puf_the_majic_dragon

The best argument to that effect that I have heard is summed up by Carl Sagan in his cosmos series. "Who created the universe? If God created the universe, who created God? If God always existed, why not save a step and just say the universe always existed?" It's a rather pitiful argument, if you ask me. Who created my computer? Scientists and engineers in a factory using lots of silicon and plastic. Who created the silicon? Well the silicon has always existed. Why not save a step and just say my computer has always existed? But if you want a (semi) doctrinal answer, I believe the correct response would be that God the Father is the son of His own "heavenly parents", who have their own heavenly parents with their own heavenly parents ad infinitum. If they want to argue against that, tell them they first must define infinity - which, by our mathematics, is "undefined". That is, it has no definition AT ALL. You may want to get some other feedback on the heavenly family tree, as I'm not sure it's explicitly stated by general authorities, though you can easily infer it from other statements along similar lines. In any case, these discussions are not going to lead them anywhere useful. If they want to understand the nature of God, they're going to have to gain that understanding by the Spirit and in no other way.

"Knowledge" in the sense that Snow is using it is, frankly, non-sequitur. You can say, and "prove", that 2+2=4. But that's just an arbitrary assignment of meaning to an arbitrary set of symbols. I can just as easily say that 2+2=7 and be equally correct - and prove it. You know it took Alfred North Whitehead 379 pages (in the first edition of Principia Mathematica) to "prove" that 1+1=2. None of us "knows" that 1+1=2 because we have never read the proof - we simply take Al's word for it. Honestly, I'm content to take Al's word for it, I'm not very keen on math. If you consider knowledge to be what you have observed through first-hand observation, that also is non-sequitur. Schizophrenia and bi-polar regularly exhibit manifestations of compelling reality to those who suffer from these illnesses. These delusions are directly observed, seen, touched, and interacted with by those who have them. And yet we call them false and illusion because the rest of us can't see them. But who's to say we're the "normal" by which they should be judged? Now we enter to the realm of simulacrum that made The Matrix so popular - how do you know what is real? The fact is, we don't. Knowledge, then, in any communicable sense is only a firm conviction. In more scientific terms, it must be a firm conviction based on experience. There are some people who have experience and yet never form that conviction. There are some who form the conviction without experience. And there are some who have the experience and the conviction. But to settle the argument (or at least, to provide a solution that SHOULD settle it, even though most of you will probably ignore it): Knowledge != truth. Knowledge does not equal truth.

A lot to read through, and I'm lazy... So if somebody's already quoted this, my bad. Luke 22 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Even seeing God does not make you converted and does not add to your righteousness. Consider Laman and Lamuel and all the incredible experiences they had. I would agree that "knowing" and "believing" are two different things. However I would suggest that knowing without believing has no greater impact on your actions than believing without knowing. John 7 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Mark 9 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." I think a lot of people say they "know" because it makes them feel better about something they're really uncertain about. Others say it to sound more spiritual and impress people. Very few say it who actually do know. All of the misuse of the phrase really belittles its intended meaning. I know the scriptures bring joy and peace. I know Jesus the Christ lives. Everything else I struggle with. I never was very good at the whole faith thing. :edit: We don't break the rules around our parents or others, not because we know they exist, but because they offer IMMEDIATE consequences. The consequences of sin are not always - in fact they are rarely - immediate. :/edit:

