u/StAnselmsProof

In Alma's extended sermon to Corianton, Alma says this:

>10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

>11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.

Verse 10 is widely known and quoted, Verse 11 less so. It's verse 11 I want to focus on in this OP.

I have argued in these pages in the past that God the Father is not subject to any moral law or rule outside of himself, something like the following:

• The Father has a "taste" for certain responses within Himself--we call these responses "joy";
• He possesses this taste essentially--i.e., if He lacked it, He would not be Himself, He would be someone else;
• The Father has discovered that certain behaviors produce joy within Himself--we call these behaviors "righteousness" and so when He acts He acts to produce a fulness of joy;
• Because we are ontologically similar to God, the same righteous behaviors produce the same responses within us;
• God has instituted rules designed to help us learn to choose righteousness and, thereby, obtain a fulness of joy;
• Indeed, doing so is a righteous behavior that furthers His own experience of joy.

In this view, there is no moral law floating about the universe to which the Father must comply, else His status as God is revoked.

He is righteousness, because He possesses righteousness essentially. This is not arbitrary--it is the most objective form or morality one can imagine, because it is embedded in the objective character of the most objective being in existence.

This notion of God's righteousness is highly consistent with verse cited above. It is also far more consistent with Alma 42 than the pop-theology notion of God being subject to "objective external moral law" that floats about the universe.

Question: Why can't the "third part" of heaven progress to become evil rivals to God the Father?

Possible Answers:

1. God locked them away. God placed barriers that prevent that group from progressing in that direction.
2. God withheld assistance. Progressing from mere spirit to spirit-element-combined being required God's assistance, and God withheld such assistance to the group that rebelled, leaving them metaphorically stranded.
3. God did nothing to them. God's assistance was required and this group refused God's freely offered assistance.

Discussion

The first is probably the most consistent with our scripture ("the place prepared for the devil and his angels . . ."), but perhaps less appealing to our modern reluctance to construe the Father as a punisher. The second is a softer version of the first--rather than spanking them, he withholds the car keys.

The last is probably the most pleasing to the modern mind. The Father is a coach and a teacher, a deliverer, who will coach and teach all who come to him. The last is also the most consistent with the theory I have been working on; namely, that each of our prior estates (pre-spirit-birth and pre-mortal-birth) were actually worse, and that God's action at each juncture have been to deliver us into a better estate that we could not obtain without his assistance, through teaching us and leading us, and making up for the harms we cause with the atonement.

The Problem with the Third

The last has a problem of circularity, though. The plan of salvation certainly seems to require God's assistance, which raises the question: how did God find the path to exaltation if exalted assistance is the only way to find it? And if the answer is that God found it himself, without assistance from another exalted being, then couldn't other beings find it? Even if it was a really hard problem to solve, given an infinite past and an infinite future and a potential in each of us to become like God, doesn't it seem someone else could figure it out? And if so, does this suggest first explanation?

As always, the idea of Heavenly Mother--if she is on parity with the Father and not his spirit child--seems to suggest that at least one other person found the path to godhood without the assistance of the Father.

(And, no, an infinite regression is not an answer to this question; an infinite regression is just a way of shrugging our shoulders and saying "we don't have an answer".)

The Question

I've been thinking about this passage in Section 19:

>17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

>18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

>19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

>20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

I have been pondering about the quantity of the suffering implied by this passage. How can our suffering be that large?

The passage seems to read that we bear suffering that would--at least--cause us to bleed from every poor if we don't repent.

How can that be?

(I know that Section 19 also includes the passage in which God says he makes things sound scarier than they are for our benefit, but in context the posture of God in these passages is "now I will give it to you straight". Let's stipulate that these words aren't a "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" warning, but an accurate description of the consequences of unrepented sin.)

So how can it be? We do sin, but c'mon. Other than me, it's highly unlikely than anyone here has done anything that warrant suffering of that magnitude.

What's going on here?

A Possible Solution

Perhaps the consequences of sin really are much more severe than we think.

Because we have an eternal future, perhaps sin harms both the sinner and the victim in an infinite manner. We carry the harm forward into our future and alters our future. Because our future is infinite, even a small of harm could have an infinite impact. Think of the way a childhood trauma affects a person in adulthood. What if all sin has the potential to affect our infinite future in a similar way?

The "eggshell skull rule" is a legal doctrine holding that a wrongdoer is fully liable for the entire extent of a victim's injuries, even if those injuries are unexpectedly severe (in that case, due to a pre-existing, but unknown to anyone, medical condition). Perhaps something similar is at work with our sins. It was Cain who said "my punishment is more than I can bear".

