Agency

[Hemidakota]

Justice - "Another thought to the astute reader: we see a seeming contradiction between D&C 29:36 and Moses 7:32... anyone see it? Any thoughts about the seeming contradiction?"

There is really no contradiction at all from what I am reading. There are two verses beside what is contained in chapter 7. However, I cannot undermine what Apostle George Q. Morris stated in 1958 at General Conference. He pointed out it better than what I can attribute to this variation of differences:

This being "conceived in sin" (Moses 6:55), as I understand it, is only that they are in the midst of sin. They come into the world where sin is prevalent, and it will enter into their hearts, but it will lead them "to taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." And then with further emphasis on the matter of agency, the Lord says,". . . it is given to them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves." (Moses 6:56.)

This matter of agency is the very essence of our existence. 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. (Ibid., 7:32.)

Also the revelation in the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants emphasizes again this matter of agency. We are intelligences, and the Lord says,

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (D&C 93:30.)

If we take away their free agency we nullify the purpose of the existence of mankind in the world. Satan attempted to do that.

By these revelations we see why sin is in the world and adversities and evils of various kinds. We can picture the plight of Adam and Eve. They had been condemned to sorrows, woes, troubles, and labor, and they were cast out from the presence of God, and death had been declared to be their fate. A pathetic picture, indeed. But now a most important thing happened. Adam and Eve had explained to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. What would be their reaction? When the Lord explained this to them, that a redemption should come through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, Adam exclaimed:

Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. (Moses 5:10.)

And what was the response of Eve, his wife? She heard all of these things, and was glad, saying: "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and. . . eternal life." (Ibid., 5:11.)

There is the key to the question of evil. If we cannot be good, except as we resist and overcome evil, then evil must be present to be resisted.

So this earth life is set up according to true principles, and these conditions that followed the transgression were not, in the usual sense, penalties that were inflicted upon us. All these that I have named to you that seem to be sad inflictions of punishment, sorrow, and trouble are in the end not that. They are blessings. We have attained a knowledge of good and evil, the power to prize the sweet, to become agents unto ourselves, the power to obtain redemption and eternal life. These things had their origin in this transgression. The Lord has set the earth up so we have to labor if we are going to live, which preserves us from the curse of idleness and indolence; and though the Lord condemns us to death—mortal death—it is one of the greatest blessings that comes to us here because it is the doorway to immortality, and we can never attain immortality without dying.

So these are all real blessings. We come to the earth with all these conditions arranged as they are so that we have to struggle constantly against evil, struggle to preserve our lives, struggle for everything of true value—that is the thing for us to understand—this is the course of life that is most desirable, and for our good. We have no need to find fault with these conditions. The Lord has ordained them all for our welfare and happiness. The truth as I understand and feel about it is simply that circumstances placed Adam in a position where by a technical transgression he could come into mortal life, moving out of immortality into these earth conditions for his blessings, for the blessing of the race, without which no immortality and eternal life and exaltation could ever come. And in doing this, also, of course, his body, taken from the earth, was made mortal—an absolute essential. There is no salvation or exaltation except through the possession of a body of flesh and blood.

In conclusion I want to give this inspired declaration by the Prophet Lehi.

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so. . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one;. . .And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:11, 22-25.)

The answer to all the problems in the world is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which enables us to overcome all adversities, sin, and death, and go back into the presence of God fit to dwell in his presence, through the Lord Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. (CR, April 1958, pp. 38-40.)

[Justice]

There's no way I can respond to everything worthy of a response. I enjoyed your comments and quotes.

The seeming contradiction I was referring to was the timing of when man was given his agency.

One scripture makes the point that many were turned away from God in the pre-mortal existence because of their agency. This suggests that those who were cast out and did not have an opportunity to receive a body actually used their agency in the pre-moral existence. I think we can take this to mean that all who dwelt in the pre-mortal world had agency to make this choice if the wished.

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;

The other scripture says that man was given his agency in the Garden of Eden.

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;

This presents an opportunity for discussion.

Adam already had his agency in the pre-mortal existence. How do you explain that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden?

[mordorbund]

Adam already had his agency in the pre-mortal existence. How do you explain that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden?

I think Vanhin already addressed this.

I think the answer lies in D&C 93.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

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.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. (D&C 93:29-32)

Agency is derived from being enlightened by the light of Christ and by being placed into spheres (environments) where we can independently make choices.

