Ultimate forgiveness?

[MaMeeshkaMow]

Wow, deep stuff guys! I think we had free agency in the pre-mortal existence as well, otherwise how did some become more valiant than others. Plus, we all had to choose which side we would be on. Do you ever wonder how you processed the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence in your mind? Do you think you had any doubts before saying you would side with Christ's plan? Did we debate it with others or do you think we said YES right away? Part of me says when we are shown a review of our lives when we die, we will be shown a "pre-view" of what it was like before. Bring out the popcorn. Jk

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Wow, deep stuff guys! I think we had free agency in the pre-mortal existence as well, otherwise how did some become more valiant than others. Plus, we all had to choose which side we would be on. Do you ever wonder how you processed the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence in your mind? Do you think you had any doubts before saying you would side with Christ's plan? Did we debate it with others or do you think we said YES right away? Part of me says when we are shown a review of our lives when we die, we will be shown a "pre-view" of what it was like before. Bring out the popcorn. Jk

We had freedom of choice, but not "agency" in the sense of the ability to choose good and evil - since we had no knowledge of good and evil.

And the "review of our lives" - you mean like your whole life flashing before your eyes? I don't think there's any doctrine for that There is a "review" that occurs at the judgement where our lives and the choices we made are weighed against our repentance. But this happens at the final judgement, not when we die; and I don't think it's anything like a movie. There is a point where the veil will be removed and we'll remember the pre-mortal life - but it won't be like some movie either, it'll be a perfect memory, like suddenly remembering an event from your childhood. I don't have a clue when the veil is finally removed...

[rameumptom]

Puf,

Adam and Eve DID have the light of Christ, otherwise they would not exist.

D&C 88 tells us:

7 Which truth shineth. This is the alight of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was bmade.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you astand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your aunderstandings;

12 Which alight proceedeth forth from the presence of God to bfill the immensity of space—

13 The alight which is in all things, which giveth blife to all things, which is the claw by which all things are governed, even the dpower of God who esitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

This shows me that all things, including Adam and Eve in the Garden had the light of Christ. Otherwise, they would not have life nor exist as conscious beings. They just did not know the fullness of the gospel, which was taught to them in mortality by an angel when Adam was making a sacrifice.

But they were still able to sin or transgress the law. This same light of Christ flows through the spirits of all, otherwise they would have no life.

[rameumptom]

We had freedom of choice, but not "agency" in the sense of the ability to choose good and evil - since we had no knowledge of good and evil.

This is a meaningless statement. Of COURSE we understood good and evil. This is why so many chose to follow Christ, while others rebelled. If they did not understand good vs evil, then how could God judge those who rebelled? Without such understanding, how could they become sons of perdition? How could God judge them?

Let's get back to what the scriptures teach, as one cannot have freedom of choice without some knowledge. We must be able to act, and not just be acted upon. There is opposition in all things, otherwise there is no agency. And that includes good vs evil.

Lucifer = spirit child of God

Lucifer's agency = rebellion and choosing to openly and knowingly sin against God

Therefore spirit children can choose to sin

Moses 4:

3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency 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 dcast down; 4 And he became aSatan, yea, even the bdevil, the father of all clies, to ddeceive and to blind men, and to lead them ecaptive at his will, even as many as would not fhearken unto my voice.

Agency was given to mankind in the premortal world. This allowed Satan to choose rebellion and the greatest of sins against God (absolute rebellion, denying the Holy Ghost and Christ). Also see D&C 76.

[MaMeeshkaMow]

Stand corrected, thanks. Experiencing/watching the fall of Lucifer, did that give us any knowledge about the difference of good and evil? Or can you only understand good/evil in the flesh (obviously evil spirits know the difference between them and God's angels). This is making me think about when Lucifer "became" evil? Did he become a sinner first, for not obeying God? I wonder how long it took from the time his plan got rejected and the time it took for him to be cast off. I'm wondering that because it doesn't seem like God would just say, "You don't like it, you're outta here!!" Could Satan himself have casted himself out in a way because no unclean thing can be in the presence of God...like the more he rebelled, became contentious, the more space was created between them?

