Mosiah 4:7

[askandanswer]

7  I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

Does this verse, by seeming to limit the effects of the atonment to those born in the time between the fall of Adam and the end of the world. in any way detract from the idea that the atonement covers all God's creations, in whatever world, and whenever they may have lived? 

[Fether]

43 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

7  I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

Does this verse, by seeming to limit the effects of the atonment to those born in the time between the fall of Adam and the end of the world. in any way detract from the idea that the atonement covers all God's creations, in whatever world, and whenever they may have lived? 

It does. Anyone who was born before Adam and anyone born after the earth blows up is consigned you a state of eternal burning

[mikbone]

Adam can and does have multiple meanings.

He is the first man born into a world.

1 Cor 15:45

Is it possible that some of the members of our pre-mortal existence went to another ‘Earth’ with it’s own Adam?  Yup.

I do think that everyone that falls under the umbrella of Jesus Christ’s atonement had the opportunity to sustain him during the pre-mortal existence.

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

7  I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

Does this verse, by seeming to limit the effects of the atonment to those born in the time between the fall of Adam and the end of the world. in any way detract from the idea that the atonement covers all God's creations, in whatever world, and whenever they may have lived? 

The answer would be no.

As @mikbone Adam is also a title.

"Covers all" is specific to a "sphere of truth."

This verse is speaking specifically (as to my current knowledge/understanding) of this earth (a truth) and the sons and daughters of God here.

[askandanswer]

9 hours ago, Fether said:

It does. Anyone who was born before Adam and anyone born after the earth blows up is consigned you a state of eternal burning

Those born during the millenial reign of Christ will be born at a time when Satan is bound. It's possible to assume that with Satan being bound, and living under the reign of Christ, they might live a life without sin, and thus may not need the redemptive power of the atonement. It's also taught that this group of people will not die, but they will be changed, and thus may not need the resurrective power of the atonement. This leads to the conclusion that there may be some who do not need the atonement and will be not be a candidate for eternal burning. 

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Those born during the millenial reign of Christ will be born at a time when Satan is bound. It's possible to assume that with Satan being bound, and living under the reign of Christ, they might live a life without sin, and thus may not need the redemptive power of the atonement. It's also taught that this group of people will not die, but they will be changed, and thus may not need the resurrective power of the atonement. This leads to the conclusion that there may be some who do not need the atonement and will be not be a candidate for eternal burning. 

Oh I see. When I read “end of the world”, my mind went to the celestializing of the earth following final judgement.

 

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Those born during the millenial reign of Christ will be born at a time when Satan is bound. It's possible to assume that with Satan being bound, and living under the reign of Christ, they might live a life without sin, and thus may not need the redemptive power of the atonement. It's also taught that this group of people will not die, but they will be changed, and thus may not need the resurrective power of the atonement. This leads to the conclusion that there may be some who do not need the atonement and will be not be a candidate for eternal burning. 

It depends on what you define as bound.

I have heard taught that the reason he will be bound is not that he is physically prevented from tempting one, but that he is bound because of the righteousness of the Saints at that time.  In otherwords, he will still try to tempt people and to do things, but due to righteousness he will not have any success.  He will try and fail, and thus be bound in the way that he cannot gain or get headway into causing trouble among men.

At the same time those living will still make mistakes and such.  They will also experience death, though in this they may die and be resurrected in the twinkle of an eye.  Thus, even for them, without the atonement they would not be resurrected.  The atonement will still be necessary for those born and living through the millennial era of the Lord's reign.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 3/15/2020 at 4:18 AM, JohnsonJones said:

It depends on what you define as bound.

I have heard taught that the reason he will be bound is not that he is physically prevented from tempting one, but that he is bound because of the righteousness of the Saints at that time.  In otherwords, he will still try to tempt people and to do things, but due to righteousness he will not have any success.  He will try and fail, and thus be bound in the way that he cannot gain or get headway into causing trouble among men.

