The Meaning of Atonement


Grunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

You don't see any conceptual similarity, if not sameness, between "paradise" and "garden"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund

The word "paradise" is quite vague. It really cant be nailed down to an exact meaning. I cant find any scripture reference at all that refers to the garden as the paradise of God. There are scriptures that equate or define paradise as the world of spirits and also the celedtial kingdom. Its just too vague, nothing really to go off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The word "paradise" is quite vague. It really cant be nailed down to an exact meaning. I cant find any scripture reference at all that refers to the garden as the paradise of God. There are scriptures that equate or define paradise as the world of spirits and also the celedtial kingdom. Its just too vague, nothing really to go off of.

Out of interest, I wondered what would happen were I to do an English to Hebrew translation of the words "paradise" and "garden." I don't know Hebrew, so I can't speak with any authority about the results, but I found it more than a little instructive. Here are the results:

Paradise and Garden.jpg

 

Apart from the first two characters being the same (read from right to left), If I am not mistaken, the name "Garden of Eden" could also be translated as "Garden of Paradise".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A couple references do indeed state the righteous in heaven will be eating from the tree of life. 

 

The issue for me  isn't whether the righteous would be eating, but whether they would be  eating literally or figuratively. I don't know how many righteous people there will be in "heaven," but if it is anywhere near a million, then one can only imagine the size of the tree were they all literally partaking of the fruit. Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

The issue for me  isn't whether the righteous would be eating, but whether they would be  eating literally or figuratively. I don't know how many righteous people there will be in "heaven," but if it is anywhere near a million, then one can only imagine the size of the tree were they all literally partaking of the fruit. Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would say it would be literal. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

Out of interest, I wondered what would happen were I to do an English to Hebrew translation of the words "paradise" and "garden." I don't know Hebrew, so I can't speak with any authority about the results, but I found it more than a little instructive. Here are the results:

Paradise and Garden.jpg

 

Apart from the first two characters being the same (read from right to left), If I am not mistaken, the name "Garden of Eden" could also be translated as "Garden of Paradise".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. I did a little research and found that paradise has a broader meaning to signify "great beauty" and there are instances in the OT where that same word is applied to OT locations, one instance even being a city of tents. Its thus really quite difficult to nail down what paradise is in every instance. Surrounding text in scripture gives us proper context. In Rev 2:7-

7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

It says "paradise of God". What does this mean? Well, from surrounding words and verses the text paints the picture that this paradise is the celestial kingdom. "To him that overcometh" is both an action phrase and a time designation phrase coupled together. We know that Christ reigns and works in the millennium until he overcomes the world and presents the kingdom spotless before the Father. This is the point where the saints have finally overcome all things. In the D&C section 76, speaking of the celestial it says-

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
            60 And they shall overcome all things.
            61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

What are "all enemies" spoken of here in context of "they shall overcome all things"? 

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;
            107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. (D&C 76:106-107)

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
            22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
            23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
            24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
            25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
            26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (1st Corinthians 15:21-26)

It is only at that point at the end of the millennium where Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet and the kingdom is spotless. This means both physical and spiritual separation from God has been overcome because one has attained the perfection to enter back into the Fathers presence to dwell with Him. Until that point where Christs work is complete with the salvation of the dead and living and we are reunited with the Father, we havent overcome all things. This is the context we read Rev. 2:7 with. So, the "paradise" spoken of is the very celestial city where God and the Son dwells and where the celestial inhabitants dwell and the very location of the Tree of life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, the "paradise" spoken of is the very celestial city where God and the Son dwells and where the celestial inhabitants dwell and the very location of the Tree of life.

 

One of the values of the scriptures is that they often lack sufficient specificity so as to accommodate a variety of beliefs. One can legitimately believe that the Garden was celestial in natures, while  others can legitimately believe it was terrestrial in nature. To each their own, and no need to debate this detail further.

I consider the lack of specificity to be of value because it discourages abominable dogmatism and creedalism, and it provides educational latitude and the edifying broadening of perspectives.