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Let's get back to what the scriptures teach,

I was doing exactly that - reading scripture, rendering an interpretation, and then positing an explanation in order to answer a question that may not normally be thought of as having a scriptural answer.

Puf,

Adam and Eve DID have the light of Christ, otherwise they would not exist.

D&C 88 tells us:

This shows me that all things, including Adam and Eve in the Garden had the light of Christ. Otherwise, they would not have life nor exist as conscious beings. They just did not know the fullness of the gospel, which was taught to them in mortality by an angel when Adam was making a sacrifice.

But they were still able to sin or transgress the law. This same light of Christ flows through the spirits of all, otherwise they would have no life.

Doctrine and Covenants 93

"Light and truth forsake that evil one."

Seems to me Satan doesn't have that light in him....

You're talking about the Light that quickeneth, the light of truth. I'm talking about the knowledge of good and evil, that thing we call conscience. The two are seperate and distinct - though related. Or perhaps more accurately, seperate and distinct functions of the same thing.

This is a meaningless statement. Of COURSE we understood good and evil. This is why so many chose to follow Christ, while others rebelled. If they did not understand good vs evil, then how could God judge those who rebelled? Without such understanding, how could they become sons of perdition? How could God judge them?

That statement was made within the context of my previous post - where I presented a dichotomy:

1. Transgression in the pre-mortal life with out knowledge of good and evil and

2. Sin in the premortal life with knowledge of good and evil.

If you want to know which of the two is the case, you must determine when man gained knowledge of good and evil. This seems pretty clearly defined as happening in the Garden of Eden, which heavily implies that we lacked this knowledge in the pre-mortal life. Allow me to clarify that having a choice between two options does not necessarily mean you know which of the two is "good" or "evil".

Agency != free will.

You have to understand, my "theory" (for it is that, in the scientific use of the term) does not eliminate individual choice or even opposing forces. It only requires that we did not have a full understanding of these forces when we made our choices in the pre-mortal life.

Also, you obviously didn't read my follow-up questions regarding how Satan could have obtained the knowledge of good and evil on his own if the rest of us had to wait until mortality. However, I think I might have a solution there. Even in ignorance, transgression of the law (not sin) still requires repentance - when we have learned the law and recognize our past transgression we are required to repent of it. It's possible that Lucifer transgressed the law in ignorance when he went to take God's glory - however upon learning the law he still would have been required to repent. His failure to do so (stubborness?) would have merited his punishment.

Let's get back to what the scriptures teach, as one cannot have freedom of choice without some knowledge. We must be able to act, and not just be acted upon. There is opposition in all things, otherwise there is no agency. And that includes good vs evil.

Choice requires knowledge of which choices are available, but not necessarily knowledge of what those choices mean or which option is the best one. Again, agency != (that means NOT EQUALS for those non-geeks) choice. Agency means understanding your choice and being accountable to the consequences of that choice.

Lucifer = spirit child of God

Lucifer's agency = rebellion and choosing to openly and knowingly sin against God

Therefore spirit children can choose to sin

Moses 4:

Agency was given to mankind in the premortal world. This allowed Satan to choose rebellion and the greatest of sins against God (absolute rebellion, denying the Holy Ghost and Christ). Also see D&C 76.

I point you to Moses 7 which explicitly states that man did not have agency until the Garden of Eden (the fall): "The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;"

And for future reference, when copying and pasting from scriptures.lds.org, it's useful to disable footnote markers. This can be done by clicking "options" in the upper right hand corner, or (my preferred method) clicking "print" and then checking "hide footnote indicators".

[Justice]

How did Satan rebel without having agency to exercise?

One step at a time.

I'm guessing you didn't read the scripture I posted. Let me post the text this time.

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;

I did not say we didn't have our agency in the pre-mortal existence. I am explaining how both that belief and this scripture can be true at the same time.