At the same time those living will still make mistakes and such.  They will also experience death, though in this they may die and be resurrected in the twinkle of an eye.  Thus, even for them, without the atonement they would not be resurrected.  The atonement will still be necessary for those born and living through the millennial era of the Lord's reign.

A big part of this is that the veil will be removed and we will be able to see him and his minions. I think people will be less likely to listen to a demon when he is standing right in front of him saying, "you should take that thing that does not belong to you."

Isaiah 14: 16-17

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

[Traveler]

As I was reading through this thread it reminded me as a parent (usually in a car going somewhere) and my children (especially the boys) would be having a fuss about something.  As a parent I would try to settle the matter while still driving.

Son #2.  Son#1 keeps touching me.

Son #1. I did not.

Son #2  Yes you are - you just did it again.

Son #1  I am not touching you - it is your toy that's touching you.

Son #2  You are making it touch me

Son #1  No I am not - you are making it touch you.

Me.  Give me the toy - then there is silence for a while

Son #2.  Son #1 is laughing at me

Son #1 No I'm not!

Why this little story?  I wanted to demonstrate that even thought the two sons could not agree - they were both right and they were both wrong.  Neither wanted to settle the matter but rather make something out of nothing and get so caught up in a one up thing that they could not solve the perceived problem.  And the perceived problem had nothing at all to do with the fuss.

Here is what I believe the scripture is attempting to tell us.  That a long time ago we lived with our Father in the pre-existence.  He had a plan for his children - that there would be a fall and mankind would have a mortal trial on earth that would include a physical body and an experience with death.  But the plan also included a Messiah that would redeem mankind from death through the resurrection of the dead.  All this was planned out Looooong before any of it actually occurred.   If there is anything else to do with other worlds or other children of other G-ds or children of our Father in other worlds - it is all speculation and something someone is fantasizing about - like who is touching a toy and why.  It does not matter and even if it did matter - it does not solve or change any of our problems as we experience our mortal trial.   The scripture does tells us something we can use - that is important to us and we should pay very close attention to that and not wander off on other paths of thought and end up getting lost in a mist of thoughtful darkness.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

I think that any increase in understanding of any aspect of the Plan of Salvation contains the potential for increasing our understanding of the Author of that plan. So yes, understanding whether or not Christ's atonement is or is not effectual for other worlds is unlikely to have any direct bearing on my actions or prospects for salvation, but the increased knowledge could well have indirect bearings. I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding should be discouraged simply because it does not lead directly to the solution of a problem or a change in the way we live.

[Jersey Boy]

On 3/14/2020 at 4:34 PM, askandanswer said:

Those born during the millenial reign of Christ will be born at a time when Satan is bound. It's possible to assume that with Satan being bound, and living under the reign of Christ, they might live a life without sin, and thus may not need the redemptive power of the atonement. It's also taught that this group of people will not die, but they will be changed, and thus may not need the resurrective power of the atonement. This leads to the conclusion that there may be some who do not need the atonement and will be not be a candidate for eternal burning. 

Absolutely wrong. It’s amazing how the correct answers to your erroneous ideas are right there in the scriptures, in language so simple, plain and obvious that they can’t be misunderstood. But it’s apparent you don’t realize those verses are staring you right in the face. But on the positive side, I imagine it must be kind of fun to be able to come up will all sorts of nonsensical ideas without any kind of restraint, and be able to imagine that they might actually be true.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Jersey Boy

[askandanswer]

13 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Absolutely wrong. It’s amazing how the correct answers to your erroneous ideas are right there in the scriptures, in language so simple, plain and obvious that they can’t be misunderstood. But it’s apparent you don’t realize those verses are staring you right in the face. But on the positive side, I imagine it must be kind of fun to be able to come up will all sorts of nonsensical ideas without any kind of restraint, and be able to imagine that they might actually be true.