I would only add that we have been given a different sphere of agency. In this new world of Adam's, we walk by faith and not by sight. So this is a new form of agency. The parameters around the choices are different, so (God being just) the consequences are different. A person in this sphere who outright rejects God and wholly turns away from him does not automatically receive the same reward as Satan who did the same thing. Why not? Because the presence of the veil makes it a different choice.

[Vanhin]

I think Vanhin already addressed this.

I would only add that we have been given a different sphere of agency. In this new world of Adam's, we walk by faith and not by sight. So this is a new form of agency. The parameters around the choices are different, so (God being just) the consequences are different. A person in this sphere who outright rejects God and wholly turns away from him does not automatically receive the same reward as Satan who did the same thing. Why not? Because the presence of the veil makes it a different choice.

Exactly, the veil is a protection mechanism, so that we have an opportunity to have faith and repent before the resurrection, and not constantly sin against the greater light.

Later while yet in mortality, after one has been "born again" and received a remission of their sins, and all the holy ordinances of the gospel, our sphere is enlarged, as is our accountability. If we are true and faithful, we will be redeemed from the fall and admitted back into the presence of God, even before the resurrection. For those, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will merit the reward of Satan.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Javajot]

What is agency, exactly?

When do you have it?

One thing that I'd like to point out is that agency is not the same for all. For instance, someone in prison does not have the same agency as someone who is not.

This makes it easier to discuss agency. Moral agency covers a man's given ability to choose how moral he will be, or whether or not he will obey law. He does not have to have all laws and commandments available in order to exercise his moral agency.

Thoughts?

This is from the article I quoted in the Liahona in the thread about God having a foreknowledge of our choices. Its about agency:

When we use our agency to choose righteousness, God not only blesses us, but our agency is strengthened and enhanced. When our Heavenly Father sees that He can trust us to make correct decisions, He does as any loving parent would do: He blesses us with new opportunities and more responsibility. Thus, if we use our agency wisely, the possibilities for doing good and blessing others become infinite. Obedience always leads to greater agency and increasing possibilities. It is sin that shrinks our options.

Link to article:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Fulness of the Gospel: Agency

[Hemidakota]

There's no way I can respond to everything worthy of a response. I enjoyed your comments and quotes.

The seeming contradiction I was referring to was the timing of when man was given his agency.

One scripture makes the point that many were turned away from God in the pre-mortal existence because of their agency. This suggests that those who were cast out and did not have an opportunity to receive a body actually used their agency in the pre-moral existence. I think we can take this to mean that all who dwelt in the pre-mortal world had agency to make this choice if the wished.

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;

The other scripture says that man was given his agency in the Garden of Eden.

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;

This presents an opportunity for discussion.

Adam already had his agency in the pre-mortal existence. How do you explain that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden?

Sorry for the such delay...referring to this phrase -

"In the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency"

I see your point Justice. For me, it is still one of the same. Even it seems to be different but in reality, we know that Enoch received this term from the Savior for what was occurring to these two children in the garden. Both scholars and leaders various agree with my own assessment as seeing this term as the same with section 29.

It just goes back to a previous statement Enoch made known in his early writings in Moses 6:56:

"It is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves." (Moses 6:56.)

Hopefully this helps but I can understand what you are pointing out.

Let me flip the “coin” real quick on this subject of “agency in the pre-mortal world.” I will reference my good brother Apostle John on what he stated: "Every man that cometh into the world is given the light of Christ " (John 1:9)

You can follow the cross reference link (see also D&C 88:46 & Moroni 7:16). For all, the Light of Christ will enlighten all who will hearken to its promptings, ultimately leading them "unto God, even the Father," and the Father will teach them of the fulness of the gospel, the "covenant" restored through Joseph Smith (D&C 84:45-53).

Now, what is notable here is the amount of light one receives depends upon at least three aspects (learned this Millet): 1] Capacity to receive it and use it, 2] Agency, and 3] the amount of this light we are blessed with.

Millet is correct on these aspects from what I have learned. As Millet stated, “Though not spiritually predestined, we come into this mortal probation predisposed to different levels of affinity for spiritual things. Each person's predisposition is a result of his own choices in the pre-mortal life. Some do not have "ears to hear" even though a message is given.” We do know through various supported scriptures references, there were different levels of “spiritual nobility” in the pre-mortal life, (See Abr. 3:22-26) that we had our agency there, (See both D&C 29:36; Alma 13:1-9) that some can be exposed to a message but not able to "hear" it, (See Matt. 13:9-17). Something to think about when it comes to our destiny from the last realm to this one was the cause of three aspects.

[Justice]

The recurring theme seems to be "choose against God."

The scripture about pre-mortal agency never says "it was given unto them to choose." It just says they fell because of their agency. Even though it was eternally devastating for His children to exercise their agency in the pre-mortal world, He still allowed it because He either could not or did not want to prevent anyone from exercising their agency.

Though we had agency in pre-mortal life, we were never told we could make that choice (whatever choosing against Him was) because Father knew the choice was catastrophic to our progression. We were never told "nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself," as Adam was after he was placed in a body and put on earth.

Vanhin and others use the term "veil" and, in my mind, it is synonymous for this purpose to say "mortality." It is used this way in Alma 12, 42 and other places.

I'm going to say the same thing others have said, but in a different way...

Once the physical earth was created and man was placed on earth in physical bodies, death was different, or became 2-part. Because of physical bodies, spiritual death (or choosing against Father) no longer meant "automatic or instant" judgment and "automatic or instant" death (or no chance for redemption), we had mortal bodies kept alive by a 2nd means, or by blood, once spiritual death occured through sin. This "state of death" (or mortality) gave us time to prepare before judgment; time to change our hearts.

So, Father, having created and prepared the earth for the fall (from spiritual to blood or carnal) "gave" man his agency that he may choose for himself, knowing it would give them a time or chance to prepare before we faced judgment.

All sin committed while in the mortal or blood condition had to be redeemed by the shedding of blood of a perfect sacrifice, or by reversing the effects brought about by the fall. That was prepared, too, even before the creation process began, or from the foundation of the earth.

I believe the "seeming" contradiction is that in the pre-mortal life we were not "given" our agency, or given permission (conditions were not in place) to exercise our agency to choose against Father (or to act for ourselves in that matter--because we lacked the proper understanding and condition). Once the earth was in place as a "safety net" we were "given" our agency so that we could choose for ourselves. His plan had to be at the right stage of development in order to have the ability to save us... or we had to be in physical bodies that could be sustained when spiritual death occured.

So, we have to be redeemed spiritually BEFORE we are redeemed physically, meaning repentance, and that is why Adam chose not to partake of the tree of life (redemption from physical death) immediately after eating the forbidden fruit.

It's the same thing, from a different perspective.

Let me ask this:

Without having the knowledge of good and evil, could Adam have been fully accountable and respopnsible for his choice to eat the forbidden fruit? He was in a state of innocence, much like a young child. Young children are saved by the atonement because they are not accountable yet, because of their innocence and lack of understanding. It had to be the same with Adam, or he had to be in this same state.

Was he fully accountable?

Edited August 20, 2010 by Justice

[Hemidakota]

Agency has always been in this universe or what I term, our small domain. It has been with our progression forever in different levels and will continue on into the next state of life. It is the very existence on how we progress to this state as Spirit Children.

Even most members won't give credit to many sermons that Joseph gave, but, it was a method for Joseph to expand the mysterious received to those who "eyes are open" and "ears that can hear". Others? Well, as the Savior use to teach parables in His ministry, it was not for the general public but those who are ready to see and hear it.

Justice, there was a period of time where the few who did not cross the line in the pre-mortal world, had to go forth and be missionaries to save those whose pride was not hard enough to fully accept the plan. There was no quick judgment after the this counsel. We will learn a great deal when the Lord returns concerning this matter on what transpired before we came here.

I believe it was not even in Adam's capacity even to approach the tree of life. We are missing alot of written journal from Adam on the details of his daily life and emotional impact it had on his life. Even when I read the non-canonized version of the Book of Adam, it talked a great deal of trying to return back to the garden on many occasions and giving his experience of trials he faced and failed. Though, there is no way of telling how much is fable without having Joseph Smith in translating it again, it gives some form of problems Adam did face and not having a complete knowledge of the life and the world. So the answer would be 'no' to eating the Tree of Life. Until it is more clear with further writings from him, we just have to wait to see if this was true.

Remember, GOD gave him a commandment. He was aware of what to eat and what not to eat. The best part, being a-mortal, he still require to eat food. :) Even GOD did not call it a sin but a transgression, it was do to the fact GOD told him. Yes! He was accountable for this simple fact. Not finishing on this note, there maybe other instructions that GOD gave him and them afterward that we are not aware of and the day will come, the complete dialog will be there for us to read or even to see it for ourselves.

[Webster]

I'm going to say the opposite. Adam was not accountable for partaking of the fruit. He was essentially as a Little Child. He had no knowledge of good and evil (which the scriptures show as the key to full legal agency and accountability).

Read the second Article of Faith. When it says that all men will be accountable for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression, I believe Adam qualifies as one of those men not accountable for that transgression. "All" would have to include Adam.

Adam does not need to repent for partaking of the fruit any more than you or I do. Christ's atonement eventually and unconditionally overcomes both the physical death and the spiritual death brought about by the Fall. All mortals will be resurrected (overcoming physical death), and all will be brought back into the presence of God for the judgment (overcoming the spiritual death of the Fall). After that, those who have suffered their own spiritual death because of unrepented sin will again suffer a spiritual death when they are cast out of God's presence. LDS scripture is full of this kind of language.

[Justice]

I agree, Hemi, that we are missing a lot, but I'm amazed at how much is there that I've missed for years and years, until the last few years when I began a study directed specifically at the creation, fall, and atonement. There's more than I ever realized.

Webster, I lean toward what you said, although I admit I am not as certain as you are. You make some good points worth pondering.

What I do know is that he was not fully accountable, like he was after he partook of the forbidden fruit. At that point he was accountable, no longer innocent.

It's at that poing where God says "the man has become as one of us."

That was the whole point. Man was not like God before he partook of the fruit, but was after. I believe man could now follow after his own will (morally) in all things and therefore became accountable (fully).

But, because of the creation, and gaining a physical body, man could be kept alive through the veil, or in mortalily, and given a time to repent.

[Vanhin]

Vanhin and others use the term "veil" and, in my mind, it is synonymous for this purpose to say "mortality." It is used this way in Alma 12, 42 and other places.

I was using it in sense that it is a "veil of forgetfulness", meaning we don't have a direct recollection of all the things we learned in the pre-mortal existence, in order to protect us from sinning against the greater light - forcing us to rely on faith to gain a sure knowledge of eternal truths.

In a way it goes hand in hand with the use of "veil" to symbolically represent the separation of man from God.

See Guide to the Scriptures: Veil

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited August 20, 2010 by Vanhin

[mordorbund]

I was using it in sense that it is a "veil of forgetfulness", meaning we don't have a direct recollection of all the things we learned in the pre-mortal existence, in order to protect us from sinning against the greater light - forcing us to rely on faith to gain a sure knowledge of eternal truths.

In a way it goes hand in hand with the use of "veil" to symbolically represent the separation of man from God.

See Guide to the Scriptures: Veil

Regards,

Vanhin

I was using it in a similar manner. The two estates act as filters with different granularity. It takes a certain level of rebellion and defiance to stare God in the face and say you want to dethrone him. Once that group was sifted out, another sifting was to take place (we know who comes in last, so let's have another tourney for 1st, 2nd, 3rd). For me, the principle of the veil has to do with being separated from God and not remembering the pre-earth life. If we never became mortal, but continued to exist as spirits, the veil would still serve the same purpose. And we would see who would still continue to follow God even though they no were no longer in his house.

Of course, as a practical matter this may all be gibberish. The Holy Ghost speaks spirit to spirit, so it may be that it was impossible to place a veil over us without giving us some way to cover our spirit selves. Or, on the other hand, maybe God just wanted to kill two birds with one stone.

[Justice]

I try not to make long posts and say too much at once, but... I hope you can follow this and take it slowly and seriously enough to ponder and study as you go.

Alma 42:

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

Alma 12:

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 over and over until the words sink in.

I believe "the veil" is synonymous with "mortal probation." I believe mortality is a state of death. It is a period where we can live, though dead, for a time (or separated or veiled from God). This life, in my estimation, is basically called the state of death.

This mortal existence veils us somehow, as you say. I don't disagree. Satan wanted to remove mortality (or this time or space or period of death), thereby destroying the agency of man. This is why he wanted Eve to partake of the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit... to forgo mortality (or remove the veil) from Adam, Eve, and all their children who would be born immortal like them. According to his understanding (which obviously was incorrect), doing away with mortality (or removing the veil) before any other children were born would have the ability to save all. And, it would have saved all from physical death, but spiritual death was something no one understood at the time (heck, we couldn't understand physical death either). It was like he was looking at it "on paper" with no practical knowledge or experience. The words looked good and he couldn't understand why it wouldn't work. Father knew, however.

I'm not saying anything different than what you are. I'm just using different words. I'm applying logic (hopefully good logic) to Alma's teachings, and to other scriptures found in the D&C and PoGP.

Please thoroughly study Alma 12 and compare it to Alma 42. As 12 begins he is teaching the people about Satan's plan, and how it is like what the leaders of Ammonihah were doing to lead the people astray (with lies and subtlety). He was headlong in to a description of Satan's plan, and comparing it to them, until Zeezrom begins to "tremble more exceedingly" and diverts Alma's attention back to the resurrection. After answering that question, Antionum asks a different question which brings Alma back to the Garden of Eden, where Satan was trying to fulfill his plan. Alma says, in verse 22: "This is the thing which I was about to explain," or Satan's plan, since that's what he was describing before he was interrupted with questions.

You have to go slowly through 12, comparing it to 42.

Why would Alma bring up the hypothetical and impossible 2 different times, and Mormon repeat it 2 times in his abridgment? Why would Alma teach them about a "what if" that could not have happened? No, I believe he was talking about a possibility. Don't get too hung up on the wording. It makes no sense that it was impossible, yet Alma teaches the consequences of the impossible... and even more ironic is the fact that all those consequences bring about exactly what Satan hoped and planned for.

I suggest an open-minded study of these verses, paying very close attention to the wording in verse 24, and how it fits with the rest of the verses.

God created this earth for one purpose. So that we would have a place to be "veiled" or become mortal. That required a fall. Satan knew that. He didn't want to change that. We all knew that. It was what came next that was at issue.

Satan's problem wasn't with gaining the knowledge of good and evil, because he knew we needed that in order to have children. He NEEDED Eve to have children in order for him to destroy God's plan, or our agency. So, he tempted her to eat the forbidden fruit. After that, The only way he could destroy man's agency (as proven by Alma's words) was to "re-time" when man would partake of the "tree of life." God's plan required that we be separated from it while we overcame spiritual death (thus "if it were possible"). Satan didn't want to be separated from it for various and obvious reasons.

He said, look there's an easier way (sound familiar?). Just have Adam and Eve eat of the tree of life while it is available (as Alma tells us) and we will all be redeemed (physically anyway) because all would be born immortal. I believe he thought that would save all of us (we have been taught that he believed his plan could do that).

No, it was expedient that man should be saved from the spiritual fall first, then the physical. By attempting to reverse the order, Satan sought to make God a liar...

Alma 42:

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.

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.

Reverse the order of which death we were reclaimed from would destroy the plan of happiness (or plan of redemption, or Father's plan)!? Hmmm who would want to destroy the Plan of Happiness?

Hmmm having Eve partake of the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit would have done what? It would reclaimed men temporally first. But, wouldn't that destroy the Plan of Happiness?

C'mon, it's clear and plain! It's right there in black and white! :)

[mordorbund]

Moving away from the garden, can political laws restrict Agency? If so, in what way?

[Justice]

I see your point, but I don't think so.

In order to restrict agency the option has to actually be removed as a choice, not just become legal or illegal. You always have the choice to do something against the law.

[Webster]

If you have three options, and one is removed, have you restricted agency? Or does that only happen when there is no choice?

[Justice]

We were discussing different definitions of agency.

I like to distinguish "moral agency" as the agency that cannot be removed, because it is your given "gift" or "priveledge" as a child of God to act according to your own will, or to act upon. You can choose to respond in any manner you choose to any situation. This remains no matter how few choices you have.

However, there is another side, that is different than "moral" agency. From another perspective, agency can be driven by your options. If you go into an ice cream store and the person in front of you buys the last scoop of chocolate, then you no longer have the option to choose chocolate at that store. You may choose to go somewhere else to get chocolate, or wait until later when they make more chocolate. You still have a lot of options. But, you cannot choose something that is no longer an option.

My point being is that if God removed the tree of life as a choice to Adam after he partook of the forbidden fruit, then he did not have agency to choose it. His only option would have been to follow God's plan and become mortal. He would not have had a choice. Without a choice there is no agency (in this regard) to choose a thing. I'm suggesting that God did not remove Adam's choice. The guard was not placed on the tree of life until after Adam chose to leave the Garden.

If God put the guard on the tree to prevent Adam from eating it, then he did not have agency, since there were only 2 choices at the time. Those who believe God placed the guard to prevent Adam from partaking must admit God removed his agency to choose that thing.

That's all I'm after, is for those who believe this to admit you can't believe one without the other. You cannot believe God allowed Adam to follow his own will while preventing him from making one of the two choices.

I propose God has never shown that He will remove a man's agency.

Some say had Adam partaken of the tree of life God's plan would have been destroyed and that's why He had to prevent him. My argument is that God allowed 1/3 of the hosts of heaven to exercise their agency in a fatal manner before He would prevent them from doing so.

