Webster

I think your view about Satan's plan is an interesting way to see things, but the way you frame things is highly problematic. For instance, "...Adam's abilty to partake of the tree of life and remain in the Garden forever (which was what Satan wanted, according to Alma)..." Did Alma say that's what Satan wanted, or is that your idea being stated as fact? You've said several times that Satan tempted Eve to partake of the Tree of Life. When did that happen? In the scriptures, or in the way you view them? I don't have a problem with all your ideas so much as I have with the way you state them as fact. You say to read Alma and it's all there in black and white. The problem is, most people are reading the black, and you're reading into the white. It seems you've worked this all out in your head for so long that you think more is actually said in Alma than is clearly there, and you expect us all to have the same frame of reference as you. It shows up in many of the statements that are foundational to your point of view, but which others end up scratching their heads at. I think one of the problems with this discussion is that you assume A, B, and C are true, therefore D, but everyone else is still questioning how you got A, B, and C.

Justice, there was opposition in Eden. See 2 Nephi 2:15. Lehi names the opposition: "even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life." That is the opposition that's named in the scriptures. It's one or the other, not one and the other.

I agree. But, could you explain more what agency is to you? What is its definition? Do the scriptures use it according to that definition, or in a limited or specific manner?

Sure, why not? God said He would "surely die". Do you not believe in God's word? Wrong again. I'm saying that I believe in God's word. You eat, you die. Look beyond the mark all you want, I'm simply looking at what God said. Wow! Look who's talking! Not surprising. But it's certainly possible if we're playing the game of "what if" and take the next step. Me too. You're missing the mark again. I'm not talking about restoring knowledge. I'm only saying that if Adam eats, he dies. That's God's word. So when you break a commandment, it's no longer a commandment? Is that the foundation you want to build your argument on? Then that would be the second time that Adam had partaken of the Tree of Knowledge without surely dying. I actually think this is a good point, but it's easy to counteract: If Adam could partake of the Tree of Life and live forever despite what God said (thou shalt surely die), then he should be able to partake of the Tree of Knowledge again and surely die despite what God said (that he would live forever).

(It kind of sounds like everyone else does.) I think you interpret what others have said about as well as I believe you interpret Alma's words. I haven't seen anyone agree that God removed Adam's agency. I've only seen you TRY to say that we've agreed. No one ever said it was evil, we said it was a consequence. I for one have seen MANY things that you state as fact that I find highly questionable, but as I've said, I don't like to type as much as it would take to address all of those issues. I'll talk to you on the phone, real time, but I'm not going to type it all, especially when it won't do any good. Several of us have stated CLEARLY that we believed what happened to Adam and Eve after they partook of the forbidden fruit was a CONSEQUENCE, including not being allowed to partake of the Tree of Life. So please don't try to state what I believe, because you haven't been very accurate so far. If I don't challenge you on the many things I disagree with, you may not take that to mean I agree with you. Just for fun, I'll include a few beliefs that you might find surprising: I don't believe that Adam was given his agency (in the way the scriptures use the term) until AFTER he partook of the forbidden fruit. I don't believe immortal beings of any type can have children unless they are celestial in nature and married. This would exclude Adam and Eve in an immortal, fallen state from having children (again, one of those pesky consequences I believe in). It would also exclude all resurrected beings that do not reach exaltation from having children (can you imagine the population explosion in the telestial kingdom with all the adulterers running around?) I believe Adam being prevented from partaking of the Tree of Life was a natural consequence, the same as being burned when you touch fire. An innocent child does not get to choose not to be burned because it didn't know better. I believe it was eternal Justice (kind of ironic, eh Justice) that prevented Adam from partaking of the Tree of Life, and that God (who does not rob Justice [see Alma]) wouldn't allow that, so Adam was sent forth from Eden. Also, Adam was telestial after the fall and Eden was terrestrial, and that really doesn't work either, so he kind of had to leave. I believe the Book of Mormon is not written in the most beautiful English, but it is more clear the way it stands than the proposed reading that you've provided. I believe you should read Moses 4:28-31 and you might notice that what God did "lest he put forth his hand" (v.28) was "send him forth" (v.29), the cherubim were done later (v.31). While you're at it, read the dictionary and find where Agency says anything about choosing. And it was not written by Nephites, so don't provide your own explanation to make it fit your liking, that would be wresting the dictionary. I find that truly amazing, yet strangely, not surprising.