Accordingly, while I have faith that the Garden of Eden/Paradise was terrestrial in nature, and that the earth will return to that terrestrial paradisaical state during the millennium, I am not rigidly loicked into that belief, so that if, in the unlikely chance that I am wrong, i will be open to a change of mind. In the interim, I believe there are some wonderful insights that can be drawn given my current belief. And, I hope and trust the same for you.

Thanks, -=Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the meaning of the atonement, I found this Book of Mormon passage of interest, particularly given our discussion of the tree of life representing Christ, and with a serendipitous tie-in to the sacrament, if not also @Traveler's Arabia tale. Alma 5:33-34: (emphasis mine)

Quote

33 Behold, he [the Lord God] sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.

34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely;

So, the fall occurred by partaking of the fruit of one tree (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), while the atonement, and thus eternal life,  occurs by partaking of the fruit of another tree (the tree of life), along with drinking the water and eating the bread of life (the sacrament). Beautifully simple, and simply beautiful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

One of the values of the scriptures is that they often lack sufficient specificity so as to accommodate a variety of beliefs. One can legitimately believe that the Garden was celestial in natures, while  others can legitimately believe it was terrestrial in nature. To each their own, and no need to debate this detail further.

I consider the lack of specificity to be of value because it discourages abominable dogmatism and creedalism, and it provides educational latitude and the edifying broadening of perspectives.

Accordingly, while I have faith that the Garden of Eden/Paradise was terrestrial in nature, and that the earth will return to that terrestrial paradisaical state during the millennium, I am not rigidly loicked into that belief, so that if, in the unlikely chance that I am wrong, i will be open to a change of mind. In the interim, I believe there are some wonderful insights that can be drawn given my current belief. And, I hope and trust the same for you.

Thanks, -=Wade Englund-

 

Im a firm believer in following what beliefs makes a person happy. My own my belief on heaven and hell is so far removed from my fellow and LDS that Im kinda on my own island. But its good, like you said, Im not stuck in some dogmatism that I feel most of my fellow LDS are. I do like a good discussion/debate because I really learn a lot from having them and you dont get these types of opportunities anywhere else really. It dont even matter to me who is right and who is wrong or what not. What matters is finding truth and slowly we can come out of the fog because we are willing and able to discuss it to the point that we go beyond that barrier of scorn and accept each others value we bring to the table. You cant get that at church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Getting back to the meaning of the atonement, I found this Book of Mormon passage of interest, particularly given our discussion of the tree of life representing Christ, and with a serendipitous tie-in to the sacrament, if not also @Traveler's Arabia tale. Alma 5:33-34: (emphasis mine)

So, the fall occurred by partaking of the fruit one tree (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), while the atonement, and thus eternal life,  occurs by partaking of the fruit of another tree (the tree of life), along with drinking the water and eating the bread of life (the sacrament). Beautifully simple, and simply beautiful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See, now we are getting closer to why I believe we have heaven construed wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

As may be expected, I see it just the opposite. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Alma 5 is my favorite when it comes to explaining the gospel. And, when simply understood, it is the strictest of dichotomies. Often times I explain to people this reality and they think I teach false doctrine. The truth is that the full chapter doesnt comply with latter day LDS understanding. Kind of strange...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Alma 5 is my favorite when it comes to explaining the gospel. And, when simply understood, it is the strictest of dichotomies. Often times I explain to people this reality and they think I teach false doctrine. The truth is that the full chapter doesnt comply with latter day LDS understanding. Kind of strange...

I just read the chapter, and while I see plenty of dichotomies, I also found good reasons not to interpret them strictly.

For example, Alma speaks of those who do good works, and those who do evil works, and that they will each receive their wages accordingly of him to whom they hearken.  (vs. 40-42)  While this is stated as a dichotomy (so as to speaking plainly), human experience is clear that few if any men do only good works or only evil works. Reality, then, suggested that the dichotomy not be interpreted strictly. In other words, while the principle of works may be spoken of in general or fundamental terms as a dichotomy,  reason suggest to the nuance-capable mind, that to the extent that we do good works, we will receive wages from Christ, and to the extent that we do evil works, we will receive wages of the Devil.

