A question about Satan's plan


Webster
 Share

How would Satan have implemented his proposal to save all? (Leave additional comments if you like)  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. How would Satan have implemented his proposal to save all? (Leave additional comments if you like)

    • Require each person to atone for their own sins
    • Don't hold anyone accountable / Redeem all unconditionally
    • Force everyone to be good or to comply with the rules
    • Change the rules or laws so that nothing would be evil
    • Something else (please explain)
    • Don't know


Recommended Posts

How would Satan have implemented his proposal to save all?

I ask this because I have seen various ideas on the internet and was wondering what others thought. Take the poll and briefly share your ideas (or ideas you may have heard of) if you wish. Feel free to refer to books, articles, or websites if you like. Please no arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We know that Satan sought to take away man's agency (Moses 4:3). His plan was one of prevention, of preemption, of proactive control, of man's dependence on him. The LORD's plan was one of liberty, of a probationary state, of a judgment that would come only in the end, of man's independence through the Atonement of the Lamb.

That war in heaven was fought over this point: agency. Satan would have us give away our responsibilities and with them our control. And as Lehi so well pointed out in 2 Nephi 2, "righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

What was Satan's plan? To politicize salvation. Salvation under Satan's plan comes not through sacrifice, not through the merit, mercy, and power of the Messiah, but through Satan's benevolent dictatorship. Under this plan, evil would never be admitted into the earth. Satan, our dictator, would personally see to it and we all would be subjects of his. The political power structure under him would prevent any man to choose evil. But as Lehi pointed out, his preemption would also keep man from choosing good.

The LORD protected opposition, freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and ultimately our agency. (Moses 7:32).

The war in heaven that resulted on the question of agency continues today. In fact, the war rages tremendously. Those who were on the side of captivity, kept not their first estate. Those of us who stood on the side of agency came to the earth. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It is the second Article of Faith.

From Adam to this day, Satan has inspired men to take up paths toward political control of human beings. At every turn we are being pressured to accept some level of captivity, to give up some level of our agency. The pressure is shaded in tempting language, we are promised all the benefits of success without the hazards of responsibility, "one soul shall not be lost." (Moses 4:1) Indeed, many of those who support the usurpation of agency and the end of freedom have every good intention. They say: "Just give us control and we will end hunger, we will end poverty, we will end ignorance, we will take away the evils of the world."

All of these good intentions cannot make their failing efforts succeed. Men are constantly told: "Just give up one more freedom and that will be enough." After it is gone, another is always required to chase the ever illusive utopian ideal of a world without evil. What is worse, freedom itself is blamed for the evils of the world: "If only people could not choose evil, then there would be none." The only thing every really accomplished is the aggrandizement of a few through politicization at the expense of the many: "wherefore give me thine honor."

Our very salvation depended on our support for agency in the pre-mortal world. Can it be any different in our Second Estate?

"To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences?" -Ezra Taft Benson

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between your options 2) and 4)?

The above choices are not my own; they are various ideas that I've heard before. In my mind 3) and 4) are somewhat similar as it seems the intent of both is to make it so people do not sin, either by force or by changing the rules. The difference between 2) and 4) in my opinion, is that 4) changes the rules so people do not sin or are declared innocent while 2) implies that people would not be held accountable even when they do what's wrong, but they would be redeemed unconditionally anyway.

By the way, these are just the major ideas I've come across. Any others, or variations, are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for #2. He would not take away our agency by forcing us to choose correctly, but to take away the laws. If there are no commandments, there is no sin, and we return clean. We are born, live as a natural man (but not contrary to any law - thus no sin), and then we die. There is no development or redemption. My vision of Lucifer's plan is Anarchy and not Stepford. That was my impression anyway ... Thoughts?

Edited by Giant_Son
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for #2. He would not take away our agency by forcing us to choose correctly, but to take away the laws. If there are no commandments, there is no sin, and we return clean. We are born, live as a natural man (but not contrary to any law - thus no sin), and then we die. There is no development or redemption. My vision of Lucifer's plan is Anarchy and not Stepford. That was my impression anyway ... Thoughts?