If you use this truth to understand the scriptures in question, then they become clear.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Justice

[Webster]

I see Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit as the thing that prevented him from partaking of the tree of life. Consequences, pure and simple. There are some choices that are mutually exclusive. God said if you eat, you will surely die. He did not say if you eat, then we will give you the option to partake of the tree of life or be sent into mortality.

[Justice]

Yes. I'm not arguing that the scriptures don't appear to read that way. Part of my question is whether you believe Adam was accountable for his choice while in an innocent state, while he did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil (much like a young child). I don't believe he was fully accountable. Another part is the scriptural fact that God did not guard the tree of life until after Adam was removed from the Garden.

Again, I don't argue with what you say, I am asking the question if God would remove Adam's agency to partake of the tree of life because it was still available to him up until the time he left the Garden.

Also, I'm asking for someone to tell me why Alma would explain what would happen if Adam would have partook of the tree of life after partaking of the forbidden fruit on 2 separate occasions, and why Mormon would include those in his abridgment. It's also ironic that those consequences are EXACTLY what lucifer wanted and perfectly describe his alteration to the plan.

It's easy to say "When Adam partook of the forbidden fruit it prevented him from partaking of the tree of life in the Garden." But, no one has responded directly to my evidence and claims. They state the scriptures, their understanding of those scriptures, but have seemed to ignore my evidence so far.

Why would Alma state an impossibility and then present the consequences of something that was impossible? 2 times, no less!

How could God have prevented Adam from partaking of the tree of life if it wasn't guarded until after Adam left?

And, regardless of what consequences brought about by eating the forbidden fruit (like not being able to eat of the tree of life) the fact remains that the claim has been made that God placed the guard to prevent Adam from eating it, so whether or not his first choice prevented it was not enough for God not to place the guard as claimed. According to some, God still placed the guard to "prevent" Adam from eating it.

I just don't see how that makes sense. However, I have blindly accepted that very thing most of my life. It wasn't until I began a serious study of the creation, fall, and atonement where I started to see where God would not remove a man's agency and force that man to follow Him. If He did that for Adam then He could and would do it for all men or He would not be fair.

So, to help me, refute the claims directly.

[Webster]

I feel like this post has been a bait and switch. This began as a post on the topic of Agency, and what it meant, but recently it's become all about a certain belief and either a plea to accept that belief or a challenge to refute it. It looks like no one wants to play this new game, since the topic has slowed and is at risk of dying.

If this post gets back on the topic of Agency, I will again participate. But if not, it was fun until it swerved and got off track. I would still like to hear about the sixth agency verse (D&C 64:18) if this discussion ever makes it back to that point.

At one time I was going to share some ideas on the things that were recently said, but since responding to all the issues that have been raised would take more effort than I care to give to a different topic from the one I originally signed up for, I've decided not to make the effort. (I also don't think my views would make much difference anyway, so again, why expend the effort?)

If anyone wants to send me a personal message through LDS.net, I would be willing to find a time when we could talk about these other issues further (either I call you, or you call me); otherwise, I'm not in the mood to type about something I don't care that much about.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes. I'm not arguing that the scriptures don't appear to read that way. Part of my question is whether you believe Adam was accountable for his choice while in an innocent state, while he did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil (much like a young child). I don't believe he was fully accountable. Another part is the scriptural fact that God did not guard the tree of life until after Adam was removed from the Garden.

Again, I don't argue with what you say, I am asking the question if God would remove Adam's agency to partake of the tree of life because it was still available to him up until the time he left the Garden.

Also, I'm asking for someone to tell me why Alma would explain what would happen if Adam would have partook of the tree of life after partaking of the forbidden fruit on 2 separate occasions, and why Mormon would include those in his abridgment. It's also ironic that those consequences are EXACTLY what lucifer wanted and perfectly describe his alteration to the plan.

It's easy to say "When Adam partook of the forbidden fruit it prevented him from partaking of the tree of life in the Garden." But, no one has responded directly to my evidence and claims. They state the scriptures, their understanding of those scriptures, but have seemed to ignore my evidence so far.

Why would Alma state an impossibility and then present the consequences of something that was impossible? 2 times, no less!

How could God have prevented Adam from partaking of the tree of life if it wasn't guarded until after Adam left?

And, regardless of what consequences brought about by eating the forbidden fruit (like not being able to eat of the tree of life) the fact remains that the claim has been made that God placed the guard to prevent Adam from eating it, so whether or not his first choice prevented it was not enough for God not to place the guard as claimed. According to some, God still placed the guard to "prevent" Adam from eating it.

