgressed, could they have kept the command to multiply and become one flesh (i.e. have children)?

I ask because, even though we don't know the age at which Adam and Eve were created, though we may reasonably assume that whatever the age at which they were created, they would have remained in that same state within the Garden (ibid), we understand from verse 23 that they were in a state of innocence (i.e. knowing no sin),  and so they were effectively, in terms of the commands of God, under the age of accountability. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The age, in my understanding is a policy.  This is the policy for the latter days where parents and prophets and scripture and missionaries and a mortal genetic history are all available to learn from.

Adam and Eve's age is not relevant to their accountability.  They were as children as there has not been mortal human experience to learn from before they disobeyed.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

It is not uncommon for people to confuse opinion with fact, particularly dogmatists.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, lots of dogmatic beliefs in here for sure.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, lots of dogmatic beliefs in here for sure.

I appreciate your self-reflection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 5, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I appreciate your self-reflection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Im done. 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, wenglund said:

Is it possible that Adam and Eve were under the age of 8-years-old when they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell (all dramatic depictions notwithstanding)?

If they were below the age of accountability, then could they have sinned? What about transgressed?

If, in the Garden, they would have remained forever under the age of 8 (2Ne 2:22) except they transgressed, could they have kept the command to multiply and become one flesh (i.e. have children)?

I ask because, even though we don't know the age at which Adam and Eve were created, though we may reasonably assume that whatever the age at which they were created, they would have remained in that same state within the Garden (ibid), we understand from verse 23 that they were in a state of innocence (i.e. knowing no sin),  and so they were effectively, in terms of the commands of God, under the age of accountability. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

There are many principles that I have attempted to reconcile from scripture.  Foremost are the principles of the Plan of Salvation.  The 3 great principles of the Plan of Salvation are #1 – The Creation, #2 – The Fall of man and #3 – The Atonement.  We are taught by Isaiah that the things of G-d are brought to man – “line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept”.   We are also taught in scripture that when man (somebody) refuses to accept revelation (in essence, think they know all the answers and do not need to learn additional “things”) that they will lose understanding of sacred revelations that they previously understood.  I believe that the things of G-d (things revealed in scripture) cannot be understood except that such revelation come through the Holy Ghost.

What am I trying to say?  I am saying that; what people call a literal interpretation of the scriptures and especially the most critical understanding of the Plan of Salvation cannot be understood by the literal thinking of “the natural man”.  I will even be so bold as to suggest that those that rely on the literal (natural man) will find themselves in opposition to the spirit and purpose of G-d.  There is more to the Eden epoch than why Adam and Eve were driven from the presents of the Father.  I suggest that the Eden epoch is to be understood spiritually in order to explain why man (including you and I) have been driven from the presents of the Father and must be saved by the Christ through the Atonement.  Because we have chosen to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – we must be redeemed by the Christ – the very “Son of G-d the Father”.

Without the understanding that we are partakers of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we will not understand the Atonement and without an understanding of the Atonement we will not understand anything in scripture – or at the temples of G-d or any other revelation from G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Colirio]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The age, in my understanding is a policy.  This is the policy for the latter days where parents and prophets and scripture and missionaries and a mortal genetic history are all available to learn from.

I know some others on here do not seem to consider it to be inspired scripture, but I'm going to put it here anyway:

 

Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:

 

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

 

Concerning your point about Adam and Eve specifically, however, is valid. 

[Guest]

On 2/4/2018 at 8:45 AM, estradling75 said:

God's plan also has to have a path for if people choose Obey.  If it does not it is a crappy plan.  Adam and Eve being stuck in the Garden because they obeyed God makes no sense.  There had to be a way for them to move forward in obedience.

I know this has been quoted several times already, but it continues to be ignored.  So, I'll repeat.

Quote

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But we do have a commentary about us not being able to comprehend the reasoning.

Quote

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

All this so that man might choose his own path.

