The Logic Of The Mormon Atonement.

[elguanteloko]

But Jesus could only forgive BECAUSE he atoned for the sins of the person he is forgiving.

This is irrelevant. The point is that Christ has our debt in his hands just as God the Father had it in His.

The atonement satisfies the Father because a perfect being (such as the Father) cannot willy-nilly forgive sins while ignoring the demands of justice. Jesus also (being perfect), could not forgive sins without the demands of justice being satisfied by some way or another.

Let's say you ask person X to lend you 50,000 dollars. After some time you can't pay and you are about to be thrown in jail. Here comes person C and pays your debt. You are indeed indebted to person C but he says you don't have to pay for it except for a few things. In other words, person C is in the same situation person X was. Both had, at one point or another, your debt in their hands. One chose to forgive you the debt (mostly) and the other one didn't. Why? Also, in LDS teachings, it is said that person X would have been unjust if he had forgiven the debt and that he HAD to be payed in full... but person C was NOT payed in full of your debt and he wasn't unjust. Do you see the problem now? It doesn't matter how long this chain of events goes (person B offered to pay A and C to pay B and D to pay C, etc), the point is that ALL the previous ones that were payed could have also forgiven you (mostly) just like the last one (let's say Z) did, let's say. Why is everyone before Z unjust if they forgive your debt (mostly) but not Z?

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Chris Smith]

Hi, Log. The problems with the atonement very depending on the particular theory you're talking about, but the bottom line is that it doesn't seem to be possible to give a satisfying account of how it works and why it should be considered just. See here for a discussion of the problems with the concept.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

This is irrelevant. The point is that Christ has our debt in his hands just as God the Father had it in His.

And both of those perfect beings can offer forgiveness only after the terms of justice have been satisfied. Remember, there is no more original debt for anyone born to the earth. We pile up new debts as we become accountable and begin to understand right from wrong. Our debts don't forever remain in his hands. All new incursions of debt are paid in full, forgotten and remembered no more when we repent and follow the new terms. Debt payment has already been made, in full. What remains are the new terms and our acceptance of those.

Let's say you ask person X to lend you 50,000 dollars. After some time you can't pay and you are about to be thrown in jail. Here comes person C and pays your debt. You are indeed indebted to person C but he says you don't have to pay for it except for a few things. In other words, person C is in the same situation person X was. Both had, at one point or another, your debt in their hands. One chose to forgive you the debt (mostly) and the other one didn't. Why?

Maybe person X (The Father) DID want to forgive you all along and offer new terms, but was not in a position to do so in person(he being immortal and unable to die), and so he went looking for (and found) someone who was in a position to offer those new terms. I don't think Jesus just invented new terms to the surprise of the Father. These "new terms" were drawn up by the Father who is the author of the Plan of Salvation, and he asked "whom shall I send?"

Also, in LDS teachings, it is said that person X would have been unjust if he had forgiven the debt and that he HAD to be payed in full

It doesn't say that and then conclude the point. The reality is that the Father could not forgive WITHOUT the debt being paid in full. Neither could Christ.

... but person C was NOT payed in full of your debt and he wasn't unjust.

Jesus payed in full the original debt. It is remembered no more. Now, there are new terms, and the new terms are what is relevant.

Do you see the problem now? It doesn't matter how long this chain of events goes (you borrowed from A to pay B and from C to pay B and from D to pay C, etc), the point is that ALL the previous ones that were payed could have also forgiven you (mostly) just like the last one (let's say Z) did, let's say. Why is everyone before Z unjust if they forgive your debt (mostly) but not Z?

Jesus paid the debt in full. It is gone. The new terms are what is relevant now.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

And both of those perfect beings can offer forgiveness only after the terms of justice have been satisfied. Remember, there is no more original debt for anyone born to the earth. We pile up new debts as we become accountable and begin to understand right from wrong. Our debts don't forever remain in his hands. All new incursions of debt are paid in full, forgotten and remembered no more when we repent and follow the new terms. Payment has already been made, in full.