What "spoke" to me was the answer I already provided. I have received and do receive personal revelation on a variety of topics regarding the Gospel, however I don't describe it as such here because I consider the "I learned this by the Holy Spirit" argument to be a logical fallacy and inappropriate for a discussion among those who do not have authority to speak revelation for others; I also believe that any use of that argument immediately ends all possibility for further learning by inconsiderately dismissing any and all other points of view.I think when a person uses "personal revelation" as a supporting argument in a discussion, that it's the equivalent to the 3rd grade "I'm right, you're wrong and that's final" argument - it essentially ends any further discussion. It's hard to learn anything new when you already think you have the answer. I also think that if we were to gather together a bunch of people and compare "personal revelation" on a given topic, that a lot of what we would hear would be completely contradictory. The fact is - very few of us are ever given the whole truth, and it's important to remember that as we study and discuss. I have seen a lot of those "contradictions" disapear as I've learned more and seen how, with additional understanding, they fit together perfectly. Even when I have undoubtedly received personal revelation on a subject of doctrine (such as this) I rarely accept it as doctrine until I get a confirmation on that revelation from an authoritative source - priesthood leaders and elders of the Church. And vice versa. Where I receive inspiration that is not confirmed by a priesthood authority, or whenever a priesthood authority says something that is not confirmed by personal revelation, I set that thing aside in my mind for further consideration and do not consider it doctrinal UNTIL it is confirmed. Needless to say, many of my ideas and thoughts never get confirmed... But those things which are not pertinent to my eternal salvation rarely get any prayerful consideration. That's an interesting object lesson. I think the example itself can teach the correct principles, I would only admonish you to teach only that which is in the scriptures and revelations of the Church. What you believe further may be personal revelation and it may not be - I can't say; but even if it was unfolded to you by the Spirit, it was unfolded to you FOR you. It may be appropriate to share those things in a discussion forum such as this, but only as "food for thought" and not as the mind and will of God or as the doctrines of His Church. I hope I'm not sounding accusatory. I guess what I'm trying to say is that - you got your personal revelation, I got mine; and even if what we're saying seems to be completely opposite, chances are we may both be right. At least by calling the "personal revelation" card, you've essentially brought an end to any further discussion on the topic. :edit: I don't know about the knowledge being contained in the fruit. I have heard it spoken over the pulpit (I'm sure it can be found on lds.org) that Adam and Eve weren't "ignorant" before the fall - they knew how to procreate. They were simply unable to do so - physiologically or else for some other reason. My "observant mentioning" of the choice was a reference to your implication that it was the choice to eat the fruit that gave Adam the knowledge of good and evil, and not something in the fruit itself. I personally consider the entire "fruit" thing to be completely allegorical - that Adam did not eat an apple to gain the knowledge of good and evil, but that he partook of that knowledge - ie by reading a book. We often see prophets eating books in visions and fruit is ALWAYS symbolic in the scriptures.Interstingly enough (I'm going off on a tangent now) fruit is most often a symbol of progeny - the fruit of thy loins. Perhaps the "fruit" Adam partook of was the act of procreation? That's getting a little out there, I admit. But it's more food for thought. And totally off topic.

Trying to figure out a geographic location for "Zion" and "Babylon"? Well Zion is in Colorado Springs Zion is a state of being, not a geographical location. Moses 7 18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. To be perfectly honest, I don't think there is any one place on Earth that fully meets this requirements. That is why we are commanded in General Conference to build up Zion. LDS.org - Ensign Article - Come to Zion LDS.org - Ensign Article - Zion in the Midst of Babylon LDS.org - Ensign Article - Our Hearts Knit as One 178th Semiannual General Conference, October 2008 179th Annual General Conference, April 2009

I'm hungry. I think I understand what you mean now - about God granting permission to use agency in the Garden. However, I'm not sure I agree with it. I think I'd use a different analogy - but I'm not sure which one. I think the act of disobedience itself must have been integral to the plan, otherwise God could have given the fruit to Adam and never given the commandment not to eat it. We learn and grow from struggle (opposition in all things) and being in a "carnal and fallen state" is what gives us that opposition. Without a fallen nature, there is no "natural man" to overcome. A fallen state - aka spiritual death or separation from God - requires breaking the law, because spiritual death is the consequence for breaking spiritual law.

