Question about free agency

[Snow]

There were never two plans! There was only the one plan, and Satan tried to amend it to gain glory! It was REBELLION, and those who rebelled were cast out! It was never, 'Okay, look, you need to select this or that'."

So there was a plan and then there was an amended plan. That equals 2 plans,

[questioning_seeker]

It was REBELLION, and those who rebelled were cast out! It was never, 'Okay, look, you need to select this or that'."

I think rebellion is not the right word. I see Lucifer's proposal as the legitimate expression of a valid alternative opinion. The motives behind the proposal are not ideal, but I don't think it is rebellion for Lucifer or anyone else to have had a different view, and to have tried to gain support for that view. The term rebellion suggests a type of opposition to systems of control and possibly dictatorship that I suspect did not exist in the pre-existence. I think contest of opinions is a more appropriate description than rebellion.

[questioning_seeker]

From my viewpoint, free will, along with intellect, reason and the ability to love, is an attrribute of being created in the image and likeness of God.

This is just a moot point, and maybe it is only semantic, but I think that what we start out with is only the potential for love and reason and choice, and whether this potential actually grows into the ability to love and reason depends on the choices we make at some very early stage of our existence. I'm still thinking through the question of whether or not we come into existence with the ability to choose or only the potential to develop that ability. Possibly whatever we come into existence with might be described as a "proto ability" to choose.

This same scenario exists concerning the choice of Adam and Eve. If they had to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in order to have "free will choice" then how did they make the choice to disobey God in the first place? If they did not know that they were choosing to disobey God then no sin could have been imputed by their actions. This seems to me to be the same question.

I think Mormons say Eve transgressed rather than sinned, which almost sounds a little bit like lawyer speak. Maybe transgressing doesn't have as serious a set of consequences as sinning does but I'm only idly speculating here.

[questioning_seeker]

So there was a plan and then there was an amended plan. That equals 2 plans,

I think Lucifer's proposal can be viewed as a fairly significant variation to the same script, with a major change in who would play the lead role. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether we see this as two plans or one.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the point Vort is trying to make, is that Satan's "plan B" was never viable. There was never a possibility of it being adopted. It was not "A or B", it was "A--take it or leave it".

I can walk into bankruptcy court and submit a Chapter 13 payment plan that has the judge making my client's payments to creditors out of his own pocket. Semantically, yes, it's a "plan". But the conceptual basis is so absurd that if I went back and discussed it with other bankruptcy lawyers, my continuing straight-faced insistence on calling the thing a "plan" worthy of the court's consideration would get me laughed out of the room.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

So there was a plan and then there was an amended plan. That equals 2 plans,

How would the "amended plan" have worked, Snow? How would people have been exalted?

Oh, yeah, that's right. They would not have been.

No plan.

The only "plan" Satan ever had was to usurp God's honor through the destruction of man's agency. There was no element of salvation or exaltation offered. There was no "plan".

[james12]

"Christ did not present a plan of redemption and salvation nor did Lucifer. There were not two plans up for consideration, there was only one; and that was the plan of the Father: originated, developed, presented and put in for by him." (Bruce R. McConkie, Improvement Era, May 1953 p1)

Sometimes we even miss the question. It was not which plan to choose but it was "whom shall I send" to implement the plan.

[SteveVH]

I think Mormons say Eve transgressed rather than sinned, which almost sounds a little bit like lawyer speak. Maybe transgressing doesn't have as serious a set of consequences as sinning does but I'm only idly speculating here.

Regardless of what one calls it, it had serious repercussions for mankind, so serious that we now required a Savior. Adam and Eve's choice to disobey God affected all of creation and the lives of all mankind:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." {Gen 3:16-19)

My point here is that if Adam and Eve were acting purely out of some sort of innocent naivety, then God's reaction would seem to have been extremely harsh and one might very well and with good reason question his justice. Remember, because of their disobedience, sin, suffering and death entered a world wherein they did not previously exist. My contention is that Adam and Eve possessed free will because they were created with free will. That they knowingly made a choice to disobeyed God for their own gain is evident due to God's reaction. They were certainly not wandering around in some blissful fog and happened to eat of the wrong tree. They bought into the lie of Satan and desired to "be like God" for their own benefit and knowingly disobeyed the direct command of God not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. They now must suffer the first death: "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That's pretty harsh if one had not freely chosen to disobey God, at least in my opinion.