But perhaps that is true for all of us, too.

Mercy and Recompense

I haven't worked through the implications entirely yet, but if this idea is correct, it seems to shed some light on how we understand the atonement. The infinite injustice wrought upon each us by others that requires an infinite recompense. The need for infinite mercy for own sins. Perhaps, within the plan of salvation, exposure to both raw edges of this infinite precipice is necessary to teach us the better way. And because God is perfectly just and merciful he provided an infinite atonement to remediate infinite harms and provide infinite mercy.

Perhaps extreme nature of the risks involved is why a third of us refused to take the chance.

I'm revisiting a topic I've addressed indirectly before with a post titled something like: Did the Father sin? Also a post about what Jesus needed from the Father

I'm pondering what can be derived about our theology from this proposition:

>Premise 1: There is no point of comparison through which Jesus could be compared to the Father in which Jesus would be greater than the Father

I don't know if that's true, but I think it's true. Perhaps eventually equal with the Father in some respects, but never greater in any respect. We don't think much of blasphemy these days, but within our theology wouldn't rejecting this premise seem blasphemous? My knowledge of Christ is limited to the same data set as yours, but given that data set, it makes me very uneasy even imagining a conversation with Christ that goes like this:

>The Father is truly great, no doubt. But Jesus, there are some ways in which You are greater than He.

Even writing that feels blasphemous to me, and I do so only as way to support Premise 1. I.e., a proposition can be demonstrated by showing its contradiction is absurd or impossible. From this, it can be derived, I think, that:

• The Father did not sin during his mortal incarnation;
• The Father possessed at least as much a "fulness" as Christ during the Father's mortal incarnation;
• The Father's body was at least as robust as Christ's physical body--i.e., at least able to survive an extremity like the atonement;
• The Father did not require a redemption to overcome sin;
• The Father did not require assistance in converting his mortal body to an immortal body; and
• If we think redemptive empathy is an attribute of greatness, the Father experienced our suffering in some way that allows him to perform an act like an atonement.

(I'm distinguishing here the difference between "accomplishments" and "attributes")

At least those things, and likely more, since Christ holds the Father as not merely equal to Christ, but greater than Christ.

Here's another premise that also seems to true:

>Premise 2: Throughout each of our eternal history till at least the end of our mortal existence, (a) none of us ever possessed an attribute essential to our exaltation that Christ lacked ; (b) at every point in that history, Christ possessed many such attributes that we each lacked and (c) the differences between any of us and Christ were/are material differences.

I am more certain of this proposition than I am of the first (primarily b/c I'm quite certain it is true of me); I don't think it needs to be defended. But perhaps this one requires a bit more thought. Perhaps Lucifer was more intelligent and powerful than Christ, but Christ was more faithful to the Father and was chosen for that reason? Even writing that sentence seems so ickily blasphemous, I can scarcely get it out. Right? And more blasphemous to assert the same of you or of me.

It seems to me that Premise 1 and 2, taken together, require the following conclusion:

>Conclusion: Whatever the Father's attributes were during his mortal incarnation, he was materially different from us.

This seems to follow pretty directly.

Since this conclusion is also a rebuttal of the first clause of the Snow couplet (and perhaps both clauses) doesn't an argument like this require a heavy revision of the couplet? Or a refutation of the argument?

I can't think of a single passage of our scripture that teaches this; on the other hand, in order to be fully empathetic, doesn't it seem that Christ also must have experienced all our joys, too?

Maybe some of our suffering is a function of our joy--i.e., grief might be expressed as the conscious awareness of the loss of joy. And, thus, to succor us from grief, Christ must also have experienced the joy that is lost?

I don't think that concept would cover all the joy we experience, though.

Anyhow--thoughts?

I recently re-read this famous talk.

I consume a lot of writing and also write a lot professionally, and this talk reads to me like a person who dictated it off-the-cuff and didn't make many revisions thereafter. He might even have been composing his remarks real-time--i.e., it seems to me possible that he didn't have a prepared draft or that he deviated from a prepared draft as he spoke. All this is to say, it sorta defies a close textual analysis.