What you said sounds like #4 to me. How is it different from #4, or what is it about #2 that you liked better? (My comment #4 above tries to differentiate numbers 2 and 4, but you may agree with my description.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said sounds like #4 to me. How is it different from #4, or what is it about #2 that you liked better? (My comment #4 above tries to differentiate numbers 2 and 4, but you may agree with my description.)

Not holding anyone accountable and making nothing evil sounds like the same thing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan was Heavenly Father's.

Christ wanted to follow through with it verbatim, as Father presented it. He also offered to be the Savior, if it was the Father's will.

Satan thought by changing one part of Father's plan it would allow all His children to return to Him. He wanted to remove agency.

There are certain reasons I have come to know why he wanted to remove agency, but it was his idea that he could expose all men to good and evil, and force them to choose the good. To force someone to do something is removing agency.

The answer is 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not holding anyone accountable and making nothing evil sounds like the same thing to me.

To me, they are opposites. If accountability is destroyed but laws still exist, you can do evil and be saved. If laws are destroyed then accountability is a moot point, since there is nothing you can do that is evil. In one, evil is possible but ignored; in the other, evil is impossible. One assumes law is eternal; the other assumes law is changeable.

Just my opinion, but I still think I see what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that Satan would not force righteousness. Instead, (regardless of the mechanics) he would make it so there was no penalty involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, they are opposites. If accountability is destroyed but laws still exist, you can do evil and be saved. If laws are destroyed then accountability is a moot point, since there is nothing you can do that is evil. In one, evil is possible but ignored; in the other, evil is impossible. One assumes law is eternal; the other assumes law is changeable.

Just my opinion, but I still think I see what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that Satan would not force righteousness. Instead, (regardless of the mechanics) he would make it so there was no penalty involved.

Webster, you're right that they're different - thanks for explaining. Your conclusion is right, though. My statement was that Satan's plan was to null the effects of justice (most likely by taking away the law, not the payment of sin). I guess that I would go with #4, then.

But, of course, I could be very wrong. I'm not basing my conclusion on any scripture. Justice could very well be right - his explanation sounds very reasonable to me, too.

Edited by Giant_Son
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Lucifer would have policed our thoughts and hearts. I don't see how he could have succeeded in his plan anyway. How can someone save us from ourselves? We are self destructive by nature. I think his plan would have failed and we would have been lost anyway. Lots of good conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan was Heavenly Father's.

Christ wanted to follow through with it verbatim, as Father presented it. He also offered to be the Savior, if it was the Father's will.

Satan thought by changing one part of Father's plan it would allow all His children to return to Him. He wanted to remove agency.

There are certain reasons I have come to know why he wanted to remove agency, but it was his idea that he could expose all men to good and evil, and force them to choose the good. To force someone to do something is removing agency.

The answer is 3.

I was going to say this.

I have heard too many people state it was Christ's plan or Satan's plan. No...it was always Heavenly Father's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

I didn't vote- I didn't see an 'Other' option, nor the option I think most accurately reflects the truth.

In my opinion, Satan could not have implemented his plan, even if the Father were to have given the go-ahead. Agency is an inalienable attribute of human nature, as core as the existence of intelligence. Just as the existence of matter requires said matter to react to extrinsic forces, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react to intrinsic forces- that is, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react, in a manner, to ideas and spiritual promptings. How that intelligence reacts is dictated by agency.

As far as Satan is concerned, it is my opinion Satan either A.) did not understand this and merely thought his plan could work, or B.) knew this and knew his plan could not work, yet continued to seek power for himself. Either way, it could not have worked. Just as God does not- cannot- force us to make one decision or another, another being has no power to take away our agency. I am reminded of the inhabitents of Ammonihah, who pretended to abide by the letter of the law, yet sought to overthrow the law of the land (Alma 8:10-13, 17).

