Posted by Nathan Richardson
 |
| How can people believe that an infant is born sinful? Well, given certain premises, it can be a sensible conclusion. |
I had an interesting experience two weeks ago, and I thought I’d share what I learned from it. I have recently begun to participate in an interfaith dialogue program. Every few weeks, a group of students from various predominantly evangelical universities come out to Utah in order to meet members of the LDS Church and learn more about our beliefs. It’s a fantastic arrangement, because everyone involved, both the evangelical Christians and the Mormons, understand that the purpose of our dialogues is understanding, not persuasion. So our discussions result in genuinely exploring each others beliefs and getting our questions answered, rather than being potentially contentious encounters, which can often happen between two groups that have had a history of antagonism. I hope these dialogues contribute, in their own minor way, to fixing any rifts that might have existed in the past.
Original Sin
While we were eating together at a diner, one of the LDS girls in the group began talking to a group of four evangelical boys about original sin. They explained that they believed that because of Adam’s fall, all of creation took on a sinful, fallen nature. Latter-day Saints would generally agree with that statement, but the LDS girl wanted to clarify what they meant by sinful. They confirmed that yes, they did believe that a baby was born “guilty,” or sinful.
Then she asked about what would happen to a baby who lived only ten days and then died without having accepted the gospel or exercising faith in Jesus Christ. The young men explained that it was in God’s hands what to do, and that we had to trust his judgment when it came to a sinful person who hadn’t accepted the Savior. They freely acknowledged that it was hard to understand from our mortal perspective, but we had to just trust that the Lord knows what he’s doing.
None of us were theologians. We were all just doing our best to explain what our churches taught, and recognizing that our explanations may be imperfect. Another evangelical Christian might have a more thorough explanation of how and why original sin affects infants. But either way, we were fine with their description even though as Latter-day Saints we saw things differently. The LDS girl did confess that it was hard for her to understand how a just God could hold an infant responsible and accountable to sins he did not commit. The evangelical guys were empathetic and suggested some readings for her.
When is the Spirit Created?
At that point I suggested an insight that might help both sides understand where the other was coming from. I had a Catholic teacher in high school who explained that Catholics, as well as most of Christianity, believe that our spirits are created at or near conception. I don’t know that many people would pinpoint an exact moment, but generally speaking, Christians believe that spirits are created during the process of gestation.
So consider for a moment: if you believe that a spirit is created from the union of two other souls, which are fallen, sinful, and “stained,” it makes sense that the resulting, new spirit would have the same attributes. If you derive a new spirit from the combined “substance” of two sinful spirits, one might expect that the new spirit would also be sinful, just as pouring two glasses of water together will result in a new glass of water that has the same minerals and particulates floating around in it.
As I recalled for them what my Catholic teacher had explained to me, one of the evangelical guys slowly nodded and said, “Yeah, that makes sense. That’s pretty much what we believe.”
The Premortal Creation
 |
| If you believe your spirit was created in heaven, long before you were born into a body, it changes the way you understand original sin. |
I then explained to him what Mormons believe about spirit birth. We believe the spirit is actually created long before conception in the flesh. We believe that “man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.”1
So consider for a moment: if you believe that a spirit is created from the union of two perfect souls, who are exalted, sinless, and pure, it makes sense that the resulting, new spirit would have the same attributes. Whereas our evangelical friends believe we are conceived by and formed from two sinful souls, we believe that we are created, formed, and raised by two sinless souls. Thus, our natures were first sinless, long before we took on a fleshly, fallen body, which we do believe has a carnal, sinful nature.
As I explained this, the LDS girl and the evangelical guy both turned to each other with thoughtful looks and made comments like, “OK, I think I see now.” It was a neat “Aha!” moment, and I was grateful that my Catholic teacher had taken the time to explain his beliefs to me back in high school.
