The Meaning of Atonement


Grunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reminded again during church today of perhaps the most enlightening way to understanding the meaning of the atonement. It is called "the Sacrament," and it divides the atonement into two parts, represented by the body/bread and blood/water.

I am also coming to learn that the Creation Story may also provide some insights into the meaning of the atonement (see HERE), or should I say, a way of endowing us with meaning in relation to the atonement--alluding, of course, to the temple ceremony.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2018 at 3:20 PM, wenglund said:

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

Just an amendment to this thought as it is not what I have tried to convey.  Christ and those who do not reach the age of accountability are never banished as they have done nothing to breach God's law being innocent. Otherwise when we reach the age of accountability then is the only opportunity that an individual has to fall under God's judgment with sin.

Little children et. al. that are innocents are subject to the conditions of a mortal birth and must be redeemed from that corrupt state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brlenox said:

Just an amendment to this thought as it is not what I have tried to convey.  Christ and those who do not reach the age of accountability are never banished as they have done nothing to breach God's law being innocent. Otherwise when we reach the age of accountability then is the only opportunity that an individual has to fall under God's judgment with sin.

Little children et. al. that are innocents are subject to the conditions of a mortal birth and must be redeemed from that corrupt state.

Okay, that somewhat clears up my confusion. I had mistakenly supposed that Figure #2 represented all of mankind post fall. I appreciate the correction.

I say "somewhat" because all of mankind is, nevertheless, born into a fallen state, and are thus die spiritually (i.e.they are separated at mortal  birth from Heavenly Father) and are subject to physical death. I was given the impression (please correct me if I am wrong) that you believed these death sentences were a function of our having sinned, thus prompting my question to you in my previous post. Whereas, my own understanding is that we entered the fallen state voluntarily rather than through sin, and this to fulfill the great work of the Father, through the Son.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Okay, that somewhat clears up my confusion. I had mistakenly supposed that Figure #2 represented all of mankind post fall. I appreciate the correction.

I say "somewhat" because all of mankind is, nevertheless, born into a fallen state, and are thus die spiritually (i.e.they are separated at mortal  birth from Heavenly Father) and are subject to physical death. I was given the impression (please correct me if I am wrong) that you believed these death sentences were a function of our having sinned, thus prompting my question to you in my previous post. Whereas, my own understanding is that we entered the fallen state voluntarily rather than through sin, and this to fulfill the great work of the Father, through the Son.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll just shortcut this to get to a tie off point.  I'll provide none of my usual scriptures or quotes but the essence is that the sin of the Garden of which Adam and Eve were required to receive the sentence of death and then be remanded to a telestial state was based on the Avenger of Blood scriptures and the definitions of what it is to be a murderer in the Old Testament.  What ever behavior violated the law of a celestial kingdom required that who ever it was that behaved in that fashion would be expelled from the kingdom.  However, this would necessitate that innocent blood must be shed in order that they could be brought back into the presence of God.  Every person who comes into this existence, except for the unaccountable ones, are subject to the innocent blood that was spilled in their behalf. Alma 5 if carefully understood illustrates the issue is that we have a charge of murder hanging over our head.  Deuteronomy 19 explains the two levels of murderer and collectively all of the additional avenger of Blood material in the Old Testament defines the plan of salvation and how the murderers will be judged. The probationary period allows everyone to define their response to that blood.  Some are ambivalent or unconcerned.  They live life and pay no mind to the Savior.  Others would serve him but are deceived...then there are the one who are valiant in sustaining and building the kingdom of God.  These are they who sins he bore (Mosiah 15:12 )

So whenever we sin for the very first time after achieving accountability, technically we become as Adam and Eve and are deserving of the conditions of the Fall. Alma 12 explains that after that point it becomes expedient that we understand the new set of commandments to which we become subject during this probationary period where basically we declare the degree of our consideration of the shedding of the innocent blood made in behalf of all mankind. This second set of commandments are the ones of our sins that Christ is the arbiter for.

I apologize for having butchered this whole presentation but I did not want to leave the mistaken notions evident and associated with this material as if they were acceptable interpretations.

It is choppy but I hope makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2018 at 3:29 PM, Vort said:

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

I am surprised that we are not hearing from you @Vort.  I genuinely would like to see the elements of the material that I have posted  that you find disagreeable. Or even that to which you feel agreeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'll just shortcut this to get to a tie off point.  I'll provide none of my usual scriptures or quotes but the essence is that the sin of the Garden of which Adam and Eve were required to receive the sentence of death and then be remanded to a telestial state was based on the Avenger of Blood scriptures and the definitions of what it is to be a murderer in the Old Testament.  What ever behavior violated the law of a celestial kingdom required that who ever it was that behaved in that fashion would be expelled from the kingdom.  However, this would necessitate that innocent blood must be shed in order that they could be brought back into the presence of God.  Every person who comes into this existence, except for the unaccountable ones, are subject to the innocent blood that was spilled in their behalf. Alma 5 if carefully understood illustrates the issue is that we have a charge of murder hanging over our head.  Deuteronomy 19 explains the two levels of murderer and collectively all of the additional avenger of Blood material in the Old Testament defines the plan of salvation and how the murderers will be judged. The probationary period allows everyone to define their response to that blood.  Some are ambivalent or unconcerned.  They live life and pay no mind to the Savior.  Others would serve him but are deceived...then there are the one who are valiant in sustaining and building the kingdom of God.  These are they who sins he bore (Mosiah 15:12 )

