Atonement

gree0232 · April 27, 2013

The Book of Mormon helps clarify our understanding of this issue...
"5 Know ye not, my son, that these things (the sins of adultery and fornication) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." (Alma 39:5-6)
So let's analyze the Prophet Alma's words of fatherly counsel to his wayward son, Corianton:
Point 1. Alma explains to his son that the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation by someone illuminated through the power of the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus is the Christ and the gospel is true is the second most serious sin in the eyes of God.
Point 2. The two most serious sins are similar in spirit: The first of these is the denial of and Holy Ghost through the rejection of his holy companionship, and a total turning to Satan and the dark side by someone who has received many confirmatory revelations and mighty, continuous outpourings of divine spiritual power. It is said that those who succumb to this sin develop a spirit that wishes to crucify the Son of God afresh and, if at all possible, dethrone God.
Point 3. The second of these greatest of sins is the cold-blooded taking of an innocent human life while the still powerfully indwelling Gift of the Holy Ghost shouts in the soon-to-be murderer's spiritual ears that he is about to do something so terrible that it will totally sever his relationship with God; and then that individual goes ahead and commits the murder anyway.
Point 4. In order for your question to be properly answered, please carefully consider the following words of Alma: "whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Please note that while Alma says it is very difficult for one who has enjoyed great light and knowledge from God to be forgiven of murder, he does not say that it is impossible to receive the forgiveness of God fo such.
Point 5. The greater the degree of light and knowledge from God, the more difficult it is to be forgiven by God for murder. Why? Obtaining the forgiveness of God through the atonement of Christ requires a genuine broken heart and contrite spirit on the part of the penitent. Therefore, it requires a very great degree of contrition and broken heartedness on the part of the once spiritually enlightened murderer so as to assure the full sincerity of his repentance.
Point 6. In light of the above, the complete willingness on the part of this kind of murderer to give up his life (rather than to beg and plead to be given life in prison) is one way to show God he is truly sorry and fully repentant. If there is any shedding of the murderer's blood present when the capital punishment is carried out, it is only emblematic of the atoning blood of Christ the sinner hopes will be applied to his soul, there is no atoning power in the blood of the guilty murderer.

That is an excellent post.

However, when it comes to repentance, I would be ... wary is perhaps the best word?, of knowing in a secular or human sense when repentance is genuine. When one atones, God is a perfect judge, and so is his forgiveness. I see many comments about the denial of exaltation after murder, but I am uncertain .... even very serious sins can be washed clean, and genuine repentance is genuinely a matter of judgement - one made by Heavenly Father rather than us.

My thoughts are shaped by a moment in our history: Mai Lai.

There is no doubt that the men who participated in that massacre are guilty of murder (even if none was actually convicted). It would be hard pressed to find a more heinous example of sins failure, the abuse of power and authority, wanton rape and destruction, and murder. Yet, a few years back, while teaching a class a military ethics, I stumbled across some old interviews of some of those who had been participants in the attacks. In many cases, these men were reduced to blubbering, guilt ridden, men who were obviously plagued by demons. They were, too a man, broken men.

We can argue the context or extenuation of circumstance, of the cumulative effects of combat with an elusive and deadly foe leading to a desire for revenge, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are many of us who burn for revenge and take a higher ground (indeed, hundreds of thousands of other Soldiers did just that). And therein lies the sin ... murder, in all its seriousness.

It may be difficult or demanding, but the wanton murderers who carried out the destruction that day bore little semblance to the men who were reduced to broken and hollow souls in desperate need of forgiveness. Atonement and forgiveness is very easy when our sins are small as are the consequences, its very difficult when the sins are severe ... yet its arguably both more needed and necessary. The victims of Mai Lai and their surviving family members could have as easily sought vengeance rather than forgiveness, but the true necessity of atonement is revealed best in those cases that are most serious.

True repentance before God is God's to judge and discern, and he does so perfectly. That does not mean we are free from the consequences of our decisions, but as we are weighed, the genuine contrition of even serious sins before God ... will be adjudicated by a Heavenly Father who gave us his most beloved Son for exactly that reason: atonement trumps all.

We ALL need it.

Stone holm · April 28, 2013

The doctrine of Blood Atonement cannot be rescinded. It it a core element of the Gospel in all ages The assumption it has been rescinded is false.

Well, hmm I think they appear to have done so.

savedbygrace · April 28, 2013

I think this discusses the above claim URL removed for temple content the reason I posted the link is that there is just too much for me to type

Sorry, didn't read through it closely enough

Stone holm · April 30, 2013

Sorry, didn't read through it closely enough

I think your link keeps being zapped by the moderators, how many such zaps before they zap you. Just curios since I seem to tempt fate a lot.

Calm · April 30, 2013

I think your link keeps being zapped by the moderators, how many such zaps before they zap you.

It is easy enough to do a site search on the term "endowment" to see if it is discussed in detail. For google if I wanted to test FAIR for example (FAIR is not a critical site, I just have its url memorized), I would do "site:fairlds.org endowment". I would suggest anyone do it for a site that contains a lot of critical material of the LDS faith just to be sure if linking to it here though some sites who are concerned about repulsing LDS are wise enough to keep the problematic temple content off their site. Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

savedbygrace · April 30, 2013

I think your link keeps being zapped by the moderators, how many such zaps before they zap you. Just curios since I seem to tempt fate a lot.

Dunno, but if they do, they do, it is their perogative

Edited April 30, 2013 by savedbygrace

savedbygrace · April 30, 2013

Blood atonement never was an official doctrine of the church. http://www.deseretne...ent.html?pg=all
The only way it was practiced was in the case of capital punishment. Instead of electric chair, or whatever, they used firing squad.

Thanks POGI, but there seems to be evidence to the contrary:

Doctrines of Salvation, 1:35, 138, Joseph F Smith 10th prophet, "Man may commit certain grievous sins....that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If the he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone...for that sin...Joseph Smith taught that were certain sins that place the trans gressor beyond the atonement of Christ. If these sins are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins EVEN THOUGH THEY REPENT (emphasis mine)

Brigham Young second prophet JOD 4:43, JOD 4:53, JOD 4219-22 I know transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness would beg their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them...."

Brigham Young again:

"Now take a person in this congregation....suppose he is taken in grosse fault, that he has committed a sin he know will deprive him of the exaltation that he desires....and he also knows that by having his blood shed for that sin ....is there a man or a woman in this house but would say 'shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the gods..."

Brigham Young : " I could refer you to many instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins.....I have know a great many men who have left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This loving our neighbour as ourselves, if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on earth that he may be saved, spill it...."

