A question about Satan's plan

[JohnnyRudick]

All I know is my head hurts when I try to understand his logic.

Maybe he IS a lawyer. :)

I don't mean any offense by this post. I realize people are different. His head probably hurts when he reads my logic, too. He is entitled to his opinion, and I do try hard to understand him.

I meant no offense either.

I just seriously began to wonder if he wern't just playing with us.

Bro. Rudick

[Vort]

I think I understand your question. You are saying that just because Satan planned to usurp God's glory for himself is not proof he had a plan to oppose God's plan.

Yes, I am saying that. But I am saying more. LDS mythology (as opposed to LDS doctrine) goes more or less like this:

• Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior.
• Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right.
• We all voted on the plan. Jesus won.
• Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven.

This is what I was taught as a child, and I suspect what many here were taught. I did not realize until I reached adulthood that I had been misled. (I was going to say "I had been lied to", but that would be too harsh; I'm sure my teachers were not intentionally teaching false doctrine. But intentionally or not, they did teach me false doctrine.)

The facts of the above mythology are these:

• Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior. FALSE: The plan was the Father's, and Jesus volunteered (or more likely was called) to be the Savior.
• Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right. (We'll come back to this one.)
• We all voted on the plan. Jesus won. FALSE: There was no "vote". The Father said, "I will send the first".
• Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven. FALSE: Well, not utterly false, but Satan and his minions were cast out for open rebellion against God, not merely for believing or even teaching some "alternate plan".

When I discovered through scripture and doctrinal study as a young adult (missionary) that #1, #3, and #4 above are false -- and I assume you won't argue that they are, in fact, false and even apostate doctrines -- I began to wonder about #2. I searched diligently through the scriptures, and found nothing to indicate that #2 was true. That was over 25 years ago, and in that time I've read the Book of Mormon dozens of times and the other standard works several times through, and have never found that elusive passage that speaks of Lucifer's "plan".

I dislike being deceived, even unintentionally. I was taught falsehoods as a child. I will not continue to promulgate those falsehoods as an adult. If you believe that Satan had formulated some grand plan to replace the Father's, all I ask is that you prove it from scripture.

D&C 29:

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

1. Satan rebelled against God

2. Satan sought God's honor

3. God's honor is His power

4. Satan turned away 1/3 of the hosts of heaven, because of their agency

What is this scripture saying? What is agency? Who gave man his agency?

• It appears to me that the scripture is saying that Satan wanted the Father's glory [honor, power], rebelled against God, and turned away the hearts (or whatever the spiritual equivalent of "hearts" is) of "a third part" (which may or may not mean 33.3%) of the armies of heaven.
• "Agency" is the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts.
• God gave man his agency, so far as we know, though I acknowledge the distinct possibility that agency is an inherent attribute of human intelligence.

Moses 7:

32 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;

1. God gave man his agency in the garden of Eden.

In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.

Ok, here is the seeming contradiction.

1. Satan turned 1/3 of the hosts of heaven away from Him because of their God-given agency.

2. God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden.

It's only a contradiction if you assume that #2 means man did not have agency before it was bestowed in the garden of Eden. I see no reason to make that assumption.

If God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden, how was it man chose against God in the pre-mortal existence (which was before the Garden of Eden)?

God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. So therefore, man did not live before then. Oh, wait, but we did in fact live before then, just not as "a living soul", i.e. body and spirit.

Clearly, we had agency premortally. Otherwise, there would have been no way to choose to follow the Father and the Son or to follow Lucifer.

Answer: Man has inherent agency to act for himself, which God will not take away. This is true from the moment he is "created" by God. What God gave man in the Garden of Eden was a place (earth) with opposites (multiply and replenish the earth, yet do not eat of the tree of that knowledge) that he may freely exercise his agency and be redeemed for choosing against God's will. This abilty to freely exercise his agency to choose against God's will was not given to man in the pre-mortal existence.

This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.

Moses 4:

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

Satan sought.

