Resurrection of the body

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

The whole reason for the atonement is the state of the post fall man and the alleviation or mitigation of the condition as a whole or in part.

In m view, this is an incorrect oversimplification. But I think it might be useful as an approximation.

11 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

If this is not the case, the atonement is not necessary.

Here your philosophical training again fails you. That the atonement is not necessarily for exactly and only the reasons you think does not mean that the atonement is therefore unnecessary.

11 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I do not see the need for an atonement in the very least substantially and no one here is able to point to any substantial difference.  So the atonement appears to be an ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing.

Do you also see that your perceptions, however strongly held, do not define external reality -- even for you?

Christ's atonement is to bring us back to God -- not merely back into God's presence, which will happen with all in any case, but back into God's bosom, so to speak. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, we cannot and will not dwell again with the Father. There is nothing ad hoc about it.

Maybe you don't understand this. That's fine. But your lack of understanding doesn't mean it's wrong; it just means you don't understand it. As a philosopher, you surely understand this deep in your bones. Indeed, any honest philosophical approach requires before all that you recognize and admit your own ignorance rather than attempt to use it as a foundation for your arguments.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Vort

[zil]

Just now, Ian Hall said:

At which point of time is the atonement applied universally to all of mankind?

Before, during, and after the events which took place during the Savior's mortality.  Christ's Atonement was infinite in its scope - covering all people who ever had been or would be born.  Resurrection would be given as a free gift to all.  Forgiveness of sins is offered on condition of repentance and obedience.

12 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

So, what I am attempting to figure out is what is the condition of a person (A) born prior to the atonement and what is the condition of person (B) born after the atonement, and how does the atonement mitigate that conditional difference

Hmm.  It just occurred to me that you may be asking about their current condition rather than just the general conditions in the grand scheme of things.  So try this...

1) Those who were righteous, who died before Christ, were resurrected at (approximately) the time Christ was resurrected (He was first, and the righteous who died before him were second).

2) The spirits of those who were wicked remained in spirit prison.

3) Those who died after Christ (which some few exceptions, as necessary), remain as spirits in either spirit prison (the wicked) or paradise (the righteous) to await the Second Coming when all the righteous (terrestrial and celestial) will be resurrected.

4) After the millennium, the wicked (telestial and sons of perdition) will be resurrected.

1 minute ago, Ian Hall said:

???  Very confused here  ???

The whole reason for the atonement is the state of the post fall man and the alleviation or mitigation of the condition as a whole or in part.   If this is not the case, the atonement is not necessary.  I do not see the need for an atonement in the very least substantially and no one here is able to point to any substantial difference.  So the atonement appears to be an ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing.  

I don't really understand why there's confusion (or even quite what you're saying above), but I understand that you don't comprehend why atonement is necessary at all, for anyone - is that right?  If so:

1) All people sin (due to the nature of mortal weakness).

2) Having sinned, we are cut off from God and have no power to return to him.

3) Through Christ's Atonement, Christ gained the power to bring people back to the Father by paying the price for their sins and becoming the way back to the Father.  This power is universal, covering all who ever have been or ever will be born on this earth.

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

???  Very confused here  ???

The whole reason for the atonement is the state of the post fall man and the alleviation or mitigation of the condition as a whole or in part.   If this is not the case, the atonement is not necessary.  I do not see the need for an atonement in the very least substantially and no one here is able to point to any substantial difference.  So the atonement appears to be an ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing.  

Yes, confusion begins when a person begins with a false premise.

The reason for the atonement is that God the Father knew his sons and daughters would sin (post fall). As others have pointed out multiple times, if you are unable to grasp the Fall (clearly you don't), then with reason a person leads to the following human supposition, "So the atonement appears to be an ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing."

The question you asked, is what leads to your personal confusion as you try to place illusions between conditions of person (A) and person (B) (both of which are post fall). The conditions remain the same, as has been reiterated multiple times.

Real simple, if you sin (whether before the atonement or after the atonement), the conditions of the atonement do not change for one or the other. If you think, we don't sin, and there is no sin, then yes, in your personal world view "the atonement [is] ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing." And nothing will change your mind.

Seeking to make up conditions, or to apply false conditions, doesn't negate or prove anything, except increase personal confusion.

