Agency

[Justice]

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;

Ponder on why God could not/did not interfere, or place a "guard" around this choice for those in the pre-mortal existence. If He could do it for any man, and His plan still succeed, He could do it for all men.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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;

Ponder on why God could not/did not interfere, or place a "guard" around this choice for those in the pre-mortal existence. If He could do it for any man, and His plan still succeed, He could do it for all men.

Because there is a difference between choices that would put an end to a persons eternal progression versus choices that allow for the refiner's fire of this life to, in the end, make us stronger people. And sometimes only God can see that bigger picture.

It's like asking why would you let your 16 year old daughter take the car out at 2 pm but not at 10 pm. The 16 year old may ask, "You let me drive at 2 pm, so tell me why you are not letting me drive at 10 pm? That is hypocritical, you are taking away my freedom."

I think if the core of one's being is to go against God's plan from the beginning then there is no benefit in coming to this world to receive a body and to be tested. The fall was a downward and forward step. There are some steps that are simply downward but not forward.

[Justice]

Very thoughtful comments, Seminary. Believe it or not, I have had those thoughts before and have pondered them for a very long time, along with many other thoughts I've had related to this topic.

Because there is a difference between choices that would put an end to a persons eternal progression versus choices that allow for the refiner's fire of this life to, in the end, make us stronger people. And sometimes only God can see that bigger picture.

Of course. However, I'm not arguing that. The comparison I'm making is between the choice that the 1/3 hosts in heaven made (that halted their progression) and the presented argument that God prevented Adam from making a progression-halting choice. He didn't prevent the 1/3, but He prevented Adam (according to some).

I think if the core of one's being is to go against God's plan from the beginning then there is no benefit in coming to this world to receive a body and to be tested. The fall was a downward and forward step. There are some steps that are simply downward but not forward.

Yet, it seems that some who sided with God's plan in the pre-mortal existence choose to go against His plan while in mortality.

It's impossible for us to know what it was like in the pre-mortal existence. We were in a state that we are no longer in; a state that we can never be in again. Even if some knowledge is restored and we see what it was like, it's impossible for us to view it the same way because "we have become as gods, knowing good and evil."

In much the same manner, it is also impossible for us to understand what it was like for Adam in the Garden before he partook of the forbidden fruit. The best guess I have is that it was somewhat like a small child who is innocent, very possibly much like the state of mind he was in while in the pre-mortal existence.

When he partook of the forbidden fruit his "eyes were opened." Meaning, his eyes were not open (in this regard) before he partook. So, he was not completely accountable, and not fully capable of making the choice to die. It wasn't until he fell, and death was looming over him, that he was fully capable and accountable of making the choice to die. I propose that it was THEN that he made the choice, while his eyes were open, and he was fully accountable for his choice, to enter mortality and death, thus bringing consequences that could not come as a result of any choice made prior to the fall (see note below).

He HAD to have made the choice while his eyes were open. I believe this is what those scriptures in Alma 12 and 42 are trying to teach us. Satan wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of life immediately (or instead of following God's plan to enter mortality) after he ate of the forbidden fruit. As the scriptures say, THAT would have brought about everything Satan wanted.

Note: You might ask why the 1/3 are fully accountable for their choice since their eyes were not opened yet either. The verse where God grants Adam his agency in the Garden of Eden is the key (the one with the "seeming" contradiction). It wasn't until the physical creation was complete, and Adam dwelt in a physical body capable of falling to a state of mortality (or a state of death -- separation from God) to remain alive in a veiled or separated condition for a time in order that he might learn to repent and follow God, having experienced sin and death.

Actually, Adam's choice brought about the same state that Lucifer was in as well. Mankind became lost and fallen forever, just as Lucifer. It's just that the mortal condition allowed for an unconditional blood atonement to be made by one who was perfect. That's the only reason we did not suffer the same fate as Lucifer. Mortality allowed us an opportunity. That's why Father had this earth created where man could fall and become mortal. But, agency is the key driver for this to work. Remove agency and the plan cannot work.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Justice

[Seminarysnoozer]

It's impossible for us to know what it was like in the pre-mortal existence. We were in a state that we are no longer in; a state that we can never be in again. Even if some knowledge is restored and we see what it was like, it's impossible for us to view it the same way because "we have become as gods, knowing good and evil."