Edited September 23, 2011 by StephenVH

[Vort]

Regardless of what one calls it, it had serious repercussions for mankind, so serious that we now required a Savior. Adam and Eve's choice to disobey God affected all of creation and the lives of all mankind:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." {Gen 3:16-19)

My point here is that if Adam and Eve were acting purely out of some sort of innocent naivety, then God's reaction would seem to have been extremely harsh and one might very well and with good reason question his justice. Remember, because of their disobedience, sin, suffering and death entered a world wherein they did not previously exist. My contention is that Adam and Eve possessed free will because they were created with free will. That they knowingly made a choice to disobeyed God for their own gain is evident due to God's reaction. They were certainly not wandering around in some blissful fog and happened to eat of the wrong tree. They bought into the lie of Satan and desired to "be like God" for their own benefit and knowingly disobeyed the direct command of God not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. They now must suffer the first death: "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That's pretty harsh if one had not freely chosen to disobey God, at least in my opinion.

I actually agree with your analysis. In any meaningful sense, Adam's and Eve's transgression must be considered a sin of some sort. The effect of sin is spiritual death -- being cut off from God's presence -- and of course that is exactly what happened.

What you are missing is modern revelation that explains more fully the meaning of these things. This is not a condescending remark to put you in your place; it is simply fact. You do not accept, and thus do not know or understand, modern revelation on this topic. Without such revealed knowledge, you are left with traditional interpretations of translations of ancient writings as your best path to understanding. It is insufficient.

[Traveler]

Regardless of what one calls it, it had serious repercussions for mankind, so serious that we now required a Savior. Adam and Eve's choice to disobey God affected all of creation and the lives of all mankind:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." {Gen 3:16-19)

My point here is that if Adam and Eve were acting purely out of some sort of innocent naivety, then God's reaction would seem to have been extremely harsh and one might very well and with good reason question his justice. Remember, because of their disobedience, sin, suffering and death entered a world wherein they did not previously exist. My contention is that Adam and Eve possessed free will because they were created with free will. That they knowingly made a choice to disobeyed God for their own gain is evident due to God's reaction. They were certainly not wandering around in some blissful fog and happened to eat of the wrong tree. They bought into the lie of Satan and desired to "be like God" for their own benefit and knowingly disobeyed the direct command of God not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. They now must suffer the first death: "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That's pretty harsh if one had not freely chosen to disobey God, at least in my opinion.

There are many interesting “things” in scripture. The epoch of the Fall is most interesting.

1. Did Adam and Eve understand what they wanted or were they “beguiled” into making a choice they really did not understand? - The scriptures say explicitly that Eve was beguiled. Why did G-d not forgive Adam and Eve set everything right - especially for innocent unborn children and start over? Because He did not have the power - or did not want to?

2. Was the fall G-d’s plan all along or did Satan succeed in ruining G-d original plan?

3. Can G-d be “forced” to change his plans because of circumstances he cannot or does not control? Or was (is) G-d really 100% in control but still blaming Adam and Eve for what he controlled and willing (in full knowledge of all things - especially the future) to happen more than them?

4. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that Adam and Eve rebelled against G-d. It appears to me that if we take the Scriptures at exactly what is written - Adam and Eve did not really understand what was going on and had to be tricked into making a decision they really did not intend to make. If someone is tricked (beguiled) - how can we say it is an expression of their “free will”? It also appears that G-d should have known that Satan would lie and Adam and Eve were not equipped to deal knowingly with Satan’s lie. Beyond the prejudice of many people touting religion - Why is G-d in no way responsible for “letting” this happen? There are many fair minded atheists that see the injustice brought upon especially the offspring of Adam and Eve. How can anyone say G-d is just that punishes innocent children because of the stupidity of their parents?

5. The final point I will make is not really the final point of the Fall of Adam and Eve - just the final point I will bring up in this post. Do we really believe that in the end - after all the “dust” is settled and all is said and done that man (not just Adam and Eve but all mankind) is better off - or forever “damaged” goods denied better intended opportunities because of the fall? What does a person’s concept of the Fall really say about the G-d they “Choose” to worship? Is that choice, which is based on our flawed (fallen) understanding of scripture and other things of G-d; that much different that the choice of Adam and Eve?

