Atonement Theory

[Cobalt-70]

The Book of Mormon clearly states that infants and heathen are saved through the atonement of Christ. Your theory here that infants and heathen don't need to be atoned for is incompatible with that.

No, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not saying that infants and the heathen don't need the Atonement. I'm saying that for infants, at least, the Atonement is automatic. Infants still need the Atonement, even though they cannot sin, because they need to be sanctified from the carnal, sensual, and devilish nature into which they are born as a result of the Fall. Had there been no Atonement, infants would not be saved (Mosiah 3:16), even though they are sinless. See Moroni 8:8 ("...the curse of Adam is taken from them in me"); 19 ("...they are all alive in him because of his mercy").

The same goes for the heathen, as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned (Moroni 8:22), although this was later changed when Smith introduced the innovation of baptism for the dead.

[mrmandias]

No, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not saying that infants and the heathen don't need the Atonement. I'm saying that for infants, at least, the Atonement is automatic. Infants still need the Atonement, even though they cannot sin, because they need to be sanctified from the carnal, sensual, and devilish nature into which they are born as a result of the Fall. Had there been no Atonement, infants would not be saved (Mosiah 3:16), even though they are sinless. See Moroni 8:8 ("...the curse of Adam is taken from them in me"); 19 ("...they are all alive in him because of his mercy").

The same goes for the heathen, as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned (Moroni 8:22), although this was later changed when Smith introduced the innovation of baptism for the dead.

That is a sensible account, but its not penal substitution.

I don't think you can reconcile penal substitution with atonement for children and heathens. Unless . . . [musing], unless you say that people who err in ignorance still sin (call this specific variety of sin a "transgression"), so there are still sin-specific punishments that Christ assumes for them ("Calvinist" view) or there still is a need to make a general offering to justice on their behalf (governmental view). So in this approach we'd say that children and heathen can sin, just that they don't need to repent because they sinned ignorantly. I don't know if I buy this approach, but what is attractive about it is that it makes our choices meaningful even when we are ignorant, which to some extent we always are. Our usual rhetoric of excusing people because "they didn't know any better" disassociates the act from the person and almost denies their connection to what they have done. I don't know if I want moral responsibility for my transgressions, but I don't want to disclaim responsibility altogether, like I was sleepwalking or simply not present in my own body when I did what I did.

[CV75]

Infants still need the Atonement, even though they cannot sin, because they need to be sanctified from the carnal, sensual, and devilish nature into which they are born as a result of the Fall.

To clarify this a bit, I think the curse of Adam referred to for infants is mortality (physical and spiritual separation from God). Theirs can be called a fallen disposition, but the seeds of mortality only sprout with illness and death, not with sin because they haven't knowledge of good and evil. So infants can only be subject to and harmed by the carnal, sensual and devilish choices of others, not their own.

The Atonement gives them 1) a resurrection through the removal of the curse of physical death, and 2) passage into exaltation not because of redemption from their sins, but because of removal of the curse of physical and spiritual separation (no one can be like God and dwell with Him without a knowledge of good and evil, and the Atonement opens this up for them). In both cases they healed of the effects of the carnal, sensual and devilish choices made against them by others.

[mrmandias]

To clarify this a bit, I think the curse of Adam referred to for infants is mortality (physical and spiritual separation from God). Theirs can be called a fallen disposition, but the seeds of mortality only sprout with illness and death, not with sin because they haven't knowledge of good and evil. So infants can only be subject to and harmed by the carnal, sensual and devilish choices of others, not their own.

The Atonement gives them 1) a resurrection through the removal of the curse of physical death, and 2) passage into exaltation not because of redemption from their sins, but because of removal of the curse of physical and spiritual separation (no one can be like God and dwell with Him without a knowledge of good and evil, and the Atonement opens this up for them). In both cases they healed of the effects of the carnal, sensual and devilish choices made against them by others.

Not a bad theory, though again, it isn't penal substitution. I happen to disagree with it on empirical grounds, however--its pretty clear to me that children under the age of 8 are and can be wicked.