In much the same manner, it is also impossible for us to understand what it was like for Adam in the Garden before he partook of the forbidden fruit. The best guess I have is that it was somewhat like a small child who is innocent, very possibly much like the state of mind he was in while in the pre-mortal existence.

When he partook of the forbidden fruit his "eyes were opened." Meaning, his eyes were not open (in this regard) before he partook. So, he was not completely accountable, and not fully capable of making the choice to die. It wasn't until he fell, and death was looming over him, that he was fully capable and accountable of making the choice to die. I propose that it was THEN that he made the choice, while his eyes were open, and he was fully accountable for his choice, to enter mortality and death, thus bringing consequences that could not come as a result of any choice made prior to the fall (see note below).

Note: You might ask why the 1/3 are fully accountable for their choice since their eyes were not opened yet either. The verse where God grants Adam his agency in the Garden of Eden is the key (the one with the "seeming" contradiction). It wasn't until the physical creation was complete, and Adam dwelt in a physical body capable of falling to a state of mortality (or a state of death -- separation from God) to remain alive in a veiled or separated condition for a time in order that he might learn to repent and follow God, having experienced sin and death.

Actually, Adam's choice brought about the same state that Lucifer was in as well. Mankind became lost and fallen forever, just as Lucifer. It's just that the mortal condition allowed for an unconditional blood atonement to be made by one who was perfect. That's the only reason we did not suffer the same fate as Lucifer. Mortality allowed us an opportunity. That's why Father had this earth created where man could fall and become mortal. But, agency is the key driver for this to work. Remove agency and the plan cannot work.

I agree with most of what you are saying here but I would have you focus on something that caught my attention, your statement; "The best guess I have is that it was somewhat like a small child who is innocent, very possibly much like the state of mind he was in while in the pre-mortal existence."

I think one thing that throws everyone off is the "like a small child" analogy because that makes everyone think about not having knowledge when in reality all metaphors as to "being like a child" are only referring to the level of innocence, meaning not guilty or in other words clean like a child. In some ways, I think that is a bad metaphor. Think of a male OB-Gyn doctor. He may have the top 1% knowledge of child birth and all its complications out of everyone in the world but he will never know what it is like to actually give birth. He is innocent as to that knowledge. The innocence of "being like a child" is related to the feeling of guilt and accountability, I think that is all.

If you are saying it is like the state of mind when we were in the pre-existence than to me that is very knowledgeable. Presumably, there was a great war in heaven that we all took sides and fought for that side, with words and knowledge. I think it would have been a pretty short war if we had no idea what we were talking about.

Like you are suggesting, if the 1/3 of heaven can make a decision that results in permanent separation than that is not as heavy as Adam making a decision with similar knowledge that only results in temporary separation.

I have had a hard time arguing this point but I think the plan of salvation is a lot more glorious and noble if Adam and Eve had a pretty good knowledge of what they were doing as opposed to doing it on accident or purely out of enticement when they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[Webster]

Justice,

So the problem (as you see it) is that God cannot take away Adam's "agency" to partake of the Tree of Life AFTER he had already partaken of the Tree of Knowledge, even though God told him that doing so would result in death? Because it would somehow be unjust for God to allow a natural consequence to be applied to Adam without his actually choosing that consequence? Because God doesn't take away anyone's "agency" . . . ever.

I might say that those who followed Lucifer in the pre-mortal existence made a decision to go against God, and He took away their "agency" to remain in the pre-mortal existence. They were cast out without getting to use their "agency" to choose to stay or leave. I imagine you would say that they HAD their agency at the time they rebelled, whereas Adam did not at the time he partook of the Tree of Knowledge. So they get a consequence, and Adam gets a chance to make God a liar if he chooses to partake of the Tree of Life and live forever in spite of what God had declared. That's interesting.

Although I disagree, I guess I can see how you could piece that together with the various assumptions you have made.

I guess it all hinges on the fact that Adam did not yet have his agency (a fact which I fully agree with). He was innocent. He did not understand the difference between good and evil. He was unaccountable. He was, in fact, like a little child.

The funny thing is . . . there ARE little children who die. Little children who are innocent, and who do not understand the difference between good and evil, and are unaccountable. They don't get to choose if they will live or die. Their death is often a natural consequence of something else--something else which they often don't even get to choose. They never have the "agency" to voluntarily choose to live or die, like Adam did.