I just don't see how that makes sense. However, I have blindly accepted that very thing most of my life. It wasn't until I began a serious study of the creation, fall, and atonement where I started to see where God would not remove a man's agency and force that man to follow Him. If He did that for Adam then He could and would do it for all men or He would not be fair.

So, to help me, refute the claims directly.

Justice, I am coming into this discussion late so I apologize if I am off the mark with my comments or saying something that has already been said.

I see this issue the same way that I see someone who is not worthy to enter the temple not getting a temple recommend. If someone who was not worthy to get a temple recommend actually got into the temple, which I am sure has happened, it would not have the intended effect on that person as it would with someone who was worthy to be there.

The difference between that and the tree of life is that God would not allow for Celestial tools be defiled or misused in whatever method He uses. I think "guard" is metaphoric, and "prevent" could be used the same as saying "deny" or "not allow" just like we would want to "prevent" someone going to the temple who is not worthy by have a recommend system in the first place.

I think this discussion just points out that the limitations caused by having agency and not choosing the right are not just natural occurring consequences but also consequences delivered by God.

If I speed down the highway I could kill myself or kill someone else by my agency to obey the speed limit or not but also I could get a ticket. The ticket is not a natural consequence of the agency to speed. It is given by someone not involved in my agency, a "guard" so to speak.

In terms of worthiness, holiness, purity and Celestial states, God has to keep it that way by preventing Celestial mechanisms misuse. People can still try or even have the idea come to mind that they could misuse it, just like Satan thought he could take the firstborn role. He had the agency to think that and even fight for it, but God would not let that happen. We are also judged by the desires of our heart not just action. So, I think agency can be maintained when there is an opportunity to have bad desires even though we could have never done that thing in the first place.

So, sorry, long answer, but God may have had purpose to show Adam his fallen state and leave the tree there but metaphorically "guarded" as a physical representation of Adam's unworthiness to partake of Celestial things. God would not permit it because the things that Alma describes would have happened if He permitted it. Aren't there descriptions of what would happen if an unclean person entered God's presence too? Even though that would never happen because God would not permit it.

[Justice]

Sorry Webster. Maybe we can open a new thread. But, this topic does interest me.

Seminary, the only thing I'd say is that the idea was presented that God placed the guard to prevent Adam from partaking. That's not really the same thing as what you present, that a guard is there to monitor and regulate law. It would be more like the state installing a speed device on your car that prevented you from driving over a certain speed, therefore preventing the consequences from speeding. What was described here is that God prevented Adam from partaking by placing the guard. I just want to see where the scriptures say so. Vanhin has shown the scriptures, but they really don't say specifically that he placed the guard to prevent Adam, but prevent man from partaking.

You can take that 2 ways: that it is specifically talking about Adam since he was the only man, or that it meant man in general, or all the ones that would be born, and didn't necessarily mean Adam.

Again, it hinges on whether or not God would prevent Adam from partaking since it would have meant consequences God did not want. I get that our actions open and close doors. But, what was stated was that God prevented Adam from making a certain choice that had been available after giving him his agency.

I think that's a valid discussion since if items are removed from the selesction set and we are no longer able to choose them, our choices are limited and therefore our agency to choose them is removed.

Adam had a choice between 2 things: Following God's plan or following Lucifer's plan. Would God remove Adam's ability to choose Lucifer's plan, thereby removing his agency to choose God's plan, since it would then be the only option available?

[mordorbund]

Why would Alma state an impossibility and then present the consequences of something that was impossible? 2 times, no less!

There's another thread in this same forum about Alma 42 and Alma's teaching that if God was not just (allowed mercy to rob justice), then he would cease to be God. There is a split consensus, with some claiming that this phrase is an argumentative construct whose only purpose is to illustrate a hypothetical absurdity as to why things must be the way they are. The same argument can be applied to Alma 12. Can God's plan really be frustrated? Of course not, he's God. He knows the end from the beginning and can plan accordingly.

How could God have prevented Adam from partaking of the tree of life if it wasn't guarded until after Adam left?

Just tossing this out there, but how long was Adam fallen in the Garden? It sounds like after he eats the fruit, he discovers his nakedness, and is then confronted by God. So a direct intervention via a stewardship meeting sounds like an effective way to prevent him from eating.

And, regardless of what consequences brought about by eating the forbidden fruit (like not being able to eat of the tree of life) the fact remains that the claim has been made that God placed the guard to prevent Adam from eating it, so whether or not his first choice prevented it was not enough for God not to place the guard as claimed. According to some, God still placed the guard to "prevent" Adam from eating it.

That is correct. Adam was not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life at that time. Continuing from where I left off above, the confrontation was a temporary measure, cherubim are a more permanent solution.

When the Atonement cleansed Adam, he could then pass by the angels who stand as sentinels and live forever in his exaltation.

I just don't see how that makes sense. However, I have blindly accepted that very thing most of my life. It wasn't until I began a serious study of the creation, fall, and atonement where I started to see where God would not remove a man's agency and force that man to follow Him. If He did that for Adam then He could and would do it for all men or He would not be fair.

So it shouldn't be too suprising to you that people in this forum aren't jumping on board and praising this lesson as Paul's missing exegesis.

I'll acknowledge that what you've written doesn't contradict the scriptures any more than the LDS teachings about Adam/Eve's state in the Garden contradict the Bible (the whole no children thing). But you should also acknowledge that this idea isn't really orthodoxy - that is, it's not in our manuals, it's not taught in Sunday School, it's not even hinted at in obscure references. It is there in the margins of your scriptures.

[Justice]

Can God's plan really be frustrated? Of course not, he's God. He knows the end from the beginning and can plan accordingly.

Agreed. However, when Lucifer formulated his plan, it was contrary to God's plan, and if carried out would have frustrated God's plan. So, when Alma describes Lucifer's plan he naturally would state the consequences.

I'd like to present a similar point. What if Jesus decided not to follow through the the atonement? He said, "If it be possible remove this cup from me." Well, in order for Father's plan to succeed, it was not possible that that cup be removed from Him. The "if it be possible" does not preclude Jesus' choice, but in fact proves Jesus choice that He could have refused. Had He refused God's plan would have been frustrated. It most certainly was a choice, and therefore possible. Even though it was impossible that the plan succeeded another way, it was possible that Jesus refused. You either believe that, or you believe Jesus did not have a choice.

I view Adam in a similar light with his choice. It doesn't say that Adam said, "if there's another way than through death and suffering..." but I view it much that way. Adam knew death was the only way for Father's plan to succeed, so even though it was a choice, it was not possible.

Just tossing this out there, but how long was Adam fallen in the Garden? It sounds like after he eats the fruit, he discovers his nakedness, and is then confronted by God. So a direct intervention via a stewardship meeting sounds like an effective way to prevent him from eating.

Certainly. But, even still, no matter when or how, if you feel God "prevented" Adam from not choosing Father's plan, then you still believe his agency was removed in that choice. Take it from whatever angle you want, but if he was prevented, he did not have a choice.

That is correct. Adam was not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life at that time. Continuing from where I left off above, the confrontation was a temporary measure, cherubim are a more permanent solution.

Again, I agree. I know and realize that this is a natural conclusion from the words that are written. This is the belief I held for most of my life.

So it shouldn't be too suprising to you that people in this forum aren't jumping on board and praising this lesson as Paul's missing exegesis.

LOL... not surprising at all... which is why I am open to discussion. I'd like for others to find the gaps and holes I am unable to see. Just like this comment you made...

I'll acknowledge that what you've written doesn't contradict the scriptures any more than the LDS teachings about Adam/Eve's state in the Garden contradict the Bible (the whole no children thing). But you should also acknowledge that this idea isn't really orthodoxy - that is, it's not in our manuals, it's not taught in Sunday School, it's not even hinted at in obscure references. It is there in the margins of your scriptures.

I whole-heartidly agree. I am not presenting this as the gospel that all must believe. I am presenting it for many reasons, including the possibility I have stumbled on to something that may be found elsewhere. It's possible there is other evidence of this in the scriptures that I have not found that someone else can show me. Or, perhaps someone can show other scriptures that directly refutes enough of this that I will have to re-think and ponder further.

Fire away!

[Justice]

This entire theory and understanding of mine started when I thought through the events in the pre-mortal existence and in the Garden long enough to see that God would not/did not remove Adam's agency, which means He could not have removed one of the two options Adam had to choose from.

No, this choice of Adam's was no longer the "moral" agency he exercised in the Garden when he chose to eat the forbidden fruit. This choice was made with full knowledge of good and evil, with an understanding of the consequence of death or mortality. He had a simple choice between 2 options. Had one been removed he would not have had a choice.

That understanding led me to see that God did not actually place the guard for Adam, but for man. The scriptures back that up. They never say the guard was placed for Adam, but for man, and they say that the guard wasn't placed until after Adam left the Garden. There is other evidence as well, but I want to deal with this first.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Justice