Can we agree on the idea that the atonement is needed only by those who die and those who sin? If we can't agree on that, can you refer to scriptures that suggest that the atonement covers categories other than these two?  I think that the scriptures that teach that everybody needs the atonement are based on the assumption that everyone will die and everyone will commit sin but I think there may be room to question that assumption. The scriptures are ambiguous on the fates of Moses, Alma the Younger and Elijah and when the father of sin no longer has power there may be some who do not sin. 

The scriptures that I read teach plainly that the atonement is needed for all those who die and for all those who sin. So naturally, this raises the question of whether those who do not die and who do not sin need the atonement.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Can we agree on the idea that the atonement is needed only by those who die and those who sin? [...] The scriptures that I read teach plainly that the atonement is needed for all those who die and for all those who sin. So naturally, this raises the question of whether those who do not die and who do not sin need the atonement.

@askandanswer, I believe I understand your logic, but I don't find it convincing. Here's why:

1. Everyone born onto this planet will die. Everyone. No exceptions. Of the 386.297.048 people to be born on the earth since the fall of Adam, exactly 386.297.048 of them will die. (Note how courteous i was in using European demarcation. You are welcome, my friend.) It may be that those born during the Millennium will not "sleep in death", but make no mistake, they absolutely WILL die. (I had to yell there to send mrmarket into another tizzy. I'm hoping to get another sneer and lecture from his ivory tower of superiority about using caps, which everyone knows means yelling, as a method of emphasis.)

2. Everyone who attains the age of accountability is imperfect and thus sinful. We Latter-day Saints tend to take what I might call a Catholic view of sin, where a "sin" is a discrete action or an identifiable failure to act that is contrary to God's will and to our own knowledge. I think this is a naive and ultimately false definition of sin. The scriptures are clear that all who are accountable before God will be "filthy still" unless washed clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Based on the above two points, I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ will be exactly as needed by those who will live in the future Millennial reign of the Lord as it is for us or for any of our ancestors. The atonement of Christ is the inescapable necessity that removes all fear from the otherwise horrific-seeming risk of mortal life.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Vort

[askandanswer]

A not unreasonable interpretation of 1Thessalonians 4:17 could cast doubt on the idea that we will all die.

17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

(New Testament | 1 Thessalonians 4:17)

Doctrine and Covenants 43:32 has a similar message

32  And he that liveth in righteousness shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and the earth shall pass away so as by fire.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 43:32)

 

 

 

 

[brotherofJared]

On 3/14/2020 at 3:25 AM, askandanswer said:

7  I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

Does this verse, by seeming to limit the effects of the atonment to those born in the time between the fall of Adam and the end of the world. in any way detract from the idea that the atonement covers all God's creations, in whatever world, and whenever they may have lived? 

No contradiction that I can see. Christ's atonement will not save those who come forth on the new earth and can hardly be atonement for those who his father died for.

[brotherofJared]

On 3/21/2020 at 8:37 AM, Traveler said:

As I was reading through this thread it reminded me as a parent (usually in a car going somewhere) and my children (especially the boys) would be having a fuss about something.  As a parent I would try to settle the matter while still driving.

Son #2.  Son#1 keeps touching me.

Son #1. I did not.

Son #2  Yes you are - you just did it again.

Son #1  I am not touching you - it is your toy that's touching you.

Son #2  You are making it touch me

Son #1  No I am not - you are making it touch you.

Me.  Give me the toy - then there is silence for a while

Son #2.  Son #1 is laughing at me

Son #1 No I'm not!

Why this little story?  I wanted to demonstrate that even thought the two sons could not agree - they were both right and they were both wrong.  Neither wanted to settle the matter but rather make something out of nothing and get so caught up in a one up thing that they could not solve the perceived problem.  And the perceived problem had nothing at all to do with the fuss.