When I reached the age of accountability, I was like Adam when he partook of the Tree of Knowledge. I lost my innocense, as I gained a knowledge of good and evil, and became accountable. But unlike Adam, I was never given the "agency" to decide to live or die either. I was born into mortality, so I will die.

So did God give Adam a break that no one in mortality gets? That would be unfair . . . because God doesn't take away anyone's "agency" . . . ever.

Something to think about. And yet, I'm sure you'll find a way around it.

[Webster]

By the way, the only time Adam, little children, or you and I ever made the choice to die is when we accepted the Father's plan to come to a telestial, mortal, fallen world.

Here is something I said in a previous post about whether Eve knew what she was doing when she partook of the forbidden fruit:

I don't know what she knew in the Garden of Eden.

I would suppose that she voluntarily made a conscientious choice with full knowledge to leave her paradise and enter into a fallen mortal sphere. But that may not have happened in Eden. I think it happened (as it may have with all of us) in the pre-mortal existence.

I think she and Adam made a choice in the pre-mortal realm, similar to the choice Jesus made, to sacrifice themselves and be an integral part of God's plan. I think the real choice to partake of the fruit came long before they were placed in Eden.

I think we all made that conscientious choice in the pre-mortal existence to voluntarily leave our paradise and be sent into a fallen mortal world. The consequence of death would just be another thing we accepted and agreed to when we accepted the Father's plan.

[mordorbund]

Adding to Webster's remarks after "amen"ing them. So far, I've been following Adam's path (the traditional one, not the one you're proposing). I made a choice to enter mortality. That same choice also separated me from God (through the veil). That same choice brought me into a fallen world. My "eyes were opened" - not that I suddenly received knowledge that I've never had before, I clearly had knowledge of Good and Evil when the Father's plan was presented and a rebellion ensued. My eyes were opened in the sense that I then had experiential knowledge of Good and Evil in a veiled world. I too have become fallen in this fallen world (through my own sins, but this is still tied to the Fall - I'll not go into that now), and so am barred from eternal life.

Now, let's clarify what this barring means. It means that I cannot enter into God's presence (in the exaltation sense - not the judgement sense) until I become clean and holy. My agency in this thing has not been removed. It's just not a single-choice decision. I can still choose liberty and eternal life, and I think Adam can choose to partake of the Tree of Life. I can choose to receive the ordinances and live the covenants that will enable me to pass by the angels who stand as sentinels, and Adam can choose to do the same to pass by the cherubim who guard the way to the Tree of Life.

So I don't see cherubim and a flaming sword as removing Adam's agency.

And for what it's worth, we all agree that "a flaming sword" is a light saber, right?

[Justice]

I don't have time to respond in depth, but I will ponder and reply later.

Seminary, I completely agree. I believe the state of innocence included having lots of knowledge. But, there are some things, as you described perfectly, where knowledge is trumped by experience. More later.

Webster, I am not suggesting natural consequences do not remove or limit choice. I'm saying that as choices are removed, from a certain perspective, that means agency is diminished. When Adam was faced with a choice between 2 things, and if God removes one of them, he would only be left with 1 option. That doesn't leave a choice. That would be equal to God forcing Adam to follow His plan. By partaking of the forbidden fruit, it did close many doors for Adam, but the choice remained:

1: partake of the tree of life and become immortal again (before having children)

2: do not partake of the tree of life and enter mortalilty (then have children while mortal)

Closely read Alma 12 and 42 and look for the consequences. Doing one brought about the consequences Lucifer wanted, the other brought about the consequenses Father wanted.

mordorbund, I agree that Adam had the choice to partake of the tree of life. remember that had Adam done at that moment, unlike all other men, it would have destroyed Father's plan.

More later. I'm LATE!

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't have time to respond in depth, but I will ponder and reply later.

Seminary, I completely agree. I believe the state of innocence included having lots of knowledge. But, there are some things, as you described perfectly, where knowledge is trumped by experience. More later.

Webster, I am not suggesting natural consequences do not remove or limit choice. I'm saying that as choices are removed, from a certain perspective, that means agency is diminished. When Adam was faced with a choice between 2 things, and if God removes one of them, he would only be left with 1 option. That doesn't leave a choice. That would be equal to God forcing Adam to follow His plan. By partaking of the forbidden fruit, it did close many doors for Adam, but the choice remained:

1: partake of the tree of life and become immortal again (before having children)

2: do not partake of the tree of life and enter mortalilty (then have children while mortal)

Closely read Alma 12 and 42 and look for the consequences. Doing one brought about the consequences Lucifer wanted, the other brought about the consequenses Father wanted.

mordorbund, I agree that Adam had the choice to partake of the tree of life. remember that had Adam done at that moment, unlike all other men, it would have destroyed Father's plan.