Satan planned.

Satan sought to destroy man's agency which God had given him in the Garden of Eden.

Satan wanted that which was oppostie of what God wanted, or he opposed His plan.

Satan planned to take away man's agency on earth.

Which I acknowledged from the very beginning. But this is not "the plan of Lucifer" referred to in #2 above; you know, the plan that we had to "vote on" premortally. As I have said several times in this thread, Satan's "plan", insofar as he has a plan, is:

• To usurp God's glory
• To destroy man's agency

Satan planned to take away what God had predetermined to give them.

Giving man his agency was essential to his salvation. God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Giving man his agency was the power God possessed that Satan wanted.

Interesting theory, but you have no way of establishing this from scripture. This is conjecture on your part. Even understanding it, much less establishing it, would require a deeper understanding of the nature and mechanics of agency than we have been given.

D&C 29:

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

Satan is saying, "Give me the ability to reatin or give to man his agency. Let me take away his agency and I'll show you how we can save them all. I'm going to change your plan. I have my own plan."

That's not at all what Satan said. I agree it is your personal belief of what Satan said, but it's not what the scriptures record. You are perfectly welcome to your own personal interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, you are even perfectly welcome to tell everyone what your personal interpretation is. But you have no authority to establish that interpretation as LDS doctrine, which it clearly is not.

Again, if you can simply show me scripture that unambiguously talks about Satan's "plan" that we supposedly "voted" on, please just show it to me. I'd love to read it.

[Vort]

"He was lying"

About what?

About being able to save all, "that one soul shall not be lost."

"But those who wished to believe him did so. . ."

Believe him about what? His plan?

No, about being able to save all, "that one soul shall not be lost."

He had to propose something.

Sure. He proposed that he be the chosen Savior, and that if chosen, he would see to it "that one soul shall not be lost", and therefore the glory would be his, not the Father's.

He had to lay out some grandiose design to entice.

What was it.

It was the promise "that one soul shall not be lost."

Three or four sentences?

How about one sentence, repeated three or four times?

[Vort]

Do y'all think that Vort is for real on this???

Nah. If he disagrees with you, he's probably just dinking around. After all, how could any reasonable person have an opinion that differs from yours?

Just wondering.

He seems to be doing a lawyer's trick here.

Yeah. Those stupid lawyers, always arguing from logic and what the text actually says instead of what they WANT the text to say. No wonder we can't stand 'em.

Just a thought.

Bro. Rudick

Great thought, brother!

[Vort]

All I know is my head hurts when I try to understand his logic.

And why not? "My" logic is so arcane and difficult to follow, requiring as it does that we read a text and stick to what it says, and that we establish ideas based on previously accepted tenets. What reasonable person could possibly follow that?

Maybe he IS a lawyer. :)

Wow. I'm flattered. Or maybe offended.

"You know, you remind me of a pig I once owned." Uh, okay.

I don't mean any offense by this post. I realize people are different. His head probably hurts when he reads my logic, too.

No, my head doesn't hurt at all. I just don't see the logic you use as being particularly logical.

[Webster]

Wow! I leave for a little while and look what happens!

(And look. I'm a Senior member now. How'd that happen?)

Edited March 10, 2009 by Webster
Added parenthetical

[JohnnyRudick]

Yes, I am saying that. But I am saying more. LDS mythology (as opposed to LDS doctrine) goes more or less like this:

• Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior.
• Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right.
• We all voted on the plan. Jesus won.
• Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven.

This is what I was taught as a child, and I suspect what many here were taught. I did not realize until I reached adulthood that I had been misled. (I was going to say "I had been lied to", but that would be too harsh; I'm sure my teachers were not intentionally teaching false doctrine. But intentionally or not, they did teach me false doctrine.)