What are the sins which are unforgivable? According to Joseph Smith, murder. "I am apposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke ascend thereof to God..." Documentary History of the Church 5:296

Adultery: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins and be received into the Kingdom of God...." Brigham Young JOD 3:247

Stealing: If you want to know what to do with a thief that you might find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity...and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people..." BY JOD 1: 108

Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in respect to the African race? If a white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so." BY JOD 10: 110

Covenant breaking: " I say that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do....I believe there a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated where we can shed their blood. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend ... God as an atonement for your sins, and the sinners in Zion may be afraid." Jedediah M Grant JOD 4 49-51"

So it would seem that this doctrine was well known and preached, and there are some who would say there is evidence that it was practiced and that a reign of terror existed in Utah, and it was due to this unhealthy atmosphere that the Mountain Meadows Massacre occured.

Calm · April 30, 2013

there are some who would say there is evidence that it was practiced and that a reign of terror existed in Utah, and it was due to this unhealthy atmosphere that the Mountain Meadows Massacre occured.

There are some that will say practically anything and everything, including that what is good is bad and bad is good. And others that will make movies out of such claims.

That doesn't mean we should repeat such claims without regard to the truth.

Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

Calm · April 30, 2013

May I suggest, savedbygrace, before repeating these claims of atrocities and this alleged "reign of terror" that you read responses to them here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormon_Reformation

Also: http://en.fairmormon.org/Utah/Crime_and_violence

Statistics of murders for the nineteenth century are difficult to come by, as I learned with the help of Kathryn Daynes and Craig Foster. The available evidence shows, however, that beyond a few well-publicized murders, we have every right to believe that compared with surrounding territories, Utah was a relatively murder- and violence-free community. Historians regularly cite such murders as the Potter-Parrish homicides of 1857 and the killing of J. King Robinson and S. Newton Brassfield in 1866 as evidence of Utah's violent character. Instead of making generalizations from juicy anecdotes, historians ought to use statistical and comparative methodology to interpret these events.
Although we do not have good statistics on murders for the nineteenth century, we do have statistics on lynchings. Unfortunately, the series begins in 1882 rather than in 1847. Lynching is defined as the taking of life by mob action without legal sanction. It does not include such things as murders committed in robberies or other such violent acts, but it would include murders perpetrated for such reasons as blood atonement. These statistics reveal that during the late nineteenth century Utah was one of the least violent of the American West's nineteen states and territories. With 7 lynchings—one of an African American—between 1882 and 1903, Utah had a better record than all the other jurisdictions except Minnesota (6) and Nevada (5). Montana (85), Colorado (65), New Mexico (34), Arizona (28), and even Iowa (16) exhibited a great deal more violence….
Although we lack a thorough comparative study of murders in Utah and other western areas, the available statistical information contradicts Bagley's [and the other critics'] impression of Utah society. The best evidence we have at this time is that Bagley is wrong when he insists that "what made Utah's violence unique in the West was that it occurred in a settled, well-organized community whose leaders publicly sanctioned doctrines of vengeance and ritual murder." In fact, barring further evidence to the contrary, the best evidence we have at this point is that Utah was one of the least violent jurisdictions in the western United States.[2]

Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

teddyaware · April 30, 2013

Thanks POGI, but there seems to be evidence to the contrary:
Doctrines of Salvation, 1:35, 138, Joseph F Smith 10th prophet, "Man may commit certain grievous sins....that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If the he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone...for that sin...Joseph Smith taught that were certain sins that place the trans gressor beyond the atonement of Christ. If these sins are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins EVEN THOUGH THEY REPENT (emphasis mine)
Brigham Young second prophet JOD 4:43, JOD 4:53, JOD 4219-22 I know transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness would beg their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them...."
Brigham Young again:
"Now take a person in this congregation....suppose he is taken in grosse fault, that he has committed a sin he know will deprive him of the exaltation that he desires....and he also knows that by having his blood shed for that sin ....is there a man or a woman in this house but would say 'shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the gods..."
Brigham Young : " I could refer you to many instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins.....I have know a great many men who have left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This loving our neighbour as ourselves, if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on earth that he may be saved, spill it...."
What are the sins which are unforgivable? According to Joseph Smith, murder. "I am apposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke ascend thereof to God..." Documentary History of the Church 5:296
Adultery: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins and be received into the Kingdom of God...." Brigham Young JOD 3:247
Stealing: If you want to know what to do with a thief that you might find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity...and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people..." BY JOD 1: 108
Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in respect to the African race? If a white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so." BY JOD 10: 110
Covenant breaking: " I say that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do....I believe there a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated where we can shed their blood. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend ... God as an atonement for your sins, and the sinners in Zion may be afraid." Jedediah M Grant JOD 4 49-51"
So it would seem that this doctrine was well known and preached, and there are some who would say there is evidence that it was practiced and that a reign of terror existed in Utah, and it was due to this unhealthy atmosphere that the Mountain Meadows Massacre occured.

The New Testament itself testifies there are certain sins so gravely serious in nature that the commission of such, by a fully enlightened and sanctified follower of Christ, places that man beyond the mercy of Christ:

4 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6)

and again...

26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10)

In the above two excerpts from the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are clearly taught the particular kinds of sins that place one beyond the mercy of Christ's atoning sacrifice are those that cause the perpetrators to develop an everlasting hatred toward Christ and his atoning blood.

There's no mystery here. Satan and his followers are perfect cases in point: These utterly rebelled against God, and that rebellion created within their hearts and minds a bitter hatred of such intense potency that they were eventually totally captivated by the spirit eternal darkness. The teaching under consideration on this thread tells us that mortals who come fully unto Christ, in this life, are placed in a moral position of such gravity that those so sanctified are in jeopardy of becoming like Satan and his followers if they then fully turn to the dark side. With great power comes great responsibility.

President Young was simply teaching that as a last ditch effort for one ever so near to complete captivation by that spirit of eternal darkness, if the one so nearly ensnared demonstrates to God he is willing to forfeit his life's blood to show how truly sorry he is for the ultimately serious wrongs he has committed, this willing sacrifice may rekindle the mercy of Christ on his behalf. The sacrifice will not save him, but the broken heart and contrite spirit that attends the sacrifice may allow for a renewed application of the atoning blood of Christ, that the penitent might receive a measure of forgiveness.

Rather than this being and example of supposed doctrinal excesses on the part of Brigham Young, he and the others who expounded this particular principle of blood sacrifice were simply trying to teach that for those who have committed the ultimate sins -- sins for the which it has been said there is no forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come -- there still may be a chance for redemption before the ones so afflicted totally surrender their wills to the devils and turn completely to the dark side. This teaching is a principle of mercy, not of hate.

It is also critically important to understand that he word atonement, in this instance, carries a only limited depth of meaning, as did the so called "atoning" blood of the animals sacrificed in the ancient temples of the Lord.