So whenever we sin for the very first time after achieving accountability, technically we become as Adam and Eve and are deserving of the conditions of the Fall. Alma 12 explains that after that point it becomes expedient that we understand the new set of commandments to which we become subject during this probationary period where basically we declare the degree of our consideration of the shedding of the innocent blood made in behalf of all mankind. This second set of commandments are the ones of our sins that Christ is the arbiter for.

I apologize for having butchered this whole presentation but I did not want to leave the mistaken notions evident and associated with this material as if they were acceptable interpretations.

It is choppy but I hope makes sense.

In short, then, the charge of "murder" is a consequence of sin rather than in consequence of a fallen state. Correct?

If so, this means that there are several sentences of death and subsequent banishment from God's kingdom.:

1) Physical and spiritual death (banishment from God's kingdom) resulting from the Fall, to which all people born into mortality are subject. The Fall came about because of Adam and Eve's transgression,  though it  has been entered into voluntarily, rather than through sin, by the remainder of humanity.  In other words, it is a voluntary sentence of death innocently entered into so as to fulfill the Fathers great purposes.

2)  Spiritual death (banishment from God's kingdom) resulting from sin (i.e. "murder") In other words, it is a sentence of death demanded by justice in violation of God's law.

The atonement universally redeems the dead mentioned in #1, bringing them back into the presence of God to be judged, as emblematically represented by the sacramental bread, while the atonement conditionally redeems some of the sinful or "murderous" dead mentioned in #2, allowing only those who meet the stated conditions to enter back eternally into the presence of the Father, as emblematically represented by the sacramental water. 

I mention this for purposes of clarity (for my own sake and anyone else who may have been confused) since  I had mistakenly assumed your comments about death sentences and banishment referred to both the Fallen state and sin, whereas I trust you were speaking only about the death sentence and banishment for sin. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I am surprised that we are not hearing from you @Vort.  I genuinely would like to see the elements of the material that I have posted  that you find disagreeable. Or even that to which you feel agreeable.

I have little interest in engaging on the topic. You propose mechanistic explanations for the atonement that depend on justice being decided by one or several of various versions of what you perceive as fair and unfair. When I brought up this (rather obvious) problem early on, you glossed over it and basically ignored it. Okay, fine. Whatever.

If you want to come up with speculative ideas on why Christ has a right to work the atonement, go for it. Only don't pretend that your machinations have any meaning for anyone besides yourself -- and ideally, don't deceive yourself into believing that you have actually stumbled onto some grand explanation for the reality that eludes us. We in mortality already have the almost impossible task of explaining and understanding things that lie in plain sight before our very eyes. We are not intellectually qualified to understand Christ's atonement on a mechanistic level. Any such useful understanding will be found only on the level of application to our lives, and that does not include deducing the mechanical sequences of cause and effect that put the atonement into effect, beyond the idea of "repent and live".

The search for a mechanistic explanation of the atonement is exactly the search for a mechanistic explanation of why God loves us. There is, in fact, a mechanistic explanation for God's love. But it is utterly beyond us in this sphere, and searching for any such explanation is a fool's quest. It is sufficient to understand that God loves us, and then use that as a foundation for building our gospel understanding. To look for a mechanistic explanation for God's love is to look well beyond the mark. Since the atonement is ultimately an expression of God's love for us, the identical reasoning applies to looking for mechanistic explanations of the atonement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

In short, then, the charge of "murder" is a consequence of sin rather than in consequence of a fallen state. Correct?

If so, this means that there are several sentences of death and subsequent banishment from God's kingdom.:

1) Physical and spiritual death (banishment from God's kingdom) resulting from the Fall, to which all people born into mortality are subject. The Fall came about because of Adam and Eve's transgression,  though it  has been entered into voluntarily, rather than through sin, by the remainder of humanity.  In other words, it is a voluntary sentence of death innocently entered into so as to fulfill the Fathers great purposes.

2)  Spiritual death (banishment from God's kingdom) resulting from sin (i.e. "murder") In other words, it is a sentence of death demanded by justice in violation of God's law.