More later. I'm LATE!

One other thing to consider is that "knowledge of good and evil" meaning accountability, guilt and it's associated agency may be mutually exclusive from immortality. Even after this life all sins have to be accounted for in the spirit world before we become immortal beings. That doesn't mean we will forget what we learned but that there is no more having to pay for sins or associated accountability with immortality.

So, another way to put the two options you have above are, 1. Do I want to coast the rest of my existence without the opportunity to grow or 2. Do I want to at least have a chance to improve myself?

It's kind of like deciding to go on a mission or not; 1. Do I limit my growth and get started right away on my life or 2. Do I sacrifice and limit my agency for 2 years so later I can grow even more?

[Webster]

The point of Alma 12 and 42 is that Adam could not go back to the Tree of Life, but the Atonement of Christ makes it possible for him to still have Eternal Life. He could not go backward and stay in the Garden, but he had to go forward through mortality with the Atonement to overcome both the physical and spiritual deaths of the fall, and also to overcome his own spiritual death through repentance.

Alma is not explaining the theory of Satan's plan. He is explaining the need of the Savior and the necessity and purpose or mortality to those who didn't understand that they would be judged according to their works (Zeezrom), who thought that it was impossible to live forever (Antionah), or who thought that God was unjust to punish people for their own sins (Corianton). Each one of these people seem to be anti-Christ to a point because they did not understand the need for a Savior, and they held views similar to Nehor and Korihor that this life is all there is, and it didn't really matter what they did during mortality.

Alma's point is that you don't go back to the Tree, you go forward through the Atonement to it. It is the only way you can be restored completely and then some.

[Justice]

There was a lot I wanted to comment on from your previous posts. However, the main point is this knowledge we gained. We were given our agency, and because of that we chose to gain the knowledge of good and evil. I have never seen it elaborated, but we agree there was some knowledge gained that they previously did not have (possibly many things).

The point of Alma 12 and 42 is that Adam could not go back to the Tree of Life

Alma 12 and 42 do not make the point Adam could not go back to the tree of life, but it explains the consequences if Adam did eat of the tree of life at that point.

Either you believe Alma and Mormon are using an impossible scenario (could not) to talk about consequences that could not have happened, or you believe Alma is explaining a second option for Adam that had devastating consequences. I don't see why they would waste time with something that was an impossibility, describing consequences of what resulted from something that Adam had no choice to do.

Alma 42:

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

If Adam had partaken of the tree of life at that point in time, according to the word of God, the plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

The scriptures make it clear that this was possible because it describes consequences.

All one needs to do is decide if God prevented Adam from making that choice.

Now, I agree that Adam could not have partaken of the tree of life at that point and gained eternal life as we understand it. He would have gained immortality, but not eternal life. I suggest that to a being who does not have a body (Lucifer), or to a being who has an immortal body and has NEVER been mortal, it would be hard to distinguish between "immortality" and "eternal life."

Heck, it's hard enough to explain here on earth to "mortals" who understand what death is.

It's at least possible that this was part of the confusion that led to 1/3 following Lucifer.

So, I agree with you, Adam could not have partaken of the tree of life at that point, but you have to finish the statement and say, "and gained eternal life." Because to me, the scriptures make it clear he most certainly could have partaken. It even describes the consequences if he had.

Alma is not explaining the theory of Satan's plan.

This is something that I cannot explain. I don't know what made me see it. I just remember the moment when I saw it. I have been told frequently that "some truths must be caught and not taught." I know that this is one of them. I can ramble until doomsday and never get one iota closer to explaining what I believe the scriptures are saying here. All I can do is bring it up and hope you will study, ponder, and pray about it.

I read those words for 30ish years and never saw it, until one day it was there.

All I can tell you is that I know this IS describing Satan's plan.

It might help to make a list of what you know Satan hoped to accomplish with his plan, then compare it to a list of the consequences described as a result of Adam eating the tree of life as proposed in Alma 12 and 42. Once you realize the consequences are *exactly* the same, it might peek your interest enough to open your mind and look into it deeper.