[CV75]

Not a bad theory, though again, it isn't penal substitution. I happen to disagree with it on empirical grounds, however--its pretty clear to me that children under the age of 8 are and can be wicked.

Agreed--I don't hold to any one theory or the other.

In earlier post(s), I desribed what might be called the "Work Theory"; I'll refer you those, though they didn't seem to garner much interest.

Regarding children, D&C 68:25 & 27 refer to God’s commandment to parents in relation to teaching their children to be baptized at eight years old. It is a family covenant where parents are keepers of their children and to an extent are stewards over their developing accountability. “Eight years old” gives everyone at least a year’s time to determine whether they have done their best to ensure an accountable child is ready. This instruction is primarily about the parents’ accountability (responsibility) and not the children’s. Eight years old seems to be a safe if not imperfect/imprecise target that the saints can work with for assessing accountability, similar to the Word of Wisdom providing a safe standard for assessing intake and spirituality.

Of course only God knows the real score, which is why D&C 18:42, 20:71, 29:47, 137:10 and Moroni 8:10 all indicate that the determination of the “age” of accountability (in the Lord’s eyes) is really the determination of accountability. While given to be eight years for the sake of the parents’ covenant, accountability is really dependent on individual, personal attributes and God’s judgment, and He has indicated that eight years of age (with some exceptions) should usually cover it. So yes, I can see how children can do wickedly according to their knowledge of good and evil.

Fortunately God allows the Atonement to work for both parents and children after all they can do. Faith in the Atonement helps parents prepare their children for baptism at eight years old and helps the children, once accountable (and generally they already are) to forgive them for any poor teaching or improper influence resulting in rush or delay, miscalculation of their true accountability, or anything else for which forgiveness is required.

[Cobalt-70]

That is a sensible account, but its not penal substitution.

I agree. I said the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with penal substitution. The Book of Mormon theory of atonement is most consistent with the governmental theory of atonement.

[Cobalt-70]

To clarify this a bit, I think the curse of Adam referred to for infants is mortality (physical and spiritual separation from God). Theirs can be called a fallen disposition, but the seeds of mortality only sprout with illness and death, not with sin because they haven't knowledge of good and evil. So infants can only be subject to and harmed by the carnal, sensual and devilish choices of others, not their own.

The Book of Mormon says more than just that the fall brought death. It also teaches that everyone, including children, inherited a fallen nature as a result of the fall. Mos. 3:16 ("[A]s in Adam, or by nature, [little children] fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins."). Children are unable, technically, to sin of their own free will, but they still have a fallen nature, inherited from Adam, which requires an Atonement. If there had been no Atonement, little children would not be saved from spiritual death, any more than would adults.

This is in line with the book's other teachings relating to the total depravity of human nature as a result of the fall: Moroni 7:24: "[A]ll things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them."; Mos. 3:19: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam." Mos. 16:3: "[The fall] was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish...." Alma 42:10: "[As a result of the Fall, all mankind] had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature." Alma 41:11: "[A]ll men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness...." Mos. 16:5: "[H]e that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him."

Edited June 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mrmandias]

I agree. I said the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with penal substitution. The Book of Mormon theory of atonement is most consistent with the governmental theory of atonement.

The governmental theory, as explained by you, doesn't seem to have much to do with children. Could you explain?

[Cobalt-70]

The governmental theory, as explained by you, doesn't seem to have much to do with children. Could you explain?

The Arminian denominations that like the governmental theory generally believe that children are automatically saved, even if most of them still practice pedobaptism. So do the Calvinist denominations that like penal substitution. Within Protestantism, the status of little children doesn't have much to do with the theory of atonement. They all just believe that little children are saved. Catholics believe in a substitutionary theory essentially the same as penal substitution, yet they differ from most Calvinists and Arminians in believing (traditionally) that unbaptized babies would go to limbo. The theory of atonement and the status of infants are two separate questions.

[CV75]

The Book of Mormon says

The fallen nature of little children / infants is in their capacity for physical death, not in their capacity to sin. I think I explained this in my post above.