"36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it." (Exodus 29)

Edited April 30, 2013 by teddyaware

Bikeemikey · April 30, 2013

The New Testament itself testifies there are certain sins so gravely serious in nature that the commission of such, by a fully enlightened and sanctified follower of Christ, places that man beyond the mercy of Christ:
4 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6)
and again...
26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10)
In the above two excerpts from the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are clearly taught the particular kinds of sins that place one beyond the mercy of Christ's atoning sacrifice are those that cause the perpetrators to develop an everlasting hatred toward Christ and his atoning blood.
There's no mystery here. Satan and his followers are perfect cases in point: These utterly rebelled against God, and that rebellion created within their hearts and minds a bitter hatred of such intense potency that they were eventually totally captivated by the spirit eternal darkness. The teaching under consideration on this thread tells us that mortals who come fully unto Christ in this life are placed in a moral position of such gravity that those so sanctified are in jeopardy of becoming like Satan and his followers if they then fully turn to the dark side. With great power comes great responsibility.
President Young was simply teaching that as a last ditch effort for one ever so nearly completely captivated by that spirit of eternal darkness, if the one so nearly ensnared demonstrates to God he is willing to forfeit his life's blood to show how truly sorry he is for the ultimately serious wrongs he has committed, this willing sacrifice may rekindle the mercy of Christ on his behalf. The sacrifice will not save him, but the broken heart and contrite spirit that attends the sacrifice may allow for a renewed application of the atoning blood of Christ, that the penitent might receive a measure of forgiveness.
Rather than this being and example of supposed doctrinal excesses on the part of Brigham Young, he and the others who expounded this particular principle of blood sacrifice were simply trying to teach that for those who have committed the ultimate sins -- sins for the which it has been said there is no forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come -- there still may be a chance for redemption before one so afflicted totally surrenders his will, turning completely to the dark side. This teaching is a principle of mercy, not of hate.
It is also critically important to understand that he word atonement, in this instance, carries a only limited depth of meaning as did the "atoning" blood sacrifices of animals in the ancient temples of the Lord.
"36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it." (Exodus 29)

Thats a great post.

I agree with the comments you have made.

I also think that the verses you have quoted further display that the meaning of D&C 132 is not about physical murder at all but the shedding of the innocent blood of the lamb of God.

I still see zero scriptural relationship between killing a person an un-forgivability.

teddyaware · April 30, 2013

Thats a great post.
I agree with the comments you have made.
I also think that the verses you have quoted further display that the meaning of D&C 132 is not about physical murder at all but the shedding of the innocent blood of the lamb of God.
I still see zero scriptural relationship between killing a person an un-forgivability.

Thank you! To bolster your claims in statement above, I offer the following from Alma the Younger:

"14Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

15 Oh, thought I, that Icould be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.

16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death." (Alma 36)

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more." (Alma 26)

It seems Alma received forgiveness for lives lost as a direct consequence of his iniquitous life. For this he was not only forgiven, but went on to become one of the greatest prophets who ever lived... "Then sings my soul my Saviour God to thee, how great thou art!"

Edited April 30, 2013 by teddyaware

daz2 · April 30, 2013

This is the key sentence of the Church's renouncing of prior teachings on "blood atonement" (as distinct from its teachings of the Atonement through Jesus): "We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people."

Note the use of the terms "infinite" and "all-encompassing." The statement is consistent with President Packer's teaching: "I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

I am not one to put limits on the power and scope of the Atonement. I am not one to put limits on the ability of any person, ever, completely to repent. My assignment in life is to forgive everyone for everything, and to work and serve as if everyone, not matter who or what they have done, is not beyond the saving and redeeming and exalting grace and love and Atonement of my God, and yours.

teddyaware · April 30, 2013

This is the key sentence of the Church's renouncing of prior teachings on "blood atonement" (as distinct from its teachings of the Atonement through Jesus): "We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people."
Note the use of the terms "infinite" and "all-encompassing." The statement is consistent with President Packer's teaching: "I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ." https://www.lds.org/...veness?lang=eng
I am not one to put limits on the power and scope of the Atonement. I am not one to put limits on the ability of any person, ever, completely to repent. My assignment in life is to forgive everyone for everything, and to work and serve as if everyone, not matter who or what they have done, is not beyond the saving and redeeming and exalting grace and love and Atonement of my God, and yours.

Excellent words to believe and, most especially, to live by!

As for Christ and his atoning sacrifice, why bother to descend in suffering below all things, if all things are not redeemable. The standard works make it clear -- the only beings who are not redeemable are those who use their moral agency to decide they don't want to be saved. God will force salvation upon no man; if he were to do so, he would cease to be God...

5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son—

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; (D&C 88)

Edited April 30, 2013 by teddyaware

SamIam · April 30, 2013

I think there are couple of perspectives missing from this conversation that prevent us from really defining the nature of payment for sins and what level of payment is required to facilitate salvation. I attempted to encourage some of you to ponder upon the Avenger of Blood scenario in Deuteronomy to initiate some understanding but not a one commented on even having made the effort. I would like to encourage it again. In addition to help the pondering process I will toss in a couple more tidbits. I am being careful as I recognize fully that you cannot teach certain principles unless people will approach it from a spiritual angle. However, in hopes that someone will actually study and consider the perspectives I'll toss out a bit more...

Some of these thoughts have been referenced but for continuity I have to draw the complete picture to make it as clear as possible. Since this is not often realized it represents a New way of seeing what is actually occurring and sometimes this creates resistance. I encourage you to ponder before rejecting or accepting. The first set up is a quote By Bruce R. McConkie:

“The celestial kingdom is reserved for those who sanctify their souls by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
They are the ones whose sins Christ bore.
(Bruce R. McConkie,
A New Witness for the Articles of Faith
1985, 145)

The take away is that Christ does not pay for the sins of every individual that transgresses. The only ones that have their sins paid for are those that repent fully, receive baptism, and the required ordinances for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. I think that some have somewhat addressed this in this conversation indirectly. This is also referenced in the following verse:

Mosiah 15:11-12
11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you,
that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.
12
For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions.
And now, are they not his seed?

We can also note many distinctions in scripture that define a particular group as those whose sins are paid for by the Blood of Christ:

Mosiah 15:26
26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that
b
rebel against him and
c
die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them;
d
these are they that have
e
no part in the first
f
resurrection
.

This particular verse refers to the resurrection of Christ and the events then but we know that this also applies until his second coming when prior to and up to that time individuals still are subject to these conditions of the first resurrection. The point being that we can distinguish groups that have their sins fully paid for by Christ and all others essentially pay the price of their own sins whether by the spilling of their own blood in the extreme cases or simply in being held in Spirit prison until they repent and acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. Again this seems to have been kind of determined by some in the conversation.

Now, we need to consider a couple of diverse perspectives. We will note that in the temple, when Adam and Eve initiate the fall, these things:

1.) It is God the Fathers law that was broken – thus he is the one that exacts the penalty.

