Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

The Atonement Taking Place on our World

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I think it's pretty speculative although most of the thinking on it is tied to the parable in D&C 88:51-61. Orson Pratt at least once tied that scripture to Moses 1:27-29 that was mentioned in the OP. I think Orson Pratt's speculation here is pretty "out there" and he ties a lot to his odd ontology that while influential in some circles was way beyond established doctrine. To be fair relative to D&C 88 he wasn't the only one making these sorts of interpretations. John Taylor also interpreted it in that way. It's a natural reading of D&C 88 and then has the obvious implications of having to ask upon which of the 12 planets was Jesus killed. Obviously ours, so why not on the others? I think that then shapes the 20th century readings.

The other obvious interpretation, I should add, is that the kingdoms aren't planets but simply regions of the earth. So it's talking about Jesus appearing to groups like the Nephites. Why that reading never caught on I can't say. I suppose one could then ask the same question but in this more localized setting. Why was Jesus crucified in Jerusalem rather than Bountiful? You could say the Palestinian Jews were more wicked than the Nephites or you could simply say they were all pretty wicked and it made sense to have Jesus in the main center of Judaism rather than one of the "isles of the sea."

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Actually that's not entirely true. There is a brief mention in section 76...


23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

Brief enough that certainly isn't clear.  "The inhabitants thereof" could simply refer to the fact that this world has ALL the inhabitants there are.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying there aren't any.  I'm saying that there is nothing specifically saying that there are.  We can, of course, speculate -- and in this case, I see no harm in it.  But it isn't a slam dunk.

I'm about 5% over to the side of "we're the only inhabitants in the universe.  Recently, the University of Oxford produced a model which says that we may very well be alone in the universe. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/are-we-truly-alone-cosmos-new-study-casts-doubt-rise-ncna891286

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/stop-looking-for-et-modelling-suggests-we-re-alone-in-the-universe

Beyond that, we really aren't seeing it. After finding over 4000 planets in over 3000 systems, astronomers found that none of them could actually sustain life beyond a very very basic level.  Of course that is a tiny tiny sample of the entire galaxy, let alone the universe.  But the pattern they are seeing is that there is a very complicated set of variables that all need to coalesce in order to sustain life.  We can do the numbers game and find that there would probably only be 10,000 to 50,000 planets with sentient life on it.  That is not so astronomical as we have been led to believe.

We have not realized how unusual earth is.  Among all the planets we've discovered so far none of them even come close to having the delicate balance to even have the possibility of life now or in the future.  The earth appears to be unique.   I personally believe that the so called exoplanets don't really indicate the presence of the so-called algae they hope it is.  It really doesn't make sense when considering all the variables on those planets. So, it may be that none of those observed planets actually sustains life.

Even if there is life on other worlds, chances are that there aren't that many after all.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Brief enough that certainly isn't clear.  "The inhabitants thereof" could simply refer to the fact that this world has ALL the inhabitants there are.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying there aren't any.  I'm saying that there is nothing specifically saying that there are.  We can, of course, speculate -- and in this case, I see no harm in it.  But it isn't a slam dunk.

I'm about 5% over to the side of "we're the only inhabitants in the universe.  Recently, the University of Oxford produced a model which says that we may very well be alone in the universe. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/are-we-truly-alone-cosmos-new-study-casts-doubt-rise-ncna891286

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/stop-looking-for-et-modelling-suggests-we-re-alone-in-the-universe

Beyond that, we really aren't seeing it. After finding over 4000 planets in over 3000 systems, astronomers found that none of them could actually sustain life beyond a very very basic level.  Of course that is a tiny tiny sample of the entire galaxy, let alone the universe.  But the pattern they are seeing is that there is a very complicated set of variables that all need to coalesce in order to sustain life.  We can do the numbers game and find that there would probably only be 10,000 to 50,000 planets with sentient life on it.  That is not so astronomical as we have been led to believe.