Conclusion
Experiences like this help me remember that other religions are for the most part reasonable. They have internally consistent ways of interpreting the scriptures. We should never assume that they are just irrational or haven’t thought things through. If we really think about where they’re coming from, or the assumptions they start with, it often becomes pretty clear why they believe what they do. I don’t know that I can say I’ve explained the reason why the rest of Christianity believes in original sin, but I think this one insight at least gives it a little more context. And helps me appreciate the doctrine of the premortal life in a new way,
This experience also helps me remember why we believe what we do. The basis of our beliefs is revelation. We do not believe in the premortal life because of lengthy linguistic studies of the Bible, or because we’re just a little better at figuring out the original Greek than other churches are. We are fortunate enough to have received undeserved revelations from God, which we hope to share with others. But we should never speak as though our knowledge of certain truths is somehow the result of greater intelligence or worthiness. Far from it—a knowledge of the restored gospel should fill us with gratitude and humility.
Notes
1. First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,†Ensign, Feb. 2002, p. 26.
Good analogy, your blog is awesome. The “I-Thou” post really got to me. I have to know though—was your teacher Mr. Albrecht?
Heya Emi! Yep, you guessed it. His explanations of Catholicism also totally helped me understand half the literature we read, like “Batter My Heart” and “Faustus.”
I’m glad you found the website! Feel free to comment away whenever you want!
Interesting perspective (especially the specifics of differing doctrine). Funny how consistent other belief systems are when considered in context.
Nathan great post. I have also attended some of the Evangelical-Mormon get-togethers this past semester, and I met some of the LDS students but I don’t remember any Nathans. I really enjoy them. For anyone wishing to attend here is the name of the facebook group which will keep you informed about the upcoming dialogues: Evangelical-Mormon Interfaith Dialogue, http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=26560323384.
Nice insight about a pre-mortal existence factoring into the Mormon understanding of human nature. Both sides, when we consider each other’s views, are often left wondering how in the world the other side believes what they do. And, like you pointed out, this is because when we consider the other position we do so by placing one of their beliefs within our system of beliefs and we just see contradictions. It was not until I studied Augustine before I realized that the doctrines of original sin or human depravity can make sense within systems of beliefs other than my own. Here is the passage I read:
Interesting quote from Augustine. I really can see why he concluded what he did. How would you explain to him the LDS view? I wonder if an important distinction is that the flesh is fallen, but the spirit is not. That’s my understanding—the flesh has strong, fallen impulses of selfish self-preservation. But the spirit is untainted until an individual is accountable and sins, which babies cannot do yet. They can’t even be tempted by Satan.
By the way, I can’t believe I didn’t meet you at any of the interfaith visits! I’ve been to three of them, and there usually weren’t that many BYU students. I’ll look for you at the next one.
Yeah, I can’t believe I haven’t met you yet either. I’ll be back up there in the fall so maybe we’ll run into each other then.
In response to your question, I really liked your way of talking about a premortal life as a way of addressing original sin. If more was needed, I might talk about knowledge as a requirement for sin. For example, my mom has told me about some things I did as a kid that I don’t even have the capacity to remember doing. Am I responsible for those acts? Maybe what this argument really goes back to is how we define sinning. Both sides believe that sin is the willful act of disobeying God’s laws. (We mean different things by free will too.) The difference is that we believe there needs to be a conscious effort made to purposely disobey if it is to be a sin. And if a purposeful effort is needed to break the law, that implies that there exists an understanding of the law. Small children are not capable of deliberately choosing to break a law, nor are they capable of understanding it. See Rom. 3:20, 4:15, 5:13, and 2 Ne. 9:25.
I think Augustine’s theory falls short here. Is it just that a man be punished for breaking a law he did not know of? No, it isn’t just. It is for that same reason that the gospel is preached in the spirit world, so that the spirits of the deceased know and understand it. Once they understand it, they then become accountable for it and can be judged of it. We believe that there exists an age of accountability. The LDS Church only baptizes those who are eight years of age or older. And here’s another way to think about it. Because faith and repentance are prerequisites for baptism, a child is capable of sinning only when he is also capable of having faith and repenting. See Acts 5:14, 8:12, and Alma 42:17-18. Another assumption that both sides disagree on is whether sin can be transferred from one person to another. I won’t go into that; maybe you can.