There is proof we had agency, and that proof is as you say, that Satan chose to rebel against God's plan. I see that is 100% proof that we had agency in the pre-mortal existence.

Now, all you have to do is explain this scripture in Moses 7:32 and I believe you will see what I'm saying.

[Justice]

This is a meaningless statement. Of COURSE we understood good and evil.

I don't think it's that easy Ram.

I equate rebelling to sin. Those who did not rebel did not sin, therefore did not experience sin, therefore did not understand good and evil. We still needed to gain that. We do when we sin or rebel:

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

This came as a result of rebellion. In Adam and Eve's case, they made this choice without the knowledge of good and evil because they had not experienced rebellion before. Those who rebelled in the pre-mortal existence were kicked out and did not come to earth. Those left in heaven did not sin or rebel so they kept their first estate. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for rebellion of one commandment, even though they were keeping another.

Again, if we sinned (or rebelled against God) in His presence it meant eternal separation from Him with no chance for repentance. Or, even if we did repent, there was no hope in redemption.

Now, God provided this physical earth for us where man could rebel and fall to a state of separation. This is the main reason why His plan works. Time is introduced and each man is allotted some. Instead of suffering immediate death for eternity, like Lucifer did, we were given the ability to "exercise our agency" to rebel against God to learn good and evil, while in this state of death.

This learning comes from the experince of it. It comes from seeing the consequences of choosing it.

God was able to send His Son to atone for all rebellion (sin) while in mortality, and transgressed law by children (possibly even the pre-existence if you say so). This brough God and man back together again and gave man the ability to choose God WITH the knowledge of good and evil.

The knowldege of good and evil comes from the experience, not from book learning or word of mouth.

Alma 12 Alma 12 Alma 12

Edited August 25, 2009 by Justice

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps a look behind the veil of the past to see what 'really' happen may shed some light on this subject. :)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

One step at a time.

I'm guessing you didn't read the scripture I posted. Let me post the text this time.

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;

I did not say we didn't have our agency in the pre-mortal existence. I am explaining how both that belief and this scripture can be true at the same time.

There is proof we had agency, and that proof is as you say, that Satan chose to rebel against God's plan. I see that is 100% proof that we had agency in the pre-mortal existence.

Now, all you have to do is explain this scripture in Moses 7:32 and I believe you will see what I'm saying.

I did read the scripture you posted, and I referenced it myself in subsequent posts of my own. And I have explained Moses 7:32 in a way that reconciles with free will in the pre mortal life. I'm starting to wonder if any of us is reading what the others are saying...

But to make things easy, I'll late it out in the most simple and clear and elegant manner of which I am capable (keep in mind, I am an engineer).

Axiom:

Some spirits in the pre-mortal life were more valiant in the cause of righteousness than others.

Supporting Scripture:

Abraham 3: 22

Doctrine and Covenants 138: 55

Abraham 3

Conclusion:

There must have been some sin or transgression (even if it was only transgressions of omission) in the pre-mortal life.

Question:

How can we have had agency in the pre-mortal life and still have had God give us our agency only after the fall in the Garden of Eden?

Pertinent Scripture:

Moses 7

Doctrine and Covenants 93

Agency

Hypothosis:

Agency has multiple meanings when used in scripture. Agency (free will) was had by all in the pre-mortal existence while agency (free will coupled with accountability) was obtained only after the fall.

Supporting Definitions:

Agency: "Agency refers both to the capacity of beings to act for themselves and their accountability for those actions." - Agency - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Supporting Arguments (evidence):

As with the word "sin", I would suggest that there are two ways that agency is used in the scriptures:

A: to represent free will or the freedom to choose and

B: to represent free will AND accountability for how we exercise that freedom.

One (A) we had in the pre-mortal existence. The other (B) we (all mankind) gained through Adam's transgression (or individually through our own experiences of personal transgression).