The atonement universally redeems the dead mentioned in #1, bringing them back into the presence of God to be judged, as emblematically represented by the sacramental bread, while the atonement conditionally redeems some of the sinful or "murderous" dead mentioned in #2, allowing only those who meet the stated conditions to enter back eternally into the presence of the Father, as emblematically represented by the sacramental water. 

I mention this for purposes of clarity (for my own sake and anyone else who may have been confused) since  I had mistakenly assumed your comments about death sentences and banishment referred to both the Fallen state and sin, whereas I trust you were speaking only about the death sentence and banishment for sin. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For me it helps to look at it from the angle of the Lawgiver.  You may be observing something similar but it is coming at it from a different perspective than is my approach.  The first Law is broken by all who are as Adam and Eve when they breach the law of the celestial kingdom and are exiled.  For the most part this is a far as we have really gotten with a detailed analysis.  We have far to go to get to how the second set of laws acts upon mankind.  We have only really been advancing the scenario in an orderly fashion...well kind of as we have brutalized this part for lack of resources to illustrate...all in all there was only one judgment of death on the Garden of Eden at the trial of Adam and Eve and that judgement decreed both a physical and spiritual death.  I don't believe we discussed the trial that was held and such to put the proper perspective on these things but everything stems from the judgement of Adam and Eve and Satan.  I think what you have encapsulated is fine for this as a tying off point.  It is not quite the same as my perspective but I think it works well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I have little interest in engaging on the topic. You propose mechanistic explanations for the atonement that depend on justice being decided by one or several of various versions of what you perceive as fair and unfair. When I brought up this (rather obvious) problem early on, you glossed over it and basically ignored it. Okay, fine. Whatever.

If you want to come up with speculative ideas on why Christ has a right to work the atonement, go for it. Only don't pretend that your machinations have any meaning for anyone besides yourself -- and ideally, don't deceive yourself into believing that you have actually stumbled onto some grand explanation for the reality that eludes us. We in mortality already have the almost impossible task of explaining and understanding things that lie in plain sight before our very eyes. We are not intellectually qualified to understand Christ's atonement on a mechanistic level. Any such useful understanding will be found only on the level of application to our lives, and that does not include deducing the mechanical sequences of cause and effect that put the atonement into effect, beyond the idea of "repent and live".

The search for a mechanistic explanation of the atonement is exactly the search for a mechanistic explanation of why God loves us. There is, in fact, a mechanistic explanation for God's love. But it is utterly beyond us in this sphere, and searching for any such explanation is a fool's quest. It is sufficient to understand that God loves us, and then use that as a foundation for building our gospel understanding. To look for a mechanistic explanation for God's love is to look well beyond the mark. Since the atonement is ultimately an expression of God's love for us, the identical reasoning applies to looking for mechanistic explanations of the atonement.

I do recall your initial diatribe against all things mechanistic which was naught but personal opinion.  I illustrated how much of what we consider unique to LDS doctrine where the mechanical understandings that Joseph Smith added from his expanded insight.  We delved a bit into D & C 19 if memory serves as well for it's mechanical contributions to specific understandings and the explanation it provides of why they needed a better mechanical understanding or they could not enter into his rest. I provided several reasonable examples and illustrations from scripture that were very sensible and sustainable and which were not based on my free thinking opinions about the matter but spiritually formed scriptural based understandings. You claim that I glossed over it but in that your memory has failed you.  You simply made no rebuttal to this well considered response as I recall.

If you can review this response, I think you will find it is a bit more than a gloss over.  It is also the one which @zil jumped it to defend your honor as I chided you for the seeming energy of your denunciation of all things mechanical.  If her response was a distraction to you and caused you to miss the actual topic we were discussing, then please feel free and review it now as it is not lacking in material that might be worthy of our discussion.  Perhaps you are referencing some other post of yours which I missed. If so simply show me the way and I will correct.

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 6:14 PM, brlenox said:

If I can find a multitude of others who receive the same spirit of understanding that we also find agreement with, why should all of us ignore the correct spirit of inspiration to agree with your incorrect spirit of inspiration?  At some point you have to realize not everybody can always be wrong and only you are right.  You have to see that that is not even feasible.

Can you?

You feel you have found an explanation.  If it is by personal revelation, sobeit.  Apply it to yourself.  I tend to believe that we often receive "truth" through personal revelation simply because it is exactly what we need to know or believe in order to motivate us down a certain path the Lord would have us go.  But it is not a universal truth or else it would be revealed by a prophet for all to pray about and receive confirmation on.

If you feel you've found an explanation due to some logical legerdemain, then we all (including you) have to admit that it is simply a private interpretation and an opinion.  Would we have some intellectual stimulation at discussing it?  Sure, why not?  But when you put it forth as FACT that cannot be denied, then I'd have to wonder why an apostle of the Lord said:

Quote

We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

I have no problem discussing opinions and interpretations.  I often find myself enlightened by discussing my own as well as those of others.  But when one goes several steps outside of mainstream thought and demands that everyone else accept his intellectual superiority because his logic simply cannot be refuted, I stop listening.