2.) God the Fathers law was broken in an eternal state of existence which requires a penalty be paid by an eternally capable means. As soon as man fell he was no longer capable of paying the price of an eternal penalty as he was dead in the sense of eternal things.

3.) It is God the Father executed judgement and rendered a penalty of spiritual death by separation from his spirit.

4.) It is God the Father that decrees a physical death that has conditional penalties predicated upon a probationary performance.

5.) It is God the Father that defined the condition of return to DWELLING in his presence as contingent upon the actions of a Savior being provided. This Savior was an eternal and infinite being capable of paying an eternal and infinite price.

a.) It is God the Father that placed Christ as the enforcer of Cherubim and a

flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life. Thus symbolic of rendering all future judgement subject to his son Jesus Christ who would buy up the lives of men in his sacrifice.

Thus the bottom line of this is that God the father’s law was broken and it is the penalty of the God the Fathers law that is required be overcome by Christ’s Sacrifice. Nobody, who is going to dwell in actual final states that are not in his actual presence, is subject to the conditions of rescinding the penalty of God the fathers law. To reap the blessings of Christ’s resurrection does not require repentance, thus that blessing is something not associated with the breach of God the Fathers Law.

Now this next section is going to get even more challenging and requiring of study and pondering to really embrace. We often comment that we do not exactly understand the specifics of the transgression that was Adam and Eve’s that, as described earlier required a penalty of death. For the sake of length let’s just stay with the imagery. When does eating a fruit constitute a just cause for death? The act of eating a fruit does not ever require a penalty of death. Unless the act of eating the fruit initiates a state of being that requires something take place that exacts a penalty.

(Alma 5:22-23.)
22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?
23
Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?

This verse states very clearly two things that are germane to this discussion:

that to be unrepentant is to be judged a murderer,
and ALSO to be judged guilty of all manner of wickedness.

It does not state that any of them actually murdered any other person nor would it be within reason to think that his entire audience is guilty of such. However, because of their unrepentant state they are being held to some level or degree of guilt for the actual blood of Christ that was mandated by the fall to redeem even one soul of the children of Adam. All are held subject to a charge of murder because no matter what their sin, no matter how great or how small, innocent blood must be sacrificed for God the Father to fulfill his word that a Savior would be provided to redeem them from the fall. The final judgement determines to what degree men will be held accountable.

The second condition should not go unacknowledged. They are, in addition, guilty of other un-repented sins of wickedness. However, these sins do not require the blood of a Savior to pay the price for them if the only reward is to be a member of a kingdom of eternal damnation such as the terrestrial kingdom, or the telestial kingdom. These sins they can pay the price for themselves and they will pay for these sins until

D & C 76:110-112

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;

112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

In consideration of the charge of murder that all mankind is under, and I repeat, it is only a charge, the judgment of such is yet to be rendered, however the charge is why we have these odd verses in the Book of Mormon that Bring murder into a discussion and it somewhat seems incongruous. Please consider:

(Alma 42:16)

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

The question is why verse 19 immediately jumps to a particular law that is given, the law being that if a man murdered he should die, and that if he murdered but there was no law against it would prove no great deterrent. The question we ask of ourselves, is this murder of individuals limited to application to those who intentionally murdered another person? Or is this law that receives a “punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul”…is this law relative to the state of final judgment wherein the potential exists for a full decree of death for the shedding of innocent blood? In other words the law was given and the law concerned murderers, and the ultimate punishment that is affixed is one of death. But we also have to address the fact that this set of verses references other issues as well as stated in the next verse:

(Alma 42:16)

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

In addition to a specific law against murder there is a law against sin. This law has penalties however this law is subject to conditional considerations that can appeal to other conditions of mercy and justice.

I’m going to cut this off here shortly and go no further. There are multiple other tangents which expand upon this foundation which are valuable and maybe necessary to understanding but I’m already too long in this explanation. Justice is one that we mistake in interpretation very often. It does not only accuse us it also is the reason we require redemption , as well as defining the conditions upon which Christ is able to set the bounds limits and conditions of his sacrifice and to whom it applies.

Here are a few more verses that can apply

Alma 34:11-16 law which is just

D & C 112:34 Required at your hands

Psalms 9:11 maketh inquisition.

Acts 18:5-6 blood on your own heads

Deuteronomy 21: 1, 6-9 put away the guilt of innocent blood

Deuteronomy 19:8-10 and so blood be upon thee

Deuteronomy 19:4-12 definitions of avenger of blood

Numbers 35:30-32 until the death of the priest

If someone will take the time to go through this and any other verses that they find are germane to the discussion they will clearly see that this statement by Bikeemikey is precisely correct.

I also think that the verses you have quoted further display that the meaning of D&C 132 is not about physical murder at all but the shedding of the innocent blood of the lamb of God.
I still see zero scriptural relationship between killing a person and un-forgivability.

However, it will also open up nuts and bolts answers as to why the sons of perdition and the sin against Holy Ghost cannot be covered by the atonement and will allude to answers concerning the issues of this concept found in D & C 132 and why it makes perfect sense:

D & C 132:26
26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

One wonders how a man can commit all of the sins that would have prevented him being “sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise” and after having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise he can pay the price for his own sins and for everything except the punishment enforced for breech against the commandment of God the Father which necessitated that innocent blood be shed.

Additionally, how can man pay for his own sins before receiving his telestial and terrestrial assignments.

How can the man who sins all manner of sin after being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise pay for all of his own sins and what sin is he being permited to not be held accountable to that everyone else in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms could never pay on their own. Thus he can return to the presence of his Father in Heaven after he pays for his own sins but they of the lessor kingdoms cannot return to the presence of God the Father even though they can pay the price for their own sins as well?

Thus we can see that there was at least one sin that no man can pay the price for. The payment for this crime was completely covered by the atonement and required an infinite sacrifice where all of the other sins of man are covered by their sufferings.

Yet why can Christ's sacrifice not be extended to the sons of perdition, including those that have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, even though in the case of 132:26 a man can pay for the majority of all sins, except perhaps murder, maybe adultry and definately not the Sin against the Holy Ghost, (based on prophetic statements) and still receive the highest degree of eternal reward in the celestial kingdom?

Answering these quesitons is the understanding that gives Bikeemikey's thoughts merit. I don't like to rush into all of the answers as it is the pondering and careful consideration that will be meaning ful to those few who will actually engage the spirit in the process.

I’ll stop here and see where this goes.

Edited April 30, 2013 by SamIam

Stone holm · April 30, 2013

"The take away is that Christ does not pay for the sins of every individual that transgresses. The only ones that have their sins paid for are those that repent fully, receive baptism, and the required ordinances for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom." I think you have to be careful with such doctrine especially with non-members who do not have the same concepts of repentance and ordinances which can occur and be accepted in the after-life as we do.