The facts of the above mythology are these:

• Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior. FALSE: The plan was the Father's, and Jesus volunteered (or more likely was called) to be the Savior.
• Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right. (We'll come back to this one.)
• We all voted on the plan. Jesus won. FALSE: There was no "vote". The Father said, "I will send the first".
• Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven. FALSE: Well, not utterly false, but Satan and his minions were cast out for open rebellion against God, not merely for believing or even teaching some "alternate plan".

When I discovered through scripture and doctrinal study as a young adult (missionary) that #1, #3, and #4 above are false -- and I assume you won't argue that they are, in fact, false and even apostate doctrines -- I began to wonder about #2. I searched diligently through the scriptures, and found nothing to indicate that #2 was true. That was over 25 years ago, and in that time I've read the Book of Mormon dozens of times and the other standard works several times through, and have never found that elusive passage that speaks of Lucifer's "plan".

I dislike being deceived, even unintentionally. I was taught falsehoods as a child. I will not continue to promulgate those falsehoods as an adult. If you believe that Satan had formulated some grand plan to replace the Father's, all I ask is that you prove it from scripture.

• It appears to me that the scripture is saying that Satan wanted the Father's glory [honor, power], rebelled against God, and turned away the hearts (or whatever the spiritual equivalent of "hearts" is) of "a third part" (which may or may not mean 33.3%) of the armies of heaven.
• "Agency" is the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts.
• God gave man his agency, so far as we know, though I acknowledge the distinct possibility that agency is an inherent attribute of human intelligence.

In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.

It's only a contradiction if you assume that #2 means man did not have agency before it was bestowed in the garden of Eden. I see no reason to make that assumption.

God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. So therefore, man did not live before then. Oh, wait, but we did in fact live before then, just not as "a living soul", i.e. body and spirit.

Clearly, we had agency premortally. Otherwise, there would have been no way to choose to follow the Father and the Son or to follow Lucifer.

This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.

Which I acknowledged from the very beginning. But this is not "the plan of Lucifer" referred to in #2 above; you know, the plan that we had to "vote on" premortally. As I have said several times in this thread, Satan's "plan", insofar as he has a plan, is:

• To usurp God's glory
• To destroy man's agency

Interesting theory, but you have no way of establishing this from scripture. This is conjecture on your part. Even understanding it, much less establishing it, would require a deeper understanding of the nature and mechanics of agency than we have been given.

That's not at all what Satan said. I agree it is your personal belief of what Satan said, but it's not what the scriptures record. You are perfectly welcome to your own personal interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, you are even perfectly welcome to tell everyone what your personal interpretation is. But you have no authority to establish that interpretation as LDS doctrine, which it clearly is not.

Again, if you can simply show me scripture that unambiguously talks about Satan's "plan" that we supposedly "voted" on, please just show it to me. I'd love to read it.

You are speaking a lot plainer here and I at last can follow your thinking.

Very interesting.

I agree with most of it completely and the rest I will not blame on falsehood as much as conjecture.

I still believe that Satan had a plan:D

But what that plan is for sure I wonder.

OK. I see it that the Father wanted to send someone who would redeem mankind from the fall which would come.

Now I must add that it must have come up (here I go again;) that it must needs be that who ever the Father sent must be a god-man. A man with the power of God.

From His mother He would gain mortality and the power to lay down His life and from His Father He would have the power of God and have the power to take up His life again.

This would be a necessity.

Now this sounded very good to Lucifer and said "send me" and the famous "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

Jehovah said He would go and as usual He would give the Glory to the Father.

The Father said He would send Jehovah and Lucifer was very upset all about it.

But

Satan still. . .

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 10, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling

[JohnnyRudick]

Wow! I leave for a little while and look what happens!

(And look. I'm a Senior member now. How'd that happen?)

Yeah, git tin' real interestin' around here.

Congrats:)

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.

Then you missed it in this scripture:

D&C 29:

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

A third part of heaven (which I'm not necessarily agreeing that this is speaking about the fraction 1/3) fell from heaven because of their agency.

Whoever it was that fell (I believe it was those that were like us, children of God) that chose against him because of their agency in the pre-mortal existence.