Link to comment

I didn't vote- I didn't see an 'Other' option, nor the option I think most accurately reflects the truth.

In my opinion, Satan could not have implemented his plan, even if the Father were to have given the go-ahead. Agency is an inalienable attribute of human nature, as core as the existence of intelligence. Just as the existence of matter requires said matter to react to extrinsic forces, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react to intrinsic forces- that is, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react, in a manner, to ideas and spiritual promptings. How that intelligence reacts is dictated by agency.

As far as Satan is concerned, it is my opinion Satan either A.) did not understand this and merely thought his plan could work, or B.) knew this and knew his plan could not work, yet continued to seek power for himself. Either way, it could not have worked. Just as God does not- cannot- force us to make one decision or another, another being has no power to take away our agency. I am reminded of the inhabitents of Ammonihah, who pretended to abide by the letter of the law, yet sought to overthrow the law of the land (Alma 8:10-13, 17). I think, in the same way, Satan pretended his plan followed the letter of the Father's laws, yet Satan secretly plotted to foil the return of all the Father's spirit children to the Father. Satan, for all his cunning wickedness, was (and is) the ultimate fool, for he thought he could hide his plans from the Father of righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't vote- I didn't see an 'Other' option, nor the option I think most accurately reflects the truth.

In my opinion, Satan could not have implemented his plan, even if the Father were to have given the go-ahead. Agency is an inalienable attribute of human nature, as core as the existence of intelligence. Just as the existence of matter requires said matter to react to extrinsic forces, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react to intrinsic forces- that is, the existence of intelligence requires said intelligence to react, in a manner, to ideas and spiritual promptings. How that intelligence reacts is dictated by agency.

As far as Satan is concerned, it is my opinion Satan either A.) did not understand this and merely thought his plan could work, or B.) knew this and knew his plan could not work, yet continued to seek power for himself. Either way, it could not have worked. Just as God does not- cannot- force us to make one decision or another, another being has no power to take away our agency. I am reminded of the inhabitents of Ammonihah, who pretended to abide by the letter of the law, yet sought to overthrow the law of the land (Alma 8:10-13, 17). I think, in the same way, Satan pretended his plan followed the letter of the Father's laws, yet Satan secretly plotted to foil the return of all the Father's spirit children to the Father. Satan, for all his cunning wickedness, was (and is) the ultimate fool, for he thought he could hide his plans from the Father of righteousness.

I disagree, Maxel. It is a truism that agency can be acted upon: Ask any addict if they have entire free will in choosing. Ask anybody with a mental illness. Things can happen that are beyond your control, beyond your choosing.

"Can Agency be overridden." is not the question. That has already been answered by history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, Maxel. It is a truism that agency can be acted upon: Ask any addict if they have entire free will in choosing.

Quite frankly, said addict willingly gave up their 'agency' to choose. However, the agency is not gone as any addict can recover. Ask any recovered addict. I'm one; you can ask me- it's possible. Though our agency is suppressed and minimized, it is never fully taken away. In my opinion, having one's agency "acted upon" (that is, minimized or enlarged but not taken away) is different than having one's agency entirely taken away. It is my admittedly harsh opinion that an addict's agency is not taken away- only influenced to the degree that any option other than 'indulge in the addiction' is not realistically possible. I know this seems to disagree with what many GA's have said about addiction removing one's agency, but I don't think it does on the following grounds:

One's agency is a principle of action, like faith. A person's agency, or ability to choose, can be diminished or enlarged by a person's actions. Though a person can diminish his/her own agency to the point that, for all intents and purposes it does not exist, it never actually does not exist; it is never fully taken away. Therefore, to say an addiction 'removes' one's agency does not necessarily mean that one's agency is removed 100% by addiction- only that it is diminished to the point that it seems not to exist.

Ask anybody with a mental illness. Things can happen that are beyond your control, beyond your choosing.