Quote

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and allthings are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Do we say it's a crappy plan because we have free agency?  I hope not.  God gives us agency because he knows what lessons we may learn from not only the wrong decisions, but also the path of repentance.

Have you considered what would happen if someone else "just happened" to go through life without disobeying any commandments?  What would happen?

Edited February 6, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

On 2/4/2018 at 8:51 PM, anatess2 said:

Adam and Eve's age is not relevant to their accountability.  They were as children as there has not been mortal human experience to learn from before they disobeyed.

I think that is exactly where he was going anyway.  The doctrine of 8 yo accountability was merely the template from which to form his argument.

[Guest]

On 2/4/2018 at 8:11 PM, wenglund said:

Is it possible that Adam and Eve were under the age of 8-years-old when they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell (all dramatic depictions notwithstanding)?

If they were below the age of accountability, then could they have sinned? What about transgressed?

If, in the Garden, they would have remained forever under the age of 8 (2Ne 2:22) except they transgressed, could they have kept the command to multiply and become one flesh (i.e. have children)?

I ask because, even though we don't know the age at which Adam and Eve were created, though we may reasonably assume that whatever the age at which they were created, they would have remained in that same state within the Garden (ibid), we understand from verse 23 that they were in a state of innocence (i.e. knowing no sin),  and so they were effectively, in terms of the commands of God, under the age of accountability. Right?

This of course, echos the Fall vs. the Atonement. 

The innocent transgression requiring atonement vs the only sinless person being baptized to fulfill all righteousness vs for the remission of sins.

Cast out of the Garden of Eden vs. being forsaken by the Father.

Compare 2 Ne 2 with 2 Ne 31.

Once this parallel is fully delved into, it is difficult to say the fall was not necessary.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

When we say the fall was necessary there is a companion question – necessary for what?  The obvious answer is – the fall was necessary to have the knowledge of good and evil.  There is more involved because this knowledge means something in eternity – but I leave that question to the student specifically to ensure that pearls are not cast before swine. 

We also talk about transgression.  There is no transgression without law.  So then, there is another question – what law was broken? 

There is so much good “stuff” to learn from this story of Eden.  Why would G-d forbid that the fruit of the tree be tasted?  Actually, he specifically says why he forbids anyone partaking of the fruit.   Besides what he forbade – there were other consequences or results – some of which appear to have not realized until after the choice was made and “things” were changed seemingly unexpectedly.  The specific narrative was that “eyes were open” and things were beginning to be seen.

Besides questions about benefits in eternity – why did Satan intervein?   And why as a serpent?   But there is another conundrum – how was it that Satan had access to Eden?  Who let Satan in Eden (who was responsible) – what eternal law had to be broken for that to happen?  How was it possible that G-d was unaware of Satan in Eden or what he had done?  Why was Adam and Eve naked? And is there any significance to “fig leaves”?   And then the greatest untold mystery – What is the Cherubim and a flaming sword?  What is interesting to me is that in all the art there is only one Cherub with a flaming sword – doesn’t anyone know the ancient Hebrew term for “Cherubim” is the plural of Cherub?  Again, I will leave the exercise to search other places in scripture where mankind will encounter swords and flames wielded in relationship to “The Tree of Life”.

And this thread goes on and on – and as it continues – what is learned?  What has this thread accomplished?  One last thought I leave – what are the differences in the Creation and Eden epochs in scripture and what “additions” do we learn in our sacred temples?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

47 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We also talk about transgression.  There is no transgression without law.  So then, there is another question – what law was broken? 

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

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Why would G-d forbid that the fruit of the tree be tasted?  Actually, he specifically says why he forbids anyone partaking of the fruit.   

Evidently, he also said not to "touch it, lest ye die." (Moses 4:9)

As best I can tell, the fruit of the forbidden tree is also bitter (2 Ne 2:15) Why is that important?

(Hint the answer is made evident in the name of the tree, see D&C 29:39) And, in a way, it also explains why Adam and Eve could suddenly "see" once they partook of the forbidden fruit, and why the became as the Gods.).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-