If Satan had Adam and Eve partake of the Tree of Life after having become mortal (according to your scenario), God's plan would not have been frustrated (following your own 'logic'). You've said that God wouldn't take away Adam's agency. It just wouldn't happen! Therefore, Adam (or any of his hypothetical posterity for that matter) would still retain the ability to partake of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not prevent this unless He removed Adam's agency! All Adam has to do is eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and he will again be subject unto death according to God's word which does not change.

This is a good example of how you look at things. The hypothetical continues on until the word "then". You choose to see what you want. Keep reading the verse: "...if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you." But because it cannot always be the case, the Nephites left the system of Kings for Judges. It shows that they did not believe that they could always have just men as kings.

Some examples of the combination of 'were', 'possible', and 'could' constructs: Mosiah 3:16 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. Mosiah 29:13 13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people--I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. Alma 12:26 26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect. Moses 7:30 30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever; Will you say that little children can sin, or that man can number the particles of the earth? Just because something is said is no proof that it was possible, but again, I am quite sure that you will find a way around this.

Some notes from the above: It's convenient that you miss Alma 12:21 "if it had been possible" and Alma 12:26 "if it were possible". I know you'll explain them away, but to most people (probably even to Alma) it's a hypothetical statement that simultaneously points out that it's an impossibility. Alma is trying to explain that even if they could do something that was not possible, it still would not save them from the effects (plural) of the fall. The only way is forward, through the Atonement. In Alma 42:5 which you use as proof, we have the interesting contradiction where Alma says that Adam would live forever according to the word of God, but then says that the word of God would be VOID. Impossibilities lead to contradictions. As to the idea that describing consequences proves that something is possible, I could describe the consequences if you squeezed your whole body into a quart sized blender and turned it on (hint: not a pretty sight), but that in no way is proof that you can in fact squeeze your whole body into a quart sized blender! (By the way, when was the moment that you saw this? Could it have been during my post on Agency about a year and a half ago, when it seemed you developed this idea the more the discussion went on?) Lucifer said he would 1) redeem all mankind that 2) one soul would not be lost, and God said that Lucifer 3) sought to take away man's agency. But it seems according to your reading of Alma that if Adam and Eve had actually eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life after the fall, 1) Satan would have done nothing to redeem them, 2) they would have been forever lost, having no chance for repentance, and 3) he would have allowed man's agency (to partake of the Tree) rather than prevent it. So I guess I don't really see the similarities. (Unless, and I hold this out as a possibility, you intend to get back to the meaning of agency and come up with a completely new definition.)

The point of Alma 12 and 42 is that Adam could not go back to the Tree of Life, but the Atonement of Christ makes it possible for him to still have Eternal Life. He could not go backward and stay in the Garden, but he had to go forward through mortality with the Atonement to overcome both the physical and spiritual deaths of the fall, and also to overcome his own spiritual death through repentance. Alma is not explaining the theory of Satan's plan. He is explaining the need of the Savior and the necessity and purpose or mortality to those who didn't understand that they would be judged according to their works (Zeezrom), who thought that it was impossible to live forever (Antionah), or who thought that God was unjust to punish people for their own sins (Corianton). Each one of these people seem to be anti-Christ to a point because they did not understand the need for a Savior, and they held views similar to Nehor and Korihor that this life is all there is, and it didn't really matter what they did during mortality. Alma's point is that you don't go back to the Tree, you go forward through the Atonement to it. It is the only way you can be restored completely and then some.

By the way, the only time Adam, little children, or you and I ever made the choice to die is when we accepted the Father's plan to come to a telestial, mortal, fallen world. Here is something I said in a previous post about whether Eve knew what she was doing when she partook of the forbidden fruit: I think we all made that conscientious choice in the pre-mortal existence to voluntarily leave our paradise and be sent into a fallen mortal world. The consequence of death would just be another thing we accepted and agreed to when we accepted the Father's plan.

