LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

Like most individuals, I grew up in a Christian theological assembly-line that was similar to Aletheia’s (and most other "churches of the in between") in many ways.

Excuse me, but I did not grow up in a "theological assembly-line," but your disdain for whatever type of church you assume I grew up in, is noted.

We "self proclaimed" ourselves as "orthodox" Christianity because it honestly felt that way to us and I learned the same naive habits of scriptural interpretation to support what I believed and memorized similar lists of scriptures to use against others.

And are those who memorize scripture to defend Christianity in error? Psalm 1:1-2 and Psalm 119:11 come to mind.

LDS teach:

“Search the scriptures—search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation. No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 11–12).

“Let us not treat lightly the great things we have received from the hand of the Lord! His word is one of the most valuable gifts He has given us. I urge you to recommit yourselves to a study of the scriptures. Immerse yourselves in them daily so you will have the power of the Spirit to attend you in your callings. Read them in your families and teach your children to love and treasure them” (Ezra Taft Benson, “The Power of the Word,” Ensign, May 1986, 82).

 

[Watchmen]

Excuse me, but I did not grow up in a "theological assembly-line," but your disdain for whatever type of church you assume I grew up in, is noted.



And are those who memorize scripture to defend Christianity in error? Psalm 1:1-2 and Psalm 119:11 come to mind.

LDS teach:

“Search the scriptures—search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation. No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 11–12).

“Let us not treat lightly the great things we have received from the hand of the Lord! His word is one of the most valuable gifts He has given us. I urge you to recommit yourselves to a study of the scriptures. Immerse yourselves in them daily so you will have the power of the Spirit to attend you in your callings. Read them in your families and teach your children to love and treasure them” (Ezra Taft Benson, “The Power of the Word,” Ensign, May 1986, 82).

There's a difference between studying scriptures as the LDS prophets encourage and memorizing for the purpose of attacking others as Clear alluded to.

 

[Clear]

Watchmen

Clear in post #300 - Like most individuals, I grew up in a Christian theological assembly-line that was similar to Aletheia’s (and most other "churches of the in between") in many ways. We "self proclaimed" ourselves as "orthodox" Christianity because it honestly felt that way to us and I learned the same naive habits of scriptural interpretation to support what I believed and memorized similar lists of scriptures to use against others.
Aletheia in post # 301 And are those who memorize scripture to defend Christianity in error?
Watchmen in post #302 There's a difference between studying scriptures as the LDS prophets encourage and memorizing for the purpose of attacking others as Clear alluded to.

Watchmen; Thank you for taking the time and effort to read what I said and for caring to understand it as I meant it. The purpose of memorizing scriptures in my "youth group" was was NOT to “defend Christianity” (though that is EXACTLY what we told ourselves), but rather it was to attack others and to bolster our own feelings of superiority by making others struggle for answers while we smugly rattled off our memorized lines. The memorization of our lists was a counterfeit to any deep understanding and represented a misuse of a social interaction and of data that did not support our claims any more than the LDS quotes encourage scriptural arguments. They encourage something else and it is another principle that the LDS have restored to it’s rightful position in authentic ancient Christianity.

“Search the scriptures—search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation. No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 11–12).

I believe that Joseph Smith was correct that if we ask God, in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, to tell us what is true, and if we do it with pure hearts and with faith, he will tell us the truth (whatever it is). Once God tells us by his spirit, we are not dependent upon our minister or the missionaries or anyone else. I believe this is a true principle and it represent yet another principle that the ancients were taught.

For example: In the Dead Sea Scrolls THANKSGIVING PSALMS (1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432) the writer repeats this important principle Joseph Smith taught concerning knowing the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Spirit. It reads :

“You determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones…all your designs for the end of time… And I, your servant know, by the spirit which you placed in me that your words are true and all your works are just… (emphasis is mine)

It is not just the memorization of scriptures and arguments which sustains and “defends” christianity, but it is the spirit of God which he gives to men:

“You have sustained me with your strength, and your Holy Spirit.

”with a sure truth you have supported me, and by your holy spirit you have delighted me; even until this day”

. The writer of the Thanksgiving scroll says “To the children of your truth you have given insight…”, but it is not simply by memorizing scripture, even the instructor knows where to place gratitude for his understanding :

“And I, the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit.”

In fact, he admits that without the spirit, he cannot understand the scriptures he reads :

‘How shall I understand unless you give me insight? What shall I say unless You reveal it to my heart? “

In the preface for the translation of the “CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION” (of 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11) the translator (Abegg?) Says

“These people held notions of “continuing revelation” and the idea that God continued to reveal new truth in their own day and that the bible was neither the only, nor the final, repository of his communication with humankind.

This is what I meant that it is mainly the historians who understood what the ancients taught, but even they did not elaborate the organization to restore these principles to the millions and millions that Joseph Smith did. The restoration of the principle of revelation to it’s rightful place is to help the moderns understand what the ancients meant when they taught

“Like purifying waters, he shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abomination of lying and sullying by an unclearn spirit. Thereby he shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the most high…

, and, like the instructor, none else may understand what those who are given the true and authentic spirit are able to understand. Else, the world remains in “blindness, and confusion” described in (4Q504 - 506)

Again, thank you Watchmen for having a care to understand.

Clear
drvitwse8g

 

[edward]

Watchmen

Watchmen; Thank you for taking the time and effort to read what I said and for caring to understand it as I meant it. The purpose of memorizing scriptures in my "youth group" was was NOT to “defend Christianity” (though that is EXACTLY what we told ourselves), but rather it was to attack others and to bolster our own feelings of superiority by making others struggle for answers while we smugly rattled off our memorized lines. The memorization of our lists was a counterfeit to any deep understanding and represented a misuse of a social interaction and of data that did not support our claims any more than the LDS quotes encourage scriptural arguments. They encourage something else and it is another principle that the LDS have restored to it’s rightful position in authentic ancient Christianity.

I am truly sorry, but you had some screwed up youth group leaders if they told that was the purpose of memorizing scriptures. I was taught to memorize scriptures so that I would not sin against God. Psalm 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

I believe that Joseph Smith was correct that if we ask God, in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, to tell us what is true, and if we do it with pure hearts and with faith, he will tell us the truth (whatever it is). Once God tells us by his spirit, we are not dependent upon our minister or the missionaries or anyone else. I believe this is a true principle and it represent yet another principle that the ancients were taught.

I don't disagree with the concept. I only disagree with the thought that we have to believe that God tells us what Mormonism teaches.

For example: In the Dead Sea Scrolls THANKSGIVING PSALMS (1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432) the writer repeats this important principle Joseph Smith taught concerning knowing the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Spirit. It reads : It is not just the memorization of scriptures and arguments which sustains and “defends” christianity [sic], but it is the spirit of God which he gives to men: . The writer of the Thanksgiving scroll says “To the children of your truth you have given insight…”, but it is not simply by memorizing scripture, even the instructor knows where to place gratitude for his understanding : In fact, he admits that without the spirit, he cannot understand the scriptures he reads : In the preface for the translation of the “CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION” (of 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11) the translator (Abegg?) Says This is what I meant that it is mainly the historians who understood what the ancients taught, but even they did not elaborate the organization to restore these principles to the millions and millions that Joseph Smith did. The restoration of the principle of revelation to it’s rightful place is to help the moderns understand what the ancients meant when they taught , and, like the instructor, none else may understand what those who are given the true and authentic spirit are able to understand. Else, the world remains in “blindness, and confusion” described in (4Q504 - 506)

Good job of cutting and pasting. Why is that okay for you and not for others?

Again, thank you Watchmen for having a care to understand.

Based on past posts, I fear he is not the most objective observer. However, we tend to thank people of agree with us and attack those don't. That's just human nature. It takes discipline to overcome bias, doesn't it? :yes:

I'll now crawl back into my cave

 

[Watchmen]

Based on past posts, I fear he is not the most objective observer. However, we tend to thank people of agree with us and attack those don't. That's just human nature. It takes discipline to overcome bias, doesn't it? :yes:

I'll now crawl back into my cave

Look in the mirror, buddy (if you have one in that cave of yours).

 

[Clear]

post one of two

REGARDING THE LDS RESTORATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE OF THE SPIRITS OF MEN


In the queue of the various principles that the LDS doctrine restored that solve the problems of fairness to reward and punishment, I had last mentioned the return to the ancient principle of Pre-existence of spirits and how that changes the apparent unfairness of unequal circumstances at birth. I thought I would post some of the ancient teachings to demonstrate this was the earlier teaching.