Do you really expect me to lay this out logically? In order for there to be one spirit (or several) who are more valiant in righteousness than others, there must be varying degrees of righteousness and therefore various degrees of obedience. If one spirit can be more obedient than another, then it follows that one spirit can be less obedient than another. If a spirit is less obedient than another, that means he is not being fully obedient, and therefore he is not acting in full accordance to the law and is therefore transgressing that law in full or in part.:edit: Let me add that I am NOT using "transgression" and "sin" interchangably. They are two seperate and distinct states of being. I have not decided as to which of the two would have occurred in the pre-mortal existence, since the discussion on our level of accountability in that time has not yet reached a conclusion - hence why I specifically use both words when discussing the topic of law-breaking in the pre-mortal existence. :/edit: But I've already scripturally demonstrated that we did take advantage of the atonement in the pre-mortal life (see posts several pages earlier in the thread). What reason would there have been to use the atonement unless we had transgressed the law? I went back and reread several of your most recent posts and am completely unable to discern what your scripturally accurate way is. So yes, please restate it with references. There's a lot more that is necessary to become like Heavenly Father than a body and knowledge of good and evil. Becoming like our Father in Heaven doesn't require just knowledge and understanding of the law, but obedience to it. If it is inherent, why was there a need for God to give it to us in the Garden? If it can not be taken away, then Lucifer's plan would have been a moot point - I doubt he would have iniated a coup against GOD based on such an obviously flawed plan. See below: So far I haven't seen you explain this point, only state your opinion on the matter without explanation and then (see bolded portion) you asked me to explain it. At least that's my impression. Don't tell me we're arguing semantics?Having reread many of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you and I are probably arguing the same point from different perspectives. The gist being that we may have been disobedient in the pre-mortal life but that was not considered sin because we lacked the full knowledge of good and evil (we did not have a full understanding of the law) and were therefore unaccountable. This seems to be what I can pick up out of your writings. The additional point that I'm making is that, in order for Lucifer's actions to be considered sinful, and thus making him accountable for those actions, he MUST have had that knowledge of good and evil. How he obtained that knowledge is another point entirely, but I think it's adding to the confusion. I believe you're opinion, from what you've stated, is that this knowledge of good and evil comes as a natural consequence of choosing evil ("This came as a result of rebellion"). I must disagree there, since Christ never chose evil, and yet no-one could deny that he has that knowledge. Also true for babies that die before the age of accountability who are guaranteed salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. I'm going to throw out here another theory to add to the confusion. I was looking through the Topical Guide earlier under "fruit" and did a search for "fruit" on scriptures.lds.org. I didn't have time to go through every reference (I hate my job) however, except for Genesis, every single reference I saw was completely allegorical. I have to wonder why this particular usage is the only one that is taken literally. While I will immediately accept that there was a garden, that there was an Adam and Eve, and that there was a fall, I would suggest (hypothetically) that Adam's fall was not due to eating an apple, but that the apple is used as a symbol to represent the actual event. Coupled with the many ways in which fruit is a symbol throughout the scriptures, this could add significant meaning to the Genesis account - in my opinion.

I did read the scripture you posted, and I referenced it myself in subsequent posts of my own. And I have explained Moses 7:32 in a way that reconciles with free will in the pre mortal life. I'm starting to wonder if any of us is reading what the others are saying... But to make things easy, I'll late it out in the most simple and clear and elegant manner of which I am capable (keep in mind, I am an engineer). Axiom: Some spirits in the pre-mortal life were more valiant in the cause of righteousness than others. Supporting Scripture: Abraham 3: 22 Doctrine and Covenants 138: 55 Abraham 3 Conclusion: There must have been some sin or transgression (even if it was only transgressions of omission) in the pre-mortal life. Question: How can we have had agency in the pre-mortal life and still have had God give us our agency only after the fall in the Garden of Eden? Pertinent Scripture: Moses 7 Doctrine and Covenants 93 Agency Hypothosis: Agency has multiple meanings when used in scripture. Agency (free will) was had by all in the pre-mortal existence while agency (free will coupled with accountability) was obtained only after the fall. Supporting Definitions: Agency: "Agency refers both to the capacity of beings to act for themselves and their accountability for those actions." - Agency - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Supporting Arguments (evidence): As with the word "sin", I would suggest that there are two ways that agency is used in the scriptures: A: to represent free will or the freedom to choose and B: to represent free will AND accountability for how we exercise that freedom. One (A) we had in the pre-mortal existence. The other (B) we (all mankind) gained through Adam's transgression (or individually through our own experiences of personal transgression). Conclusions: With two definitions for agency, it is possible to reconcile the two previously opposing postulates of the church. This does, however, raise other questions regarding the functionality of free will in the pre-mortal existence, and the apparent accountability which many spirits were subject to during Lucifer's rebellion. Question: If spirits were not accountable in the pre-mortal life, why was Lucifer cast out with all of his followers? Pertinent Scripture: Isaiah 14 Moses 4 Hypothosis: Accountability comes as a natural result of A: Knowing the law and B: understanding the law. Understanding of the law can come from either learning or from experience. Supporting Arguments: Simply knowing the law does not immediately make one fully accountable (although there is or may be a level of accountability for just knowing the law). One must also understand the law. That means to know the law and to understand the implications, consequences, and morality of that law. In the pre-mortal existence, we learned the law, but did not gain a full understanding of the law. Those who transgress the law without a knowledge and/or understanding of that law are still accountable once they have learned the law. Lucifer transgressed the law, but may not have had a full understanding of the law, making him unaccountable - therefore he was able to exercise free will without yet having been given agency (free will with accountability). However, if he was made to understand the law after that transgression (ie, the experience of transgressing the law increased his understanding of it), he would then become accountable. He would then remain accountable unless he repented. Without repentance, Lucifer was accountable for his transgression (which would then be considered a sin) and would suffer the consequences of it - banishment or spiritual death. Conclusion: Lucifer can have been accountable for his choices without having been given the agency (free will and accountability) which God gave to man after the fall. Alternate Hypothosis: Satan obtained his accountability on his own, rather than having it "given" to him by God. Now, if you please, do not tell me you disagree and then ask me to explain why you disagree. This is a discussion, which means you talk about my ideas and present some of your own and explain them yourselves. I expect Lucifer's fall was a gradual process. As I said before, he would have risen to great heights in terms of spiritual knowledge and progression in order to have been able to sin so greatly. And I am confident that a loving and merciful Heavenly Father would have offered him plenty of time and opportunity to come to his senses - as the whole last few posts all try to explain - it's possible that Lucifer could have used the atonement and repented before being cast out. There are a lot of "natural" consequences to many laws. It is very possible that Lucifer's banishment was a natural consequence of breaking that law, and therefore there was no need for it to be enforced or forced. And the thought just occurred to me that perhaps the "prodigal son" is an allegory of Lucifer - who took his inheritance (his first estate) and left.... Oooh now there's a thought. The prodigal son came back, in the end....

