Ultimate forgiveness?

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

It is necessary if you meet the conditions required by the atonement. The atonement can wash away sins committed while in mortal probation, not sin committed in God's presence. So, I agree with what you said, with that small clarification.

Actually, we were using the atonement in the pre-mortal existence. It's in scripture. Alma 39 points us to the atonement being retroactive. Alma 13 (really the whole chapter) tells us explicitly that high priests were ordained from the foundation of the world (aka the pre-mortal existence) on account of their faith and repentance. W00t for Alma.

[Justice]

Your tone is surprising.

This is strange new doctrine indeed! You believe that Satan is unable to act for himself?

Yes, in the context I meant it. There are some things Satan cannot do. He cannot choose to take upon him a body of flesh and bones. He cannot choose to further himself along God's plan of salvation. That door is closed. You and I, however, can choose to if we wish.

And there are any number of things you and I are unable to do, even with forgiveness. That fact means nothing.

Yes, I see your point. I guess I come from the perspective that all things according to God's will are possible to man. Christ proved that. He also taught we can do all things through faith. I do think it's important to realize that eternal life (everything) is still available to us, but it is not to Satan... forgiveness or no.

In what way do you suppose that having God forgive your sins is different from having God remit your sins?

Can you point to any scriptural backing for this amazing new doctrine of the separation of forgiveness and remission that you propose?

This is a commonly misunderstood thing in the Church. Many, I'd even suggest most, believe they are synonomous terms. Should we start a new thread? Or, are you asking just to make a point?

[Justice]

Vort, I respect your opinion on this matter. However, I have to disagree on one thing. It is true that if Lucifer can/cannot be forgiven, it doesn't affect us. However, the core of the matter is forgiving people and being forgiven, which I think is a very fundamental part of the Gospel, and therefore applies to our daily lives. Substitute Lucifer for someone that has wronged you in the worst possible way...can you forgive....I have a hard time with it (even forgiving myself) which makes me want to be better at it. Just thinking that's all.

This is probably the direction we should head. I believe we will end up there anyway.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

This is a commonly misunderstood thing in the Church. Many, I'd even suggest most, believe they are synonomous terms. Should we start a new thread? Or, are you asking just to make a point?

I want to know how you understand it too, now. If you sum it up, there's no need to start another thread. If you start another thread, link to it on this one so I can find it.

[bytebear]

Yes, I believe that angels, man and God are different species. The devil may not actually be an angel but he is also not human, so I still believe that the atonement does not apply to him.

I remember first hearing this idea on my mission, and it kinda blew my mind. I had no idea other Christians thought angels, and devils were of a different species than man. And, no offense to Maureen, but the more it was explained to me, the more I thought this was doctrine defined by Dante and not by God.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I remember first hearing this idea on my mission, and it kinda blew my mind. I had no idea other Christians thought angels, and devils were of a different species than man. And, no offense to Maureen, but the more it was explained to me, the more I thought this was doctrine defined by Dante and not by God.

It's really incredible how things that seem so simple (to us at least) have gotten so convoluted in other religions.

For example Ephesians 6 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Crossreference Colossians 1 ) Has been interpreted to mean that "principalities" and "powers" are levels in a hierarchy of angels and demons - rather than just using the regular defintions of the words. Check out the wiki articles Hierarchy of angels and Hierarchy of demons.

An LDS view of angelic hierarchy would be a similitude of the priesthood hierarchy we are all familiar with - with ward/stake/area/and general officers. Very similar also to the way Moses divided the house of Israel on the advice of his father-in-law. W00t for inlaws.

[Justice]

Here's the scriptureless, summmed up version.

Sin can be forgiven because it has been committed. There is no need to forgive an act that has not happened. This is what the water part of baptism represents, forgiveness of sins. We are buried and raised in Christ to walk with newness of life. It is not the end, but places us in a position to move forward.

Then we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost to lead us in our walk. We still have desires, but those can be purged in time. This is remission of sins. This is what leads to sanctification, when we no longer desire evil.

Forgiveness does not need to happen from day to day, but as far as we sin. Remission can happen from day to day because it can purge us of unclean thoughts and desires. Christ said those are sin too, but are different because there was no act. We need to be purged of them, not forgiven. We need to have them remitted, not washed.