THE ANCIENT DOCTRINE OF PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE OF OUR SPIRITS WAS TAUGHT IN MANY CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH TEXTS

Clement of Rome, in his conversion to Christianity, relates his questions to the Apostle Peter regarding this very issue of inequality. In the Clementine Recognitions, the apostle Peter tells the young christian convert Clement about the pre-earth council and plan

"which He [God the Father] of his own good pleasure announced in the presence of all the first angels which were assembled before Him. Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." (Apostle Peter in Clementine Recognitions)

I’ve voiced the concept before that for theists, one great key to understanding what God is doing with mankind is contained inside of the concept that we are eternally spiritual as Peter taught Clement. This is an early Judao-Christian concept that is found in multiple sources: For example : The Serek Scroll (DSS 2:1), uses the expression “me'olam le'olam” just as Barnabas (ep #8) uses it by the saying "From eons unto the eons". It meant that "you come out of the eons and you go into the eons." There is an eternity behind you, and an eternity before you. Man’s place in the eternal scheme in this ancient Christianity was different than in so many of the later doctrinal shifts Christianity has undergone.

The apostle Peter further taught Clement that:

"This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light."

This is the same plan as was sung in the ancient Christian hymn “The pearl. The spirits of men are conducted back after they finished their testing in mortality.

In the early Christian Hyms, the Odes of Solomon , an example verse reads:

"Peace was prepared for you before ever your conflict, your testing, was upon this earth, for I know them and before they came into being, I took knowledge of them, and on their faces I set my seal. Who is there that is not subject to them? They are mine and by my own right hand I set my elect ones”

It is in THIS context that the Sophia Christi , says that "All spirits are ageless and equal as to creation, but differ in degrees of power." There is no hint of being “part of God”, but rather the spirits (or their parts) are ageless.

Jesus, in The Gospel of Thomas says,

"When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty."

Jesus is quoted as giving similar instruction as follows:

"Blessed is he who was before he came into being, and blessed are the solitary elect. For you shall find the kingdom because you came from it. You shall go there again."

The Gospel of Thomas further quotes Jesus:

'If they say to you from where do you have your origin, say to them, We have come from the light where the light has originated through itself. It stood and revealed itself in their image.' Lord, do I and man belong to the material world? The answer is you and your children belong to the Father who existed from the beginning. Your spirit came down from above from the imperishable light; for this reason the lower powers cannot approach you. But all who have known this road are immortal amidst mortal men."

This concept of pre-existence is spread throughout many, many of the ancient texts.

The Gospel of Philip (equally old and equally important to Thomas) says: "The Lord said, 'Blessed is he who was before he came into being [i.e. into the body] for he who is and was shall be.'"

Another quote from the Gospel of Philip parallels the Cabalistic teaching:

"At the Council in Heaven every spirit appeared before God in the very same form they were later to take in the human body. God examined them one by one, and many hesitated to come here and to be exposed to contamination."

In the Second Book of Enoch (the Slavonic version), Enoch writes:

"Write all the souls of men, however many of them are born, for all souls are prepared to eternity before the foundation of the world."

R. H. Charles, the premier expert in pseudographia and apocrypha in his great work, The Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha of the Old Testament , volume 2, says, "The Platonic doctrine of preexistence of souls is here taught. We find that it had already made its way into Jewish thought in Egypt." So in explaining where the christians and Jews GOT this doctrine, he feels it was “through Egypt, Christians and Jews, he says, both adopted this” Even though pre-existent spirits was an Egyptian doctrine, I believe the Jews and Christians possessed this doctrine completely independent of the Egyptians. The doctrine was accepted and further developed by the great Jewish Historian (and Christian contemporary ) Philo. Josephus indicates it was also an Essene doctrine.

You will find it in the Beresheit Rabbah and the Tanhuma , etc. The great Historian Meyer speaks of "The doctrine of preexistence as taught by the Essenes , by Philo , the Talmud and the Cabala ,". The Apocalypse of Baruch found in R. H. Charles says, "The multitude of those who should be born was numbered and for that number a place was prepared where the living might dwell."

Such a view is different than many modern christian theology and although most all theologies ask the question: What are we here for then? Such ancient Chrisianities answer the question differently: Some christianities feel that the spirits coming down here was a calamity. Some doctrines felt that we are here in prison. We are being punished. But unlike Origen and some Gnostic schools, the Cabala does not regard life as a fall or exile but as a means of education and a beneficial trial. To pre-creation christians, our time here may be seen as a time of education and probation.

Another book I’ve heard mentioned on the Forum is the Zohar and, regarding pre-existence it says : "All men before they lived on earth were present in heaven in the identical form they possess in this life, and everything they learn on earth they knew already before they came to this world." Such doctrines dovetail perfectly with the Talmudic idea of the world as a marshaling area, a way station, while that world above is the true dwelling. We have just left it temporarily to be tested here. "All spirits which are to enter into the body exit from the day of creation of the world until the earth shall pass away." It’s like one of the discovered logia of Jesus, “This life is a bridge. We cross over, but we do not make our home here.” (I had to quote this from memory so it might not be correct - incidentally, this is an islamic saying also).

If Josephus was correct about pre-existent spirits being an Essene doctrine, one might expect that the dead sea scrolls would also have such doctrine. I quoted earlier, the very powerful passage in the Zadokite Document from the Dead Sea Scrolls tells how God condemned the wicked in the preexistence by not counting them among those chosen. "From of old, from the days of eternity and before they were established, he knew them and abhored their generations. With exactitude he set out their names, but those whom he hated he caused to stray." Typical of this common background and convergence of doctrines relating to pre-existence among Jews and early Christians is the prayer of Anna in the Pseudo-Philo. "Hast thou not, O Lord, examined the heart of all generations before thou formedst the world?"

In the Secrets of Enoch in the Slavonic Enoch , the Lord says to Enoch, "Sit down and write the names of those who are not yet born and the places which are prepared for them forever; for all the spirits were prepared before the foundation of the earth." And so Enoch does this, saying : "I swear unto you, my children, that before man was made in the womb of his mother, he was prepared; and how each has sojourned in this age that a man might be tested in the balance while he was here."


post two of two follows
Clear
drviseviuzz

 

[Clear]

Post two of two

PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE OF OUR SPIRITS WAS USED TO MAKE SENSE OF UNEQUAL CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING BIRTH

Gregory of Nyssa explained "The soul had a previous existence and a life of its own where, even as in this life, it was given its free agency by the Creator. And such as grew weary at doing good entered this life at a disadvantage, having passed the test less satisfactorily than others."
It was in this way that Earlier Christians used a pre-mortal existence to explain the fact that we are born into this world it's with unequal advantages Some are born blind, lame, crippled; it's terrible. Some are born into poverty; some into riches. It is the same doctrine of Nyssa: Before we came here life was a test too, and when we passed the test, we came into this world. Our life here is a reward for our performance before we came here. Nyssa uses this doctrine to explain the inequality of people being born in such varying circumstances so as to seem unfair if there was not some prior reason for current conditions. As Nyssa says : "The soul had a previous existence for even as in this life, it was a free agent."

Basilides , also a contemporary, says that suffering in this life is punishment for sins in the preexistence, not by way of denying that there was preexistence, by insisting that the opportunity to suffer here, even martyrdom, is rather a reward earned before, an opportunity for greater glory.

Origen , the great Christian theologian, who did not believe in the doctrine in his later years, says the earlier brethren taught it. He didn’t believe it, but they taught it and was trying to discourage the doctrine. Origen in his early remarks regarding pre-existence of spirits says, "The spirit stands for progress and by definition evil is refusal to accept progress. This is the principle of apostasy that you refuse to progress, and when one refused progress in the other world, you came here at a lower level. Cyril did not believe that choices we made before this life (though perhaps “foolish choices), did not amount to “sin”. "Learn this one thing," wrote Cyril of Jerusalem , "that before coming to this cosmos, the spirit did not sin, but that we came down sinless here and now. And now we sin by choice." (These Cyril and Basilides may have disagreed on whether a spirit sins prior to this earth or not, but they do NOT disagree on the pre-existence OF that spirit.).

The LDS will recognize the consistency of the earlier Christian and Jewish teaching with their concept of the Pre-mortal existence of the spirit within men.



Clear

drviseviuzz
end of post two of two

 

[Orontes]

In the Second Book of Enoch (the Slavonic version), Enoch writes: R. H. Charles, the premier expert in pseudographia and apocrypha in his great work, The Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha of the Old Testament , volume 2, says, "The Platonic doctrine of preexistence of souls is here taught. We find that it had already made its way into Jewish thought in Egypt." So in explaining where the christians and Jews GOT this doctrine, he feels it was “through Egypt, Christians and Jews, he says, both adopted this”...

Hi Clear,

Good notation there. I have the same works by R.H. Charles. I recall a lecture with him where he made this exact point. Arguing against the shear volume of Pre-existence textual references in early Christian/Jewish texts is impossible. Therefore, if one wants to object to the notion, the obvious tact is to assign the view to an influence from some other source. Pre-existence ideas are clearly evident in Greek Thought i.e. Plato, therefore with the rise of Hellenism (particularly in the wake of conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent Diadochi) it seems easy to assign the idea of a Pre-existence in Jewish works to a Greek exposure. The problem comes from the fact that the Hellenistic Jewish quarter were the one's who lost out in the Maccabean Revolts. Both the Macabean - Hasmonean Dynasty and the Jewish groups ( i.e. the Essenes) that lived in the revolt's wake were anti-Greek.* The base problem of trying to square the circle of anti-Greek Jewish texts that mention a Pre-existence remains.