By your own words, I'd ask you to consider that when a multitude of people get the impression that you're coming off as condescending, then you might want to do some introspection and consider if all these people are wrong all together, or if you're actually coming off as condescending.  The truth is that if someone as prideful and arrogant as I am, finds you to tip the scales of the pride balance, then you're probably in deep trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I tend to believe that we often receive "truth" through personal revelation simply because it is exactly what we need to know or believe in order to motivate us down a certain path the Lord would have us go.  But it is not a universal truth or else it would be revealed by a prophet for all to pray about and receive confirmation on.

That.  I think it takes a while (if ever?) before one sees above as a valid possibility (that the Lord would teach us something not strictly correct in the mathematical sense, but correct in the "this will get you where you need to be" sense), and others are probably appalled or offended by the mere notion.  I personally think it happens quite often.  If so, that would add to the reasons why the Lord is so clear about the proper channels / scope of revelation - what will get you where you need to be might very well cause me to go off the rails, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zil said:

That.  I think it takes a while (if ever?) before one sees above as a valid possibility (that the Lord would teach us something not strictly correct in the mathematical sense, but correct in the "this will get you where you need to be" sense), and others are probably appalled or offended by the mere notion.  I personally think it happens quite often.  If so, that would add to the reasons why the Lord is so clear about the proper channels / scope of revelation - what will get you where you need to be might very well cause me to go off the rails, so to speak.

In my response to @Vort, I mentioned D & C 19 where this is exactly the case and the Lord declares such and then he provides a deeper sense of the mechanics of the process for clarity.  Interesting indeed. Perhaps you might elucidate on your perceptions on proper scope and channels of revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...  I tend to believe that we often receive "truth" through personal revelation simply because it is exactly what we need to know or believe in order to motivate us down a certain path the Lord would have us go. 

.....

 

I am kind of with you concerning this idea of personal revelation – but as to “the path we would follow or that the L-rd would have us follow”.  I tend to think such revelation is a likely to have a different source.  I am of the notion that the path we follow is a product of our agency and that Satan will nudge us down the path he would have us follow regardless of our intent – but if we are to follow the path designated by G-d we must prove to him our intent and desire before he would lead or help us down any path.  The bottom line is that we cannot blame G-d for our choices – regardless of how much we ask for his guidance – the path we take is according to our agency.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Can you?

You feel you have found an explanation.  If it is by personal revelation, sobeit.  Apply it to yourself.  I tend to believe that we often receive "truth" through personal revelation simply because it is exactly what we need to know or believe in order to motivate us down a certain path the Lord would have us go.  But it is not a universal truth or else it would be revealed by a prophet for all to pray about and receive confirmation on.

If you feel you've found an explanation due to some logical legerdemain, then we all (including you) have to admit that it is simply a private interpretation and an opinion.  Would we have some intellectual stimulation at discussing it?  Sure, why not?  But when you put it forth as FACT that cannot be denied, then I'd have to wonder why an apostle of the Lord said:

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

Quote

We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

 

I would ask that you consider this quote as part of the context for your quote above:

Quote

 

Now, the atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.

Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement. (The Purifying Power of Gethsemane, Bruce R. McConkie) 

 

 You are conflating an unintended extrapolation from Elder McConkies talk by wresting your quote to mean something that he is not intending to convey.  Yes there is much about the atonement that is and will remain incomprehensible, including aspects of how justice and mercy interact.  However, my take on your presentation of the quote you have provided is as a Stop sign, don't even try, you will not understand.  Case in point is the material I have tried to share.  It is not new doctrine, and as always I am showing you and others the path of my process as I examine the words of prophets and scriptures. I'm just a connect the dots guy. Nothing new just showing you and others whats out there to be considered.  It only seems like new doctrine because you choose not to understand the doctrine that is available to be understood.  I do not provide "new revelation" I simply put the pieces of others, far more insightful than I, together.  It is only new because it is new to you. 

Elder McConkie speaks to his concerns that many only have a superficial understanding of the atonement which is apparent as a common state of many. However, then he gives you the task, he tosses the gauntlet...IF ... IF... IF we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must know the atonement as they did, and we must live as they lived, then he gives you the invitation to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement. Or perhaps be as the priests of Baal:

Quote

 

1 Kings 18:27

26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.

27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

 

I'm no Elijah, but I wonder if he is not being a bit condescending as he pokes fun at the ignorant, prideful, arrogant priests of Baal who presume to know that which they obviously do not. But they march along, jumping and hooting and hollering and focusing on all the wrong things.  ..."that Elijah he's such a koo koo head and soooo condescending...I have half a mind to go over and conk him in the head ... oooh but I might just break a nail, oh that would be such a tragedy. Let's just stand here and call him names." 