When sin goes in remission we feel no effects from it, much like a disease that goes in remission. Sin is a fatal disease.

I will say that remission is sometimes used to signify both forgiveness and remission because it presupposes forgiveness.

OK, one scripture:

King Benjamin in Mosiah 4:

26 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.

Forgiveness of sin happens through repentance.

Remission of sin happens as we follow the Holy Ghost and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as King Benjamin stated above.

This is why baptism is in 2 parts.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Justice

[rameumptom]

It is necessary if you meet the conditions required by the atonement. The atonement can wash away sins committed while in mortal probation, not sin committed in God's presence. So, I agree with what you said, with that small clarification.

There are quotes from Parley P. Pratt and others that teach that the atonement reaches into the Spirit World. Did we sin there? Yes. Did we rebel there, as Lucifer did? No.

[Justice]

That may be. I'm not disagreeing. I am focusing on forgiveness. As far as I know, we did not sin in the pre-mortal existence. It was my understanding that if we did, we would be with Lucifer.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

A stake president here in Colorado Springs, Mark McConkie (yes, THAT McConkie), calls it the "doctrine of same ol' same ol' ". He spoke at a YSA fireside a few weeks ago about the spirit world and how if we wanted to know what the spirit world looked like "look around you".

I might point out that any commandment breaking in the spirit world may not have been "sin" per se. I think it depends a lot upon whether we had the "Light of Christ" or rather - a conscience. Without that light - without the full knowledge of good and evil - "transgression" would be a more accurate term to describe any law-breaking we may have done. As far as I'm aware, the scriptures and modern prophets have not revealed whether the Light of Christ was with us in the pre-mortal life. It's probably worth another thread, but for the sake of conversation I might even posit that gaining the Light of Christ is a direct result of our first years in mortality. Hence the age of accountability.

[Justice]

He spoke at a YSA fireside a few weeks ago about the spirit world and how if we wanted to know what the spirit world looked like "look around you".

I have come to know this also by studying Alma 43 and 44. The war there is a type of the war in heaven, and even more than just the war.

[desirexnoel]

I know this might be just a tad off topic but what is an example of "absolute witness by the Holy Ghost" and has anyone received it?

[DarklyDreamingDexter]

The Devil cant be forgiven because the Devil doesnt want forgiveness. Just like me, he cant be forgiven until he stops his rebellion. He will never stop and so is eternally disqualified from salvation. I on the other hand may someday have my heart broken and at last repent. Its that simple. Stop looking for loop holes and ultimate answers. Satan is eternally damned because he is eternally rebellious.

Edited August 22, 2009 by DarklyDreamingDexter

[desirexnoel]

The Devil cant be forgiven because the Devil doesnt want forgiveness. Just like me. I cant be forgiven until i stop my rebellion. Its that simple. Stop looking for loop holes and ultimate answers. Satan is eternally damned because he is eternally rebellious.

You are a rebel?

What are you rebelling? Is it religion?

I wanna know. This could be interesting!

[Vort]

That may be. I'm not disagreeing. I am focusing on forgiveness. As far as I know, we did not sin in the pre-mortal existence. It was my understanding that if we did, we would be with Lucifer.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

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.

If we could not sin premortally, there would be no need for us as infants to become again innocent before God -- we would already be innocent. The redemption (wherein we are forgiven of our sins and thus have our sins remitted, despite your attempted exegesis otherwise) extends back to premortality as well as at present day and in the future, which is the meaning of it being an "eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

[DarklyDreamingDexter]

Oh boy, Looks like Dexter's gotta step in and save the day on this one. The D&C quote you're useing is refering to the state of man in mortality. The innocent state returned to was that of the garden of eden, not the spirit world or pre-mortal state. Please, lets refrain from making scripture mean whatever we need it to mean at the moment.

And on if we sinned we'd be with satan; The scriptures say if we chose satan's plan we would be with satan. Jesus has a plan too and it allows for sin ... that we can be forgiven of. Obviously there was sin in the premortal realm or else there would have been no casting out of satan and his followers, but thats the key phrase HIS FOLLOWERS.

[Vort]

Oh boy, Looks like Dexter's gotta step in and save the day on this one. The D&C quote you're useing is refering to the state of man in mortality. The innocent state returned to was that of the garden of eden, not the spirit world or pre-mortal state.