Justice, So the problem (as you see it) is that God cannot take away Adam's "agency" to partake of the Tree of Life AFTER he had already partaken of the Tree of Knowledge, even though God told him that doing so would result in death? Because it would somehow be unjust for God to allow a natural consequence to be applied to Adam without his actually choosing that consequence? Because God doesn't take away anyone's "agency" . . . ever. I might say that those who followed Lucifer in the pre-mortal existence made a decision to go against God, and He took away their "agency" to remain in the pre-mortal existence. They were cast out without getting to use their "agency" to choose to stay or leave. I imagine you would say that they HAD their agency at the time they rebelled, whereas Adam did not at the time he partook of the Tree of Knowledge. So they get a consequence, and Adam gets a chance to make God a liar if he chooses to partake of the Tree of Life and live forever in spite of what God had declared. That's interesting. Although I disagree, I guess I can see how you could piece that together with the various assumptions you have made. I guess it all hinges on the fact that Adam did not yet have his agency (a fact which I fully agree with). He was innocent. He did not understand the difference between good and evil. He was unaccountable. He was, in fact, like a little child. The funny thing is . . . there ARE little children who die. Little children who are innocent, and who do not understand the difference between good and evil, and are unaccountable. They don't get to choose if they will live or die. Their death is often a natural consequence of something else--something else which they often don't even get to choose. They never have the "agency" to voluntarily choose to live or die, like Adam did. When I reached the age of accountability, I was like Adam when he partook of the Tree of Knowledge. I lost my innocense, as I gained a knowledge of good and evil, and became accountable. But unlike Adam, I was never given the "agency" to decide to live or die either. I was born into mortality, so I will die. So did God give Adam a break that no one in mortality gets? That would be unfair . . . because God doesn't take away anyone's "agency" . . . ever. Something to think about. And yet, I'm sure you'll find a way around it.

I feel like this post has been a bait and switch. This began as a post on the topic of Agency, and what it meant, but recently it's become all about a certain belief and either a plea to accept that belief or a challenge to refute it. It looks like no one wants to play this new game, since the topic has slowed and is at risk of dying. If this post gets back on the topic of Agency, I will again participate. But if not, it was fun until it swerved and got off track. I would still like to hear about the sixth agency verse (D&C 64:18) if this discussion ever makes it back to that point. At one time I was going to share some ideas on the things that were recently said, but since responding to all the issues that have been raised would take more effort than I care to give to a different topic from the one I originally signed up for, I've decided not to make the effort. (I also don't think my views would make much difference anyway, so again, why expend the effort?) If anyone wants to send me a personal message through LDS.net, I would be willing to find a time when we could talk about these other issues further (either I call you, or you call me); otherwise, I'm not in the mood to type about something I don't care that much about.

I see Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit as the thing that prevented him from partaking of the tree of life. Consequences, pure and simple. There are some choices that are mutually exclusive. God said if you eat, you will surely die. He did not say if you eat, then we will give you the option to partake of the tree of life or be sent into mortality.

If you have three options, and one is removed, have you restricted agency? Or does that only happen when there is no choice?

I'm going to say the opposite. Adam was not accountable for partaking of the fruit. He was essentially as a Little Child. He had no knowledge of good and evil (which the scriptures show as the key to full legal agency and accountability). Read the second Article of Faith. When it says that all men will be accountable for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression, I believe Adam qualifies as one of those men not accountable for that transgression. "All" would have to include Adam. Adam does not need to repent for partaking of the fruit any more than you or I do. Christ's atonement eventually and unconditionally overcomes both the physical death and the spiritual death brought about by the Fall. All mortals will be resurrected (overcoming physical death), and all will be brought back into the presence of God for the judgment (overcoming the spiritual death of the Fall). After that, those who have suffered their own spiritual death because of unrepented sin will again suffer a spiritual death when they are cast out of God's presence. LDS scripture is full of this kind of language.

Great analogy of the legal type of agency to which I referred. I agree that we become either an agent of Christ or not based on who we serve and who we represent. To me, the way the scriptures use the term agency in a theological sense seems to be making a different point. The scriptures always refer to humans as agents unto themselves, therefore, I would say that the idea of agency in the scriptures is that we legally represent ourselves. Each person is allowed to follow their own will (as an agent acts in behalf of his principal), and each person is accountable for their actions (as the principal is legally bound by the actions of his agent). I see agency as the foundation upon which all accountability rests. We can use our agency to act in our own behalf and legally bind ourselves through contract (a covenant of baptism) to become an agent of Christ. Becoming an agent of Christ is a second type of agency that's implied in the scriptures, but not officially named an agency. I would say that while we may become an agent of Righteousness or wickedness, we still retain our individual agency as well–we still remain accountable for all we do. Satan claimed none would be lost. I believe he wanted to destroy agency so he could convince others that they could be unaccountable and have a mortal experience without any risk. God's plan requires agency because it relies on our being accountable and our ability to make legally binding covenants of salvation with Him.

I think Jesus walked on water. Why do I believe it? I believe the scriptures are true, and they say He did. And also because I believe God can do that, and Jesus is God. (By the way, I don't believe Satan proposed to remove choices like good and evil. The choice he would have removed is the choice to be saved or not. I believe he proposed to destroy legal agency and thereby accountability. This would allow him to tell others they would be saved regardless of what they chose or did.)

I wish Justice had included the sixth reference to agency from the scriptures: D&C 64: 18 And now, verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, shall return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion; Agency in this case does not follow the normal definition we usually use in church. (There are also two other references that are not in the scriptures where the Lord demonstrates that He knows how to use the word Agency correctly as defined by the dictionary.) I actually think this reference should be included because it has a lot to do with learning about the meaning of Agency as used in our scriptures. I think that all references to agents and agency in our scriptures use the exact same definition.

It almost sounds like that which we gain from being enlighted by the Light of Christ (a good thing), is that which causes us to sin (a bad thing). Maybe it would help if I said it's a bit paradoxical rather than problematic. If you still can't see it, don't worry about it.

It seems odd that, "Agency is derived from being enlightened by the light of Christ," and that, "Because of our agency, we all inevitably sin." The two statements taken together seem a little problematic.

I am not looking for new words. I am looking for examples in our LDS scriptures where the Lord has redefined an existing English word to mean something other than its normal, accepted definition. (See above for examples we've already come up with.) "youward" is not in the 1828 Dictionary, but I can find it in a number of books published in the early 1800s. D&C 112:15 seems perfectly in line with the other examples (found mainly in religious contexts) that I've seen. It is either not an existing word, or it is not a redefinition from its normal meaning.

Does anyone else have an example in our LDS scriptures where the Lord has redefined an existing English word to mean something other than its normal, accepted definition? (See above for examples we've already come up with.)

annamaureen: That might be true for the Bible (who knows), but I would find that hard to believe for the LDS scriptures. I would find it hard to believe that a French translator could do a better job second hand than a prophet with a urim and thummim or direct revelation first hand. I would guess the missionary was referring to the Bible.

ConnieM: Two possibilities from the dictionary definition for Agency and how they may apply to the gospel: 1) As you correctly pointed out, Agency comes from the Latin meaning "to act". Its primary definition from the 1828 dictionary is, "The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world." We can see this definition in the Book of Mormon where it talks about mankind being able to "act" for themselves. 2 Nephi 2:14 says that there are things that act (have agency in the primary sense) and things that are acted upon (do not have agency). D&C 93:30 also says that Intelligence, like Truth, can, "act for itself." Men are not passive beings, but active beings. We are expected to do things; to be, "anxiously engaged," (D&C 58:27). 2) The secondary definition from the 1828 dictionary is, "The office of an agent, or factor; business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another; as, the principal pays the charges of agency." We see this secondary definition in the Book of Mormon as well. Two verses after Lehi talked about things which act (have primary agency), he says that the Lord gave unto man that he should, "act for himself," (twice in verse 2 Nephi 2:16, and once later in verse 26). The Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Moses both talk about men being, "agents unto themselves." The idea of acting for oneself or being an agent unto oneself might be using the secondary meaning of Agency (the office held by an agent who legally acts for, or represents, another). If men are agents "unto themselves", then they would legally act for or represent themselves. They would be their own agents, and as such, would be legally bound by their actions, and therefore, accountable. The law of agency in this sense would become the foundational principle upon which our accountability rests. The idea of, "freedom of choice," etc. for the meaning of agency that is commonly used in the church comes from the traditional definition of, "free agency," which is a specific type of agency. "Free agency" is a correct principle, but it is not what the Lord actually said in our scriptures. Even though the church is trying to stop the use of the term, "free agency," its meaning is still being applied to Agency rather than using the dictionary's definition.