The Meaning of Atonement

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

While such dialogue may provide insights, it's worth noting that @brlenox's pet model is no more official doctrine than Skousen's.

Not a problem. Insights are the rich soil from which official doctrine spring and are enabled to grow in comprehension and understanding and confirmation.

Said another way, prayerful pondering (including of a public nature such as this) is the precursor for revelation. (D&C 8 and D&C 9:7-9)

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[mordorbund]

23 hours ago, wenglund said:

Not a problem. Insights are the rich soil from which official doctrine spring and are enabled to grow in comprehension and understanding and confirmation.

Said another way, prayerful pondering (including of a public nature such as this) is the precursor for revelation. (D&C 8 and D&C 9:7-9)

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

For what it's worth, my comment was not so much for the active participant in the discussion, but for the OP (who is a recent convert and doesn't have the years of experience in the Church to gauge "I hear this every conference and often in Sunday School. It's important for me to remember this" or "I can't think of a single time I've heard it explained like this. I can safely file this under 'the understanding of a few'".) - remember he started the thread with a similarly speculative and novel explanation for the Atonement of Christ. Also, this site gets a number of lurkers and googlers so I thought I'd clarify for the invisible readers.

[Guest]

On 12/27/2017 at 5:00 PM, brlenox said:

That said, few people will ever put the effort into the process to understand where Cleon misses the mark.  You actually are at the root of the issue now as Cleon mis-emphasizes the role of God's creations in the narrative giving them far too much "power" in the process of God remaining God. His emphasis places God at the mercy of all of the intelligences and it simply is not that way.  And in fact properly understood that part of Cleon's narrative fades away into obscurity.

I thought the same thing when I first heard this about 30 years ago.  This is why I believe it really doesn't make sense for people to speculate further than the basic principles of justice and mercy.  Immutable principles are immutable principles.  If we change those immutable principles to intelligence, then it changes the entire concept of eternal laws.  Laws are then NEVER eternal.

But Eternal Laws do exist and Our Father knows them and uses them to best effect when raising His children.

[anatess2]

On 12/27/2017 at 4:07 PM, zil said:

Take notes.  When it seems appropriate, reorganize and reword your notes. (I did this on another topic, transferring written notes from random scribbles on an 11x17 dot grid to another sheet with a bit more organization, and then I did it again.  I re-did my notes at least 3 times.) 

Only 3?  I know you want to use that fountain pen more times than that!

 

Whoops.  Didn't intend to threadjack.  (I did.  But only because I can't resist.  Lesson on free agency perhaps?).

[zil]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

that fountain pen

It would be more accurate to say, "those fountain pens".

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

It would be more accurate to say, "those fountain pens".

Oh!  Of course!  Literally!

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

For what it's worth, my comment was not so much for the active participant in the discussion, but for the OP (who is a recent convert and doesn't have the years of experience in the Church to gauge "I hear this every conference and often in Sunday School. It's important for me to remember this" or "I can't think of a single time I've heard it explained like this. I can safely file this under 'the understanding of a few'".) - remember he started the thread with a similarly speculative and novel explanation for the Atonement of Christ. Also, this site gets a number of lurkers and googlers so I thought I'd clarify for the invisible readers.

It's always worth something to understand motivations.  Nonetheless, for myself I think it is far more valuable to show him or her how to study the gospel than to simply tell them "watch out" !!.  Forums are saturated with opinions and side remarks and spurious comments about fountain pens.  What difference does it make for OP whether he hears the opinion of a 30 year member of the church who does not really study the gospel and a 4 year member who doesn't study the gospel.  Neither has taken the gospel to heart to understand that it is according to the "heed and diligence" (Alma 12:9) that they put into the process that can bring the rewards of understanding.  Thus what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net and still see that there is so much that can be learned without making it all up and being self affirming.