Maybe person X (The Father) DID want to forgive you all along and offer new terms, but was not in a position to do so in person(he being immortal and unable to die), and so he went looking for (and found) someone who was in a position to offer those new terms. I don't think Jesus just invented new terms to the surprise of the Father. These "new terms" were drawn up by the Father who is the author of the Plan of Salvation, and he asked "whom shall I send?"

It doesn't say that and then conclude the point. The reality is that the Father could not forgive WITHOUT the debt being paid in full. Neither could Christ.

Jesus payed in full the original debt. It is remembered no more. Now, there are new terms, and the new terms are what is relevant.

Jesus paid the debt in full. It is gone. The new terms are what is relevant now.

I'm afraid you didn't see the point of the analogy. Two questions:

Will we pay for our sins in full (to someone)?

If "no", then please read the analogy again. If "yes", then, do you think there is any "forgiveness" after you have already payed your debt?

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I'm afraid you didn't see the point of the analogy. Two questions:

Will we pay for our sins in full (to someone)?

The Righteous? No.

The wicked who reject Christ and his atonement, I would say this is closer to yes.

If "no", then please read the analogy again. If "yes", then, do you think there is any "forgiveness" after you have already payed your debt?

I went over your analogy with a fine toothed comb. Perhaps you can refine it so as to answer these questions:

What debt does a follower of Christ have to pay?

Are the terms of the Gospel Plan of Salvation such that you must pay Christ for the full debt that he assumed and paid for you?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

The Righteous? No.

If the answer is no, then the debt must be either forgiven or payed. Christ payed God... but who pays Christ? The whole point is that he sets new terms that we can now pay, something there's no reason to think God wasn't able to do.

The wicked who reject Christ and his atonement, I would say yes.

well, let's leave them outside for now.

What debt do I have to pay?

You don't think you owe something to Christ when he payed for all your sins? (forget the fact that he forgives you the debt if you repent)

Question for you: Are the terms of the Gospel and Plan of Salvation such that you must pay Christ for the full debt that he assumed and paid for you?

No! The whole point (and something I accept in the OP, if you read it carefully) is that Christ forgives of of that debt (though we have to repent) something God could have done when He had our debt in his hands.

I really hope this is making things clearer here.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Chris Smith]

The debt metaphor just doesn't work. Essentially what that metaphor implies is that sin takes something away from God, and the shedding of Christ's blood somehow returns it to him. But no one seems to be able to explain what exactly God has lost here, or how killing an innocent person could possibly pay it back.

The justice metaphor is no better. For someone to serve someone else's prison sentence would defeat the whole purpose of the correctional system. When we pardon a criminal, we don't imprison someone else to serve his sentence for him. That wouldn't be justice, it would just be dumb. It would be blind vengeance, at best.

[elguanteloko]

The debt metaphor just doesn't work. Essentially what that metaphor implies is that sin takes something away from God, and the shedding of Christ's blood somehow returns it to him. But no one seems to be able to explain what exactly God has lost here, or how killing an innocent person could possibly pay it back.

The justice metaphor is no better. For someone to serve someone else's prison sentence would defeat the whole purpose of the correctional system. When we pardon a criminal, we don't imprison someone else to serve his sentence for him. That wouldn't be justice, it would just be dumb. It would be blind vengeance, at best.

Though I agree with you, Chris, I think this is all too easy to dismiss for some psychological reason or another. Moral claims like this one are harder to discuss and accept but logical objections (or at least arguments that resemble logical objections) are harder to put aside and easier to accept.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

If the answer is no, then the debt must be either forgiven or payed. Christ payed God... but who pays Christ? The whole point is that he sets new terms that we can now pay, something there's no reason to think God wasn't able to do.

Then don't think you owe something to Christ when he payed for all your sins? (forget the fact that he forgives you the debt if you repent)

Payment to Christ is made by obedience to Gospel terms, and by coming before Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. There is no mention of any other debt that we owe as far as I have ever read.