It's only a contradiction if you assume that #2 means man did not have agency before it was bestowed in the garden of Eden. I see no reason to make that assumption.

The supposed contradiction I was referring to was that one scripture says "God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden," and the other says that "some fell in the pre-mortal existence, before man was in the Garden, because of their agency."

I was attempting to explain what I think God meant by "giving man his agency in the Garden of Eden" since man did have his agency in the pre-mortal existence, according to scripture.

There is a distinct difference, and I believe if you read my explanation very slowly, and perhaps prayerfully, you will see I present very good evidence for my case.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Answer: Man has inherent agency to act for himself, which God will not take away. This is true from the moment he is "created" by God. What God gave man in the Garden of Eden was a place (earth) with opposites (multiply and replenish the earth, yet do not eat of the tree of that knowledge) that he may freely exercise his agency and be redeemed for choosing against God's will. This abilty to freely exercise his agency to choose against God's will was not given to man in the pre-mortal existence.

This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.

There is a principle that says it's not good to get something for free. To appreciate something you have to do at least some little thing to earn it.

I'm going to show you Alma 12 again, and you are going to have to read, study, and ponder about it.

14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

15 But this cannot be; we must come forth and stand before him in his glory, and in his power, and in his might, majesty, and dominion, and acknowledge to our everlasting shame that all his judgments are just; that he is just in all his works, and that he is merciful unto the children of men, and that he has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance.

What is the difference between:

1. The consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of life immediately after partaking of the first fruit

2. The consequences of a man wasting his mortal probation and choosing against Christ, and never repenting

The consequences are the same. However, in the first case, man would not have his agency to choose damnation. In the 2nd, at least man has a choice and that makes God's judgement against him just.

Continue:

16 And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness.

These are the consequences I stated above for not repenting (2).

17 Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.

According to his will, desire, or plan. He tried to remove man's agency and bind them to choose his will.

18 Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God’s justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption.

Again, review the 2 consequences above. In both cases, there cannot be a spiritual redemption (or restoration) from choosing against God's will. Nor can there be a spiritual redemption of man, through repentance, if there were no mortal probation period.

23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

Physical death was God's PLAN to allow man to "freely use his agency" and have the opportunity to choose against God's will, so that man could see God's plan is the only way. Choosing against God's will in His presence meant there could be no redemption. However, God made a space, place, or time for man to exercise his agency, repent, and return to Him.

24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.

Read those verses slowly until it sinks in. Death was God's plan for man to experience the opposition, repent, and then return to Him with full purpose of heart, having been reborn from their rebellious state (carnal, sensual, devilish) to a man of God, wanting only God's will continually.

Through mortality He could provide means to be redeemed from choosing against Him, which all were "prone" to do once they were "given their agency to use freely, which includes opposition." We needed a space, place, or time to do that outside of God's presence, because if we did it in His presence, no unclean thing can dwell with Him.

25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.

Redemption hinges on this "spiritual and physical death" that came to man. The restoration from and resurrection from these 2 states was part of God's plan, to be accomplished by sending Jehova to earth and redeem man by reversing the effects of the fall, and brining all back into His presence. This required a Savior, one that would take the just punishment for all those choices that were made while man was in the mortal state.

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.

Do you see how Satan tried to remove the mortal probation period so man could NOT exercise his agency freely? All Satan had to do was have Eve eat the tree of life after she ate the first fruit, then all men would have been subject to Satan, because there could not have been a mortal probation, and there could have been no redemption.

27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

Satan's plan, to destroy the agency of man, or the mortal probation period, was thwarted. Satan hasn't given up, though. Since he did not succeed in making all men subject to him, he is now trying to bind as many as he can, and feels he will do as much damage to God's plan as possible. It is true that many are lost while on earth, but he is also succeeding in making the reward of the righteous just.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Justice
Missed cross-ref letter.

[Justice]

In simple terms, without scripture...

God said man had agency in the pre-mortal existence.

