The Meaning of Atonement

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

I am not quite following the entirety of your question or thought.  It does follow that man was not born in sin because of preexistent behaviors. When we come into this existence we are born pure. (Doctrine and Covenants 29:46—50) However, that does not mean that man did not sin in the preexistence and thus many failed to keep their first estate but still were able to progress to the receipt of a body. Others were not even permitted that for the degree of their rebellion. (SOP)
 

 

If I read correctly, you indicated that Figure 2 represents spiritual death resulting from Adam and Eve (who represent all of us) having done something wrong, which suggested to me that  our fallen state (spiritual death) is a consequence of something we all did that was wrong. According to you, we are banished from God at birth because we did something worthy of death. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, I am happy to be corrected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am very impressed @wenglund - Just wondering if you also considered Jesus' response?

 

The Traveler

Yes, I did consider his response, and it moved me deeply.

I may not understand all the mechanics of salvation, and I am somewhat ignorant like the man whom Jesus healed, in that I can't answer all the questions about salvation posed to me and whomever, though I can say, "He is a prophet [Savior and Redeemer]....One thing I do know, I was blind and now I see [I was damned, but now the way of salvation is open to me], 

However, the more I learn of the Lord's redemptive sacrifice, the more in awe of him I become, and the more gratitude I feel towards him, and the more inclined I am to not sin.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[brlenox]

17 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I read correctly, you indicated that Figure 2 represents spiritual death resulting from Adam and Eve (who represent all of us) having done something wrong, which suggested to me that  our fallen state (spiritual death) is a consequence of something we all did that was wrong. According to you, we are banished from God at birth because we did something worthy of death. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, I am happy to be corrected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

You do a wonderful job of inching along building your line upon lines...You are right up against the definition of what caused Adam and Eve to fall, the reason it was a death sentence.  I covered this material in one of my very first posts on this site, but felt the material was not appreciated in the process and removed it.  Before we can go much further we will need to resurrect that material and discuss it.  Tonight is datenight and I'll be out of pocket but perhaps by tomorrow I can get something out there.  I may try a little different approach as you have done a great job at being intuitive and it is better by far when individuals ponder their way to understanding.

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, brlenox said:

You do a wonderful job of inching along building your line upon lines...You are right up against the definition of what caused Adam and Eve to fall, the reason it was a death sentence.  I covered this material in one of my very first posts on this site, but felt the material was not appreciated in the process and removed it.  Before we can go much further we will need to resurrect that material and discuss it.  Tonight is datenight and I'll be out of pocket but perhaps by tomorrow I can get something out there.  I may try a little different approach as you have done a great job at being intuitive and it is better by far when individuals ponder their way to understanding.

I look forward to it, though, because of prior commitments,  I probably wont be able to read it until Sunday

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, brlenox said:

You do a wonderful job of inching along building your line upon lines

Congratulations, Wade! Slowly but surely, bit by excruciating bit, you're making your glacial way! We watch your progress toward us from afar and above, cheering you on to reach our own lofty heights! Your understanding isn't there yet, of course, but you're building a foundation for the future! Good boy!

It's just so exciting and precious to see people finally catch a dim reflection of the vision and clumsily piece things together, don't you think, @brlenox?

[brlenox]

On 1/12/2018 at 4:42 PM, Vort said:

Congratulations, Wade! Slowly but surely, bit by excruciating bit, you're making your glacial way! We watch your progress toward us from afar and above, cheering you on to reach our own lofty heights! Your understanding isn't there yet, of course, but you're building a foundation for the future! Good boy!

It's just so exciting and precious to see people finally catch a dim reflection of the vision and clumsily piece things together, don't you think, @brlenox?

Why do you behave this way? I really do not understand. 

 

By the way, the new avatar was a huge improvement.

Edited January 14, 2018 by brlenox
Alma 30:42

[Vort]

12 hours ago, brlenox said:

Why do you behave this way? I really do not understand. 

I might ask you the same question, friend.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

Why do you behave this way? I really do not understand. 

@brlenox-I don't agree with @Vort on much but he really is a great guy. There might be a communication gap or something but believe me-stand up guy. 

[brlenox]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@brlenox-I don't agree with @Vort on much but he really is a great guy. There might be a communication gap or something but believe me-stand up guy. 

We all are stand-up people.  I have seen a lot of personalities represented here and they are just like me and you trying to make it through each day, keep food on the table, find time for our families and be decent servants of the Lord. Nonetheless, while it is tragic, there are degrees of maturity manifest that seem unnatural.  If I were to respond to @Vort's bating immediately @zil would show up to defend him and chastise me for stepping out of bounds. 