Save-the-Day Dexter, have you actually read D&C 93? Please do so.

I'll wait.

There. Now that you have read it, you can see that it has nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. It is talking about the apostle John's investigation of the nature of truth, and refers to the premortal realm. Verse 29 reads:

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

So the Lord is talking here about our premortal origins. Verses 33 and 34 tell us:

"For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy."

Clearly, this is talking about premortal man, as a spirit, taking a mortal form and being subject again to choosing light or darkness, as had been the case before. Verse 34 explicitly talks about the possibility of disembodiment. So we're talking about the journey of the individual soul, and not about Edenic imagery.

In this context, verse 38's meaning is clear: At birth, we become again clean from sin and pure before God.

Please, lets refrain from making scripture mean whatever we need it to mean at the moment.

Indeed, Dexter, let's do so.

And on if we sinned we'd be with satan; The scriptures say if we chose satan's plan we would be with satan.

The scriptures say no such thing, because there is no mention of "Satan's plan" in scripture. According to scripture, Satan's only "plan" was to usurp the glory of God.

Jesus has a plan too

Jesus' only "plan" was to do the will of the Father. The scriptures do not record that he had any other "plan".

[DarklyDreamingDexter]

I didnt say it read garden of eden litterally. The topic is on sin in the premortal realm or not. Nothing will ever take us back to the state we were in in the premortal world...not even the atonement, its not designed to do so. We've grown since then, changed and matured. I apologize if i was unclear or confusing in my rescue attempt.

[Justice]

This is demonstrably incorrect.

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.

If we could not sin premortally, there would be no need for us as infants to become again innocent before God -- we would already be innocent. The redemption (wherein we are forgiven of our sins and thus have our sins remitted, despite your attempted exegesis otherwise) extends back to premortality as well as at present day and in the future, which is the meaning of it being an "eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

It doesn't look incorrect to me, just another way of understanding it.

Sin does not exist without the knowledge of good and evil. That's an axiom that must be used to understand the scripture you quoted. That scripture is not saying we could sin in the pre-mortal existence. Or, better worded, IF we sinned in the pre-mortal existence there was no hope at redemtpion. Remember that when you read it. God didn't "give" man his agency until after the earth was created and he was placed in a physical body (Moses 7:32).

Satan and his followers gained the knowledge of good and evil in the pre-mortal existence, without the safety net of the fall and mortality. Their "fall" was therefore permanent. When we die because of sin, we are granted a time to repent before we actually die. If, during this "probational period" (or mortality) we repent, and follow Christ, and choose good, when we are resurrected (and restored Alma 42) we can be forgiven for what we did through the atonement of Christ. However, what good it that if we still desire to sin?

Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning

This is describing us pre-mortally and up until the point we were no longer innocent. Those who are innocent have not sinned. How can one sin and be innocent? Those are diametric opposites. So, sin may have been possible in the pre-mortal existence, but only those who were escorted out took part in it.

and God having redeemed man from the fall

Man is born into this world with little to no understanding. It's not until he reaches an understanding of good and evil that he can sin. Then he becomes accountable. Man has always had agency, but those who did not sin in God's presence came to earth to gain a physical body.

men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

When a man becomes born again they are innocent before God again, having gained the knowledge of good and evil and a physical body. This is only possible because of Christ. I can't tell you I understand how it's possible or how it happens, I just know it does.

Forgive and remission are very similar. LDS Bible study helps:

When God forgives men, he cancels or sets aside a required punishment for sin. Through the atonement of Christ, forgiveness of sins is available to all who repent, except those guilty of murder or the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost.

I like to think remission is more than (or different to) negating the punishment, but it's overcoming the desire itself, so that it is repressed, remitted, or in remission.

Remission has many meanings, and it certainly can mean forgiveness. But, I believe the Book of Mormon teaches it is more. It is what we gain through obeying the promptings of the Holy Ghost. It is the purging of the natural man who desires sin. One can repent and be forgiven, yet struggle with the desire to sin for the remainder of his life.