The other issue is this notion of a Pre-existence was fully incorporated early Christian Thought and was considered "orthodox". Origen, the preeminent Christian theologian prior to the Council of Nicea is the perfect example. His works are explicit on the subject.* * St. Augustine in his early career is another simple example.*** The rub is if one holds there was a Greek tainting of the early Christian Father's writings, and these same fellows were seen as "orthodox" in their day, then one has undercut the larger early Christian movement itself. One also runs the risk of appearing arbitrary: how can one claim one early Christian stance was kosher and another not without begging the question?




*The clear exception here is the Jewish theologian Philo. His whole project is an attempt to conflate Jewish and Greek ideas. The problem however, is Philo had no influence on the Jewry of his day or thereafter. Philo is notable for the fact many Christian took up his ideas. The perfect example is St. Ambrose who totally absorbed Philo's taking the Greek notions of interpretation i.e. allegory (used when dealing with Greek myths) and applying it to the prophetic writings. Of course, we know St. Ambrose is the fellow instrumental in converting Augustine to Christianity and it was this idea Augustine latched onto to escape the messy anthropomorphic ideas of God that are all over the prophetic writings and were simply an embarrassment to try and seriously explain to a Greek audience. Thus, one could allegorize what was inconvenient and still hold a thing as sacred.


**One doesn't perhaps need to mention that later on, once the theological winds had shifted long after Origen's death, he was posthumously excommunicated because he had clearly taught about a Christian held pre-existence (posthumous excommunication is itself an interesting idea).


***Augustine later recanted the idea of a pre-existence, though this would lead to all kinds of theological headaches for him when battling against his rival Pelagius i.e. Augustine trying to justify his new idea of Original Sin and still hold all of the following:


1) Deity is just
2) Man is a sinner from birth
3) Man is totally dependant on a Savior for salvation
4) Not all men will be saved.

The logical incompatibility is clear.

 

[MoonWater]

***Mod Advisory***

This thread was started specifically to discuss the LDS views of the Atonement.

Please keep this in mind while discussing and try to stay on-topic. Other topics should be taken to other threads.
​

 

[Clear]

Post One of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

“This thread was started specifically to discuss the LDS views of the Atonement. Please keep this in mind while discussing and try to stay on-topic. Other topics should be taken to other threads. “

I agree with the sentiment behind moonwaters statement however, I’m not quite sure how to apply it. Since it was posted when Orontes and I were having a discussion, I can’t tell if it might apply to us or to some other person(s). However, if it applies to the current discussion, perhaps I can offer explanation as to how we got to this discussion regarding the ancient Christian Doctrine that spirits of men existed before mortality and how this principle applies to the LDS atonement.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be the original and ancient Church of Jesus Christ of Early Day Saints. This includes a restoration of multiple principles such as ancient teachings regarding the atonement; authority which God delegates to his servants as they officiate for him in the atonement; the ancient covenants and ordinances, etc. All of these are important aspects of the atonement as taught by the ancient Christians (whom the LDS claim to be a restoration of and thus represent). In this context, what we are discussing indeed relates to the ancient Christian principles and their LDS correlations. Examples I can review how my earlier posts relate. For example :

In post #265 I discussed : "SPECIFIC LDS DOCTRINES REGARDING THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST FROM A SPECIFIC HISTORICAL VIEW"
I pointed out how LDS doctrines are so very similar to doctrine existing in texts from ancient Christianity and Judaism. “However, the LDS seem to have these ancient principles in a single organization and they possess them in a mature form, and appear to be using them accurately.” I then started to relate how ancient Christian principles which the LDS restored affect the entire paradigm surrounding the Atonement of Jesus Christ is entirely profound ways.

For example: THE LDS RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL PRE-CREATION PLANS FOR THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST ARE IMPORTANT AS THEY RELATE TO THE REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST RENDERED FOR MANKIND.

I pointed out that the clearest and most logical models of what God is doing now, make greater sense in relation to prior history. “It is in this context that I say that I do not know of another modern Christianity that both possesses extraordinary amounts of pre-creation data and is able to use it clearly and logically as it relates to the atonement and ultimate destiny of mankind than either ancient texts of Christianity and Judaism, or the LDS. (Otherwise, to gain such data, one must refer to the earliest Christianities and Judaism and their Documents to learn of such things).

For example: both Jewish/Christian Enoch make it clear that in the pre-creation "habitations", Jesus volunteered to the Father, to the the redeemer and atone for the fall of man (which fall was planned for before Adam was placed on the earth). The early Christian Abbaton also confirms this, in relating this specific pre-earth history when Jesus' Father is about to put the spirit of Adam into a body, Jesus relates to his disciples:

"And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.” (abbaton)

Thus, Jesus approached the Lord God, his Father and volunteered to be the needed redeemer. The point was that THIS ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEACHING ON THE ATONEMENT CORRELATES TO THE LDS TEACHING ON THE ATONEMENT. I do not think the LDS mind whether one quotes a text used by the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or if one quotes a text used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Early Day Saints to make this point. I pointed out that this teaching has been LOST to much of christianity. “Few, if any Aletheian-type christianities are even aware of such details, yet such details place the sacrifice of Jesus Christ into it's proper and larger and more glorious and more correct context.”

Then I pointed out more principles which were taught by the Saints of an earlier day which correlate with the Saint of the Latter Day and hopefully made gave some explanation as to just why the differences between these restored principles and much of modern orthodoxy is critical.

For example: THE LDS RESTORE THE LOGICAL “CASCADE” OF PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
I tried to explain that “If the earliest Christians were correct that there is eternal matter and eternal conditions, then those conditions “set the stage” for the setting and underlying reasoning and purposes for the atonement. Rather than the self-serving God of the many modern Christianities where God “creates men who will sin and then saves them by atonement in order to demonstrate his mercy”, the LDS God seems to be glorified by an atonement that, from before the worlds creation, was designed to serve men (rather than HIMSELF).

One LDS scripture has God teaching Moses that :

"And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

Thus, while most Modern Christianities must force the interpretation into scriptures to show that God’s purpose was to give Glory to himself, the LDS restore the knowledge that God is doing something for man (I used the word “force” simply because most modern Christianities have so little data and doctrine regarding what happened prior to creation - thus they are left to a great deal of varying and conflicting speculation) The LDS principle of God loving men enough to serve them (rather than to demonstrate his own “mercy&#8221 profoundly changes the tenor and context of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The LDS concept of God’s atonement having been planned from before Adam, and for man’s ultimate benefit, rather than for God’s benefit has a different underlying tone that, as I become more and more familiar with it, and start with the basic and early principles, is more logical in it’s construction and progression of principles than my native Christian theory I grew up hearing. For example; the Character of God (love, power, knowledge, etc) , bear directly on his purposes. That is, in LDS theology (if I am correct - correct me if I am wrong Orontes or Katzpur), one of God’s initial desires for creation was for the pre-mortally existing spirits of men to achieve happiness and harmony. This is not a self-centered purpose, but a self-less service to other spirits.

Thus, in LDS theology, God’s initial desires for assistance and improvement of the existence of men’s spirits directly form the basis of and contribute to the nature of his plan and method of achieving this desire for the spirits of men. His desires and purposes determines the nature of this experience of mortality; what men are to learn in order to achieve “immortality and eternal life” (Moses 1:39). Once this is clear, it makes perfect sense that the moral principles we are to learn in mortality, form a logical basis and underlie an existence of happiness and harmony in the eternal social setting Christians call “heaven”. There must be a screening process that divides men into various levels of willingness to live various levels of moral law.” Hopefully it makes sense that if we are to become “one” with God (a common goal to AT-ONE-MENT represented by the “atonement&#8221, then God’s desires for men inside the LDS (and ancient) atonement, and how he is going to accomplish the atonement (as well as his motives) are core principles in a consideration of the LDS atonement. I tried to give some examples as to how the LDS restoration of ancient principles underlying the atonement, if understood, changes the nature of centuries of arguments; relieves God of the burden of the claims of an unfair and unjust redemption (underlying the atonement).

For example: THE LDS RESTORE FAIRNESS TO THE CONCEPT OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT RENDERED IN THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST

I compared the LDS restoration of a gradation of punishment and reward with the modern Christian teachings and how the LDS restoration restores fairness and justice to the redemption and atonement Jesus Christ made for all men.