I was doing exactly that - reading scripture, rendering an interpretation, and then positing an explanation in order to answer a question that may not normally be thought of as having a scriptural answer. Doctrine and Covenants 93 "Light and truth forsake that evil one." Seems to me Satan doesn't have that light in him.... You're talking about the Light that quickeneth, the light of truth. I'm talking about the knowledge of good and evil, that thing we call conscience. The two are seperate and distinct - though related. Or perhaps more accurately, seperate and distinct functions of the same thing. That statement was made within the context of my previous post - where I presented a dichotomy:1. Transgression in the pre-mortal life with out knowledge of good and evil and 2. Sin in the premortal life with knowledge of good and evil. If you want to know which of the two is the case, you must determine when man gained knowledge of good and evil. This seems pretty clearly defined as happening in the Garden of Eden, which heavily implies that we lacked this knowledge in the pre-mortal life. Allow me to clarify that having a choice between two options does not necessarily mean you know which of the two is "good" or "evil". Agency != free will. You have to understand, my "theory" (for it is that, in the scientific use of the term) does not eliminate individual choice or even opposing forces. It only requires that we did not have a full understanding of these forces when we made our choices in the pre-mortal life. Also, you obviously didn't read my follow-up questions regarding how Satan could have obtained the knowledge of good and evil on his own if the rest of us had to wait until mortality. However, I think I might have a solution there. Even in ignorance, transgression of the law (not sin) still requires repentance - when we have learned the law and recognize our past transgression we are required to repent of it. It's possible that Lucifer transgressed the law in ignorance when he went to take God's glory - however upon learning the law he still would have been required to repent. His failure to do so (stubborness?) would have merited his punishment. Choice requires knowledge of which choices are available, but not necessarily knowledge of what those choices mean or which option is the best one. Again, agency != (that means NOT EQUALS for those non-geeks) choice. Agency means understanding your choice and being accountable to the consequences of that choice. I point you to Moses 7 which explicitly states that man did not have agency until the Garden of Eden (the fall): "The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;" And for future reference, when copying and pasting from scriptures.lds.org, it's useful to disable footnote markers. This can be done by clicking "options" in the upper right hand corner, or (my preferred method) clicking "print" and then checking "hide footnote indicators".