God said He gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden.

There is a contradiction. How can God give man his agency after he already had it?

Well, in the pre-mortal existence God had not created a space, time, or state where man could "freely exercise his agency," and choose against God's will, and not suffer eternal damnation for doing so.

By creating an earth, with the intention of having it "fall" through transgression, man would be placed in a space, state, or time that he could exercise his agency and be redeemed.

A novel idea! Let's do it!

Remember, this would bring about the 2 things that we wanted in order to be like Father in Heaven.

1) A physical body.

2) The knowledge of good and evil.

Satan's plan had to have these 2 ideas or no one would have chosen it, not even him. So, Satan wanted to give man a physical body, and the knowledge of good and evil. However, he sought a way to bind everyone to his will, and (in his estimation) save everyone. So, to restate, for his plan to save everyone, it had to include those 2 things we all knew we needed. That meant, he had to follow God's plan through the point where Eve partook of the fruit to gain the knowledge we sought. Satan had to propose to alter the plan after that.

That's really all I'm saying, and I have shown many scriptures that support all this.

Side note, isn't it interesting what you can get by altering just one letter?

good > God

evil > devil

Anyway, just wanted to word it very simply for those who do not have the notion to read my long-winded posts.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Oh, and my whole idea for bringing this up was to refute options 1,2, and 4 in the poll.

If Satan wanted to follow God's plan up to the point after Eve partook of the fruit, that means he also wanted man to have "opposition and law." Also, interestingly enough, Eve partaking of the fruit was also after God granted to man the "permission" to act for himself, because the "safety net" of the fall and coming mortality was in place.

So, what Satan wanted was for God to "give man his agency" and then man be forced to give it to him, since God would not give it to him directly. Or, he wanted God to give him his honor or power, which was the fact that God gave man his agency.

Once we gave him our agency, he then could redeem us by making us choose right and eliminating the need for repentance, or the need for a mortal probation period, so he supposed. Since Eve was immortal, we all would be too. And since there was no need for repentance, all would be saved unconditionally, since repentance was the condition.

Clear as mud?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Justice

[Hemidakota]

Clear as mud....

[Webster]

To Justice:

I'm not sure I'm clear on your idea. You say Satan wanted to give Eve the Tree of Life after she partook of the Tree of Knowledge. Is that part of his original proposal from the pre-mortal existance that he would use to redeem / 'save' all? Or is that plan B after he was rejected?

To me it seems that if Eve became immortal in her fallen condition that would be highly problematic. She would basically be an immortal, telestial being, which in my mind means she cannot have children. Her state would seem to be more like a translated being, not a resurrected being. I just see too many problems, including how would you call Eve 'saved' when she is an immortal, yet still 'fallen', telestial being? And I thought only immortal beings, exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom could have increase.

Anyway, as I have said before, I like hearing the different opinions, but I see more problems rather than answers on that one.

[JohnnyRudick]

To Justice:

I'm not sure I'm clear on your idea. You say Satan wanted to give Eve the Tree of Life after she partook of the Tree of Knowledge. Is that part of his original proposal from the pre-mortal existance that he would use to redeem / 'save' all? Or is that plan B after he was rejected?

To me it seems that if Eve became immortal in her fallen condition that would be highly problematic. She would basically be an immortal, telestial being, which in my mind means she cannot have children. Her state would seem to be more like a translated being, not a resurrected being. I just see too many problems, including how would you call Eve 'saved' when she is an immortal, yet still 'fallen', telestial being? And I thought only immortal beings, exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom could have increase.

Anyway, as I have said before, I like hearing the different opinions, but I see more problems rather than answers on that one.

I have nothing to say at this point.

All of the posts so far have been great and have my head spinning.

I must say I am learning a lot.

Thanks to everyone:p

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

I'm not sure I'm clear on your idea. You say Satan wanted to give Eve the Tree of Life after she partook of the Tree of Knowledge.