 

[Clear]

Post TWO of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

For example I pointed out :

Another profound theological difference that I find in LDS theology regards fairness. I grew up with a Christian Theology where there was the simplistic “Heaven and Hell” (despite the historical texts descriptions of multiple heavens and levels within heaven). In this model, those who authentically believed in Jesus went to “Heaven” where they lived in eternal splendor regardless of their many faults, and others who did not authentically believe in Jesus were placed in “Hell” where they suffered eternal agony and torture of flames f o r e v e r for either not having accepted Jesus, OR for not having even heard of Jesus (e.g. “The african native&#8221, or for not having the opportunity to accept Jesus (e.g. the infant who dies after just a few months). Though my Christian friends, acquaintances and even my pastor all knew deep in our hearts and on the surface of our conversations that the doctrine was an abomination, we had no other doctrinal fix for this, since it was clear from the scriptures, that “ALL” must accept Jesus to be “saved”, or they are punished. Augustine agonizes over this very issue regarding infant damnation. He doesn’t WANT to damn infants who die. He KNOWS the concept is incorrect. But he has no doctrinal alternative. (Other than a “light damnation&#8221.

The LDS were the first (that I know of, besides historian-theists), who returned to the concept of multiple levels of reward or punishment that is in PROPORTION to the person’s relative level of deserving (AFTER considering an atonement of Jesus).

Likewise, the LDS doctrine of proxy work where the dead are taught the gospel just as all others is the simplest and most profound way out of this deep and distasteful unfairness of another version of “damning the innocent”. Theist historians have long known of the early Christian doctrine of “amente” where dead souls went after they died while awaiting resurrection since such places were described in the early scriptures such as Jewish Enoch and Christian Abbaton histories, but the doctrines only appear in their fullest and mature forms in the LDS doctrines.

As one leaves the earliest Christian period, a vast number of theological and philosophical complaints arose from Agnostics, Philosophers, and Theists of other religions (and whispered among Christians themselves), regarding the inherent unfairness of Damning people without sufficient reasons.

I hope it makes sense why I claimed that “these simple doctrines regarding how the atonement applies to “unfair” situations, do away with almost 1300 years of such complaints and controversy of unfairness.” and just how fairness and justice MUST relate to and be a part of any authentic atonement, and it IS part of the LDS atonement.


In POST #277 & #278
I tried to point out the futility of yet another battling list of scripture interpretations in any attempt to “prove” the LDS claim is either true or false. And I tried to point out another way that one might look at the LDS doctrines concerning the atonement, that is by looking at what the ancient Christians themselves said in their texts regarding the original atonement. For example I claimed :

If the LDS are a restoration of the original Christianity, then there should be recognizable patterns in varying degrees of clarity between the LDS and the earliest Saints BEFORE Christian doctrines evolved and increasing corruptions tainted the original Christian doctrines. One can simply read what the ancient Christians taught in and about their sacred literature, read their commentaries; their letters, their hymns, etc. If the LDS and the ancients match, then the LDS claim that is it the same doctrine is correct.

This was my point to the LDS : Their match regarding salvific principle is too good to simply have been chance. And there are too many matches to have been chance. And the matches are not the type that could have been remotely guessed upon. For example; there are large chunks "new texts" that LDS sacred texts re-introduce to the world that look so close to early data that reminds one of texual imitation EXCEPT, the ancient texts he would have to have taken it from had not yet been discovered or available in Joseph Smith's day. A minor and simple example is the Book of Mormon teaching regarding "Precept upon Precept" and Dead Sea Scroll "Precept by Precept", larger swathes include equivalent paragraphs in Abbaton and other histories. How does one explain this frequent pattern other than by revelation from some source? It is in THIS context that I was attempting to compare what the earliest Christians themselves said about the principles relating to atonement and the LDS.

If the original Christians taught the same principles regarding the atonement as the LDS and the Aletheians did not, then the LDS have superior claims to being original Christianity. This was my point in showing that the earliest Christians taught that the Aletheian theory of “Grace renders repentance obsolete” was “heresy” to them. (Aletheian churches are still allowed to argue that the early Christians were wrong in their doctrines). In the same way that one can read what the earliest Christians felt about the doctrine of “grace renders repentance obsolete”, there is a vast amount of early sacred literature regarding what the earliest Christians taught about the atonement; what THEY taught about authority: what THEY taught about repentance; about obedience; about baptism; etc. Especially in the face of a thousand different interpretations of different scriptures, it is helpful to see what the earliest Christians said they believed.”

In trying to compare the effect of the LDS restoration of ancient and more original principles with the later versions of the atonement and how it places the LDS in an utterly new position regarding their doctrines surrounding the atonement that Jesus Christ accomplished for all mankind.

For example: I tried to describe the position that most churches are stuck in regarding all doctrines and why the LDS doctrines are of a different character. For example:

THE "CHURCH OF THE IN BETWEEN" AND DOCTRINES OF "COMPENSATING FOR WHAT IS LACKING"

There is another different characteristic that I am discovering as I look at the LDS doctrines regarding the atonement and compare them with Aletheian Churches in general. For lack of a better term, Aletheian churches seem to me, best described as “The Churches of the In Between”. By this I mean the many Christian Churches that are stuck in the static situation that existed during the time period between the death of the authorized apostles of Jesus (and the resulting vacuum of authorized prophetic guidance) and the return of Jesus or his apostles, (and the resulting restoration of authorized prophetic guidance). Lightfoot describes the conditions in the christian church during this period as

“a time...when problems could no longer be solved by seeking an authoritative answer from an apostle. As a consequence, the church had to begin to deal with the question of sources of authority and authoritative tradition at a time when new challenges and pressures, both internal and external were confronting the new religious movement..” (Lightfoot, In his introduction to "Apostolic Fathers")

If the LDS claim is true, they are “The Church of the Restoration” (i.e. original Christianity restored). (I hope the LDS will correct me if I mis-characterize my personal impressions). If this is true, then they are NOT stuck in the position of the “Church of the In Between”. They have authority, doctrines, ordinances, revelation, etc that the original church was able to generate.

Even the principle of “restoration” is exciting since this was the very claim the original Christians taught. They taught that the organizations and doctrines of the “church” did not “begin” in Jesus Day, but was “restored” to them or “revealed” to them again in Jesus day, but the church as an organizational entity had ALWAYS existed in heaven before the creation of the earth. Thus the writer of 2nd Clement taught :

“the books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the Beginning". (2 cl 14:3).”

It has ALWAYS been there, but He says it was “revealed [restored] in the last days”, thus the one on the earth is only a copy of the original “spiritual” organization . This is why the early christians claimed that

” “Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but judaism in christianity” (Ign to Magnesians 10:3).

“We also love the prophets because they anticipated the gospel in their preaching and set their hope on him; because they also believed in him” (Ign to Phillipians 5:2).

In Hermas’ vision he is speaking to an angel regarding the vision wherein the church was represented as “an elderly woman” (he is speaking to an angel who is explaining the vision).

“Who do you think the elderly woman..was.... “The Church” he replied. I said to him “Why, then, is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.” (Her 8:1)

post three of six follows this one

 

[Clear]

Post THREE of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

(Remember Hermas IS in the early New Testaments). How many “Churches of the In Between” held to this sort of concept before the LDS claimed it was true? One of the underlying reasons Christians lost excitement about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it displayed a “Christianity” `that existed BEFORE (according to most modern Christian theories) ancient Christianity should had existed. Thus a principle that bothers modern christian beliefs, actually should be seen as CONFIRMING the early Christian Beliefs. The LDS restored such beliefs (and this explains their interest and ability to make such wonderful usage of ancient texts...). They see the eternal truths underlying the provential and temporary structures described in such sacred texts. Such principles are not something Joseph Smith could have guessed about. There are too many principles and equivalent texts to be chance or "good" guesses.

Much of what happens in “The Church of the In Between” represents an attempt to “compensate” for what is lacking. It is a “making do” with what they do have. For example: Authentic meanings and authority to ordinances pertaining to salvation are gone and in their place, an empty “re-enactment” is offered to their members. For example: My Pastor would admit before the congregation that he did not know if baptism was needed or not but that he, himself, did believe in “tubbing” and occasionally, in a service, would invite any with interest to be “baptized” by him. “Tubbing” was a euphamism for baptism...a subtle reminder that it wasn’t “quite” the real thing. The Pastor meant well, and was trying to serve members who believed baptism was important, while not offending others who didn’t believe it was necessary. In this "Church of the In Between", our baptismal services were, after all was said and done, a “monkey see (i.e. read), monkey do” display, done as a naive attempt to do what the congregation had read in the bible that real Christians used to do. Gone was the real and authorized ordinance; the original replaced by a re-enactment of the real thing. There was no concrete and authentic covenant made to God in the process of “tubbing”. I doubt most of the congregation had the faintest idea of the nature of the ancient baptismal covenant (or “seal” as the early christians called it), nor it’s relationship to the atonement. The Pastor did not know, and what he did not know, he could not teach anyone else.

This point regarding compensations is important. For example, to early Christianity, baptism was an integral ordinance, that had a form and a purpose that was integral to the atonement. Baptism has lost it’s import and it’s meaning to many modern Christian churches. The LDS restoration of the doctrine of baptism restores it’s import and it’s meaning as a covenant relating to the redemption and atonement that Jesus Christ made for all men.

For example:

IF IT IS TRUE, THE LDS RESTORES THE UNDERSTANDING, THE AUTHENTIC “COVENANT” ASSOCIATED WITH BAPTISM.

If the earliest Christian “seal” (covenant) of baptism has evolved into a mere “caricature” of or counterfeit of the original, this is not the first time the ordinances were changed. Moses complaint that the “Boundary shifters” among Israel will change the very ordinances and doctrines he gave them (and he’s saying this on the same day he is giving them), is confirmed by Barnabas as he tells the ancient Saints :

“concerning the water (baptism), it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves” (Bar 11:1)

“Just as Israel created their own compensating substitutes for baptism (since they refused the real thing), the modern “Church of the In Between” creates their own compensating substitutes for baptism since they no longer have the real thing. What else are they to do?

I am not faulting them in their desires to imitate the real thing. Ignatius reminds us Christians that “Ye are the imitators of God, once you took on new life” (Ig to eph 1:1). “The Churches of the In Between”, are left to attempt (often with the very best intentions) to re-enact the ordinances, but there is no authorization for the ordinances. There is little underlying genuine understanding as to what might be happening on in re-enactments of ordinances. Such counterfeit ordinance are NOT usually meant to mock the real thing, but are simply the best that can be done by an organization that has no authority, nor prophetic guidance, yet they read that such things were done by early Christians. What are they to do but attempt to imitate?

In POST #281 I responded to Idea’s points that the LDS have restored concrete and meaningful and authorized ordinances which provide ALL men the opportunity to hear the gospel and gain access to the atonement Jesus wrought, whether they are alive OR dead. This was a critical and profound point regarding the LDS atonement and it’s difference to the more modern christian doctrines with their atonement which cannot save the dead who never heard of Jesus (there are exceptions to this).

It is in THIS context of the fairness and the LDS restoration of a mechanism to make the atonement of Jesus applicable to ALL men that I said to Idea :

I suppose your last post is as good an example of any regarding what I mean that the LDS doctrine restores the ancient principle of fairness. My native church taught the modern "orthodoxy" that ALL who do not "accept Jesus" go to a fire-filled hell where they are tortured FOREVER. Our members back then knew it was unjust to punish an infant to a torturous hell, or to send someone who never heard of Jesus to the same torturous hell FOREVER without either the infant or the aborigine having even had a chance to accept Jesus. Though I was taught this in the Christian church of my youth, This is NOT what the earlier Christians taught. For example anciently, Irenaeus explained :

“As the elders say, "then will those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundredfold, and those who bring forth sixtyfold, and those who bring forth thirtyfold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city. For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, "In my Father’s house there are many rooms"; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son finally yielding his work to the Father, as it is also said by the apostle: "For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet" Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:36:1-2

If Irenaeus was correct that the ancients taught a heaven with "many rooms" and those there have access to holiness "to the degree that those who see him are worthy", and if the LDS have commenced again teaching this fair and just system of reward and punishment then it represent a correct restoration of a just and fair ancient principle. It is the modern Christians (whose doctrines unjustly condemn innocent infants and those who’ve not had an adequate chance to hear the gospel before dying) who must look carefully at the value of restoring logical and good and reasonable doctrines as they once existed and as they apply to the atonement and salvation of mankind (as well as to JUST punishment). Barnabas instructed the ancient Saints, :

“"We must, therefore, investigate the present circumstances very carefully and seek out the things that are able to save us. (Barnabas 6.4:1) (underline is mine)

I am excited by the re-introduction of such ancient doctrines that restore a logic and fairness to the atonement.

The LDS teach that God’s creation of this world was for the purpose of assisting the spirits of men to live principles whereby they may live in eternal harmony and happiness in a social heaven and preparing them to do so. (Remember that the atonement of Christ was an integral part of this plan.), However, if I understand correctly, they believe in the material and physical creation and so did the earliest Christians. My point is that the restoration of the doctrine of creation from eternally existing matter AFFECTS principles underlying the atonement such as THE ORIGIN OF EVIL; or God’s plans for man’s improvement, or the atonement and ultimately the type of heaven man will live in.

For example, in POST #283 I pointed out to Katzpur that :

There are at least three other principles that I’ve been thinking about that LDS theology restores; all of which are important to understanding, not just the atonement; but they explain the nature of existence; God’s methods and purposes in creation; the nature of spirits; and the nature and origin of evil. I might remind you that these are the very “terrible questions” that ALL MEN ask themselves. These questions are the fodder of debates between religionists and philosophers and scientists, that have LASTED FOR MILLENNIA. The restoration of a few simple principle places all of these speculations; debates and arguments, into an entirely different and logical framework for understanding.

 

[Clear]

Post FOUR of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

THE RESTORATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT GOD ORGANIZED ALL THINGS FROM ETERNALLY EXISTING MATTER CHANGES EVERYTHING

Consider and contrast the doctrines:
A) The more ancient Christian belief held that God organized the Material universe out of “Matter”.
B) The more modern Christian doctrine holds that God organized the Material universe out of “Nothing”
C) The LDS restore ancient Christian belief that God organized the Material universe out of “Matter”.

The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter are profound in how they affects the context; the understanding and the debates that have raged among theists; philosophers and scientists since later Christians abandoned the belief in creation of material things from “matter”. These arguments have lasted for hundred and hundreds of years. The restoration of this doctrine answers many of these arguments.

For example: The Organization of all Material things from eternally existing “matter” (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than organizing them from “nothing” changes the locus of responsibility for evil. The principle revolutionizes both the debates AND their underlying assumptions and questions since the question of WHY GOD “CREATED” EVIL IS ONE OF THEIR GREAT DEBATES with Christianity. The LDS restoration of this ancient principle to it’s rightful place in theology changes the context to all such considerations. 1300 years of specific debates (it doesn’t answer all debates..) Regarding God and evil can be settled in a logical and simple and obvious manner by the restoration to this ancient principle.


If the universe is created from eternal matter, then there are principles as eternal as God, and these principles possess their own innate characteristics. This is important, since, if God does not create the conditions from which arises evil, then he is not responsible for it. Obviously there are many other philosophical implications that are just as profound.

The restoration of this principle has profound implications for scientists. Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science. The Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics which are universally applied in modern science, no longer argues with a conflicting Religious Law of Creation from “Nothing”. Religious truth and Scientific truth will stop fighting and may again dance together by the restoration of this ancient principle.

The restoration of this principle has it’s most profound implications for religion. The implications seem to run deeper and are more profound than the implications for all other disciplines. The principle of Creation from eternally existing matter provides a framework for all subsequent religious considerations. If matter is eternal with it's own basic eternal characteristics, yet God uses that matter and organizes it into spirits which have some inherent characteristics, such as “intelligence” and the ability to “progress”, this forms a context for all other subsequent considerations.

If one knows this, one can predict the subsequent ancient doctrines as to WHAT God is doing with this matter; with the spirits of men; and WHY he is doing it; and HOW he going to accomplish these purposes. It provides logic and understanding of why Moral law is eternally important both outside and inside the atonement of Jesus Christ. The restoration of the truth that God organized and created the Material universe and all other material things from eternally existing “matter” is a simple principle that acts as one of the important beacons that sets men on the path to understanding what God is doing with that matter and why. [/quote]

If I am correct, this point regarding the need for men to learn Moral principles is central to the LDS atonement. Posts numbers 287, 288, 289, 290 were posts containing supporting data to show the principles that:

The doctrine of creation from matter is a true principle that WAS taught anciently.
The doctrine of creation from matter is integral to early Judao-Christian writings
I showed how of scriptures do not support ex-nihilo creation.
I discussed modern Christian writings and their support of relation to a material creation.
I discussed the motives and nature of Christian writings against creation from matter.
I discussed creation from nothing (ex-nihilo) as a stand-alone, rational argument
I discussed my personal motives for belief that matter was used in creation.

I had felt that Post #291 by ORONTES seemed to confirm that the earlier principles (I posted within two minutes of him so his post refers to my point that the ancients believed that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, including the atonement he would make for mankind, was taught from the very beginning of the world (in fact, even before the world was made, God the Father and His son Jesus made plans for the atonement). Thus, I do not think we left speaking of the LDS atonement, but continued to speak of it’s nature and it’s relation to the ancient teachings (which it claims to have restored).

For example, Orontes said :

“This notion corresponds to LDS rhetoric. Mormons hold that the Gospel was something taught and ascribed to from the beginning. There is therefore a certain and distinct commonality found among authoritative (prophetic) voices that were either anticipating the Messiah and those who claimed Jesus was the Messiah made manifest"

MANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS PRINCIPLE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ATONEMENT WERE TAUGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. For example, in the early text “The Lives of Adam and Eve”, God, Father is talking to Adam after Adam has eaten of the tree of knowledge. Even then, God the Father promises Adam that he (the Father) will provide a savior for Adam. This is an important point that non-historians, and non-LDS atonement models miss. The fact that the atonement was taught from the very beginning of the world is lost on a lot of non historians and non-LDS creates the impression that the Atonement for men was a “plan B” that God the Father had to come up with as a result of Adam’s fall. This is distinctly different than the LDS restoration to the ancient model that God always knew from the beginning and planned from before creation for the fall of man. Anciently, the Atonement was not a “plan B” but it always WAS the plan from the very beginning. Ancient Christianity WAS the initial plan the Jews were taught but there are reasons as to why this knowledge is lost.

It is in this context that I wrote POST #292

”I have to wonder if modern Christianities, Jewish sects and most other religions are so provincial that we generally see only a small portion of the picture before us, and thus do not see the deep parallels and connections between ancient Christianity and Ancient Judaism. We occassionally get striking evidence of those connections. In the ancient “Lives of Adam and Eve” text, Adam is told multiple times in clear terms that a Redeemer will be provided for him in “five and a half days (ca 5500 years) and the early Christians taught that before Judaism evolved, it WAS the same as Christianity, just in different idiom.
For example, if one reads only superficially, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and the ancient Christian and Jewish Texts, one will miss the obvious and profound parallels. The parable of the “Tree of Life” found in early Book of Mormon Nephi (8-12...15) IS the same as New Testament Mattews Parable of “The Sower and the Seed” found in Matt 13, having the SAME four type of seeds/people. They are the same type of Parable found in New Testament Hermas (in early new testaments) and the Parable of the Tower where various types of stones are considered in the building of the Tower (represented by the church).

The early Christians refer to the principle of the “Two coinages, the one of God and the other of the world, each of them has it’s own stamp.. "the faithful bear the stamp of god the father” (Ignatius 5:2). This is applicable to the authentic gospel taught in it’s many forms. For example: If the New Testament “Sower and the Seed” IS the same gospel taught in the Book of Mormon “Tree of Life” vision and IS the same gospel taught in Hermas “Building of the Tower” parable, then the “VISION OF THE FOUR TREES of dead sea scroll 4Q 552-553 may also represent a form of christianity, taught in Jewish idiom of the time. The parallels run deeper still. If it is true that “Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity" as the early saints claimed, then the earliest Jewish teachings (initially the same teachings as authentic Christianity) may be hidden underneath layers of Judaism as it evolved into it's different form. If this is true, there should be some evidence of prior claims to this in early christianity. And there are.

Then I discussed the principles shown by Goodenough of Yale, that there have been two distinct types of Judaism throughout the centuries. “The horizontal path,” sought a relationship to God through tradition and history (in a similar manner to most christianities) and the other “The vertical path.” sought a relationship with God by personal REVELATION from God himself as an additional primary principle in a relationship with God (they still used tradition and history, but it was not valued above revelation).

Post Five of Six follows

 

[Clear]

Post FIVE of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

Goodenough showed how “Horizontal Judaism” stamped out it’s less powerful rival, “Vertical Judaism” and thus became the default claimant to being “orthodox”, when in fact, this was never true anciently. Vertical Judaism (a type of Christianity in it’s reverence for revelation) was always the authentic form of “orthodoxy” among those claiming the title.

For example, the Dead Sea Scroll Jews are obviously “Vertical Judaism”, since the held to the principle of on-going revelation from a living God who remained interested and actively involved in their personal lives (this is a principle the LDS also have restored to Christianity). This is concrete example of this principle in the ancients. They are Messianic Jews who teach many of the same principles regarding the atonement as the ancient Christians and, as the LDS teach. We discussed why these principles concerning our relationship with God, were and still are, left unnoticed and unattended by most but the historians and LDS christianity.

Regarding this principle that the LDS have restored that the Atonement of Christ was taught “from the beginning”, we discussed mechanisms as to why the Old Testament does not teach Jesus' Atonement in greater Clarity (still, this relates to the atonement model of the LDS and the Ancients). We discussed changes in the scriptural text and why this occured. This is all VERY IMPORTANT, since, if the ancient Christian Claim (and the LDS claim as well) is that the atonement of Jesus USED TO BE TAUGHT anciently, (and it certainly appears in greater clarity in the Book of Mormon that starts out it’s history in the Old Testament era), then why does it not STILL appear in great clarity that the atonement of Jesus was always the plan? And IMPORTANTLY, IF THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST HAD BEEN CLEARER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WOULD THE JEWS NOWADAYS BE MORE ABLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS THE SAVIOR AND REDEEMER AND “MESSIAH” THAT THE MESSIANIC JEWS HAVE AWAITED? The ramifications of this aspect of the LDS atonement, and the ancient Christian claims as well, are profound. For example, if records continue to be discovered that make it clear that JESUS CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH, then how will that affect the Jews? Will they then return to Jesus as the Messiah? I read on the title page of the Book of Mormon that very principle. That it was written partly to the Jews; to convince them that Jesus (and no other) is and was their redeemer.


Post 293 continues a discussion of what happened to the teaching of the Atonement of Jesus and why was it not as clear in the Old Testament.

Post 295, though it is out of it’s best order, returns to the another profound principle of the atonement the LDS have restored. It relates to the application of the Atonement of Jesus to those who have died without hearing the Gospel (and thus, in many “normative” christianities, are damned, since they never “accepted Jesus&#8221

I reminded them that this new LDS doctrine of fairness in the LDS atonement applied first to a fair and just GRADATION of reward and punishment. (This doctrine applies to a fairness in the distribution of knowledge sufficient to accept the atonement of Jesus Christ...)

For example:

1) The modern doctrine of punishing THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE to accept Jesus in this life and the LDS restoration of fairness.

In posts 265, 277 and 278 I discussed the adoption of unfair Christian doctrine that damns billions of infants, mentally innocents, and those who’ve never heard of Jesus to a fire-filled and torturous hell full F O R E V E R because they did not "come unto Jesus". Since they were "Unqualified" for "Heaven" (having not "come unto Jesus"), they were consigned to HELL ( the doctrine created only those two options).

They were NOT damned because they WOULD NOT accept Jesus, but because they COULD NOT "accept Jesus" (having never heard of him). This punishment of the innocent and the ignorant mortified philosophers, theists and Christians themselves for hundreds of years and will continue to do so unless we return to the original doctrine of a gradation of reward and punishment just as the Church of Jesus Christ (of either early OR Latter Day Saints) taught.

Thus this first part relates to the LDS restoration of a principle that restores fairness to reward and punishment for individuals who live various “gradations” of lives. The following doctrine applies to a fair and just distribution of knowledge to those who had no chance to be taught concerning the atonement of Jesus during the time they lived.

LDS DOCTRINE RESTORES THE ANCIENT AND FAIR DOCTRINE OF SALVATION FOR BILLIONS OF DEAD INDIVIDUALS

Just as most churches have no doctrinal mechanism preventing the damning of innocent infants to hell who did not accept Jesus, we also had no mechanism of teaching the gospel to those who lived anciently but had died without a chance to have received the knowledge of Jesus while they were alive. They could not be rewarded for not accepting a Jesus they had not heard of in this life.

Just as the LDS restoration of the ancient doctrine of gradation of reward and punishment restored fairness to reward and punishment of the souls of men, the restoration of the ancient doctrine that souls who are dead are taught gospel principles that will provide them salvation restores fairness to the doctrine that ALL souls will receive sufficient knowledge to lead them to salvation if they so desire. This is a very simple, but ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL doctrinal truth that I was never given as a youth. My "church of the In Between" did not have this truth..

It was an LDS friend that first pointed out a simple example to me :

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 1 Peter 4:6

This New Testament verse needs no clever re-interpretation but is plain as it stands and refers to the gospel being taught to those who have died, so that they might be able to accept the gospel as it is taught to the living, and gain the same reward as those who heard the gospel while alive.

The principle is as profound as it is simple. ALL must have a fair chance for the atonement to remain a fair process. The LDS have restored this doctrine that the Dead will also receive an adequate chance to hear; to understand; and to accept all doctrines that are necessary to their salvation. In my native Aletheian, "Church of the In Between", we languished for some principle which that could have made our gospel fair, but we did not have it. The LDS restoration of this specific principle that ALL will ultimately be taught the gospel complements the doctrine of fair distribution of both reward and punishment.

Having discussed the restoration of a doctrine that allows all to be taught the gospel, we turned to a critically important doctrine regarding a fair and just distribution of opportunity. Some individuals did not merely die without the opportunity to learn of the atonement of Jesus Christ, but SOME WERE BORN WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO LEARN OF THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. For example, some are born retarded. There must be yet another mechanism to make fair and just such inequalities.

YET ANOTHER MODERN DOCTRINAL UNFAIRNESS THAT THE LDS RESTORATION TO ANCIENT DOCTRINE FIXES

The philosophers and theists point out that there are other sources of unfairness and unjustness to modern Christian doctrines that ancient Christians did NOT suffer with (having taught a different set of doctrines).

Just as it is unfair to die without certain opportunities, it is also unfair to be born without certain opportunities if there is no circumstance that can restore fairness to unequal birth and deaths. The adoption of the later doctrine of God creating man’s spirit out of "nothing", transfers to God the responsibility for the unequal natures of various spirits he made AND, the responsibility of having unequal spirits born into entirely unequal circumstances.

Some individuals are born when and where Christianity was unknown. Some are born without mental capacity to "come unto Jesus". Others die too early to accept Jesus. There are a thousand other inequalities into which individuals are born. Some are born slaves, others as Kings. Some are born in destitute poverty and others rich. Some are born with intellectual skills and opportunities beyond measure, others are born with mediocre intellect and / or minimal opportunities of various types. In short, there is an infinite variety of individuals born under a vast multitude of conditions that seem unfair.

post six of six follows

 

[Clear]

Post SIX of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement

Philosophers and theists have long criticized the "The Church of the In between" for not possessing some explanation or doctrine which "levels the playing field", or that at least explains some of the factors that go into such vast inequality as we see both in individuals and in their circumstances.

The LDS restoration and return to the ancient Christian Doctrine of Pre-mortal existence places all of these complaints into an entirely different, logical, and fair context. Without this context, such inequalities distract from the fairness and justness of an atonement (which, if God is to be a Just God) must remain just.

If spirits of men, as the LDS claim, have existed in one form or another long before they are born and that sentient and (as the Pistis Sophia describes it) "Self Willed" spirit, has both choices and progress and itself created some of it’s own characteristics which it carries with it into this mortal life is yet another restored doctrine which changes everything. This doctrine of Pre-existence of the spirits of mankind (and the accompanying LDS doctrines and LDS descriptions of what occurred there) changes the ENTIRE nature of the atonement and the context of our ENTIRE existence dramatically. The complaints of unfairness of the philosophers and theist can be put to rest. The principle of "knowing what went on before" is critically important to our understanding of what is happening now. Let me give examples from a prior post from the Thread on "Pre-mortal existence of mans spirit: which religions teach this?".[/quote]
Here I gave the example of Moses overlooking a well and witnessing what appears to be a completely unfair and terrible mis-justice which is only understood to be fair, once he discovers the history BEHIND the incident. The point was that :

Without the larger context and information, so much of what is going on in this life seems unfair and tragic, and often undercuts a faith in God and in the Savior. Once we obtain more information, then God’s purposes and what he is doing with mankind, can make much more sense.

It is a restoration of and a return to the Doctrine of Pre-existence of the Spirits which are born into our bodies in this life that allows differing spirits; differing circumstances, differing characteristics, to make much more sense.

Post number 297 was simply an out - of order post regarding why ancient history is not clear regarding these principles and it is important to note that the LDS model of Christian Atonement is able to USE the ancient documents whereas they are foreign and unusable to most christianities.

Post #298 was a question by Katzpur as to why I thought there was such a great correlation between the LDS and the ancient Christianities (and thus their models of atonement).

Post #300 is my reply to Katzpur. I explained that I believe that Joseph Smith MUST have received revelation to have restored a vast number of authentic and ancient Christian principles . I hope she understood that many of these principles were NOT available to him in some historical library. So, for much of this he would have had NO source material, and yet he quotes names from historical texts that will not be available in his life time. I have no other recourse but to believe he was inspired. I still cannot, even at this time, come up with another viable mechanism for him to have done this without revelation.

I did NOT try to leave the threads current theme of the LDS Atonement. Even in this thread, my final words were :

“I last posted regarding the restoration of a pre-mortal or pre-creation existence of the spirits of men and how it relates to a fair and just existence. I’ll try to post the supporting historical data to this principle later.

I suppose at this point the point is made that there are a host of principles restored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that are both profound and unique as they apply to the marvelous Atonement of Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind.

In post #303 - I did not give the information I told Katzpur I would give, but instead wanted to respond to the concept that God will give revelation to anyone who seeks it properly concerning any truth. Certainly this principle also applies to the atonement of Jesus Christ. If it is God’s true plan (rather than that taught by any other religion, christian or not), then it is a mechanism for individuals to gain greater truth; ultimately to know if the Christian Claim of the Atonement of Jesus is true or not.

In Post 306 and 307 - I returned to offer data for the claim that the LDS restoration of the principle of pre-creation existence of souls was taught anciently (thus a return to the doctrine is a restoration of an ancient teaching).


Moonwater; I hope this makes very clear that there was no intent to leave the theme of LDS atonement but rather, I hope you understand that it seems that we are generally holding to principles that apply to the restoration of the ancient doctrines of the atonement - which IS the LDS claim. I believe you are correct that we've deviated in spots, but generally it seems that the posts are related to the LDS atonement (which claims to a restoration of the the ancient Christian teaching)

If you are referring to other individuals besides Orontes or myself, then that is fine.

Clear
drsedrsidrac

 

[Orontes]

***Mod Advisory***

This thread was started specifically to discuss the LDS views of the Atonement.

Please keep this in mind while discussing and try to stay on-topic. Other topics should be taken to other threads.
​

Post SIX of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement


If you are referring to other individuals besides Orontes or myself, then that is fine.

Clear
drsedrsidrac

Thank you Clear for the six part explanatory to the Moonwater Advisory. I don't know if it was directed toward us or not. I thought/think our discussion directly relates to any LDS atonement by couching it within larger restoration claims LDS make vis-a-vis early Christian and Jewish teaching. An example would be: an underlying metaphysic i.e. pre-existence models and divine motivation to act. The discussion also shed(s) light into old philosophical nuts that have been real and pervasive issues for the Judeo-Christian Tradition i.e. the base theodicy problems.

There are other areas that tie back into an LDS atonement model that we have yet to touch on. For example, LDS metaphysical claims and any base ontology. The LDS stance provides an actual answer to yet another issue traditional Christian models have been stymied over. To illustrate: Descartes stands at the conceptual head of what constitutes Modernity. Even so, Descartes was a devout Catholic and therefore felt bound to uphold certain conceptual positions over and above any loyalty to the liturgy of the Church and its authority to officiate. This included his deep desire to demonstrate a proof of God that could withstand secular rational scrutiny and the metaphysics that surrounded the accepted idea of God and the Divine realm. Descartes gained some renown for the intellectual efforts. He corresponded with and ultimately became the tutor of the Swedish Princess Christina who wanted to better understand his ideas as they related to philosophy and faith. Princess Christian was no intellectual weakling. She asked Descartes to explain given his model included a real and distinct physical world, how then did such relate to or interact with the spirit? Princess Christina was addressing a basic metaphysical dualism that had been a long standing part of Christian metaphysics. There is the physical arena and there is the spiritual arena. The two are ontically distinct: different kinds of being. This is still a common view. If they are ontically distinct, then how does one relate to the other? How does one's spirit influence, control or even touch a physical body? Descartes' answer was they are connected through the pineal gland found in the brain. The answer is less than convincing.

The dualism adopted by larger Christendom runs afoul of its own assumptions. If spirit and matter are both real things and distinct types of being, then how do they relate to each other: how can X interact with not X? Further if Deity is Spirit and Deity is necessarily perfect, then why was the Christ resurrected and why is resurrection even laudable or necessary? This speaks to claims about any at-one-ment since man clearly does have a body, is supposed to be resurrected and Christ was resurrected. There is no convincing answer to this base dualism dilemma. There is no real reply for why resurrection should occur if physicality is a lower state of being. The LDS response can be found in the simple statements:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." D&C 130: 22​

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." D&C 131: 7-8 ​

Mormon adoption of a thorough going metaphysical materialism escapes the dualistic problems since both spirit and physical being are material and only differ in degree, not kind. The LDS answer can also explain why resurrection did and should occur: because the Father has a physical body. Mormonism returns to the materialism of early Jewry and escapes the neo-platonic distain for the physical body. One can embrace the anthropomorphic Deity presented all through the Bible and understand why the Son would be resurrected and why resurrection is a pivotal part of man's at-one-ment with the Divine.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48 takes on a new resonance.

 

[Clear]

Further if Deity is Spirit and Deity is necessarily perfect, then why was the Christ resurrected and why is resurrection even laudable or necessary? This speaks to claims about any at-one-ment since man clearly does have a body, is supposed to be resurrected and Christ was resurrected. There is no convincing answer to this base dualism dilemma. There is no real reply for why resurrection should occur if physicality is a lower state of being. The LDS response can be found in the simple statements:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." D&C 130: 22

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." D&C 131: 7-8

I very much agree that the relationship of the spirit of man and it’s nature and relationship to the body have fascinated theist/philosophers for millennia. It has made no sense to give man a body, then have the body die and separate from the spirit and then give a body back at resurrection (as well as angels having bodies), if bodies never served, nor will ever serve a purpose.

Your LDS quotes are astoundingly clear and SIMPLE and ASTONISHINGLY PROFOUND.
This is what I mean that this relative "nobody", Joseph Smith, enters the theological scene with simple answers that change the entire theological landscape for the deepest of thinkers in ways that change the theological world. The great theological Historians for example, may have read such doctrine in either their "inklings" or even in "pure and undistorted" forms, but they did not restore them to the world in such a way that it affected MILLIONS of people in profound ways. They may have "studied" and written about the ancient doctrines, but they did not spread the way Joseph Smith did.

The testimony that Jesus resurrected physically (not merely appeared to resurrect with a body - but actually had one) is not lost to a world that is increasingly doubtful that this occurred. Perhaps some initial doubt is not unreasonable since the disciples themselves seem to have some difficulty with the concept of physical resurrection. In the Biblical account, when Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection, he seems to go to great length to make sure the disciples know he resurrected WITH a body (and was not simply a spirit without a body) :

"Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus’ testimony that he was flesh and bones is the same testimony the early Christians held and taught. For example Ignatius testifies to the Smyrneans :

“For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: “Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon.”...And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh, although spiritually he was united with his Father.” Ign - Smyrn 3:1-3

Just as the disciples themselves may have had some difficulty in believing, one cannot be surprised then, that many modern Christians are having doubts and are confused in many points. I’m not sure if my “Church of the in Between” was ALBE to teach any firm doctrine as to whether the resurrection was physical or merely appeared that way (docetism) or what the relationship of a matterial body to the atonement was. They were not the only ones confused and having their doubts.

It is not without value then, having the LDS restoration provide clear and unequivocable testimony as to Jesus' resurrection. If the Latter Day Saint Claim is true, that Jesus Lives and interacts with men nowadays, AND the vast evidential material continues to pile up, it adds to the voices of those who can claim a testimony with the LDS that Jesus Christ IS exactly who the ancients claimed he was. He is the Christ, the redeemer of men; the messiah the Jews looked forward to (and many missed); he is the Son of God, authorized by his Father to offer an atonement to men. His physical resurrection from the dead is one of the greatest and most convincing signs that he IS the Son of God as the LDS and the rest of us Claim.

The ancient Christians taught that Jesus resurrection was the “prototype” of our own resurrection which he affected as part of the atonement: Ignatious testifies to the Trallians:

“who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who–his Father, that is–in the same way will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus.” I-Tral 9:2;

Anciently, this promise was the comfort of the earliest Christians who called the resurrection day “a good day” by the Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement :

“I will remember a good day and will raise you from your graves 1Clement 50:4"

.

“Mormon adoption of a thorough going metaphysical materialism escapes the dualistic problems since both spirit and physical being are material and only differ in degree, not kind. The LDS answer can also explain why resurrection did and should occur: because the Father has a physical body. Mormonism returns to the materialism of early Jewry and escapes the neo-platonic distain for the physical body. One can embrace the anthropomorphic Deity presented all through the Bible and understand why the Son would be resurrected and why resurrection is a pivotal part of man's at-one-ment with the Divine.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48 takes on a new resonance.

I believe that what you are pointing out is entirely profound. However in the world, even in the Christian world, there are many who have struggles with faith, struggles with conflicting and confusing and unclear teachings regarding the physical nature of creation (the modern doctrine of “creation from nothing” has not helped as it’s “side effects” are multiple and widespread). Though your LDS quotes regarding matter are profound and clear, it is the same point the ancient Christian Apostolic Fathers taught and they had a difficult time in restoring those principles to a synical world in their day. (I use the word "restore" since the ancients did believe the teachings were had in the beginning and they were re-introducing it to individuals in their day) Not only does the Apostle Peter teach Clement that “there is no inherent evil in matter”, but rather Peter's Protege taught that :

”So great is the life and immortality which this flesh is able to receive, if the Holy Spirit is closely joined with it" 1Clement 14:5

If he was having a difficult time convincing people back then that the resurrection was physical, How is that different than our days?

I have to stop now. I have been grateful to have been able to discuss such profound issues and to make progress at descriptions of principles relating to the atonement of Jesus Christ. How rare is it to see clear and understandable and logical and obvious doctrines regarding the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Especially nowadays, and especially in a “debate” forum?

Clear
drsieitztztz

 

[ἀλήθεια]

post one of two
REGARDING THE LDS RESTORATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE OF THE SPIRITS OF MEN...

The LDS doctrine of pre-existing spirits does not in any way create an idea of fairness to reward and punishment. All men are to be as holy as God is holy to live in God's Presence. Lacking that degree of holiness, all men equally deserve punishment or separation from God. This teaching is based on the following New Testament verses:

Matthew 5
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 19
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

James 2
10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Men do not keep all the commandments of God. That is why Jesus came to pay for His followers' sins.

Matthew 20
28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In the Mormon idea of pre-existence all intelligences exist without beginning or end; the Heavenly Father made them into spirits but who they were was not determined by him. Some were noble and great and some were not. When they came to earth, they were not all the same. In Mormon teaching, man determines his own fate and God does not change men's hearts.

...
The apostle Peter further taught Clement that: This is the same plan as was sung in the ancient Christian hymn "The pearl. The spirits of men are conducted back after they finished their testing in mortality.

Does God test men because it is the only way he can learn what choices they will make?

In the early Christian Hyms, the Odes of Solomon , an example verse reads: It is in THIS context...

Are the "early Christian hymns," the basis for doctrine? IOW, are they scripture? Could documents from an early time contain heresies?

2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
How early were there false prophets among the people?

Jesus, in The Gospel of Thomas says...

Is the Gospel of Thomas considered scripture by LDS or do LDS just choose to use parts of it to support their beliefs?
"Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings, composed originally in Greek, attributed to the 'living' (i.e., resurrected) Jesus. Some of the sayings were previously known from papyri discovered at Oxyrhynchus and published in the late 19th cent. The sayings are similar to those of Jesus in the canonical Gospels. It is possible that the Gospel of Thomas is as early as the New Testament Gospels; more likely, the work is based on the sayings of Jesus preserved in the Gospels and edited from a gnostic point of view. The Gospel of Thomas is more encratite (antimarriage) and ascetic in tone than most gnostic works."
http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-thomas
Are LDS antimarriage?
Does the Gospel of Thomas refute my points in the OP?

This concept of pre-existence is spread throughout many, many of the ancient texts.

There are many ancient texts in the world that do qualify as scripture.

The Gospel of Philip (equally old and equally important to Thomas) says: "The Lord said, 'Blessed is he who was before he came into being [i.e. into the body] for he who is and was shall be.'"

"...the gospel of Phillip is a Gnostic gospel that is dated to the late second century at the earliest. That is about a hundred years after the last of the New Testament Gospels had been written. Moreover, the lone existing manuscript of the gospel of Phillip is dated to the fourth century and, due to a number of holes in it, words are missing."
http://www.crosswalk.com/1397116/

Another quote from the Gospel of Philip parallels the Cabalistic teaching: In the Second Book of Enoch (the Slavonic version), Enoch ...

This has nothing at all to do with the Atonement of Christ nor is the Second Book of Enoch scripture in LDS churches. Or has this book recently been canonized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The rest of your post is also off-topic.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Post TWO of Six regarding staying on topic of the LDS Atonement
For example I pointed out : I hope it makes sense why I claimed that "these simple doctrines regarding how the atonement applies to "unfair" situations, do away with almost 1300 years of such complaints and controversy of unfairness." and just how fairness and justice MUST relate to and be a part of any authentic atonement, and it IS part of the LDS atonement....
I tried to point out the futility of yet another battling list of scripture interpretations in any attempt to "prove" the LDS claim is either true or false.

The OP says nothing about whether or not the LDS claim is either true or false.

And I tried to point out another way that one might look at the LDS doctrines concerning the atonement, that is by looking at what the ancient Christians themselves said in their texts regarding the original atonement. For example I claimed :In trying to compare the effect of the LDS restoration of ancient and more original principles with the later versions of the atonement and how it places the LDS in an utterly new position regarding their doctrines surrounding the atonement that Jesus Christ accomplished for all mankind.

You cannot assume that all that was taught by early "church fathers" was equal to scripture. Their writings were not canonized.

For example: I tried to describe the position that most churches are stuck in regarding all doctrines and why the LDS doctrines are of a different character.

This, too, is off-topic. This thread is not about non-LDS doctrines. Read the OP. You have not shown me that my understanding of LDS atonement is in error.

For In trying to compare the effect of the LDS restoration of ancient and more original principles with the later versions of the atonement and how it places the LDS in an utterly new position regarding their doctrines surrounding the atonement that Jesus Christ accomplished for all mankind.

LDS teaching does not say that all mankind will be saved.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

If one knows this, one can predict the subsequent ancient doctrines as to WHAT God is doing with this matter; with the spirits of men; and WHY he is doing it; and HOW he going to accomplish these purposes. It provides logic and understanding of why Moral law is eternally important both outside and inside the atonement of Jesus Christ. The restoration of the truth that God organized and created the Material universe and all other material things from eternally existing "matter" is a simple principle that acts as one of the important beacons that sets men on the path to understanding what God is doing with that matter and why.

How is what I posted in the OP in error?