2Nephi 2:7

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

3 Nephi 12:19

19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled.

Are there any old outstanding debts that you think LDS doctrine teaches that we owe to Christ?

No! The whole point (and something I accept in the OP, if you read it carefully) is that Christ forgives of of that debt (though we have to repent) something God could have done when He had our debt in his hands.

No, I would not agree that God could have done any such forgiving. I'm saying that God could not forgive us of one single debt, and neither could Jesus Christ forgive us of any debt, without an atonement.

I really hope this is making things clearer here.

I think I understand your question. Do you understand my answers?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

Payment to Christ is made by obedience to Gospel terms, and by offering Him a broken heart and a contrite spirit. There is no mention of any other debt that we owe as far as I have ever read.

2Nephi 2:7

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

3 Nephi 12:19

19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled.

Are there any old outstanding debts that you think LDS doctrine teaches that we owe to Christ?

Christ payed (fully) for something we won't have to pay either to Him of to the Father. I'm NOT saying we right now owe something to Christ if he forgave us already of our sins and all he asks is repentance and obedience. I am saying he forgave us that debt we acquired with Him (Christ) when he payed for our debt with the Father. The fact that He forgave us (or that he will forgive us if we repent) is something I accept (and you do, apparently) and argue there's no reason why the Father couldn't have done just that when he had our debt in His hands.

Very simple scenario, Fig-bearing. At one point in time we owed the Father. He was payed by Christ. Since Christ payed our debts then we owe (or "owed" if we repent) Christ our previous debts. He forgave us those debts (we don't need to pay for them anymore, that's something you agree with) but he did that for us and wasn't unjust... but it is said God couldn't do the same because he would have been unjust. That doesn't make sense.

This can only happen if Christ forgives us of the debt (we know this because we don't have to atone for our own sins).

No, I would not agree that God could have done any such forgiving. I'm saying that God could not forgive us of one single debt, and neither could Jesus Christ forgive us of any debt, without an atonement.

Well, I know that's what you are saying but I'm explaining why this doesn't work. My whole point is that there's no reason why the Father couldn't have forgiven us if we repented (like Christ does) give what Christ did.

I think I understand your question. Do you understand my answers?

Yes and I think you can see I'm understanding you. I don't see you are understanding me. I don't think I can get any clearer than this with you, bro.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mrmandias]

How can people be expected to accept a "gospel" whose central concept is vague or unarticulated?

Frankly, if all of the theories about the atonement are incoherent, then the very concept of atonement must be considered suspect.

No, sir, I won't come get warm by your 'fire'! You can't even explain what it is.

Platonism at its worst.

[mrmandias]

Having several times offered an answer to the OP's question, and having been resolutely ignored, I think I have an answer to my own question, which was troll or not?

You can't make people see the plausibility of beliefs they are emotionally committed to rejecting.

[Kevin Christensen]

How can people be expected to accept a "gospel" whose central concept is vague or unarticulated?

Frankly, if all of the theories about the atonement are incoherent, then the very concept of atonement must be considered suspect.

For people who have personally experienced the transformative and healing power of the atonement, this argument is akin to listening to someone reject the concept of gravity because no has provided them a coherent theory of how it works. Those who have experienced the effects, explanations are secondary. Ask a near-death experiencer, for example, what it was like to be at-one in with Christ while he shows them every moment of their life, and the effects that all of their actions had, and which ones mattered most, which hurt others, which helped. Such an experience of at-onement cannot be summarized in terms of debt or substitionary pain metaphors. Much more is going on. It would be tragic to miss out on understanding because one refused to move from a position that does not provide a clear view.

Kurt Godel demonstrated that "provability is a weaker notion than truth."

Everyone has to start somewhere. God adapts himself to our capacity to understand, leading us along. We don't have to stop with first metaphor. Metaphors have both positive and negative analogies, and can be extended and explored for their insights and limits. But there are much better explanations that pain and debt payments.

