"Evil Spirit"

[Martain]

Did Satan know good and evil when he made his choice? Well, yes and no.

I find it hard to understand how he could know good and evil and also not know it. In my mind he either knew it, or he did not.

Lucifer was in a position of great authority. He knew the results of other worlds which had accepted the Plan of Salvation and knew not all would be saved. His intentions were originally nobel. He wanted to create a plan where all would be saved.

After proposing his plan and having it be rejected in favor of Heavenly Father's plan with Jesus Christ as our savior, had Satan accepted this, he would not have been cast out.

There was no such thing as evil. Evil is to be the opposite of God. Until Satan actively became the opposite of God there was no such thing. So he didn't know evil he kind of invented it.

If there was no Evil then there was no Righteousness. If there was no Righteousness then God was not. God was and therefore so was evil. Both are therefore eternal having no beginning of days or end of days. Lucifer was not the first to fall just as our Heavenly Father was not the first to obtain Godhood. Satan is a title or a position. Others have held it before and others will hold it in the future. In no way did Lucifer invent evil.

HF must have known that someone was going to rebel, otherwise he could not provide #2 the possibility of opposites, thereby giving us #3 free agency.

We could indeed conclude as you have that without Satan there could be no possibility of opposites and without such opposites there could be no agency.

What of our pre-existance?

It was not until Lucifer was cast out of the heavens to earth that he assumed the title of Satan. He does not act in this position over those who are still in the spirit world. By your logic, since there was no Satan, we had no agency.

Perhaps you would state that agency began when Lucifer rebelled. Yet such would conclude that Lucifer had no agnecy to not rebel.

We know we had agency there. It was through Agency that Lucifer fell and assumed the role of Satan over those who would come to earth.

Therefore your conclusion must be flawed or incomplete.

I see two possible explinations to resolve this discrepancy.

The first would be the requirement of a being filling the role of Satan throughout the entire duration of our pre-mortal existance. We have already concluded that Lucifer could not be this individual.

Have we knowledge or revelation of such a being? No. Even it were true, what bearing would it have upon us? None that I can conceive.

I don't believe in such a doctrine.

The second explination would be that agency and the possibility of opposites exists even in the absense of anyone acting in the role of Satan.

Such an explination makes sense. For this would explain why our obedience in the pre-mortal world was insufficent inso that another test was necessary.

We could therefore say that one primary difference between our pre-mortal and mortal experiences is that the first had an active influence for Good, our Heavenly Father and his hosts, and the other has the additional active influence for Evil, Lucifer filling the role of Satan and his hosts.

Thus the reason why Satan is necessary for our mortal test, is not that because without him here there would be no agency, but simply that without him here, while we would retain the possibility of doing evil, we would not have an equal enticement to do evil as we do to do good.

Yet even after logically concluding all that I have, I too still have a hard time understanding and accepting that I had a fullness of opportunity to exercise my agency in the pre-mortal world with it's lack of a Satan as I do here in the mortal world. Yet I can not conclude that I did not have such fullness of opportunity to exercise my agency there as I do here either. It seems there must be more to this story than has been currently revealed.

Well... I'm not sure what others will get out of this but if nothin else, thank you Jayanna for a wonderful opportunity to exercise my mind =)

Edited December 2, 2011 by Martain

[Seminarysnoozer]

I find it hard to understand how he could know good and evil and also not know it. In my mind he either knew it, or he did not.

I think the differences are between experiential knowledge and secular or knowledge related to awareness. I can know that a pilot can fly a plane without knowing how to fly a plane. Likewise, we can know about good and evil but not really know what it is like, and therefore not yet appreciating the differences between them, without having experiential knowledge of the difference.

To know the two sides requires being a dual being, both carnal and spiritual. This is why the nature of God, an all knowing being requires that state of both spiritual and physical body. Without the physical body experience, we do not know how one could "experience" the differences. But we could know about it. Vort says there was experiential knowledge gained from the permortal life about the differences between good and evil (at least that is what I gather from his posts) but I do not understand how that happened. So, maybe there is another way of gathering that experiential knowledge of good and bad without having a physical nature body that we are not told of in the standard teachings. To experience "evil" in the premortal life, one would have had to make a choice towards "evil" and if the spirits who did that, as far as we know, they were cast out and not here. So, for the rest of us, I am not sure if we experienced "evil" and therefore could not know (experiential knowledge) the difference between good and evil, even though we saw and heard what the "evil" spirits did.