In any event, I was struck by a few passages. Here's a larger version of the quote most commonly circulated:

>And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

>We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

>It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

>Obviously, the Brethren have had a great anxiety and concern about this problem for a long period of time, and President Spencer W. Kimball has been exercised and has sought the Lord in faith. When we seek the Lord on a matter, with sufficient faith and devotion, he gives us an answer. You will recall that the Book of Mormon teaches that if the Apostles in Jerusalem had asked the Lord, he would have told them about the Nephites. But they didn’t ask, and they didn’t manifest that faith; and they didn’t get an answer. One underlying reason for what happened to us is that the Brethren asked in faith; they petitioned and desired and wanted an answer—President Kimball in particular. And the other underlying principle is that in the eternal providences of the Lord, the time had come for extending the gospel to a race and a culture to whom it had previously been denied, at least as far as all of its blessings are concerned. So it was a matter of faith and righteousness and seeking on the one hand, and it was a matter of the divine timetable on the other hand. The time had arrived when the gospel, with all its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro.

Here are a few observations:

• Darkness. Referring to the prior position as "darkness" and "particles of darkness" seems like an important element.
  • Some critics suggest that those prior teachings were never repudiated, but labeling those views "darkness" seems like quite a repudiation. In the context of revelations in which light/truth/intelligence are synonymous, calling BY's position "darkness" is quite an assessment.
  • I would say this is stronger statement on the question than the one currently on the church's website.
• "But they didn't ask." Here, he seems to suggest that prior leaders didn't question the priesthood restriction or, at the very least, didn't ask whether it should be removed.
  • That seems important, too. That's almost 150 years of "not asking".
  • Nowadays, when our apostles speak against speculation about Heavenly Mother, for instance, and counsel to wait on the Lord's timing, it seems fair to reply:
    • Are we waiting on the Lord? or
    • Are we waiting on our leaders to ask?
• Internal Incoherence. The prior views being "darkness" and "divine timetable"--those two ideas are in tension. In other words, if God didn't intend in his timetable for the restriction to be lifted till 1978, the restriction was not darkness, but was God's will.
  • I realize it's possible to hold the view that "We were wrong, but we got it right at the time when God wanted us to get it right". To my mind, this involves a lot of cognitive dissonance.
  • I actually think, though, that this is the church's current view.

As I said, because of the free-flowing nature of the composition, it's difficult to put too much upon parsing the text. But the text is nevertheless revealing about the thought process of a key figure in reversing the restriction.

(As I understand, President Kimball went to McConkie first and asked his help to craft the theological underpinnings for a reversal--i.e., "if we were to reverse, how would it fit within our theology". . . )

King Benjamin taught that:

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

Is requiring “self-reliance” as a condition to assistance staying our hand b/c the “man has brought upon himself his own misery”?

Example: Man in the ward quits his job and lives off his savings while he tries a start-up. In process of time, he runs out of money. He’s still optimistic he’ll succeed, if only he gets a few months of assistance. The local bishop agrees to assist with three months of rent and utilities, but only if the man takes steps to find another job that actually pays, as part of a formal self-reliance plan. Since the start-up takes all the man’s time, the self-reliance condition means that the ward will not give this man assistance.

It’s difficult for me to see how this bishop’s approach doesn’t violate Mosiah 4:17.

Thoughts?

I guess I lean toward the latter because of Abraham 3.

Thoughts from the participants in the sub?

We've been discussing passages that describe Christ as the "firstborn". We understand that word to mean Christ was the first born, chronologically, of all the spirit children of the Father.

Some believers (like me) consider our spiritual birth the moment when our eternal "intelligence" first donned spiritual matter, and first took the form we currently bear. Others take the view that our intelligence was eternally person-shaped spirit-matter, and that our spiritual "birth" was akin to entering into a covenant relationship with the Father. Maybe it was both. We understand, theologically, that Christ went through this same sort of birth himself, as the "first of many brethren" to quote Paul. This also requires that Christ shared our pre-spiritual-birth existence, whatever that entailed.

But whichever approach you take to the nature of our spiritual birth, I think the question in the OP remains the same:

• Could Christ have emerged as a God comparable to the Father, and done so without any assistance from the Father?
• And if not, what could Christ have lacked that the Father gave him? What could it be?

Did he lack the knowledge/power to dress himself in spiritual matter, in a spirit body? If our spiritual birth was a covenant, what could the Father offer him by covenant that Christ could not obtain on his own?

Obviously, no scripture speaks directly to this question.

When I wrote the title, I thought this was venturing into the truly unknown, but as I think about it, it seems to me that a decent case could be made from our scripture that we did chose. On the other hand, I can’t think of any passage that would suggest we didn’t choose. So, on balance, at present I favor choice.

But what say the members of the sub?

Were we like strays? And the Father knew what was best for us, roped us in, and brought us into the house?