Mosiah 3:16 says “And even if it were possible that little children could sin…” so I think we need to be careful about attributing carnal, sensual and devilish attributes to them and to those that haven’t a knowledge of good and evil.

The total depravity of human nature refers to those who are accountable, not to little children. A couple of your references are conditional as well: "[A]ll men that are in a state of nature…” and “"[H]e that persists in his own carnal nature…” indicating that some are not totally depraved, whether through repentance or lack of accountability.

[Cobalt-70]

The fallen nature of little children / infants is in their capacity for physical death, not in their capacity to sin. I think I explained this in my post above.

Mosiah 3:16 says “And even if it were possible that little children could sin…” so I think we need to be careful about attributing carnal, sensual and devilish attributes to them and to those that haven’t a knowledge of good and evil.

The total depravity of human nature refers to those who are accountable, not to little children. A couple of your references are conditional as well: "[A]ll men that are in a state of nature…” and “"[H]e that persists in his own carnal nature…” indicating that some are not totally depraved, whether through repentance or lack of accountability.

Mosiah 3:16 says that little children cannot sin, as do other parts of the Book of Mormon. But Mosiah 3:16 says that it doesn't matter that they cannot sin. Either way, they fall as a result of Adam, and Jesus must atone for them. They do not sin, but Jesus must still overcome the effects of spiritual death for them because of their fallen nature. Had there been no atonement, little children would (1) not be immortal, and (2) remain cast out from the presence of God, in a state of carnal nature.

I think it's pretty clear that under Book of Mormon soteriology, "all men" begin in a state of carnal depravity as a result of the Fall, and remain that way until they exercise faith in Christ, or if they die young, until Jesus automatically saves them. "[T]he curse of Adam is taken from them in [Jesus]" (Moroni 8:8 )--it's not that the curse was never there. And "they are alive in him because of his mercy" (Moroni 8:19), which indicates that without the Atonement and God's mercy, little children would remain in a state of spiritual death.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

Mosiah 3:16 says that little children cannot sin, as do other parts of the Book of Mormon. But Mosiah 3:16 says that it doesn't matter that they cannot sin. Either way, they fall as a result of Adam, and Jesus must atone for them.

I am fine with this interpretation.

They do not sin, but Jesus must still overcome the effects of spiritual death for them because of their fallen nature.

Here we need to be clear on what “fallen nature” and “spiritual death” mean for unaccountable people. I’ll address that in some detail if the following replies do not adequately convey theh difference.

Had there been no atonement, little children would (1) not be immortal, and (2) remain cast out from the presence of God, in a state of carnal nature.

Rather, had there been no atonement, the unaccountable would (1) not become immortal, and (2) because of not having an immortal body, their spirits remain subject to the forces of evil (not to sin, but to continue to be under their dominion), just as they are in this world. The unaccountable do suffer terribly at the hands of the wicked.

I think it's pretty clear that under Book of Mormon soteriology, "all men" begin in a state of carnal depravity as a result of the Fall, and remain that way until they exercise faith in Christ, or if they die young, until Jesus automatically saves them.

The doctrine of salvation in the Book of Mormon is best laid out by the Doctrine of Christ as referenced in several places. One may posit that all men = all infants, and that total depravity = the seeds of such; I see a difference by the way children are specially treated in the teachings and works of Jesus.

"[T]he curse of Adam is taken from them in [Jesus]" (Moroni 8:8 )--it's not that the curse was never there. And "they are alive in him because of his mercy" (Moroni 8:19), which indicates that without the Atonement and God's mercy, little children would remain in a state of spiritual death.

I think I addressed how the curse plays out very differently for children than the way these verses are used to present it. From Moroni Chapter 8, some of which you cited already:

v. 8, “…little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them…” This is the condition of children from the very beginning, and that the Atonement always applied to them so they did not have to become depraved to any degree before they are saved (see verse 12, “…children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world…”). I take this to mean that any premortal spirit that needs to be tested in mortality as an accountable person will somehow be prevented from expiring too young.

v.10, supports that this principle is why or how the Doctrine of Christ allows “all be saved with their little children [who are already whole]…” and who “are all alike and partakers of salvation…” (v. 17).