Your example is similar to asking a soccer player who begins before halftime and a soccer player who starts playing after halftime and asking the difference between conditions for the two players. The only difference is when they started the game. All other rules and laws of soccer remain the same. Thus, a person creates their own confusion when they try to force a condition between two players who are obeying the same rules of the game, and then calling the rules/laws of that game "ad hoc".

Your confusion is understood, sadly it is a personal confusion none of us will be able to answer because it begins with a false premise.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Anddenex

[zil]

Ahh.  @Anddenex's latest post has kicked something in my brain...

Once upon a time, we were all living with God as his spirit children.  This is called pre-mortality.  We did not have physical bodies, only spirit bodies.  God had an exalted physical body.  For reasons we don't fully understand, an exalted physical body is necessary for exaltation (for the kind of life God lives).  God wanted us, his children, to progress and become like him (Moses 1:39).  For this to happen, we had to experience mortality - wherein we we would receive physical bodies and be "proven" to see if we wished to live the kind of life God lives (Abraham 3:25-26).  God, knowing all things, knew that Adam and Eve, our first parents would "fall" (become mortal, sin) and that this would be true of all their children (except Christ, of course), and therefore a way would need to be provided to allow them to be redeemed from their fallen state.  Redemption would have two parts - one the resurrection, which would make them immortal; and two, forgiveness of sin.  To accomplish this, Christ was chosen (before this world was ever created) to become our redeemer - to pay the price of sin (a price which could only be paid by one who was both sinless and immortal), and lead the way back to the Father.

This plan was in place before the world began.  Thus, through faith on the Son of God, all - from Adam down to the last person who will one day be born in mortality - have the option to return to God.  From the very beginning, the plan was designed to cover all, regardless of whether they experienced mortality before, during, or after the Savior's time on earth.

Does that help any?

Edited August 31, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

Quote

Yes, confusion begins when a person begins with a false premise.

What is the correct premise one should begin with?  What is the false premise?  Correct the premise. 

Quote

The reason for the atonement is that God the Father knew his sons and daughters would sin (post fall). As others have pointed out multiple times, if you are unable to grasp the Fall (clearly you don't), then with reason a person leads to the following human supposition, "So the atonement appears to be an ad hoc addition which in substance accomplishes nothing."

We know that already.

Quote

The question you asked, is what leads to your personal confusion as you try to place illusions between conditions of person (A) and person (B) (both of which are post fall). The conditions remain the same, as has been reiterated multiple times.

What illusion?  What is that illusion. 

Let's say

x = time before atonement

y = time after atonement

Person (A) born and dies within x period

Person (B) born and dies within y period

You would say there is no difference at all between?  Since there is no difference between the x and y and there is no difference between (A) and (B) then the atonement accomplishes nothing what so ever.  .... and I am the one who is confused??? 

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Since there is no difference between the x and y and there is no difference between (A) and (B) then the atonement accomplishes nothing what so ever.

Complete non sequitur. You might as well be saying, "Since there is no difference between this here peach and the peach I ate yesterday, therefore this peach peeler I'm holding accomplishes nothing whatsoever."

Edited August 31, 2018 by Vort

[BJ64]

17 hours ago, bytebear said:

I think of it as being the beginning of a life cycle.

• Created/organized as spirit
• Created physically
• Enter mortality
• Reborn spiritually (via baptism of water)
• Die
• Reborn physically (resurrected to glory)

We and the Earth have the same life cycle (more or less). 

But neither our existence began where the Bible begins, nor does it end where the Bible ends.

There is no life cycle for our spirits, only our physical bodies. Our spirits have always existed and always will exist. There  no beginning and no end to our spirits. 

This is a principle plainly taught by Joseph Smith and Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

What is the correct premise one should begin with?  What is the false premise?  Correct the premise. 

We know that already.

What illusion?  What is that illusion. 

Let's say

x = time before atonement

y = time after atonement

Person (A) born and dies within x period

Person (B) born and dies within y period

You would say there is no difference at all between?  Since there is no difference between the x and y and there is no difference between (A) and (B) then the atonement accomplishes nothing what so ever.  .... and I am the one who is confused??? 