Conclusions:

With two definitions for agency, it is possible to reconcile the two previously opposing postulates of the church. This does, however, raise other questions regarding the functionality of free will in the pre-mortal existence, and the apparent accountability which many spirits were subject to during Lucifer's rebellion.

Question:

If spirits were not accountable in the pre-mortal life, why was Lucifer cast out with all of his followers?

Pertinent Scripture:

Isaiah 14

Moses 4

Hypothosis:

Accountability comes as a natural result of A: Knowing the law and B: understanding the law. Understanding of the law can come from either learning or from experience.

Supporting Arguments:

Simply knowing the law does not immediately make one fully accountable (although there is or may be a level of accountability for just knowing the law). One must also understand the law. That means to know the law and to understand the implications, consequences, and morality of that law.

In the pre-mortal existence, we learned the law, but did not gain a full understanding of the law. Those who transgress the law without a knowledge and/or understanding of that law are still accountable once they have learned the law.

Lucifer transgressed the law, but may not have had a full understanding of the law, making him unaccountable - therefore he was able to exercise free will without yet having been given agency (free will with accountability). However, if he was made to understand the law after that transgression (ie, the experience of transgressing the law increased his understanding of it), he would then become accountable. He would then remain accountable unless he repented. Without repentance, Lucifer was accountable for his transgression (which would then be considered a sin) and would suffer the consequences of it - banishment or spiritual death.

Conclusion:

Lucifer can have been accountable for his choices without having been given the agency (free will and accountability) which God gave to man after the fall.

Alternate Hypothosis:

Satan obtained his accountability on his own, rather than having it "given" to him by God.

Now, if you please, do not tell me you disagree and then ask me to explain why you disagree. This is a discussion, which means you talk about my ideas and present some of your own and explain them yourselves.

Stand corrected, thanks. Experiencing/watching the fall of Lucifer, did that give us any knowledge about the difference of good and evil? Or can you only understand good/evil in the flesh (obviously evil spirits know the difference between them and God's angels). This is making me think about when Lucifer "became" evil? Did he become a sinner first, for not obeying God? I wonder how long it took from the time his plan got rejected and the time it took for him to be cast off. I'm wondering that because it doesn't seem like God would just say, "You don't like it, you're outta here!!" Could Satan himself have casted himself out in a way because no unclean thing can be in the presence of God...like the more he rebelled, became contentious, the more space was created between them?

I expect Lucifer's fall was a gradual process. As I said before, he would have risen to great heights in terms of spiritual knowledge and progression in order to have been able to sin so greatly. And I am confident that a loving and merciful Heavenly Father would have offered him plenty of time and opportunity to come to his senses - as the whole last few posts all try to explain - it's possible that Lucifer could have used the atonement and repented before being cast out.

There are a lot of "natural" consequences to many laws. It is very possible that Lucifer's banishment was a natural consequence of breaking that law, and therefore there was no need for it to be enforced or forced. And the thought just occurred to me that perhaps the "prodigal son" is an allegory of Lucifer - who took his inheritance (his first estate) and left.... Oooh now there's a thought. The prodigal son came back, in the end....

[MaMeeshkaMow]

Maybe one of the reasons for that parable...how many of us would be jealous if he came back? He definitely would be getting attention if he came back...how could we handle that? Interesting!!

[Justice]

Axiom:

Some spirits in the pre-mortal life were more valiant in the cause of righteousness than others.

Supporting Scripture:

Abraham 3: 22

Doctrine and Covenants 138: 55

Abraham 3

Conclusion:

There must have been some sin or transgression (even if it was only transgressions of omission) in the pre-mortal life.

It's interesting that you equate "valiant in the cause of righteousness" as logical proof that there was sin. Righteousness and sin are not the same, right? Even opposites. So, for there to be varying degrees of righteousness does not imply sin.

I conclude that there was sin because those that committed sin were exiled. None of the rest sinned or they would have been kicked out as well. So, yes, sin did exist, but those who were not kicked out could not have committed sin.

Question:

How can we have had agency in the pre-mortal life and still have had God give us our agency only after the fall in the Garden of Eden?