We have not realized how unusual earth is.  Among all the planets we've discovered so far none of them even come close to having the delicate balance to even have the possibility of life now or in the future.  The earth appears to be unique.   I personally believe that the so called exoplanets don't really indicate the presence of the so-called algae they hope it is.  It really doesn't make sense when considering all the variables on those planets. So, it may be that none of those observed planets actually sustains life.

Even if there is life on other worlds, chances are that there aren't that many after all.

Most people would call me brainwashed if I said this anywhere else haha but if science disagrees with my revelations and religion (and I mean real revelations) then I ignore science no matter the evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Most people would call me brainwashed if I said this anywhere else haha but if science disagrees with my revelations and religion (and I mean real revelations) then I ignore science no matter the evidence. 

While I think there's reasons to be skeptical of calculations of life in the universe (we don't exactly have a great sample due to the limits of technology and the possible non-homogenous makeup of solar systems) we should note that a multiverse solves most of the cosmological issues with theology. Heck, one could read D&C 88, as many people did, as really about planets and say there were only 12 planets in our universe capable of human-like life. I'm skeptical one should read it that way, but it's a pretty plausible reading. Other "creations" would thus be other universes, which are rather common in theoretical physics even if not yet empirically confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think there's reasons to be skeptical of calculations of life in the universe (we don't exactly have a great sample due to the limits of technology and the possible non-homogenous makeup of solar systems) we should note that a multiverse solves most of the cosmological issues with theology. Heck, one could read D&C 88, as many people did, as really about planets and say there were only 12 planets in our universe capable of human-like life. I'm skeptical one should read it that way, but it's a pretty plausible reading. Other "creations" would thus be other universes, which are rather common in theoretical physics even if not yet empirically confirmed.

I agree. I like interpreting that parable as twelve literal planets. Israel had twelve tribes that were blessed so why not the Son? I also am a strong believer that the Lord dwells here in the universe somewhere or somehow. However, whatever the case might be, I still think it's rather silly to have a near infinite universe with billions of planets and stars and have only twelve planets that are inhabited. 

Fortunately we aren't condemned for differing in doctrines such as this, we just have to know the character of God so that we might correctly worship Him. Whether He has green or blue eyes, wears t-shirts, or lives in house, it doesn't really might just yet haha

Share this post


Link to post

People think we are crazy for believing that a Savior existed on our own planet, even with the records we have of him.  Imagine how hard it would be to believe in an alien Savior being on another planet of which we have no record of.  It would require a whole other level of faith, and I can only imagine the secularist attacks. 

But then again, maybe they do have record of him. Maybe they are included in the "other sheep I have which are not of this fold..." which he visited.   

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2019 at 1:42 AM, Rivers said:

The answer that I have heard several times is that out of all the many worlds out there, our world was chosen.  And the reason being that we are the most wicked.  

"Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren. (Moses 7:36).
In a poetic paraphrase of Doctrine and Covenants 76, Joseph Smith wrote that Jesus Christ was not only the Creator but also the Savior of all the worlds:

"And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav'n,
He's the Saviour, and only begotten of God -
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad,
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav'd by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow'rs."
(Times and Seasons, 1 Feb. 1843, 82-83)

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2019 at 10:47 PM, clarkgoble said:

I suppose one could then ask the same question but in this more localized setting. Why was Jesus crucified in Jerusalem rather than Bountiful? You could say the Palestinian Jews were more wicked than the Nephites or you could simply say they were all pretty wicked and it made sense to have Jesus in the main center of Judaism rather than one of the "isles of the sea."

Regarding crucifixion, there is no indication of that form of execution being used in Bountiful.

Mormon 4:10-12 (dated A.D 364-375) mentions the Nephites and Lamanites being more wicked
than the Jews of Israel. 

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, theplains said:

Regarding crucifixion, there is no indication of that form of execution being used in Bountiful.

Mormon 4:10-12 (dated A.D 364-375) mentions the Nephites and Lamanites being more wicked
than the Jews of Israel. 

If the crucifixion was foreknowledge then the earlier prophecies simply would have described the execution method used in Bountiful. If crucifixion was, as Ostler suggests, God bringing about his prophecies then he'd have ensured crucifixion arose. I admit I find that idea disturbing which is why I have some issues with Blake's view of foreknowledge - although he also argued that crucifixion isn't explicit in the OT era. The Book of Mormon mentions could also be explained as artifacts of the translation. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2019 at 8:47 PM, clarkgoble said:

You could say the Palestinian Jews were more wicked than the Nephites or you could simply say they were all pretty wicked and it made sense to have Jesus in the main center of Judaism rather than one of the "isles of the sea."

That coupled with prophecy. Judah was promised that the Savior would come through his seed in the meridian of time. So, knowing the Apostles would need to go to the Gentiles rather quickly after His death, most likely ensure they were nearby. Otherwise trying to get to Europe from wherever in America might have been a little insane. 

Share this post


Link to post

Several of you are calling the leaders of the church during the time of Christ as being wicked.  But is that fair?  Weren't they doing their very best to protect the Church from this guy that was throwing out the Laws of Moses and countering what, at the time, was  the will of God? They were clearly concerned that this cult Christ was leading was also leading others to apostasy.  

The question really is, were the Jewish leaders really wicked?  Or were they simply trying their best to figure out what God wanted them to do.  They weren't even willing to do the killing.  They talked the Romans into doing their dirty work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Several of you are calling the leaders of the church during the time of Christ as being wicked.  But is that fair?  Weren't they doing their very best to protect the Church from this guy that was throwing out the Laws of Moses and countering what, at the time, was  the will of God? They were clearly concerned that this cult Christ was leading was also leading others to apostasy.  

The question really is, were the Jewish leaders really wicked?  Or were they simply trying their best to figure out what God wanted them to do.  They weren't even willing to do the killing.  They talked the Romans into doing their dirty work.

I think like any generation of the church the traditions took the form of Gospel. The patriarchs had it, Israelites had it, the Jewish church had it, the Christian and Nephite church had it, and our LDS church is heavily influenced by tradition. Traditions can often take the form of “my way or the highway” which confuse the true principles of whatever religion you might be apart of. And while the Jewish priests could have listened to the spirit I think, at least at first, the issue lied in their misunderstanding of the doctrines. Though I think they eventually were persuaded down a darker path when they killed Him.

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2019 at 1:42 AM, Rivers said:

The Book of Moses tells us that there are "worlds without number" out in the cosmos.  This begs the question of how these worlds relate to Christ and the Atonement.  The answer that I have heard several times is that out of all the many worlds out there, our world was chosen.  And the reason being that we are the most wicked.  

I'm sorry but I have a hard time swallowing this one.  That is just way to convenient that our earth just so happened to be the one to which Christ came.  But I also can't figure out how else things would work everywhere else.  Would it make more sense for every other world to have its own savior?  There's probably no answer for this one that can satisfy me but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Yeah, IMHO it is one of the silliest things to come out of Mormonism, but I think it derives from the scripture which says there are many worlds, and by the Son I have created them. This got interpreted to mean that the Son we know on Earth, Yeshua, is this Son by which all the worlds were created. But if the Son shall be called the Father(Isa 9:6) maybe it is that the Father is essentially a priesthood title or office, and the Son is too. If the Son had a beginning when the Father said to Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee," then the question becomes how many other Sons may have been begotten? My answer is as many as there were worlds created which needed saving. This idea that our world was planned to be the only world on which the priesthood law of sacrifice would be shown is just silly imho, and reveals a lack of knowledge of the oracles of God. Well, that is my piece - take it or leave it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/12/2019 at 4:35 PM, theplains said:

Who was the Saviour of the planet where the man (who would eventually be the Heavenly Father of our Earth)
was born on and became a God?