This is why it is “wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. (v. 15)” There is no correct faith in Christ if His atonement is believed to not have been viable (and in this case especially for the unaccountable) from the foundation of the world.

v. 19: True, “Little children …are all alive in him because of his mercy,” but this was extended long before they were born into the fallen world under the curse of Adam. It is because of His mercy and atonement that some spirits came into this world only as little children or otherwise unaccountable people, to be saved accordingly. This is why “…he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ…” (v. 20).

Edited June 15, 2012 by CV75

[Cobalt-70]

Here we need to be clear on what “fallen nature” and “spiritual death” mean for unaccountable people. I’ll address that in some detail if the following replies do not adequately convey theh difference.

I think the very word "unaccountable" holds within it the assumption that these people will do bad things. It's just that they are not accountable for the bad things they do. They do not sin; however, they have a fallen nature which causes them to do bad things for which they are not held accountable.

Rather, had there been no atonement, the unaccountable would (1) not become immortal, and (2) because of not having an immortal body, their spirits remain subject to the forces of evil (not to sin, but to continue to be under their dominion), just as they are in this world. The unaccountable do suffer terribly at the hands of the wicked.

The hands of the wicked, including Satan. According to the Book of Mormon, all good works are manifestations of the grace of Christ (Moroni 7:24); therefore, were it not for the grace of Christ, little children would not be capable of doing any good things, and the devil would have "all power" (Mos. 16:5) over them. Absent grace, they still would not sin because they are not accountable; but they would still do evil continually because of their fallen nature. So what the Book of Mormon is saying is that Jesus atones, unconditionally, for original guilt. However, the carnal, sensual, and devilish state of nature into which all men and women are born (which theologians call original sin) can be overcome only through the grace of Christ, either automatically upon the death of an unaccountable person, or through the exercise of faith in Christ.

v. 8, “…little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them…” This is the condition of children from the very beginning, and that the Atonement always applied to them so they did not have to become depraved to any degree before they are saved (see verse 12, “…children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world…”). I take this to mean that any premortal spirit that needs to be tested in mortality as an accountable person will somehow be prevented from expiring too young.

I agree that the Book of Mormon teaches that it was always in the plan, "from the foundation of the world," for infants to be "alive in Christ." However, I don't see that as a lessening of the infants' depraved nature. The plan was that Jesus would save them, unconditionally, through his grace--not that these infants never needed saving in the first place because they merited salvation independently of Christ. They still had a depraved nature--but it was always in God's plan to save them from that nature through unconditional grace.

v.10, supports that this principle is why or how the Doctrine of Christ allows “all be saved with their little children [who are already whole]…” and who “are all alike and partakers of salvation…” (v. 17).

Again, the Book of Mormon is saying that they are whole "in Christ," not whole by their own merits as innocent children, independently of Christ. Had there been no Atonement and had they been shown no mercy, they would not merit salvation, because they would retain their fallen, graceless state, and would remain cast out from God's presence. So even though little children cannot commit sins of their own volition, it was still an act of mercy for Jesus to save them.

This is why it is “wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. (v. 15)” There is no correct faith in Christ if His atonement is believed to not have been viable (and in this case especially for the unaccountable) from the foundation of the world.

I think this just makes clear that even though Jesus died in the first century, the salvation extends back through time to the beginning of the world, and that it was always in God's plan to automatically save children.

v. 19: True, “Little children …are all alive in him because of his mercy,” but this was extended long before they were born into the fallen world under the curse of Adam. It is because of His mercy and atonement that some spirits came into this world only as little children or otherwise unaccountable people, to be saved accordingly. This is why “…he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ…” (v. 20).

I think that the reason why "he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ" is because anyone who say little children need baptism denies that Christ can extend mercy to children who have no ability to sin of their own volition. But verse 20 indicates that little children still actually do need Christ's mercy to overcome the spiritual death that came with the Fall. It is just that for little children, baptism is not a condition of that mercy, because they have no individual sins, and no ability to repent.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

I think the very word "unaccountable" holds within it the assumption that these people will do bad things. It's just that they are not accountable for the bad things they do. They do not sin; however, they have a fallen nature which causes them to do bad things for which they are not held accountable.

