zil2

Are you seriously gonna make me go put in the Blu-ray? Sigh. (Your bit comes after the "redo what you just did" (or I'm conflating with another episode, in which case, I'll have to binge the whole dang series).) BRB... (Hooray for the fact that I once downloaded all the scripts...) And Data, no less! If anyone should know that the computer isn't going to come up with a different answer, it's Data!!

Here's a unique thing about being the youngest (which I am): There's no one for you to take care of. Everyone takes care of you. Further, you tend to get more independence as your parents are busy worrying about the more serious problems of the older children and they're not as paranoid that every little thing you do will harm you, etc. etc. In some ways, you grow up faster (independence), in others, you mature more slowly (caring for others). IMO, that scenario stunts your ability / need / desire to seek the Spirit. Don't ask me how you overcome that - receiving guidance from the Spirit is a challenge for me to this day. But I believe it has something to do with it. FWIW.

I've got it! Noodler's have seriously up-scaled their operations!

Of course not. You're not meant to see it until you're part of it... 🤢 (Don't mind me, I'm feeling snarky this morning.)

I'm reminded of some Star Trek: TNG episode where they ask the computer to analyze a substance to determine if it's organic (or maybe if it's alive) and after the computer gives its answer, they ask it to confirm / reanalyze. Like the computer is going to change its mind? You don't ask [entity] to confirm its own analysis. If you want confirmation, you go to [alternate, independent entity]. (I know, it's fiction, we're supposed to shut off our brains while watching, but sometimes, they ask a bit too much - or little, in this case.) Pretty sure it was "Home Soil". Or "When the Bough Breaks" - the one with the planet Aldea, where their own technology was killing them and no one believed it or understood how the tech worked... (You see, it's not AI that has all the answers - it's fiction! )

Pretty sure those pipes are carrying soylent green.

Which is another way of saying: It's the internet. (Good grief, Charlie Brown.)

Your idea has a lot of stuff that needs reconciliation if one is going to believe it. (But then, I don't know that it's necessary for anyone to believe it.) I comprehend the ideas you've laid out which I didn't quote. There's logic to them, but I'm not sure it's enough. You have lots of assumptions about things that haven't been (publicly) revealed - such as assuming this planning, that it was a group effort, the degree of Lucifer's involvement, etc. While you've laid out a reasonable scenario, it's still just your speculation. And all of it is based on your idea that we had to know pretty much everything about mortality before coming here. I don't think that was necessary. The person you once were made you into the person you are, so, I'm thinking the person you are was always inside the person you once were, but hadn't fully developed yet.

FIFY.

I'll bet you were thrilled when "The Cloud" came along and we could put stuff there instead of, I dunno, the internet...

I don't think @askandanswer was implying what your last sentence says. I think he's suggesting that it's beyond inconceivable for God to sit down with the worst of humanity1 and map out their lives of pure evil. I had decided not to go here, but we can if you wish. Your model has each individual mapping out their mortal lives right down the to bug bites they'll suffer. This includes people far more wicked than King David (as far as I can tell). It would also include God sitting down with the victims of these evil souls and walking through the nightmare that will be their torturous end. Are you capable of reconciling that image in your brain? "Now, Anthony Sears, I know it sounds kind of gross, but your life will end with Jeffrey Dahmer plopping your genitals in a jar of acetone. Oh, and eating bits of your body." I'm having a hard time imagining God explaining that one. 1Judas, Hitler & Nazi doctors, Japanese "Unit 731" doctors (also WWII), Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. etc. etc. There is one and only one way that I can reconcile these "people" mapping out their mortal existence with God, but it still strikes me as absurd, so I'm not going to state it here until I've heard your own explanation, should you care / be able to give it. It's also, really, the only one I have for their victims, as well (sort of).