I often hear people say, "How dumb can Satan be, didn't he know it was impossible to bring about what he proposed?" Then, when you see what he proposed spelled out so plainly in scripture by a prophet in 2 places, you begin to see that there WAS a way for him to bring about his plan. And more, Alma describes it for you... he describes what series of events could have brought about what Satan proposed. It's too related not to make a link.

When you see that, you understand why Satan had to tempt Eve. No, he wasn't a pawn unknowingly carrying out Father's plan, he was trying to bring about his own plan, and it required Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit and then the tree of life. He could have frustrated the Father's plan by simply not tempting Eve. But, he did... and Alma tells us why.

So, no I can't use scripture and definitively prove this, because you can read the words and interpret them however you will, it seems just as I did for 30 years. I'm just presenting ideas and asking for serious consideration. Unless you can find scripture that hurts or helps my belief, then I'm all ears.

[Webster]

Some notes from the above:

It's convenient that you miss Alma 12:21 "if it had been possible" and Alma 12:26 "if it were possible". I know you'll explain them away, but to most people (probably even to Alma) it's a hypothetical statement that simultaneously points out that it's an impossibility. Alma is trying to explain that even if they could do something that was not possible, it still would not save them from the effects (plural) of the fall. The only way is forward, through the Atonement.

In Alma 42:5 which you use as proof, we have the interesting contradiction where Alma says that Adam would live forever according to the word of God, but then says that the word of God would be VOID. Impossibilities lead to contradictions.

As to the idea that describing consequences proves that something is possible, I could describe the consequences if you squeezed your whole body into a quart sized blender and turned it on (hint: not a pretty sight), but that in no way is proof that you can in fact squeeze your whole body into a quart sized blender!

(By the way, when was the moment that you saw this? Could it have been during my post on Agency about a year and a half ago, when it seemed you developed this idea the more the discussion went on?)

Lucifer said he would 1) redeem all mankind that 2) one soul would not be lost, and God said that Lucifer 3) sought to take away man's agency. But it seems according to your reading of Alma that if Adam and Eve had actually eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life after the fall, 1) Satan would have done nothing to redeem them, 2) they would have been forever lost, having no chance for repentance, and 3) he would have allowed man's agency (to partake of the Tree) rather than prevent it. So I guess I don't really see the similarities. (Unless, and I hold this out as a possibility, you intend to get back to the meaning of agency and come up with a completely new definition.)

[Webster]

Some examples of the combination of 'were', 'possible', and 'could' constructs:

Mosiah 3:16

16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

Mosiah 29:13

13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people--I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.

Alma 12:26

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.

Moses 7:30

30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

Will you say that little children can sin, or that man can number the particles of the earth? Just because something is said is no proof that it was possible, but again, I am quite sure that you will find a way around this.

[Vanhin]

It was not possible for our first parents to partake fo the Tree of Life prematurely after Jehovah placed Cherubim and a flaming sword specifically to prevent them from doing so. They were left to die, as God promised, so that they could be resurrected through the merits of Christ. They were prevented from partaking in order to buy them some time, so that they would have a chance to repent and be redeemed from their sins before the day of their resurrection.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Justice]

Will you say that little children can sin, or that man can number the particles of the earth? Just because something is said is no proof that it was possible, but again, I am quite sure that you will find a way around this.

No, but I will say that men can have just kings, and have had. :)

[Justice]

Then you all believe that Father in Heaven prevented Adam from making that choice.

Afterall, that is what this entire discussion hinges on. I'm glad you added the other quotes in scripture of "if it were possible" because it at least shows in one case that they used it for things that CAN happen.

I won't explain them away, but I feel I do have an explanation as to why they are. I have given them serious thought and consideration over many years. The text is there for me to read as well. I know many (or all) of you think I like to read scripture and interpret it for myself. But, it is very difficult for me to do so and I do not open my scriptures and say "Let's see what I can twist today."

The notion came to me powerfully; so powerfully that it caused me to open my mind and look beyond the words I had always understood. I have learned through many of these experiences that the Nephites really did have a language issue. It's not always apparent, but sometimes it is made known through the spirit.