I’ll have to dissect this use a bit before adopting the assumption that accountable people must do bad things (Jesus, exalted people, etc. are still accountable people even though they do only good things; Jesus was accountable and yet was baptized as a sinless man). I hold to:

Moroni 8:10, “Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.” From this I gather that children are considered not accountable and not capable of committing sin. Accountable people, however, need not do bad things.

The hands of the wicked, including Satan. According to the Book of Mormon, all good works are manifestations of the grace of Christ (Moroni 7:24); therefore, were it not for the grace of Christ, little children would not be capable of doing any good things, and the devil would have "all power" (Mos. 16:5) over them. Absent grace, they still would not sin because they are not accountable; but they would still do evil continually because of their fallen nature. So what the Book of Mormon is saying is that Jesus atones, unconditionally, for original guilt. However, the carnal, sensual, and devilish state of nature into which all men and women are born (which theologians call original sin) can be overcome only through the grace of Christ, either automatically upon the death of an unaccountable person, or through the exercise of faith in Christ.

The grace of Christ, has been effectual for as long as His mercy and Atonement, and has the same application to children that I described in the posts above.

I agree that the Book of Mormon teaches that it was always in the plan, "from the foundation of the world," for infants to be "alive in Christ." However, I don't see that as a lessening of the infants' depraved nature. The plan was that Jesus would save them, unconditionally, through his grace--not that these infants never needed saving in the first place because they merited salvation independently of Christ. They still had a depraved nature--but it was always in God's plan to save them from that nature through unconditional grace.

I’ll ask you to define what you mean by “depraved” and “total depravity” then, and I suspect there is a much, much better word for it ("dependency?" "reliance?"). If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with some of the fundamental ideas expresed here.

Again, the Book of Mormon is saying that they are whole "in Christ," not whole by their own merits as innocent children, independently of Christ. Had there been no Atonement and had they been shown no mercy, they would not merit salvation, because they would retain their fallen, graceless state, and would remain cast out from God's presence. So even though little children cannot commit sins of their own volition, it was still an act of mercy for Jesus to save them.

As far as their being saved by grace goes, I think we are saying close to the same thing here as well, but it then takes a twist as if we are not. For example, children don’t “remain cast out”, for they were not cast out to begin with. And without an atonement they are not “cast out” of Father’s presence; because they lack a resurrection and are no longer in His presence as they were before mortality, they are still subject to the conditions of the Fall as I described earlier.

I think this just makes clear that even though Jesus died in the first century, the salvation extends back through time to the beginning of the world, and that it was always in God's plan to automatically save children.

I think we are saying the same thing here; but again it comes across as if we are not. For example, “automatically” is antithetical to agency. Please explain how (and why) you use of this word, too.

I think that the reason why "he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ" is because anyone who say little children need baptism denies that Christ can extend mercy to children who have no ability to sin of their own volition. But verse 20 indicates that little children still actually do need Christ's mercy to overcome the spiritual death that came with the Fall. It is just that for little children, baptism is not a condition of that mercy, because they have no individual sins, and no ability to repent.

It says/means that, too and both this and what i posted are closely related concepts. For some reason the way you decribe it makes it comes across as contradictory (and is "baptism not a condition" what you mean by "automatically"?).

[Cobalt-70]

I’ll have to dissect this use a bit before adopting the assumption that accountable people must do bad things (Jesus, exalted people, etc. are still accountable people even though they do only good things; Jesus was accountable and yet was baptized as a sinless man). I hold to:

Moroni 8:10, “Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.” From this I gather that children are considered not accountable and not capable of committing sin. Accountable people, however, need not do bad things.

I didn't say that either accountable or unaccountable people must do bad things. Rather, I'm saying that the Book of Mormon teaches that both accountable and unaccountable people can do no good thing without the grace of Christ, because all good things come from Christ. Infants are saved automatically, regardless of whether or not they do any good things. But I think the Book of Mormon's teachings are consistent with the idea that Christ's grace can work within children as well as adults.