Here is what I believe the scripture is attempting to tell us.  That a long time ago we lived with our Father in the pre-existence.  He had a plan for his children - that there would be a fall and mankind would have a mortal trial on earth that would include a physical body and an experience with death.  But the plan also included a Messiah that would redeem mankind from death through the resurrection of the dead.  All this was planned out Looooong before any of it actually occurred.   If there is anything else to do with other worlds or other children of other G-ds or children of our Father in other worlds - it is all speculation and something someone is fantasizing about - like who is touching a toy and why.  It does not matter and even if it did matter - it does not solve or change any of our problems as we experience our mortal trial.   The scripture does tells us something we can use - that is important to us and we should pay very close attention to that and not wander off on other paths of thought and end up getting lost in a mist of thoughtful darkness.

 

The Traveler

I don't think it is speculation that Joseph Smith and the Bible both teach that Jesus did what he saw his father do. Therefore, God the Father also atoned for sins.

[brotherofJared]

On 3/24/2020 at 1:48 PM, askandanswer said:

Can we agree on the idea that the atonement is needed only by those who die and those who sin? If we can't agree on that, can you refer to scriptures that suggest that the atonement covers categories other than these two?  I think that the scriptures that teach that everybody needs the atonement are based on the assumption that everyone will die and everyone will commit sin but I think there may be room to question that assumption. The scriptures are ambiguous on the fates of Moses, Alma the Younger and Elijah and when the father of sin no longer has power there may be some who do not sin. 

The scriptures that I read teach plainly that the atonement is needed for all those who die and for all those who sin. So naturally, this raises the question of whether those who do not die and who do not sin need the atonement.

Every mortal is born to die and death came through Adam. The ability to make choices means the ability to sin. We really dont need satan to encourage it. Therefore, every mortal born into the family of Adam needs the atonement. Christ's father was not Adam. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by brotherofJared

[tesuji]

"Adam" in the Hebrew is not necessarily a proper name of a person. The Hebrew word means "a human" or "mankind."

I was reading about this recently, and I find it fascinating. A recent translation of the Hebrew Bible by the Jewish scholar Robert Alter renders Genesis 1:26 like this:

"Let us make a human, in our image, by our likeness...."

Alter's footnote about this says the Hebrew "adam" here means "a human," and it discusses the original Hebrew text thus:

"The term 'adam, afterward consistently with the definite article [the, as in 'the adam'] which is used both here and in the second account [Genesis chapter 2] of the origins of mankind, is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun. It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, "son of," and so the traditional rendering "man" is misleading, and an exclusively male 'adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27."

Alter translates Genesis 1:27 like this, formatting it as poetry:

"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them."

Modern prophets have indicated that Adam was a real person, and that the story of Adam and Eve has great spiritual value. But I think we have to be careful assuming Genesis is a literal historical account, the way we would understand modern history. It is the creation story of the ancient Hebrews, passed down from unknown authors and times, and codified around 300 BC when the Hebrew Bible as we have it was put together, if I remember correctly what I've read from Bible scholars.

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by tesuji

[brotherofJared]

14 hours ago, tesuji said:

"Adam" in the Hebrew is not necessarily a proper name of a person. The Hebrew word means "a human" or "mankind."

I was reading about this recently, and I find it fascinating. A recent translation of the Hebrew Bible by the Jewish scholar Robert Alter renders Genesis 1:26 like this:

"Let us make a human, in our image, by our likeness...."

Alter's footnote about this says the Hebrew "adam" here means "a human," and it discusses the original Hebrew text thus:

"The term 'adam, afterward consistently with the definite article [the, as in 'the adam'] which is used both here and in the second account [Genesis chapter 2] of the origins of mankind, is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun. It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, "son of," and so the traditional rendering "man" is misleading, and an exclusively male 'adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27."

Alter translates Genesis 1:27 like this, formatting it as poetry:

"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them."

Modern prophets have indicated that Adam was a real person, and that the story of Adam and Eve has great spiritual value. But I think we have to be careful assuming Genesis is a literal historical account, the way we would understand modern history. It is the creation story of the ancient Hebrews, passed down from unknown authors and times, and codified around 300 BC when the Hebrew Bible as we have it was put together, if I remember correctly what I've read from Bible scholars.