Hansen's essay is here:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

Some resources for Girard:

http://girardianlectionary.net/res/atonement_webpage.htm

Nibley here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=75&chapid=1222

Barker is here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[CV75]

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” in Luke 23:34 is not a petition to the Father after any reparation or sacrifice or penalty was paid. None of those were there for Christ to ask the Father for their forgiveness. What you just said is completely foreign to me.

In making this statement, Jesus is acknowledging that it is the Father who forgives, and Jesus can say this because He paid the penalty. With the sacrifice, penalty, reparation, etc. completed, the Father can forgive, grant His Son the power to forgive, and grant us the ability and commandment to forgive one another.

[Log]

This is Ostler summarizing Skousen, btw, which means (obviously), unless you want to dispute his summary of Skousen's view, that he attributes this doctrine to Skousen himself. Then it follows that "intelligences being unfair" is not only an Ostler's idea but also from Skousen himself.

Ostler has not fairly, nor accurately, summarized Skousen. Since I posted the entire thing here, there's no excuse for that from you. When someone refuses to read what is put in front of his face, that's a sign that the person is operating in bad faith.

As you're only going to repeat Ostler, what's the point? Bye.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Log

[Log]

Hi, Log. The problems with the atonement very depending on the particular theory you're talking about, but the bottom line is that it doesn't seem to be possible to give a satisfying account of how it works and why it should be considered just. See here for a discussion of the problems with the concept.

Hi Chris. Is there a specific post relevant to Skousen? I didn't see it.

[Ahab]

Which is something I completely agree with. My point is that there isn't any difference between the Father doing it and Christ doing it since Christ forgives anyways and it isn't an "injustice". This use of "injustice" is what is said prevented the Father from just forgiving us or asking for repentance and rites for forgiveness (which is what Christ does).

On what conditions could our Father have done it without it being an injustice, though? Our Father couldn't just forgive Adam for breaking one of his laws. Adam broke it, so he had to pay the consequences, unless someone else could pay the consequences while releasing Adam from the consequences. If our Father had forgiven Adam, without an intermediary, then who would have paid the consequences? Nobody? Is that what you are thinking?

I think you need to think about this some more: Our Father told Adam: Don't do that, or else you will die. Adam then did what our Father told him not to do, anyway. On what basis could Adam then be redeemed from death?

Oh, wait a minute, I think I see what you may mean now: I suppose our Father could have then said to Adam sometime after he died: Okay, you died, like I said you would. Now I'll forgive you and let you live again, since you've died like I said you would die.

I think there's a lot more to it than just being redeemed from death, though. I think Adam needed to be forgiven for breaking a law of our Father, as if Adam had never done that, and that's what Christ accomplishes for him, and all of the rest of us.

It's not just about being released from the consequences. It's about being restored to a state as if we never had sinned in the first place, just as Christ never sinned at all.

[LeSellers]

While the stated topic is about forgiveness through the Atonement, discussing this is pointless until one defines "Sin". After all, forgiveness is for something. It's similar to a self-professed Christian's saying he's "saved", but who cannot tell what it is he's saved from.

Sin is the willful breaking of a commandment of God. It always involves two parts. The "breaking of the commandment" is only one. The "willful" part is the other. When we kill or lie or commit adultery, we break the commandment and there is a price to be paid for it. It involves restitution, etc: the easily manufactured parts of repentance.

The willful portion, the rebellion part inherent in sin, is more subtle. For by it we divorce ourselves from Father's family, exactly the same as Satan did. We cannot undo that divorce, nor can anyone else, not even Christ. But, what happens is, as self-made orphans, children without a Father, we are available for adoption. Our potential Father is Jesus Christ, but He will not adopt just anyone. He will not adopt rebels, so the condition of our adoption is contrition, a rejection of our willful state and an unconditional acceptance of His position. He demands contrition and sorrow: the difficult parts of repentance.

Now the point of adoption is to become part of the family. When we are adopted, we are back in Father's family, and we are now joint heirs with Christ.