Well, do you hope to have the faith of Enoch and Elijah? Do you hope to understand the atonement as they did?  Have you studied Moses 7 to see what knowledge of the atonement did for Enoch - completely changed him as a man and he goes from condemning his brethren on the earth and casting them off as dross and seeing nothing but their wickedness, to a state that he describes as "his heart stretched wide as eternity" and he understood...he understood something that has been lost here and it is unfortunate.  You have no idea of the worth of even just the tiny bit I have tried to share with you here - but I hope that someday, on your own perhaps, you may cross the barriers of ignorance to understanding the atonement and accept Elder McConkie's invitation to you and me alike to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

You are conflating an unintended extrapolation from Elder McConkies talk by wresting your quote to mean something that he is not intending to convey.  Yes there is much about the atonement that is and will remain incomprehensible, including aspects of how justice and mercy interact. 

Nope.  I have not conflated anything.  I've specifically quoted exactly what McConkie said and I meant exactly that, no more.  Perhaps you were reading something into my statement that I never intended.

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

However, my take on your presentation of the quote you have provided is as a Stop sign, don't even try, you will not understand. 

Neither was my "presentation."  I never said stop studying, pondering, praying, or discussing.  I guess you didn't read what I said.  I'd suggest you re-read exactly what I said.

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

I'm just a connect the dots guy. Nothing new just showing you and others whats out there to be considered.  It only seems like new doctrine because you choose not to understand the doctrine that is available to be understood.  I do not provide "new revelation" I simply put the pieces of others, far more insightful than I, together.  It is only new because it is new to you. 

Who said it was new to me?  Who said I did not understand it?  I never even said that I believed you were wrong about any doctrine you proposed.  Again, I think you're reading things into my post that I never wrote or intended.

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

Elder McConkie speaks to his concerns that many only have a superficial understanding of the atonement which is apparent as a common state of many. However, then he gives you the task, he tosses the gauntlet...IF ... IF... IF we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must know the atonement as they did, and we must live as they lived, then he gives you the invitation to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement. Or perhaps be as the priests of Baal:

I believe  you're quoting the following:

Quote

Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

You stopped short of the next few sentences:

Quote

We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.

We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.

As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

It is the philosophies of men that I'm worried about.  Many study.  Many ponder and pray.  Many even receive personal revelation in their studies.  Blessed be.  (That's not being sarcastic.  I mean that).  Many also study, ponder, and pray and start dreaming things up on their own.

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

IF we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must know the atonement as they did, and we must live as they lived, then he gives you the invitation to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement. Or perhaps be as the priests of Baal:

I'm no Elijah, but I wonder if he is not being a bit condescending as he pokes fun at the ignorant, prideful, arrogant priests of Baal who presume to know that which they obviously do not. But they march along, jumping and hooting and hollering and focusing on all the wrong things.  ..."that Elijah he's such a koo koo head and soooo condescending

Two things:

1) You say that we must be like Elijah.  No, you say everyone else must be like Elijah except you (notice "then he gave YOU the invitation" as if you've already gotten there, but the rest of us need to pay attention to the invitation).  Then you say you're no Elijah.  That sounds an awful lot like people who say "I know I'm not perfect," but secretly believe themselves to be so.

2) You say you're no Elijah, but then use Elijah as an example to justify your own condescension to others on the board.  That is compounded by the fact that this means you're comparing us to the priests of Baal.  Do you seriously think yourself so high and us so low?

14 hours ago, brlenox said:

Well, do you hope to have the faith of Enoch and Elijah? Do you hope to understand the atonement as they did?  Have you studied Moses 7 to see what knowledge of the atonement did for Enoch - completely changed him as a man and he goes from condemning his brethren on the earth and casting them off as dross and seeing nothing but their wickedness, to a state that he describes as "his heart stretched wide as eternity" and he understood...he understood something that has been lost here and it is unfortunate.  You have no idea of the worth of even just the tiny bit I have tried to share with you here - but I hope that someday, on your own perhaps, you may cross the barriers of ignorance to understanding the atonement and accept Elder McConkie's invitation to you and me alike to gain a sound and sure knowledge of the atonement.

Do you hope to have the faith of Enoch and Elijah?  Or do you think you've already got it?  Do you understand the Atonement on par with the living oracles of God?

I'm very well aware of the story of Enoch.  And I understand that it was not knowledge alone, but FAITH and OBEDIENCE that made Enoch the great prophet he was.  To get stuck on knowledge alone without the humility to have faith and obey is useless.  In fact, it is less than useless.  It is dangerous.

Through one fireside I myself gained tremendous insight into what I thought was a very basic principle.  It changed my entire outlook and I felt many stirrings in my heart.  I felt I was in another sphere of understanding.  But because I was simply too prideful and disobedient, I never gained the blessings of that additional knowledge.  I hope to some day.  In the meantime, I'm held under a greater condemnation because I know, but don't obey.