Or did the Father approach us, show us a better way, and invite us to join him?

Yes, I know it’s possible our individual self-consciousness didn’t begin till our spirit birth (say bc God extracted us from an amorphous nom-atomized “intelligence), but I think that runs contrary contrary to our revelations that we are eternal.

There’s no wrong answers here, purely a speculative question.

So, I'm still pondering on this subject, and I happened upon this statement of the First Presidency from 1916:

>The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve,” June 30, 1916.

> Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. . . . From this scripture [Col. 1:15–19] we learn that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn of every creature” and it is evident that the seniority here expressed must be with respect to antemortal existence, for Christ was not the senior of all mortals in the flesh. He is further designated as “the firstborn from the dead” this having reference to Him as the first to be resurrected from the dead, or as elsewhere written “the first fruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20, see also verse 23); and “the first begotten of the dead” (Revelation 1:5; compare Acts 26:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms the status of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the spirit children of His Father, and extols the preeminence of the Christ when tabernacled in flesh: “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Hebrews 1:6; read the preceding verses). That the spirits who were juniors to Christ were predestined to be born in the image of their Elder Brother is thus attested by Paul: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:28, 29). John the Revelator was commanded to write to the head of the Laodicean church, as the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). In the course of a revelation given through Joseph Smith in May, 1833, the Lord Jesus Christ said as before cited: “And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the firstborn” (Doc. & Cov. 93:21). A later verse makes plain the fact that human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh: “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth” (verse 23).

I was aware of all of these, but the one bolded. And, honestly, I have an excellent memory, but I've probably only read that passage in Hebrews a couple of times and, that, years ago, without this topic in mind. Christ was the first creation of God. To us, this is a "meh", but it's an astonishing bit of truth, akin to those taught the Brother Jared in Ether 3.

It's so fascinating. Here's the logic:

• Our intelligence/spirits are eternal--at any point in our existence, our history looking backward is eternal and our future looking forward is eternal;
• Christ was the firstborn as a spirit child of God (whatever that means);
• We are also spirit children of God; therefore
• We existed for a past-eternity prior to being brought into God's family as his spirit children.

The italicized passage is the one I discussed in my prior post on this subject. To make the point again, doesn't it seem like the First Presidency is drawing on Paul's testimony regarding the status of spirits before we were brought into God's family as his spirit children?

There are a few participants who think I was reading too much into Paul, but, team, if I was, so was this First Presidency. I don't even know who this presidency was, but I think they would take my side yesterday's debate . . . And it really does seem like Paul had insight into our state before we we became spirit children of the Father. God knew us before we became brothers and sisters to Christ.

Also, note the source of the scriptures given above:

• Romans--Paul
• Colossians--Uncertain, Paul or an acolyte of Paul
• Hebrews--Unknown
• Revelation--John of Patmos, perhaps not the John who wrote the gospels
• D&C 93--Joseph Smith

And none of them clearly lay out the concept. Our doctrine on this question appears to have derived logically from the scriptures cited above, through the syllogism like the one I give above. Logic, piecing together snippets of scripture that broach this subject.

Why am I so interested in our state before we became spirit children of the Father? It begs the question: why did God get involved with us at all? Why didn't he leave us be? And it seems to me that the answer to that question completes our theology in important ways.

Paul gives one answer: that we might be conformed to the image of Christ.

Now, that is beautiful. If you read Paul, you know that above all else Paul worship Christ and held is the pinnacle, the very greatest and, thus, that passage it contains echoes of Paul's doctrine of theosis through Christ. In just one sentence, Paul seems to be expressing from the very beginning (from the time God identified our spirits/intelligences as those who would become his children) to our theosis (when we are conformed to the image of Christ).*

But can you see why that, standing alone, is not an answer?

*Cue the sheriffs on this sub--if you haven't already, this is your invitation to blow your whistles "whoot, whoot, impermissible overreading of Paul, whoot, whoot"

Here's Romans 8:29

>For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Paul had a lot of thoughts and revelations, but he wasn't the greatest at explaining them clearly . . . Here's a different translation, from the "Easy English Bible":

>God already had those people in his thoughts from the beginning. He decided that they should become like his Son. So then, his Son would have many younger brothers and sisters.

If you pay attention to the drift of my pondering lately, you'll know that I am focused on our existence before the time we were brought into God's family as his spirit children.

I think a non-LDS Christian reads this passage to say that God conceived of us before he created us.

