Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[pogi]

11 hours ago, halconero said:

Elohim forbids it in the sense that to remain an immortal being the natural laws of an immortal being must be kept. Michael/Adam had the choice to keep these laws and remain in his state. Nevertheless he possessed the agency to transgress that natural law, knowing that it was necessary if he wanted mortal man to be.

I have difficulty with this theory in that the scriptures state that there is only one cause which brought death into the world - sin.  Without sin, there would and could be no death by "natural causes".  I think that by excluding the possibility that God was preparing Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, we are forced to come up with explanations that feel contrived (no offense) and contradictory to scripture. The natural causes explanation seems logical on its face, but it does not line up with scripture.  Not only are we forced to discard sin as the cause of death, but we are forced to accept that God gives conflicting commandments, and that Nephi was wrong in saying that God does not give commandments unless he first prepares a way to fulfill them (this fact was corroborated in the D&C and New Testament as well - 3 witnesses).  That is a lot of scripture that we have to discard.  Not only that, but I think that we miss out on a lot of the symbology and meaning behind the story.

When God says "thou shalt not...", or "I forbid it", it does indeed become a moral law on the grounds of obedience.  Disobedience to God's word is immoral and sinful. I give the Word of Wisdom as an example - a natural law with natural consequences became a moral law with moral consequences when God forbade certain foods. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by pogi

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Funny, but in my 3+ decades as a highly active (if not fully believing) LDS, I never heard anyone speak about being born with a sin nature.  I did hear a lot about not liking/not believing in "original sin"--but it appears LDS aren't altogether clear on what Christians even mean by that phrase. 

--Erik

To be fair, Christians aren't even clear on what other Christians mean by the phrase, as your definition of original sin compared to certain baptists' and Catholics' definition of original sin illustrates.  

I'm not sure how you were able to be highly active and not understand that LDS believe that we are born with a nature that is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19) and that "because of the Fall our natures have become evil continually" (Ether 3:2).

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

You can keep telling yourself that, but I often find the opposite to be true in the modern, secular world. The definition of peer reviewed is basically the same as putting out the same old information to be checked by a consensus against the same old knowledge, if you ask me; A "Believe this stuff or get lost!" type of mentality. Your example of Einstein isn't a very good one. He was almost never even accepted at all. He almost starved to death just trying to get anyone, at all, to even read one of his papers, let alone get it published in order to be peer reviewed. He wasn't very good at math, in the secular setting, perhaps due to laziness and lack of interest, but that was almost the ruin of him as well. Einstein was only good in theoretical physics, due to his imagination and thought experiments, which he conducted the majority of, while working as a patent clerk since he couldn't find any backing in the scientific community for so long. I do agree that imagination is more important than knowledge, but the very system of our educational facilities rewards more towards the accumulation of knowledge than rewarding imaginative thought that bucks the system, especially now days, IMO.

Look at what happened to Nicola Tesla. He was the one who lights up our world with electricity.... even to this day, yet he was still shoved into an ignominious ending when it came to who is who of the secular world, with the most imaginative innovations that we have ever seen.  Meanwhile Einstein who created nothing tangible that we use in our own lives, unless you discount the effects of Electromagnetic Retardation (EM Retardation) and instead think that gravity isn't part of the electromagnetic field and that it instead is bending space time, like all the good secularists learn and regurgitate as being the end all and be all of what is happening to make us have to adjust our timing on GPS satellite systems, in order to keep them accurate. I like Nicola's quote, which rings even truer today than it did when he said this: "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”..........................................

................................ Apparently imagination isn't more important than knowledge in the practical world of secular science. It's a good thought though that science embraces imagination so much..... I wish it was truer though.

Your comments on Einstein and Tesla make my case for me that real advancement takes place with those who do not kow tow to the memorize-and-regurgitate educational style.  The same could be said for Newton, who was the last great sorceror as well as being a modern scientist.

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

Huh? I too, "have literally taken part in the LDS endowment many times." This doesn't in anyway make me fully understand what, and how deep, the symbolism of things are. It doesn't doesn't automatically make anyone fully understanding of exactly what is going on with it all, and what the true implications are of all of it. I never was, "literally," in the Garden of Eden, while literally making covenants and taking oaths, I was only symbolically there. Is that a mistake when you wrote, "Each time I was literally there in the Garden," or do you think that there never really was a real physical Garden of Eden somewhere before the fall, making it possible that a symbolic garden is what is literal?