I certainly see your difficulty is seeing this the way I do. Perhaps understanding it this way helps me to realize once I repent I am not done; once I was baptized I was not done. I still need to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost in order to retain a remission of my sins from day to day, even though I have been forgiven. I need to keep the desire to sin at bay as much as possible. I cannot do it on my own, I need help.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Justice

[rameumptom]

A stake president here in Colorado Springs, Mark McConkie (yes, THAT McConkie), calls it the "doctrine of same ol' same ol' ". He spoke at a YSA fireside a few weeks ago about the spirit world and how if we wanted to know what the spirit world looked like "look around you".

I might point out that any commandment breaking in the spirit world may not have been "sin" per se. I think it depends a lot upon whether we had the "Light of Christ" or rather - a conscience. Without that light - without the full knowledge of good and evil - "transgression" would be a more accurate term to describe any law-breaking we may have done. As far as I'm aware, the scriptures and modern prophets have not revealed whether the Light of Christ was with us in the pre-mortal life. It's probably worth another thread, but for the sake of conversation I might even posit that gaining the Light of Christ is a direct result of our first years in mortality. Hence the age of accountability.

The Light of Christ permeates all of space and all matter. We all had the Light of Christ as spirits. We didn't have the Holy Ghost.

There was sinning in the premortal existence. It was allowed, as spirits were "innocent in the beginning" and not all were valiant as Abraham was (Abr 3). There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Spirits must have at least been committing sins of omission, if they were not as valiant. But they did not cross over the final line: they did not rebel so much that they were cast out of God's presence.

[Justice]

For sin to exist you have to have both agency and the knowledge of good and evil. Though we had agency, there was no evil in Father's presence to choose. Even if you could successfully argue that there was evil in His presence, you have to concede that we did not have knowledge of good and evil. We were innocent. When a person is innocent, as children under the age of accountability are, it is not considered sin because it is not wilfull rebellion with understanding.

In the pre-mortal existence we did not have the knowledge of good and evil because we had not been exposed to evil, since it cannot exist in God's presence. We were in a condition of innocence.

[rameumptom]

Justice, can you show that there was no evil? What of Satan? Do you think he suddenly went from righteousness to evil in a second? Or do you think that his sinfulness grew over time, until he was convinced he had to try and overthrow God in complete rebellion?

In the premortal existence, we knew good and evil, but just could not commit sins of the flesh. But we were just as capable then, as we are now, since we also had agency then. You do not think a spirit can lie, cheat, or plan to overthrow God? If we will be judged for our thoughts here (Mosiah 4:30, Matthew 5:28), why not be judged for our thoughts in the premortal existence? Sin existed there, just as it does here.

[Hemidakota]

Let me add a thought from Elder Lund concerning Sin, Transgression, and Justice -

The concept of sin rests upon the concept of law. If there were no law, there could be no sin (see 2 Ne. 2:13; Alma 42:17), because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4). However, for purposes of understanding the Atonement better, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between two important variations in how the law may be violated. A person may violate the law in spite of his knowledge of it; that is, he breaks the law deliberately. But others may violate the law because they are unaware of its existence (ignorance) or because they do not have sufficient maturity to understand the implications of it (lack of accountability). For clarification, let us use two terms to delineate the important differences in these two concepts. Any violation of the law that is willful and knowing we shall call “sin.” But any violation that results either from ignorance or lack of accountability we shall call “transgression.” The scriptures do not distinguish between these two terms consistently, but such a distinction may help us understand some important points about the Atonement. For example, it helps us understand why children under the age of accountability cannot sin (see D&C 29:47). Any parent who has observed his children’s behavior knows that they often violate laws of the gospel. They hit brothers and sisters, demonstrate extreme selfishness at times, and can be unmercifully cruel to playmates. But while these are “transgressions” they are not “sins,” because as Mormon points out, children are “not capable of committing sin” (see Moro. 8:8). Much the same is true of those who have reached adulthood but have relatively little or no opportunity to learn the principles of righteousness. They also violate the laws of God, sometimes horribly so, as in the case of many primitive peoples, but they are of necessity judged differently because they do not “sin” in the sense of willing and deliberate rebellion against God. (See Rom. 2:12; D&C 82:3; also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 218.)