Jesus, at the judgment bar, will say something like this: "Father, I know Lehi has been a rebel, and that he is unworthy of They kingdom, but, Father, I paid the price for his sins, and he is now clean. Wilt Thou let him enter? He is my son." And Father will, as I envision it, say, "Yea, my Son, but he is now clean, as Thou hast Said. He may come in unto Me and I will accept him as my son, also." By this, our original divorce is overcome, and we are now part of Father's family once again.

There is something very powerful in being a son, something that derives from Fatherhood. (Something many will be unable to understand because they do not have fathers in their lives and do not see "fatherhood" in action. But that's a wholly different discussion.)

This is only a bare outline of the longer post I wish I had time to make right now, but I hope that someone with more or different insights might take this and demonstrate its value (or its uselessness) while I take care of other, more imperative things.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

Having several times offered an answer to the OP's question, and having been resolutely ignored, I think I have an answer to my own question, which was troll or not?

You can't make people see the plausibility of beliefs they are emotionally committed to rejecting.

I've been answering your posts but I just don't feel like giving you the time you demand. Sorry.

I'll answer that last post with content you wrote.

[Kevin Christensen]

The thread title, "the Logic of the Mormon Atonement" implies quite a bit more than a critique of one interpretation.

I agree that the penal substitution model has its limits. However, the question of whether it works really depends on the work that you might expect it to do. If it is a useful starting point for some people, a catalyst for personal change, then it works for those people. The D&C includes a comment, "To what shall I liken it that ye may understand?" Joseph Smith talks about God adapting himself to our capacity to understand. One of the things that Hansen makes clear is that cultural circumstances and ways of thinking condition the way people approach and attempt to explain the atonement. Barker and Nibley goes back to the original temple mythos. Girard comes as an anthropologist. The more different views we get, the more details that emerge, the broader the perspectives, the more telling the insights, the less likely we are to mistake a fan, or a rope, or a tree trunk, or a spear, a snake, or a wall for an elephant. And since I have ridden an elephant, I am not likely to be persuaded by a skeptic who claims on the basis of their own limited experience that such an unlikely creature does not exist.

The point of a parable is to lead us from a current understanding to a better one. Ptolemaic astronomy worked for a long time. As did Newtonian physics. That something else works better and explains more does not mean that they accomplished no valuable or meaningful work. Just that they are not the last word, or the last bit of work that needs to be done.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 6, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Christ payed (fully) for something we won't have to pay either to Him of to the Father. I'm NOT saying we right now owe something to Christ if he forgave us already of our sins and all he asks is repentance and obedience. I am saying he forgave us that debt we acquired with Him (Christ) when he payed for our debt with the Father. The fact that He forgave us (or that he will forgive us if we repent) is something I accept (and you do, apparently) and argue there's no reason why the Father couldn't have done just that when he had our debt in His hands.

Very simple scenario, Fig-bearing. At one point in time we owed the Father.

Such a point in time never actually existed since the atonement allowed the Father to forgive sins before Christ was ever born on the earth. Instead of looking it as a "before and after the atonement" look at it as a "with and without the atonement".

WITH the Atonement, both the Father and the Son are able to forgive us. There is no real "transfer of debt" since it is still the Father that we pray to and ask forgiveness of. WITHOUT the atonement no one could forgive us. I'm trying to explain to you that this is how it works.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[elguanteloko]

Men cooked meat and warmed their hearths centuries before they could balance a chemical equation for combustion. I'm not saying theory is bootless. I'm saying that time spent at the foot of the cross is prior to and more important than time spent studying its schematics. That's partly why I don't see any reason to insist on a comprehensive theory of the atonement that accommodates every scripture, meets every logical demand, satisfies every question, fills every felt need, and rings true with every intuition. I am content with multiple partial explanations.

We will disagree in the value of theory, then. You are content, I'm not. Big deal.

The second paragraph I wrote, to which you gave this response, is a way of salvaging the substitutionary atonement theory from what chafes you about it. In my opinion, of course.