I do tire of my style of commentary being constantly under attack. Perhaps, I'm wrong but I do not believe Wade perceives me to be condescending, but I compliment him sincerely for actually doing something that these others cannot - he studies it out, he reflects on the gospel, and he finds value were it manifests and discards the rest. If @wenglundthought I said something to him that was wrong then he should be the one to tell me.  Instead somebody who should have just moved on instead of actually being condescending and accusatory want's to poke me in the eye with his stick. Yeah, I'm convinced he is a standup guy just as you are but for whatever reason it seems he is hiding behind a veiled sense of offense that is rather easily triggered by the mannerisms of my style of communication...or perhaps actually knowing something well as I do is intimidating to one who has nothing but opinions of which one soiled one is of me. 

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I might ask you the same question, friend.

Be specific ... cryptic is not communication.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

Be specific ... cryptic is not communication.

Okay. Specific and transparent. Grit your teeth, hold tight, and here we go.

If you have something to say, then say it. Why set yourself up as a guru? You're no prophet, at least not to anyone here. If you believe the scriptures teach thus-and-such, just say so. Offering "encouragement" in the manner you do, as if you are in a position to judge how another adult (possibly your senior in age and/or experience) is doing in his spiritual progress, is condescending in the extreme. @wenglund appears not to take offense -- good for him. I'm not wenglund, and I lack many of his virtues.

It seems to me that you have portrayed yourself as The Keeper of the Deep Truths ever since you joined the site. That alone is not particularly noteworthy; you would be one of many, just another site member excited about his own perceived gospel knowledge and perhaps lacking in perspective to discern his own ignorance and folly. We've all been there to some degree, or at least I certainly have. Go to any BYU ward and you will find such people, usually young men, by the score. They are earnest, generally well-meaning, and perhaps a touch full of themselves. They are brothers, and are to be loved and encouraged but, frankly, not taken very seriously, at least insofar as their self-proclaimed gospel expertise goes.

But many who read this site are not well-versed in LDS culture and might not recognize such a personality for what it is. And for some reason, some participants here appear to have bought into your self-proclaimed expertise. I see this as potentially dangerous. As I wrote above, you are no prophet, and ought not be viewed as one. My sarcastic response was an attempt at broad, farcical humor intended to put a pin in an overinflated sense of self without overtly carving a brother to the bone. I probably should not have written it, but I felt like I should do something other than sit idly on the sidelines ignoring what was happening in front of me.

I have tried learning from many of my betters here, such as zil, Just_A_Guy, mordorbund, Carborendum, NeuroTypical, TheFolkProphet, Needleina, anatess, pam, MormonGator -- heck, probably two dozen people or more, several of whom I would doubtless overlook if trying to compile an exhaustive list. Obviously, I have not yet learned all the lessons they offer. I'm open to suggestions. In the meantime, I post as I see fit. If I was wrong, then as soon as I understand why, I will apologize. Perhaps it would have been better for me to sit mutely and ignore the goings-on. It would be far from the first time I opened my mouth when I should have left it shut.

You are a brother, @brlenox. I realize this, and I think of you as such. But the other list members are also brothers and sisters. They ought not to be talked down to. Instead of writing, "Hey, look at you! You're coming right along! Keep pursuing that path! Here are a few hints: (1)..." -- which implicitly puts you in a superior, "big brother" position of instruction -- why not just say, "I agree with what you've written, and furthermore, I have found that (1)..."? Now you're an equal, talking across to a brother or sister, maybe even someone who lacks your experience but is still a fellow Saint and intelligent adult.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Vort

[Rob Osborn]

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

Why do you think and believe that "the scriptures must be the last and great witness"?

 

The Traveler

Generally, whereas manuals change, prophets say conflicting things, etc, the scriptures dont change so much, if at all. Its what we base our doctrine from.

[Rob Osborn]

22 hours ago, brlenox said:

Fifty years in the church and I have never heard nor deduced another claiming that Christ had to suffer spiritual death.

Were you of a different religious background before becoming LDS? Your theology concerning Christ becoming sin...this is all extra-LDS doctrine. First the Catholics and then subsequent Christian religions sought to justify the Father withdrawing his presence on the conclusions that Christ was somehow unworthy to have his presence having become anathema for taking on Him our sins. That is not LDS doctrine. Thereafter seems just intellectual machinations.  Your comparisons to light and God having to shut off light in order to forsake him, seem a bit presumptuous for me at this time.  As always if you would guide me to what resources you are using to come to your conclusions perhaps they might assist me in understanding your perspective. Of the material I recognize that you have opined it all seems to have its root in non-LDS doctrine.   

A lot of my surmisings in that particular post was in regards to mainstream Christianity. I study and speak with a lot of folks outside the church and its nice to know their beliefs. But, there are those in our church who teach such false doctrines such as "Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross". Thats not just one inatance, Ive heard it in other wards by other people over the years.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

"Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross"

If you define "spiritual death" as "separation from the Father", then this statement is true by definition. In fact, the statement as written is pretty much a tautology. I agree that the very idea of Christ (who is God) suffering "spiritual death" seems absurd on its face, effectively an oxymoron, and I am not sure what people would be trying to communicate by saying it.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Okay. Specific and transparent. Grit your teeth, hold tight, and here we go.

If you have something to say, then say it. Why set yourself up as a guru? You're no prophet, at least not to anyone here. If you believe the scriptures teach thus-and-such, just say so. Offering "encouragement" in the manner you do, as if you are in a position to judge how another adult (possibly your senior in age and/or experience) is doing in his spiritual progress, is condescending in the extreme. @wenglund appears not to take offense -- good for him. I'm not wenglund, and I lack many of his virtues.

It seems to me that you have portrayed yourself as The Keeper of the Deep Truths ever since you joined the site. That alone is not particularly noteworthy; you would be one of many, just another site member excited about his own perceived gospel knowledge and perhaps lacking in perspective to discern his own ignorance and folly. We've all been there to some degree, or at least I certainly have. Go to any BYU ward and you will find such people, usually young men, by the score. They are earnest, generally well-meaning, and perhaps a touch full of themselves. They are brothers, and are to be loved and encouraged but, frankly, not taken very seriously, at least insofar as their self-proclaimed gospel expertise goes.

But many who read this site are not well-versed in LDS culture and might not recognize such a personality for what it is. And for some reason, some participants here appear to have bought into your self-proclaimed expertise. I see this as potentially dangerous. As I wrote above, you are no prophet, and ought not be viewed as one. My sarcastic response was an attempt at broad, farcical humor intended to put a pin in an overinflated sense of self without overtly carving a brother to the bone. I probably should not have written it, but I felt like I should do something other than sit idly on the sidelines ignoring what was happening in front of me.

I have tried learning from many of my betters here, such as zil, Just_A_Guy, mordorbund, Carborendum, NeuroTypical, TheFolkProphet, Needleina, anatess, pam, MormonGator -- heck, probably two dozen people or more, several of whom I would doubtless overlook if trying to compile an exhaustive list. Obviously, I have not yet learned all the lessons they offer. I'm open to suggestions. In the meantime, I post as I see fit. If I was wrong, then as soon as I understand why, I will apologize. Perhaps it would have been better for me to sit mutely and ignore the goings-on. It would be far from the first time I opened my mouth when I should have left it shut.

You are a brother, @brlenox. I realize this, and I think of you as such. But the other list members are also brothers and sisters. They ought not to be talked down to. Instead of writing, "Hey, look at you! You're coming right along! Keep pursuing that path! Here are a few hints: (1)..." -- which implicitly puts you in a superior, "big brother" position of instruction -- why not just say, "I agree with what you've written, and furthermore, I have found that (1)..."? Now you're an equal, talking across to a brother or sister, maybe even someone who lacks your experience but is still a fellow Saint and intelligent adult.

...and yet, if you analyze this particular engagement which is like so many others, no one was speaking in your direction. I'm just engaged in an exchange with another poster and you read something I wrote and you take it a certain way - condescending.  The prophet participant, I can't remember his exact name did the same thing.  I encouraged him to focus on the specifics of our discussion and in his next post I am condescending and from there, even though he tossed the first stone, every Tom, Dick and Harry, finds me condescending. I am subscribed with various intents that are not my own. 

My confidence in my knowledge is the result of cultivating the prophets and the scriptures with extreme strictness.  I can show you the path of my thoughts because I know what they have said and I am confident in their spiritual gifts to guide me and my spiritual gifts of discernment and guidance to know truth.  I have never encouraged anyone to believe me, however, I use the words of the Prophets and apostles because they should not be ignored and glossed over.  People should believe them.

If you are going to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at my "deep truths" then show some integrity and illustrate and teach me with your expertise in scripture study and knowledge of the words of the prophets where I am in error. If you cannot, then own up to it and stop the casting of stones. Until you can rise to the level of the conversation be it in the form of a student or a teacher then there is only empty opinions of no worth for you to share. There is no further need for you to provoke me, I can never win in a battle of opinions, I deplore them so much, yet they reign supreme here.   However, if you wish to engage in sharing of knowledge and genuine understandings of worth then feel welcome to join in any conversation in which I am engaged.

Edited January 13, 2018 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

If you define "spiritual death" as "separation from the Father", then this statement is true by definition. In fact, the statement as written is pretty much a tautology. I agree that the very idea of Christ (who is God) suffering "spiritual death" seems absurd on its face, effectively an oxymoron, and I am not sure what people would be trying to communicate by saying it.

It is why we have problems in our gospel doctrine understanding. Incorrectly defining words and terms is a big problem in the religions throughout the world, even in our church. For instance, in the church manual "Gospel Principles" it defines spiritual death as- "Spiritual death is separation from God." Well, thats pretty vague and can be stretched to extremes to include the belief that Christ suffered spiritual death. It also led many throughout tge ages to believe children who come into the world as spititually dead and thus needing redemption. Even the BoM had this problem that ancient prophets had to correct. However, a clearer and more correct definition is gound in the churches "Guide to the Scriptures". Here it is-

"Separation from God and His influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37).
            Spiritual death was introduced into the world by the Fall of Adam (Moses 6:48). Mortals with evil thoughts, words, and works are spiritually dead while still alive on earth (1 Tim. 5:6). Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel, men and women can become clean from sin and overcome spiritual death."

This is more correct in defining it as "to die as to things pertaining to righteousness." Yet, it still persists in yet other publications such as "True to the Faith" -

"Spiritual death is separation from God. The scriptures teach of two sources of spiritual death. The first source is the Fall, and the second is our own disobedience.

The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel taught, “All mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual” (Helaman 14:16). During our life on the earth, we are separated from God’s presence. Through the Atonement, Jesus Christ redeems everyone from this spiritual death".

Im sorry but this second definition given in "True to the Faith" is incorrect. These types of misunderstandings prevail in the church. A further reading in the BoM states when man becomes spiritually dead-

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.
            10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.
            11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord. (Alma 42:9-11)

This defines spiritual death once one becomes carnal and sensual and sins and then are miserable.

This is why a thorough study of the scriptures and pondering and prayer are essential to know and discern truth.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

A lot of my surmisings in that particular post was in regards to mainstream Christianity. I study and speak with a lot of folks outside the church and its nice to know their beliefs. But, there are those in our church who teach such false doctrines such as "Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross". Thats not just one inatance, Ive heard it in other wards by other people over the years.

If that is the case, then I wonder if you are simply just talking for the sake of talking.  We here what you are saying and out of the blue you are talking mainstream Christianity as if it is a true understanding doctrine and without any indication that you are switching in and out of lanes between LDS and other errant doctrines.  

In this response here:

You toss out several interpretations under the lead ideology of "our assumptions play out in illogical ways." So from there on I am of the impressions that you are discussing "our assumptions" as LDS when none of what you said can be construed as such. ... and I repeat I have never heard a soul teach "Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross" in an LDS Church. If the only recollections you have are of individuals who like yourself have unique understandings and who cannot back up their observations from the words of prophets or sound interpretation of scriptures, then it is nothing...nothing, absolutely nothing. 

 

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, brlenox said:

...and yet, if you analyze this particular engagement which is like so many others, no one was speaking in your direction.

"Discussion list", brlenox. Note the first word. The conversations here are not private. Everything you post here is speaking in my direction.

Strike one.

25 minutes ago, brlenox said:

[...] you read something I wrote and you take it a certain way - condescending.  The prophet participant, I can't remember his exact name did the same thing.  I encouraged him to focus on the specifics of our discussion and in his next post I am condescending and from there, even though he tossed the first stone, every Tom, Dick and Harry, finds me condescending.

If myself, TheFolkProphet, Tom, Dick, and Harry all find your manner of engagement to be condescending -- well then, friend, maybe you should take the hint and engage in a bit of introspection.

Strike two.

27 minutes ago, brlenox said:

My confidence in my knowledge is the result of cultivating the prophets and the scriptures with extreme strictness.

Irrelevant. No one is faulting your confidence. It's your presentation and condescension that rankles, not the fact that you believe what you write.

Strike three.

28 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I can show you the path of my thoughts because I know what they have said and I am confident in their spiritual gifts to guide me and my spiritual gifts of discernment and guidance to know truth.

Yet you cannot speak authoritatively on speculative gospel topics. I don't care how wise or informed you think you are. That is not your calling. Period. To implicitly proclaim yourself in a position of spiritual superiority over another is a dangerous thing to do.

Strike four.

29 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have never encouraged anyone to believe me

Let us examine this statement. In this thread alone -- in your very first post, no less -- you wrote:

On 12/27/2017 at 3:00 PM, brlenox said:

I can give you the benefit of some of the questions to ask that must be understood before you can work your way through the process.

You must grasp the material of the Fall.

[etc.]

Strike five.

In your very second post, you wrote:

On 12/27/2017 at 5:03 PM, brlenox said:

Again, the only way to understand the atonement is to completely reverse the paradigm and look at it from God the Fathers perspective.

Strike six.

That is from this thread ALONE, and only looking at your first two posts. I will not bother to go through the entire thread, much less other threads you have participated on, pointing out where you obviously did encourage people to believe you and hold up your private interpretation as the Only and True Belief, as you did above.

40 minutes ago, brlenox said:

If you are going to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at my "deep truths"

A false allegation. I have indeed disagreed with several of your "deep truths", but I haven't taken potshots at them. For the most part, I have ignored them and not commented on them at all. Rather, I have pointed out your condescending manner, which is what you're really upset about.

Strike seven.

41 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Until you can rise to the level of the conversation be it in the form of a student or a teacher then there is only empty opinions of no worth for you to share.

There you go again with the condescension. You seem not to realize that the student/teacher, inferior/superior, supplicant/benefactor relationship that you insist on (inevitably featuring yourself as the teacher-superior-benefactor) is not the only (or even the best) model of knowledge exchange or spiritually based interaction between people.

Strike eight.

45 minutes ago, brlenox said:

There is no further need for you to provoke me, I can never win in a battle of opinions, I deplore them so much, yet they reign supreme here.

Unsubstantiated ad hominem, all the more poignant considering your use of this and other threads as platforms to establish your own opinions as some sort of sacred truth.

Strike nine. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but doesn't nine consecutive strikes close out the inning for that team?

Here's an idea, brlenox: Drop the superiority attitude. Engage others here as equals, whose experiences have as much subjective validity as yours, and who might even have objective truths and insights to offer YOU that would be of benefit. When offering encouragement, let it be authentic and not of the condescending "Good job, grasshopper! Now keep on that path for the next five years and you will begin to understand some things! I could explain them to you, but it will be so much more meaningful for you to discover them for yourself!" variety.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Generally, whereas manuals change, prophets say conflicting things, etc, the scriptures dont change so much, if at all. Its what we base our doctrine from.

 

Wow – you really surprised me with that answer – I thought sure you would quote a scripture?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, brlenox said:

If that is the case, then I wonder if you are simply just talking for the sake of talking.  We here what you are saying and out of the blue you are talking mainstream Christianity as if it is a true understanding doctrine and without any indication that you are switching in and out of lanes between LDS and other errant doctrines.  

In this response here:

You toss out several interpretations under the lead ideology of "our assumptions play out in illogical ways." So from there on I am of the impressions that you are discussing "our assumptions" as LDS when none of what you said can be construed as such. ... and I repeat I have never heard a soul teach "Christ suffered spiritual death when he was forsaken on the cross" in an LDS Church. If the only recollections you have are of individuals who like yourself have unique understandings and who cannot back up their observations from the words of prophets or sound interpretation of scriptures, then it is nothing...nothing, absolutely nothing. 

 

Whatever brother, Im just being honest in what my observations and interactions have avtually been. Good day to ya.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

Wow – you really surprised me with that answer – I thought sure you would quote a scripture?

 

The Traveler

I continue to amaze

[brlenox]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

"Discussion list", brlenox. Note the first word. The conversations here are not private. Everything you post here is speaking in my direction.

Strike one.

If myself, TheFolkProphet, Tom, Dick, and Harry all find your manner of engagement to be condescending -- well then, friend, maybe you should take the hint and engage in a bit of introspection.

Strike two.

Irrelevant. No one is faulting your confidence. It's your presentation and condescension that rankles, not the fact that you believe what you write.

Strike three.

Yet you cannot speak authoritatively on speculative gospel topics. I don't care how wise or informed you think you are. That is not your calling. Period. To implicitly proclaim yourself in a position of spiritual superiority over another is a dangerous thing to do.

Strike four.

Let us examine this statement. In this thread alone -- in your very first post, no less -- you wrote:

Strike five.

In your very second post, you wrote:

Strike six.

That is from this thread ALONE, and only looking at your first two posts. I will not bother to go through the entire thread, much less other threads you have participated on, pointing out where you obviously did encourage people to believe you and hold up your private interpretation as the Only and True Belief, as you did above.

A false allegation. I have indeed disagreed with several of your "deep truths", but I haven't taken potshots at them. For the most part, I have ignored them and not commented on them at all. Rather, I have pointed out your condescending manner, which is what you're really upset about.

Strike seven.

There you go again with the condescension. You seem not to realize that the student/teacher, inferior/superior, supplicant/benefactor relationship that you insist on (inevitably featuring yourself as the teacher-superior-benefactor) is not the only (or even the best) model of knowledge exchange or spiritually based interaction between people.

Strike eight.

Unsubstantiated ad hominem, all the more poignant considering your use of this and other threads as platforms to establish your own opinions as some sort of sacred truth.

Strike nine. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but doesn't nine consecutive strikes close out the inning for that team?

Here's an idea, brlenox: Drop the superiority attitude. Engage others here as equals, whose experiences have as much subjective validity as yours, and who might even have objective truths and insights to offer YOU that would be of benefit. When offering encouragement, let it be authentic and not of the condescending "Good job, grasshopper! Now keep on that path for the next five years and you will begin to understand some things! I could explain them to you, but it will be so much more meaningful for you to discover them for yourself!" variety.

My my, what a tragedy this truly is.  If you had taken half the time you took in this to denigrate me and undermine what ever image it is that you have, if you had taken half that time to study out the doctrines of the atonement we have been sharing here, you and I would be having an entirely different discussion.  Maybe your focus would be less on me and more on that which matters. Whoever it is that has created this sort of angst in you, it can't be me as I do not know you that well and you surely do not know me, but someone has left you hurting. I am sorry to what ever degree I have contributed to your suffering  and do hope for the best for you.  As I said I do not truck in opinions so I have little to say in response to your exceptional efforts here. I do hope you can find some peace.

[brlenox]

On 1/12/2018 at 3:49 PM, wenglund said:

I look forward to it, though, because of prior commitments,  I probably wont be able to read it until Sunday

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I apologize for not getting to the material, but I have determined that this site is just not the place for a public airing of sacred material.  I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction and if you want to take it off forum let me know and I am more than happy to continue sharing whatever interests you.  Thanks for your kindness.

Edited January 14, 2018 by brlenox

[wenglund]

On 1/13/2018 at 9:44 PM, brlenox said:

Wade, I apologize for not getting to the material, but I have determined that this site is just not the place for a public airing of sacred material.  I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction and if you want to take it off forum let me know and I am more than happy to continue sharing whatever interests you.  Thanks for your kindness.

No apology needed. I have enjoyed the conversation as well, and have learned some useful and wonderful things, and I very much appreciate the thought and effort and time you put into your comments--not just in composing your posts, but also the obvious vast amount of research behind them. Thank you so much for your consideration..

And, while I respect your decision, I prefer to engage in discussions, even of a  sacred nature, in the open marketplace of ideas, in part, because the oft rough-and-tumble of these venues helps round me out and keep me humble, both regarding what may be said as well as how it is said. We don't always get open or completely honest feedback under private conditions--particularly those of an authoritarian nature like between a teacher and student. and so we may not always have a complete or accurate sense for how we come across.

To be honest, I think Vort and others provided you with some useful insights and suggestions that may have kept you from getting in the way of effectively sharing your ideas online. That you viewed his/their suggestions as reason not to discuss sacred topics here, rather than as cause for beneficial introspection, is unfortunate--everyone loses. For my part, I overlooked the seeming condescension because I figured it probably wasn't intentional and I chalked it up to inexperience with online discussion mediums--I have been at this for several decades now, so I am familiar with the challenges interacting in cyberspace. 

But, as always, the choice is yours, and I wish you all the best wherever you find appropriate to share you great ideas.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2018 by wenglund

[brlenox]

21 hours ago, Vort said:

 I have indeed disagreed with several of your "deep truths",...

Having considered upon your words for the past few hours the thing that rises to the top, so to speak, is this statement above.  I invite you to become teacher and show what aspects you find disagreement with as that might perchance be an edifying conversation.

Thank you in advance.