Now I have some questions for you. You wrote: “I wonder if an important distinction is that the flesh is fallen, but the spirit is not.” I recently listened to a Sunstone Symposium where one of the panelists was a Calvinist who did an amazing job of pinpointing Mormon beliefs. Usually Evangelicals don’t do a good job of this, but he did. (I’m going to be lazy and not get his name.) And he described the LDS view of human nature in practically your words. He said something to the effect of “we are wholesome spirits trapped in an evil body.†It was a little more poetic than that but it was the same idea. He said this in context of how a premortal existence factored into the Mormon understanding of human nature. I’ve been thinking about this Mormon understanding of original sin for a while. It is very easy for one to read the doctrine of original sin into our scriptures. See Alma 34:9 and Ether 3:2. Consider this statement by Sterling McMurrin:
So my request for you is: define more clearly what those scriptures mean which can easily be read to infer original sin. I’ll give you a scripture to go off of. Alma 34:9: “For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.†For you how are we all fallen and hardened if there were no atonement? Alma 34:15: “And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring … about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.†If the atonement brought about means that make it possible for us to have faith and repent does this present any problems to us being intrinsically good beings? 2 Ne. 2:8-10:
Last, can your theory make sense of how we would all become devils like Satan if there were no atonement?
Another request is from what I mentioned earlier. Believing that I am not responsible for what I can’t remember doing may have some bad consequences. Does it mean that I am responsible for what I do when I’m drunk? What if I make a baby? Am I responsible for the act of drinking and then responsible for the baby once I’m sober, but not responsible for whatever I do while I’m under the influence? If that is a big enough problem then maybe we’ll need to rethink the idea that we are only responsible for what we can remember. What do you think? These are for anyone to take a stab at, not just Nathan.
Those are good questions—one’s I’ve tried to figure out, too. I don’t think I’ve even come close to answering all of them, but there is one concept that has gone a long way in resolving many of them—the fact that there are two types, or two aspects, of spiritual death. Back to that McMurrin quote:
In Mormon theology that “more†is sometimes described as “spiritual death.†It is the state of being cast out of the presence of the Lord, i.e., banishment from the garden, but beyond this, “spiritual death†has been difficult for the Mormon theologians to define and they have usually passed over it somewhat casually.
Only in the last few years have I begun to understand what all is meant by spiritual death, and now that I have a better understanding of it, I’m surprised it’s not presented more clearly or more often in Church manuals and lessons. After reading your last comment, I’ve decided I should write it up into one of my next articles. Here’s a basic summary, though:
Spiritual death refers to being cut off from God’s presence. “God’s presence” can mean either Heavenly Father’s physical “location” presence, or the Holy Ghost’s spiritual “influence” presence. Alma 42:7 and Hel. 14:16 both refer to these distinct concepts as God’s temporal presence and God’s spiritual presence, respectively.
Each separation has a different cause (see True to the Faith). Separation from Heavenly Father (to be “cut off temporally” from God) is caused by Adam’s fall, in part because of our mortal flesh. Separation from the Holy Ghost (to be “cut off spiritually” from God) is caused by our individual sins.
Aaron: If the atonement brought about means that make it possible for us to have faith and repent, does this present any problems to us being intrinsically good beings?
Some of those verses can be answered by saying, “Well, us refers to sinful people, so of course we need the atonement.” It’s easy to see how, had there been no atonement, a sinful person would be subject to the devil upon dying.
But your point about 2 Nephi 9 is a good one, because he seems to be talking about all the family of Adam. I think the most succinct way of framing your question is, had there been no atonement, why would an infant girl who died after living for just one hour be subject to the devil upon dying, if she is not sinful? Why would justice place her there?