The same holds true for trees bringing forth good fruit, and those bringing forth evil fruit (v.52). Alma intimates that only those trees that bringeth not forth good fruit will be hewn down. What, then, is to become of those that bring forth a little good fruit and a lot of evil fruit, or those that bring for a lot of good fruit and a little evil fruit, or those few who bring forth only good fruit? Will they all receive the same reward? I think not.

It is like were I,, as did Alma, to indicate that I speak to the old and the young (vs 49).  I am clearly stating a dichotomy, though experience tells us that the old and young are comprised of a range of ages, which can be broken down into a trichotomy, such as aged and middle aged and rising generation (v.49), or any number of breaking points along the spectrum.

Keep in mind that when Alma speaks of partaking of the fruit of the tree of life (v. 34 and 62), it should be remembered that in Lehi's dream, some of those who partook of the fruit were made happy, while others were made ashamed (1 Ne. 8), and different things happened to different peoples who took hold of the iron rod (those who eat the bread and drank the water of life), thus cautioning against interpreting things as a strict dichotomy.

At least that is how I see it. You are free to believe otherwise. To each their own. I say this by way of recognizing that there may be little value gained debating the matter much further, or at least making it a priority of discussion tangentially to the general topic at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

I just read the chapter, and while I see plenty of dichotomies, I also found good reasons not to interpret them strictly.

For example, Alma speaks of those who do good works, and those who do evil works, and that they will each receive their wages accordingly of him to whom they hearken.  (vs. 40-42)  While this is stated as a dichotomy (so as to speaking plainly), human experience is clear that few if any men do only good works or only evil works. Reality, then, suggested that the dichotomy not be interpreted strictly. In other words, while the principle of works may be spoken of in general or fundamental terms as a dichotomy,  reason suggest to the nuance-capable mind, that to the extent that we do good works, we will receive wages from Christ, and to the extent that we do evil works, we will receive wages of the Devil.

The same holds true for trees bringing forth good fruit, and those bringing forth evil fruit (v.52). Alma intimates that only those trees that bringeth not forth good fruit will be hewn down. What, then, is to become of those that bring forth a little good fruit and a lot of evil fruit, or those that bring for a lot of good fruit and a little evil fruit, or those few who bring forth only good fruit? Will they all receive the same reward? I think not.

It is like were I,, as did Alma, to indicate that I speak to the old and the young (vs 49).  I am clearly stating a dichotomy, though experience tells us that the old and young are comprised of a range of ages, which can be broken down into a trichotomy, such as aged and middle aged and rising generation (v.49), or any number of breaking points along the spectrum.

Keep in mind that when Alma speaks of partaking of the fruit of the tree of life (v. 34 and 62), it should be remembered that in Lehi's dream, some of those who partook of the fruit were made happy, while others were made ashamed (1 Ne. 8), and different things happened to different peoples who took hold of the iron rod (those who eat the bread and drank the water of life), thus cautioning against interpreting things as a strict dichotomy.

At least that is how I see it. You are free to believe otherwise. To each their own. I say this by way of recognizing that there may be little value gained debating the matter much further, or at least making it a priority of discussion tangentially to the general topic at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Theres a bit more to it that needs mentioning. Book of Mormon prophets almost always speak of things in their final state at resurrection and judement- what we have become. Thats an important distinction. For instance, verses 20-21 speak of what requirements it takes to be saved. One must become cleansed from all stain. If not then they become subjects of the devil. Verse 25 picks up again on this that unless one becomes spotless from all sin they must be cast out to become children of the devil. He then speaks of repentance as works and the invitation for all men to repent so that they can be cleansed. Failure to do so and you are cast into the fire. He then speaks of everyone having a shepherd, either Christ or Satan. One or the other. He speaks of many sins such as pride, greed, etc, and how one must change, repent, be born again (through baptism) or their names will be blotted out of the book of life and they must be cast into the fire. The book of life contains the names of the sanctified of the celestial world. His final charge is to come, repent, be baptized so that one can partake of the fruit of the tree of life. Failure to repent, be baptized, be cleansed from all sin 100%, will result in becoming a child of the devil (son of perdition) , on the other hand, All of the saved, on the right hand will all partake of that same glory in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres a bit more to it that needs mentioning. Book of Mormon prophets almost always speak of things in their final state at resurrection and judement- what we have become. Thats an important distinction. For instance, verses 20-21 speak of what requirements it takes to be saved. One must become cleansed from all stain. If not then they become subjects of the devil. Verse 25 picks up again on this that unless one becomes spotless from all sin they must be cast out to become children of the devil. He then speaks of repentance as works and the invitation for all men to repent so that they can be cleansed. Failure to do so and you are cast into the fire. He then speaks of everyone having a shepherd, either Christ or Satan. One or the other. He speaks of many sins such as pride, greed, etc, and how one must change, repent, be born again (through baptism) or their names will be blotted out of the book of life and they must be cast into the fire. The book of life contains the names of the sanctified of the celestial world. His final charge is to come, repent, be baptized so that one can partake of the fruit of the tree of life. Failure to repent, be baptized, be cleansed from all sin 100%, will result in becoming a child of the devil (son of perdition) , on the other hand, All of the saved, on the right hand will all partake of that same glory in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets. 

