Ultimate forgiveness?

[Justice]

Don't be tickled, even Spirits in the pre-mortal world have agency and they can choose for themselves to either follow the eternal laws prescribed to that state or rebel, as Lucifer and many others who follow after him. If Lucifer could be called Perdition, he must have enough knowledge to obtain this fate where even the future plan of redemption could not have claim upon him/others. No person can enter into this state unless - he/she have sin or transgressed to the point of no return.

Agreed 100%

The difference is that those who came to earth didn't rebel against God, or they did not exercise their agency to sin.

Now could Lucifer sin? Yes! Our growth or instruction received in the Spirit world is not the same as our growth in mortality. I don't know how to explain it but as I already stated, one needs to look across the veil in order to observed the event. There was no murder. There was no stealing. There was no H/L. Etc... Now if you can understand how we lived, it was a more like living in a Terrestrial state and near the throne of GOD. What is constitute as sin for this state, is rebelling against our Creator after the plan was given forth - as a commandment. We do know, when given a commandment, if any of us violate it, then it is a sin or transgression, depending on our disposition of knowledge.

YES! We had agency but didn't fully understand it because we only had good to choose from. It wasn't until Lucifer (and his followers) rebelled against God that sin existed in God's presence.

Justice, at this point, I think it would be edification on what is present to go to the Godhead and present your point for clarity. Maybe it would require a look into the past to observe for oneself for a testimony. You may be surprise on what you may learn and see...

I have done this, at least in my way. I don't know why some of these things are made known to me. I'm sure there are others that could do lot more with the knowledge.

I am 100% sure of my interpretation of this agency question and why "gave" us our agency on earth. I'm certain that if anyone would study those verses, and any other important ones, and do as you suggest, that they would come to know also.

Does that make sense? However, I do enjoy you posting and your candor on any subject. It is refreshing to see it.

It makes sense. And, thank you, I do hold a lot back and that may be why it's hard to follow much of time. I know that truths like these are "caught and not taught," as Elder Bednar is so fond of saying.

[Justice]

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.

Yes, things like this are better discovered by one's self. It's often more difficult to read it before the spirit has the chance to witness it. I'm certain that as you continue to study this topic, something will speak to you as it did me.

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.

I am preparing a fireside for the youth on the fall and agency. I plan to present a different example to the youth.

I will tell one of the youth to pass out candy to everyone there. As I set the unopened bag down I will also instruct him to not touch the bag of candy because it is bad for him, but giving him the option to choose for himself.

If he doesn't touch the candy they will avoid the calories and harmful things associated to it. But, if he does, they will enjoy the sweet taste of the candy, which comes along with the bad effects. If he chooses not to take the candy then all can avoid both the negatives and the positives.

It's obtruse and simple, but it's much the same principle.

If you understand that the knowledge of how to procreate was somehow contained in the fruit (seed), or in the choice to eat the fruit (as you observantly mentioned), then you see how they chose to keep the first commandment over the second.

It becomes much more clear.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Yes, things like this are better discovered by one's self. It's often more difficult to read it before the spirit has the chance to witness it. I'm certain that as you continue to study this topic, something will speak to you as it did me.

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.

I am preparing a fireside for the youth on the fall and agency. I plan to present a different example to the youth.

I will tell one of the youth to pass out candy to everyone there. As I set the unopened bag down I will also instruct him to not touch the bag of candy because it is bad for him, but giving him the option to choose for himself.

If he doesn't touch the candy they will avoid the calories and harmful things associated to it. But, if he does, they will enjoy the sweet taste of the candy, which comes along with the bad effects. If he chooses not to take the candy then all can avoid both the negatives and the positives.

It's obtruse and simple, but it's much the same principle.

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:

If you understand that the knowledge of how to procreate was somehow contained in the fruit (seed), or in the choice to eat the fruit (as you observantly mentioned), then you see how they chose to keep the first commandment over the second.

It becomes much more clear.

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.

Edited August 31, 2009 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Traveler]

........

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.

Interesting thought - since Eve partook of the "furit" first without Adam.

The Traveler

[Justice]

Puf, I've thought about everything you mentioned in your post many a long nights, for years and years... intently. I am inquisitive by nature, and a designer by trade who loves to think of all possible scenarios before settling on the best one. I am good at it. I'm not perfect at it, but it is a gift. I can't possibly tell you all the scenarios for Adam and Eve and the fall that have gone thorugh my mind. One thing I can tell you that I have only discovered in the past 2 years, is that the Book of Mormon contains many more answers to these types of questions than I ever imagined before.

I have come to believe that the fruit trees were real. I agree with you that their primary purpose served as an allegory to somethign else. But, just like the brazen serpent, the trees were real they just were meant to point us to something else.

Thanks for the advice on the fireside. I'm not preparing it for a specific date or time, just to organize my thoughts. If I go through the material as if I'm preparing it for someone else I seem to be much more thorough in my thoughts and preparation. That example I gave will need some refining, but it is surprisingly close to the principles of the fall... at least in my understanding.

I hope I haven't come across as dismissing anyone's ideas. I have actually learned quite a bit on this forum. But, I suppose I am a bit close minded about some things.

[ferretrunner]

Oooh I LOVE deep conversations

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.

If I remember the missonary lessons correctly, we all had a "vote" in the plan. We all agreed to take on a physical body and the challenges that go along with being human. That implies we had free will or agency in the spirit form. In that vein, I would imagine Satan did, and does, have agency too. Perhaps what really "screws" him isn't what he did- it's that he won't (or can't) repent?

[rameumptom]

If I remember the missonary lessons correctly, we all had a "vote" in the plan. We all agreed to take on a physical body and the challenges that go along with being human. That implies we had free will or agency in the spirit form. In that vein, I would imagine Satan did, and does, have agency too. Perhaps what really "screws" him isn't what he did- it's that he won't (or can't) repent?

This is perhaps one of the biggest misunderstandings of the scriptures in the Church. The scriptures do not say there was a vote. Nor does it say we chose between the plans in an election. God established his plan. It was not up for debate. The only question God asked was: "whom shall I send?" Lucifer offered up a change in the plan as part of his stepping up for the position. But it was never voted on, nor considered. The scriptures tell us that God simply said, "I will choose the First."

We "voted" only in a sustaining vote. Nothing more. When Satan and his plan were not even considered, he rebelled.

[MaMeeshkaMow]

No active voting, but passive voting. Lucifer didn't call for a recount of votes? Haha.

[beefche]

This is perhaps one of the biggest misunderstandings of the scriptures in the Church. The scriptures do not say there was a vote. Nor does it say we chose between the plans in an election. God established his plan. It was not up for debate. The only question God asked was: "whom shall I send?" Lucifer offered up a change in the plan as part of his stepping up for the position. But it was never voted on, nor considered. The scriptures tell us that God simply said, "I will choose the First."

We "voted" only in a sustaining vote. Nothing more. When Satan and his plan were not even considered, he rebelled.

Agree. Our choice was the same there as it is here on earth--follow Christ and life or choose Satan and death.

[Hemidakota]

Many who inhabit this world were not partakers in the beginning and were not filled with joy when the plan was announced. It took those who accept the plan wholeheartedly in the beginning to convert the many who did not.