It is fine that you believe you've gained additional insight and divine knowledge.  Is it actually causing you to change your behavior?  HINT:  If it does not make you humble, the answer is probably NO.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

"As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene."

Whether intended or not, and disputations aside, the "three Gardens" tie up the meaning of the atonement for me in a simple, beautiful, comprehensible, and moving bouquet, like nothing else save the sacrament and endowment. So, I really appreciate you posting the reminder--I had read it before. Best thing I have seen in days. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nope.  I have not conflated anything.  I've specifically quoted exactly what McConkie said and I meant exactly that, no more.  Perhaps you were reading something into my statement that I never intended.

Neither was my "presentation."  I never said stop studying, pondering, praying, or discussing.  I guess you didn't read what I said.  I'd suggest you re-read exactly what I said.

Who said it was new to me?  Who said I did not understand it?  I never even said that I believed you were wrong about any doctrine you proposed.  Again, I think you're reading things into my post that I never wrote or intended.

I believe  you're quoting the following:

You stopped short of the next few sentences:

It is the philosophies of men that I'm worried about.  Many study.  Many ponder and pray.  Many even receive personal revelation in their studies.  Blessed be.  (That's not being sarcastic.  I mean that).  Many also study, ponder, and pray and start dreaming things up on their own.

Two things:

1) You say that we must be like Elijah.  No, you say everyone else must be like Elijah except you (notice "then he gave YOU the invitation" as if you've already gotten there, but the rest of us need to pay attention to the invitation).  Then you say you're no Elijah.  That sounds an awful lot like people who say "I know I'm not perfect," but secretly believe themselves to be so.

2) You say you're no Elijah, but then use Elijah as an example to justify your own condescension to others on the board.  That is compounded by the fact that this means you're comparing us to the priests of Baal.  Do you seriously think yourself so high and us so low?

Do you hope to have the faith of Enoch and Elijah?  Or do you think you've already got it?  Do you understand the Atonement on par with the living oracles of God?

I'm very well aware of the story of Enoch.  And I understand that it was not knowledge alone, but FAITH and OBEDIENCE that made Enoch the great prophet he was.  To get stuck on knowledge alone without the humility to have faith and obey is useless.  In fact, it is less than useless.  It is dangerous.

Through one fireside I myself gained tremendous insight into what I thought was a very basic principle.  It changed my entire outlook and I felt many stirrings in my heart.  I felt I was in another sphere of understanding.  But because I was simply too prideful and disobedient, I never gained the blessings of that additional knowledge.  I hope to some day.  In the meantime, I'm held under a greater condemnation because I know, but don't obey.

It is fine that you believe you've gained additional insight and divine knowledge.  Is it actually causing you to change your behavior?  HINT:  If it does not make you humble, the answer is probably NO.

You know, I have written two response to this thus far and I just can't put them out there.  It is not my nature to do an outright critical analysis of an individual.  The fact that you posture in virtually every post makes it easy to go back and pull up what you said here or there and illustrate a bit of duplicity.  However, when all is said and done the online persona that is Carborendom is not probably a very good characterization of who you really are.  And for me to take an online criteria and build a case with it is just playing the game.  I realize the limitations of this medium and it would be silly to characterize as you what you appear to be online. Just as it is quite interesting to see how you folks have been with me.  If I had to go through life with my personal acquaintances, my ward, and my family thinking of me as you folks do, I would only be able to like myself half as much as I do. OF course that is still 5 times more than you folks could tolerate.

But nonetheless, I'm going to let you be and not take this to a personal level.  I have to admit that the temptation to poke the bear is always hard for me to resist as it is kind of fun to make certain comparisons for the predictable responses. So, I can't say I'm any angel when it comes to a bit of self-serving humor.  In generalized characterizations I might be a bit excessive but I can't make it overtly personal which is what I would do if I took this post to a serious response. I do appreciate that you took the time to be candid - I so appreciate candor but I prefer it with a talent for comprehension and insight as opposed to posturing. 

Anyway, have a great evening.  Always willing and wishing that folks would illustrate or indicate specifics as to the doctrine we have shared where they find issue but I realize no one is willing to go to the trouble to do the work that is necessary to call up proper sources to show a different possibility when I lay out as comprehensive of a case as I do. So it is much easier to attack me for the easy target that I am as opposed to the doctrine. But that's apparently the way it goes...

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, brlenox said:

...   It is not my nature to do an outright critical analysis of an individual.  .....

I must admit that I analyze everything and everybody I encounter.  Just a note in passing – the more illogical a person’s opinion the more difficult it is for them to hear the folly of it; also, the easier they will fall for flattery telling them it is wonderful.  Generally, it seems the smarter a person is, the less it bothers them to be called stupid.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2018 at 9:56 PM, brlenox said:

The figures have served their purpose. They are only to represent the stages of the fall and to illustrate the citizenship of Christ and why he alone can do what he does.  Kingdom assignment is an entirely separate end of the spectrum.  You are correct Adam and Eve represent all mankind except for little children who with Christ remains as citizens of God's Kingdom. Hence why it is such an abomination to claim they cannot be saved without baptism.  The essence is that God the Father cannot save the citizens of his Kingdom and knowingly sends them to die even though they broke no laws and deserved no punishment. 

As an alternative to the figures you presented, what do you think about representing the stages of the fall, and subsequent ascension via the atonement, as arrayed along a vertical spectrum of proximity and separation (spiritual and physical), ranging from complete proximity to the Father and Son and Holy Ghost at the top of the spectrum, and complete proximity to Satan on the bottom of the spectrum, with gradations of separation from each in between, with each gradation constituting  a kingdom, with associated  "lands" or "gardens" or "temples, " rulers and judges, level of laws,  degrees of life and light or glory  as well as death and darkness. And, movement down the spectrum will be considered as descending or a "fall," whereas movement up the spectrum will be consider as an atonement enabled ascension or climb (transfiguration), not entirely unlike Jacob's ladder.

This manner of conceptualization helps prevent me from confusing the different "falls" and "banishment" and "exiles" and "deaths,' while accounting for all of mankind from the spirit world through the resurrection.

For example, when Adam and Eve were taken from the pre-mortal spirit world and placed "down" in the Garden of Eden, they were somewhat separated from the Father, thereby "falling" from complete proximity to visitation access, a form of "banishment," and they thus suffered a type of "death," and became subject to the laws of the "Garden" kingdom, which laws differ from those of the pre-mortal spirit world. As you suggest, God the Father was yet King and ruler and judge of that kingdom. The physical bodies of Adam and Eve were sufficiently filled with glory to bear the visitation presence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

However, as mankind continues to "fall," their bodies and spirits diminish in life (from eternal to finite) and light, such that they cannot bear the presence of the Father, though they can bear the presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and eventually only the Holy Ghost and ;light of Christ, and then not even that. The "banishment" becomes "exile," and they become subject to physical death and varying degrees of spiritual death. 

With this in mind, and when I get a moment, I would like to continue your examination of the mechanics of the atonement, though stressing more the relationship between the "Three Gardens" as highlighted in the sacrament, starting first by answering and re-answering some of your previous questions about the first Garden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

As an alternative to the figures you presented, what do you think about representing the stages of the fall, and subsequent ascension via the atonement, as arrayed along a vertical spectrum of proximity and separation (spiritual and physical), ranging from complete proximity to the Father and Son and Holy Ghost at the top of the spectrum, and complete proximity to Satan on the bottom of the spectrum, with gradations of separation from each in between, with each gradation constituting  a kingdom, with associated  "lands" or "gardens" or "temples, " rulers and judges, level of laws,  degrees of life and light or glory  as well as death and darkness. And, movement down the spectrum will be considered as descending or a "fall," whereas movement up the spectrum will be consider as an atonement enabled ascension or climb (transfiguration), not entirely unlike Jacob's ladder.

This manner of conceptualization helps prevent me from confusing the different "falls" and "banishment" and "exiles" and "deaths,' while accounting for all of mankind from the spirit world through the resurrection.

For example, when Adam and Eve were taken from the pre-mortal spirit world and placed "down" in the Garden of Eden, they were somewhat separated from the Father, thereby "falling" from complete proximity to visitation access, a form of "banishment," and they thus suffered a type of "death," and became subject to the laws of the "Garden" kingdom, which laws differ from those of the pre-mortal spirit world. As you suggest, God the Father was yet King and ruler and judge of that kingdom. The physical bodies of Adam and Eve were sufficiently filled with glory to bear the visitation presence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

However, as mankind continues to "fall," their bodies and spirits diminish in life (from eternal to finite) and light, such that they cannot bear the presence of the Father, though they can bear the presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and eventually only the Holy Ghost and ;light of Christ, and then not even that. The "banishment" becomes "exile," and they become subject to physical death and varying degrees of spiritual death. 

With this in mind, and when I get a moment, I would like to continue your examination of the mechanics of the atonement, though stressing more the relationship between the "Three Gardens" as highlighted in the sacrament, starting first by answering and re-answering some of your previous questions about the first Garden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think your idea sounds great.  I know for me that sometimes when I am studying the way the spirit will teach is that I have am image portrayed to my mind.  I then start recreating the image until the image and the perceived understanding match up.  In the images I provided, The only one that was provided in my minds eye was the third one which emphasized the ideology of Christ's citizenship.  That was the point I was being taught. The privileges that remain his precisely because he remains a citizen of His Fathers kingdom, under His Fathers care was the focus and change of perspective for me which opened venues for consideration and completely shifted multiple levels of understanding. The other two images I added only as tools for explanation.  However, if you lose the citizenship point, or never get it, then the justice and mercy paradigm, parts of resurrection, which we have not discussed, tend to loose the clarity of what enables various aspects of the atonement to take place.