As someone coping with serious mental illnesses, I can safely say the option has always been between not-doing-something and doing-something. I have never been taken control of by an outside force that eliminated all possible routes of action but one- even in my worse Jekyll-and-Hyde moments. There was always the choice to do what was right- however, that choice was made hazy by physical influences. As far as how I react to external stimuli (and here I group influences due to mental illness as an 'external stimuli'; as such is not part of my core spiritual nature), my choice between right and wrong has never been removed from me. On the contrary, I have only ever recovered by latching onto that small part of me that knows what is right and following those acitons. Some of the most agonizingly intense prayers I have ever prayed have been in the throes of a depression and hatred so severe that it rocked me to my core.

Part of what makes mental illness so hard, for me, is the realization that my agency has never been taken away, but I have allowed (overwhelming) influences to cloud my better judgment and change how I behave. However, the fact that my 'better judgment' still exists is a testimony, to me, that my agency has never been removed.

On a sidenote, I believe that possession by demons is entirely possible- yet in that case, it seems a person has willingly given up their own right to choose and, for a time, their agency is suppressed and overwhelmed by the intruding spirit. Agency is never, however, fully taken away, though it might seem such is the case. The failure to exercise a principle does not mean the principle does not exist. Also, one's willing submission to outside forces so strong that the person seems to have 'no other option' (such as in addiction) does not actually mean the person has lost all option to choose not to submit to said forces. Though the choice may very well be 'indulge or die', the choice still remains- though at that point, it's not much of a choice.

Another sidenote- I approach the situation with what I believe to be special insight due to my own mental illnesses. However, there are others who suffer from sicknesses far worse than I, and which seem to override agency much more than my own sickness (multiple personality disorder comes to mind). Frankly, I have no answer for those cases, yet I still feel the aforementioned idea that agency can never be taken away still holds, in some way.

Final sidenote- I suffer from clinical depression (it's genetic and goes back generations in my family) and cyclothymia (similar to bipolar disorder). Also, my preceding opinions are just that: my own opinions and, as such, I agree to disagree with anyone who feels otherwise. In my view, this is not a question with an answer that is 'so obvious' that any solution lends itself to obvious correctness.

"Can Agency be overridden." is not the question. That has already been answered by history.

I am curious- can you point to other examples? I am honestly curious and not trying to 'bait' you. I am curious to learn more about this.

EDIT: As I have been writing this, sundry questions have popped into my head related to the topic. Questions such as 'what effect does the Holy Ghost play in the retention of my agency despite depression and addiction'; 'what effect does Christ's atonement play in my retention of agency'; and 'what effect does faith play in my retention of agency?' These are causing me to reflect and may, in part, affect my opinion. If anyone has any insights, I'd be more than happy to learn from them. Especially relevant to this discussion is the second question. If Christ's atonement is responsible for the retention of agency despite addiction, mental illness, etc., then I admit Satans plan may have been theoretically possible. Right now, I'm somewhat confused and bewildered by this (to me) new idea.

Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting how “we” speculate about how Satan intended to bring about his plan. This is not rocket science my friends. Satan has been about implementing his plan from the beginning. The main concept in his plan is not about your status but his status. It is his desire to be an all powerful G-d to bring about and act as he will or wishes.

He wants to be your G-d. He wants you to believe in a G-d that will “take care” of you. Note the concept of “take care” is in direct opposition to “agency”. This is a very enticing concept. Even in our current political climate there are expectations that government will take care rather than foster agency or responsibility, accountability, stewardship and liberty.

I believe Satan has every desire to “take care” of his subjects. There appears to be speculation that Satan’s plan will not work. This is a most unfortunate error. His plan works very well, in fact with many people his plan is the only plan that will work. His plan has another name called Hell. And do not kid yourself. His ability to control and determine how his “subjects” are kept will work, has worked and is working exactly as he intends it to.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Back when I was still an active member, I had an Institute lesson that offered an excellent explanation for this scenario. I really wish I could remember the scripture references that were given (as I recall, there were several).