[Martain]

Now a man may never have been burned by fire. Yet in seeing and hearing someone else severely burned he nevertheless knows that it is painful and a very undesireable experience.

Even though his knowledge of the pain of being burned is as you put it "secular" rather than "experiential", he nevertheless knows sufficently the difference between being burned and not burned to exercise his agency and choose to not jump into a bonfire.

We know that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil. That being said, they had not committed any sin wherein to know evil by "experiential" means. Yet still they had a knowledge of Good and Evil.

Therefore we can conclude that a knowledge of Good and Evil does not require "experiential" understanding of first hand experience. You do not need to commit adultery to know that it is evil. You do not even need to see or know anyone who has commited adultery to know it is evil.

By your conclusion we would likewise "know about good and evil but not really know what it is like" because we have not obtained "experiential" experience.

You know that murder is evil even though you lack "experiential" experience.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Now a man may never have been burned by fire. Yet in seeing and hearing someone else severely burned he nevertheless knows that it is painful and a very undesireable experience.

Even though his knowledge of the pain of being burned is as you put it "secular" rather than "experiential", he nevertheless knows sufficently the difference between being burned and not burned to exercise his agency and choose to not jump into a bonfire.

We know that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil. That being said, they had not committed any sin wherein to know evil by "experiential" means. Yet still they had a knowledge of Good and Evil.

Therefore we can conclude that a knowledge of Good and Evil does not require "experiential" understanding of first hand experience. You do not need to commit adultery to know that it is evil. You do not even need to see or know anyone who has commited adultery to know it is evil.

By your conclusion we would likewise "know about good and evil but not really know what it is like" because we have not obtained "experiential" experience.

You know that murder is evil even though you lack "experiential" experience.

You're missing the point. The scale of good versus evil can only be experienced when someone lives while being measured by that scale, wherever they fall on the scale.

I can't even propose the question of how well I drive until I actually drive, even if I studied how to drive.

The reverse question is, why does God need to prove that we will do the things he asks us to do, if the opportunity for good versus evil existed before this life?

In considering the answer to that question, I think one has to realize that this life is to show that we can walk the walk and not just talk the talk. We all said we would by word, by our testimony. Now, we are showing by our actions. Why couldn't we show by our actions before? .... maybe because it was not possible or available in that setting. Actions for what? To act in an evil or good way, to do.

We could definitely think about evil and good things, like Lucifer proposing an evil plan. But "to do" evil is in this realm, as well as "to do" good. The war in Heaven was a war of words.

[Martain]

The reverse question is, why does God need to prove that we will do the things he asks us to do, if the opportunity for good versus evil existed before this life?

Your reverse question's premise is that if we had knowledge of good and evil and the opportunity to do both, then in choosing good, and proving ourselves there, why should there be any need for further testing?

Are you saying that there is such a minute difference between a physical body and a glorified celestial body that the test necessary to earn a physical body should be sufficient to earn a celestial body?

Our obedience in the pre-existence was sufficient to allow us to obtain a physical body. We had not yet been tested in conjunction with the unique and very powerful features of the physical body. Therefore we needed to be retested.

The scale of good versus evil can only be experienced when someone lives while being measured by that scale, wherever they fall on the scale.

You're right. Yet this does not mean that we were not being measured by that scale in the pre-existence. It simply means that there were some parts of the scale that we couldn't be measure by. We couldn't be measured on the scale of good and evil to see if we would murder or not because it wasn't a capacity we had. We couldn't be measured on the scale of good and evil to see if we would be faithful in marriage or commit adultery because procreation wasn't a capacity we had.

I can't even propose the question of how well I drive until I actually drive, even if I studied how to drive.

Exactly! Our obedience in Heaven could not tell us how well we would drive a physical body until we actually received one and started driving it.

We said that upon receiving a physical body we would keep the commandments of God. We talked the talk in regards to the physical body and now we're here to walk the walk by showing through our actions. We could not show through our actions that we would use the physical body properly because we didn't have it.