The Traveler

[Justice]

I think Mormons say Eve transgressed rather than sinned, which almost sounds a little bit like lawyer speak. Maybe transgressing doesn't have as serious a set of consequences as sinning does but I'm only idly speculating here.

When a child who is 2 takes a toy that doesn't belong to them, for the sole reason that they want it, being unable to consider the consequences, it is transgression. They have to be taught why it is wrong and what consequences come as a result of their action. A law or rule was broken, but it was done without understanding. Sin, is when an adult steals something, with full knowledge of right and wrong and of the consequences to self and to the one they stole from.

There is a blatant difference.

Remember, Adam and Eve had not yet partaken of the fruit of the tree of the knwoledge of good and evil, so they were still in a state of innocence. They did not fully understand the consequences.

[Justice]

If someone is tricked (beguiled) - how can we say it is an expression of their “free will”?

In the earliest Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, Eve did not say she was beguiled, she, in fact, said that the serpent caused her to forget.

Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

[Justice]

My point here is that if Adam and Eve were acting purely out of some sort of innocent naivety, then God's reaction would seem to have been extremely harsh and one might very well and with good reason question his justice. Remember, because of their disobedience, sin, suffering and death entered a world wherein they did not previously exist. My contention is that Adam and Eve possessed free will because they were created with free will. That they knowingly made a choice to disobeyed God for their own gain is evident due to God's reaction. They were certainly not wandering around in some blissful fog and happened to eat of the wrong tree. They bought into the lie of Satan and desired to "be like God" for their own benefit and knowingly disobeyed the direct command of God not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. They now must suffer the first death: "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That's pretty harsh if one had not freely chosen to disobey God, at least in my opinion.

Remember that LDS belif is that Adam and Eve chose to Fall. Accordingly, they chose the consequences. When we read the list of consequences it looks like a punishment, but I wonder...

[Justice]

We can get into the semmantics of God's plan verses Satan's plan, and that there really was only one plan presented.

The fact is, God only presented one plan. Lucifer then proposed an ammended version, or his own plan. Whether or not it would work does not make it a plan. Lots of plans in history were doomed before they started.

[SteveVH]

I actually agree with your analysis. In any meaningful sense, Adam's and Eve's transgression must be considered a sin of some sort. The effect of sin is spiritual death -- being cut off from God's presence -- and of course that is exactly what happened.

What you are missing is modern revelation that explains more fully the meaning of these things. This is not a condescending remark to put you in your place; it is simply fact. You do not accept, and thus do not know or understand, modern revelation on this topic. Without such revealed knowledge, you are left with traditional interpretations of translations of ancient writings as your best path to understanding. It is insufficient.

Just so you know, I certainly take no offense to your position, however, I would put "modern revelation" in the category of a claim, rather than a fact. Keep in mind that I also believe that Christ fulfilled his promise that he would never leave the Church he started and that he has sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. That is also a claim, but one based upon the words and promises of Christ himself. And, just as you have received a testimony that your Church is the true Church, so have I received the same testimony concerning my Church. These are matters of faith, not fact. What is fact is that one or both of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. Anyway, thanks for your comments.

[SteveVH]

To Justice and Traveler, thanks for your responses to my post. I am looking forward to responding but have other matters that will not allow me to take the time right now. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I'll try to comment tomorrow.

- Stephen

[questioning_seeker]

Two lengthy comments to consider.

1) It seems to be that the choice between God and Lucifer’s versions of the plan came down to something like this:

God's plan: We will all have the opportunity to learn and grow by making wise choices. It will be tough and most of us will not reach the level of growth needed to return to our Father but we will be free to make our own choices, and by so doing, will learn and grow. Most of us will not make it but those who do will be much better off for having experienced mortality, and for those who do make it, there will be a nice reward. All of us will make some bad choices for which God's innocent Son will have to suffer difficulties.

Lucifer's plan: No choice, no pain or difficulties for anyone, no freedom, probably no growth, guaranteed return for everyone, and everyone gets to live with God.

Under God's plan, only a few of us get to make it back, albeit in a much more enlightened condition than when we left, and then we get to enjoy the nice reward for the rest of eternity. Under Lucifer's plan, all of us make it back, without having gained much enlightenment, and then we get back to enjoy the nice reward, but we have all eternity to gain the needed enlightenment that we missed out on gaining here on earth as a result of not having agency.