Dang, you’re giving me a lot to think about. Now I need to go read every commentary there is on 2 Nephi 9. 🙂
Hey, Aaron! It’s good to see you! We’ll miss you in the BYU 2nd Ward.
Thanks Jeff. I’ll miss you too. You probably won’t be there when I get back in the fall. You need to email me your honors thesis because I want to read it sometime this summer. I also want to get to that one book you tried to get me to read over Christmas break. What was the name of it again? I read your series of four articles on homosexuality here on this site and I liked them. I’ll eventually read the article that you were summarizing; it sounds pretty good. At the moment I am also reading material from this up-and-coming LDS site called SquareTwo.org. I recommend checking it out and even putting it on your list of friendly sites if you deem it worthy. I’ve recently started into an article by Richard Sherlock called “The Church is Right: The Case Against Gay Marriage.†Sherlock is one of my favorite LDS intellectuals and he does a great job in this article.
I liked your way of describing spiritual death, Nathan. I don’t have anything to add. It was perfect. After talking about spiritual death you cited me, and I realized that I didn’t word my question as well as I would have liked. I should have written: If I am not able to have faith or to repent without the atonement (if those choices are not possible for me without the atonement), are we really good spirits trapped inside a fallen flesh? To answer my own question I would still say yes. But using what you wrote I would only think of the body as fallen in the sense that it is removed from God’s physical presence. I don’t think that there is anything intrinsically bad with it. Our bodies experience passions that we are here to learn to bridle, and insofar as we give in to Satan’s temptations our spirits become tainted with sin. I am against thinking of the body as unclean; I think our bodies are only as unclean as we choose that they be. Maybe some LDS would disagree by arguing that our bodies are unclean in the sense that they are subject to temptation. But being subject to Satan’s temptations does not admit of any imperfections. I think that even God has the possibility of sinning but that he chooses not to.
The point I would like to emphasis is: isn’t it interesting that the atonement brought about means that we could have faith and repent? The questions we should be asking are how and why? If there were no atonement why is it that we would be unable to repent or have faith? And what was it about Christ’s suffering that brought it about such that I could have faith and repent? You ask a provocative question but I don’t believe it is a real problem: “But your point about 2 Nephi 9 is a good one, because he seems to be talking about all the family of Adam. I think the most succinct way of framing your question is, had there been no atonement, why would an infant girl who died after living for just one hour be subject to the devil upon dying, if she is not sinful? Why would justice place her there?†First, if she were placed there I don’t believe that it was justice that determined her placement there. From what I wrote earlier I don’t think that a Mormon could reasonably conclude that a child who died in infancy would become subject to the devil. Even if there were no atonement, she didn’t know the law so why would she be held responsible by it? Moreover, I don’t see anything from the passage of 2 Ne. 9 that binds me to interpret it universally as you have. So, I prefer to interpret it to refer to those who have knowledge of the law, and who have sinned in this life.
To go along with our list of questions I would like to add three more. I’m trying to anticipate whether or not you would disagree with anything I’ve argued thus far, and I can’t decide. If there is anything I’ve said that you disagree with I want to know, and I would like to discuss it too. Here’s one that I’ve been thinking about for a while now, and if you have an answer or can identify the problem I’d like to hear it. Especially in Moroni 8, what do we mean by “Little children are alive in Christ because of the atonement?†I brought up this question in my book of Mormon class for RM’s a couple weeks ago. I asked, “It seems that the atonement has nothing to do with little children because they don’t have the ability to repent. I think ‘little children are alive in Christ’ is an empty phrase, and if it’s empty then we shouldn’t use it as a reason to help others see why baptizing babies is wrong. I think even if there were no atonement they would still be saved.†A bunch of hands went up, and I thought “now I’m going to get a response.†But I still didn’t get one. We addressed it and then dropped it without an adequate solution to the problem. What do you think?