But within the context of the revelations of the restoration, which teach that we weren't created nothing, but have an eternal existence--is "whom" and "those people" a reference to us, in our state as intelligences, before God brought us into his family as his children?

Doesn't it seem so?

That Paul had the same vision that Joseph was attempting to articulate toward the end of his life, the vision the temple ordinances are intended to help us grasp?

For some time, I have been pondering the beginning and its implications. Not the beginning referred to in Genesis, but the beginning of the plan of salvation.

The worst portion of our eternal existence ended the moment God created us as his spirit children. I have no idea what the spiritual creation entailed, but it wrapped us in spiritual matter in the image of God's spirit and it drew us into his family and his presence.

And most important: it gave us hope.

Without hope, the scripture reads, we were in despair, an eternal despair. It's difficult to comprehend an intelligence being stagnant for an eternity without hope of deliverance, but the words "eternal, conscious, torment" seem apt. Since the Devil and his angels slipped back into that damned condition by failing to choose the plan of salvation, we have some sense of the nature of this eternal despair: misery, fire, torment are words the scriptures use to describe this state.

(BTW, I have come to see the donning the temple garment (the spirit body), receiving a new name (drawn into God's family), anointing and blessings (the promises of eternal progression) in the initiatory temple ordinances represent the glorious moment of deliverance when God created our spirits; from which we proceed to the pre-mortal counsel and the creation as depicted in the endowment.)

It seems to me that this observation about the eternal despair from which the Father redeemed us provides an answer to many theological questions:

• Why did the Father do anything at all? Because his goodness compelled him to take actions to deliver us from that state of despair.
• Why is there suffering? Suffering is the base state of our souls because we are eternal and unable to progress on our own. Also, as agents, we are able to harm each other.
• What's the Father's role in suffering? At every juncture, his actions are designed to minimize and deliver us from suffering.
  • The Pre-Mortal Existence involved less suffering than the prior eternal despair;
  • Our Mortal Existence involves less suffering than the Pre-Mortal Existence;
  • The Third Estate will likewise be a more joyous existence than this one.
• Why hasn't the Father eliminated suffering? Because some sorts of suffering cannot be externally removed; deliverance must be chosen and/or learned.
• Thus God
  • Seeks;
  • Invites (such as with the great counsel in heaven);
  • Teaches; and
  • Heals the harms we cause while we learn.

In this, then, the Father, The Father, THE FATHER, should be viewed as the Great Savior, the one to whom we all owe everything good. We sometimes think of Christ as not needing a savior. But in this model, Christ also needed deliverance. He is the First Begotten. The plan of salvation began with Christ's redemption from that prior eternal despair.

You can see why Christ recoiled when he was equated with the Father as "Good Master".

This perspective gives content and meaning to our worship of the Father. He is Great Savior, the Great Deliverer, the one who first loved us and drew from eternal despair to hope and joy.

Here's a thought-experiment:

>B, a benevolent billionaire, develops the technology to broadcast information into the minds of other people. He uses the technology to secretly broadcast useful bits of information, such as remember to bring an umbrella today; today is election day; road construction on HWY 10 today, you might take an alternative route; and so forth.

>C receives the broadcasts and, although each broadcast appears within the mind as an impression or thought, C identifies each broadcast impression/thought as something unique, i.e., different from his normal thoughts, something that seems like it comes from an external intelligence.

>C nevertheless believes these impressions are epiphanies, sudden, sometimes surprising, useful insights generated by his own mind.

>He reaches this conclusion because God has not been scientifically demonstrated as a possible source and, being unaware of the new technology, believes there is no other possible explanation for the source of the thoughts within his mind.

>When some of the impressions seem beyond his ken, C believes that his subconscious mind has learned the information and the impression is bringing that information to the fore as an epiphany. At times, he wonders if he might be a little crazy, but since the impressions are benign and socially constructive, he believes they are epiphanies.

It should be obvious that C's epistemological approach to B's broadcasts is a fair representation of the approach many of our critics (particularly the recently and vociferously deconverted who are so active on social media) take to the promptings of the spirit.

C has reached the wrong conclusion. Worse, the wrong conclusion was produced by the epistemology that C adopted: i.e., foreclosing certain beliefs b/c they had not been "scientifically demonstrated".

The knock out blow:

>If C's epistemology produces incorrect beliefs in this simple, yet plausible, thought experiment, it cannot be used to criticize a person who believes the "promptings of the spirit" have an external source.

When LDS thinkers approach the problem of pain, a common answer goes something like this:

>The suffering we experience in this life serves a worthwhile purpose--e.g., we learn to use our agency both (1) avoid harming other people and (2) provide succor to others. Both of these are attributes of God that we must learn in order to become like him.