Yet that does not mean that we could not show through our actions that we would use the spirit body properly. That does not mean that there was no possible evil that could be committed in the spirit body that there would be neither good nor evil nor the knowledge thereof.

The war in Heaven was a war of words and actions. We either through actions chose to follow Heavenly Father and Christ or we chose through our actions to reject Heavenly Father and Christ.

If I were to teach to you that we did not have a knowledge of good and evil and that there was no sin in the pre-existence. I would be teaching you false doctrine.

For in teaching you such a doctrine, we would have to say that Satan was innocent of sin in rebelling against the father.

If Satan was innocent of sin then the punishment of being cast out and not obtaining a body could not justly be permanent.

If it is not permanent then we are teaching that eventually Satan and his angels will be redeemed.

Let us read the quote again:

Say to the brothers Hulet and to all others, that the Lord never authorized them to say that the devil, his angels, or the sons of perdition, should ever be restored; for their state of destiny was not revealed to man, is not revealed, nor ever shall be revealed, save to those who are made partakers thereof: consequently those who teach this doctrine have not received it of the Spirit of the Lord. Truly Brother Oliver declared it to be the doctrine of devils. We, therefore, command that this doctrine be taught no more in Zion. We sanction the decision of the Bishop and his council, in relation to this doctrine being a bar to communion. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 21)

Therefore there is no doctrinal support of the premise that we did not have the knowledge of good and evil and the ability to sin. For if we did, by that same evidence, we would have the very same proof that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was not revealed to man, is not revealed, and never shall be revealed.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Martain

[james12]

Are you saying that there is such a minute difference between a physical body and a glorified celestial body that the test necessary to earn a physical body should be sufficient to earn a celestial body?

Our obedience in the pre-existence was sufficient to allow us to obtain a physical body. We had not yet been tested in conjunction with the unique and very powerful features of the physical body. Therefore we needed to be retested.

I completely agree with this conclusion. I might even consider taking it further and state it more broadly. A body must ever and always be earned through obedience, be it spiritual, physical, or celestial. Each body increases capacity and depth of emotion. Because of this, the test will be increasingly difficult but the opportunities greater.

[Martain]

In discussing this question with my family, my step-mother had another insight that bears thought.

We know that our Savior Jesus Christ, was the first born spirit child of our Heavenly Father. We know that while still a spirit, he received the divine investiture of authority to act for his father as God towards the children of men. We know that he became perfect even before he gained a body.

Are we to say that our Savior did not have an absolutely perfect understanding of the difference between good and evil? How could he be perfect or act as a God if he did not?

Is it such a stretch to assume that we had knowledge of good and evil too?

[jayanna]

Evil cannot be where God is. We were with God, so we could not be in the presence of evil, that is why Satan was cast out. IF evil and sin existed, it wasn't where we were. Earth had to be created for us to progress and be tested, we could not be tested where we already were because the test required the presence of evil. There had to be a neutral testing ground where both good and evil could exist for long enough for all of us to get a turn. If we had sinned in the pre-existence we would have had to be cast out immediately just as Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden immediately after their transgression Fall of Adam .

Jesus grew in wisdom, having a physical body was part of that. It was necessary for Him as well. We were innocent in the beginning before Adam ate the fruit, as spoken of Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-31  really verse 38. It speaks of Jesus not yet having fulness earlier in the chapter, that is why He is the Son of God, and not God already. He had to grow, too.

Sure we knew about good and not good, but we were just told about it. We didn't understand 'why' it was bad. Why? Because God said so...but why did God say so? We coudn't get that then.

There are a lot of us that don't understand even now why evil is bad. We have the capacity to understand, but it takes time. Our Stake Pres. came to our ward and gave a lesson in RS. It was great, he spoke about pre-marital s-x and why is it bad? He said take away the possiblity of pregnancy, because we can with drugs now... it's still bad. Take away the possibility of STD's, take away all earthly consequences... say you have extra-marital s-x and then you die, why was it bad? It's not just the consequences that make it bad, it is that it is not like God. To be with Him we have to be like Him, and doing that is choosing not to be like Him, and therefore choosing not to be with Him...that is what is bad. It can be anything unGodlike, anything at all, and it is bad. Can the atonement wash it away? Sure. Do we need to understand that our actions show whether we truly want to be with Him again? I think that is the knowledge of good and evil, not just a list of commandments, but the why beyond the 'God said so'.