My second question I’ve already touched on. Are we responsible for only those things that we consciously do? How one answers this question has some very practical implications. In the state of Utah those who are the cause of car collisions and are drunk are less responsible for what they’ve done then someone who has not been drinking and causes the same wreck. The reason for this is the person who has not been drinking has a clear state of mind. The penalty for the drunk is less than the penalty for the sober. Do you think this is just? What would you think would be a better solution?
This third question has to do with infant death. This one I think I have a solution to but it remains a problem for most LDS, and I want to see how you address it. It is a revealed truth that infants who die in infancy will go straight to the Celestial kingdom. Elder McConkie said, “Most of the adult people who have lived from the day of Adam to the present time will go to the telestial kingdom†(Mormon Doctrine, “Telestial Kingdomâ€). In another place (I don’t have a source for it), we learn that most people—including those who die in infancy—will go to the Celestial kingdom. I believe that these three statements are correct, but this leads us to a strange conclusion. It seems that it would be beneficent of us to murder our offspring. That way they would all go straight to the Celestial Kingdom and not have the chance of messing up in this life. Is it fair that all children who die before reaching the age of accountability are saved? That seems unjust especially if given the opportunity some of them might have failed in the test of life. What do you tell someone who inherits the telestial kingdom? that if his mother had aborted him he would have been happy in the celestial world? Either one or more of the premises are wrong or there are some missing variables. If you go the missing variable route don’t just appeal to mystery and stop there—“there are things I don’t know that solve my problem.†That’s not thinking very hard. Try something out and give reasons for it. Again, anyone can respond to these.
I disagree that little children would or could be saved without the atonement. I believe that they are only called sinless because of the atonement. LDS scripture, besides teaching that little children are blessed, holy, innocent, incapable of committing sin, and therefore do not require baptism, also teaches that all this is so because of the redemption and atonement of Jesus Christ. Consider the following:
Mosiah 3
16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.
D&C 74
7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.
D&C 93
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.
D&C 29
46 But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;
Moroni 8
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
All of the above scriptures, in one form or another, say to me that it is only in and through the redemption and atonement that little children are innocent and thus saved. We think that little children are pure and innocent and not accountable to the law, which is true enough, but I think that is only true because of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Aaron: If there were no atonement why is it that we would be unable to repent or have faith?
I must be missing something here. If there were no atonement, in whom or in what would you place your faith and what good would that do? And if you did happened to repent, where would your sins go and how would they be taken care of?
In the state of Utah those who are the cause of car collisions and are drunk are less responsible for what they’ve done then someone who has not been drinking and causes the same wreck. The reason for this is the person who has not been drinking has a clear state of mind. The penalty for the drunk is less than the penalty for the sober. Do you think this is just? What would you think would be a better solution?
I read or heard something about a year ago that said that society’s view on this had changed. Originally, it was a greater offense to cause an accident while drunk than sober. The reason given was that the drunk had intentionally allowed himself to be placed in a state where he lost his self control. It’s easier to have an accident while drunk than it is while sober, therefore, allowing the lose of one’s self control in the first place is a greater offense.
I have to agree with Matthew about whether children could be saved if there were no atonement. Moses 6:54 says, “The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt.” I don’t think that’s the same as the Catholic concept of original sin, but children are obviously confronted with some obstacle to salvation, because the atonement fixes it. Moses doesn’t say there is no such thing as original guilt; he says it’s no longer a problem because the atonement takes care of it.
Matthew, it’s good to meet you. I just ran into your blog, and will have some comments to make on the interesting topics you address there. Also, the scriptures you cited about little children needed the atonement were really good.