Pertinent Scripture:

Moses 7

Doctrine and Covenants 93

Agency

Hypothosis:

Agency has multiple meanings when used in scripture. Agency (free will) was had by all in the pre-mortal existence while agency (free will coupled with accountability) was obtained only after the fall.

Supporting Definitions:

Agency: "Agency refers both to the capacity of beings to act for themselves and their accountability for those actions." - Agency - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Supporting Arguments (evidence):

As with the word "sin", I would suggest that there are two ways that agency is used in the scriptures:

A: to represent free will or the freedom to choose and

B: to represent free will AND accountability for how we exercise that freedom.

One (A) we had in the pre-mortal existence. The other (B) we (all mankind) gained through Adam's transgression (or individually through our own experiences of personal transgression).

Conclusions:

With two definitions for agency, it is possible to reconcile the two previously opposing postulates of the church. This does, however, raise other questions regarding the functionality of free will in the pre-mortal existence, and the apparent accountability which many spirits were subject to during Lucifer's rebellion.

I posed a scripturally accurate way that we could have agency in the pre-mortal existence AND God give us (Adam) our agency in the Garden of Eden. It doesn't require 2 definitions. It's actually elementary. If you want me to re-state, I'd be glad to.

Question:

If spirits were not accountable in the pre-mortal life, why was Lucifer cast out with all of his followers?

Pertinent Scripture:

Isaiah 14

Moses 4

Hypothosis:

Accountability comes as a natural result of A: Knowing the law and B: understanding the law. Understanding of the law can come from either learning or from experience.

Supporting Arguments:

Simply knowing the law does not immediately make one fully accountable (although there is or may be a level of accountability for just knowing the law). One must also understand the law. That means to know the law and to understand the implications, consequences, and morality of that law.

In the pre-mortal existence, we learned the law, but did not gain a full understanding of the law. Those who transgress the law without a knowledge and/or understanding of that law are still accountable once they have learned the law.

We're not sure what law we learned in the pre-mortal existence. If you view this existence as but a continuation of pre-mortal existence, then it appears we gained something here called "the knowledge of good and evil" that we did not have in the pre-mortal existence, or else we not have needed to come here to gain it. There were only 2 things identified that we needed in order to be like Heavenly Father: 1) a physical body, 2) the knowledge of good and evil. It is more than interesting that those are the 2 things Adam gained in the Garden.

Lucifer transgressed the law, but may not have had a full understanding of the law, making him unaccountable - therefore he was able to exercise free will without yet having been given agency (free will with accountability). However, if he was made to understand the law after that transgression (ie, the experience of transgressing the law increased his understanding of it), he would then become accountable. He would then remain accountable unless he repented. Without repentance, Lucifer was accountable for his transgression (which would then be considered a sin) and would suffer the consequences of it - banishment or spiritual death.

Conclusion:

Lucifer can have been accountable for his choices without having been given the agency (free will and accountability) which God gave to man after the fall.

Alternate Hypothosis:

Satan obtained his accountability on his own, rather than having it "given" to him by God.

All "offspring" of Heavenly Parents have agency. It is inherent. We have the ability to act and not just be acted upon. It cannot be taken, only given away. Lucifer had agency, and that is why he was accountable, and that is why he fell through rebellion.

Now, if you please, do not tell me you disagree and then ask me to explain why you disagree. This is a discussion, which means you talk about my ideas and present some of your own and explain them yourselves.

I am unaware that I have done this. I did present a scripturally sound explanation. You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or read it and understood it but didn't acknowledge so. Again, I'd be glad to re-explain. Maybe if I try again I can be more clear.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

It's interesting that you equate "valiant in the cause of righteousness" as logical proof that there was sin. Righteousness and sin are not the same, right? Even opposites. So, for there to be varying degrees of righteousness does not imply sin.