We had freedom of choice, but not "agency" in the sense of the ability to choose good and evil - since we had no knowledge of good and evil. And the "review of our lives" - you mean like your whole life flashing before your eyes? I don't think there's any doctrine for that There is a "review" that occurs at the judgement where our lives and the choices we made are weighed against our repentance. But this happens at the final judgement, not when we die; and I don't think it's anything like a movie. There is a point where the veil will be removed and we'll remember the pre-mortal life - but it won't be like some movie either, it'll be a perfect memory, like suddenly remembering an event from your childhood. I don't have a clue when the veil is finally removed...

W00t for right answers. 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. How did Satan rebel without having agency to exercise? 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. 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: 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 :) See above. This verse is talking about the false doctrine of original sin, not being "born again" or any other kind of convoluted interpretation. If we didn't get our agency until mortality, why did Satan get it before the rest of us? 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".

The squirrel photo to end all squirrel photos......

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good to know. I don't think it changes anything, but at least I'm no longer operating under a false assumption. So what about aliens? They A: would have bodies and B: would be God's creation. Are they human? Does the atonement apply to them? Hypothetically speaking, if you don't believe in aliens. I do believe I've read scriptures or the like that support Justice's statement, but I'm not sure where to look for a reference at just this moment. If I come across something or remember anything I'll be sure to post it. I think the practical benefit would be a greater understanding of the commandment to "forgive all men" and a greater capacity for forgiveness in general. This, of course, requires that we would understand such "doctrine" properly and not misinterpret or misobey (I think I just invented a word) it. Let me give an example in reverse. When my mom died, I didn't blame the guy who hit her, I blamed God for not intervening. I believed (and still do believe) that letting someone die when you have the power and ability to prevent it is just the same as if you had killed them yourself. As an example: if I were to hold a gun to your friend's head and all you had to do was say "please don't" and I would put the gun down - if you chose not to say it, knowing I would kill your friend, by my logic you would be just as guilty as me of your friend's death. It was by this logic that I felt God was ultimately culpable for my mom's death. I still do believe that, and it's been a long road learning how to understand, accept, and forgive God's actions in that situation. In my case, learning to forgive God was more difficult and more important than forgiving the druggie behind the wheel who actually did the deed. By the same token, forgiving Satan for being the instigator behind the temptations and hardships that befall us - even when they are brought on us by other people - may be more important in the long term. Maybe. It's just a theory. I can forgive someone even if they don't repent. Therefore, a person can be forgiven (by me) and still be damned. However, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have the advantage of being allowed to choose who to forgive, and they withold their forgiveness from those who do not repent. So "Divine forgiveness" only comes to those who are worthy of it, and they are they who are not damned.The real question boils down to "Can Satan repent?" If he still has his agency (by the first definition, anyway) then yes, I would say he can. If we use the second definition of free agency, then Satan is basically bound "by contract" to his fate and ultimately only God knows what the full terms of that contract are.

Oooh I LOVE deep conversations VERY good point. We are also commanded to forgive ALL men but "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive." It could be that we are required to forgive the devil, even if Heavenly Father retains the option not to. All in all, so long as you maintain your focus on righteousness and don't let your "forgiveness" move you anywhere towards sympathy, I don't think such an exercise in forgiveness could be harmful. But I could also be wrong - who knows? But then - forgiveness does require that an offense be made. What if we are not offended by Satan's temptations? Is there any need for forgiveness? And finally - we can forgive others (possibly including Satan) regardless of whether or not they're repentant. Heavenly Father reserves the right to forgive only those who truly repent. Whether or not Satan can repent... good question. I thought to myself a while back about what if any of that 1/3 that followed him decided to repent? Are they completely lost or can they regain their first estate? Which brings me to another question. Sorry for this rambling. We talk about the free agency of man. Does Lucifer have free agency to tempt man? If he does, that means he has a pretty good gift to use. It also is very ironic because that was something he was against the whole time (free agency). Could God have given that to him to show him what it would be like (of course without a body) to use it? free agent: a person who is self-determining and is not responsible for his or her actions to any authority. If Satan has no agency, or he lacks the ability to choose for himself, then who chooses for him? This "begs the question" ( Vort ) if Satan isn't in control of himself, who is controlling him? Does this boil down to a sort of "mind control" and then wouldn't the "controller" (ie God) be culpable for Satan's actions? That one almost borders on heresy.... Since God can not sin (or be responsible for sin) we might consider this a counter-proof and therefore conclude that Satan does have agency - that is he is self-determining and no one else is responsible for his actions. Then again, my understanding of what agency is and how it works may be totally bollocks. In our culture "agency" and especially "free agency" refers to the state of being a "free agent" that is, not bound by contract or duty and free to offer services or loyalty to the object of his choice (ie in sports). Satan already made his choice and thereby "signed a contract" obligating him to follow through on the course he set. Basically, he would have choice, but all of his choices are bound by that first choice he made.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy of assuming the truth of the point raised in the question - circular reasoning, as you say. However, "to beg the question" also has an colloquial usage for "raising a question as the direct result of a statement". This particular definition doesn't show up on dictionary.com - but I've heard it used often enough to consider it ubiquitous. This definition is available on wiktionary.org: beg the question - Wiktionary Are you going to accuse me of equivocation now? :edit: I'm going to throw in there that the "proper" linguistic usage of "beg the question" as you described it is idiomatic - its meaning is not discernable from its constituent parts. The common "misused" definition which I used is the usage that actually makes sense when you look at the phrase semantically.