In response to you and Nathan, let me start with the earlier idea that Nathan and I mentioned earlier: “that the flesh is fallen, but the spirit is not.†It is my conception that when the spirit-person initially enters this life, he is clean (or else he couldn’t have been dwelling in God’s presence). As has been the case with everyone on this earth except for Jesus, once this person learns enough to be able to sin, he starts to sin. So far so good. I think this much gives a great explanation for why babies who die before the age of accountability return to God’s presence and inherit the celestial kingdom. This is because they are still the same people they were before coming into mortality; they didn’t have a chance to become someone different, to change who they are. For the rest of us, however, the memories of our past lives are erased for now and we form a new us. After this life the new us will be added to our past memories, but we will continue with the same tendencies we developed in this life. That’s what I imagine is the case.
So how does this fit in with the atonement? Matthew, I see that you are confused with my emphasis of Alma 34:15: “And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring … about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.†Let me explain why I emphasis that scripture. You asked some questions about the atonement, but I believe that those were the wrong questions to ask. I am using a different system of atonement than you and Nathan are. I think your understanding of the atonement regarding little children goes something like this: although children are holy and not capable of sinning, they still need the atonement because there are laws out there that demand that a penalty be paid for the transgression of every law. Children, although they do not sin against the law, are still accountable by it and so Jesus suffered the penalty of all the laws that they unknowingly broke. My theory of atonement is quite a bit different. First, I don’t think God’s ability to forgive us is conditional upon the Son’s sacrifice. Second, I don’t think that Christ paid the penalty for our sins (I do think he suffered for sin). That is why I emphasis the scripture above. If the atonement did not pay the debt to some law, then the question is: What did it do then? Why then is the atonement necessary for salvation? There are a small number of LDS who both are informed about atonement theories and reject the penal substitution theory of atonement (that is the one I see you and Nathan use just by the way you talk). I think wikipedia and a site called religioustolerance.org have done excellent jobs of outlining the different Christian atonement theories. Here is a list of names of LDS theologians I know of and have read who address the topic: Cleon Skousen, Eugene England, Sterling McMurrin, Dennis Potter, David Paulsen, Blake Ostler, and Richard Sherlock. All of them reject the penal substitution theory of atonement but many disagree on what should take its place. Alma 34:15 is my attempt at answering the question of how the atonement is necessary for salvation. I haven’t seen anyone take this way of explanation and so I feel alone at the moment, but one reason I like it is because it’s scriptural. I have written a couple of papers on this topic and will just say that imposing a Calvinistic theory of atonement upon a Mormon worldview creates some big problems. I think this would be a good place for Jeff to enter the discussion. When Jeff and I first met, we had both previously studied atonement theories and independently arrived at the same conclusion: to look for a different understanding of the atonement. He has also read both of my papers and so knows where I am coming from. My idea is that a Mormon twist on original sin is the answer to some of the problems of the atonement.
So this was all one giant explanation for why I still am looking for an answer to the question: what then does the atonement do for little children? I reject the idea that it is God’s way of forgiving them which I think is your and Nathan’s answer, and unless I’ve convinced either of you to change our way of thinking about the atonement you probably won’t feel a need to help me look. Jeff, maybe here is where you could help. Maybe the answer is as simple as the atonement enables little children to be saved in that it resurrects them. From your points of view, Nathan and Matthew, does that conclusion seem reasonable for me to take?
Aaron: … The penal substitution theory of atonement (that is the one I see you and Nathan use just by the way you talk).
That’s interesting that you concluded that, because I actually don’t believe the penal substitution theory is the best way to describe the atonement. My only point is that, however the atonement works, little children need it. I think Matthew’s list of scriptures makes that point pretty clearly.
Maybe the answer is as simple as the atonement enables little children to be saved in that it resurrects them.
That was actually what I was going to suggest. There might be other reasons I haven’t thought of yet, but one reason little children need the atonement is that without it, their bodies would remain mortal and corruptible (meaning able to rot and molder away). No mortal body can dwell in the presence of God; “We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God.” We can’t do that for ourselves, even if we are sinless. So even an innocent baby needs the atonement in order to return to Heavenly Father’s presence.
That might also be the reason Jacob says that without the atonement, we would have become “subject to” the devil and “in misery like unto” him. He doesn’t say that, without the atonement, our personal sins would have that result. He says that “if the flesh should rise no more” would have that result. Little children do not sin but they are mortal, so it seems to me that his hypothetical situation applies to them.
The penalty for the drunk is less than the penalty for the sober. Do you think this is just?
My first reaction is no. I’d have to think about it, but at first thought, it doesn’t seem fair. The guy chose to take a drink. It’d be like making someone pay for my tulips that his dog dug up. He could say, “But it’s not my fault; once my dog escapes my backyard, I can’t control him.” That may be true, but it doesn’t absolve him from the obligation to keep his dog secured.
It seems that it would be beneficent of us to murder our offspring. That way they would all go straight to the Celestial Kingdom and not have the chance of messing up in this life.
That is actually a puzzler I have wondered about, too! (A twisted person could make it the plot of a CSI episode.) I’ve been pretty content to just “appeal to mystery and stop there” in the past. 🙂 But I agree that there are probably some missing variables. One possible resolution is that the Lord only sends people to such bodies who were already thoroughly tested in the premortal life, and only need to come here long enough to get a body. That’s the only one I can think of at the moment. I’d be very interested in hearing your resolution of it.
There are a lot of good questions presented here. I have a had a few thoughts that I would like to share. This is not going to be very well organized, so sorry in advance.
I wonder if some of (or a lot of) the confusion here is found in the underlying understanding of the purpose of life. Do we view it in the same sort of light as a test at the end of a class, determining the grade we get on the class–a grade which may very well have an impact on our ability to progress in the education system? I’m not really comfortable with that interpretation. If the mortal experience is an essential step in our journey to becoming like our Father, the word “fair” has no place in our discussion of the Gospel. Each experience is custom tailored to best help each individual become more like Heavenly Father. I tend to favor this view of mortality.
My second thought focuses on the concept of original sin. I think this word has a slightly different connotation in the Mainstream Christian world than in the Latter-Day Saint experience. I think we view our doctrines as being very different, but I can’t see the real difference. Little children are subject to the conditions of the fall every bit as much as adults. True, adults have the potential to get farther off the path than children, but the doctrine is that anything less than perfect does not qualify for the Celestial Kingdom. I believe that children are only innocent because of the atonement. God takes away any guilt associated with original sin–Thus “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgressions.” However, they are still imperfect. Their natures have become fallen: “for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually.” Mosiah 3:19 also talks about the fallen nature. I think it is important to see the difference between “sin” or “transgression” and “mortality,” “fallen man” “or the “natural man.” I don’t believe that agency has any role in the existence of the natural man. I don’t believe that we are guilty because we are fallen beings. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith tried to teach. He wanted us to recognize the divine nature and potential in each of us. The Christian world had been so consumed with the fact that man was fallen, that they had lost sight of the Atonement and what it meant in our lives. According to the Christian Dogma little children were imperfect and therefore since they were unable to take advantage of the Atonement as prescribed in the scriptures (in the Catholic tradition that meant the sacraments–in the Protestant tradition, “confessing Christ”) the children must be damned. However, the Lord revealed that His plan provided for little children to be saved by the Atonement without the need to comply with the same requirements as those who reach the age of accountability. It would seem that they didn’t have the need to experience the same things that those of us here in mortality do.
That seems unfair. Refer to the first point. I believe that God gives each of us the experiences each of us need in order to become more like Him. I don’t really believe in the “Test–Pass/Fail” view of mortality in which the saving of little children seems very unfair.
I think this has a lot of bearing on the SSA issue as well. In fact it has a lot of bearing on any temptation we have. We all experience temptations, impulses, and desires that make us imperfect–fallen, natural man. We have a responsibility to “put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement.” I don’t think this means that we are all guilty of sin. We all need the Atonement to overcome this fallen state and become more like God. This is different than overcoming behaviors. My favorite discourse on this idea is Bruce C. Hafen’s “The Broken Heart.” He also summed up the introduction to the book in an April 1990 Ensign Article titled “Beauty for Ashes: The Atonement of Jesus Christ.” Lili Anderson also gave a great talk about the difference between our behaviors and our natures in a February, 2005 BYU-I Devotional (available from the BYU-I website.)
I don’t claim to have all the answers. That is only my understanding of the matter. I’m totally open to discussion.
I haven’t had access to the internet for the last couple of weeks or I would have written sooner. I reject the typical Mormon answer that those who die in infancy did not need to experience mortality. That notion enters right into the paradox of foreknowledge. Since God already knew I would abort my child, He sent one down to me that didn’t need to experience this life. That is just incoherent. The only way to make sense of abortion being immoral is that some genuine opportunities really were lost forever. But doesn’t that put me right back into the problem of how it is unfair that those who died in infancy inherit the Celestial kingdom while the majority of people who get the chance to mess up do, in fact, end up in the Telestial world? Yes it does. But I think that the resolution lies in the doctrine of progression between kingdoms. LDS are usually only familiar with Elder McConkie’s statement that it is “evil and pernicious doctrine.” But what many LDS don’t know is that the Church’s official position is open and that Elders Talmage and Ruben J. Clark were in favor of progression between kingdoms. So how does this solve the problem? From what I wrote earlier: “[those who die before they are accountable] are still the same people they were before coming into mortality; they didn’t have a chance to become someone different, to change who they are. For the rest of us, however, the memories of our past lives are erased for now and we form a new us. After this life the new us will be added to our past memories, but we will continue with the same tendencies we developed in this life.” So even though the majority of people will inherit the Telestial kingdom (at the way things have been and are going right now) they will always have the opportunity to repent. My argument for any of you fixed-kingdom-folk in a question is: why won’t Telestial candidates be able to choose righteousness? Did they loose their free will?
This is for Matt. Here is an interesting scripture that explains how those without the law need the atonement. 2 Ne. 9:25-26 says:
25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.
26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.
In verse 26 we read that the atonement delivers those without the law from both death and hell, physical death and spiritual death. When I first started commenting here, I could not see how the atonement was needed for those who didn’t have the law; but I think I have a good answer now, and that it gives meaning to the phrase “little children are alive in Christ.” My problem was that I could not see how they could be both not accountable before the law yet still remain in spiritual bondage. My understanding or Mormon original sin as I have set out earlier ties all these loose ends together. Even though those without the law would not be punished for their transgressions, they would still be incapable of repenting and so incapable of returning to God’s presence.
Alma 42:14
And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.
All mankind includes all those with and all those without the law. But they were all in the grasp of justice not in the sense that they would all be punished for their sins or transgressions, but that they would have remained forever cut off from God. And of course I think this is because of their inability to repent, and not because God’s ability to forgive is conditional on the Son’s suffering the penalty of sin in our stead.
Nathan: If you derive a new spirit from the combined “substance†of two sinful spirits, one might expect that the new spirit would also be sinful, just as pouring two glasses of water together will result in a new glass of water that has the same minerals and particulates floating around in it.
What? How could one seriously maintain that moral culpability—or any other kind of culpability (and I don’t know of any kind of culpability other than moral culpability)—could be heritable? The notion that I am guilty of my father’s actions is not only morally repugnant, it is just untrue.
This rejection of vicarious guilt for the acts of another is recognized in Ezekiel:
The notion that we cannot be guilty for the acts of another is also recognized by the prophet Alma in the Book of Mormon:
The very notion that babies could be culpable for what Adam did is pernicious nonsense. The notion
Well, I didn’t say I agreed with the concept, just that I’m trying to understand it. I agree with you that a person can’t inherit culpability, by the very nature of culpability—which is personal responsibility.
I’m just trying to understand how someone could believe that by trying to imagine a different metaphysical idea of how a person is created. I may have totally gotten it wrong, too. I’d be interested in hearing another Catholic or Protestant’s take on this idea.