SamIam · April 30, 2013

"The take away is that Christ does not pay for the sins of every individual that transgresses. The only ones that have their sins paid for are those that repent fully, receive baptism, and the required ordinances for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom." I think you have to be careful with such doctrine especially with non-members who do not have the same concepts of repentance and ordinances which can occur and be accepted in the after-life as we do.

Isn't that simply a more direct way of phrasing the old faith versus works conversation that we all so freely engage in?...Wherein all are resurrected as an act of grace but that none go further except upon principles of repentance and ordinances?

If that was all that you gleaned from the material though, you should reread it with a less critical nature and you will potentially find a wealth of understanding.

Edited April 30, 2013 by SamIam

teddyaware · April 30, 2013

I think there are couple of perspectives missing from this conversation that prevent us from really defining the nature of payment for sins and what level of payment is required to facilitate salvation. I attempted to encourage some of you to ponder upon the Avenger of Blood scenario in Deuteronomy to initiate some understanding but not a one commented on even having made the effort. I would like to encourage it again. In addition to help the pondering process I will toss in a couple more tidbits. I am being careful as I recognize fully that you cannot teach certain principles unless people will approach it from a spiritual angle. However, in hopes that someone will actually study and consider the perspectives I'll toss out a bit more...
Some of these thoughts have been referenced but for continuity I have to draw the complete picture to make it as clear as possible. Since this is not often realized it represents a New way of seeing what is actually occurring and sometimes this creates resistance. I encourage you to ponder before rejecting or accepting. The first set up is a quote By Bruce R. McConkie:
The take away is that Christ does not pay for the sins of every individual that transgresses. The only ones that have their sins paid for are those that repent fully, receive baptism, and the required ordinances for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. I think that some have somewhat addressed this in this conversation indirectly. This is also referenced in the following verse:
We can also note many distinctions in scripture that define a particular group as those whose sins are paid for by the Blood of Christ:
This particular verse refers to the resurrection of Christ and the events then but we know that this also applies until his second coming when prior to and up to that time individuals still are subject to these conditions of the first resurrection. The point being that we can distinguish groups that have their sins fully paid for by Christ and all others essentially pay the price of their own sins whether by the spilling of their own blood in the extreme cases or simply in being held in Spirit prison until they repent and acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. Again this seems to have been kind of determined by some in the conversation.
Now, we need to consider a couple of diverse perspectives. We will note that in the temple, when Adam and Eve initiate the fall, these things:
1.) It is God the Fathers law that was broken – thus he is the one that exacts the penalty.
2.) God the Fathers law was broken in an eternal state of existence which requires a penalty be paid by an eternally capable means. As soon as man fell he was no longer capable of paying the price of an eternal penalty as he was dead in the sense of eternal things.
3.) It is God the Father executed judgement and rendered a penalty of spiritual death by separation from his spirit.
4.) It is God the Father that decrees a physical death that has conditional penalties predicated upon a probationary performance.
5.) It is God the Father that defined the condition of return to DWELLING in his presence as contingent upon the actions of a Savior being provided. This Savior was an eternal and infinite being capable of paying an eternal and infinite price.
a.) It is God the Father that placed Christ as the enforcer of Cherubim and a
flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life. Thus symbolic of rendering all future judgement subject to his son Jesus Christ who would buy up the lives of men in his sacrifice.
Thus the bottom line of this is that God the father’s law was broken and it is the penalty of the God the Fathers law that is required be overcome by Christ’s Sacrifice. Nobody, who is going to dwell in actual final states that are not in his actual presence, is subject to the conditions of rescinding the penalty of God the fathers law. To reap the blessings of Christ’s resurrection does not require repentance, thus that blessing is something not associated with the breach of God the Fathers Law.
Now this next section is going to get even more challenging and requiring of study and pondering to really embrace. We often comment that we do not exactly understand the specifics of the transgression that was Adam and Eve’s that, as described earlier required a penalty of death. For the sake of length let’s just stay with the imagery. When does eating a fruit constitute a just cause for death? The act of eating a fruit does not ever require a penalty of death. Unless the act of eating the fruit initiates a state of being that requires something take place that exacts a penalty.
This verse states very clearly two things that are germane to this discussion:
that to be unrepentant is to be judged a murderer,
and ALSO to be judged guilty of all manner of wickedness.
It does not state that any of them actually murdered any other person nor would it be within reason to think that his entire audience is guilty of such. However, because of their unrepentant state they are being held to some level or degree of guilt for the actual blood of Christ that was mandated by the fall to redeem even one soul of the children of Adam. All are held subject to a charge of murder because no matter what their sin, no matter how great or how small, innocent blood must be sacrificed for God the Father to fulfill his word that a Savior would be provided to redeem them from the fall. The final judgement determines to what degree men will be held accountable.
The second condition should not go unacknowledged. They are, in addition, guilty of other un-repented sins of wickedness. However, these sins do not require the blood of a Savior to pay the price for them if the only reward is to be a member of a kingdom of eternal damnation such as the terrestrial kingdom, or the telestial kingdom. These sins they can pay the price for themselves and they will pay for these sins until
D & C 76:110-112
110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;
111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;
112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.
In consideration of the charge of murder that all mankind is under, and I repeat, it is only a charge, the judgment of such is yet to be rendered, however the charge is why we have these odd verses in the Book of Mormon that Bring murder into a discussion and it somewhat seems incongruous. Please consider:
(Alma 42:16)
16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?
18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
The question is why verse 19 immediately jumps to a particular law that is given, the law being that if a man murdered he should die, and that if he murdered but there was no law against it would prove no great deterrent. The question we ask of ourselves, is this murder of individuals limited to application to those who intentionally murdered another person? Or is this law that receives a “punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul”…is this law relative to the state of final judgment wherein the potential exists for a full decree of death for the shedding of innocent blood? In other words the law was given and the law concerned murderers, and the ultimate punishment that is affixed is one of death. But we also have to address the fact that this set of verses references other issues as well as stated in the next verse:
(Alma 42:16)
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
In addition to a specific law against murder there is a law against sin. This law has penalties however this law is subject to conditional considerations that can appeal to other conditions of mercy and justice.
I’m going to cut this off here shortly and go no further. There are multiple other tangents which expand upon this foundation which are valuable and maybe necessary to understanding but I’m already too long in this explanation. Justice is one that we mistake in interpretation very often. It does not only accuse us it also is the reason we require redemption , as well as defining the conditions upon which Christ is able to set the bounds limits and conditions of his sacrifice and to whom it applies.
Here are a few more verses that can apply
Alma 34:11-16 law which is just
D & C 112:34 Required at your hands
Psalms 9:11 maketh inquisition.
Acts 18:5-6 blood on your own heads
Deuteronomy 21: 1, 6-9 put away the guilt of innocent blood
Deuteronomy 19:8-10 and so blood be upon thee
Deuteronomy 19:4-12 definitions of avenger of blood
Numbers 35:30-32 until the death of the priest
If someone will take the time to go through this and any other verses that they find are germane to the discussion they will clearly see that this statement by Bikeemikey is precisely correct.
However, it will also open up nuts and bolts answers as to why the sons of perdition and the sin against Holy Ghost cannot be covered by the atonement and will allude to answers concerning the issues of this concept found in D & C 132 and why it makes perfect sense:
One wonders how a man can commit all of the sins that would have prevented him being “sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise” and after having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise he can pay the price for his own sins and for everything except the punishment enforced for breech against the commandment of God the Father which necessitated that innocent blood be shed.
Additionally, how can man pay for his own sins before receiving his telestial and terrestrial assignments.
How can the man who sins all manner of sin after being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise pay for all of his own sins and what sin is he being permited to not be held accountable to that everyone else in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms could never pay on their own. Thus he can return to the presence of his Father in Heaven after he pays for his own sins but they of the lessor kingdoms cannot return to the presence of God the Father even though they can pay the price for their own sins as well?
Thus we can see that there was at least one sin that no man can pay the price for. The payment for this crime was completely covered by the atonement and required an infinite sacrifice where all of the other sins of man are covered by their sufferings.
Yet why can Christ's sacrifice not be extended to the sons of perdition, including those that have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, even though in the case of 132:26 a man can pay for the majority of all sins, except perhaps murder, maybe adultry and definately not the Sin against the Holy Ghost, (based on prophetic statements) and still receive the highest degree of eternal reward in the celestial kingdom?
Answering these quesitons is the understanding that gives Bikeemikey's thoughts merit. I don't like to rush into all of the answers as it is the pondering and careful consideration that will be meaning ful to those few who will actually engage the spirit in the process.
I’ll stop here and see where this goes.