I'm also saying that Alma alluded to this idea already, as if it existed already.

Is that part of his original proposal from the pre-mortal existance that he would use to redeem / 'save' all? Or is that plan B after he was rejected?

Remember that Satan didn't alter God's plan very much. As I said, it still needed to have all the "saving ingredients."

If you break it down, all Satan offered different was timing. It was God's intention for all to partake of the tree of life anyway. Satan just thought it would be better to do it immediately so not to risk any time in the fallen condition.

To me it seems that if Eve became immortal in her fallen condition that would be highly problematic.

That's exactly why God didn't propose the plan that way.

She would basically be an immortal, telestial being, which in my mind means she cannot have children.

I'm not certain about this. I think once she partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she understood how to have children. She was no longer innocent. She recognized that she was naked.

Before she partook of the fruit, I don't think she was physically incapable of having children, since God made their bodies perfect. I think all she lacked was the knowledge of how.

Her state would seem to be more like a translated being, not a resurrected being. I just see too many problems, including how would you call Eve 'saved' when she is an immortal, yet still 'fallen', telestial being?

I think it might be just as difficult for beings who have been in "time" to understand what time is like, as it is for mortal beings to understand forever.

Eve would have been "saved" physically, in that she wouldn't die, but she would remain spiritually dead. This is why God provided a space, time, or earth to dwell on while mortal. It was a prepratory state.

And I thought only immortal beings, exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom could have increase.

We are not immortal, nor perfected, and we can have offspring. The knowledge of how to have physical offspring was granted to us in mortality. I suspect the knowledge of how to have spiritual offspring will be granted to those who need to know.

Anyway, as I have said before, I like hearing the different opinions, but I see more problems rather than answers on that one.

I think once you learn something more questions do open up. I think it's a good thing you have more questions. I have been studying the creation, fall, and atonement pretty exclusively for almost 4 years, trying to gain as much knowledge from the scriptures as I can about them. I also use logic, because I believe truth is logical once oyu understand it's basic principles. So, I need to learn more basic principles, and then logic can be applied.

Thanks for your comments.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Justice

[Webster]

Vort: (Just trying to understand where you're coming from)

[point #2] Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right.

* * *

I searched diligently through the scriptures, and found nothing to indicate that #2 was true.

* * *

If you believe that Satan had formulated some grand plan to replace the Father's, all I ask is that you prove it from scripture.

Those who think he had a plan can't prove it from the minimal information in the scriptures.

Those who think he did not have a plan cannot prove that either. So we're all screwed. (That's why I'm been asking for opinions. I take it yours is that he had no plan; he only offered lies to try to get God's power.)

[Webster]

"Agency" is the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts.

While we're on this "prove it from the scriptures" kick, can you (or anyone else) prove that Agency as used in the scriptures is in fact, "the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts"? I don't think I could prove it, can you?

Can you find that definition of Agency in a dictionary? Again, I cannot (can you)?

Could the scriptures be using the word Agency as defined by the dictionary (which is different from how we commonly define it in the church)? I think so, but I cannot prove it one way or the other. Can you?

[Vort]

In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.

Then you missed it in this scripture:

D&C 29:

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

Exactly what is it that you think I "missed"?

A third part of heaven (which I'm not necessarily agreeing that this is speaking about the fraction 1/3) fell from heaven because of their agency.

Whoever it was that fell (I believe it was those that were like us, children of God) that chose against him because of their agency in the pre-mortal existence.

As I said: We had agency premortally. This is obvious. I take it you agree with me.

The supposed contradiction I was referring to was that one scripture says "God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden," and the other says that "some fell in the pre-mortal existence, before man was in the Garden, because of their agency."

But this is no contradiction, unless you believe that the first scripture somehow negates the possibility of premortal agency. I believe no such thing, so I feel no great urgency to reconcile the scriptures you mention.

I was attempting to explain what I think God meant by "giving man his agency in the Garden of Eden" since man did have his agency in the pre-mortal existence, according to scripture.

There is a distinct difference, and I believe if you read my explanation very slowly, and perhaps prayerfully, you will see I present very good evidence for my case.

I prayerfully consider the scriptures I read and the doctrine that is taught to me from authorized teachers of the word of God. I rarely or never prayerfully consider ideas taught to me from other sources, such as from anonymous people on internet discussion lists. So, no offense intended, but unless you are an apostle or other authorized teacher and definer of LDS doctrine, I have not the least intention of praying about your personal opinions and scriptural exegeses.

[Vort]

This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.

There is a principle that says it's not good to get something for free. To appreciate something you have to do at least some little thing to earn it.

That's a strange principle. My very existence is, as far as I have been taught, free. I did not earn it; I simply am. The scriptures clearly teach that salvation is free, if we will but accept it. No earning involved.

I'm going to show you Alma 12 again, and you are going to have to read, study, and ponder about it.

Of course, I have read and pondered Alma 12 literally dozens of times, very probably more than you have. I suspect what you're really saying is that I should ponder your interpretation of the meaning of Alma 12.

I realize you believe you have stumbled onto some great and deep truth, and hey, maybe you have. But you have no authority to go telling people to pray and ponder about your teachings. If indeed you have received revelation and teachings about this topic, you have no authority to share them. You may discuss them as your opinion, but when you start telling people to ponder and pray about your ideas, you have vastly overstepped your authoritative bounds.

What is the difference between:

1. The consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of life immediately after partaking of the first fruit

2. The consequences of a man wasting his mortal probation and choosing against Christ, and never repenting

Effectively, no difference.

The consequences are the same. However, in the first case, man would not have his agency to choose damnation.

Of course he did, when he knowingly disobeyed God and partook of the FORBIDDEN fruit. But it's a moot point, since God did not allow that to take place.

17 Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.

According to his will, desire, or plan. He tried to remove man's agency and bind them to choose his will.

Yes, we've already established that we agree on this.

23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

Physical death was God's PLAN to allow man to "freely use his agency" and have the opportunity to choose against God's will, so that man could see God's plan is the only way. Choosing against God's will in His presence meant there could be no redemption.

An interesting and even reasonable idea, but not logically necessary from your prequoted verses. Please demonstrate this from scripture.

Read those verses slowly until it sinks in.

I suspect what you really mean is, "Read those verses slowly until you agree with me." Your gloss of the verses you quote is by no means the only reasonable interpretation.

Through mortality He could provide means to be redeemed from choosing against Him, which all were "prone" to do once they were "given their agency to use freely, which includes opposition." We needed a space, place, or time to do that outside of God's presence, because if we did it in His presence, no unclean thing can dwell with Him.

D&C 93:38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

According to D&C 93:38, we are redeemed from the fall, and thus become again innocent before God in our infant state. But according to your doctrine, we must have also been innocent before our infant state, because we were unable to choose against God's will (i.e. sin, or become not innocent) premortally.

How do you rectify your doctrine with D&C 93:38?

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.

Do you see how Satan tried to remove the mortal probation period so man could NOT exercise his agency freely? All Satan had to do was have Eve eat the tree of life after she ate the first fruit, then all men would have been subject to Satan, because there could not have been a mortal probation, and there could have been no redemption.

What makes you think this would have affected anyone other than Adam and Eve? We have no evidence that (1) they would have been able to have children, or (2) if they could, that their children would have been immortal and thus denied the mortal probation. These are both speculative points on your part.

Satan's plan, to destroy the agency of man, or the mortal probation period, was thwarted. Satan hasn't given up, though. Since he did not succeed in making all men subject to him, he is now trying to bind as many as he can, and feels he will do as much damage to God's plan as possible. It is true that many are lost while on earth, but he is also succeeding in making the reward of the righteous just.

This is an interesting and worthy idea for discussion, but you weaken your own position when you urge people to "ponder and pray" about your ideas. Such language is an immediate tip-off to run far away. You would do better, I believe, just to say, "Hey, here is an interesting idea I came up with. What do you think?"

[Vort]

Vort: (Just trying to understand where you're coming from)

Those who think he had a plan can't prove it from the minimal information in the scriptures.

Those who think he did not have a plan cannot prove that either. So we're all screwed. (That's why I'm been asking for opinions. I take it yours is that he had no plan; he only offered lies to try to get God's power.)

I have no firm opinion on the matter, except that it is false doctrine to claim that Satan had "a plan" in opposition to "Jesus' plan". Whether or not it's true, it is not LDS doctrine as far as I have ever been able to find.

Before 1978, you could have talked with any number of decent, righteous LDS Priesthood holders (and leaders) who would have confidently assured you that no man of black African ancestry would ever hold the Priesthood of God until every other man had already had that opportunity. If you had asked them why, they would have told you all about lack of premortal valiancy and such. But it's all stuff and nonsense, and any of those good men still alive today must surely feel quite silly and ashamed of their foolish beliefs at the time.

Well, we all believe untrue, silly, and foolish things, so there is no great shame in that. But that doesn't mean we ought to just accept and embrace such drivel. We have scriptures, and we have brains. We ought to use both. And I know of no scripture teaching that Satan had "a plan" that counteracted "Jesus' plan".

By the way, saying that the scriptures don't mention that Satan DIDN'T have a plan, and therefore we can't know that he didn't, is illogical. I could just as easily say that the scriptures don't mention that God doesn't have twelve arms, so therefore maybe he does.

[Vort]

While we're on this "prove it from the scriptures" kick, can you (or anyone else) prove that Agency as used in the scriptures is in fact, "the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts"? I don't think I could prove it, can you?

"Justice" didn't ask for a proof; he asked for my definition. I gave it to him.

[JohnnyRudick]

While we're on this "prove it from the scriptures" kick, can you (or anyone else) prove that Agency as used in the scriptures is in fact, "the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts"? I don't think I could prove it, can you?

Can you find that definition of Agency in a dictionary? Again, I cannot (can you)?

Could the scriptures be using the word Agency as defined by the dictionary (which is different from how we commonly define it in the church)? I think so, but I cannot prove it one way or the other. Can you?

I believe this to be true yet I can't get my mind around many things much anymore.

In most cases of definition of words throughout history I have noticed that it is usually the way (context of the sentence) in which the word is used in it;s first recorded usage.

Also I couple that with my understanding of the word "agent" or more closely "free agent".

"Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and

sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had

given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power;

by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be

cast down;"

(free work, choice, choice of work)?

"Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 And it came to pass that Adam, being

tempted of the devil--for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for

he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my

power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he

away from me because of their agency;. . ."

("because of)?

"Doctrine and Covenants 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;"

(work)?

"Doctrine and Covenants 93:31 Behold, here is the agency of man,

and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from

the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not

the light.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:32 And every man whose spirit receiveth

not the light is under condemnation."

(work)?

"Doctrine and Covenants 101:78 That every man act in doctrine and

principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency

which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable

for his own sins in the day of judgment."

(free work, choice, choice of work)?

That is the method I use to define what "Agency" (and most other words) means.

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 11, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)

[Webster]

"Justice" didn't ask for a proof; he asked for my definition. I gave it to him.

I know. I'm asking, not Justice.

If you can find a good scripture, great.

If you can find a dictionary definition that seems to find, even more great.

If you can find a dictionary that says something about freedom and/or choice, I'd be amazed.

And if you don't care, then, oh well.

[Justice]

But this is no contradiction, unless you believe that the first scripture somehow negates the possibility of premortal agency. I believe no such thing, so I feel no great urgency to reconcile the scriptures you mention.

So, you don't think it appears to be a contradiction that man had his agency in the pre-mortal existence, and then God gave it to him again in the Garden of Eden?

Why would God give man something he already had?

Perhaps you need to explain this to me.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Justice