I’ll ask you to define what you mean by “depraved” and “total depravity” then, and I suspect there is a much, much better word for it ("dependency?" "reliance?"). If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with some of the fundamental ideas expresed here.

Total depravity means that a person can do no good without the grace of Christ. In other words, all good things come from Christ. Without the grace of Christ, a person is an enemy to God, completely under the devil's power, and no good can come from him or her. This contrasts from the Catholic view, which is that as a result of the Fall, human nature is merely wounded, and a person can do at least a small amount of good independently of the grace of Christ. The Book of Mormon clearly follows the Protestant view, in favor of total depravity.

As far as their being saved by grace goes, I think we are saying close to the same thing here as well, but it then takes a twist as if we are not. For example, children don’t “remain cast out”, for they were not cast out to begin with. And without an atonement they are not “cast out” of Father’s presence; because they lack a resurrection and are no longer in His presence as they were before mortality, they are still subject to the conditions of the Fall as I described earlier.

They are cast out of God's presence with the whole of humanity as a result of the Fall. I think the Book of Mormon provides a rather standard Protestant, Arminian view of these issues, and I don't think that the Book of Mormon contemplates the idea of a pre-existence. I think what you are trying to do is synthesize what the Book of Mormon teaches with Joseph Smith's later teachings, including the pre-existence. The Book of Mormon does not have to be read this way, and would not have been read this way by someone (including Smith himself) reading the book in 1830. But if I were to make such a synthesis, here is what I think Smith believed circa 1835:

Spirits who kept their first estate are worthy of the presence of God. However, as a result of the Fall, mortal bodies are corrupt, naturally evil, and as a result of this corruption are incapable of enduring God's presence in their natural state. Therefore, anyone born to a mortal body inherits this natural state and is cast out of God's presence, which is the spiritual death. The body is born in a state of spiritual death. The spirit undergoes a spiritual death the first time a volitional sin is committed. No mortal body, and no spirit that has sinned, can endure the presence of God unless it is sanctified by the grace of Christ.

A child who has not sinned will naturally return to the presence of God, because he or she has no personal sins, and is leaving behind his or her corrupt body. At the resurrection, Jesus will automatically sanctify the body of such children, and thereby overcome the effects of original sin on that body. For everyone, including those who die accountable, Christ will automatically overcome the effects of physical death and original sin (i.e., the carnal, sensual, and devilish state in which humans are born). Christ will offer himself as a propitation for personal sins, however, and overcome the "second death," only for those who are not sons of perdition. (On that latter point, see D&C 76:37.)

I think we are saying the same thing here; but again it comes across as if we are not. For example, “automatically” is antithetical to agency. Please explain how (and why) you use of this word, too.

I don't really think that unaccountable little children have moral agency. If they are incapable of choosing between good and evil, then they do not have moral agency. D&C 101:78 seems to say that agency is the flip side of accountability.

It says/means that, too and both this and what i posted are closely related concepts. For some reason the way you decribe it makes it comes across as contradictory (and is "baptism not a condition" what you mean by "automatically"?).

Yes, automatically meaning "unconditionally."

[CV75]

I didn't say...

I‘m sorry, but statements where little children are depraved and cast out, and at the same time not accountable and automatically saved because agency is the “flip side” of accountability and they haven't either just don’t work for me—too much hard work for me to translate the esoteric meanings and contradictions you seem to attach to these terms. I’m surprised I guessed as closely as I did; I’m convinced I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. There must be a better way for you to express the idea that God’s grace is the only way we can yield good works while our accountability can only yield sin, and to show where agency and children fall into that idea in light of the ubiquitous Atonement.

Are you using these terms because they are dictated by a penal substitution framework? If so, all I’m getting out of this thread is that the underlying meaning could be the same as any other theory's that uses different terms, supporting an argument that all the theories are fundamentally the same.