It might appear to some, that it makes much better sense for everybody, rather than a few, to make it back. We would then have all eternity to do the learning and growth that we are supposed to fit into just three score years and ten here in mortality.

2) It also seems to me that I can imagine a pre-mortal spirit sitting in the pre-existence trying to make up his mind as to which version of the plan to choose, and his thinking going something like this:

On the one hand, I have a plan under which I know most will fail, but for those very few who succeed, the rewards will be great. On the other hand, we have a plan whereby all will succeed, and the rewards probably won’t be as great. Which do I choose – the one that will save only a few, and give them a great reward, or the one that will save all, but possibly with a lesser reward. I’m going to choose the plan that offers the biggest reward, because I’m interested in, and attracted to big rewards, and if there are lots who fail to make it, well then that’s just too bad, but I’ll be ok because I have my big reward.

Knowing that many would fail, was our choice as to which version of the plan we wanted based in part on self interest?

These are not views that I subscribe to, but they are thoughts that occur to me from time to time and for which I have not yet worked out satisfactory answers, but I am curiously seeking for such.

Edited September 24, 2011 by questioning_seeker
the first version of my comments was a little too heretical

[james12]

questioning_seeker,

I am afraid your previous post is an example of what can happen if we suppose that Lucifer presented a valid plan. He did not do so. Also, I do not believe the goal was to return us to live with our Father. The goal was to attain a body like Father has. Because of these two misunderstandings I believe some of your conclusions go astray.

The idea of Lucifer's supposed "plan" returning us to live with God in some better condition holds no weight. After all a third part of the hosts of heaven chose Lucifer's plan. They are not going to return to live with God. As far as I know the only confirmation in the scriptures that Lucifer's plan would have improved our condition comes from the father of all lies himself.

All who accepted God's plan will attain a physical body. This will put them in a far better state than any who chose to follow Satan (with the only exception being perhaps the son's of perdition who are very few in number). Not only will they be in a better state than those who chose to follow Satan but they will be in a better state than if they had remained as spirit bodies. A physical body is a step up in progression even for those who do not attain the Celestial Kingdom.

[Traveler]

In the earliest Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, Eve did not say she was beguiled, she, in fact, said that the serpent caused her to forget.

Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

This is a varent reading - but not the only one. My point, even in light of your reading is that Eve did not act out as a matter of her will but was "tricked".

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

questioning_seeker,

I am afraid your previous post is an example of what can happen if we suppose that Lucifer presented a valid plan. He did not do so. Also, I do not believe the goal was to return us to live with our Father. The goal was to attain a body like Father has. Because of these two misunderstandings I believe some of your conclusions go astray.

The idea of Lucifer's supposed "plan" returning us to live with God in some better condition holds no weight. After all a third part of the hosts of heaven chose Lucifer's plan. They are not going to return to live with God. As far as I know the only confirmation in the scriptures that Lucifer's plan would have improved our condition comes from the father of all lies himself.

All who accepted God's plan will attain a physical body. This will put them in a far better state than any who chose to follow Satan (with the only exception being perhaps the son's of perdition who are very few in number). Not only will they be in a better state than those who chose to follow Satan but they will be in a better state than if they had remained as spirit bodies. A physical body is a step up in progression even for those who do not attain the Celestial Kingdom.

Touché. As Mormons, it's easy to forget how universalist our idea of salvation really is. We take the conventional Christian notion of heaven, and assign it (with the few exceptions that are the sons of perdition) to pretty much everyone who's ever lived.

I think the war in heaven fundamentally boiled down into the question of who each individual chose to trust. Those who trusted the Father, agreed to follow His plan. Those who trusted Lucifer, followed his "plan".

[Justice]

I am afraid your previous post is an example of what can happen if we suppose that Lucifer presented a valid plan.

Hind sight is always 20/20. Those who chose to side with Lucifer did so because they thought his plan could work. They were fooled. I don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone said Lucifer proposed a plan that would work. It doesn't say in scripture whether Lucifer actually believed his plan could accomplish the same thing as Father's. Maybe he wanted something else, or maybe he actually believed his alterations would still bring about Father's desired results. Since he is the father of lies it's hard to know what he thought.

But, Lucifer did propose to alter Father's plan. So, if we can't call it Lucifer's plan, then maybe we should call it Lucifer's alteration to Father's plan. Either way, those who followed him did so because they believed it would work.

