The Meaning of Atonement

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

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

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

God doesnt command anyone to transgress his commandments.

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God doesnt command anyone to transgress his commandments.

So you say.

I find D&C 132:34-36 of significance and relevance to the broader discussion at hand, but not every mind is prepared to receive it.

Thanks, -Wade Engound

[wenglund]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

@wenglund and @brlenox

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Traveler

Well said. It pairs up nicely with some of the thoughts I have had over the last day or so.

However, I would expand Assumption #3 to include children, or in other words, it is all about family.

I see this addition as important because it ties into Assumption #4

Since I lack your eloquence, and am just starting to piece things together (a clear case of Assumption #1) in part using Assumption #2, let me express my thinking in these simple and rough terms:

In the pre-existence, as also during the fullness of times on earth, there was/is a new and everlasting covenant. This covenant not only binds husband to wife, but also parents to children, typifying heaven being bound to earth.

The covenant also includes obligations: the parents are obligated to raise up their children in knowledge and character, etc., and enable them to progress to become like the parents. The children, on the other hand, have an obligation to honor their parents, and bring glory to their name, by growing and progressing in knowledge and character, etc., and becoming like their parents.

Now, in order for the children to become like the parents, they musts needs leave father and mother, cleave unto their spouse, and become one flesh--or in other words, have children of their own.

They must also be separated and even cut off from their parents in order to grown in knowledge through faith, and under learning condition previously experienced by their parents.

In other words, in order to fulfill this mutual obligation of the covenant, requires temporarily violating, to an extent, the binding aspect of the covenant. To obey one part of the covenant necessitates breaching another part of the covenant. Heaven must be unbound from earth. The fledglings must kicked out of the nest and learn to fly on their own. Adam and Eve (i.e. all mankind) must partake of the forbidden fruit, and be cast from the Garden out into the lone and dreary world.

The good news is, a way has been provided to reestablish the covenant bond between parent and child, heaven being bound again to earth. There is a way for the children to return home and be reunited with their parents. There is a way to bring into compliance and fulfill all aspects of the new and everlasting covenant. And, thus, we come to the subject of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 9, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

So you say.

I find D&C 132:34-36 of significance and relevance to the broader discussion at hand, but not every mind is prepared to receive it.

Thanks, -Wade Engound

Abraham didnt kill his son, the angel stopped him.

[anatess2]

54 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Abraham didnt kill his son, the angel stopped him.

But it doesn't change the fact that God commanded Abraham to kill his son.

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

Well said. It pairs up nicely with some of the thoughts I have had over the last day or so.

However, I would expand Assumption #3 to include children, or in other words, it is all about family.

I see this addition as important because it ties into Assumption #4

Since I lack your eloquence, and am just starting to piece things together (a clear case of Assumption #1) in part using Assumption #2, let me express my thinking in these simple and rough terms:

In the pre-existence, as also during the fullness of times on earth, there was/is a new and everlasting covenant. This covenant not only binds husband to wife, but also parents to children, typifying heaven being bound to earth.

The covenant also includes obligations: the parents are obligated to raise up their children in knowledge and character, etc., and enable them to progress to become like the parents. The children, on the other hand, have an obligation to honor their parents, and bring glory to their name, by growing and progressing in knowledge and character, etc., and becoming like their parents.

Now, in order for the children to become like the parents, they musts needs leave father and mother, cleave unto their spouse, and become one flesh--or in other words, have children of their own.

They must also be separated and even cut off from their parents in order to grown in knowledge through faith, and under learning condition previously experienced by their parents.

In other words, in order to fulfill this mutual obligation of the covenant, requires temporarily violating, to an extent, the binding aspect of the covenant. To obey one part of the covenant necessitates breaching another part of the covenant. Heaven must be unbound from earth. The fledglings must kicked out of the nest and learn to fly on their own. Adam and Eve (i.e. all mankind) must partake of the forbidden fruit, and be cast from the Garden out into the lone and dreary world.

The good news is, a way has been provided to reestablish the covenant bond between parent and child, heaven being bound again to earth. There is a way for the children to return home and be reunited with their parents. There is a way to bring into compliance and fulfill all aspects of the new and everlasting covenant. And, thus, we come to the subject of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Some very interesting thoughts.  In the discussion between you and @Rob Osborn – there may be some possible reflections into the pre-existence.  But this is speculation on my part.  Although Satan was a problem – the problem was not outside the scope of the of the Plan of Salvation.  That is – my assumption and belief is that if Satan had not convinced the partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – that the Messiah would.  Now, I must be careful here because we learn in scripture that Satan was “anointed”.  Anointed means Messiah in ancient Hebrew.  There is another interesting and related notion – which is “birthright”.  What I find interesting about the divine succession or birthright within the patriarchal order of the priesthood (which is the order of G-d; by which all things are created) – is that in all cases that we have record of two brothers competing for the birthright – it always ended up with the younger.  With the assumption that our mortal experience has “types and shadows” of our pre-existence – or that which has previously (long ago) happened (See Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).

The great paradox of the Plan of Salvation is the Fall of man.  How could G-d command, in any degree or part, in the Plan of Salvation that required a transgression of the law for there to be a fall?  It would seem that the arguments associated with this paradox were so strong that Satan was able to persuade a third part of the most brilliant and divinely inspired minds of the most advanced society of intelligences in our universe.   Satan may believe and claim that the right of Messiah rightfully belongs to him.  Because it was his right - he may have concluded that the fall of man corrupted the Father and gave him (Satan) the right to over through the Father.   All because the Father provided agency to man, that by plan, led inevitably to a transgression of the law.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But it doesn't change the fact that God commanded Abraham to kill his son.

But it was only a test. God would have and did prevent Abraham from killing Isaac.

No, one has to find an actual commandment that God forbids someone from doing and then through another commandment God commanding them to break the previous commandment to be obedient. None such exists.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Some very interesting thoughts.  In the discussion between you and @Rob Osborn – there may be some possible reflections into the pre-existence.  But this is speculation on my part.  Although Satan was a problem – the problem was not outside the scope of the of the Plan of Salvation.  That is – my assumption and belief is that if Satan had not convinced the partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – that the Messiah would.  Now, I must be careful here because we learn in scripture that Satan was “anointed”.  Anointed means Messiah in ancient Hebrew.  There is another interesting and related notion – which is “birthright”.  What I find interesting about the divine succession or birthright within the patriarchal order of the priesthood (which is the order of G-d; by which all things are created) – is that in all cases that we have record of two brothers competing for the birthright – it always ended up with the younger.  With the assumption that our mortal experience has “types and shadows” of our pre-existence – or that which has previously (long ago) happened (See Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).

The great paradox of the Plan of Salvation is the Fall of man.  How could G-d command, in any degree or part, in the Plan of Salvation that required a transgression of the law for there to be a fall?  It would seem that the arguments associated with this paradox were so strong that Satan was able to persuade a third part of the most brilliant and divinely inspired minds of the most advanced society of intelligences in our universe.   Satan may believe and claim that the right of Messiah rightfully belongs to him.  Because it was his right - he may have concluded that the fall of man corrupted the Father and gave him (Satan) the right to over through the Father.   All because the Father provided agency to man, that by plan, led inevitably to a transgression of the law.

 

The Traveler

Our situation with Satan is definitely unique. What he did in the garden and the reasons he did it were unique in that it had never happened that way before. I too believe Satan thought he should be the savior and came into the garden to do the actual Saviors work but his real purpose was to overthrow the kingdom.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But it was only a test.

Not a test.  A lesson.

This is the thing.  We are of little minds compared to God.  For God there is no conflict.  For us, the smallness of our minds see conflict because we don't see what God sees.  Polygamy is an example.  Thou Shalt Not Kill is another.  Etc. etc.

Edited February 9, 2018 by anatess2

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Some very interesting thoughts.  In the discussion between you and @Rob Osborn – there may be some possible reflections into the pre-existence.  But this is speculation on my part.  Although Satan was a problem – the problem was not outside the scope of the of the Plan of Salvation. 

In a way, I believe J. R. R. Tolkien understood the necessity of "Satan" in order to complete the Plan. As good a person as was Frodo (which I see as typifying the Adams of this world), he was incapable of destroying the Ring. It required Gollum (Satan) to ultimately make it happen. To me, the grappling between Frodo and Gollum in Mount Doom is the most enlightening aspect of the Trilogy. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

In a way, I believe J. R. R. Tolkien understood the necessity of "Satan" in order to complete the Plan. As good a person as was Frodo (which I see as typifying the Adams of this world), he was incapable of destroying the Ring. It required Gollum (Satan) to ultimately make it happen. To me, the grappling between Frodo and Gollum in Mount Doom is the most enlightening aspect of the Trilogy. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dont necessarily see Satan as required. Its pretty much the same thing as saying we need porn shops on every corner to overcome pornography. Do we need Satan setting up shop on every corner of our lives to overcome evil?

[wenglund]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:34 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I dont necessarily see Satan as required. Its pretty much the same thing as saying we need porn shops on every corner to overcome pornography. Do we need Satan setting up shop on every corner of our lives to overcome evil?

You couldn't have missed the point any further had you tried.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You couldn't have missed the point any further had you tried.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Rather spot on I think.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rather spot on I think.

Yes, of course you would no better than me the point that I was making. What was I thinking!?!

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited February 11, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Yes, of course you would no better than me the point that I was making. What was I thinking!?!

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

How did we ever get on such bad footing? Can we start over and be civil?

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How did we ever get on such bad footing? Can we start over and be civil?

Sure. Perhaps you can help me. What would be the civil response to someone who presumed that they knew better than me the point that I was making?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 2/9/2018 at 8:58 AM, Traveler said:

Although Satan was a problem – the problem was not outside the scope of the of the Plan of Salvation.  That is – my assumption and belief is that if Satan had not convinced the partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – that the Messiah would. 

I wonder about that because, to me, Satan's involvement was necessary to make agency possible--which entails more than just  choice. It also required enticing (2 Ne 2:15-18--particularly verse 16). The Messiah would have enticed to do good (which enticing may have already existed by virtue of the compelling will of the Father), whereas Satan was needed to entice to do evil.

And, I think it was needful that the beguiling come by way of lies rather than by truth, which was the purview of Satan and not the Messiah.

Furthermore, Satan's involvement was needed to justify the curse that set the bounds for Satan's enticing  (Moses 4:21) so that agency wouldn't be destroyed by overwhelming enticement. The enticement towards good was limited by the curse of man wherein they were cast out of God's compelling presence and placed under conditions of faith. And, the enticement of evil was put in check by the curse of Satan from God. 

Interestingly enough, in addition to the paradox you mentioned previously, what I state above is another great irony or paradoxes of the Plan--i.e. the very person who wished to destroy the agency of man, was necessary to making agency possible..

In the book I referenced earlier, Jeffery M Bradshaw addresses the question of why Satan may have chosen to entice Adam and Eve given that he could have destroyed their agency as well as the quest for godly  knowledge, if not also the Plan, were he to have not enticed them. When I get a moment, I will either  paraphrase or quote the relevant portions.

Again, fun stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 12, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

Sure. Perhaps you can help me. What would be the civil response to someone who presumed that they knew better than me the point that I was making?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure, were all just throwing out ideas.

[wenglund]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure, were all just throwing out ideas.

Sounds good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:28 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Our situation with Satan is definitely unique. What he did in the garden and the reasons he did it were unique in that it had never happened that way before. I too believe Satan thought he should be the savior and came into the garden to do the actual Saviors work but his real purpose was to overthrow the kingdom.

 

I have pondered this post for some time – It is my opinion that it is G-d the Father that is unique and the symbol of change.  That trough his uniqueness there is new possibility and definite change (alteration of what otherwise would be).  That Satan is not unique at all but rather is the default or status quo.  That his intent was to preserve and maintain the natural or seeming elevatable course of things – the ultimate “Natural Man”.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have pondered this post for some time – It is my opinion that it is G-d the Father that is unique and the symbol of change.  That trough his uniqueness there is new possibility and definite change (alteration of what otherwise would be).  That Satan is not unique at all but rather is the default or status quo.  That his intent was to preserve and maintain the natural or seeming elevatable course of things – the ultimate “Natural Man”.

 

The Traveler

I agree Satan wanted to preserve the state of the natural man. The way he went about doing it being in a position of authority is unique, hasnt happened before.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree Satan wanted to preserve the state of the natural man. The way he went about doing it being in a position of authority is unique, hasnt happened before.

 

Again – I am of a different opinion.  I believe Satan represents the more common acts of one in a position of authority.  That G-d the Father not only represents but is the unique, rarest and extremely uncommon exercise of those in authority.  (See D&C 121)

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I have pondered this post for some time – It is my opinion that it is G-d the Father that is unique and the symbol of change.  That trough his uniqueness there is new possibility and definite change (alteration of what otherwise would be).  That Satan is not unique at all but rather is the default or status quo.  That his intent was to preserve and maintain the natural or seeming elevatable course of things – the ultimate “Natural Man”.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A number of issues discussed on this thread can be rephrased to ask: "is the 'natural man' necessary to the achievement of exaltation?"

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, wenglund said:

A number of issues discussed on this thread can be rephrased to ask: "is the 'natural man' necessary to the achievement of exaltation?"

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

My take on this is:  The experience of a fallen world is necessary to the achievement of exaltation.  And the fallen world came about by the introduction of the natural man.

To quell the statements about it naturally following that...

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

Edited February 14, 2018 by Guest