That is why people who have sinned terribly and have been excommunicated can be in the fold once again, was there truly knowledge of the good and the evil when they committed that sin, was there an understanding of being removed from God's presence and what it would be like? What is the unforgivable sin, testifying against the Holy Ghost, weren't there members of the twelve in the beginning of the latter day church that wrote testimonies and then retracted testimony of Joseph Smith? Weren't some of them later forgiven for using their false testimonies to hurt him and the church? Why? They did not have a full understanding of good and evil. Murder is another big one, aren't murderers forgiven and returned to the fold once they have repented, etc? Why? same thing, they had a lack of understanding until after the sin was committed. Some die before getting that knowledge of good and evil.

You may remember, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” [Luke 23:34.] Even after the teachings we recieved in the pre-existence, the teaching we get here on Earth, the knowledge of good and evil handed down from that fruit, they still did not know exactly what they were doing even while they were doing it. Every time we sin, do we really know what we are doing? If we really knew we wouldn't do it in the first place. We certainly wouldn't do it twice.

So yes, we have some knowledge of good and evil, but not all understanding of it, or else we would have ascended right up into heaven by now. We had even less understading of it in the pre-existence. How much of a difference? What is the difference between the 'Light of Christ' which can tell us good from bad, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost which can do the same? There is a world of difference, the latter does so much more. In the pre-existence we did not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or else why would it be given to us twice? And yet it is knowledge telling us what is right and wrong, what we shoudln't do and what we should. Some would say what is the difference, well, you really have to experience it to know the difference, don't you. The same is the difference between our knowledge of good and evil before as compared to what it is for us now.

[Justice]

Moses 3: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

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;

Doctrine and Covenants 93:31 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.

Doctrine and Covenants 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;

Doctrine and Covenants 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

This chain of scriptures is very powerful in understanding the basis of this discussion.

I've mentioned this before, but the 2 red scriptures seem to contradict each other. One says Satan and his followers exercised their agency in the pre-mortal existence and fell because of it. The other red one says God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden.

Understanding this seeming contradiction is where the answer is made known.

Since Satan and his followers exercised their agency in the pre-mortal existence, we know all children of God has the ability to do so. You don't have to understand good and evil in order to make a choice. All you need are two things to choose between.

Our difficulty is in seeing what it was like then as opposed to now. Just like in the Garden of Eden we were innocent in the pre-mortal existence. I believe this holds the key to understand.

God "gave" man his agency in the Garden of Eden because all things were in place for God's plan to be accomplished. The physical world had been created and man was born into a physical body, whereby when he sinned or transgressed, he would fall to a mortal state and have an opportunity to repent. Before the creation of this world God did not "give" anyone His permission to use their agency. Choosing wrongly then meant eternal cosequences since the only fall that could come about was a spiritual fall. There was no accompanying physical fall, or death, that would give man a chance to repent, and for redemption to be made.

I believe that's the seeming contradiction. Notice where God says, in the Pearl of Great Price, nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself. This permission was not given to us in the pre-mortal existence because the dangers and risks were too great. By refusing mortality they refused the only way by which they could learn to exercise their agency and be redeemed.

Evil does not have to be present in order to choose. WHat they chose was to not come to earth and be mortal, thereby making it impossible for them to be redeemed of any wrong choice. Wrong choice does not necessarily imply evil, it could mean the choice they made could not save them.

Where they failed is that they did not trust Father or Jehovah, but they trusted one who did not have the ability, the power or permission, or an understanding of what was required in order to be exalted. This is the same struggle we have here.

It's not even clear at this point if Lucifer intended on saving eveyone that followed him (even though we know he couldn't) or if he knew his alteration to the plan would not work but just wanted the glory to himself.