Also, I do not believe the goal was to return us to live with our Father. The goal was to attain a body like Father has. Because of these two misunderstandings I believe some of your conclusions go astray.

If the goal of the plan was to gain a body, then all who came to earth succeeded? There was something else we lacked that Father in Heaven had. He had the knowledge of good and evil and chose to use His agency for good. In order to become like Him (so we could live with Him, or live like Him) we also needed to gain the knowledge of good and evil, and then learn to choose good over evil. That is the crux of the plan. We needed to be separated from Him to bring this plan about, so the earth was created and the conditions were implemented whereby His children could come to earth, fall (separated from Him by a veil), be redeemed, and given a chance to learn to choose good over evil. We do this by following the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the key being repentance.

The idea of Lucifer's supposed "plan" returning us to live with God in some better condition holds no weight. After all a third part of the hosts of heaven chose Lucifer's plan. They are not going to return to live with God. As far as I know the only confirmation in the scriptures that Lucifer's plan would have improved our condition comes from the father of all lies himself.

Again, no one claimed Lucifer's plan would work. Maybe it was his plan to make it where we couldn't return to Heavenly Father so he could rule over us. We don't know exactly what his goals were for proposing an alteration to Father's plan, other than the generic reasons meantioned in scripture.

All who accepted God's plan will attain a physical body. This will put them in a far better state than any who chose to follow Satan (with the only exception being perhaps the son's of perdition who are very few in number). Not only will they be in a better state than those who chose to follow Satan but they will be in a better state than if they had remained as spirit bodies. A physical body is a step up in progression even for those who do not attain the Celestial Kingdom.

Agreed. :)

[bettyjbass]

After reading everyone post discussions, would someone answer this question for me? So does that make my free agency be of darkness, just because a person stealing it away from me, by making contentions in taking away my agency to take sacrament today? I guess by the looks of it that is why my strong spirited in Our Heavenly Father, why i am crying so hard. Every time it seems for me to go to church Satan, always rise up in this person with some nasty words about me going. I am so hurt to night, although pondering the scritpures, and talked with my home teacher, her and I nearly cried together without saying our tackles that we both or facing. But through it all, I can take the truth, because i do follow the truth. Amen!

[Just_A_Guy]

But, Justice, FWIW, people don't honor what Bernie Madoff did by calling his investment regimen a "plan". It is rightly dismissed as a "scam", regardless of whatever his dupes thought and regardless of whether he had convinced himself (as many of these jokers do) that somehow he'd always be able to get what he needed to pay the piper.

We have no qualms about dismissing the promises of Madoff, the Enron gang, Charles Keeting, and hucksters from time immemorial as "scams". Why do we dignify Lucifer by calling his proposal a "plan" rather than the celestial ponzi scheme that it was?

[Vort]

Hind sight is always 20/20. Those who chose to side with Lucifer did so because they thought his plan could work.

Nonsense. They were not cast out of heaven and eternally damned merely because they chose wrongly. They were cast out and eternally damned because they openly rebelled against the Father of all. This was no mere "oopsie". This was rank rebellion, open defiance of God himself. Satan sought the Father's glory and openly rebelled, and those who were like Satan followed him.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of the scriptures. Those Latter-day Saints who hold to the idea that those cast out just "chose wrong" utterly miss the point, and completely fail to explain why those lost souls (and they are eternally lost) seek the destruction of us all. They openly rebelled and defied God the Father.

Please, let's have no more of this ridiculous nonsense that the premortal council and, ultimately, the war in heaven, were simply a "choice" between "competing plans", and Satan's followers were simply "deceived" and just "chose wrong".

[Justice]

No one or nothing can take your agency away.

When it is said that Satan wanted to remove our agency, it means he wanted to make it where some choices were not available to us. He wanted to force us to obey him by removing other choices. Some followed him willingly, others did not. He was devising a way where the rest of us had "no choice but to follow him," thereby removing our agency. The wording is tricky, but if you stay with core truths it makes it easier.

As children of God we have agency, and the only way our ability to choose God or Satan can be removed is by our choice. God will never remove a man's ability to choose Him or Satan. However, Satan has no such integrity. He wanted to remove God as a choice, even for those who wanted to choose God. That's what it means by Satan wanted to remove our agency.

Read Alma 12 and 42.

Satan is still trying.