For what it's worth my point to my response to your comment was basically how do you expect to be taken credibly as a critic of a Rembrandt when all you know how to use is crayons (except of course where it comes to hats)...and frankly why would you.  If you had been of a more refined understanding you would not have just blasted out the obvious as if it was Einstein but you would have engaged the OP owner to illustrate where you find departures, or perhaps where you observed that which was redeeming.  Maybe you would have added some depth to the process with valuable insight and we all could have shared together but I suspect that actually you could not do that because of what you defined as your short comings when it comes to gospel study and or Gospel explanation. Anybody can play the gangsta' and do a drive by shooting and drive off having robbed somebody of 20 years of existence.  But it is never appreciated. The value to the OP is I have showed, taught, educated how he might advance his own grasp of the Gospel. Can you do that?  I didn't just leave him with a disclaimer on how to be your average forum participant who knows little and whose opinion is valued even less. However, you can do better.  You can become a person who actually studies the Gospel and who merits consideration because you actually know what you are talking about.  That would be a benefit and blessing.

What you classed as an understanding of a few, I brought right up to a quote by Elder Eyering. In fact if you go to 1 minute hour and 4 seconds into the FACE to FACE he and Elder Holland presented you'll hear a couple of things that he says trying to disabuse the members from the more common errors of how they understand the atonement:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-03-1000-face-to-face-with-president-eyring-and-elder-holland?lang=eng

 Is what Elder Eyring presented a bit of the atonement understood by a few - absolutely - should you file it away because few understand what he said? Absolutely not.  In other words, we need to be qualified to comment on matters of gospel knowledge otherwise we simply perpetuate the same old common excuses for not making a personal investment into the gospel - and frankly I wouldn't want to be held accountable for teaching that lesson ever. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by brlenox

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I thought the same thing when I first heard this about 30 years ago.  This is why I believe it really doesn't make sense for people to speculate further than the basic principles of justice and mercy.  Immutable principles are immutable principles.  If we change those immutable principles to intelligence, then it changes the entire concept of eternal laws.  Laws are then NEVER eternal.

But Eternal Laws do exist and Our Father knows them and uses them to best effect when raising His children.

I know you mean well but I just can't conceive of advising someone to just hang with the basics of the Gospel - justice and mercy notwithstanding.  This isn't just a process of knowing stuff but is the means most of us have at our disposal to learn how to truly be guided by the spirit. And it is a slow process and it takes a remarkable amount of genuine effort to move forward in the process.  It does have it's risks, I'll grant you that, but the gospel should never be treated like it is suitable for only kindergarten level understandings:

Please consider:

Quote

 

Alma 12:9

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. 

 

There is so much to know and what's more is it is filled with joy and excitement as you actually do get a sense of understanding God and His Son so much better when you put the effort forth. Seek the greater portion of his word...

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

There is so much to know and what's more is it is filled with joy and excitement as you actually do get a sense of understanding God and His Son so much better when you put the effort forth. Seek the greater portion of his word...

Meaning, of course, that you know better.  And others' paucity of understanding brings sorrow to your soul.

Is it better that some people know enough to obtain salvation and even exaltation, and remain faithful, or that some go off into unknown paths and get lost forever?

Edited January 5, 2018 by Guest

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Meaning, of course, that you know better.  And others' paucity of understanding brings sorrow to your soul.

Is it better that some people know enough to obtain salvation and even exaltation, and remain faithful, or that some go off into unknown paths and get lost forever?

 A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” (History of the Church, 4:588)

 

Can you illustrate the unknown paths you see being discussed?  And can you perhaps tell me what you think Alma 12 means?

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by brlenox

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Meaning, of course, that you know better.  And others' paucity of understanding brings sorrow to your soul.

Is it better that some people know enough to obtain salvation and even exaltation, and remain faithful, or that some go off into unknown paths and get lost forever?

“Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge; and the promises of the gospel, as revealed, were such as to authorize us to believe, that by taking this course we should gain the object of our pursuit.” (George A. Smith, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Nov. 29, 1870, p. 2.)

[brlenox]

To those who … can assist in this great work, we say, let them come to this place; by so doing they will not only assist in the rolling on of the Kingdom, but be in a situation where they can have the advantages of instruction from the Presidency and other authorities of the Church, and rise higher and higher in the scale of intelligence until they can ‘comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge. (History of the Church, 4:186; from a letter from Joseph Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency to the Saints, Sept. 1840, Nauvoo, Illinois, published in Times and Seasons, Oct. 1840, p. 179.)

[brlenox]

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”
(History of the Church, 6:477; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois)

[mordorbund]

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

It's always worth something to understand motivations.  Nonetheless, for myself I think it is far more valuable to show him or her how to study the gospel than to simply tell them "watch out" !!. 

There are a number of ways to study the gospel. Although Jesus taught in the gospel of John, "If any man will listen to brlenox's hints and draw out the conclusions he leads them to, he will know the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself," I can't help but suspect there other ways to learn the doctrine Christ wants us to learn (although you've clearly put in the work and I'm quite unlettered, so your way might very well be the only way).

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

What difference does it make for OP whether he hears the opinion of a 30 year member of the church who does not really study the gospel and a 4 year member who doesn't study the gospel.  Neither has taken the gospel to heart to understand that it is according to the "heed and diligence" (Alma 12:9) that they put into the process that can bring the rewards of understanding.  Thus what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net and still see that there is so much that can be learned without making it all up and being self affirming.

The OP didn't start with a 30-year member who doesn't study the gospel. He started with Cleon Skousen. Thus indeed what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net. And then you posted a rebuttal with your model.

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

For what it's worth my point to my response to your comment was basically how do you expect to be taken credibly as a critic of a Rembrandt

I had almost forgotten your lofty credentials. Thanks for reminding me again.

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

when all you know how to use is crayons (except of course where it comes to hats)...and frankly why would you.  If you had been of a more refined understanding you would not have just blasted out the obvious as if it was Einstein but you would have engaged the OP owner to illustrate where you find departures, or perhaps where you observed that which was redeeming. 

For someone who's encouraging others to put in some effort before casting aspersions on a newly-introduced theory, you are awfully quick to assess others' understanding - from what I gather based solely on whether or not they readily accept your ideas. You did the same with TheFolkProphet when he started kicking the tires. Perhaps you would sell it better if you modeled your dialogue off of the Sword of Laban thread. 3 people discussing sword manufacturing. At the start of the discussion you probably couldn't have guessed who had a studied knowledge of the subject. They did not all agree. Instead of rebukes for ignorance they sought to clarify misunderstandings and miscommunications. You probably don't need to be told this given how obvious it is, but then again I'm no Einstein.

By the way, if my obvious statement was delivered with the pomp of one wise in his own eyes, then I hoped my later post clarified that such was not my intent.

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

Maybe you would have added some depth to the process with valuable insight and we all could have shared together but I suspect that actually you could not do that because of what you defined as your short comings when it comes to gospel study and or Gospel explanation. Anybody can play the gangsta' and do a drive by shooting and drive off having robbed somebody of 20 years of existence.  But it is never appreciated

Except when it is. You might see the OP "liked" my clarification post. Can you see why?

Do you think your model is undermined by someone saying it is not official doctrine of the Church? I have not called it false. I have not said it is a damnable heresy. I have not said it is the doctrine of devils. It is just not official. In the previous paragraph, such a statement is "obvious". Now it's a gangster drive-by?

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

The value to the OP is I have showed, taught, educated how he might advance his own grasp of the Gospel. Can you do that? 

I don't have to. Skousen already did. Are you saying there's something blatantly wrong about that? Or just that it's not the official doctrine of the Church?

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

I didn't just leave him with a disclaimer on how to be your average forum participant who knows little and whose opinion is valued even less. However, you can do better.  You can become a person who actually studies the Gospel and who merits consideration because you actually know what you are talking about.  That would be a benefit and blessing.

It would also be a benefit and a blessing for the OP and others to know that he can show up to church one day and sit with you and your beliefs on one side, Skousen and his beliefs on the other, and he disbelieving both of your models, and all three still be faithful Latter-day Saints progressing toward the Celestial Kingdom.

Again, you seem to think there only a narrow path of being a benefit and blessing. Paul was okay with he body of Christ being more than just a head, I am too.

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

What you classed as an understanding of a few, I brought right up to a quote by Elder Eyering. In fact if you go to 1 minute hour and 4 seconds into the FACE to FACE he and Elder Holland presented you'll hear a couple of things that he says trying to disabuse the members from the more common errors of how they understand the atonement:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-03-1000-face-to-face-with-president-eyring-and-elder-holland?lang=eng

 Is what Elder Eyring presented a bit of the atonement understood by a few - absolutely - should you file it away because few understand what he said? Absolutely not.  In other words, we need to be qualified to comment on matters of gospel knowledge otherwise we simply perpetuate the same old common excuses for not making a personal investment into the gospel - and frankly I wouldn't want to be held accountable for teaching that lesson ever. 

If by "understood" you mean "understood in the way that brlenox understands it", then sure. But a lot of models can fit in that statement of his - including Packer's Mediator model. I think a lot of members understand that the Father is Sovereign over the Son, and that Atonement does not exist independent of the Atoner.

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

There are a number of ways to study the gospel. Although Jesus taught in the gospel of John, "If any man will listen to brlenox's hints and draw out the conclusions he leads them to, he will know the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself," I can't help but suspect there other ways to learn the doctrine Christ wants us to learn (although you've clearly put in the work and I'm quite unlettered, so your way might very well be the only way).

The OP didn't start with a 30-year member who doesn't study the gospel. He started with Cleon Skousen. Thus indeed what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net. And then you posted a rebuttal with your model.

I had almost forgotten your lofty credentials. Thanks for reminding me again.

For someone who's encouraging others to put in some effort before casting aspersions on a newly-introduced theory, you are awfully quick to assess others' understanding - from what I gather based solely on whether or not they readily accept your ideas. You did the same with TheFolkProphet when he started kicking the tires. Perhaps you would sell it better if you modeled your dialogue off of the Sword of Laban thread. 3 people discussing sword manufacturing. At the start of the discussion you probably couldn't have guessed who had a studied knowledge of the subject. They did not all agree. Instead of rebukes for ignorance they sought to clarify misunderstandings and miscommunications. You probably don't need to be told this given how obvious it is, but then again I'm no Einstein.

By the way, if my obvious statement was delivered with the pomp of one wise in his own eyes, then I hoped my later post clarified that such was not my intent.

Except when it is. You might see the OP "liked" my clarification post. Can you see why?

Do you think your model is undermined by someone saying it is not official doctrine of the Church? I have not called it false. I have not said it is a damnable heresy. I have not said it is the doctrine of devils. It is just not official. In the previous paragraph, such a statement is "obvious". Now it's a gangster drive-by?

I don't have to. Skousen already did. Are you saying there's something blatantly wrong about that? Or just that it's not the official doctrine of the Church?

It would also be a benefit and a blessing for the OP and others to know that he can show up to church one day and sit with you and your beliefs on one side, Skousen and his beliefs on the other, and he disbelieving both of your models, and all three still be faithful Latter-day Saints progressing toward the Celestial Kingdom.

Again, you seem to think there only a narrow path of being a benefit and blessing. Paul was okay with he body of Christ being more than just a head, I am too.

If by "understood" you mean "understood in the way that brlenox understands it", then sure. But a lot of models can fit in that statement of his - including Packer's Mediator model. I think a lot of members understand that the Father is Sovereign over the Son, and that Atonement does not exist independent of the Atoner.

Nice Hat!!

[brlenox]

14 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

There are a number of ways to study the gospel. Although Jesus taught in the gospel of John, "If any man will listen to brlenox's hints and draw out the conclusions he leads them to, he will know the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself," I can't help but suspect there other ways to learn the doctrine Christ wants us to learn (although you've clearly put in the work and I'm quite unlettered, so your way might very well be the only way).

The OP didn't start with a 30-year member who doesn't study the gospel. He started with Cleon Skousen. Thus indeed what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net. And then you posted a rebuttal with your model.

I had almost forgotten your lofty credentials. Thanks for reminding me again.

For someone who's encouraging others to put in some effort before casting aspersions on a newly-introduced theory, you are awfully quick to assess others' understanding - from what I gather based solely on whether or not they readily accept your ideas. You did the same with TheFolkProphet when he started kicking the tires. Perhaps you would sell it better if you modeled your dialogue off of the Sword of Laban thread. 3 people discussing sword manufacturing. At the start of the discussion you probably couldn't have guessed who had a studied knowledge of the subject. They did not all agree. Instead of rebukes for ignorance they sought to clarify misunderstandings and miscommunications. You probably don't need to be told this given how obvious it is, but then again I'm no Einstein.

By the way, if my obvious statement was delivered with the pomp of one wise in his own eyes, then I hoped my later post clarified that such was not my intent.

Except when it is. You might see the OP "liked" my clarification post. Can you see why?

Do you think your model is undermined by someone saying it is not official doctrine of the Church? I have not called it false. I have not said it is a damnable heresy. I have not said it is the doctrine of devils. It is just not official. In the previous paragraph, such a statement is "obvious". Now it's a gangster drive-by?

I don't have to. Skousen already did. Are you saying there's something blatantly wrong about that? Or just that it's not the official doctrine of the Church?

It would also be a benefit and a blessing for the OP and others to know that he can show up to church one day and sit with you and your beliefs on one side, Skousen and his beliefs on the other, and he disbelieving both of your models, and all three still be faithful Latter-day Saints progressing toward the Celestial Kingdom.

Again, you seem to think there only a narrow path of being a benefit and blessing. Paul was okay with he body of Christ being more than just a head, I am too.

If by "understood" you mean "understood in the way that brlenox understands it", then sure. But a lot of models can fit in that statement of his - including Packer's Mediator model. I think a lot of members understand that the Father is Sovereign over the Son, and that Atonement does not exist independent of the Atoner.

You are right in all of your observations.  My apologies.

[Rob Osborn]

These last few conversations have reinforced to me the principle of attaining wisdom but being careful not to cast your pearls before swine.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, brlenox said:

“Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge; and the promises of the gospel, as revealed, were such as to authorize us to believe, that by taking this course we should gain the object of our pursuit.” (George A. Smith, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Nov. 29, 1870, p. 2.)

16 hours ago, brlenox said:

To those who … can assist in this great work, we say, let them come to this place; by so doing they will not only assist in the rolling on of the Kingdom, but be in a situation where they can have the advantages of instruction from the Presidency and other authorities of the Church, and rise higher and higher in the scale of intelligence until they can ‘comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge. (History of the Church, 4:186; from a letter from Joseph Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency to the Saints, Sept. 1840, Nauvoo, Illinois, published in Times and Seasons, Oct. 1840, p. 179.)

15 hours ago, brlenox said:

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”
(History of the Church, 6:477; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois)

17 hours ago, brlenox said:

 A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” (History of the Church, 4:588)

Can you illustrate the unknown paths you see being discussed?  And can you perhaps tell me what you think Alma 12 means?

1) As a side note, here is a helpful hint when working with quotes:  When cutting and pasting we often see enlarged letters or different fonts, etc.  In many cases, this may be distracting.  In the case of large letters as in your case, it takes up valuable screen space -- especially for those working on a cell phone, and it also may come across as yelling.  So, to remedy this, when you paste DO NOT click anywhere on the screen.  Scroll down to the bottom and you will notice a dialogue bar appear that asks if you want to paste as plain text.  Do so.  Then the copied text will appear as in my quote boxes above.

2) I've skimmed the quotes (since they are familiar ones).  And I have no argument with any of them.  I think they're absolutely true.  The problem here is that you have made a judgment here that I need to pay attention to this as if I'm not aware.  I'm NOT taking offense.  I merely want to point out that your judgment may be in error -- in more than one way.

3) I place this last quote out of order so I can address your questions at the bottom.

UNKNOWN PATHS

This was not a comment directed at any precise doctrine you have posted here.  It was about your methodology and at least my perception of your attitude towards everything you've posted. Yes, we are to search, ponder, and pray (duh).   And, yes, we are all to seek out personal revelation for great treasures of hidden knowledge.

The danger is that we begin to feel like we're powers unto ourselves.  There is a reason that the Lord has used prophets as His mouthpiece throughout history.  There is a reason He still uses them today.  Denver Snuffer.  Ashera worshippers.  T.O.P. groups. I could go on.  But you get the idea.

Have you posted anything that resembles any of those doctrines?  To be honest, I haven't paid enough attention.  What I have noticed is your belief that all your personal revelations are binding on others.  If you've recieved something of the Lord, great.  But I find it difficult to swallow when you insist that your "interpretations" are akin to pronouncements from the Prophet.  That is why I haven't paid attention to what you've said much.  I can't get past the "how" you say it to get at the "what" you say.  Whether you intend it or not, that is the way you come off.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Guest

[brlenox]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Have you posted anything that resembles any of those doctrines?  To be honest, I haven't paid enough attention. 

Thank you for your observations.  Above is the point of my commentary.  Sometimes people feel to comment on something that they do not even know what it is they are commenting on.  That is the primary issue.  In the case of the Hat, and to a greater degree yourself, you don't have enough understanding of the material ... and you don't even try ... and you don't care.  It doesn't seem an unacceptable paradigm to you that you would condemn something you know nothing about.  That's what I consider unacceptable.  As for what I have put out there, it does not deviate from the accepted LDS theology in the least degree - it simply, with copious quotes, scriptures , and such so that you could if you wanted to follow my line of thinking...it simply has some of the detail filled in that most won't work to understand.  And as Wade observed once he quite fighting for the sake of fighting it has some profound insight .

The other sad thing is that @zil has now boxed herself in where it becomes obvious that she can offer corrections and helpful commentary and the receiving party is simply to take it on the chin but give them some constructive criticism and they take offense, don't answer posts, and then run around thumbs upping every post thereafter that seeks to condemn. Sort of a passive aggressive response, when she was possibly one of the best potentials to actually speak with intelligence to the subject at hand. But instead has decided to second commentary from folks who didn't even try to grasp the material as if that is meritorious.

Priorities are interesting things...

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, brlenox said:

There is so much to know and what's more is it is filled with joy and excitement as you actually do get a sense of understanding God and His Son so much better when you put the effort forth. Seek the greater portion of his word...

I found this statement by Elder Oaks to be quite profound and somewhat reorienting for me: "

Quote

Attaining what the Apostle Paul described as “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) requires far more than acquiring knowledge. It is not even enough for us to be convinced of the gospel; we must act and think so that we are converted by it. In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the plan of salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ challenge us to become something." (The Godhead and the Plan of Salvation,  April General Conference, 2017)

To me this suggest that, while attaining knowledge is important, the more weightier matter is becoming like Christ. This seems to me to be the result of things we do as much if not more so than the things we think and study, etc.  

In fact, from my experience, I tend to learn more about Christ by keeping God's commandments and doing His will--i.e. by following the Savior. It is as though behaving like and becoming like Christ, or in other words, experiencing God, provides insights not otherwise possible. THe way to truly comprehend God is to become godly.

Again, I say this not to discourage in-depth study,  but to temper using study and learning as the ultimate measure for who may or may not have it right, or who is wearing the right or bigest hat, as you say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, brlenox said:

That is the primary issue.

You seem to think that is the primary issue.  You fail to grasp that it may not be the primary issue to others.

2 minutes ago, brlenox said:

It doesn't seem an unacceptable paradigm to you that you would condemn something you know nothing about.  That's what I consider unacceptable.

You appear to be blind to the fact that they're not condemning the message - they're condemning the occasional tone of the messenger.

4 minutes ago, brlenox said:

it simply has some of the detail filled in that most won't work to understand.

Just because they don't claim it, or put it in front of your face in a way you comprehend, or praise you or your details, does not mean that your assumption is true for all those you accuse of this (and you are very quick to accuse, and just as quick to extremify others' comments beyond what is warranted from their text alone).

6 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The other sad thing is that @zil has now boxed herself in where it becomes obvious that she can offer corrections and helpful commentary and the receiving party is simply to take it on the chin but give them some constructive criticism and they take offense, don't answer posts, and then run around thumbs upping every post thereafter that seeks to condemn. Sort of a passive aggressive response, when she was possibly one of the best potentials to actually speak with intelligence to the subject at hand. But instead has decided to second commentary from folks who didn't even try to grasp the material as if that is meritorious.

The construction of your initial sentence above (which perhaps ought to be broken into two or three) is too convoluted for me to be sure what exactly you're saying (feel free to call me an idiot, I'm perfectly comfortable with that descriptor).  I am, however, reasonably certain that responding to you (not sure why I'm bothering except that you addressed me specifically) is too dangerous to be worth it (e.g. you bully people for being loyal to their friends, and mock them for understanding their friends' intents - which you consistently fail to understand correctly - feel free to call me a coward or a weakling - I'm comfortable with those descriptors as well).  That does not mean I am not reading and learning what I can from what you write, nor is it a judgement of what you write, nor even of the writer, though, again, you seem blind to the difference; it just means I don't enjoy where interacting with you always seems to eventually lead (which is right here).  Feel free to carry on with whatever it is you're thinking and judging, as well as with your conversation with @wenglund, whose skill in this conversation I admire - I'm happy to learn quietly from the back row and if God one day condemns me for so doing, I'll accept His judgement in the matter.

[brlenox]

7 hours ago, zil said:

You seem to think that is the primary issue.  You fail to grasp that it may not be the primary issue to others.

You appear to be blind to the fact that they're not condemning the message - they're condemning the occasional tone of the messenger.

Just because they don't claim it, or put it in front of your face in a way you comprehend, or praise you or your details, does not mean that your assumption is true for all those you accuse of this (and you are very quick to accuse, and just as quick to extremify others' comments beyond what is warranted from their text alone).

The construction of your initial sentence above (which perhaps ought to be broken into two or three) is too convoluted for me to be sure what exactly you're saying (feel free to call me an idiot, I'm perfectly comfortable with that descriptor).  I am, however, reasonably certain that responding to you (not sure why I'm bothering except that you addressed me specifically) is too dangerous to be worth it (e.g. you bully people for being loyal to their friends, and mock them for understanding their friends' intents - which you consistently fail to understand correctly - feel free to call me a coward or a weakling - I'm comfortable with those descriptors as well).  That does not mean I am not reading and learning what I can from what you write, nor is it a judgement of what you write, nor even of the writer, though, again, you seem blind to the difference; it just means I don't enjoy where interacting with you always seems to eventually lead (which is right here).  Feel free to carry on with whatever it is you're thinking and judging, as well as with your conversation with @wenglund, whose skill in this conversation I admire - I'm happy to learn quietly from the back row and if God one day condemns me for so doing, I'll accept His judgement in the matter.

Well stated - we'll just leave it at that.

[Chrisberockin]

Lots going on in this discussion, I love the enthusiasm we all share for striving to know the Savior and his atoning sacrifice. I just wanted to briefly give my two cents about Skousen's talk. I love it, for the most part. It makes sense, for the most part. But I will never believe that an individual can lose their individuality by being broken down into minuscule bits of intelligence. That just doesn't seem like a justifiable interpretation to me. It's an interesting take on what intelligence is, but I don't think it has been defined by revelation what exactly we are dealing with when it comes to intelligence. Until it is properly revealed through the Lord's authorized servants, I will not accept that an individual can be dissembled, erasing that person's consciousness, and then rebuilt into a new individual. If you ask me, that is no different than reincarnation, which I hope we all agree is a false doctrine.

[person0]

On 12/27/2017 at 2:55 PM, Grunt said:

Has anyone read Cleon Skousen's theory?

That's probably a dumb question.  Most of you read more than I do.  Someone tossed that on my plate this week and I'd never really thought of the deep "why" of atonement.  It's lead to a few sleepless nights of reading and study.  Is this a common Mormon belief?  Some of it makes sense, but the underlying root of intelligences and their obeyance of God only due to His honor and the possibiltiy of their rejection and the subsequent upset in power doesn't sit well with me.

Thoughts?  Are there other theories I should be looking into?

I have both read his theory and listened to a recording of the talk he gave at the MTC.  There is a specific niche of 'Mormondom' that seeks to understand what is called Atonement Theory, specifically to discuss and answer the 'why' of the atonement, as well as the 'how'.  There are many theories that exist, all of which are very speculative, including Cleon Skousen's.  However, personally, I believe most of the foundational principles of the Skousen theory.  I feel that they mesh extremely well with scripture and LDS theology much more firmly than some of the other theories out there.  That said, there are plenty of tangents of thought Skousen presents that are spurious and inadequately supported.

Interestingly, I think I posted a thread about the 'why' of the atonement either just after or just before you joined the forum.

Some of Skousen's fundamental ideals that I like/agree with:

- Honor is God's power . . . all things obey Him because of his absolute perfection in all things.

- The Priesthood does not perform miracles by 'magic', but is God exercising His power and all things obeying Him (i.e. matter organizing itself at His command).

• All elements in our plane of existence must have some form of intelligent capacity in order to be obedient to God and priesthood action.  (I think Skousen's understanding of what an intelligence is is incomplete at best, but still potentially a good start)

- Justice and Mercy must both be fulfilled in order for the atonement to be effective.

- Power that mankind can attain would be based on the same principles as the power God has. . . we must be perfect in order to be able to receive this power.

• Only an atonement that cleanses us infinitely for an eternal duration could make this possible for us.

- The atonement can not possibly be based on a Hammurabi Code type principle.  I can not steel something and justice be served if my brother gets punished for it.

- Jesus Christ was needed for the atonement, because the Father could not have completed it on His own.

Skousen puts these pieces with others and connects them in a plausible, and certainly reasonable to understand way.  However, there are enough incomplete variables to know that I am excited to one day learn how it all really works.  All things considered, as I mentioned before, I have yet to learn of an alternative theory that hold up as well to the scrutiny of the scriptures and general LDS theology.

One other important thing to note is that while fulfilling the atonement, Christ not only suffered for our sins, but also experienced every other possible negative mortal experience.  That is not really discussed as part of Skousen's theory, although it may not be a necessary aspect in relation to a justice/mercy fulfillment.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

I have both read his theory and listened to a recording of the talk he gave at the MTC.  There is a specific niche of 'Mormondom' that seeks to understand what is called Atonement Theory, specifically to discuss and answer the 'why' of the atonement, as well as the 'how'.  There are many theories that exist, all of which are very speculative, including Cleon Skousen's.  However, personally, I believe most of the foundational principles of the Skousen theory.  I feel that they mesh extremely well with scripture and LDS theology much more firmly than some of the other theories out there.  That said, there are plenty of tangents of thought Skousen presents that are spurious and inadequately supported.

Interestingly, I think I posted a thread about the 'why' of the atonement either just after or just before you joined the forum.

Some of Skousen's fundamental ideals that I like/agree with:

- Honor is God's power . . . all things obey Him because of his absolute perfection in all things.

- The Priesthood does not perform miracles by 'magic', but is God exercising His power and all things obeying Him (i.e. matter organizing itself at His command).

• All elements in our plane of existence must have some form of intelligent capacity in order to be obedient to God and priesthood action.  (I think Skousen's understanding of what an intelligence is is incomplete at best, but still potentially a good start)

- Justice and Mercy must both be fulfilled in order for the atonement to be effective.

- Power that mankind can attain would be based on the same principles as the power God has. . . we must be perfect in order to be able to receive this power.

• Only an atonement that cleanses us infinitely for an eternal duration could make this possible for us.

- The atonement can not possibly be based on a Hammurabi Code type principle.  I can not steel something and justice be served if my brother gets punished for it.

- Jesus Christ was needed for the atonement, because the Father could not have completed it on His own.

Skousen puts these pieces with others and connects them in a plausible, and certainly reasonable to understand way.  However, there are enough incomplete variables to know that I am excited to one day learn how it all really works.  All things considered, as I mentioned before, I have yet to learn of an alternative theory that hold up as well to the scrutiny of the scriptures and general LDS theology.

One other important thing to note is that while fulfilling the atonement, Christ not only suffered for our sins, but also experienced every other possible negative mortal experience.  That is not really discussed as part of Skousen's theory, although it may not be a necessary aspect in relation to a justice/mercy fulfillment.

I may not be understanding you but I disagree with the idea that Christ suffered every other possible negative mortal experience. Yes, Christ did suffer and he suffered seeing the myriad of ways man sins, but he didnt necessarily have to suffer through each one of those individual sins of billions upon billions of people and the endless ways each one of them sinned. It says that those who do not repent will have to suffer just like Christ. So, will they have to suffer all of mans endless ways they have sinned? No I dont believe so.

Christ suffered the judgement of being a sinner. That judgment was physical death. He overcame that death so that men might live. Many argue that he also suffered spiritual death. This is a falae doctrine though. Christ was never spiritually dead to the things of righteousness. The atonement was possible because, by proxy of Jesus Christ, the eternal judgement of death is done away with as mercy now takes effect because the Father cannot deny the Son for his sacrifice. As such, Christ becomes our mediator in granting us life.