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 scripture seems to imply that we had some kind of knowledge in the pre-mortal existence... possibly of good and evil to some extent, but was not given permission to exercise our agency to choose. It seems logical that most of us needed to experience what it was like to choose, and could not really come to know unless we did.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Justice

[Martain]

Good quotes Justice, thanks =)

I've mentioned this before, but the 2 red scriptures seem to contradict each other. One says Satan and his followers exercised their agency in the pre-mortal existence and fell because of it. The other red one says God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden.

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 scripture seems to imply that we had some kind of knowledge in the pre-mortal existence... possibly of good and evil to some extent, but was not given permission to exercise our agency to choose. It seems logical that most of us needed to experience what it was like to choose, and could not really come to know unless we did.

So we've confirmed that we must have had agency in the pre-existance and yet we have the quote indicating that agency was given to man in the garden.

That can indeed seem conflicting.

It is obvious to me that Adam had Agency before the Lord told him about it in Eden. But although he had it, until the Lord told him, he did not know it because of the veil of forgetfulness.

Adam was the first man wasn't he? So even though we would have already had agency, we could say that mankind first obtained agency when God made Adam aware of the same.

Or at least that's the way I see it.

Question though. If we don't have permission to exercise our agency... if we're not allowed to choose, how is it that we would still have agency? Such a concept seems a contradiction to me that I can not seem to get past. Do you really stand by that statement?

[Martain]

I had an interesting thought.

Adam was in the Garden and even without the knowledge of Good and Evil, had Agency. This we do know.

Let us say that Agency simply defined means the right to choose. Based on the above, it wouldn't require a knowledge of Good and Evil.

Or

Let us say that Agency cimply defined means the right to choose between good and evil. Under such a definition, can you exercise Agency without such knowledge?

In thinking about the second definition...

Let us say that using my agency I choose an evil act without any knowledge that it is evil. There is a consequence to every act and Justice requires I receive the consequence of said evil act regardless as to whether or not I know it to be evil.

I then thought about the atonement. Part of the atonement, the resurrection, is free to all mankind through the sacrifice of our Savior. The other part of the atonement, forgiveness for sins, is conditional upon repentence.

I find it interesting that the first was based upon transgression without the knowledge of Good and Evil and the second was based upon sin with the knowledge of Good and Evil.

When Adam transgressed God's commandment he did so without a knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not a sin. Justice required that the consequences of death still be met, lest God be made a lier, but it allowed for Mercy and for what otherwise would have been an eternal punishment to be met by a sacrifice.

I thought that was kind of cool =)

We can disagree regarding whether or not we had a knowledge of good and evil in the pre-existance.

Yet one thing I hope we can agree on is this. If Satan and his host did not have a knowledge of good and evil, then they did not sin but transgressed the law instead.

If they transgressed the law, then it too would allow for mercy and for what otherwise would be an eternal punishment to be met by a sacrifice.

If they did not have a knowledge of Good and Evil, could we not expect that someday a plan of mercy will allow them to be redeemed?

It would be nice but I've already previously shared a quote which tells us that such a doctrine is of the Devil and not of God.

I don't know when or how or to what degree we had a knowledge of Good and Evil in the pre-existance or even how much if any that knowledge differs from what we have now.

But I can't seem to conclude any other way but that an evil spirit knew the difference then and knows the difference now and really has evil as it's goal.

I have a question for you Seminarysnoozer. Where do you get the concept that the natural man is the physical body?

I don't think we have the seed of evil in our spirit self. I think it had to be introduced via the corrupted mortal body to make it a personal struggle, "within" us. That is what creates the test that we did not face before this life. Without that aspect of a dual being, both carnal and spiritual, there is no knowledge of good and evil as there is no opposition to our obedience.

I'm not saying I disagree but neither am I saying I agree. I'd like to better understand where you get this concept.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Evil does not have to be present in order to choose. WHat they chose was to not come to earth and be mortal, thereby making it impossible for them to be redeemed of any wrong choice. Wrong choice does not necessarily imply evil, it could mean the choice they made could not save them.

Where they failed is that they did not trust Father or Jehovah, but they trusted one who did not have the ability, the power or permission, or an understanding of what was required in order to be exalted. This is the same struggle we have here.

It's not even clear at this point if Lucifer intended on saving eveyone that followed him (even though we know he couldn't) or if he knew his alteration to the plan would not work but just wanted the glory to himself.