I would like to see your efforts as they do not form the image in my mind that they may have formed in yours.  The process of developing the images is sometimes some of the best revelation you receive on a subject and as the images take form, the spirit continues to teach. As well every change of perspective invites a broadening of understanding.  So, please develop yours and share them. 

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

As an alternative to the figures you presented, what do you think about representing the stages of the fall, and subsequent ascension via the atonement, as arrayed along a vertical spectrum of proximity and separation (spiritual and physical), ranging from complete proximity to the Father and Son and Holy Ghost at the top of the spectrum, and complete proximity to Satan on the bottom of the spectrum, with gradations of separation from each in between, with each gradation constituting  a kingdom, with associated  "lands" or "gardens" or "temples, " rulers and judges, level of laws,  degrees of life and light or glory  as well as death and darkness. And, movement down the spectrum will be considered as descending or a "fall," whereas movement up the spectrum will be consider as an atonement enabled ascension or climb (transfiguration), not entirely unlike Jacob's ladder.

This manner of conceptualization helps prevent me from confusing the different "falls" and "banishment" and "exiles" and "deaths,' while accounting for all of mankind from the spirit world through the resurrection.

For example, when Adam and Eve were taken from the pre-mortal spirit world and placed "down" in the Garden of Eden, they were somewhat separated from the Father, thereby "falling" from complete proximity to visitation access, a form of "banishment," and they thus suffered a type of "death," and became subject to the laws of the "Garden" kingdom, which laws differ from those of the pre-mortal spirit world. As you suggest, God the Father was yet King and ruler and judge of that kingdom. The physical bodies of Adam and Eve were sufficiently filled with glory to bear the visitation presence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

However, as mankind continues to "fall," their bodies and spirits diminish in life (from eternal to finite) and light, such that they cannot bear the presence of the Father, though they can bear the presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and eventually only the Holy Ghost and ;light of Christ, and then not even that. The "banishment" becomes "exile," and they become subject to physical death and varying degrees of spiritual death. 

With this in mind, and when I get a moment, I would like to continue your examination of the mechanics of the atonement, though stressing more the relationship between the "Three Gardens" as highlighted in the sacrament, starting first by answering and re-answering some of your previous questions about the first Garden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Interesting points and angles. I am personally againstvthe idea of falling in different degrees starting with the garden. I think it takes away from the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

However, if you lose the citizenship point, or never get it, then the justice and mercy paradigm, parts of resurrection, which we have not discussed, tend to loose the clarity of what enables various aspects of the atonement to take place.

I believe I have a working understanding of the citizenship element, and I wouldn't want to alter or downplay it because I think it, along with some of the other points you have made, make for convincing counter arguments to certain philosophical challenges to the atonement, if not also the existence of God.

As I flesh out my conceptual image,  I will have to see what impact it has on the citizenship element. But, at this point I don't see a problem. However, if there is a problem, I wonder if it may be resolved through priesthoods and covenants rather than citizenship, lines of authority, divine investiture, and/or stewardships? 

Part of what prompted me to consider the conceptual image that came to mind, is that I have been studying the several versions of the Creation Story, and I believe that  it is not coincidental that the Creation and Garden stories in the scriptures and Temple are conveyed together. I suspect that the Creation story may provide context and illumination for not only understanding the Garden of Eden, but also the other two atoning Gardens.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Interesting points and angles. I am personally againstvthe idea of falling in different degrees starting with the garden. I think it takes away from the plan.

The Fall(s) are a key part of the Plan, so I am not sure how it/they would take away from the Plan. Yes, it is the Plan of Progression, but, paradoxically, we needed the Fall(s) in order to progress. There was no other way. Descending precedes ascension even for the Son of God. Indeed, the pure and unblemished Son descended below us all (D&C122:8; 88:6.98) so that he may redeem us all (Topical Guide: Jesus Christ, Condescension of)

The seed must fall from the tree, descend below the surface, and die before it can grow to become a fruit and seed-bearing tree. (1 Cor. 15:36-38)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

The Fall(s) are a key part of the Plan, so I am not sure how it/they would take away from the Plan. Yes, it is the Plan of Progression, but, paradoxically, we needed the Fall(s) in order to progress. There was no other way. Descending precedes ascension even for the Son of God. Indeed, the pure and unblemished Son descended below us all (D&C122:8; 88:6.98) so that he may redeem us all (Topical Guide: Jesus Christ, Condescension of)

The seed must fall from the tree, descend below the surface, and die before it can grow to become a fruit and seed-bearing tree. (1 Cor. 15:36-38)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dislike the concept of multiple falls. The state of man in the garden before the fall wasnt a fall. 

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