Yes, we know King David's fate: (removed the "yes" to clarify - I wasn't saying yes to your question, but to the fact that we know his fate and the answer to your question is "no") As to Judas: The world doesn't understand that verse in Mark, but we do. Sounds a lot like this:

Note that I do not necessarily thing that verse 30's "act for itself" (also found in 2 Nephi 2) equates to "agency of man" - I think "act for itself" is a prerequisite for agency. I think the "agency" we usually talk about is "whose name we take upon ourselves", "the entity we choose to represent", and "the one to whom we will be accountable" (really, different ways of saying the same thing). The ability to act is a simple consequence of this mix of "ingredients": [action is possible], [there are choices], [the being has some level of intelligence]. (Note, too, just because [truth] (whatever that means) is [independent...to act for itself], does that mean man is as well? How in the world does [truth] act? [Truth] seems like a condition or description or state, not a sentient being, yet here we have it acting. Is verse 30 saying that God defines what [truth] exists within a sphere, or what the [truth] of that sphere is, and then that truth "acts upon" the sentient beings simply by virtue of its existence and being true (à la gravity) and verse 31 is describing that we live in a sphere with [truth] and have our agency to either act in harmony with the [truth] of that sphere or to reject it?) Now, add this to your mix: This sounds like the sons of perdition, no - those who reject any and all law and spheres offered by God, and seek to become a law unto themselves? These act as agents for themselves, not for Christ or anyone else. They are their own mediator/advocate - pro se, as it were. To me, this highlights the difference between [will] and [agency]. They have will, we have will. They become agents unto themselves. We become, through covenants, agents of Jesus Christ. They keep their own names. We take Christ's name. D&C 77:3 also calls it a "sphere of creation", suggesting that glory, agency, and "stuff" all are related to the sphere in which one is created - or perhaps we should say "enspirited" and later "embodied" and later "resurrected" (and apparently, those aren't necessarily the same spheres). I don't believe that in mortality it's possible for conditions to be repeated. You cannot wipe your own experience of having been through the conditions previously. So even if all else is precisely identical (and how could it be - nothing in mortality is ever precisely identical), the person(s) having the experience would not be identical. I don't think we can claim to be [controlling our "independence"] - whatever that word and phrase mean to you. There are far too many other sentient beings on the planet who have the power to act on you. In theory, you have control over your response to how others act on you, but we all know that our control is imperfect and involves some degree of knee-jerk reaction... (I assume everyone on this board knows my real name is Liz, but just in case, there it is. We'll need it for the following paragraphs.) I think I am the exact same person I have always been, from the start of eternity (yes, I know there is no start to eternity). Just as God is unchanging, I think all of us are, we just don't fully understand it yet, we mortals have not yet expressed our individual "fullness". Given each set of circumstances I have faced, face, and will face, there's only one choice I will make at each junction (which choice defines my future possibilities). The me that I started as got me to where I am now, therefore, where I am now is who I always was - this degree of "Liz-ness" simply hadn't been expressed yet, but was inevitable. God's omniscience allows Him to see the full expression of my "Liz-ness"; my own ignorance prevents me from seeing it, but it's there all the same. This does not alter my ability to choose - it doesn't make me an automaton or some thoughtless, pre-programmed entity. Rather, it makes me Liz. My choices define me. Each choice "filters" what future choices are available to me. Past me put current me where I am. Current me will put future me wherever I will be. I am not condemned or predestined to a future imposed by some external being - I am me, and I create my own future, which was in me all along, just not yet fully expressed. If ever there has been a change in what I am, it has come not through anything I did (I don't think I'm capable), but through Jesus Christ changing my heart (to which I had to submit as a willing and ignorant participant - not unlike letting a heart surgeon go in and make some changes). This might, maybe have changed who Liz was from before the beginning of beginnings, but not really, because even the choice to let Christ change me was an expression of "Liz-ness". If that makes no sense, I can attempt to re-word it.

Again, I'm trying to understand @Traveler's ideas. Not judge them, not counter them, not add to them or detract from them, just to understand them. (But remember that in Traveler's version, God is fully involved in making the plan, so this "lesser being" problem is thereby solved.) Nibley says something very similar in Approaching Zion, chapter 10 "Funeral Address". You're getting ahead of the conversation. (Sorry, don't mean to offend or anything, but if there's any hope of accomplishing the goal, I have to stay on point - side discussions mixed into the main one would only muddy the water.)

I'm familiar with Elder Maxwell's idea. FYI, I am not trying to figure out the truth or form a theory or model of anything. I have one and only one goal in mind for participating in this discussion: to understand what exactly @Traveler's idea is, in as much detail as he can give me. That's it.