Thanks,
Jim

Why He was, of course. He was born into that world, and saved it, and by doing so, became "counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the king of peace." see, Isa. 9:6

Edited by RevTestament
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yeah, IMHO it is one of the silliest things to come out of Mormonism, but I think it derives from the scripture which says there are many worlds, and by the Son I have created them. This got interpreted to mean that the Son we know on Earth, Yeshua, is this Son by which all the worlds were created. But if the Son shall be called the Father(Isa 9:6) maybe it is that the Father is essentially a priesthood title or office, and the Son is too. If the Son had a beginning when the Father said to Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee," then the question becomes how many other Sons may have been begotten? My answer is as many as there were worlds created which needed saving. This idea that our world was planned to be the only world on which the priesthood law of sacrifice would be shown is just silly imho, and reveals a lack of knowledge of the oracles of God. Well, that is my piece - take it or leave it.

I probably wouldn’t refer to it as an office so much as actually becoming a Father or a Son (or a Holy Ghost or an Adam, if you’re into that). Because we know that offices are independent of priesthood. However if you literally BECOME a Father or Son, then that is a different matter all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

"Why He was, of course. He was born into that world, and saved it, and by doing so, became "counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the king of peace." see, Isa. 9:6

See, as much as it freaks me out, it makes sense that those who truly want a position next to the Father must go through what the Son did. If we didn’t then it would never be in our power to raise the dead into resurrection, it would always be Christ’s, nor would it be in our power to hold onto our own resurrection it would always be Christ’s. So we must eventually, if we wish, walk that path the Savior did.

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

See, as much as it freaks me out, it makes sense that those who truly want a position next to the Father must go through what the Son did. If we didn’t then it would never be in our power to raise the dead into resurrection, it would always be Christ’s, nor would it be in our power to hold onto our own resurrection it would always be Christ’s. So we must eventually, if we wish, walk that path the Savior did.

This assumes there is not another way to pass on this ability without having experienced being a Saviour in the way Christ did. This may be true. Or when God says we will be one, we will inherit, that might mean we not just share in God’s quality through contact with him, but we are changed into what God is somehow and thus if somehow all else were destroyed, still all of God’s abilities survive in one of those who became one with God because now the abilities are their abilities including raising from the dead, etc. 

Or perhaps once we become one, talking about whose ability it is becomes meaningless. 

We don’t really know how the ability works, so I don’t think we can make claims about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

See, as much as it freaks me out, it makes sense that those who truly want a position next to the Father must go through what the Son did. If we didn’t then it would never be in our power to raise the dead into resurrection, it would always be Christ’s, nor would it be in our power to hold onto our own resurrection it would always be Christ’s. So we must eventually, if we wish, walk that path the Savior did.

Joseph Smith actually taught this. He said if a man wanted to be like Christ, he must obtain the keys and power the same way Christ did. I think you can find that quote in The Teachings of Joseph Smith. Later, everything became about polygamy. It's a red herring.

About raising the dead. The power of God is a shared power. Christ derived His power from the Father because He was obedient in all things. When Christ becomes the Father, there is no "new God." There is just another Father sharing all the other Fathers have. Hence, I believe the Father has the name YHVH because He too proclaims behold(H), the hand(V), behold(H), the nail(Y). 

Anyway. thanks for bringing this up. It is not too "freaky" according to Joseph Smith who taught in the King Follett discourse that the Son died for us, the same as He had seen the Father do.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I probably wouldn’t refer to it as an office so much as actually becoming a Father or a Son (or a Holy Ghost or an Adam, if you’re into that). Because we know that offices are independent of priesthood. However if you literally BECOME a Father or Son, then that is a different matter all together.

If you have issues with calling it an office, how about a title? It is a title describing a particular calling I believe. 

Ephesians 1:18

18 The eyes of your aunderstanding being benlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the criches of the glory of his dinheritance in the saints,

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I think like any generation of the church the traditions took the form of Gospel. The patriarchs had it, Israelites had it, the Jewish church had it, the Christian and Nephite church had it, and our LDS church is heavily influenced by tradition. Traditions can often take the form of “my way or the highway” which confuse the true principles of whatever religion you might be apart of. And while the Jewish priests could have listened to the spirit I think, at least at first, the issue lied in their misunderstanding of the doctrines. Though I think they eventually were persuaded down a darker path when they killed Him.

I don't disagree with you for the most part.  But context is important to.  Remember church leaders dealt with a whole slew of violating commandments by killing.  The church doesn't do that any longer.  Today, it is more just excommunication as the harshest punishment.  So were Jewish leaders "evil" for dishing out the harshest punishment to those who broke the commandments and publicly disagreed with church leaders when they sincerely thought they were protecting the church and following the will of God?  Don't current church leaders exercise the harshest punishment against those that speak out against church leaders today?  You certainly wouldn't label them wicked.  So what is the difference?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't disagree with you for the most part.  But context is important to.  Remember church leaders dealt with a whole slew of violating commandments by killing.  The church doesn't do that any longer.  Today, it is more just excommunication as the harshest punishment.  So were Jewish leaders "evil" for dishing out the harshest punishment to those who broke the commandments and publicly disagreed with church leaders when they sincerely thought they were protecting the church and following the will of God?  Don't current church leaders exercise the harshest punishment against those that speak out against church leaders today?  You certainly wouldn't label them wicked.  So what is the difference?  

 

I think, from their point of view, they were trying to preserve their traditions by killing Jesus. He was teaching false doctrines, gathering a following, and being hailed as a Messiah which was severely damaging to the faith these leaders professed. Of course that wasn't really true because Jesus was essentially restoring the religion these priests had muddled together with their cultural hedges, interpretations, and traditions. Killing him was obviously evil, it was the Savior of the world and had the leaders of the Jewish church at the time just been a hair more diligent in listening to it's whispers they would have quickly found out who it was they accused. HOWEVER I don't think it was evil in the essence that they were having little chats with satan in the backroom of their synagogues or making some kind of hellish secret pack. They were attempting to protect what they believed was true.

I think the difference lies within the Spirit. I don't agree with certain excommunications of people, but I also don't see both side usually. However for the most part the people cut off because of their actions against the church (which you could say Jesus was doing too in essence) are cut off because of the Spiritual promptings of the various Bishops and Stake presidents praying and receiving an answer. The Jewish leaders obviously lacked that spirit.

I'm not saying all excommunications are spirit filled, I don't believe they all are nor are some of them totally justified from what I read. 

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post

Imagine the added difficulty of a teaching "a Messiah and Savior will be born on a different world that is around a different star farther away than you could possibly even imagine (and potentially hasn't even been organized yet) and after He is resurrected and atones for our sins, then you will have an opportunity to be resurrected and find redemption from your sins after a few million or billion years."

I'm not sure I would have had faith enough to believe that. Heck, some of the Nephites had problem with the teaching that the Messiah would be born far away in a different land (the one their fathers came from but nobody has ever seen).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Imagine the added difficulty of a teaching "a Messiah and Savior will be born on a different world that is around a different star farther away than you could possibly even imagine (and potentially hasn't even been organized yet) and after He is resurrected and atones for our sins, then you will have an opportunity to be resurrected and find redemption from your sins after a few million or billion years."

I'm not sure I would have had faith enough to believe that. Heck, some of the Nephites had problem with the teaching that the Messiah would be born far away in a different land (the one their fathers came from but nobody has ever seen).

Imagine the Preach My Gospel lessons 😂😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Imagine the added difficulty of a teaching "a Messiah and Savior will be born on a different world that is around a different star farther away than you could possibly even imagine (and potentially hasn't even been organized yet) and after He is resurrected and atones for our sins, then you will have an opportunity to be resurrected and find redemption from your sins after a few million or billion years."

I'm not sure I would have had faith enough to believe that. Heck, some of the Nephites had problem with the teaching that the Messiah would be born far away in a different land (the one their fathers came from but nobody has ever seen).

Why it would be almost as strange as Scientology 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why it would be almost as strange as Scientology 

 

Scientology still in part happened here, iirc (Xenu's dumping and destroying billions on earth).

People need to feel tied/connected to what they worship.  Rituals and creating sacred spaces are good at this.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...