 

A little observation.

In all the discussions, I have had with anyone that holds to the religious dichotomy of afterlife benediction or maledictions – they all seem to believe that they qualify for all the benedictions and none of the maledictions.   Yet they also seem to hold to the notion that for anyone that has left out the slightest possible requirement – will receive only the maledictions.  All this is argued as a warning to others – they never seem to consider their own flaws.  And yet narcissism (a kind of pride and lack of humility) itself is a major flaw – perhaps the flaw that caused Lucifer to fall.  Not completely sure how you feel or think of yourself but it is my impression that you expect the benedictions despite any “spot” you know to still exist in your soul or may be hiding even from yourself.  In short, the theory of eternal dichotomy is only applied to others (not to themselves). 

 

The Traveler  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

A little observation.

In all the discussions, I have had with anyone that holds to the religious dichotomy of afterlife benediction or maledictions – they all seem to believe that they qualify for all the benedictions and none of the maledictions.   Yet they also seem to hold to the notion that for anyone that has left out the slightest possible requirement – will receive only the maledictions.  All this is argued as a warning to others – they never seem to consider their own flaws.  And yet narcissism (a kind of pride and lack of humility) itself is a major flaw – perhaps the flaw that caused Lucifer to fall.  Not completely sure how you feel or think of yourself but it is my impression that you expect the benedictions despite any “spot” you know to still exist in your soul or may be hiding even from yourself.  In short, the theory of eternal dichotomy is only applied to others (not to themselves). 

 

The Traveler  

You must think Alma the younger was the same. (Hint: he wasnt, and neither am I)

I consider myself still a wretched man, a great sinner that occasiobally the Lord has tender mercies on me. Its humbling to say the least.

BTW, you sound a little like Laman and Lemual there

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres a bit more to it that needs mentioning. Book of Mormon prophets almost always speak of things in their final state at resurrection and judement- what we have become. Thats an important distinction. For instance, verses 20-21 speak of what requirements it takes to be saved. One must become cleansed from all stain. If not then they become subjects of the devil. Verse 25 picks up again on this that unless one becomes spotless from all sin they must be cast out to become children of the devil. He then speaks of repentance as works and the invitation for all men to repent so that they can be cleansed. Failure to do so and you are cast into the fire. He then speaks of everyone having a shepherd, either Christ or Satan. One or the other. He speaks of many sins such as pride, greed, etc, and how one must change, repent, be born again (through baptism) or their names will be blotted out of the book of life and they must be cast into the fire. The book of life contains the names of the sanctified of the celestial world. His final charge is to come, repent, be baptized so that one can partake of the fruit of the tree of life. Failure to repent, be baptized, be cleansed from all sin 100%, will result in becoming a child of the devil (son of perdition) , on the other hand, All of the saved, on the right hand will all partake of that same glory in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets. 

Those with black/white filters tend to see only the black and white. Those with nuanced filters will see the black and white in shades and colors. To each their own.

The good news is, the Spirit is able to instruct each, and both will hopefully get the point of Alma's message, and that is to repent, obey, and eat of the living fruit and bread and drink of the living water..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Those with black/white filters tend to see only the black and white. Those with nuanced filters will see the black and white in shades and colors. To each their own.