Do you really expect me to lay this out logically? In order for there to be one spirit (or several) who are more valiant in righteousness than others, there must be varying degrees of righteousness and therefore various degrees of obedience. If one spirit can be more obedient than another, then it follows that one spirit can be less obedient than another. If a spirit is less obedient than another, that means he is not being fully obedient, and therefore he is not acting in full accordance to the law and is therefore transgressing that law in full or in part.

:edit:

Let me add that I am NOT using "transgression" and "sin" interchangably. They are two seperate and distinct states of being. I have not decided as to which of the two would have occurred in the pre-mortal existence, since the discussion on our level of accountability in that time has not yet reached a conclusion - hence why I specifically use both words when discussing the topic of law-breaking in the pre-mortal existence.

:/edit:

I conclude that there was sin because those that committed sin were exiled. None of the rest sinned or they would have been kicked out as well. So, yes, sin did exist, but those who were not kicked out could not have committed sin.

But I've already scripturally demonstrated that we did take advantage of the atonement in the pre-mortal life (see posts several pages earlier in the thread). What reason would there have been to use the atonement unless we had transgressed the law?

I posed a scripturally accurate way that we could have agency in the pre-mortal existence AND God give us (Adam) our agency in the Garden of Eden. It doesn't require 2 definitions. It's actually elementary. If you want me to re-state, I'd be glad to.

I went back and reread several of your most recent posts and am completely unable to discern what your scripturally accurate way is. So yes, please restate it with references.

We're not sure what law we learned in the pre-mortal existence. If you view this existence as but a continuation of pre-mortal existence, then it appears we gained something here called "the knowledge of good and evil" that we did not have in the pre-mortal existence, or else we not have needed to come here to gain it. There were only 2 things identified that we needed in order to be like Heavenly Father: 1) a physical body, 2) the knowledge of good and evil. It is more than interesting that those are the 2 things Adam gained in the Garden.

There's a lot more that is necessary to become like Heavenly Father than a body and knowledge of good and evil. Becoming like our Father in Heaven doesn't require just knowledge and understanding of the law, but obedience to it.

All "offspring" of Heavenly Parents have agency. It is inherent. We have the ability to act and not just be acted upon. It cannot be taken, only given away. Lucifer had agency, and that is why he was accountable, and that is why he fell through rebellion.

If it is inherent, why was there a need for God to give it to us in the Garden? If it can not be taken away, then Lucifer's plan would have been a moot point - I doubt he would have iniated a coup against GOD based on such an obviously flawed plan.

I am unaware that I have done this. I did present a scripturally sound explanation. You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or read it and understood it but didn't acknowledge so. Again, I'd be glad to re-explain. Maybe if I try again I can be more clear.

See below:

One step at a time.

I'm guessing you didn't read the scripture I posted. Let me post the text this time.

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;

I did not say we didn't have our agency in the pre-mortal existence. I am explaining how both that belief and this scripture can be true at the same time.

There is proof we had agency, and that proof is as you say, that Satan chose to rebel against God's plan. I see that is 100% proof that we had agency in the pre-mortal existence.

Now, all you have to do is explain this scripture in Moses 7:32 and I believe you will see what I'm saying.

So far I haven't seen you explain this point, only state your opinion on the matter without explanation and then (see bolded portion) you asked me to explain it. At least that's my impression. Don't tell me we're arguing semantics?

Having reread many of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you and I are probably arguing the same point from different perspectives. The gist being that we may have been disobedient in the pre-mortal life but that was not considered sin because we lacked the full knowledge of good and evil (we did not have a full understanding of the law) and were therefore unaccountable. This seems to be what I can pick up out of your writings.

The additional point that I'm making is that, in order for Lucifer's actions to be considered sinful, and thus making him accountable for those actions, he MUST have had that knowledge of good and evil. How he obtained that knowledge is another point entirely, but I think it's adding to the confusion. I believe you're opinion, from what you've stated, is that this knowledge of good and evil comes as a natural consequence of choosing evil ("This came as a result of rebellion"). I must disagree there, since Christ never chose evil, and yet no-one could deny that he has that knowledge. Also true for babies that die before the age of accountability who are guaranteed salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.

I'm going to throw out here another theory to add to the confusion.

I was looking through the Topical Guide earlier under "fruit" and did a search for "fruit" on scriptures.lds.org. I didn't have time to go through every reference (I hate my job) however, except for Genesis, every single reference I saw was completely allegorical. I have to wonder why this particular usage is the only one that is taken literally. While I will immediately accept that there was a garden, that there was an Adam and Eve, and that there was a fall, I would suggest (hypothetically) that Adam's fall was not due to eating an apple, but that the apple is used as a symbol to represent the actual event. Coupled with the many ways in which fruit is a symbol throughout the scriptures, this could add significant meaning to the Genesis account - in my opinion.

Edited August 26, 2009 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[rameumptom]

First off, I think I'll clarify some things. I do not believe we were in the Celestial Kingdom in the premortal existence. We were only in God's presence. I believe he probably had a world for spirit children, a nursery if you'd like, where we could learn, grow, make mistakes, and even sin on occasion.

Lucifer HAD agency prior to being cast out. He was created with the Light of Christ, which he later rejected.

Without agency, Lucifer's fall would all be a predestination type of thing. He would have had no choice, and so God would be akin to the Calvin view of God - where people are predestined to hell, simply because God tagged them for that spot. I reject that concept, as LDS belief rejects the concept of people being cast to perdition without having chosen it for themselves. Agency MEANS choice of good/evil. Lucifer could only choose evil IF he understood it and had a choice.

In Moses 7:32, he gave MAN his agency so they could choose and fall. We're talking about this earth life and mortality. However, this does not mean it wasn't given to us in our prior life. There was also agency in the Spirit World, otherwise the devils could not have chosen and rebelled. They could not have sinned and been cast out.

Otherwise, we are looking at a Calvinistic God who does not give individual spirits a choice as to whether they are saved or not. That's a dangerous road to go down logically, which is what brought Calvin's TULIP to so many people in this life.

[Hemidakota]

We do know both Adams were living in a physical Terrestial state...

[Justice]

Yes, puf, I figured we were more alike than apart.

I think sin could not be allowed in God's presence, even though as has been pointed out, it was not the Celestial Kingdom, and I'll add we could not abide Celestial Glory without coming to earth and "passing the test."

I agree we had to exercise our agency, repent, and be "born again" in order to become like Fahter, but those were the 2 things we lacked. The rest of the puzzle pieces were already in place, including, as we have already agreed on, agency.

I'll make a separate post as to how I define how we were given agency in the pre-mortal agency. If nothing else, it will show you what I believe. If I did not already post this I apologize. I have posted it in these forums on at least several other occasions. I just assumed I did here also.

[Justice]

As far as Christ not experienceing rebellion or evil, remember He was tempted. Also, He suffered the penalty and consequences for our evil choices, allowing Him to succor those who did make evil choices. So, He did experience the affects and effects of sin, even though He never chose evil, even on a much more grand scale than we do.

OK.

We had agency in the pre-mortal existence. We know this because some (including Lucifer) chose against God's will. It appears we agree on this. This is critical to what I believe about Moses 7:32.

In the pre-mortal existence we had agency but did not have the knowledge of good and evil. I believe this means we did not know or understand consequences for choosing against God's plan, or choosing evil. Once we understood the consequences, we could understand good and evil. The good we had, the evil we did not have. Had we chosen evil, or against God's will in His presence, we would have been permanently removed from His presence, as was the shown example. This should make sense, because basically this is the same as the definition of a son of perdition, to choose against God while seeing His face and knowing that He is.

Since we had agency in the pre-mortal existence, what did God mean in Moses 7:32?

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;

If man had agency in the pre-mortal existence, exactly what did He give man in the Garden of Eden?

I have been preaching Alma 12, so let's use it:

Alma 12:

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.

It's a different discussion, but I believe Alma is not speaking strictly hypothetically. He is not grabbing a possible situation out of the blue and taking the time and effort to write something that could never happen, or was never planned to happen. He is explaining Satan's plan. This is not important to my conclusion, but I just wanted to point it out. We can discuss it later if you'd like.

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.

Alma calls death a "space," "state," and "time." This is the state we are in now. This state we are in was planned from before the foundation of the world, because the resurrection (redemption) was planned from before the foundation of the world:

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.

This is a planned state we are in, this state of death or separation from God. Until we are born again we are in a state of spiritual death. That spiritual death is brought about by sin. There are a LOT more scriptures, but I'm going to stick with these for now.

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.

Without this prepratory state we are in, called mortalitly, Father's plan could not have worked.

It began when He created the physical world. He created a Garden and placed man in an immortal state in the Garden. Since man was place in a physical body, and the atonement was prepared (from the foundation of the world) man now could exercise his agency freely and NOT fall permanently, but fall to a "prepratory state" where he could be born again and redeemed from His evil choices.

So, God "gave man his agency" because He created a "safety net" that could redeem man.

This is how the fact that man had agency in the pre-mortal existence, and God "gave" man his agency in the Garden of Eden, can be reconciled. It's not that man received something he previously did not have, it's that he was granted permission to use it since the Plan of Redemption was in place.

Moses 3:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If you want to discuss Satan's plan further, I'd be glad to.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

I'll add this one:

Alma 42:

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

"Subjects to follow after their own will" is applicable after the fall because now we understand both good and evil... so we can now choose.

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

Just as Alma said earlier, had we been reclaimed from temporal death first (partook of the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit), the Plan of Redemption was destroyed. I can get into the reasons, but it is very powerful and logical.

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

We had to repent first, then we could be physically redeemed. The rest of Alma 12 explained why. Watch for the word "restoration in chpater 42."

[Justice]

One of the most frequent questions I hear when describing the fall is "Why did God forbid them from doing it if was a necessary thing?"

It's actually a good question.

Picture it like killing someone or committing suicide... it is necessary to pass through this life, being born and to die, but God still forbids killing and suicide.

[Justice]

I don't know why, but I'm actually surprised no one commented on any of my last 3 posts.

Tickle me red, I guess.

[mnn727]

I think he's probably out of luck, but then I think of the story of the Prodigal Son and wonder.

[Traveler]

Just had a question to see if there's any info/scriptures on this: Would/Could Lucifer ever be forgiven? On one hand, he's done enough evil to surpass the 7x7 forgiveness limit plan(haha) but on the other hand, you think that without temptation/evil, we would never know good...what if he had hope...thoughts on that...I know the concept of perdition and outer darkness but does the outer darkness sphere have any door of hope to come in the light....He had potential, could he redeem himself kinda like Darth Vadar...

I know also the concept of no forgiveness for someone who has received an absolute witness by the Holy Ghost but rejects it....however in his case, just by the fact he never received a body, could that help his cause. Not that I have sympathy for the devil, but I'm just curious about this subject....

No one can forgive themselves of what they have done until they have forgiven others. Satan’s problem is not that he cannot be divinely forgiven any more than anyone else. The meaning of miserable, in the manner that Satan is miserable is that he does not desire to forgive himself, or anyone else – and he desires that all mankind become miserable like him.

The Traveler

[MaMeeshkaMow]

What would Screwtape say if Lucifer was forgiven, anyway!! (C.S Lewis)

[Hemidakota]

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.

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.

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...

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

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I don't know why, but I'm actually surprised no one commented on any of my last 3 posts.

Tickle me red, I guess.

I'm hungry.

I think I understand what you mean now - about God granting permission to use agency in the Garden. However, I'm not sure I agree with it.

One of the most frequent questions I hear when describing the fall is "Why did God forbid them from doing it if was a necessary thing?"

It's actually a good question.

Picture it like killing someone or committing suicide... it is necessary to pass through this life, being born and to die, but God still forbids killing and suicide.

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.