 

I have to wonder who Adam would have been the son of. If Genesis is about the origin of man there would be no "son of". I think Adam would be the exception to the rule about proper names.

[JohnsonJones]

Adam is an interesting thing in that it means man or human as someone pointed out above.  IT CAN ALSO be a proper name and we find that it us utilized in both ways throughout the Bible (and our scriptures).

In some ways we could see the term Father Adam and the Father Man or the Father of Men, and the Adam simply as Man.  It is a contextualization that we see Brigham Young having utilized in multiple ways and times (for example, he referred to Joseph Smith Sr.  and Joseph Smith jr. as, if memory serves right, Father Joseph and the Prophet Joseph, defining the one from the other).

Understanding this differentiation of his is also key to understanding some of the sermons he gave which have been the most misunderstood in our modern era to the point that the misunderstandings of his teachings have had to be explicitly stated to be non-doctrine or incorrect doctrine (while his actually teachings, when understood, can be rather enlightening and go hand in hand with our current or modern teachings).

I think the individual that gave the best explanations of Young Doctrine would be Joseph Fielding Smith (though his father also seemed to be very hardcore in believing in the teachings of Brigham Young as well as Bruce R. McKonkie) who has utilized various writings throughout his life to explain some of the more difficult ideas in a more layman's terms.

Unfortunately, many of what some would term as deeper doctrines have been laid to rest these days as they could be difficult to digest, even in layman's terms, for some and instead of teaching them in Sunday School or other places, we simply leave them to be discovered for those who wish to read more.  ON the otherhand, perhaps it is for the best as we tend to focus more on the core doctrine of the simplicity of the Atonement and the Lord's sacrifice that saved us from Death and Sin, even if we don't go into how it may have operated or the various reasons of why it was needed as much as it was.  To know that we have a Savior and if we follow him we can have eternal life is by far the most important doctrine, the rest at times being superfluous rather than helpful.

[tesuji]

On 3/30/2020 at 4:38 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Unfortunately, many of what some would term as deeper doctrines have been laid to rest these days as they could be difficult to digest, even in layman's terms, for some and instead of teaching them in Sunday School or other places, we simply leave them to be discovered for those who wish to read more. 

ON the otherhand, perhaps it is for the best as we tend to focus more on the core doctrine of the simplicity of the Atonement and the Lord's sacrifice that saved us from Death and Sin, even if we don't go into how it may have operated or the various reasons of why it was needed as much as it was.  To know that we have a Savior and if we follow him we can have eternal life is by far the most important doctrine, the rest at times being superfluous rather than helpful.

I agree with everything you have said.

However, I don't know if we have the luxury of continuing with the simple narratives we learned in the past. It's true that digging deeper feels like opening a can of worms. But we have the counsel from the scriptures to seek out learning, not to be ignorant. And I think the can of worms has already been opened by the internet. Our youth and other members are hearing and learning things that need to be addressed. Elder Ballard has spoken about that.

The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the 21st Century, Elder M. Russell Ballard
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

My problem has been that, as a lifetime member who went to seminary, had religion classes at BYU, has read the scriptures many times, etc. - I find that what I feel that I need more than anything now is questions. I know the basics, all the Sunday School answers. But there is so much more to learn, and I'm getting bored with hearing the same lessons at church all the time.

As I have learned more about Biblical studies it has felt like leaving the lazy river and immediately heading down the category 5 rapids. I don't know why learning has to feel so perilous. Or, another metaphor - it's like taking the red pill, if you've seen The Matrix. If I was looking for reasons to get upset and leave the church because of being taught what feels like a naive and simplistic narrative in the past, I could easily do that. But like Abraham, I am a person who desires to have knowledge, and I'm very grateful for what I've been learning.

I agree that what matters most is loving God and loving your neighbor. That's what this life is about. But we also have that doctrine that no one can be saved in ignorance - we're all going to need to learn a lot more, eventually.