The good news is, the Spirit is able to instruct each, and both will hopefully get the point of Alma's message, and that is to repent, obey, and eat of the living fruit and bread and drink of the living water..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is what we as LDS have a hard time with. In a large sense we are universalists with salvation but in a different way. We tend to think in shades of black and white where God will save all these different shades from almost the very black to the spotless perfect white with only the complete black who will not be saved. This actually denies the atonement and nullifies the Fathers work. Christ speaks that he will make the entire kingdom perfect and spotless. There isnt shades of whiteness there. If someone is saved its because the atonement makes it possible coupled with them  haveing repented of every sin and are baptized, receive the HG and then they become cleansed perfectly from all their sins. It is only in that state, a perfect white (spotless) state, that man can hope for salvation. Its also why it requires the millennium in order for man to overcome all things through Christ and get to that point where Christ presents the entire kingdom (its inhabitants) spotless before God. If one doesnt make it to that spotless position, if they still have some carnal vice, they cannot be saved at all and must be cast aside with the devil and his angels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We tend to think in shades of black and white where God will save all these different shades from almost the very black to the spotless perfect white with only the complete black who will not be saved. This actually denies the atonement and nullifies the Fathers work.

Rob, this post fails to pass muster on at least two counts:

  1. LDS doctrine does not "den[y] the atonement and nullif[y] the Father's work." Since you believe what you wrote to be LDS doctrine, you're way off the reservation. To say so on this forum is a violation of your agreement when posting here, and puts you in league with those who seek to destroy the kingdom of God.
  2. You misrepresent LDS doctrine, which most plainly states that God cannot and will not tolerate the least degree of sin. There is no monochromatic rainbow of filth with various rewards given to various filth levels. This is false doctrine. All who are saved in the kingdom of God will be cleansed from sin. This is as true for those who inherit telestial glory as for the celestial.

I don't imagine that anything I write will deter you from your furious hobby-horse riding, but for your own sake, as well as the sake of those who might listen to you, I do wish you would reconsider what amount to heretical beliefs. At the least, it would be nice if you didn't go about preaching them and trying to establish them as truth. If you truly feel you have been given a private revelation about these matters, then do as would be expected of someone in that position and keep it to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Often times I explain to people this reality and they think I teach false doctrine.

This is exactly what I was referring to-

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, this post fails to pass muster on at least two counts:

  1. LDS doctrine does not "den[y] the atonement and nullif[y] the Father's work." Since you believe what you wrote to be LDS doctrine, you're way off the reservation. To say so on this forum is a violation of your agreement when posting here, and puts you in league with those who seek to destroy the kingdom of God.
  2. You misrepresent LDS doctrine, which most plainly states that God cannot and will not tolerate the least degree of sin. There is no monochromatic rainbow of filth with various rewards given to various filth levels. This is false doctrine. All who are saved in the kingdom of God will be cleansed from sin. This is as true for those who inherit telestial glory as for the celestial.

I don't imagine that anything I write will deter you from your furious hobby-horse riding, but for your own sake, as well as the sake of those who might listen to you, I do wish you would reconsider what amount to heretical beliefs. At the least, it would be nice if you didn't go about preaching them and trying to establish them as truth. If you truly feel you have been given a private revelation about these matters, then do as would be expected of someone in that position and keep it to yourself.

Peoples understanding nullifies the atonement and Gods work. We actually do teach and understand that acceptance of the gospel and baptism isnt required for salvation. That runs contrary to Christs teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The atonement is also a demonstration of God's ability to use vicarious experience.  His eternal glory is dependent in this ability demonstrated by Christ. He can feel what others experience as if His own.  This is a demonstration of what Celestial Life is like.  The only way to feel and experience what others have experienced is to love them as self, that is why that is the greatest commandment and Christ did that. As Traveler stated, it is a lesson of how an individual can become more than an individual, by being at one with others. Man was not meant to be alone.  There is no greater oneness we can achieve than experiencing something someone else has experienced as if it is something we did ourselves.  This is why accepting something that someone did for us is also important.  We have to accept Christ's atonement.  This is important in learning this principle as well.  That is something Lucifer couldn't imagine doing so he rebelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