You're saying that angels are a different species than man? Even though modern prophets have said that we are the same species as God... Actually we know that angels are those who have already lived on Earth (ie the ANGEL Moroni) - which tells me that we're the same species. It also tells me that technically, Lucifer is not (and never was) qualified as an angel. Any place where you would see him referred to as thus is either a symbolic alliteration or just plain incorrect.

Dogmatically, Satan is screwed. However, if you give any credit at all to the Gnostic Gospels - specifically the Gospel of Judas, there's room for the interpretation that Judas didn't betray Christ but that Christ asked Judas to turn him over to the magistrate in order to fulfill the plan Christ had set in motion for his death and resurrection. Along the same vein, it's possible that Lucifer was "called" to play the adversary in order to provide us with the necessary temptation. However, this idea would call into question all of the accepted scripture and revelation we have regarding the war in the premortal existence and the final battle with Satan at the end of the millenium. However, our accepted belief about Lucifer's fall does beg the question: What if he had never fallen in the first place? Suppose he'd been a good guy from the start, what would Heavenly Father have done to provide us with temptation? I'm sure he'd have come up with something, but I'm not sure we could comprehend what that might have been (I'll entertain suggestions!). My personal feeling on the matter - whether Lucifer goes there or not - is that Outer Darkness is the one place where you are completely and totally screwed. No light, no truth, no love, no joy, no happiness, and NO PROGRESSION. EVER. While the accepted dogma (and scripturally supported) is that there is no progression in any of the kingdoms except the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom, there is also scriptural evidence that there is or can be progression in these kingdoms - albeit incredibly slowly. If true, this would make Outer Darkness a truly unfortunate fate. Providing for any sort of progression out of Outer Darkness defeats the purpose of it as the ultimate punishment. And just to avoid any debate on the matter - this is all pure speculation and theory and absolutely none of it is doctrinal. Whether or not Satan goes to outer darkness or whether or not he could ever be forgiven are questions that do not affect our own personal salvation and therefore they may not have a "doctrinal" answer.

Case in point:

An honest day's work. http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00029/00029939.jpg Say Cheese! http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00028/00028934.jpg MINE! http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00018/00018306.jpg Those Western infidels must Die! http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00001/00001753.jpg Eat this, Taliban scum! http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00001/00001752.jpg And my personal favorite :) http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/miami%20squirrel.JPG

Doctrine and Covenants 131 "He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase." While even the Telestial Kingdom (the lowest one) is much better than this earthly life, if you don't live worthy of the Celestial Kingdom (and the highest degree within that Kingdom), you are stuck where you are. The real reward for the faithful is "eternal progression" - the idea that we can continue to learn and grow throughout all eternity. We believe that through faithfulness and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel that we can, eventually, progress to become as God. But only those worthy of exaltation in the highest degree within the Celestial Kingdom can achieve this goal. Everyone else's progression stops dead. So the danger is that you could miss out on eternal blessings; that you could not achieve the greater glory. And if you're really bad - you're in danger of outer darkness - an eternal hell for only the most evil of evil people, that place where Satan will dwell.

W00t!