Here is your false premise, and yes, sadly you are confused due to your false premise. The correction has been given, as long as you believe and continue to believe in your false premise, well, not much we can help there Ian Hall.

Again, I have asked before, and yet you continue repeating what has been answered. You have placed a condition, a false premise, we can't clear this up until you make known why you think a condition needs to be there, or clarify what you mean by condition. Until then, yes, you will remain confused, as you are the only one confused.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

Quote

What is the correct premise one should begin with?  What is the false premise?  Correct the premise. 

We know that already.

What illusion?  What is that illusion. 

Let's say

x = time before atonement

y = time after atonement

Person (A) born and dies within x period

Person (B) born and dies within y period

You would say there is no difference at all between?  Since there is no difference between the x and y and there is no difference between (A) and (B) then the atonement accomplishes nothing what so ever.  .... and I am the one who is confused??? 

Here is your false premise, and yes, sadly you are confused due to your false premise. The correction has been given, as long as you believe and continue to believe in your false premise, well, not much we can help there Ian Hall.

Again, I have asked before, and yet you continue repeating what has been answered. You have placed a condition, a false premise, we can't clear this up until you make known why you think a condition needs to be there, or clarify what you mean by condition. Until then, yes, you will remain confused, as you are the only one confused.

Is there a condition after the fall into which people are born into?

[Anddenex]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

There is no life cycle for our spirits, only our physical bodies. Our spirits have always existed and always will exist. There  no beginning and no end to our spirits. 

This is a principle plainly taught by Joseph Smith and Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

I would say @bytebear understands this (although he can speak for himself). He was making the point that our spirits are without a glorified body in the beginning (thus the life cycle of the sons and daughters of God). This is also plainly taught

[Anddenex]

Just now, Ian Hall said:

Is there a condition after the fall into which people are born into?

Yes. That is a different question, thank you.

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

What is the correct premise one should begin with?  What is the false premise?  Correct the premise. 

We know that already.

What illusion?  What is that illusion. 

Let's say

x = time before atonement

y = time after atonement

Person (A) born and dies within x period

Person (B) born and dies within y period

You would say there is no difference at all between?  Since there is no difference between the x and y and there is no difference between (A) and (B) then the atonement accomplishes nothing what so ever.  .... and I am the one who is confused??? 

Atonement applies equally to all, regardless of time of birth/death.

[Guest]

Just now, Anddenex said:

Quote

Is there a condition after the fall into which people are born into?

Yes. That is a different question, thank you.

How is that a different question????????????????????????????????????????????? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Quote

Is there a condition after the fall into which people are born into?

Yes. That is a different question, thank you.

How is that a different question?????????????????????????????????????????????  And what is that condition/state??????????????

Edited August 31, 2018 by Ian Hall

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Is there a condition after the fall into which people are born into?

Yes, it's called mortality - see my story format posted above, which explains the sequence of events.

All people are born into mortality and all people sin.  Therefore all people need a redeemer.  Christ is that redeemer, whether the people lived before Christ's time on earth or after.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Please explain it in your own words.... not someone elses.  Demonstrate how it is space-time friendly.  Also, explain to us what a quantum and classical systems are.  Also, would you like to explain how CM and RM follow different laws as provided by the different conditions.  Please explain these to us?

I assumed you had a grasp of the basics already, but you can look up these definitions and concepts in Wikipedia. The link is far more economical than my own words in explaining my earlier points. I do recommend reading the Book of Abraham. If you are familiar with Hebrew thought (psst... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're only Jewish if your mother is...), you will see how it aligns with many points in the essay, noting it is not a science book. Your OP was heavily dependent on assumptions about time and cosmos, peppered with words like time, final, eternal, progression, universe, eternity, when, after..., but that all seems to have gone by the wayside at this point.

[Guest]

Quote

I assumed you had a grasp of the basics already, but you can look up these definitions and concepts in Wikipedia.

Yes I am one of the many contributors to articles which deal with cosmology (FLCM etc)

Quote

The link is far more economical than my own words in explaining my earlier points.

I don't care about Wikipedia, I know what is contained in the Wikipedia, because I contributed to parts of it.  I am more interested in your understanding of it. 