The atonement is also a demonstration of God's ability to use vicarious experience.  His eternal glory is dependent in this ability demonstrated by Christ. He can feel what others experience as if His own.  This is a demonstration of what Celestial Life is like.  The only way to feel and experience what others have experienced is to love them as self, that is why that is the greatest commandment and Christ did that. As Traveler stated, it is a lesson of how an individual can become more than an individual, by being at one with others. Man was not meant to be alone.  There is no greater oneness we can achieve than experiencing something someone else has experienced as if it is something we did ourselves.  This is why accepting something that someone did for us is also important.  We have to accept Christ's atonement.  This is important in learning this principle as well.  That is something Lucifer couldn't imagine doing so he rebelled.

I like what you've said here.  I have been pondering the topic of vicarious work in the temple for a while now.  The youth in our ward took a trip to the temple to do baptisms and confirmations.  My priest age son was the first in our ward to be able to baptize in the temple as a result of the new policy.

The official Church historian in our ward had asked the bishop to ask each priest for impressions of the new policy.  Of the three priests, my son was asked to give a report in sacrament meeting.  I won't go into details here.  But because of his experience, I wonder how much of the vicarious work is actually vicarious.  There really appeared to be a unity of individuals (living and dead) throughout the experience.  My son witnessed it.  This kind of opportunity is now what is available to priests today.  To experience it on the other side (the one being baptized) has also been available.  Imagine what testimonies we'd have if people simply open themselves up to it.

Christ's Atonement was vicarious work for us on a much grander scale.  And, it was apparently different as well.

Quote

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

D&C 19:16-17

Our temple work is done so we can be one with those for whom we do work for.  And it seems they share the experience.

With the Atonement we can be one with Him as well.  But it was done so that we do NOT have to share the experience.

One sweet, the other bitter.  That really makes me appreciate His Atonement even more.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is what we as LDS have a hard time with. In a large sense we are universalists with salvation but in a different way. We tend to think in shades of black and white where God will save all these different shades from almost the very black to the spotless perfect white with only the complete black who will not be saved. This actually denies the atonement and nullifies the Fathers work. Christ speaks that he will make the entire kingdom perfect and spotless. There isnt shades of whiteness there. If someone is saved its because the atonement makes it possible coupled with them  haveing repented of every sin and are baptized, receive the HG and then they become cleansed perfectly from all their sins. It is only in that state, a perfect white (spotless) state, that man can hope for salvation. Its also why it requires the millennium in order for man to overcome all things through Christ and get to that point where Christ presents the entire kingdom (its inhabitants) spotless before God. If one doesnt make it to that spotless position, if they still have some carnal vice, they cannot be saved at all and must be cast aside with the devil and his angels. 

If believing as you do causes you to repent and obey God and draw closer to Christ in the way you live your life, then good on you.

I believe differently, which causes me to do the same.

That is really what is important--i.e. seeking Christ. The meaning of the atonement isn't manifest in seemingly endless doctrinal disputes or even staking claims to true doctrinal positions, but rather that our thoughts and actions are centered on, and ascending towards Christ.

After all, this is the way to enter back into the Father's presence however heaven turns out to be configured--binary/dichotomous  or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If believing as you do causes you to repent and obey God and draw closer to Christ in the way you live your life, then good on you.

I believe differently, which causes me to do the same.

That is really what is important--i.e. seeking Christ. The meaning of the atonement isn't manifest in seemingly endless doctrinal disputes or even staking claims to true doctrinal positions, but rather that our thoughts and actions are centered on, and ascending towards Christ.

After all, this is the way to enter back into the Father's presence however heaven turns out to be configured--binary/dichotomous  or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will agree with that. A thought came up I would like to share- every law, principle and ordinance along with covenants that God has ever given to man is to advance him to the very being He is, to prepare him to take the next step towards exaltation. Thus- no law, principle or ordinance or covenant that God has given, or ever will give to man will ever lead him to some other place or kingdom where man will not become just like the Father or a place where the very physical presence of God is absent. 

Something to contemplate as one thinks of kingdoms and eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share