For example:

I have discussed one of these language issues here before. It is commonly believed, even among BYU professors (and apparently among all of you), that the 116 lost pages of manuscript contained writings from Lehi up to or partially through King Benjamin. They use scripture (D&C 10, Words of Mormon mostly) and evidence, and some logic, to arrive at this conclusion. However, I do not believe so. I do not think it's what Mormon is trying to say in Words of Mormon. The language issue is just one piece of evidence, and here is part of it:

When you begin reading Words of Mormon (verse 3) he starts to tell you of how he was about to deliver his abridgement to his son, Moroni. He explains as he was about to do so he searched through the records that had been passed into his hands (the Large Plates of Nephi) and he finds the Small Plates of Nephi. He spends a few verses trying to explain that he prefers the Small Plates to the Large Plates so he chose them.

Contrast that to what how he explains what Benjamin does with the Small Plates when Amaleki gives them to him. Clearly and briefly, Mormon says:

10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin.

In order for the lost 116 pages to have contained a recored of the Large Plates from Lehi to King Benjamin, Mormon had to do the same thing King Benjamin did... he would have had to take the Small Plates and "put them with" his abridgement, leaving his abridgement from Nephi to King Benjamin in what he gave to Moroni. And, this is the assertion of all who believe as many of the BYU professors do.

So, why doesn't he just say that's what he did, like he did for Benjamin? He doesn't say that. In fact, he struggles through his words from verses 3 to 7 to describe exactly what he did. His language made it very difficult to describe the fact that he "removed a portion and replaced them" with the Small Plates. This scenario answers a LOT of other questions. It makes sense because they probably weren't in the habit of removing a portion of a historical record, especially one that was tediously written on plates. But, they were in the habit of taking one record and putting it with another. So, he can explain the one situation clearly and simply, but not the other.

Now, just as this issue we're discussing, I believe this is a language barrier. This phrase "if it were possible," like we find examples of in our own language, very possible had multiple meanings. These are the things where Moroni said that we would stumble over.

In any case, the focus, I believe, is on whether or not God would have given Adam his agency, then given Adam the knowledge of good and evil, and then removed "the evil choice" for his very first decision with agency and knowledge. If you believe God would have, then you can arrive at the conclusion you have. I know, I used to believe He did.

Yes, it's true that Adam exercised his agency with the first choice to partake of the forbidden fruit. But, that was called a transgression because he did not have the knowledge of good and evil when he partook. That means he did not make the decision with knowledge of the consequences, meaning he was not fully accountable. It wasn't until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that his eyes were open.

Without saying the same things over and over any longer, I'll just move on and hope what I have said will be considered.

The main point I wanted to make was that we KNOW it requires certain things for man to have agency. We know God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden. He gave man the ability to exercise this agency (or understanding of the consequences making him accountable--meaning that he could now gain eternal life with the proper use of his agency) by giving him the knowledge of good and evil. It was His design and intention for man to exercise his agency. So, why THEN remove the evil choice that would have allowed man to make his first choice? It doesn't make sense and I hope you think about it. Sometimes we overlook what we know to remain true to words we read. Well, I have learned that we should remain true to what we know and read the scriptures with an open mind.

There was one other comment I saw that I wanted to address, then I'll move on.

[Justice]

Well, this first:

after Jehovah placed Cherubim and a flaming sword specifically to prevent them from doing so.

I just wanted to remind readers that God did not place the guard until after Adam and Eve left the Garden.

[Justice]

It's convenient that you miss Alma 12:21 "if it had been possible" and Alma 12:26 "if it were possible". I know you'll explain them away, but to most people (probably even to Alma) it's a hypothetical statement that simultaneously points out that it's an impossibility. Alma is trying to explain that even if they could do something that was not possible, it still would not save them from the effects (plural) of the fall. The only way is forward, through the Atonement.

No, all I'm saying is that I don't believe it is trying to say that God removed the choice. I think it is saying Adam did not choose it, and that he would not choose it. I don't believe God would prevent Adam (or any man) from exercising their agency to choose Him. It goes against everything we know about Him, both what we know on earth and what we know from the pre-mortal existence.

In Alma 42:5 which you use as proof, we have the interesting contradiction where Alma says that Adam would live forever according to the word of God, but then says that the word of God would be VOID. Impossibilities lead to contradictions.

Not proof; evidence. Impossibilities do lead to contradictions, but so do choices. So does the choice of whether to follow Satan's plan or God's plan. It leads to choices and contradictions each and every day. So, because what you are saying is true doesn't make what I'm saying wrong. Both are possibilities.

As to the idea that describing consequences proves that something is possible, I could describe the consequences if you squeezed your whole body into a quart sized blender and turned it on (hint: not a pretty sight), but that in no way is proof that you can in fact squeeze your whole body into a quart sized blender!

Sigh.

(By the way, when was the moment that you saw this? Could it have been during my post on Agency about a year and a half ago, when it seemed you developed this idea the more the discussion went on?)

No, it was longer ago than that. I have learned piece after piece that supports it, but the thought first came into my mind about 5 or 6 years ago. It was very difficult for me to change my view from the traditional one held by nearly everyone else.

Lucifer said he would 1) redeem all mankind that 2) one soul would not be lost, and God said that Lucifer 3) sought to take away man's agency. But it seems according to your reading of Alma that if Adam and Eve had actually eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life after the fall, 1) Satan would have done nothing to redeem them, 2) they would have been forever lost, having no chance for repentance, and 3) he would have allowed man's agency (to partake of the Tree) rather than prevent it. So I guess I don't really see the similarities. (Unless, and I hold this out as a possibility, you intend to get back to the meaning of agency and come up with a completely new definition.)

In order to see how these consequences are exactly the same you have to look at them through the eyes of each that holds them. I'll briefly describe them:

Satan thought partaking of the tree of life immediately after WOULD redeem all men. It restored them to immortality, where they would not die, while within the Garden (or in God's presence). So, from a certain point of view, it has the appearance of redeeming all men.

One soul would not have been lost because all would have been born in this immortal condition, within the Garden, not having the choice to fall to a mortal condition or die; or not having the ability to be separated or veiled from God.

As noted above, removing man's agency was accomplished by removing mortality. In God's plan mortality was the driver. In order for the Redeemer to be born of a mortal mother, with blood, man had to be mortal. This physical earth was required, as was the fall to mortality. Satan's plan to have man all born immortal would have removed man's agency to choose mortality, thereby removing man's choice to choose the Redeemer.

Once Adam and Eve chose to restore themselves to an immortal condition BEFORE having children, the plan of our Father in Heaven would have been frustrated. Barring language difficulties, and sticking with what we know about God wanting man to exercise his agency, I believe Alma describes this perfectly.

[Justice]

... Satan needed Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil so they could have children. Then, he needed them to immediately partake of the tree of life.

Had that happened...

...well you can read the consequences for yourself.

[Vanhin]

Well, this first:

I just wanted to remind readers that God did not place the guard until after Adam and Eve left the Garden.

God made coats of skin for them and drove our first parents out of the garden, and immediately placed the guard to keep the way of the tree of life, lest they return and partake of it and live forever in their sins.

God prevented them premature access to the Tree of Life after the fall, so that they would have a chance to work out their salvation through the Atonement first. It's all really very simple.

Everyone of us will have immortality through the resurrection. That choice was made by us already in the pre-mortal world. Our agency here and now, is about determining the condition, or glory of that immortality. We have been given time to prepare for that day of judgment.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

No, all I'm saying is that I don't believe it is trying to say that God removed the choice. I think it is saying Adam did not choose it, and that he would not choose it. I don't believe God would prevent Adam (or any man) from exercising their agency to choose Him. It goes against everything we know about Him, both what we know on earth and what we know from the pre-mortal existence.

Here's you problem. Adam partaking of the Tree of Life prematurely is not the same thing as "choosing God". Had adam reached forth and partook at that time, he would have forever been separated from God, not having been redeemed from the fall first.

Partaking of the tree of life at that point was not an option and it was God who prevented it. That's just how it is.

You mistakingly think that God placing the guard would prevent Adam from choosing God, thus taking away his agency. That's the mistake you are making.

Adam could and did choose God, the only way that is possible - the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Like those in Lehi's vision, Adam traversed the strait and narrow path, held on to the iron rod, and ultimately partook of the tree of life, but he did so after having been redeemed by the power of the Only Begotten first. So, he did have the agency to choose God, even though he was prevented from partaking of the tree of life prematurely.

Each of us has the same choice in life, but none of us has early access to the tree of life. The way is guarded by sentinels.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited September 3, 2010 by Vanhin

[Seminarysnoozer]

... Satan needed Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil so they could have children. Then, he needed them to immediately partake of the tree of life.

Had that happened...

...well you can read the consequences for yourself.

I can see how possibly Satan would have had that idea and therefore tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But, who know what Satan was thinking, whatever it was he didn't understand the plan and I believe simply had his own motives in mind.

However it was done, the tree of life option was cut off after the tree of knowledge fruit was taken. After Alma gives the hypothetical situation of Adam eating from the tree of life he explains that it couldn't happen because Adam and Eve were "cut off" from it.

Alma 42: "5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.

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."

Don't ignore the "But" in verse 6. "But" kind of dismisses the sentence before it as an impossibility. At least, that's the way I interpret it. "Cutting" Adam and Eve off is an important description because it allows Adam and Eve and possibly even Satan to want it. I think God still wants all of us to desire the tree of life. It is still our goal and therefore is not completely taken off the table, just cut off, for now. I think Adam and Eve from that, realized, in part, that this life is a temporary existence and not permanently "cut off". But by 'placing the guard', it's like taking the keys away from the teenage driver for a few weeks as a punishment and learning experience, I don't have to destroy the car.

As in verse 5, this is just a way of creating a "space for repentance". So the tree of Life remained but cut off from their options temporarily.

[Justice]

Just so I can be clear...

Are you agreeing that God removed Adam's agency by preventing him from eating the tree of life because God knew it was best for him?

[Justice]

Here's you problem. Adam partaking of the Tree of Life prematurely is not the same thing as "choosing God".

Hmmm. I don't know if I have misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me.

Had Adam partook of the tree of life, at that point, he would have been following what Satan wanted, not what God wanted. God clearly wanted Adam to enter mortality, and gain eternal life the ONLY way it was possible, through His Son Jesus Christ. I get you on that one.

It was Satan that was tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit and THEN eat of the tree of life (according to Alma). For God to "prevent" Adam (and Eve) from doing so was to remove Adam's agency in this matter, or to prevent him from NOT follow His plan for mortality.

There would have been only one option left (once the evil one was removed) at that point, not leaving Adam any choice or agency in the matter.

I do not think they were the same thing at all. I agree.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

NICE! Some constructive criticism! I see you have read and considered what I have said, and not just tried to plug your thoughts and beliefs into what I'm saying. Thank you!

Don't ignore the "But" in verse 6. "But" kind of dismisses the sentence before it as an impossibility.

Yes, it dismisses it as a valid option. It would not have produced the desired results. Had Adam chose to do so, God's plan would have been frustrated.

But, God's plan was not frustrated.

That doesn't mean the comments about Adam partaking of the tree of life are hypothetical. I see no reason to infer that they were (it would actually be kind of silly to even include them if they were not possible). I recognize the words "if it were possible..." and acknowledge them as a difficulty. I agree, in order for my belief to be true, there has to be an explanation for that phrase. Others have posted where this same phrase meant something that was possible but did not or would not have happened. The fact that Adam would not have chose this option puts the same emphasis on it as if God "prevented" him from choosing it, and at the same time answers the question as to why God removed his agency to do so.

He did not. It was Adam's choice, and Adam would not have chose it. Just like Christ, Adam chose God's plan.

He was foreordained to make that choice, just as Christ was foreordained to say "nevertheless, thy will be done" in regards to the atonement. We all recognize and agree that it certainly was possible for Him not to endure the atonement. He makes it clear that it was His choice by saying, "if it be possible remove this cup from me."

Christ had a choice. I can endure this and fulfill Father's will, or I can refuse. For Him to say "if it is possible" (much like the Book of Mormon phrase "if it were possible") doesn't mean the other was NOT POSSIBLE, or it did not mean He did not have a choice, it means it wasn't possible for success. Christ certainly had His agency to not endure the atonement, He just didn't have another option to make Father's plan work. Thus, "if it were possible" another way becomes clear. Just like us, the agency is removed willingly by choice, not because God ever prevents us from choosing evil.

Adam also had another way. He could have chose to remain in the Garden. All he had to do was partake of the tree of life. The lie from Satan was that that would have brought about the same results as salvation through Christ. Thus "if it were possible" to gain salvation that way, or if it were possible for Adam to eat of the tree of life (and gain salvation). It was not possible.

That God would have removed the choice always bothered me, but I just wrote it off because I had no other explanation. Now I have one, one that came to me powerfully, and I am sharing that explanation.

No one has to believe it or support it. I just ask you to take it seriously and show me where I am wrong, if the scriptures are so clear on the matter. :)

Edited September 3, 2010 by Justice