In said paragraph (and in the link) you talk about another theory of the atonement. That's fine, but that isn't what I'm criticizing here. Now you said the following, too:

Here is another explanation for why God can't just forgive you: God wants your choices to be meaningful, but if your bad choices don't have bad consequences for somebody (Christ, for example), then they aren't meaningful.

I don't see why having bad consequences make bad actions meaningful. Actually, I don't see why bad or good consequences make anything meaningful at all. They may be opportunities for us to express meaning to them (or find meaning in experiences) but that is quite different from saying those actions are meaningful because they have bad consequences. There's too much to dislike about this explanation you provided in your link so I won't bother.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

The thread title, "the Logic of the Mormon Atonement" implies quite a bit more than a critique of one interpretation.

I agree that the penal substitution model has its limits. However, the question of whether it works really depends on the work that you might expect it to do. If it is a useful starting point for some people, a catalyst for personal change, then it works for those people. The D&C includes a comment, "To what shall I liken it that ye may understand?" Joseph Smith talks about God adapting himself to our capacity to understand. One of the things that Hansen makes clear is that cultural circumstances and ways of thinking condition the way people approach and attempt to explain the atonement. Barker and Nibley goes back to the original temple mythos. Girard comes as an anthropologist. The more different views we get, the more details that emerge, the broader the perspectives, the more telling the insights, the less likely we are to mistake a fan, or a rope, or a tree trunk, or a spear, a snake, or a wall for an elephant. And since I have ridden an elephant, I am not likely to be persuaded by a skeptic who claims on the basis of their own limited experience that such an unlikely creature does not exist.

The point of a parable is to lead us from a current understanding to a better one. Ptolemaic astronomy worked for a long time. As did Newtonian physics. That something else works better and explains more does not mean that they accomplished no valuable or meaningful work. Just that they are not the last word, or the last bit of work that needs to be done.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Once again, Kevin, I agree with you. BTW, I'm not arguing here that "such an unlikely creature does not exist" so that's out of place. That this view is common enough and even preached from lds.org and by General Authorities make it deserve the name of "Mormon Atonement". in 20 years this view might change for a more sophisticated one, that would be fine, but that would be another time. If you think this view doesn't work for you and you think you have a better understanding, that's great! ...but we have little to talk about at least in this thread, then.

[elguanteloko]

Such a point in time never actually existed since the atonement allowed the Father to forgive sins before Christ was ever born on the earth. Instead of looking it as a "before and after the atonement" look at it as a "with and without the atonement".

OK, then, think of what I've been writing in terms of "with and without the atonement" and you get the same point.

WITH the Atonement, both the Father and the Son are able to forgive us. There is no real "transfer of debt" since it is still the Father that we pray to and ask forgiveness of. WITHOUT the atonement no one could forgive us. I'm trying to explain to you that this is how it works.

You are already assuming what you want to argue for. Why couldn't the Father forgive us like Christ forgives us our debt? That's the whole point I'm trying to argue and you continue to assume I'm wrong and repeat that I'm wrong without argument or rebuttal.

Edited July 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You are already assuming what you want to argue for. Why couldn't the Father forgive us like Christ forgives us our debt? That's the whole point I'm trying to argue and you continue to assume I'm wrong and repeat that I'm wrong without argument or rebuttal.

I submit that the way of forgiveness has always been the same since before the creation of the world. The Father has always forgiven sin just like Christ and in the same manner Christ did, and Christ did just in the same way that the Father always has.

You are asking why neither God or Christ could forgive us without the atonement, right?

And you are asking why both God and Christ CAN forgive us with the atonement, right?

I think I've already explained that.

I think I've also explained that the condition never actually existed where the Father was faced with the option of forgiving us without the atonement. Since before the creation, even in the spirit world, the Father forgave us our sins BECAUSE OF THE ATONEMENT. That is why D&C 93:38 says what it says about man being innocent in the beginning.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:38

38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

The condition of which you speak never ever existed. It is just explained to us as a "with or without the anotnement" so that we can be pointed to Christ and come to Him for salvation.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle