I see your point, good thoughts. Three comments. The first is that some people on this blog (Mark D. I recall specifically) have argued that I should make a more careful distinction between degrees of moral knowledge. I can’t remember which thread (I’ll have to look for it), but he made a pitch for the idea that some basic aspects of understanding right and wrong could be independent of the light of Christ without negating the rest of the theory. If that were the case, it would mean a super-fallen person would not be strictly animal-like and following our carnal desires me might very well be candidates for hell. I suggested in my paper that conscience provides not only knowledge of right and wrong but also the enticement toward the good, which I view as crucial. So, my point is just that there are possibilities and variations on the theme that could be worked out.

Second point. I see the atonement as part of a larger plan. The universe without an atonement is a universe without a functioning plan of salvation. Whether that is terrible or not is certainly a point that can be argued since there are different views on our state prior to the beginning of the plan of salvation being kicked off. In the paper, I try to point out that the fall itself should not be seen as introducing wickedness or weakness, but rather exposing our pre-existing weakness and propensity for wickedness. I think that is very important because it makes the question of what would happen without an atonement somewhat complicated. Could we go back to our pre-mortal state? Would we be consigned to hell forever just because we gave the plan of salvation a shot and came up lacking? It is related, in one sense, to the debate about the destiny of the sons of perdition. However, since there is no such universe as one without an atonement, there is very little information about it and we are mostly just extropolating from various surrounding theories. The important thing in the scriptures is always that the atonement did happen, it enabled the plan of salvation, we are now free to choose, and we will be judged based upon those choices. I stressed the hypothetical situation in which there was a fall but no atonement in order to argue for how the atonement enabled the plan of salvation, which is why I go back to the fact that without the atonement there would be no plan of salvation as the main downfall.

Last point. You said “I thought of the atonement as accomplishing something even greater.” I hope I have not communicated that the atonement is entirely limited to providing the light of Christ and nothing more. I personally view this as a very significant accomplishment, but I don’t mean to imply that it could have done nothing more. Of course, the tricky part comes if you list what other “greater” things you have in mind and we discuss those things specifically.

Yeah, that’s how I interpreted it. Lacking the light of Christ means that we must also lack the ability to knowingly choose right or wrong. And lacking the ability to knowingly choose wrong means lacking the ability to truly suffer for so doing.

Thus, a universe where there is no atonement is a universe where we’re all walking around all fat and happy and ignorant. Not a great world, but not a terrible one either. I suppose it is indeed a grand thing to be lifted out of an animal-like existence, but I guess I thought of the atonement as accomplishing something even greater (then again, maybe that’s just the influence of traditional Christianity).

First, I understand that the atonement saves us from an eternal state of innocence (which might be a form of hell), but it doesn’t seem that this perpetual innocence necessarily leads to “the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment” of 2 Ne. 9.

Well, I’m not sure I agree with the first statement. I don’t think Adam and Eve’s state of innocence (as described by Lehi) is indicative of the pre-mortal state all of us lived in. The idea of a war in heaven seems to demand something more than ignorance and innocence. Alma 13 talks about certain priests “in the first place [pre-existence] being left to choose good or evil.” So, I would say that the atonement saves us from the fall, but that the plan of salvation pre-dates and subsumes the fall. It is not innocence which leads to the lake of fire and brimstone, but our continual rejection of goodness despite its being presented to us.

Now, you may be suggesting that what I have called the super-fallen state (the state we would have been in if we fell but there was no atonement) sounds like a state of innocence. I think that’s a fair point. Although the Book of Mormon suggests the possibility of a super-fallen state, it says very little about it (presumably because no such state has every actually existed, it being prevented by the atonement). It does suggest that we would have been hopelessly lost and that redemption could not have come to pass, but the statements like the one you cite from 2 Ne 9 are speaking from the context of what has actually taken place, so it is not really speaking to what would have happened without the atonement, but rather, what will happen if we reject the atonement which has been offered. Does that make sense of what I am suggesting?

On another note, I’m still caught up in the question of Christ’s suffering. Why couldn’t God just grant us the light of Christ because he’s a real nice guy? I wondered if you had any partial thoughts on this that you ended up leaving out.

I think the only satisfactory answer to this question must include the idea that Christ’s suffering was connected to his ability to provide the light of Christ in some fundamental way. For example, Blake talks about it being intrinsically painful to Christ to be in relationship with us because of our sinfulness. If the light of Christ represents an active participation with us in each moment, that would provide the kind of answer I am thinking of.

I just read your paper on the divine-infusion theory. Very compelling. I am left with some questions though. I’m sure they have been discussed somewhere on this blog already, but I haven’t been able to find it, so I thought I’d just throw them out here.

First, I understand that the atonement saves us from an eternal state of innocence (which might be a form of hell), but it doesn’t seem that this perpetual innocence necessarily leads to “the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment” of 2 Ne. 9.

How can the light of Christ save us from torment, when the light of Christ is necessary to truly experience torment in the first place? If we simply stayed in the super-fallen state, we would never advance in joy and glory, but I don’t think we would ever be tormented either.

On another note, I’m still caught up in the question of Christ’s suffering. Why couldn’t God just grant us the light of Christ because he’s a real nice guy? I wondered if you had any partial thoughts on this that you ended up leaving out.

1. Was the death of Christ an ESSENTIAL part of the atonement?
2. If in fact the rumblings are true, and we are the only earth evil enough to crucify the Lord… what did the others do to him?
3. If in fact the atonement was “infinite” was there never an atonement made for worlds before ours, and if so why was it not “infinite”?

Ahhh, Memories. Sweet Memories. You guys don’t know what you have here… Lesser men have climbed great mountains to find the insights for people like jacob… ;)

[Editor's note: Years ago, Jake was the District Leader of Jacob back when their names were both Elder. Now, on stumbling onto his blogging personality, he cannot help but poke fun...]

I think what Joe Spencer wrote there is quite perceptive, although I wouldn’t agree with the radical anti-foundationalism, although it may well be what Lehi had in mind. Joseph Smith, however, set the LDS tradition in favor of something quite different – starting with everlastingly eternal matter and intelligence.

There are some distinctions that precede the word, distinctions that the word must match or be no word at all. And all true words must have a relation to those fundamentals or have no relevance to any real or possible world at all.

Theologically speaking, for example we might say that the Lord is not capable of making hate have the same effect as love, no matter how many decrees he issues in favor of that proposition. Love and hate reflect realities that precede divine creative activity. They are inherent potentialities of eternal intelligences. Thus we might reasonably conclude that the Lord can only achieve all power in heaven and earth by working with natural law, and not against it (which is fruitless in any case – natural law doesn’t know it exists).