Quote

I do recommend reading the Book of Abraham. If you are familiar with Hebrew thought (psst... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're only Jewish if your mother is...),

Where did I state that I was Jewish, I specifically stated that my father was a Jew.  PSST my mother by ethnicity is a Jew but not by faith. 

Quote

 Your OP was heavily dependent on assumptions about time and cosmos, peppered with words like time, final, eternal, progression, universe, eternity, when, after..., but that all seems to have gone by the wayside at this point. 

Yes because I realized that I am not dealing with a system which conforms to the FLCM or classical metaphysics.  Eternal progression is a Mormon specific concept. 

Also I am beginning to notice a pattern where if one does not find the logic in the system being proposed Mormons will blame the person for not understanding the system but not the system which does not appear to be logical and seem happy to further confuse the issue that to bring clarity to it.  So far @Just_A_Guy @zil @Rob Osborn @Jane_Doe have made a genuine attempt to being some understanding to the issue.

Frankly your Hebrew cosmic time, space time is a farce.  You know it, I know it.  You picked up something that tickled your ears enough that you found it interesting. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Ian Hall

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Yes I am one of the many contributors to articles which deal with cosmology (FLCM etc)

I don't care about Wikipedia, I know what is contained in the Wikipedia, because I contributed to parts of it.  I am more interested in your understanding of it. 

Where did I state that I was Jewish, I specifically stated that my father was a Jew.  PSST my mother by ethnicity a Jew but not by faith. 

Yes because I realized that I am not dealing with a system which confoms to the FLCM. 

If your mother is an ethnic Jew, then you would be a Jew also, unless you do not fully identify with your heritage as evidenced by referencing only your father as a Jew. It seems your reference point in understanding ancient Hebrew concepts is limited to relatively modernized religious practices. But now that you feel the system does not conform to FLCM, rendering an exposition of my understanding somewhat irrelevant at this point, how would you rephrase your OP?

[Guest]

Quote

But now that you feel the system does not conform to FLCM, rendering an exposition of my understanding somewhat irrelevant at this point, how would you rephrase your OP?

We have moved beyond that point.  Please follow the conversion.  You did not provide an exposition as you claim to have provided.  I thought it would be in bad taste to call you make you look a fool in front of your peers, which I can very easily do.  So knock it off and stick to what you know.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Ian Hall

[zil]

51 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Also I am beginning to notice a pattern where if one does not find the logic in the system being proposed Mormons will blame the person for not understanding the system but not the system which does not appear to be logical and seem happy to further confuse the issue that to bring clarity to it.

Just to give you an analogy (perhaps not perfect, but it's what comes to mind), please consider it from this perspective: You are asking people who understand all math up through calculus to explain calculus to someone who doesn't appear to grasp algebra.  This isn't to say you don't understand algebra - it may be that you learned it in another culture and we're using terms differently, and so our first goal needs to be defining terminology.

To put it in other words: you asked us to explain the end (Second Coming, final judgement, etc.) without starting at the beginning (pre-mortal existence, the Fall, mortality, Christ's Atonement).  You may understand all that, but we don't know that, or whether your understanding is correct from an LDS perspective.  Further, you jumped right in with no introduction or explanation of intent or approach - and while that may be fine, it puts us the in the dark as to the best way to answer your questions - whether to start with the basics or jump straight to the end or something else.

We've gotten past all that, I think, and are now trying to work from the beginning to the end, which seems most likely to yield the answers you're looking for.

(The analogy falls apart, of course, because unlike math which is the same in every language, the restore gospel of Jesus Christ (what is taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) may be explained in any number of ways by differing people, both in and out of the Church.  Not all members agree with one another, and some even disagree with the official teachings of the Church - making your task all the more difficult.  We don't have a formal documented creed or catechism outside the canonized scriptures, and we believe in on-going revelation and that part of the purpose of prophets is to teach us correct understanding of scripture, and that the gospel is best taught (like parables) so that each can increase in understanding over their lifetime and come, eventually, to the full understanding which God has - thus, depending on where one is in their progress toward God, one's understanding may differ slightly - the truth is indeed absolute and objective, but until we obtain a fullness in Christ, our understanding is not complete.)

Hope that makes sense.

Edited August 31, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

@zil  I understand analogies break down past the immediate context.  I believe the conversion has moved away from future and we are attempting to understand the Fall and the consequence of it which you provided an explain for. is your claim a retroactive application of the atonement to those persons or lived before the atonement occurred while were born, lived and died?  This is what I am seem to understand you are trying to convey?

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

is your claim a retroactive application of the atonement to those persons or lived before the atonement occurred while were born, lived and died?

Yes.  Christ's Atonement was planned for in a pre-mortal council before the earth was ever created physically, and it was always intended / designed to apply from eternity (pre-mortality) to eternity (the final resurrection / judgement).

Quote

Alma 24:14 And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.

(emphasis mine)  Alma lived before Christ came to the earth.

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, Ian Hall said:

I read those.  I understand the fall as understood by the Mormon Church. But my question remain regading what are the consequences within that context of the Fall as you provided and the atonement and resurrection

Good. I am grateful for your understanding.  Presumably, you now know why pre-mortal spirits needed to come to earth and experience mortality. Presumably, you now understand how the fall made that possible. Do you then understand that even though the fall enabled God's spirit children to progress to become like their Father in one respect, it likewise prevented the same in another respect, and that the atonement provided a way around the prevention in several ways, not the least of which was by way of the resurrection?

Quote

Pre-messiach situation of man (fill in the blank)  also let us assume person A is born here

Post-messiach situation of man (fill in the blank) also let us assume person B is born here

What is the substantive difference as the atonement affect person A and person B 

There is no difference. This is because, to use a mathematical analogy, the atonement was an infinite line rather than an infinite ray (though the atonement is far from single dimensional). It applied to the past, present and future, rather than just to the then present and future. I am speaking here about to whom or what and how it would be applied in part, and not necessarily when and how it would culminate in the resurrection--which, indeed began on the third day following  Christ's death. If you fully understand the fall, and its multi-layered purposes and consequences, the reasoning for this would seem obvious.

I should also mention that the atonement is, at once, both an event and a process, affected not just by Christ, but also, to varying degrees and ways, through our participation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 31, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest]

Quote

Presumably, you now understand how the fall made that possible.

So I take it that the fall was a requirement, which means that a state of sin is a requirement or else the spirit children would not experience mortality?

Quote

Presumably, you now understand how the fall made that possible.

Within that context, then yes (if it is dependent on that context then yes.

Quote

Do you then understand that even though the fall enabled God's spirit children to progress to become like their Father in one respect, it likewise prevented the same in another respect, and that the atonement provided a way around the prevention in several ways, not the least of which was by way of the resurrection?

Within that context and what later clarifying of the atonement as a retroactive active application before it actually occurred as explained by  @zil then yes. I realize that this is not classical Christian nor Jewish soteriology once @zil provided an explanation which at first is what I presumed it was.

 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

So I take it that the fall was a requirement, which means that a state of sin is a requirement or else the spirit children would not experience mortality?

I'm not sure we know / understand everything here.  What we are taught is for the purpose of teaching us how to return to God, not for the purpose of providing either a historical accounting of actual events, or a discrete listing of necessary events and all possible paths from pre-mortality to exaltation.

At some point, Adam and Eve had to choose to enter mortality (as each of us does / did).  They did that through transgression of one of God's commands, but we can't say with certainty that it's the only way - it's the way they chose, and the way God knew they would choose, and so He provided a way (Christ's Atonement) to overcome the consequences of that choice.  We know that separation from God for a time (mortality) is required in order for us to learn and "prove" ourselves - whether we desire the kind of life God lives, or something else.  I personally assume the separation is required because being in the presence of God is an overwhelming influence.  I presume that mortality (having a physical body and experiencing its death and later resurrection) is required because only with a body can one be exalted (the end goal), and mortality is the way to learn to master that physical body (our spirits are meant to overcome and control the influence of the physical).

Experiencing sin and death (as well as righteousness and life) gives us experiential understanding of good and evil, thus enabling us to make an educated choice about which of the two we want, and to what degree.  But Christ's sinless existence demonstrates that it is not necessary to sin.  (It's just that the rest of us are so much weaker that we cannot resist all temptation.)  Christ's death demonstrates that it is absolutely necessary for our mortal body to die, and possible for all to be resurrected.

Don't know if that helps any, but those are my thoughts.