So you only imagined that you were there in the temple?  You dreamt it, and were not really, literally there?  The wall murals and the scenery set for the films or live presentations are just make-believe, and therefore the oaths and covenants made do not have real, literal force?  It is all just pretend.  Right?  Wrong.  You don't know the meaning of "literal," which is why I recommend that you take a look at a scholar's understanding of that word in just such a context -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't pretend to know everything about this, "sacred rite of passage," since you don't think I should call it a, "story," as you seem to claim absolute knowledge about. I will gladly agree to disagree with you. I don't believe that we, in our mortal and fallen state, will ever fully understand this part of the the Plan of Happiness, or any part of the Plan of Happiness for that matter.

I nowhere suggested that I or anyone else has absolute knowledge.  You are missing the point, which is that standard non-Mormon scholarship has long since established what rites of passage are, and you participate in them without realizing what is actually going on.  We do not need to fully understand the Plan of Salvation in order to uncover various meaningful aspects of it.  Our learning may come in stages and take many years to acquire.  I keep finding myself saying, "Gee, I didn't know that.  How interesting."  We all advance (if we advance at all) by increments.  But that cannot happen if we are not open to it.

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To say that little children are not born sinful is not to say they are born outside of the influence of the atonement.  I'll quote Robert Millet because I think he says it well-

"JS wrote to John Wentworth:  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".  This proclamation is in effect affirmed in the Lord's statement to Adam: "I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the garden of eden."  This declaration has, unfortunately, been misunderstood.  Even though God forgave our first parents their transgression; even though there is no "original sin" entailed upon Adam and Eve's children; even though "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children (Moses 6:54)--despite this clear absence of guilt for our first parents transgression, we must not conclude that all is well, that the Fall has no effect on us.

"To say that man is not under sin is not to say that man is untainted or unaffected.  Jehovah explained to Adam:  "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:55).  No, of course we do not believe, with Calvin, in the moral depravity of men and women.  No, we do not believe, with Luther, that man, because of his carnality and depravity, does not even have the power to choose good over evil.  And we do not believe that children are born in sin, that they they inherit the so-called sin of Adam either through sexual union or by birth.  Rather, children are conceived in sin:  meaning first, that they are conceived into a world of sin, and second, that conception is the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not the original transgression, which God has forgiven) are transmitted to Adam's posterity.

"To say we are not punished for their transgression is not to say we are unaffected by it.... Sin is implanted in man's nature at conception, just as death is implanted at the same time.  Both of these--death and sin--are present only in seed form at conception, and therefore, a child is neither dead nor sinful when born.  Death and sin do, however, come to pass as a result of man's nature as he grows up.  Sin comes naturally, just as death does."

 

I agree with all this. My point is a simple one: If there were no atonement to mitigate the totally destructive effects of the fall that resulted from our first parents' transgression in the garden, historical Christianity's doctrine of original sin would be true and in full effect. It is incorrect to assume if there were no atonement that the entire human family wouldn't now be in a state of total depravity, cut off from the influence of God's light and Spirit FOREVER. Without the atonement, the fall is not a partial fall but a fall of complete infinite and eternal destruction. Here is how McConkie explains what I'm trying to communicate:

If there had been no atonement of Christ, there would be no resurrection, no breaking of the bands of death, no coming forth from the grave.

If there had been no atonement, there would be no remission of sins; no return to the presence of God; no salvation of any sort, kind, or nature; no eternal life; no exaltation; no continuation of the family unit in eternity.

If there were no atonement of Christ, all men would be subject to “that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment” (2 Nephi 9:19).

If there were no atonement of Christ, “our spirits” would have become “like unto” Lucifer’s, “and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself” (2 Nephi 9:9).

If there were no atonement of Christ, all men would be damned everlastingly, all would be sons of perdition, and the whole purpose of God and his eternal plan of salvation would utterly fail.

All things center in, revolve around, are anchored to, and are built upon the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no language given to men or angels to proclaim these truths with the power and verity and dignity that should attend them. Let it be blazoned in burning fire through all the sidereal heavens that salvation is in Christ and comes because of his atoning sacrifice.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie
The Three Pillars of Eternity, devotional address at Brigham Young University on 17 February 1981

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is not so literal Jeanne... Remember in Revelation 12 the woman was pained to be delivered? Eve is representative of the church. 

Are we still teaching it like this in primary?  Are you saying that they are really not our first parents...and all that begattin' in the Bible is supposed to make sense?  I am so confused.  I am not dumb...really...just so confused.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I agree with all this. My point is a simple one: If there were no atonement to mitigate the totally destructive effects of the fall that resulted from our first parents' transgression in the garden, historical Christianity's doctrine of original sin would be true and in full effect. It is incorrect to assume if there were no atonement that the entire human family wouldn't now be in a state of total depravity, cut off from the influence of God's light and Spirit FOREVER. Without the atonement, the fall is not a partial fall but a fall of complete infinite and eternal destruction. Here is how McConkie explains what I'm trying to communicate:

If there had been no atonement of Christ, there would be no resurrection, no breaking of the bands of death, no coming forth from the grave.

If there had been no atonement, there would be no remission of sins; no return to the presence of God; no salvation of any sort, kind, or nature; no eternal life; no exaltation; no continuation of the family unit in eternity.

If there were no atonement of Christ, all men would be subject to “that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment” (2 Nephi 9:19).

If there were no atonement of Christ, “our spirits” would have become “like unto” Lucifer’s, “and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself” (2 Nephi 9:9).

If there were no atonement of Christ, all men would be damned everlastingly, all would be sons of perdition, and the whole purpose of God and his eternal plan of salvation would utterly fail.

All things center in, revolve around, are anchored to, and are built upon the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no language given to men or angels to proclaim these truths with the power and verity and dignity that should attend them. Let it be blazoned in burning fire through all the sidereal heavens that salvation is in Christ and comes because of his atoning sacrifice.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie
The Three Pillars of Eternity, devotional address at Brigham Young University on 17 February 1981

I don't think anyone is assuming that without the Atonement everything would be fine.  Maybe i've missed a post somewhere where someone tried to make that argument though.  

I have no idea if babies would be born guilty of Adam's sin without the Atonement, but they certainly would be lost regardless.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sorry; however, this former Anglican Bishop represents LIBERAL thought.

There is no such thing as "liberal thought."  This is a term used as a cop-out by those who don't understand reality.  Which is to say that a scholar is unconcerned with partisanship, but is really concerned with accuracy and precision.  Tom Wright understands the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible and reads it carefully.  He also understands religion and religious history.  Moreover, he brings his understanding into exchange with other scholars and believers.  He himself is a sincere believer.

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sure he doesn't hold to the Flood either or an actual parting of the sea or Hebrews in Egypt. He represents secularism and not Christian inerrancy of the Bible. Those among the Born-again Bible believing groups would label him a modernist and a reason many denominations split in the 1930's. The temple is now the body of any Saved individual ---- "No you not that your body is the temple of God?" It NOW isn't presently a building. As for pagan beliefs prior to Moses, they may or may not represent distortions and totally made up fabrications. The Babylonian Flood Epic is a prime example. The true oral story was distorted through pagan mythology and then later truthfully revealed to Moses by God.  The Bible Flood does in no way represent an updated version of the Babylonian tale (Though the Babylonian tale is base on the Epic Flood of Noah). The Bible version is correct but not derived from any former Flood.

I Corinthians 3:19 NIV For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Rather than attributing your own false notions of what Tom Wright thinks, you might want to hear him speak for himself -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs .  Your comments here are also indicative of lack of familiarity with biblical scholarship in general, which leads you to make assertions about it which are formulaic and false.  You might find some aid through reading David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, volume 1 (SLC: Kofford, 2014), http://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1 .

[boblloyd91]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, Christians aren't even clear on what other Christians mean by the phrase, as your definition of original sin compared to certain baptists' and Catholics' definition of original sin illustrates.  

I'm not sure how you were able to be highly active and not understand that LDS believe that we are born with a nature that is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19) and that "because of the Fall our natures have become evil continually" (Ether 3:2).

I would say the phrase I've heard more frequently is "natural man" in LDS circles to label our sinful nature.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 If you want to compare real life, then ask yourself whether it is the obedient children who are smartest and achieve the most:  Not on your life.  Only the truly inquistive and incurably curious child learns the most quickly.  The smartest are also the boldest.  Children have indomitable energy and bounce, which stands them in good stead every day, despite the owees they get en route.

With all do respect, I somehow don't think that the moral of the story was that we should be more disobedient to God or even to our earthly parents in order to get out of a sticky situation.  I was always taught otherwise. Obedience, not disobedience, brings the blessings of heaven.  Compare and contrast Nephi and Laman and all of the "ites" that followed.  Obedience seems to be the moral in any scriptural story, I would question any other interpretation.  But for some strange reason, we as Mormons make an exception for this one story.  I think that is good reason to question our understanding and interpretation.

Quote

Adam & Eve were in stasis and were never going to mature in that state, as Lehi himself pointed out.

Their maturity was possible with the understanding that they were being prepared to partake of the fruit.  It is the only explanation which maintains consistent morals and resolves scriptural conflicts.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

With all do respect, I somehow don't think that the moral of the story was that we should be more disobedient to God or even to our earthly parents in order to get out of a sticky situation.  I was always taught otherwise. Obedience, not disobedience, brings the blessings of heaven.  Compare and contrast Nephi and Laman and all of the "ites" that followed.  Obedience seems to be the moral in any scriptural story, I would question any other interpretation.  But for some strange reason, we as Mormons make an exception for this one story.  I think that is good reason to question our understanding and interpretation.

On the contrary, God is particularly pleased with those who show initiative, whether it is Abraham arguing with God over whether Sodom should be destroyed (Gen 18), or the wise servants of the parable who multiplied what they had received from their lord, while the overly cautious servant who did not invest the talent he had received was roundly condemned (Matt 25:14-30).  The Scriptural text is filled with instances in which one should not go along with the common herd, or in which it is unwise to claim that all is well in Zion.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Their maturity was possible with the understanding that they were being prepared to partake of the fruit.  It is the only explanation which maintains consistent morals and resolves scriptural conflicts.

Don't you think that we should revel in those imagined Scriptural conflicts?  There are so many thousands of them, pogi.

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anyone is assuming that without the Atonement everything would be fine.  Maybe i've missed a post somewhere where someone tried to make that argument though.  

I have no idea if babies would be born guilty of Adam's sin without the Atonement, but they certainly would be lost regardless.

My point in not that some members mistakenly believe without the atonement "everything would be fine." My point is that too many members don't understand how totally and completely lost and destroyed we would all be without the atonement. For example, many members mistakenly believe little children can be saved without the atonement, but the Book of Mormon clearly testifies that without the atonement of Christ all of us, including little children, would be eternally lost with in hell with the devil and his angels. The problem is that because the atonement neutralizes and mitigates much of the destructiveness of the fall, too many mistakenly assume the fall isn't as infinitely and eternally destructive as it actually is.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, God is particularly pleased with those who show initiative, whether it is Abraham arguing with God over whether Sodom should be destroyed (Gen 18), or the wise servants of the parable who multiplied what they had received from their lord, while the overly cautious servant who did not invest the talent he had received was roundly condemned (Matt 25:14-30).  The Scriptural text is filled with instances in which one should not go along with the common herd, or in which it is unwise to claim that all is well in Zion.

No doubt the Lord is pleased with those who show initiative and are inquisitive, and one can be and do all of those things without being disobedient to God.  Nephi and other scriptural passages assure us of this.  You will notice that none of the stories that you mention suggest or condone disobedience to God in any way.  They are in fact explicit on the point of obedience, the consequences of disobedience (pillar of salt), and the moral of not just being obedient, but anxiously engaged.  No such scripture exists which condones disobedience to God, and any interpretation in such a way should be questioned.  Disobedience is the spirit of enmity, it is the spirit of my will and not thine be done.  Initiative and inquiry are not the same as disobedience.

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Don't you think that we should revel in those imagined Scriptural conflicts?  There are so many thousands of them, pogi.

I do concede on the point that there are many scriptural conflicts, but these conflicts should not be understood to be the result of faulty or conflicting revelations, but rather they are the result of faulty and conflicting interpretations and translations.  God's word, as it comes from his mouth, is not contradictory.  If we see a conflict in scripture, instead of coming up with contrived and impossible notions to justify such conflicts, we should assume that there is a mistranslation or misinterpretation somewhere.  The conflict will be on the side of man and not on the side of God.  Joseph Smith sought to resolve such conflicts but never finished his work.

Edited December 29, 2016 by pogi

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

My point in not that some members mistakenly believe without the atonement "everything would be fine." My point is that too many members don't understand how totally and completely lost and destroyed we would all be without the atonement. For example, many members mistakenly believe little children can be saved without the atonement, but the Book of Mormon clearly testifies that without the atonement of Christ all of us, including little children, would be eternally lost with in hell with the devil and his angels. The problem is that because the atonement neutralizes and mitigates much of the destructiveness of the fall, too many mistakenly assume the fall isn't as infinitely and eternally destructive as it actually is.

I've never met a member who believed babies would be fine without the Atonement (at the very least all members should understand that resurrection is a necessary part of salvation), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are members like that out there. 

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

My point in not that some members mistakenly believe without the atonement "everything would be fine." My point is that too many members don't understand how totally and completely lost and destroyed we would all be without the atonement. For example, many members mistakenly believe little children can be saved without the atonement, but the Book of Mormon clearly testifies that without the atonement of Christ all of us, including little children, would be eternally lost with in hell with the devil and his angels. The problem is that because the atonement neutralizes and mitigates much of the destructiveness of the fall, too many mistakenly assume the fall isn't as infinitely and eternally destructive as it actually is.

 

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never met a member who believed babies would be fine without the Atonement (at the very least all members should understand that resurrection is a necessary part of salvation), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are members like that out there.

The atonement provides salvation from death, regardless of how sinless a life we live.  It provides redemption from the fall AND from our sins.
I also don't know anyone who thinks that little children don't need the atonement.

[Bobbieaware]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The atonement provides salvation from death, regardless of how sinless a life we live.  It provides redemption from the fall AND from our sins.
I also don't know anyone who thinks that little children don't need the atonement.

 

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The atonement provides salvation from death, regardless of how sinless a life we live.  It provides redemption from the fall AND from our sins.
I also don't know anyone who thinks that little children don't need the atonement.

I'll bet you wouldnt find very many members who believe babies who die in their infancy would end up in hell with the devil forever without the atonement.

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'll bet you wouldnt find very many members who believe babies who die in their infancy would end up in hell with the devil forever without the atonement.

Bit of a false separation.
The atonement is as much a part of Mormon belief as the Fall.
The idea of there being a fall without an atonement  or an atonement without a fall is like saying there is water without hydrogen or oxygen.  All part of the design.

So I agree with your premise that members generally "don't think God would do that", but I don't think it's even a consideration.

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bit of a false separation.
The atonement is as much a part of Mormon belief as the Fall.
The idea of there being a fall without an atonement  or an atonement without a fall is like saying there is water without hydrogen or oxygen.  All part of the design.

So I agree with your premise that members generally "don't think God would do that", but I don't think it's even a consideration.

That would be true if the atonement could be accomplished with the simple waving of a divine magic wand. It wasn't that easy. It was an infinite and eternal sacrifice of immense, unimaginable suffering accomplished by someone who had the freedom to back out. And if it isn't even a consideration why do the prophets, both living and past, emphasize the point. 

[Bobbieaware]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bit of a false separation.
The atonement is as much a part of Mormon belief as the Fall.
The idea of there being a fall without an atonement  or an atonement without a fall is like saying there is water without hydrogen or oxygen.  All part of the design.

So I agree with your premise that members generally "don't think God would do that", but I don't think it's even a consideration.

That would be true if the atonement could be accomplished with the simple waving of a divine magic wand. It wasn't that easy. It was an infinite and eternal sacrifice of immense, unimaginable suffering accomplished by someone who had the freedom to back out. And if it isn't even a consideration why do the prophets, both living and past, emphasize the point. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

That would be true if the atonement could be accomplished with the simple waving of a divine magic wand. It wasn't that easy. It was an infinite and eternal sacrifice of immense, unimaginable suffering accomplished by someone who had the freedom to back out. And if it isn't even a consideration why do the prophets, both living and past, emphasize the point.

Not sure what you are saying here.
That the atonement was an optional occurrence?  That there was a possibility for the fall to happen but no atonement due to the existence of Christ's agency?
For me a fall without an atonement would be a cause missing one of its effects.  They are inseparably joined.

Edited December 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you are saying here.
That the atonement was an optional occurrence?  That there was a possibility for the fall to happen but no atonement due to the existence of Christ's agency?
For me a fall without an atonement would be a cause missing one of its effects.  They are inseparably joined.

God would not have allowed the Fall without first a solution that existed for it.  (I think this is what you are sayings is at least an implication of what you are saying, God does not have or initiate half baked plans).

Thus of course it is nonsense to suggest that God might so construct the Plan of Salvation so as to include the possibility of those who died unaccountable suffering in hell for an eternity.

[Bobbieaware]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure what you are saying here.
That the atonement was an optional occurrence?  That there was a possibility for the fall to happen but no atonement due to the existence of Christ's agency?
For me a fall without an atonement would be a cause missing one of its effects.  They are inseparably joined.

With all due respect, because I know you're a good guy, I must be frank and say you are exhibiting precisely the kind of "take it for granted" attitude I've been talking about on this thread. Christ was a peccable being and was on the brink of failing in his atoning mission until the Father in his mercy sent a mighty angel from his presence who succeeded in strengthening the Savior enough to empower him to suffer the infinite and eternal suffering he voluntarily endured for us all. Christ descended into hell and below to save little children, and for having done this my heart constantly goes out to him. For all that he voluntarily endured, I deliberately cultivate an attitude of gratitude that consciously refuses to look upon the Lord's sacrifice as an inevitable fait accompli.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

God would not have allowed the Fall without first a solution that existed for it.  (I think this is what you are sayings is at least an implication of what you are saying, God does not have or initiate half baked plans).

Thus of course it is nonsense to suggest that God might so construct the Plan of Salvation so as to include the possibility of those who died unaccountable suffering in hell for an eternity.

Exactly.  The atonement and the fall are part of the same plan.  You literally can't have one without the other.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

With all due respect, because I know you're a good guy, I must be frank and say you are exhibiting precisely the kind of "take it for granted" attitude I've been talking about on this thread. Christ was a peccable being and was on the brink of failing in his atoning mission until the Father in his mercy sent a mighty angel from his presence who succeeded in strengthening the Savior enough to empower him to suffer the infinite and eternal suffering he voluntarily endured for us all. Christ descended into hell and below to save little children, and for having done this my heart constantly goes out to him. For all that he voluntarily endured, I deliberately cultivate an attitude of gratitude that consciously refuses to look upon the Lord's sacrifice as an inevitable fait accompli.

Interesting concept.
That the Savior could have failed or chosen to fail.  And that we should acknowledge the Savior's atonement as a voluntary act, not an unavoidable outcome.

So, that leads to the question of the Savior's nature. 
While he had the ability not to complete his task, was there even the infinitesimally slightest possibility in his nature that he wouldn't? 
And if there was, can he still be called perfect if he had any inclination to go against/rebel against God's will? 
And then would the atonement truly be infinite if the being that made it had it in his nature to disobey God?  Because the infinite sacrifice required a perfect flawless lamb.

But if he had absolutely zero inclination to go against the plan, if he was perfect enough that for him there was never a choice, is that really any different than a fait accompli?

Kind of a slippery slope to meander down.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your comments on Einstein and Tesla make my case for me that real advancement takes place with those who do not kow tow to the memorize-and-regurgitate educational style.  The same could be said for Newton, who was the last great sorceror as well as being a modern scientist.

I will agree to disagree on this point. Since I am seeing real advancements in science being led by those who are rejected by the secular world. I am seeing accurate Earth quake predictions of both time and places by so called, "pseudoscience," while the so called, "real science," can't even come close to doing that. You can see it right on your phone if you like. All you have to do is pay a measly one time fee of $3 to get the app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.disasterprediction.ios  Secular science still refuses to publish anything on this though, even though submissions have been made numerous times.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you only imagined that you were there in the temple?  You dreamt it, and were not really, literally there?  The wall murals and the scenery set for the films or live presentations are just make-believe, and therefore the oaths and covenants made do not have real, literal force?  It is all just pretend.  Right?  Wrong.  You don't know the meaning of "literal," which is why I recommend that you take a look at a scholar's understanding of that word in just such a context -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .

No I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was literally taking oaths and making covenants, in a symbolic Garden of Eden.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I nowhere suggested that I or anyone else has absolute knowledge.  You are missing the point, which is that standard non-Mormon scholarship has long since established what rites of passage are, and you participate in them without realizing what is actually going on.  We do not need to fully understand the Plan of Salvation in order to uncover various meaningful aspects of it.  Our learning may come in stages and take many years to acquire.  I keep finding myself saying, "Gee, I didn't know that.  How interesting."  We all advance (if we advance at all) by increments.  But that cannot happen if we are not open to it.

Then why all the hubbub about what I suggested as being possible concerning the Garden of Eden, in the first place.

"We all advance (if we advance at all) by increments.  But that cannot happen if we are not open to it." Exactly! .....Being, "open," is the main point I was making.

[theplains]

On 28/12/2016 at 11:44 AM, JLHPROF said:

Not mortal, but physical.
And a physical body is gained during mortality, showing that the Father was once mortal.

How do you believe Heavenly Father attained his 'mortal' body?

Thanks,
Jim