That's one component of our response, but I think most LDS people would agree with these propositions, or something quite close to them.

But what if there's another component, consist with the foregoing, but altogether different?

Namely:

>Our net condition in this life--our joys, our sorrows, our pleasures and our sufferings--is better than our condition in the premortal life.

(I am the source of both these quotes, having made them up in the process of writing the OP; I used the quote block for ease of reference.

Here a few reasons to believe this might be true:

• The line between this frame of our existence and the prior frame demarks progress.
  • All of us here are better people than we were before this life.
  • Although we have left God's presence (materially speaking), we are, all of us, closer to him than we were before this life because we are closer to being like him.
  • And, to be like him is inhabit a fulness of joy, so our condition is more joyous to that degree.
• We have a physical body; our scripture describes the lack of a body as a bondage, so whatever that bondage represents, God delivered us from it through our mortal birth.
• In the same vein, merely by entering this life entitles us to be eternally united with a physical body.

By simple analogy, when I left home for college, I was better off than had I chosen to stay stagnant in my parent's basement, even though I faced new challenges that my parent had hitherto sheltered me from. My contentment, my independence, my engagement, my satisfaction--every metric by which happiness is measured were greater. And I wouldn't have gone back, it was so good to be on my own.

The bottom line: at each step in our progression, God's actions deliver us from suffering, opening the door even more progress and growth.

The second commandment is like unto the first: loving our neighbor as ourselves. This commandment contains both an injunction to (1) love ourselves as we love God and (2) love our neighbor in the same way.

The example of this love given by Christ was alleviating/remitting undeserved suffering reads thus:

>And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Likewise, in his condemnation of those on his left hand, Christ says:

>Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Likewise, in D&C 104:

>Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

(Yes, I know D&C 104 is from the context of the United Firm)

King Benjamin

>And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Honestly, I could go on and on and on, along this theme. I've quoted some of the most gripping of these passages, but only just scratched the surface.

Well, duh, you might be thinking. By culture or conversion, these concept is taken as a given among us.

But why is this the rule?

For example, building intergenerational family wealth could be the rule. Taking care of one's tribe/nation by dominating all others could be the rule.

I've been working on a theory, that goes something like this:

• Our default condition--i.e., before God got involved with us--is actually a state of suffering, of bondage, due our inability to progress on our own.
• All of God's work can be seen as delivering us from this bondage.
• Since our objective is to become a being like God, we must learn his work.

And when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Was he different after the atonement? It's hard to imagine that an experience like that wouldn't change a person, but he was God before the atonement, perfect before the atonement. Could he be any more perfect afterward?

Alma 7 teaches that Christ is able to succor us because he suffered what we suffered. This suggests that without the atonement, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to succor us. The experience seems to have enabled him to something more.

In D&C, he describes his role as advocate, saying "Father, behold the suffering and death of him who did no sin". That's a role he couldn't played but for the atonement, suggesting that the atonement was necessary for him to mature into his full role within the Godhead.

Also, if the atonement didn't change him, it almost reduces the atonement to a mere gesture. Yes, yes, I'll save you with a wink of my eye.

There's probably more, that suggests Christ was changed by the atonement.

What do folks think?

I have been exploring various aspects of the "problem of pain" in my last few threads. One idea that has come up is the notion that suffering is harm.

I offer that physical suffering often helps our souls grow and progress. Also, the physical suffering we experience here was built into the system by God, for the express purpose of helping our souls grow.

Here's an example:

We all should be well-acquainted with the extent Christ's suffering.

Was his soul harmed by it? Or was his soul perfected by it?

Is this proposition true?

>God has designed this life such that the amount suffering experienced by each human and by humanity in the aggregate is the minimum amount needed to give each person sufficient opportunity to develop/progress in the way we hoped to develop in this life?

If you agree in general concept, but disagree with the formulation, please take a crack at making it better.

I can't think of any passage of scripture directly on point, but I do think it's implied by the atonement of Christ, since any suffering inflicted upon Christ in excess of that amount would be purely gratuitous.

Can anyone think of scriptural support?

Right? And what would that first birth be? Our entry as spirits into the presence of God in the pre-mortal realm. Now, here's a syllogism for you:

• If intelligence is eternal; and
• A first birth occurs at a fixed point in time, then
• Our intelligences existed before the first birth.

This is in response to those who argue "intelligence" and "spirit" are interchangeable terms within our theology.