Yes. Thank you.

Like going along any course of education and instruction, sometimes people, once they are into their education far enough, realize that they don't have what it takes to complete the training, so they drop out. Or, like in the case of Lucifer, think they can do it on their own without instruction. The thing they didn't bargain for is that it takes a certain character of obedience and giving of one self to become like God. If a person doesn't have that characteristic, even to the point of being selfish, that is their character, then it isn't worth any further effort to put themselves through further training and testing. If a person can't run a mile they aren't going to sign up for the marathon. What they will do is question why they have to do it in the first place, which is to rebel against the merits of the idea.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have a question for you Seminarysnoozer. Where do you get the concept that the natural man is the physical body?

I'm not saying I disagree but neither am I saying I agree. I'd like to better understand where you get this concept.

To answer your question, I would do it with one qualification though, I am just talking about the mortal, corrupted body, not the body in the garden of Eden or the resurrected body, or bodies that are translated or transfigured to temporarily remove their corruption or to "lift the veil": From David O. McKay, Mosiah, and Elder Ballard as well as many others;

"Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve “all mankind became a lost and fallen people” (Alma 12:22). King Benjamin taught that fallen man or “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord” (Mosiah 3:19).

President David O. McKay (1873–1970) taught that because of the Fall we have a dual nature: “One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.” 1

Our spirits come from the presence of God, and “every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning” (D&C 93:38). Our physical bodies are also gifts from God. One reason we wanted to come to this earth was to become more like our Heavenly Father, who has a physical body. Consequently, one of our challenges in mortality is to learn how to manage, care for, and use our bodies properly. If we can govern the natural tendencies of the flesh, we will rise toward the kind of spiritual life President McKay described. But if we let “the natural man” govern, we will find ourselves at enmity with God and His purposes (see Mosiah 3:19).

The Battle

Elder Melvin J. Ballard (1873–1939) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that “all the assaults that the enemy of our souls will make to capture us will be through the flesh, because it is made up of the unredeemed earth, and he has power over the elements of the earth. The approach he makes to us will be through the lusts, the appetites, the ambitions of the flesh. All the help that comes to us from the Lord to aid us in this struggle will come to us through the spirit that dwells within this mortal body. So these two mighty forces are operating upon us through these two channels.

“… If you would have a strong spirit which has dominance over the body, you must see to it that your spirit receives spiritual food and spiritual exercise. …

“The man or woman who is taking neither spiritual food nor spiritual exercise will presently become a spiritual weakling, and the flesh will be master. Whoever therefore is obtaining both spiritual food and exercise will be in control over this body and will keep it subject unto the will of God.” “The Struggle for the Soul,” Tambuli, Sept. 1984, 37; New Era, Mar. 1984, 36.

Also, read the writings of Paul about what comes from the flesh versus what comes from the spirit in Galatians 5: 19-25

[james12]

The works of our Father are one eternal round. This, I believe, is the basis for an understanding of progression from our first to our second estate.

Agency: We were given agency in our first estate and we are again given agency in our second estate. As Justice brought up, in D&C 29:36 we read "and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency" and again we read in Moses 7:32 "and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency". I don't think this can be understood by splitting agency from knowledge or knowledge from experience. To me these "splits" fall flat.

Consequences: We were once faced with eternal consequences as spirits and we are again faced with eternal consequences as mortals. In our first estate there were eternal consequences as indicated by the 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven who fell. The breadth and depth of happiness or misery found during our first estate cannot be brushed aside.

Innocence: We were innocent as a spirit, we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state. "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God." (D&C 93:38)

"For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed." (D&C 29:31-33)

[Justice]

If a person doesn't have that characteristic, even to the point of being selfish, that is their character, then it isn't worth any further effort to put themselves through further training and testing.

Or, that person can change.

I still think what you're missing is that all those who kept theit first estate were changed when they took upon a mortal body. We must change from the natural, selfish desires brought about by a mortal body.

Comparing those who gain a body to those who did not is not comparing apples to apples.

[Justice]

Innocence: We were innocent as a spirit, we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state. "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God." (D&C 93:38)

You said "we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state." Then you quote a scripture that you believe points this out.