[JDave]

It all makes more sense to me when I think of the Atonement covering premortal and mortal life. Little children (i.e. everyone at some point) are saved by the Atonement through a "preparatory redemption". See Alma 13.

It doesn't answer all the questions of what it means to be born into a "fallen" world, depraved and cast out, but it opens an avenue to consider.

[Lamanite]

I am really enjoying the posts. Thank you for participating. I'll add some comments and questions when I have more time.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Cobalt-70]

It all makes more sense to me when I think of the Atonement covering premortal and mortal life. Little children (i.e. everyone at some point) are saved by the Atonement through a "preparatory redemption". See Alma 13.

I don't think that the "preparatory redemption" referred to in Alma 13:3 refers to little children. This is talking about Melchizedek priests. It tells how, in the Book of Mormon's view, these priests were ordained by fore-ordination. God knew in advance that they would excercise "exceedingly great faith," therefore God prepared their redemption in advance, and prepared them for their holy calling as a Melchizedek priest.

[Cobalt-70]

I‘m sorry, but statements where little children are depraved and cast out, and at the same time not accountable and automatically saved because agency is the “flip side” of accountability and they haven't either just don’t work for me—too much hard work for me to translate the esoteric meanings and contradictions you seem to attach to these terms. I’m surprised I guessed as closely as I did; I’m convinced I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. There must be a better way for you to express the idea that God’s grace is the only way we can yield good works while our accountability can only yield sin, and to show where agency and children fall into that idea in light of the ubiquitous Atonement.

Are you using these terms because they are dictated by a penal substitution framework? If so, all I’m getting out of this thread is that the underlying meaning could be the same as any other theory's that uses different terms, supporting an argument that all the theories are fundamentally the same.

All theories are not the same. The Book of Mormon is totally inconsistent with penal substitution, but is very consistent with the governmental model. Some of the distinctions may seem like fine and unimportant distinctions to modern Mormons, but they are very important to Protestants. Arminians and Calvinists battled intensely over these issues while Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon virtually always, if not always, chooses the Arminian path. Mormons have so long been outside the Protestant mainstream that most don't really care about these things anymore. But the Book of Mormon is careful to make these distinctions, and I don't think anyone can fully understand what the Book of Mormon is saying about little children, or about the effects of the Fall, unless they understand the contours of these Protestant debates.

[JDave]

I don't think that the "preparatory redemption" referred to in Alma 13:3 refers to little children. This is talking about Melchizedek priests. It tells how, in the Book of Mormon's view, these priests were ordained by fore-ordination. God knew in advance that they would excercise "exceedingly great faith," therefore God prepared their redemption in advance, and prepared them for their holy calling as a Melchizedek priest.

So God prepared their mortal redemption in advance? Why? What does it even mean?

[Cobalt-70]

So God prepared their mortal redemption in advance? Why? What does it even mean?

The scripture basically seems to be saying that God redeemed them, essentially from birth. Through his foreknowledge, he knew they would exercise exceedingly great faith, so he foreordained them to the Melchizedek priesthood and essentially pre-saved and sanctified them. That's how their priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years."

[Log]

The scripture is describing the fact that *all* were called from the foundation of the world to the Priesthood.

That is how "in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts."

This was pointed out to Cobalt-70 before.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

The scripture is describing the fact that *all* were called from the foundation of the world to the Priesthood.

That is how "in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts."

This was pointed out to Cobalt-70 before.

Alma 13 does not say that all people were called to the Melchizedek priesthood. Perhaps all people were, but Alma 13 does not teach that, and in fact teaches the opposite. Verse 4 says that the Melchizedek priests were called "on account of their faith, while others [i.e., those who were not called from the foundation of the world] would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds."

[Log]

Alma 13 does not say that all people were called to the Melchizedek priesthood. Perhaps all people were, but Alma 13 does not teach that, and in fact teaches the opposite. Verse 4 says that the Melchizedek priests were called "on account of their faith, while others [i.e., those who were not called from the foundation of the world] would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds."

Unfortunately, the scripture does not say what you want it to. As to why you want it to, that's perhaps a subject for another thread.