The explanation I was given fits closest to option 4, though it's slightly different. Rather than changing the laws and doctrines, Lucifer would have withheld them altogether. This would leave us without free agency as we wouldn't know right from wrong. If we don't know the law, then we can't break it. Therefore, there would be no sin because we wouldn't know righteousness. Basically, the entire world would be living in a pre-Fall state of ignorance and innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are self destructive by nature.

This here is something we need to tread on very lightly. At the time of the American Revolution and in the preceding centuries, it was argued by those in support of religious and political oppression that because men are born predisposed to destructive behaviour by virtue of original sin, there must be institutions which protect the man from himself. The Church, the King, law enforcement, they all must have power to be preemptive, to prevent a man from making bad decisions.

This falsehood also brought men to believe that certain races were born with less intellectual capacity and less integrity. These races were therefore kept in suspicion and total control: slavery.

John Locke argued (as did many before him) that man is born a blank slate: the "tabula rasa". We Mormons call it: "the viel." He argued that there is no predispositions born in a man. All he becomes, all he believes, all his thoughts and actions are learned.

Because of this, Locke argued that no institution can preempt man's evil predispositions because he has none. In fact, the classical liberal movement which came to be based on Locke's ideas looked to establish a society without such control. The United States came be one of the closest to such a society.

Man himself is not self destructive by nature. It is the strains and stresses put on him by his fellow man that lead him to destruction. And why does a man put the strains and stresses on him? Because he himself seeks self-preservation, the very opposite of self-destruction.

Although many members of the church and even some leaders at times have fallen into the error of believing that men are born with certain pre-dispositions, it is not true. It is a lie which the devil uses to get people to agree to give up on liberty. It is the lie that he used in the pre-mortal world. His followers wanted protection from their own behaviour more than they wanted freedom.

There are those who say: "Why won't the LORD just take away my temptations, just change me from an alcoholic?" It is because our liberty is his gift and he does not take it away. It is up to us in this life to choose.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless:

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie lists four things that are necessary for agency to exist: 1) Laws, 2) Opposites, 3) Knowledge of good and evil, 4) Free choice. It sounds like you're saying that Satan may have tried to prevent us from gaining a Knowledge of good and evil while Laws, Opposites, and Free choice would still remain. This would destroy agency according to McConkie.

So the idea would be that if we remained innocent (like Adam and Eve prior to the Fall or like little children prior to becoming accountable) we could not be condemned, and all must be 'saved'.

If you remember anything else, please feel free to add more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Godless:

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie lists four things that are necessary for agency to exist: 1) Laws, 2) Opposites, 3) Knowledge of good and evil, 4) Free choice. It sounds like you're saying that Satan may have tried to prevent us from gaining a Knowledge of good and evil while Laws, Opposites, and Free choice would still remain. This would destroy agency according to McConkie.

So the idea would be that if we remained innocent (like Adam and Eve prior to the Fall or like little children prior to becoming accountable) we could not be condemned, and all must be 'saved'.

If you remember anything else, please feel free to add more.

Actually, the point I was trying to make is that without the Law, the other three wouldn't exist. There would be no opposites because nothing would be defined. There would be no knowledge of good and evil. And there would be no free choice because there would be nothing to choose from. So through the simple act of denying us the Law, Lucifer would have denied us free will altogether. So McConkie's model fits perfectly in this scenario.

Again, I really wish that I could remember the scripture references that our teacher used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, Skousen's talk about the atonement hints that "Satan's plan" was a devious effort to unseat God. The idea was that when the elements (which Skousen claims maintain a degree of agency) saw that people who should not be saved were nonetheless being saved, they would come out in open revolt against a God whose "perfect justice" no longer awed them into compliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the point I was trying to make is that without the Law, the other three wouldn't exist. There would be no opposites because nothing would be defined. There would be no knowledge of good and evil. And there would be no free choice because there would be nothing to choose from. So through the simple act of denying us the Law, Lucifer would have denied us free will altogether. So McConkie's model fits perfectly in this scenario.

Again, I really wish that I could remember the scripture references that our teacher used.

I'm sorry I missed your point the first time, but in re-reading I see it now. Thanks.

I wonder if the scripture you are looking for is 2 Nephi 2:13 or Alma 42:17 or verses around that area. These verses talk about the implications of there being "no law". I will have to read them again with what you've said in mind. Let me know if these are what you're referring to, and any other ideas they may bring back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I'm sorry I missed your point the first time, but in re-reading I see it now. Thanks.

I wonder if the scripture you are looking for is 2 Nephi 2:13 or Alma 42:17 or verses around that area. These verses talk about the implications of there being "no law". I will have to read them again with what you've said in mind. Let me know if these are what you're referring to, and any other ideas they may bring back.

Yes! Those are the ones! 2 Nephi 2:13 in particular really articulates the point of view I'm trying to address. I think there are other verses in chapter 2 that support it as well, but I'm afraid I have no time at the moment. I'll try to dig up some more after I get off work now that you've steered me in the right direction.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This here is something we need to tread on very lightly. At the time of the American Revolution and in the preceding centuries, it was argued by those in support of religious and political oppression that because men are born predisposed to destructive behaviour by virtue of original sin, there must be institutions which protect the man from himself. The Church, the King, law enforcement, they all must have power to be preemptive, to prevent a man from making bad decisions.

This falsehood also brought men to believe that certain races were born with less intellectual capacity and less integrity. These races were therefore kept in suspicion and total control: slavery.

John Locke argued (as did many before him) that man is born a blank slate: the "tabula rasa". We Mormons call it: "the viel." He argued that there is no predispositions born in a man. All he becomes, all he believes, all his thoughts and actions are learned.

Because of this, Locke argued that no institution can preempt man's evil predispositions because he has none. In fact, the classical liberal movement which came to be based on Locke's ideas looked to establish a society without such control. The United States came be one of the closest to such a society.

Man himself is not self destructive by nature. It is the strains and stresses put on him by his fellow man that lead him to destruction. And why does a man put the strains and stresses on him? Because he himself seeks self-preservation, the very opposite of self-destruction.

Although many members of the church and even some leaders at times have fallen into the error of believing that men are born with certain pre-dispositions, it is not true. It is a lie which the devil uses to get people to agree to give up on liberty. It is the lie that he used in the pre-mortal world. His followers wanted protection from their own behaviour more than they wanted freedom.

There are those who say: "Why won't the LORD just take away my temptations, just change me from an alcoholic?" It is because our liberty is his gift and he does not take it away. It is up to us in this life to choose.

-a-train

I liked your post and perhaps we may discuss the more in detail. I thought much about your post and have come to the conclusion that there are limits and considerations to the concept of destructive by nature concept. Here is how I now believe this concept needs to be amended. I am glad you have brought up this idea or I would not have realized the implications to human society of individual destructive nature.

As individuals we are all destructive by nature. As long as we hold to our individual needs, wants, desires, passions, orientations or natures we become both destructive to ourselves and to society. Only by rising above the inclinations of self and becoming a member subject of society can we benefit society. I will define a member subject as someone that is a contributing member for good of society. The smallest unit of society that can in reality exist is a family. Without the basis of family society fails and withers in one generation. Only a family (smallest unit of society) that perpetrates marriage and family as the continuing basis can survive. Those that break away from and rebel against family based on an individual cause are indeed destructive.

We are predisposed to be selfish. Only by a process of discipline and learning (intelligently changing our predisposition to selfishness) can we change our destructive selfish nature. It is this destructive nature that is the cause of every destructive force in society and the reason laws are passed to protect individuals embracing family from intrusions of selfish individuals that rebel against social order and define themselves void of family.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share