Notice what the scripture is saying. It is not saying we will be innocent again at the end of our mortal state, but "in their infant state."

When we are born into this world we are innocent (again, as when we were just spirits), up until the time we exercise our agency to choose evil. We are no longer innocent, and can never be again. Look at what happened to Adam and Eve. In the Garden they were innocent (just as us when we are born here). Once they ate the forbidden fruit, they were never innocent again (just as us).

We can become righteous, as Adam and Eve, but never again will we be innocent in that sense.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Or, that person can change.

I still think what you're missing is that all those who kept theit first estate were changed when they took upon a mortal body. We must change from the natural, selfish desires brought about by a mortal body.

Comparing those who gain a body to those who did not is not comparing apples to apples.

I didn't think I was comparing the two, how am I doing that?

Maybe, it is along the lines of thinking that our spirit has changed also? I would say by taking on the mortal body, our spirit doesn't change unless we choose to let it.

If someone has Tourette's syndrome for example, and it blurts out a bunch of profanities, is it the spirit or the body that is doing that? Are you trying to say that by taking on that body the spirit of the person has changed and would also blurt out a bunch of profanities? I don't think so. I can say that because I believe the nature of the spirit and the nature of the body are two different things and are combined in this life but remain different. When we receive our perfected body, then they are one in the same. Also, otherwise, how is the spirit willing but the body weak sometimes? If they were one in the same they would both be weak at the same time or both be strong. It is possible because they are different, in this life.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You said "we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state." Then you quote a scripture that you believe points this out.

Notice what the scripture is saying. It is not saying we will be innocent again at the end of our mortal state, but "in their infant state."

When we are born into this world we are innocent (again, as when we were just spirits), up until the time we exercise our agency to choose evil. We are no longer innocent, and can never be again. Look at what happened to Adam and Eve. In the Garden they were innocent (just as us when we are born here). Once they ate the forbidden fruit, they were never innocent again (just as us).

We can become righteous, as Adam and Eve, but never again will we be innocent in that sense.

Innocent, meaning we wouldn't owe God anything if we take advantage of Christ's atonement by the time we reach our final judgement. Just like before we came here, we were innocent in that regard, we were not responsible for any debt as we didn't accrue any debt, in that sense. By coming here, we took on debt, but remain innocent to that debt to God by Christ's atonement as our mediator for that debt. At least that's how I read that.

[Justice]

Or, like in the case of Lucifer, think they can do it on their own without instruction. The thing they didn't bargain for is that it takes a certain character of obedience and giving of one self to become like God. If a person doesn't have that characteristic, even to the point of being selfish, that is their character, then it isn't worth any further effort to put themselves through further training and testing.

This thought may apply to Lucifer and his followers, but in this life we can change because of the atonement. This is the comparison I was referring to.

Are you trying to say that by taking on that body the spirit of the person has changed and would also blurt out a bunch of profanities?

Again, one that does not understand good and evil, or is still innocent, is not a valid comparison.

I'm saying that when your spirit is joined with a body it faces a whole new set of criteria. It has a whole new set of senses and frailties to deal with. We are sent through a veil of forgetfulness anyway, and we become a new creature with both spirit and body, and we must learn to become holy in this new condition. Naturally, the body wants us to pleasure it. We must learn to choose joy over pleasure. This is considered a change from the natural condition we are in from birth, not from pre-mortal existence, because we have changed.

Through Christ, people can and do change their lives and obtain redemption.

Redemption - general-conference

[Seminarysnoozer]

This thought may apply to Lucifer and his followers, but in this life we can change because of the atonement. This is the comparison I was referring to.

Again, one that does not understand good and evil, or is still innocent, is not a valid comparison.

I'm saying that when your spirit is joined with a body it faces a whole new set of criteria. It has a whole new set of senses and frailties to deal with. We are sent through a veil of forgetfulness anyway, and we become a new creature with both spirit and body, and we must learn to become holy in this new condition. Naturally, the body wants us to pleasure it. We must learn to choose joy over pleasure. This is considered a change from the natural condition we are in from birth, not from pre-mortal existence, because we have changed.

Through Christ, people can and do change their lives and obtain redemption.

Redemption - general-conference

I see. I agree with that. But, I would throw in there that this condition is temporary, it is a probationary state. The conditions and the aspects of what each person has to overcome is unique to that person and is not a linear reflection of anything, that we can outwardly see, to our premortal achievements. The strong spirit might be the one born with a hundred medical problems and the weak one born into the perfect looking body and a rich family and no health problems, for example. But it is all temporary and God takes into account those variables in the end. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is just that, a thorn in the flesh, not in the spirit, of which I doubt he is suffering from right now.

[Martain]

To answer your question, I would do it with one qualification though, I am just talking about the mortal, corrupted body, not the body in the garden of Eden or the resurrected body, or bodies that are translated or transfigured to temporarily remove their corruption or to "lift the veil": From David O. McKay, Mosiah, and Elder Ballard as well as many others; ...

Thanks Seminary-

You've given me something to think about. I'll let you know the results =)

[Justice]

But, I would throw in there that this condition is temporary, it is a probationary state.

Mortality is a temporary state, but that we have our physical body with physical desires is not temporary. Any physical desire contrary to a specific kingdom of glory must be overcome in order to obtain that glory.

This is what I was trying to explain with Alma 42 when he teaches his son about the "restoration" that comes with the resurrection. Check it out.

[jayanna]

Satan cannot be redeemed because he chose not to receive a physical body. He cannot be baptized. In order to enter into the kingdom of God he would have to be baptized and confirmed.

To have a fulness of joy we have to have a spirit and a body combined. D & C 93: 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Once we are resurrected we will have both our spirit, cleansed by Christ, and our bodies made perfect, with the two combined we can then receive a fulness of joy. Satan can never have this, and he knows it. That is why he is so angry.

[james12]

You said "we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state." Then you quote a scripture that you believe points this out.

Notice what the scripture is saying. It is not saying we will be innocent again at the end of our mortal state, but "in their infant state."

When we are born into this world we are innocent (again, as when we were just spirits), up until the time we exercise our agency to choose evil. We are no longer innocent, and can never be again. Look at what happened to Adam and Eve. In the Garden they were innocent (just as us when we are born here). Once they ate the forbidden fruit, they were never innocent again (just as us).

We can become righteous, as Adam and Eve, but never again will we be innocent in that sense.

Justice,

I do admit that it is a bit of a leap to talk about the end of the mortal state when this scripture focuses on the beginning. However, I think my point about agency, consequences and innocence happening again is valid in either case. If that is the extent of our disagreement then fine.

However, you say we will never again be innocent. Do you believe we can only be innocent once? This I would disagree with. If the spirit was innocent in the beginning and we were yet again innocent at mortal birth, I come to the conclusion that we were innocent at least twice.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Mortality is a temporary state, but that we have our physical body with physical desires is not temporary. Any physical desire contrary to a specific kingdom of glory must be overcome in order to obtain that glory.

This is what I was trying to explain with Alma 42 when he teaches his son about the "restoration" that comes with the resurrection. Check it out.

Overcome by whom? is the most important question. It is false, in my opinion, to think that we are to overcome them by ourselves. Jesus will do His job, we don't have to worry about Him overcoming all. Have faith in that.

I agree it will have "physical desires" (all the desires that come from the body that are not evil) but I doubt it will have carnal desires, or desires of the flesh.

Galatians 5:17-21 " 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be aled of the Spirit, ye are not under the blaw.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

And D&C 76; " 50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—

51 They are they who received the atestimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true." .... " 59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet." ... " 69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical."

In other words, it is through our mediator Jesus that we obtain perfect bodies, overcoming all. "Let no man glory in man" meaning, we were never meant to overcome these things on our own. I don't understand why so many, even on this forum believe that we were meant to overcome the things we face in this life on our own. It is only through the grace of our Lord, through our faith in Him, then we "overcome all" and will not have to contend with the passions of the flesh. I try not to turn it into the "glory of man" by suggesting that somehow we can overcome this by ourselves, with some kind of learned skill. It is by faith in Christ that it is done. If a person has "perfect" faith then their body at resurrection will also be perfect, overcoming all.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer