Atonement

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Fair enough. I'm just asking if it was the Spirit that got you where you are, and that gave you the knowledge about the fall that you have. 

Oh, that?

Absolutely.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is simply because it is the way things are.

Little children haven’t manifested their sinful predisposition, and yet they are subject to the “curse of Adam,” or separation from God, and not because “It is simply because it is the way things are.” It is because they opted to come from an estate in the presence of God into one outside His presence, and such transition is rightly termed a Fall, both as an event and as a condition. The catalyst for this choice is recognition or acknowledgement of a “before” and an “after”; a “present” and a “future;” "place A" and "place B" and the attendant exercise of agency; or, the principle of opposition in all things. Atonement is in opposition to desolation, which also describes the Fall.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Little children haven’t manifested their sinful predisposition,

We obviously know different little children . . .

[CV75]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

We obviously know different little children . . .

I don't think so! But in any case, they have the predisposition, don't they! And they have the disposition not just because it is the way things are; it is the transition they made by choice, or the Fall.

Edited January 18, 2016 by CV75

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Oh, that?

Absolutely.

Then you CAN testify to me of the truthfulness of your teachings on the fall not being connected to the atonement?

[Ahab]

First, get a correct understanding of what the atonement is.

Then do whatever is necessary to accept it, if you want to.

I understand the atonement as what makes us at-one (or at peace) with God our Father, so that includes not only what Jesus did and still does to help us with that but also our own repentance and obedience and the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit.

And that's basically it, all tied together with love.

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

To be clear, I am not saying the Fall never happened.

All I am saying is that I have come to the conclusion that the actuality of the Fall is in no way a requirement for the actuality of the Atonement.

 

This sounds a lot like this:

Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God . . .

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't think so! But in any case, they have the predisposition, don't they! And they have the disposition not just because it is the way things are; it is the transition they made by choice, or the Fall.

Here you make the unnecessary connection between a certain present disposition and an ancient mythical causative event.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Then you CAN testify to me of the truthfulness of your teachings on the fall not being connected to the atonement?

The Spirit bids me not testify to such things.

But She didn't mention a thing about not sharing. 

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

First, get a correct understanding of what the atonement is.

You do understand how this could be seen as a tad high-fallutin'?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This sounds a lot like this:

 

 

Dang it!

You figured out I am just a modern-day Korihor.

Okay, everybody, I confess.

I actually do know that the LDS Church is true and that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.

The only reason I said any different is because an angel appeared to me and told me to.

My apologies.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The Spirit bids me not testify to such things.

But She didn't mention a thing about not sharing. 

 

If the spirit has told you something is true, why can't you testify of that truth to others?

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here you make the unnecessary connection between a certain present disposition and an ancient mythical causative event.

That's silly. You say we are predisposed to sin (even children, who, while predisposed, don’t commit sin by this definition: https://www.lds.org/topics/sin?lang=eng) “simply because it is the way things are,” and might harangue over Elder Holland’s talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng (for example), but all present dispositions have an explanation or cause other than “It is simply because it is the way things are."

And are you suggesting the pre-existence is "an ancient mythical causative event?" If so, this whole discussion is waaay out of your league!

[SamIam]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is what I thought for decades.

...There is nothing in the Old Testament to my knowledge that links this "Fall" to a sinful state from which men and women must recover.

There are, however, sources which would indicate that those most familiar with the Old Testament, the Jews, saw the fall as precisely that - a sinful state from which mankind must recover.

Please consider:

Quote

And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree of the garden eating thou mayest eat. But of the tree of whose fruit they who eat (become) wise to know between good and evil, thou shalt not eat: for in the day that thou eatest thou wilt be guilty of death.(*Targum pseudo Jonathon)

 

The phrasing here is very important, if you can see the significance of this terminology then this following becomes even more indicative of an atonement association:

Quote

Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XXIII:13 THEN YE SHALL APPOINT YOU CITIES OF REFUGE... THAT THE MANSLAYER... MAY FLEE THITHER (XXXV, 11). This bears on the Scriptural texts, Good and upright is the Lord, therefore doth He instruct sinners in the way (Ps. XXV, 8). Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies (ib. 6). David says: Sovereign of the Universe! Were it not for Thy mercies which came to the timely assistance of Adam, he could not have survived. For it says, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. II, 17), but Thou didst not do so unto him. Thou didst merely exclude him from the Garden of Eden and he lived nine hundred and thirty years, and only then did he die. What didst Thou do to him? Thou didst merely drive him from the Garden of Eden; as it says, So He drove out the man (ib. III, 24). Why was he driven out? Because he brought death upon future generations, and deserved to die immediately, but Thou didst have compassion upon him and didst drive him out, as is the fate of one who commits murder in error, such a man having to be an exile from his own home to the cities of refuge. Consequently it says, ‘Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies,’ for they have been from of old (Ps. XXV, 6).

More than anything what we are looking for is perspective and clearly the Jews saw a sinful state which required some aspect of an atonement.  However, if you are not familiar with the Avenger of Blood scenarios of the Old Testament and the concepts of atonement associated to which the Midrash commentary above speaks, then, this may be lost on you.  Though the Midrashim texts may have antedated Paul, his writings would not of been considered influential in post apostolic Jewish writings who made great effort, albeit not completely successful, to eradicate the purpose and existence of a person known as Jesus Christ. Thus one might choose to accept that those to whom the Bible claims its authors clearly saw something that perhaps has escaped others. 

However, there is still hope, as the Book of Mormon does an excellent job of clarifying and connecting the expectations of the commentary of the Jews, the commentary of Paul and indeed LDS doctrine. Please consider:

 

Quote

2 Nephi 2:21

21 And the days of the children of amen were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

Seems clear to me...

Edited January 19, 2016 by SamIam
spelling, and punctuation

[consiglieri]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the spirit has told you something is true, why can't you testify of that truth to others?

Please do not try to get me to deny the Holy Ghost's admonition.

She gets peeved about that sort of thing.

 

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

And are you suggesting the pre-existence is "an ancient mythical causative event?" If so, this whole discussion is waaay out of your league!

Or way out of yours.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, SamIam said:

There are, however, sources which would indicate that those most familiar with the Old Testament, the Jews, saw the fall as precisely that - a sinful state from which mankind must recover.

Please consider:

 

The phrasing here is very important, if you can see the significance of this terminology then this following becomes even more indicative of an atonement association:

More than anything what we are looking for is perspective and clearly the Jews saw a sinful state which required some aspect of an atonement.  However, if you are not familiar with the Avenger of Blood scenarios of the Old Testament and the concepts of atonement associated to which the Midrash commentary above speaks, then, this may be lost on you.  Though the Midrashim texts may have antedated Paul, his writings would not of been considered influential in post apostolic Jewish writings who made great effort, albeit not completely successful, to eradicate the purpose and existence of a person known as Jesus Christ. Thus one might choose to accept that those to whom the Bible claims its authors clearly saw something that perhaps has escaped others. 

However, there is still hope, as the Book of Mormon does an excellent job of clarifying and connecting the expectations of the commentary of the Jews, the commentary of Paul and indeed LDS doctrine. Please consider:

 

Seems clear to me...

That's it?

Really?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Please do not try to get me to deny the Holy Ghost's admonition.

She gets peeved about that sort of thing.

 

The question isn't an attempt to get you to deny anything.  It's a simple and sincere question.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The question isn't an attempt to get you to deny anything.  It's a simple and sincere question.

I hope you had a great weekend, Bluebell! 

Let me try to be serious with you (for a change).

I believe I receive many revelations about many things.

I believe many of these are from the Spirit.

I find that the more I consider things, and the more I discuss things with others, the more revelations I receive.

But I do not think my revelations are binding on anybody else.

Hence, I would feel it inappropriate to "testify" regarding any such revelations.

This particular insight/revelation came to me while listening to a Mormon Sunday School podcast a few months ago.

It was a revelation to me.

I had long subscribed to the (by no means exclusively) LDS idea that the Fall was inextricably linked with the Atonement, and vice-versa.

This leads to the problem of requiring one to believe in the literalness of the Fall as a prerequisite to believing in a literal Atonement.

Believers have pretty much either ignored the evidence of evolution, or wrapped themselves in pretzels trying to make the mythic account of Adam and Eve fit with modern science.

The revelation to me is in cutting the connection.

Many would say we must believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden scenario in order to believe in the Atonement.

That is because the latter was instituted to overcome the effects of the former.

But this is not true; at least not for me anymore.

When I say this revelation is liberating, I mean that it liberates me from having to come up with weaker and weaker excuses in order to justify a literal Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

When it comes to testifying, I can certainly testify that this insight has been liberating to me.

How is that?

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I hope you had a great weekend, Bluebell! 

Let me try to be serious with you (for a change).

I believe I receive many revelations about many things.

I believe many of these are from the Spirit.

I find that the more I consider things, and the more I discuss things with others, the more revelations I receive.

But I do not think my revelations are binding on anybody else.

Hence, I would feel it inappropriate to "testify" regarding any such revelations.

This particular insight/revelation came to me while listening to a Mormon Sunday School podcast a few months ago.

It was a revelation to me.

I had long subscribed to the (by no means exclusively) LDS idea that the Fall was inextricably linked with the Atonement, and vice-versa.

This leads to the problem of requiring one to believe in the literalness of the Fall as a prerequisite to believing in a literal Atonement.

Believers have pretty much either ignored the evidence of evolution, or wrapped themselves in pretzels trying to make the mythic account of Adam and Eve fit with modern science.

The revelation to me is in cutting the connection.

Many would say we must believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden scenario in order to believe in the Atonement.

That is because the latter was instituted to overcome the effects of the former.

But this is not true; at least not for me anymore.

When I say this revelation is liberating, I mean that it liberates me from having to come up with weaker and weaker excuses in order to justify a literal Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

When it comes to testifying, I can certainly testify that this insight has been liberating to me.

How is that?

 

Thank you.

It sounds like you are saying that you believe the spirit testified to you that such is true about the Fall, but that you can't testify of that to others because it might not be true for them?  Am i understanding you correctly?

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you.

It sounds like you are saying that you believe the spirit testified to you that such is true about the Fall, but that you can't testify of that to others because it might not be true for them?  Am i understanding you correctly?

I think the problem is with the word "testify."

I do not think all intuitions I receive are "testimonies" of the Spirit.

Most are more nuanced than that.

I see the one we are discussing as an insight of a spiritual nature which I liken to, and describe as, revelation.

I do not claim it is true.

I just claim it is liberating for me personally.

It expands my views rather than constricting them.

And for me, that is one of the hallmarks of revelation.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Or way out of yours.

Well, are you suggesting the pre-existence is "an ancient mythical causative event?"

[SamIam]

On 1/18/2016 at 10:38 AM, consiglieri said:

This is what I thought for decades.

...There is nothing in the Old Testament to my knowledge that links this "Fall" to a sinful state from which men and women must recover.

There are, however, sources which would indicate that those most familiar with the Old Testament, the Jews, saw the fall as precisely that - a sinful state from which mankind must recover.

Please consider:....

 

Quote

 

That's it?

Really?

 

 

Candidly it appears that you are not interested in genuine dialogue and are quite self-affirming in your perspectives choosing to ignore wiser men and women.  Thus I suspect our interaction will be very minimal if at all hereafter. While I am very appreciative of most of God's creatures on this earth, trolls are best left in their self-inflicted solitude. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by SamIam