Standing alongside the concepts of sin and transgression is the law of justice, which implies consistency in reward and punishment. In other words, there would be no justice if one person could violate the law and escape its punishment while another was punished for the same act. Elder McConkie points out that “justice demands that a penalty be paid for every violation of the Lord’s laws” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 406). The opposite, or positive side, of that idea is that for every keeping of the Lord’s law there is a reward (see D&C 130:20–21). If these punishments and rewards were not consistent throughout the universe and in all of eternity, justice would be violated. Briefly stated, then, the law of justice is that for every violation of law there is a punishment (ultimately suffering and misery), and for every obedience to the law there is a reward (ultimately joy and peace).

Also embodied in the concept of justice is the idea that men are punished only for those things of which they themselves are guilty. This would make it unjust to punish one man for another’s sin; likewise, if through ignorance or lack of accountability there is no guilt, it would be unjust to mete out punishment.

Reference: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Salvation: By Grace or by Works?

[Justice]

I maintain we were in a state of innocence in the pre-mortal existence and came to earth to "gain the knowledge of good and evil." His description of sin is synonomous to rebellion.

The reason Satan sinned is because He rebelled willfully and exercised his agency to choose against God's will in the pre-mortal existence. That was a sin. That is why he was cast out.

Had anyone rebelled in His presence they would have suffered the same fate as Lucifer.

I'll grant you that we had the ability to violate law, but we were innocent as the description above describes. We, all who came to earth, did not willfully rebel against God, or sin. I believe it is these violated laws, or transgressions, that the Atonement will be applied to... as you have described.

Adam and Eve rebelled against God's commandment to not eat the fruit. They died like Lucifer did, but they were in a physical body that fell to a state of mortality, where their death took place over time (time is introduced) and allowed them to use their time to repent if they chose. Even still, they were put in a position where they were given 2 commandments that conflicted. One was a commandment of omission, and the other a commandment of comission. They had to commit a violation in order to not violate the other. It's a deep subject, but I have studied it many, many years and have come to know that it was the only way.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Justice

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

A stake president here in Colorado Springs, Mark McConkie (yes, THAT McConkie), calls it the "doctrine of same ol' same ol' ". He spoke at a YSA fireside a few weeks ago about the spirit world and how if we wanted to know what the spirit world looked like "look around you".

I might point out that any commandment breaking in the spirit world may not have been "sin" per se. I think it depends a lot upon whether we had the "Light of Christ" or rather - a conscience. Without that light - without the full knowledge of good and evil - "transgression" would be a more accurate term to describe any law-breaking we may have done. As far as I'm aware, the scriptures and modern prophets have not revealed whether the Light of Christ was with us in the pre-mortal life. It's probably worth another thread, but for the sake of conversation I might even posit that gaining the Light of Christ is a direct result of our first years in mortality. Hence the age of accountability.

W00t for right answers.

The Light of Christ permeates all of space and all matter. We all had the Light of Christ as spirits. We didn't have the Holy Ghost.

There was sinning in the premortal existence. It was allowed, as spirits were "innocent in the beginning" and not all were valiant as Abraham was (Abr 3). There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Spirits must have at least been committing sins of omission, if they were not as valiant. But they did not cross over the final line: they did not rebel so much that they were cast out of God's presence.

I am specifically talking about "the light of Christ" as regards a conscience - which is the knowledge of good and evil, which obviously does not permeate all space and matter. If it did, Adam and Eve would never have needed to eat that fruit, and children would be accountable for their transgressions.

Sin does not exist without the knowledge of good and evil. That's an axiom that must be used to understand the scripture you quoted. That scripture is not saying we could sin in the pre-mortal existence. Or, better worded, IF we sinned in the pre-mortal existence there was no hope at redemtpion. Remember that when you read it. God didn't "give" man his agency until after the earth was created and he was placed in a physical body (Moses 7:32).

How did Satan rebel without having agency to exercise?

Satan and his followers gained the knowledge of good and evil in the pre-mortal existence, without the safety net of the fall and mortality. Their "fall" was therefore permanent. When we die because of sin, we are granted a time to repent before we actually die. If, during this "probational period" (or mortality) we repent, and follow Christ, and choose good, when we are resurrected (and restored Alma 42) we can be forgiven for what we did through the atonement of Christ. However, what good it that if we still desire to sin?

How did they gain that knowledge? And once obtained, why did they choose evil? Pride is the most common answer, but I think that regardless of how full of yourself you are you'd have to be pretty stupid to try and usurp God himself - and Satan is not stupid.

Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning

This is describing us pre-mortally and up until the point we were no longer innocent. Those who are innocent have not sinned. How can one sin and be innocent? Those are diametric opposites. So, sin may have been possible in the pre-mortal existence, but only those who were escorted out took part in it.

There are two "Beginnings" - the beginning of our spiritual existence and the beginning of our mortal existence. The footnote on "innocent" in this scripture references the Topical Guide on "Conceived in Sin". Coupled with the next line:

and God having redeemed man from the fall

Man is born into this world with little to no understanding. It's not until he reaches an understanding of good and evil that he can sin. Then he becomes accountable. Man has always had agency, but those who did not sin in God's presence came to earth to gain a physical body.

it's quite evident that this verse is talking about original sin - "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." It's conceivable that the "beginning" being referenced is the beginning of our mortal lives. However, if it does reference the beginning of our spiritual lives, then it does say "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning..." not from the beginning. That innocence was a transient state.

And I just want to mention - your statement above "Man has always had agency" is mutually exclusive with your prior statement that "God didn't "give" man his agency until after the earth was created..". That's probably just an honest mistake of poor wording, but I couldn't resist pointing it out :)

men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

When a man becomes born again they are innocent before God again, having gained the knowledge of good and evil and a physical body. This is only possible because of Christ. I can't tell you I understand how it's possible or how it happens, I just know it does.

See above. This verse is talking about the false doctrine of original sin, not being "born again" or any other kind of convoluted interpretation.

I maintain we were in a state of innocence in the pre-mortal existence and came to earth to "gain the knowledge of good and evil." His description of sin is synonomous to rebellion.

The reason Satan sinned is because He rebelled willfully and exercised his agency to choose against God's will in the pre-mortal existence. That was a sin. That is why he was cast out.

If we didn't get our agency until mortality, why did Satan get it before the rest of us?

Had anyone rebelled in His presence they would have suffered the same fate as Lucifer.

I'll grant you that we had the ability to violate law, but we were innocent as the description above describes. We, all who came to earth, did not willfully rebel against God, or sin. I believe it is these violated laws, or transgressions, that the Atonement will be applied to... as you have described.

Our disobedience in the pre-mortal existence (if there was any) would have been transgression, not sin. It would have been a breaking of the law in ignorance or else we were unaccountable. Provided the scriptures which have already been quoted which imply the use of the atonement in the pre-mortal existence (and Satan's punishment for his actions) - I think it's fair to say that we were accountable in some measure, therefore we must have been ignorant of the law. Or else there was true "sin" in the pre-mortal life.

That being said - the question is whether or not any of us were disobedient in the pre-mortal life. Rameumptom makes the correct comparison with the Lord's statements regarding those spirits who were more valiant. At the very least there must have been some form of sin or transgression - or else all spirits would have been equally obedient and therefore equally valiant.

I posit that we did have free will in the pre-mortal existence, and therefore could make choices and could make wrong choices. However, as I've earlier discussed, free agency is the freedom to be an agent unto yourself - to choose between two opposing parties (in this case, good and evil). Agency, then, does not exist where the two opposing parties (or the knowledge of these parties) do not exist.Moses 7, then, would suggest to me that God gave us our agency in the Garden of Eden by giving us the knowledge of good and evil - the fruit of the tree.

Satan, in order to have exercised agency and chosen evil in the pre-mortal existence, would have had to have learned of evil and learned the difference between good and evil on his own in that life. This implies (to me) an incredibly high state of progression and understanding. This adds to the significance of Isaiah 14 calling Lucifer a "Son of the morning". Lucifer, a Latin word meaning "light bearer", refers to the "morning star" aka Venus, often the brightest star in the night sky. Given the regular use of stars and brightness as a symbol for spiritual light and glory in the scriptures, this is VERY significant. It makes me curious - what could have motivated Satan, who had climbed so high, to act in a way that would cause him to fall so far?

By the way - the use of the phrase "pre-existence" is an oxymoron - you can't exist before you exist. It also is a false doctrine of Catholicsm (and branch-offs thereof, including protestant religions) that speaks to this life as a punishment for "looking downward toward a corrupt earth". Using somebody else's language leads to using somebody else's doctrine. We do not believe in a "pre-existence". We believe in a "pre-mortal existence".