Speaking for myself, I would like to dialogue with you on this thread. But before I'll be able to do so, you'll need to place your thoughts on this subject into more concise, less ponderous language. Perhaps its just me, but I find myself somewhat baffled by much of the above post. You know your own mind on this subject much better than anybody else does; as a consequence, the above post makes perfect sense to you. But with all due respect, your presentation doesn't quite get through to me.

My advise is that you take one concept at a time, and then make a studied effort to distill down the ideas that form that concept into language simple and easy enough for an average 14 year old to understand. It's obvious you're a bright fellow, but it feels as if you're speaking to me, as it were, in the language of advanced calculus, while I'm still trying to understand the basics of algebra one.

This reminds me of the first time I attempted to read Nibley's "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri." Brother Nibley seemed to presume anybody bothering to read his arcane study would already have a good grasp of the ever-evolving theologies and mythologies of the ancient Egyptians. I didn't. As a consequence, in order to even begin to understand what I was reading, I had to do research on virtually every sentence in the book! Through this exercise in humiliation, I came to understand a Thoth I am not. Look him up.

Edited April 30, 2013 by teddyaware

SamIam · April 30, 2013

Speaking for myself, I would like to dialogue with you on this thread. But before I'll be able to do so, you'll need to place your thoughts on this subject into less ponderous language. Perhaps its just me, but I find myself somewhat baffled by much of the above post. You know your own mind on this subject much better than anybody else does; as a consequence, the above post makes perfect sense to you. But with all due respect, your presentation doesn't quite get through to me.
My advise is that you take one concept at a time, and then make a studied effort to distill down the ideas that form that concept into language simple and easy enough for an average 14 year old to understand. It's obvious you're a bright fellow, but it feels as if you're speaking to me, as it were, in the language of advanced calculus, while I'm still trying to understand the basics of algebra one.
This reminds me of the first time I attempted to read Nibley's "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri." Brother Nibley seemed to presume anybody bothering to read his arcane study would already have a good grasp of the ever-evolving theologies and mythologies of the ancient Egyptians. I didn't. As a consequence, in order to even begin to understand what I was reading, I had to do research on virtually every sentence in the book! Through this exercise in humiliation, I came to understand a Thoth I am not. Look him up.

I understand your observations. Actually, I'm not speaking to you directly but to anyone that is willing to put the work in to discover the principles at hand. This is not easy material but it is imperative to clearing the muddy waters of this thread, which at times get close and at other times drifts away and all as if there is no standard by which to measure truth. I have spent years on the subject of the atonement and it is not something that can be easily distilled in words but it is taught by the spirit. I have tried to illustrate by specific verses and specific quotes exactly what led me to my understandings but none of us can remove the requirement of prayerful pondering effort that makes these principles become internalized. It is my primary frustration with board dialogue because we presume we can think our way instantly through spiritual material without the time investment and prayerful efforts when we really cannot. Without the spirit we can only see what we know, with the spirit we can know what can't be seen.

If you have specific questions I would be happy to dialogue through PM and I can possibly illustrate more clearly when I understand exactly what is important to you. I Thoth you did pretty good just to step forward as you did.

Edited April 30, 2013 by SamIam

teddyaware · May 1, 2013

I understand your observations. Actually, I'm not speaking to you directly but to anyone that is willing to put the work in to discover the principles at hand. This is not easy material but it is imperative to clearing the muddy waters of this thread, which at times get close and at other times drifts away and all as if there is no standard by which to measure truth. I have spent years on the subject of the atonement and it is not something that can be easily distilled in words but it is taught by the spirit. I have tried to illustrate by specific verses and specific quotes exactly what led me to my understandings but none of us can remove the requirement of prayerful pondering effort that makes these principles become internalized. It is my primary frustration with board dialogue because we presume we can think our way instantly through spiritual material without the time investment and prayerful efforts when we really cannot. Without the spirit we can only see what we know, with the spirit we can know what can't be seen.
If you have specific questions I would be happy to dialogue through PM and I can possibly illustrate more clearly when I understand exactly what is important to you. I Thoth you did pretty good just to step forward as you did.

I knew you were not speaking to me directly.

I too have been intensely studying the atonement of Christ for many years.

Why don't we start the dialogue with you, as simply and succinctly as possible, explaining just one of the "muddy waters" issues of misunderstanding of the atonement that frustrate you. Perhaps if we restrict ourselves to one brief paragraph at a time, the reduced "verbal turbulence" will enable us to better clear the "muddy waters" of which you speak.

Edited May 1, 2013 by teddyaware

SamIam · May 1, 2013

I knew you were not speaking to me directly.
I too have been intensely studying the atonement of Christ for many years.
Why don't we start the dialogue with you, as simply and succinctly as possible, explaining just one of the "muddy waters" issues of misunderstanding of the atonement that frustrate you. Perhaps if we restrict ourselves to one brief paragraph at a time, the reduced "verbal turbulence" will enable us to better clear the "muddy waters" of which you speak.

I'm not sure what part has caught your attention but what generated my effort started with the discussion about murderers who wind up in the telestial Kingdom and those murderers that wind up in outer darkness. What bikeemikey was hinting at, I was attempting to validate with commentary and verse that it would not be considered by others as simply his opinion but that it could be illustrated as to how this was reflected in the scriptures. What I attempted to explain was the nuts and bolts of what act of murder defines who goes where.

This also brought us to the nature of the accusation against mankind that resulted in the fall and for which the probationary period was provided. Most make all kinds of guesses as to what occurred that initiated the fall and mandated a penalty of death. It was not simply any ol' sin or being gluttonous fruit eaters but was instead a charge of guilt for the life of Jesus Christ which was now mandated be shed in behalf of every person who committed any little ol' sin. The degrees of culpability range from a judgment of death for outer darkness types to complete exoneration for Celestial types and various alternatives for those in that wind up in the telestial and terrestrial worlds.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SamIam

teddyaware · May 1, 2013

I'm not sure what part has caught your attention but what generated my effort started with the discussion about murderers who wind up in the telestial Kingdom and those murderers that wind up in outer darkness. What bikeemikey was hinting at, I was attempting to validate with commentary and verse that it would not be considered by others as simply his opinion but that it could be illustrated as to how this was reflected in the scriptures. What I attempted to explain was the nuts and bolts of what act of murder defines who goes where.
This also brought us to the nature of the accusation against mankind that resulted in the fall and for which the probationary period was provided. Most make all kinds of guesses as to what occurred that initiated the fall and mandated a penalty of death. It was not simply any ol' sin or being gluttonous fruit eaters but was instead a charge of guilt for the life of Jesus Christ which was now mandated be shed in behalf of every person who committed any little ol' sin. The degrees of culpability range from a judgment of death for outer darkness types to complete exoneration for Celestial types and various alternatives for those in that wind up in the telestial and terrestrial worlds.

Let me take one of your points at a time. I'll start with your reference to the original sin or transgression of Adam and Eve. You wrote:

"It was not simply any ol' sin or being gluttonous fruit eaters but was instead a charge of guilt for the life of Jesus Christ which was now mandated be shed in behalf of every person who committed any little ol' sin."

By writing this, are you saying it's your understanding the original sin of Adam and Eve is, in ultimate effect, tantamount to the unpardonable sin? which sin is the harboring of an implaccable hatred toward God; nurturing an everlasting zeal to dethrone God; and an all-consuming desire to crucify the Son of God afresh?

SamIam · May 1, 2013

Let me take one of your points at a time. I'll start with your reference to the original sin or transgression of Adam and Eve. You wrote:
"It was not simply any ol' sin or being gluttonous fruit eaters but was instead a charge of guilt for the life of Jesus Christ which was now mandated be shed in behalf of every person who committed any little ol' sin."
By writing this, are you saying it's your understanding the original sin of Adam and Eve is, in ultimate effect, tantamount to the unpardonable sin? which sin is the harboring of an implaccable hatred toward God; nurturing an everlasting zeal to dethrone God; and an all-consuming desire to crucify the Son of God afresh?

No, you have already gone all the way forward to the judgement phase, when it is not the case. I keep pushing for someone to analyze the Deuteronomy verses relative to the Avenger of Blood. I am reluctant to try to make it easy by explaining this all out as that robs people of the need for the spirit to teach them and the joy of being taught by the spirit and this absolutely cannot be received any other way. IF you will study

Deuteronomy 19: Read from verse 4-6 this defines an innocent act of taking a life.

Read 11-13 this defines a murderer and that if the murderer is not dealt with properly all of the people are covered in the blood of the innocent dead even though they did not kill him.

Now we need more on this scenario:

Go to Joshua 20, which adds to this type or shadow of judgement

analyze verse 3-6. Note the purpose of the city of refuge. Note the role of the high priest in judgement. Note that even if the manslayer is not guilty of murder he still cannot return to the land of his inheritance until what happens? Consider the unusual expectation that even though he is found innocent of murder the avenger of blood can slay him without regard to punishment of law if the manslayer is found outside of the care of the high priest in the city of refuge.

Numbers 35:32 also discusses a little bit more about the death of the high priest. The meaning is interwoven and as a type it is obvious but if the symbolisms are not clear, if you can find the Jewish interpretation of the meaning of the death of the High priest and why that qualifies the manslayer to return to the land of his inheritance then this should fall into place. As you are studying this out begin to replace the roles of the individuals in the narrative with the symbolic roles that us, Christ, God the Father, judgment, land of inheritance etc should occupy to make the narrative about the fall and final judgement and the atonement.

Now ask your question again and overlay it on what you have just studied out. Specifically your answer is found in the facet of the narrative that covers the fact that though the manslayer was found innocent of murder he was still held under a requirement of serving the highpriest for years before the high priests death freed him from an act he was innocent of to begin with. Still he is held bound by the charge of murder until the price of the life of the high priest is forthcoming. How does this apply to your question?

Edited May 1, 2013 by SamIam

teddyaware · May 1, 2013

No, you have already gone all the way forward to the judgement phase, when it is not the case. I keep pushing for someone to analyze the Deuteronomy verses relative to the Avenger of Blood. I am reluctant to try to make it easy by explaining this all out as that robs people of the need for the spirit to teach them and the joy of being taught by the spirit and this absolutely cannot be received any other way. IF you will study
Deuteronomy 19: Read from verse 4-6 this defines an innocent act of taking a life.
Read 11-13 this defines a murderer and that if the murderer is not dealt with properly all of the people are covered in the blood of the innocent dead even though they did not kill him.
Now we need more on this scenario:
Go to Joshua 20, which adds to this type or shadow of judgement
analyze verse 3-6. Note the purpose of the city of refuge. Note the role of the high priest in judgement. Note that even if the manslayer is not guilty of murder he still cannot return to the land of his inheritance until what happens? Consider the unusual expectation that even though he is found innocent of murder the avenger of blood can slay him without regard to punishment of law if the manslayer is found outside of the care of the high priest in the city of refuge.
Numbers 35:32 also discusses a little bit more about the death of the high priest. The meaning is interwoven and as a type it is obvious but if the symbolisms are not clear, if you can find the Jewish interpretation of the meaning of the death of the High priest and why that qualifies the manslayer to return to the land of his inheritance then this should fall into place. As you are studying this out begin to replace the roles of the individuals in the narrative with the symbolic roles that us, Christ, God the Father, judgment, land of inheritance etc should occupy to make the narrative about the fall and final judgement and the atonement.
Now ask your question again and overlay it on what you have just studied out. Specifically your answer is found in the facet of the narrative that covers the fact that though the manslayer was found innocent of murder he was still held under a requirement of serving the highpriest for years before the high priests death freed him from an act he was innocent of to begin with. Still he is held bound by the charge of murder until the price of the life of the high priest is forthcoming. How does this apply to your question?

I have been aware of this gospel principle from the beginning. James puts it this way:

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2)

So the next question to ask is this: "What is the moral justification for the the Lord to establish the Laws of Culpibility within the Gospel Law in such a seemingly inequitable or unjust way?"

Edited May 1, 2013 by teddyaware

SamIam · May 1, 2013

I have been aware of this gospel principle from the beginning. James puts it this way:
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2)
So the next question to ask is this: "What is the moral justification for the the Lord to establish the Laws of Culpibility within the Gospel Law in such a seemingly inequitable or unjust way?"

In your James verse, you are still seeing what you already know and the answer to your question is the unknown portion of how does this make sense when it ostensibly appears an unjust act to hold someone accountable for acts he did not do. This is what we are trying to get too and is found in aspects of the verses I have provided and especially my original post to which you responded.

This is your original question:

By writing this, are you saying it's your understanding the original sin of Adam and Eve is, in ultimate effect, tantamount to the unpardonable sin? which sin is the harboring of an implaccable hatred toward God; nurturing an everlasting zeal to dethrone God; and an all-consuming desire to crucify the Son of God afresh?

Did my previous answer satisfy this question for you?

I have been aware of this gospel principle from the beginning. James puts it this way:
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2)
So the next question to ask is this: "What is the moral justification for the the Lord to establish the Laws of Culpibility within the Gospel Law in such a seemingly inequitable or unjust way?"

God is just and it would be an unjust act to hold everyone accountable to varying degrees of guilt and offense. The only way for this to become just is if the offense is potentially the same for everybody. Thus in my original post I had a section on which law was broken. This is the original list:

Now, we need to consider a couple of diverse perspectives. We will note that in the temple, when Adam and Eve initiate the fall, these things:
1.) It is God the Fathers law that was broken – thus he is the one that exacts the penalty.
2.) God the Fathers law was broken in an eternal state of existence which requires a penalty be paid by an eternally capable means. As soon as man fell he was no longer capable of paying the price of an eternal penalty as he was dead in the sense of eternal things.
3.) It is God the Father executed judgement and rendered a penalty of spiritual death by separation from his spirit.
4.) It is God the Father that decrees a physical death that has conditional penalties predicated upon a probationary performance.
5.) It is God the Father that defined the condition of return to DWELLING in his presence as contingent upon the actions of a Savior being provided. This Savior was an eternal and infinite being capable of paying an eternal and infinite price.

Thus the conditions of the fall were a direct result of events in the Garden of Eden. These events kicked into play a requirement of justice that demanded everybody pay an equal price. Alma 42 describes these conditions:

Alma 42:13-14
12
And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which
a
man
had brought upon himself because of his own
b
disobedience
;
13 Therefore, according to justice, the ^aplan of ^bredemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would ^ccease to be God.
fallen, and they were in the grasp of ^bjustice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

We really need the whole chapter but for now consider the nature of the contents of these verses. There is no list of particular acts of disobedience given. What you and I are trying to discover is what makes it fair to be guilty of the entire law if we only do small sins while others do great sins. The verse above basically can be interpreted that it doesn't matter which sin we commit the law against the shedding of innocent blood is in play the minute we require that blood to redeem us. However, we are given a probationary state to determine if and to what degree we are going to be held to the law of death for the murder of innocent blood. Thus we read in DC 76 that those who are valiant receive the return to Gods presence in his celestial kingdom. Why valiant? Because we not only do not crucify him afresh and put him to an open shame and thus become subject to the full penalty of eternal death as a son of perdition, but we validate our lack of culpability by being willing to do anything to prevent his suffering and we fight against any and all that demand his life even to the point of sacrificing our own life if necessary. Thus these are freed from all culpability because in their valiance they have proven they would have no part in his death. The other two kingdoms define their degree of culpability by levels of disregard for the life of Christ.etc

In my list of whose law was broken what I am attempting to make clear that originally only one law was broken and it was the law of God that demanded a death sentence. Why? Because no matter what sin any of us commit, once we reach the conditions of accountability and sin we are now bound by justice for the innocent life which is shed to purchase the mercy that frees us from the grasp of Justice. That mercy which overpowers justice though is a conditional gift. Repentance etc are required to appeal to Christ for this blessing to be exercised in our behalf.

However, the mercy is extended by God the Father in behalf of his son because justice also demands that the person who suffers their innocent blood be spilled must be able to be recompensed for his unjust suffering. Christ just request was based on the fact that as a person under celestial law he was infinitely capable of an eternity of creation. He has never breached celestial law and so has claim on God the Father who protects those who keep celestial law.

When Adam and Eve fell, in simple terms God the Father could no longer advocate in their behalf because justice required their lives. If he at this point allowed them to stay his advocacy would be in direct opposition to the requirement of the laws (DC 88) that those that receive a celestial reward abide by. Thus he would cease to be God. So God caused them to die spiritually. When they fell from his presence they ceased to be celestial beings. Technically they were worth absolutely nothing in the celestial way of looking at things. Everything they built, every life they bore, every facet of their existence was bounded by the state of death in which they had been banished. In the eternal perspective they are less than the dust of the earth...Christ however is infinite in his potential. If truth is things as they were, are and will be, then the truth is that Christ retains his infinite potential. For all that man is not, Christ is. He is the sum total not only of who he was, nor who he is but retains the aggregate worth of every infinite aspect of his existence through all of eternity. So he can justly request a compensation of that which is of little worth ( the lives of all mankind) to recompense him for the sacrifice of his life of infinite worth.

Christ then sets some acceptable conditions that he will approve of these that he now owns and those that finally figure out how to commit to and abide by the laws of a celestial kingdom will be covered by his sacrifice and will return with him to that dwelling place. These sets of conditions are the second set of laws which are breached by men on earth, they represent his commandments as he is the gateway to the tree of life.

To recap your question. All men are guilty of breaching the law of God the Father which required innocent blood to redeem them regardless of what their sin is. So it is precisely equal in its application. The seeming ambiguity disappears once we understand the split of which laws apply when. Now I have rushed through this and also provided no scriptures and quotes. I can do so if you are specific on the questions that do not make sense. There are a dozen other tangents that come into play here but it is late and I am trying to only deal with that that deals with the points of your question. Still based on your question itself the avenger of blood material from the earlier post is not yet owned and I would recommend more work there or we will not give this material it's spiritual significance.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SamIam

Sign In

Atonement

Recommended Posts

gree0232

Stone holm

savedbygrace

Stone holm

Calm

savedbygrace

savedbygrace

Calm

Calm

teddyaware

Bikeemikey

teddyaware

daz2

teddyaware

SamIam

Stone holm

SamIam

teddyaware

SamIam

teddyaware

SamIam

teddyaware

SamIam

teddyaware

SamIam

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse