The Fall, Sin, Repentance, the Atonement and how they are all part of God's plan

[Jarid in Cedar]

Here are 3 intertwined topics that are integral to the core existence of Christianity. But why do they exist? Why is the fall of man, the atonement and repentance necessary for the human existence? Of all of the concepts taught by Christian belief's, the concept of the fall and why it is necessary is the one that vexes me the most. I really don't know where I am going with this thread, it is just some thoughts that I have been pondering lately. Feel free to take things in whatever direction that you desire.

[tooblue]

Here are 3 intertwined topics that are integral to the core existence of Christianity. But why do they exist? Why is the fall of man, the atonement and repentance necessary for the human existence? Of all of the concepts taught by Christian belief's, the concept of the fall and why it is necessary is the one that vexes me the most. I really don't know where I am going with this thread, it is just some thoughts that I have been pondering lately. Feel free to take things in whatever direction that you desire.

The fall was the result of a choice made by Woman and Man, represented by Eve and Adam in the Garden, ratified by mutual consent of all those who chose to follow Christ's plan in the pre-existence. It places Woman and Man outside the direct influence of God, their father and creator. Without the fall, Woman and Man could not experience sorrow, sadness or despair and conversely joy, happiness and hope. These emotional and mental human experiences are essential to eternal progression and could not be achieved in a purely spiritual state of being. Absent direct and undue influence they permit a soul, the combination of a spirit and a body, to exercise the full measure of his or her agency in a truly independent and autonomous state of mortal being. The consequence is a clearer understanding of the demands of justice, in the face of abject injustice, and a demonstration of the power of mercy to transcend logic and sentiment. As well, it offers a Woman and Man, who's first choice was to strive to progress, a glimpse into the ramifications of creation and the complexities inherent in states of existence.

[woot]

If we consider it metaphorically, it seems to be just an explanation for why life is hard. God is perfect and therefore wouldn't have created imperfect beings, so that imperfection needs to be attributed to something else. So, Satan fills that role. But then there needs to be a way for us imperfect folks to be redeemed, so Jesus fills that role. But then there needs to be a way to distinguish in-group and out-group, so repentance (and associated requirements) fills that role. Makes sense to me.

If one takes the stories literally, then yeah that requires some gymnastics.

[LA Ute]

DHO, in his typical style, lays the subject out in this GC talk (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng). It's not full of flourishes like a Jeffrey Holland talk would be, but it gets the job done very well. The whole thing is good, but here's the part about your question:


For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6.59?lang=eng#58)). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen” (2 Ne. 2:22 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.22?lang=eng#21)), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created.

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Ne. 2:23 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.23?lang=eng#22)).

But the Fall was planned, Lehi concludes, because “all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things” (2 Ne. 2:24 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.24?lang=eng#23)).

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.25?lang=eng#24)).

From a physician's perspective (thought you'd enjoy that) this is Elder Nelson's take (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/the-atonement?lang=eng) from a different angle:


That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death. And a loving Creator blessed them with healing power by which the life and function of precious physical bodies could be preserved. For example, bones, if broken, could become solid again. Lacerations of the flesh could heal themselves. And miraculously, leaks in the circulation could be sealed off by components activated from the very blood being lost.

Think of the wonder of that power to heal! If you could create anything that could repair itself, you would have created life in perpetuity. For example, if you could create a chair that could fix its own broken leg, there would be no limit to the life of that chair. Many of you walk on legs that were once broken and do so because of your remarkable gift of healing.

Even though our Creator endowed us with this incredible power, He consigned a counterbalancing gift to our bodies. It is the blessing of aging, with visible reminders that we are mortal beings destined one day to leave this “frail existence.”Our bodies change every day. As we grow older, our broad chests and narrow waists have a tendency to trade places. We get wrinkles, lose color in our hair—even the hair itself—to remind us that we are mortal children of God, with a “manufacturer’s guarantee” that we shall not be stranded upon the earth forever. Were it not for the Fall, our physicians, beauticians, and morticians would all be unemployed.

Adam and Eve, as mortal beings, were instructed to “worship the Lord their God, and … offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord.”They were further instructed that “the life of the flesh is in the blood: … for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”Probation, procreation, and aging were all components of—and physical death was essential to—God’s “great plan of happiness.”

But mortal life, glorious as it is, was never the ultimate objective of God’s plan. Life and death here on planet Earth were merely means to an end—not the end for which we were sent.

[tooblue]

If we consider it metaphorically, it seems to be just an explanation for why life is hard. God is perfect and therefore wouldn't have created imperfect beings, so that imperfection needs to be attributed to something else. So, Satan fills that role. But then there needs to be a way for us imperfect folks to be redeemed, so Jesus fills that role. But then there needs to be a way to distinguish in-group and out-group, so repentance (and associated requirements) fills that role. Makes sense to me.

If one takes the stories literally, then yeah that requires some gymnastics.

"The world is the self-knowledge of the will." —Rudolf Malter

[Two Utes]

Here are 3 intertwined topics that are integral to the core existence of Christianity. But why do they exist? Why is the fall of man, the atonement and repentance necessary for the human existence? Of all of the concepts taught by Christian belief's, the concept of the fall and why it is necessary is the one that vexes me the most. I really don't know where I am going with this thread, it is just some thoughts that I have been pondering lately. Feel free to take things in whatever direction that you desire.

And please explain why repentance requires you to go to your neighbor and/or spiritual leader and tell them about your wrongdoings? If you truly have a contrite spirit and are sorry for wronging someone else (and have perhaps conveyed that to the person you have wronged) why would you need to tell your neighbor and/or spiritual leader?

Sorry but the "repentance" process is about getting shit on people in order to control them. So repentance is indeed critical to fundamentalist Christianity. I understand that Scientologists are hard core about the necessity of "auditing" your sins to the proper authorities.

[tooblue]

And please explain why repentance requires you to go to your neighbor and/or spiritual leader and tell them about your wrongdoings? If you truly have a contrite spirit and are sorry for wronging someone else (and have perhaps conveyed that to the person you have wronged) why would you need to tell your neighbor and/or spiritual leader?

Sorry but the "repentance" process is about getting shit on people in order to control them. So repentance is indeed critical to fundamentalist Christianity. I understand that Scientologists are hard core about the necessity of "auditing" your sins to the proper authorities.

Nonsense. Are you paranoid? I guess life would be that much easier if we could just rely on ourselves and ourselves only for every emotional or mental challenge we might face in life. I guess it'd be great to never have to worry about another soul and not have to strive for empathy and understanding. After all we are here alone, isolated and left to our own devices. Why should any one of us strive to connect and seek greater communion with deity by talking through issues with a fellow imperfect being, who may have a different insight or perspective on circumstances within or beyond our control?

In my experience, the unburdening of sorrow and frustration to an ecclesiastical leader can be incredibly cathartic and helpful in understanding one's own eternal purpose in context to the gospel. Does that mean that counsel offered in communications with spiritual leaders is always helpful. Of course not. But, for many it represents the start of a conversation. And that start can be important to not only the spiritual, but the physical health and well-being of an individual who is suffering. And where the counsel is inadequate, the spiritual leader has the ability to refer the person to secular professionals for great help with significant physiological ailments. There is nothing insidious in the process of confession. To characterize it as such is ignorant.

[UtahDan]

Here are 3 intertwined topics that are integral to the core existence of Christianity. But why do they exist? Why is the fall of man, the atonement and repentance necessary for the human existence? Of all of the concepts taught by Christian belief's, the concept of the fall and why it is necessary is the one that vexes me the most. I really don't know where I am going with this thread, it is just some thoughts that I have been pondering lately. Feel free to take things in whatever direction that you desire.


If we consider it metaphorically, it seems to be just an explanation for why life is hard. God is perfect and therefore wouldn't have created imperfect beings, so that imperfection needs to be attributed to something else. So, Satan fills that role. But then there needs to be a way for us imperfect folks to be redeemed, so Jesus fills that role. But then there needs to be a way to distinguish in-group and out-group, so repentance (and associated requirements) fills that role. Makes sense to me.

If one takes the stories literally, then yeah that requires some gymnastics.

One explanation that makes sense to me is given that people are both good and bad in varying degrees that it is useful to be able to externalize the bad part of themselves. I am not bad, I am just in a fallen world. I am not bad, Satan tempted me. If you can believe that about others them maybe it is easier to cooperate with them in the future, which is mutually advantageous, even though they may have wronged you today. It is interesting to think it all as one of Dawkins' memes (evolved ideas). It is so ubiquitous it simply HAS to be useful in some contexts.

[LA Ute]

It is interesting to think it all as one of Dawkins' memes (evolved ideas). It is so ubiquitous it simply HAS to be useful in some contexts.

Just to give equal time to the believer point of view (one of my many important jobs here): I see it as a spiritual archetype, one of those concepts, buried deep in our consciousness, that we brought with us from the pre-mortal existence and which is almost ineffable, but which expresses itself in our dreams, thinking, art, and literature. That's why I think the literary archetype of a fall and redemption is ubiquitous.

[Two Utes]

Nonsense. Are you paranoid? I guess life would be that much easier if we could just rely on ourselves and ourselves only for every emotional or mental challenge we might face in life. I guess it'd be great to never have to worry about another soul and not have to strive for empathy and understanding. After all we are here alone, isolated and left to our own devices. Why should any one of us strive to connect and seek greater communion with deity by talking through issues with a fellow imperfect being, who may have a different insight or perspective on circumstances within or beyond our control?

In my experience, the unburdening of sorrow and frustration to an ecclesiastical leader can be incredibly cathartic and helpful in understanding one's own eternal purpose in context to the gospel. Does that mean that counsel offered in communications with spiritual leaders is always helpful. Of course not. But, for many it represents the start of a conversation. And that start can be important to not only the spiritual, but the physical health and well-being of an individual who is suffering. And where the counsel is inadequate, the spiritual leader has the ability to refer the person to secular professionals for great help with significant physiological ailments. There is nothing insidious in the process of confession. To characterize it as such is ignorant.

Well, you just made a point or reason for making ecclesiastical leaders available in the event a parishioner WANTS to visit with them. However, your long winded analysis does nothing to explain why it is mandatory.

[tooblue]

Well, you just made a point or reason for making ecclesiastical leaders available in the event a parishioner WANTS to visit with them. However, your long winded analysis does nothing to explain why it is mandatory.

Your agency is never taken from you. Therefore, it is not mandatory. However, it may be necessary as outlined in scripture, especially for an individual seeking greater communion with God. Setting my supposed long windedness aside your rebuttal in it's conciseness fails to address my astute observations of your irrational fears.

[Mormon Red Death]

Nothing is ever mandatory. You can choose whether or not to talk to a bishop. It is, however, a commandment for reasons that tooblue made clear. For most people, all those good things he talked about are actually essential for to achieve the change they are trying to achieve. And, as we all know, the commandments are geared to helping the weakest among us. So if you are one of the very few truly self-determined people who can change without help, that's great. It won't hurt you any to follow this commandment, and it will definitely help many others who need it.

I would guess that, if you made a survey for everyone who had ever confessed sins to a bishop, 99% would say it was helpful and less than 1% would say it felt like Big Brother trying to gain leverage on them in order to blackmail them in some way. Put me in with the 99%.

Confession also tends to increase love and trust in a ward between a bishop and his flock. I know I am very grateful to bishops who have helped me. I can also say that it has increased my humility and courage, which is what commandments are supposed to do.

Its not mandatory? Uh you cant be saved unless you "go through the proper channels". How is that not mandatory for someone who wants to be saved?


Confession is a necessary requirement for complete forgiveness (http://lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng). It is an indication of true “godly sorrow.” It is part of the cleansing process—the starting anew requires a clean page in the diary of our conscience. Confession should be made to the appropriate person who has been wronged by us and to the Lord also. In addition, the nature of our transgression may be serious enough to require confession to a legal priesthood administrator.
“Not every person nor every holder of the priesthood is authorized to receive the transgressor’s sacred confessions of guilt. The Lord has organized an orderly and consistent program. Every member of the Church is answerable to an ecclesiastical authority. (See Mosiah 26:29 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/26.29?lang=eng#28) and D&C 59:12 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/59.12?lang=eng#11).) In the ward it is the bishop; in the branch, a president; in the stake or mission, a president; and in the higher Church echelon of authority, the General Authorities, with the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles at the head.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, 1969, p. 327.)

[tooblue]

Its not mandatory? Uh you cant be saved unless you "go through the proper channels". How is that not mandatory for someone who wants to be saved?


Confession is a necessary requirement for complete forgiveness (http://lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng). It is an indication of true “godly sorrow.” It is part of the cleansing process—the starting anew requires a clean page in the diary of our conscience. 1Confession should be made to the appropriate person who has been wronged by us and 2to the Lord also. In addition, the nature of our transgression 3may be serious enough to require confession to a legal priesthood administrator.
“Not every person nor every holder of the priesthood is authorized to receive the transgressor’s sacred confessions of guilt. The Lord has organized an orderly and consistent program. Every member of the Church is answerable to an ecclesiastical authority. (See Mosiah 26:29 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/26.29?lang=eng#28) and D&C 59:12 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/59.12?lang=eng#11).) In the ward it is the bishop; in the branch, a president; in the stake or mission, a president; and in the higher Church echelon of authority, the General Authorities, with the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles at the head.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, 1969, p. 327.)

1. In other words we should say we are sorry to those we may have harmed or offended. I think all persons regardless of their belief or non belief in deity would agree this is wise counsel and represents good human behaviour.

2. For the believers this makes absolute sense and it is of paramount importance to our salvation to make amends with the Lord. As a part of the bargain, as indicated in the scriptures, the Lord may require confession to an earthly ecclesiastical authority:

3. The optimum words being: "may be serious enough to require." This statement is then followed up by "... a legal priesthood administrator. Not every person nor every holder of the priesthood is authorized to receive the transgressor’s sacred confessions of guilt." No where is it indicated that a person must surrender his or her agency. With the exception of heinous human behaviour such as abuse, fornication, adultery, larceny, murder, bearing false witness or any other serious act that might put the mental or physical health of others at risk, what may be deemed serious enough for confession to a legal priesthood administrator is at the discretion of the sinner to decide.

[Two Utes]

Your agency is never taken from you. Therefore, it is not mandatory. However, it may be necessary as outlined in scripture, especially for an individual seeking greater communion with God. Setting my supposed long windedness aside your rebuttal in it's conciseness fails to address my astute observations of your irrational fears.

The comeback always falls back to "well you have your agency." Agency to you means if you want to be a good Mormon you confess to your spiritual leader and follow the rules. You can either follow or "fall away". And No. Your "astute" observations are simply mental gymnastics. Plenty of people chose to talk others about issues that come up in their lives. It is helpful sometimes. Making the confession of sins to a leader mandatory is about control.

[LA Ute]

Family arguments are always the best.

[Solon]

The comeback always falls back to "well you have your agency." Agency to you means if you want to be a good Mormon you confess to your spiritual leader and follow the rules. You can either follow or "fall away". And No. Your "astute" observations are simply mental gymnastics. Plenty of people chose to talk others about issues that come up in their lives. It is helpful sometimes. Making the confession of sins to a leader mandatory is about control.

This is the side of the fence that I come down on.

I personally don't believe in the LDS bishop-confession routine. It's not exactly scriptural. I know that the LDS have scriptures about confession - but those specifically state that it's okay to confess privately to the person you've offended (D&C 42). Not behind closed doors with a third party - a male bishop (probably very uncomfortable for females if the sin is sexual in nature). As laid out in scripture (specifically, the end of D&C 42), confessions are supposed to be either carried out between offender and offended, or in public if the offender offended a lot of people. For instance, Sylvester Smith - the oft-maligned malcontent of Zion's Camp - published his apology to Joseph Smith in a public forum - in the Messenger and Advocate (HC 2.160).

Maybe someone could argue that confessing to the bishop is the same as confessing "to God" (D&C 42.92). I personally don't see it as such, but I could see an argument that the bishop is a stand-in for God.

Some of this comes from a cougarguard post I made about 5 years ago. Sorry for the lack of new material.

[tooblue]

The comeback always falls back to "well you have your agency." Agency to you means if you want to be a good Mormon you confess to your spiritual leader and follow the rules. You can either follow or "fall away". And No. Your "astute" observations are simply mental gymnastics. Plenty of people chose to talk others about issues that come up in their lives. It is helpful sometimes. Making the confession of sins to a leader mandatory is about control.

Your assumptions about what a good Mormon means to me are not accurate. They represent the potential ideas of a convenient caricature. I am much more than a prop to be lampooned or dismissed so easily. Also, your assertion that my view of discipleship is an absolute is equally erroneous. There is nuance to my thoughts and feelings on this subject, based upon considerable personal experience. Also, my astute observations identify the irrational nature of your argument. You continue to insist this issue is about control, but all that reveals is that you are fearful. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but also a dangerous catalyst that does not often produce worthwhile outcomes.

[UtahDan]

Can we all just agree that tb is astute? I think you are man.

[tooblue]

Can we all just agree that tb is astute? I think you are man.

He's blood. He's also older and he isn't going to give an inch.

[DrumNFeather]

He's blood. He's also older and he isn't going to give an inch.

I hear you on this one!

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2