"Evil Spirit"

[Justice]

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.

In the example of Adam and Eve, they were innocent until they partook of the fruit. If that is twice, then fine., But, I see it as innocent before they ate the fruit.

I think we need to discuss what it means to be innocent. I think our views may be different.

[Justice]

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.

So, these physical desires discussed by Alma will be gone for everyone because of Christ's atonement? This sounds like "all you have to do is believe to be saved." Some will have their desires to sin removed and some won't. If it was based only on Christ's atonement then why does it work for some and not for others?

In other words, it is through our mediator Jesus that we obtain perfect bodies, overcoming all.

Yes, but overcoming physical desires that come along with our body is not done solely by Christ. We must keep His commandments and learn to be obedient, that is where we learn to overcome our physical desires. We cannot do it on our own. He helps us. But, He will not force us. If He could then men then all would be saved.

We will be judged on whether we gave in to the physical temptations. We are accountable.

[Seminarysnoozer]

So, these physical desires discussed by Alma will be gone for everyone because of Christ's atonement? This sounds like "all you have to do is believe to be saved." Some will have their desires to sin removed and some won't. If it was based only on Christ's atonement then why does it work for some and not for others?

Yes, but overcoming physical desires that come along with our body is not done solely by Christ. We must keep His commandments and learn to be obedient, that is where we learn to overcome our physical desires. We cannot do it on our own. He helps us. But, He will not force us. If He could then men then all would be saved.

We will be judged on whether we gave in to the physical temptations. We are accountable.

So, does "overcome" mean in the past tense, or to maintain the ability to constantly overcome something that is there chronically? I think that is the question.

If I get hungry during fast Sunday, as an example, but I overcome that through my faith and I do fast on Fast Sunday every month, will I still get hungry on a hypothetical fast Sunday (without discussing whether there will be a fast sunday or not in heaven) in the next life?

If lustful thought pops into my head, because of this body I have that has certain animalistic drives but I overcome it in this life, I master that, so I don't act on it and I keep the laws of chastity, will I still have those thoughts pop into my head after I get my perfected, resurrected body?

What does, come unto my rest mean? Is there really no rest from this battle. Obviously, it doesn't mean no work but I thought it meant to not have to battle the forces of evil any longer. There are still forces of evil to battle after this life that I could potentially fail with? Or is the test over when it is over?

To me this is to have faith in Christ. Either we believe He is our Savior that actually saves us from this situation or we just believe that He points the way and we save ourselves, eventually, by learning the skills to overcome things ourselves. To me, the gospel says to believe that Christ overcomes all for us. Does He really or does He not?

[james12]

In the example of Adam and Eve, they were innocent until they partook of the fruit. If that is twice, then fine., But, I see it as innocent before they ate the fruit.

I think we need to discuss what it means to be innocent. I think our views may be different.

Justice,

I noticed Vort's post on this same subject after I sent my last post. I agree with his comments. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/43809-evil-spirit-2.html#post637991

To be again innocent implies that we were at some point not inoccent. Hence, we were innocent twice. I take this to mean that we were innocent as spirits (in the beginning) and in mortality (our infant state).

[Seminarysnoozer]

Justice,

I noticed Vort's post on this same subject after I sent my last post. I agree with his comments. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/43809-evil-spirit-2.html#post637991

To be again innocent implies that we were at some point not inoccent. Hence, we were innocent twice. I take this to mean that we were innocent as spirits (in the beginning) and in mortality (our infant state).

But Vort was saying that we were not innocent while in the premortal world, that only Jesus was without blemish there even. Is that what you believe too?

Vort's comment; "If by "innocent" you mean "without any sin or blemish", this is unlikely to be the case. Jesus is the only sinless being; the rest of us make less than optimal decisions."

Vort, in my interpretation of those statements - correct me if I am wrong, is saying that "less than optimal decisions" is equivalent to sin. So, if we did not get 100% on all our exams, even though we may have gotten an 'A', so to speak, we sinned. I do not hold this view. I don't think sinless means being 100% perfect in all things. I think it means living up to the measure of one's creation and not moving away from a course that leads to a fullness of glory. If one is holding onto the iron rod, even if they are not to the end of the iron rod, that is not the same as those wandering in other pathways which could be described as sin. As we all kept our first estate here, none of us have been taken off the course to exaltation at that point that I can tell.

In other words, Vort is saying that both Adam and Eve had sinned before they were even put in the garden by the mere fact that they weren't Jesus, or like Jesus as He is the only sinless being (besides God). But I would suppose that would include the Holy Ghost as a being who has sinned as well? I don't comprehend that.

[The_Phoenix]

Maybe satan thinks he is the one in the right. I would guess he does. anyway. It was only Adam and Eve who did not understand good and evil till the apple. Everyone else always knew.

The deep question is they "gain" or "regain" an understanding of Good and Evil?

[Vort]

Vort, in my interpretation of those statements - correct me if I am wrong, is saying that "less than optimal decisions" is equivalent to sin. So, if we did not get 100% on all our exams, even though we may have gotten an 'A', so to speak, we sinned. I do not hold this view. I don't think sinless means being 100% perfect in all things. I think it means living up to the measure of one's creation and not moving away from a course that leads to a fullness of glory. If one is holding onto the iron rod, even if they are not to the end of the iron rod, that is not the same as those wandering in other pathways which could be described as sin. As we all kept our first estate here, none of us have been taken off the course to exaltation at that point that I can tell.

I reject the idea of sin being a score below some threshold on a divine morality test, just as I reject sin being a list of items we must not do. Sin is knowingly acting in defiance of God's will, or knowingly failing to do what one knows God desires. Any time we have agency, by definition we can choose wrongly -- else we have no agency. That is sin.

In other words, Vort is saying that both Adam and Eve had sinned before they were even put in the garden by the mere fact that they weren't Jesus

This is false. I never said anything remotely resembling this.

But I would suppose that would include the Holy Ghost as a being who has sinned as well? I don't comprehend that.

You do not comprehend the nature of the Holy Ghost, something that has not been publicly revealed and is not likely to be revealed in the near future. So asking about personal characteristics of the Holy Ghost is a non-starter in every case.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I reject the idea of sin being a score below some threshold on a divine morality test, just as I reject sin being a list of items we must not do. Sin is knowingly acting in defiance of God's will, or knowingly failing to do what one knows God desires. Any time we have agency, by definition we can choose wrongly -- else we have no agency. That is sin.

This is false. I never said anything remotely resembling this.

You do not comprehend the nature of the Holy Ghost, something that has not been publicly revealed and is not likely to be revealed in the near future. So asking about personal characteristics of the Holy Ghost is a non-starter in every case.

This is what you put on an earlier post; ""Innocent" can have at least two meanings here; in both cases, the answer as I understand it is "No, Adam and Eve were not innocent before their birth."

If by "innocent" you mean "without understanding of good and evil", this is clearly not the case. Adam and Eve were faithful and valiant children of God, and the qualities of faithfulness and valiance presuppose the ability to discriminate good and evil and choose the former.

If by "innocent" you mean "without any sin or blemish", this is unlikely to be the case. Jesus is the only sinless being; the rest of us make less than optimal decisions. Could this be the case in premortality, in the presence of the Father? Consider that the third part of heaven's host openly rebelled against the Father. This shows unequivocally that we could choose the evil or the good. Consider also D&C 93:38:" With my bold added.

By that statement it sounded like you were saying that it is possible in the premortal world to be with blemish or sin (or whatever the term you want to use) is possible by way of making less than optimal decisions. If one, for example, in the premortal world was not as valiant as he/she could have been, what would you call that? A blemish, a sin, or that person just being themselves, or what?

If we made "less than optimal decisions" in the premortal world, could we have still kept our first estate? I think by keeping our first estate, all of us in this world, have made optimal decisions. So, again, what "evil" did I experience, or you experience in the premortal world? I don't see evidence of it. I already agree that when we came to the fork in the road in which the council in heaven took place and agency was given to choose to follow God's plan or not, while in the planning stages of this plan, that those who verbalized their intentions against God's plan were taken out of the plan and voided their contract of their first estate. That act was with evil intentions, from the character of that spirit, expressing their nature. I agree with that. But, what evil did the rest of us experience to know the difference between good and evil in the premortal world?

[Vort]

[Quoting Vort] If by "innocent" you mean "without any sin or blemish", this is unlikely to be the case. Jesus is the only sinless being; the rest of us make less than optimal decisions. Could this be the case in premortality, in the presence of the Father? Consider that the third part of heaven's host openly rebelled against the Father. This shows unequivocally that we could choose the evil or the good. Consider also D&C 93:38:" With my bold added.

By that statement it sounded like you were saying that it is possible in the premortal world to be with blemish or sin (or whatever the term you want to use) is possible by way of making less than optimal decisions.

Yes, absolutely. This is correct. Please note that this is not at all what you claimed I said previously:

In other words, Vort is saying that both Adam and Eve had sinned before they were even put in the garden by the mere fact that they weren't Jesus

This idea was completely false. I never said nor implied that Adam and Eve had sinned premortally by not being Jesus. Rather, I noted that Jesus was the only sinless being, and thus we could infer that the rest of us had acted suboptimally at some point(s), rendering us sinful.

If we made "less than optimal decisions" in the premortal world, could we have still kept our first estate?

Clearly, yes. Here we are.

I think by keeping our first estate, all of us in this world, have made optimal decisions.

In my estimation, your belief does not square well with D&C 93:38.

So, again, what "evil" did I experience, or you experience in the premortal world? I don't see evidence of it.

The third part of the hosts of heaven were cast out, denied the blessings of mortality, and eternally damned to what is euphemistically called "outer darkness". This is more than evidence; it is positive proof that we experienced evil premortally.

I already agree that when we came to the fork in the road in which the council in heaven took place and agency was given to choose to follow God's plan or not, while in the planning stages of this plan, that those who verbalized their intentions against God's plan were taken out of the plan and voided their contract of their first estate. That act was with evil intentions, from the character of that spirit, expressing their nature. I agree with that. But, what evil did the rest of us experience to know the difference between good and evil in the premortal world?

For one thing, the same evil that those damned souls experienced -- the difference being that we did not succumb to the temptations of power-mongering as they did.

Do you know the nature of our premortal existence? I submit you do not, nor do any of the rest of us. That knowledge has not been given us. We know only the most rudimentary facts: We lived before our mortal birth; we were created premortally of God and dwelt in his presence; we made choices and progressed; we were involved, to some extent, in the decisions that resulted in our current mortal state. Beyond that bare outline, we have no clue what our premortal life "looked like".

It is my opinion that, just as our mortal lives are a shadow and a precursor of our eternal lives, so our premortal lives resembled our mortal lives in many ways. I suspect we had a great many opportunities, perhaps moment by moment, to make choices and experience the results of good and evil, much as we have that opportunity now.

[Justice]

To be again innocent implies that we were at some point not inoccent. Hence, we were innocent twice. I take this to mean that we were innocent as spirits (in the beginning) and in mortality (our infant state).

My take is that man was innocent when they lived as spirits with God.

Because of the fall all men are fallen and carnal, or no longer innocent, but because of the atonement, we are innocent because we are redeemed from the fall. If we do not reach the age of accountability we are innocent. We are innocent at birth because of the atonement.

"Again" meaning that if it were only up to the fall, even infants would not be innocent and would not have a chance at redemption. But, because of the atonement, we are free from the affects of the fall at birth and again become "innocent again," or as we were before birth. When we arrive at the age of accountability and sin with knowledge of good and evil, then we bring the affects of the fall onto ourselves by our own actions and are no longer innocent.

It's the fundamental belief behind: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

[Seminarysnoozer]

In my estimation, your belief does not square well with D&C 93:38.

Okay, I can see where we differ then. I do not interpret that scripture that way. Clearly this scripture is talking about "man" and "men" which is a reference to our mortal state, not our premortal state. And this scripture is in reference to the idea of "original sin". We decide to leave the presence of God which may be viewed as "sin" but because God allowed for a redeemer we are not born with "sin". And we are not responsible for Adam's transgression or the sins of our parents. In our infant state, before the age of accountability, we are innocent but because we have a redeemer. This is in the same light that Adam and Eve's fall is a transgression and not a sin.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “there is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: ‘Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning’—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—‘and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God’ ( D&C 93:38 )—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, ‘The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.’ (bold added)

He goes on to say: "Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that “children are conceived in sin,” they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.” (Moses 6:55.) (also, bold added) This is from Ensign April 1977

And in that same article: "They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)" (bold added)

Edited December 7, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

My take is that man was innocent when they lived as spirits with God.

Because of the fall all men are fallen and carnal, or no longer innocent, but because of the atonement, we are innocent because we are redeemed from the fall. If we do not reach the age of accountability we are innocent. We are innocent at birth because of the atonement.

"Again" meaning that if it were only up to the fall, even infants would not be innocent and would not have a chance at redemption. But, because of the atonement, we are free from the affects of the fall at birth and again become "innocent again," or as we were before birth. When we arrive at the age of accountability and sin with knowledge of good and evil, then we bring the affects of the fall onto ourselves by our own actions and are no longer innocent.

It's the fundamental belief behind: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Thank you, thank you.

[Vort]

Okay, I can see where we differ then. I do not interpret that scripture that way. Clearly this scripture is talking about "man" and "men" which is a reference to our mortal state, not our premortal state. And this scripture is in reference to the idea of "original sin". We decide to leave the presence of God which may be viewed as "sin" but because God allowed for a redeemer we are not born with "sin". And we are not responsible for Adam's transgression or the sins of our parents. In our infant state, before the age of accountability, we are innocent but because we have a redeemer. This is in the same light that Adam and Eve's fall is a transgression and not a sin.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “there is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: ‘Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning’—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—‘and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God’ ( D&C 93:38 )—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, ‘The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.’ (bold added)

He goes on to say: "Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that “children are conceived in sin,” they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.” (Moses 6:55.) (also, bold added) This is from Ensign April 1977

And in that same article: "They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)" (bold added)

Your McConkie quotes belie your stated beliefs about D&C 93:38. If "original sin" has no meaning for newborn children, then clearly the cleansing spoken of in D&C 93:38 cannot apply to that non-existent original sin. On the contrary, as McConkie preached, infants "do not come into the world with any taint or impurity whatever." They have no impurity at birth, either from the (non-existent) Original Sin or from their own premortal decisions. As D&C 93:38 teaches, they are cleansed in their infant state from all such uncleanness.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Your McConkie quotes belie your stated beliefs about D&C 93:38. If "original sin" has no meaning for newborn children, then clearly the cleansing spoken of in D&C 93:38 cannot apply to that non-existent original sin. On the contrary, as McConkie preached, infants "do not come into the world with any taint or impurity whatever." They have no impurity at birth, either from the (non-existent) Original Sin or from their own premortal decisions. As D&C 93:38 teaches, they are cleansed in their infant state from all such uncleanness.

"Original sin" is covered for everyone by our Savior, not just the little children. None of us come into this world with any taint or impurity. Or somehow, in what seems to be an opposite to what really happens, do you think that going into a fallen state, mortal birth, cleanses all of us? Where do you get that idea? How is mortal birth then a "fallen state"? If we are 'dirty' before coming here and cleansed by being born here, then that is not "fallen", that would be called risen. That seems like a backwards idea.

In the very scripture itself that you keep going back to, it says "having redeemed man from the Fall". Why are you reading something more into that. It does not say having redeemed man from everything before the Fall. It is from the point of the Fall forward that man is being redeemed. The cleansing is necessary because of the Fall. There is no need for cleansing without a Fall. In other words, the process of coming to Earth and receiving a mortal body creates the situation in which cleansing becomes necessary by way of taking on corruption, this corrupted body, in order to return to God. McConkie makes it clear that Jesus' sacrifice covers even those before the age of accountability, to suffer spiritual death and yet return.

Even Joseph Fielding Smith said; "“Satan cannot tempt little children in this life, nor in the spirit world, nor after their resurrection. Little children who die before reaching the years of accountability will not be tempted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:56–57.)

That does not jive with the notion that evil is intrinsic to our spirits. If the children will not even be tempted after resurrection, or even in the spirit world as a spirit alone, then there is no intrinsic pull towards evil. Are they not the same spirits they were before coming to Earth? They are sinless spirits and will be forever and never have to be tempted anywhere at any time.

What about those that grow up in the millennium? D&C 45:58 "And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation."

To experience "sin" obviously is not necessary for Exaltation. I am not sure why you want it to be necessary.

[james12]

My take is that man was innocent when they lived as spirits with God.

Because of the fall all men are fallen and carnal, or no longer innocent, but because of the atonement, we are innocent because we are redeemed from the fall. If we do not reach the age of accountability we are innocent. We are innocent at birth because of the atonement.

"Again" meaning that if it were only up to the fall, even infants would not be innocent and would not have a chance at redemption. But, because of the atonement, we are free from the affects of the fall at birth and again become "innocent again," or as we were before birth. When we arrive at the age of accountability and sin with knowledge of good and evil, then we bring the affects of the fall onto ourselves by our own actions and are no longer innocent.

It's the fundamental belief behind: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

So we were innocent up and until the fall and then were innocent again at mortal birth. Thus, when the scripture says, "and every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning" that term "beginning" spans from spirit birth eons and eons of time until the fall. That interpretation seems like quite a stretch to me. Perhaps we have now come full circle to a point where we must ultimately disagree.

From the time of their spirit birth, the Father's pre-existent offspring were endowed with agency and subjected to the provisions of the laws ordained for their government. They had power to obey or disobey and to progress in one field or another....The pre-existent life was thus a period - Undoubtedly an infinitely long one - of probation, progression, and schooling. Mortal progression and testing is a continuation of what began in pre-existence. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 590)

Agency, law, obedience, disobedience, progression, and schooling -this is what occurred during our near infinite amount of time as spirits. It was no small feat to pass our first estate. To assume anything less cheapens what we accomplished as spirits and does not place us in the right position with respect to our Father, Satan, and ultimately ourselves. We are truly spirit sons and daughters of God.

[Justice]

Yes, but one thing we did not have was an alternate choice to God's will and plan for us... until Lucifer.

When we came to earth we gained 2 pieces to our progression that would forever change us.

1. Physical body

2. Knowledge of good and evil

The physical body came with certain things that lead to us not being innocent.

The knowledge of good and evil, or the difference between and ability to choose between good and evil, came with certain things that lead to us not being innocent.

If you keep a child largely in your home, and perfectly shiled them from the things of the world, they would remain innocent much longer than a child who spends time and school and in the world in general. There are evil influences that prevent us from remaining innocent.

Father perfectly sheltered us from evil. We were able to remain innocent a very long time.

[james12]

Yes, but one thing we did not have was an alternate choice to God's will and plan for us... until Lucifer.

If I followed your logic I would then ask myself, "If Lucifer had no alternate choice how did he become evil?" However this is the wrong question. Which then leads to nonsensical answers. The scriptures teach, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. 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" (D&C 93:30-31). Intelligence implies independence. Independence implies agency. Agency implies choice. Otherwise there is no existence. See also 2 Ne 2:11-13.

I'll try and address your other comments later.

[Seminarysnoozer]

So we were innocent up and until the fall and then were innocent again at mortal birth. Thus, when the scripture says, "and every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning" that term "beginning" spans from spirit birth eons and eons of time until the fall. That interpretation seems like quite a stretch to me. Perhaps we have now come full circle to a point where we must ultimately disagree.

Agency, law, obedience, disobedience, progression, and schooling -this is what occurred during our near infinite amount of time as spirits. It was no small feat to pass our first estate. To assume anything less cheapens what we accomplished as spirits and does not place us in the right position with respect to our Father, Satan, and ultimately ourselves. We are truly spirit sons and daughters of God.

Why are you equating "the power to obey or disobey" with the knowledge of good and evil?

If my 6 year old daughter disobeyed by not brushing her teeth before going to bed one night, is that evil? She knows that it is "good" to brush her teeth, she knows that it is "bad" not to.

To obey or not to obey in the premortal life is likely the vary same measure of what is called being valiant and noble. But that is not on a scale of good and evil. For some reason, you and Vort want to put the "valiant" scale on the same footing as "good and evil". I don't think those two things are the same.

One metaphoric example, that at the moment I can think of, comparing the passing grades of getting an "A", B" or "C" with the differences between getting a "pass" or "fail" grade. One scale is a measure of how well a person "passed" the test, whereas the other measure is whether a person even passed or not.

To me, saying someone was capable of doing evil in the premortal life would be like it is possible someone could fail Sunday School while in attendance. When given the choice of whether they want to attend Sunday School or not, they may say, 'I don't want to'. Similarly, when given the opportunity, they may say, 'I don't want to stay with this program of keeping my first estate because it leads to this second estate'. But those that kept their first estate, still may or may not have payed attention well, or worked as hard as others in listening to what was being taught. They may have been more or less valiant, more or less obedient during the process of preparation.

I guess a litmus test to one's view on this topic would be to ask if one thinks that an "evil spirit", who showed evilness in the premortal world by their actions (if that was possible, as all we know about is "evil intent") could keep his/her first estate? If a person answers yes, I guess they take your view, if they answer no, they take the view I am proposing. Was Cain, for example, "evil" before this life? How "evil" was he if he followed God's plan by keeping his first estate?

[Seminarysnoozer]

If I followed your logic I would then ask myself, "If Lucifer had no alternate choice how did he become evil?" .

Because he was given a chance to express his intentions after reaching spiritual adulthood. In this life we are given the chance to show our intentions, by what we do. Lucifer did not even get a chance to do anything about his intentions other than voice them (war in Heaven and only after God proposed that option), until he was cast out and given influence over this world for a short period of time. But that will be temporary.

We were exposed to his bad intentions, meaning we heard about his "evil" intentions but that does not mean that we who obviously had good intentions by choosing God's plan gained any experience with understanding what evil is, we remained innocent as far as that goes.

Why did Lucifer have a spiritual make up, his spiritual character that produced an intention to be selfish? We don't know how those characteristics are formed. But they are what they are. Before this life, for all us that kept the first estate, we know of no event that revealed any selfish or impure character in ourselves. For some, that impure aspect of their character will only be revealed by the test we face in mortality, which is to do the things we said we would do here under these conditions. These conditions were not available in the premortal world, so they could not be tested in this way. These are conditions in which we experience the nature of evil, the experience of focusing on ourselves in even a basic way; survival, hunger, thirst, loneliness, sexual drives, anxiety, fear, etc. Where do those drives come from, the mortal corrupted body. They are not intrinsic to our spirits. What is intrinsic to our spirits is the level of selfishness we approach these carnal needs. Now, not before, we have the chance to show that even in this setting, our level of self focus is not to the point of choosing satisfying those needs over faith in Christ. Luckily, those needs are temporary, for this test only. Evil will be done away with, forever, in the end once it has served its purpose.

[james12]

If I followed your logic I would then ask myself, "If Lucifer had no alternate choice how did he become evil?"

Because he was given a chance to express his intentions after reaching spiritual adulthood. In this life we are given the chance to show our intentions, by what we do. Lucifer did not even get a chance to do anything about his intentions other than voice them (war in Heaven and only after God proposed that option), until he was cast out and given influence over this world for a short period of time. But that will be temporary.

These questions could go on and on using your reasoning. For instance, "where did Satan get such evil intentions?" Or another question, "why was he not given a chance to express his intentions if he had them?" "Did God somehow control him until the allowed time?" "Was he not innocent?" I could also ask the reverse questions about Christ. (Please don't try to answer these questions! As I said it is the wrong path.)

Seminarysnoozer, at the end of the day you are still left with your original question which started this discussion. "Where did an evil spirit get the knowledge of good and evil without experiencing it?" This has been answered, but let me try one more time with the Book of Mormon.

Here are the facts, you accept them as obvious in mortality, why do you not except them as obvious in pre-mortality?

Fact: There is oposition in all things.

Proof:

If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass,

neither wickedness,

neither holiness nor misery,

neither good nor bad.

Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one;

wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead,

having no life neither death,

nor corruption nor incorruption,

happiness nor misery,

neither sense nor insensibility.

Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught;

wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.

Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

God's wisdom, power, and mercy, are not destroyed. Therefore oposition exists.

Fact: Law exists.

Proof:

If ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.

If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.

And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.

And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.

And if these things are not there is no God.

And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

We exist we have not vanished away. Therefore eternal law exists.

Modern scripture plainly teaches the truth about opposition, law, obedience, and happiness. These truths are eternal. They cannot be stopped and then started again. God did not create these facts. Instead he uses them to help us progress. The real question is, are you willing to find out who we are by following the logic from its beginning to its end and then accept the conclusions?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Here are the facts, you accept them as obvious in mortality, why do you not except them as obvious in pre-mortality?

Because all the examples and arguments and reasoning pertain to mortality. It even says it in the scripture that you keep going back to in verse 15: " 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter."

It says in that verse and other areas that the discussion of opposition in all things pertains to the purpose of this life, the life of man (meaning mortal man), of mortality. The opposition was introduced by the opportunity to fall or not, to eat of the tree of death or the tree of life.

And in verse 27 it says where this freedom to choose is found, " 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh". This suggests without the flesh, without this fallen life, that opposition is not available. That chapter is not talking about the premortal life and you know that.

If you think that good and evil are always present and must needs be in ALL things, then you would have to believe that Adam and Eve in the garden already knew about good and evil before they ate the fruit. Your reasoning, otherwise, is not sound as you are implying that there can never be a period of time without opposition. On top of that, the devil was there and tempting them and yet they still were innocent until they ate the fruit. How did they remain innocent if the devil was there with them and there must be opposition in ALL things. If there was no innocence before then there was no fall of man. And if there was no fall of man then there is no need for a Savior. Your reasoning does not allow for the very purpose of this life. ... that is why I can't apply it to premortal life. That, honestly, does not make sense to me, to come here for knowledge we already had. To be tested over the same thing we had already been tested.

I am curious if you believe, you and I fell from our previous existence or not? Are we fallen men (and women)? Or was it just Adam and Eve that fell, nobody else? 2 Nephi explains why we had to fall. The fall is what brought about the potential for the knowledge of good and evil. If you say it was already there, as you are trying to say it is needed in ALL things, even in the premortal life, then there was no need to fall, it was already there. That does not make sense.

[Justice]

Nowhere in scripture does it ever mention that God gave His children permission to choose, or granted them the ability to exercise their agency, in the pre-mortal existence. We don't see this until after the creation and man was in a physical body. Even in the Council in Heaven He did not offer a choice between Jehovah and Lucifer, He simply said who He was going to send. Scripture says we had agency in the pre-mortal existence, but nothing about being given the freedom to use it unwisely. The first choice God gave us was in the Garden of Eden. The improper use of agency before Adam and Eve were placed on earth meant spiritual death, with no chance at redemption, since we could not fall to a mortal state and have time granted to repent, also allowing an [blood] atonement to be made, thereby being redeemed or brought back into God's presence. Lucifer and his followers were cast out with no chance to be brought back into God's presence. They rejected the only way possible... mortality.

It really is simple.

[james12]

Because all the examples and arguments and reasoning pertain to mortality. It even says it in the scripture that you keep going back to in verse 15: " 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter."

I know you believe all scriptures about opposition and choice pertain to mortality. However, let me simply consider this same verse (15). As you have rightly pointed out after he created our first parents...it must needs be that there was an opposition. But God created all things spiritually before they were physically on the earth (Moses 3:7). Therefore, according to this very scripture, to bring about his eternal purposes this opposition needed to occur after they were created spiritually. Not just physically.

If you think that good and evil are always present and must needs be in ALL things, then you would have to believe that Adam and Eve in the garden already knew about good and evil before they ate the fruit. Your reasoning, otherwise, is not sound as you are implying that there can never be a period of time without opposition.

Without getting into finner details, yes, Adam and Eve knew what they were doing when they ate of the fruit. In fact Elder Holland indicates that justice requires it. He says,

They were willing to transgress knowingly and consciously (the only way they could "fall" into the consequences of mortality, inasmuch as Elohim certainly could not force innocent parties out of the garden and still be a just God) only because they had a full knowledge of the plan of salvation, which would provide for them a way back from their struggle with death and hell....So Adam and Eve willingly made a choice, choosing the path toward growth and godhood inherent in the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.... With the enticement of Lucifer,...they consciously chose to step out of the garden of Eden-a magnificent, terrestrial-like, paradisaical world-into a fallen, telestial one, a world filled with very unparadisiacal thistles and thorns, sorrow and sin, disease and death. (Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon, p.203-204, italics added)

Also, from Alma 12:32, "Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption".

How did they remain innocent if the devil was there with them and there must be opposition in ALL things. If there was no innocence before then there was no fall of man. And if there was no fall of man then there is no need for a Savior. Your reasoning does not allow for the very purpose of this life. ... that is why I can't apply it to premortal life. That, honestly, does not make sense to me, to come here for knowledge we already had. To be tested over the same thing we had already been tested....The fall is what brought about the potential for the knowledge of good and evil. If you say it was already there, as you are trying to say it is needed in ALL things, even in the premortal life, then there was no need to fall, it was already there. That does not make sense.

Of course there was a fall, and it did not require that we be innocent for an almost endless duration beforehand. The truth instead is that we had reached an advanced level of progression in the spirit world. We needed a mortal body to continue that progression. Further, we had knowledge but we needed knowledge gained through experience in the flesh. Hear the words of Alma in speaking of Christ, "...that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh..."(Alma 7:11-12). The spirit has knowledge but we must incorporate that knowledge into, or learn according to, the flesh. Do not minimize the importance, or the challenge, of a physical body in progression.

[james12]

Nowhere in scripture does it ever mention that God gave His children permission to choose, or granted them the ability to exercise their agency, in the pre-mortal existence.

Justice,

This is interesting. You want to limit the discussion to scripture but you and seminarysnoozer will not accept any interpretation of scripture which indicates there was choice during our first estate, including some interpretation from modern day prophets and apostles.

Moreover, if there is a scripture that indicates agency you want to detach it from choice. You want to say that God's children may have had agency but that he limited the exercise of the very agency they had.

Sounds like you've boxed the word of the Lord in nicely.

Edited December 10, 2011 by james12

[james12]

If you think that good and evil are always present and must needs be in ALL things, then you would have to believe that Adam and Eve in the garden already knew about good and evil before they ate the fruit. Your reasoning, otherwise, is not sound as you are implying that there can never be a period of time without opposition....The fall is what brought about the potential for the knowledge of good and evil. If you say it was already there, as you are trying to say it is needed in ALL things, even in the premortal life, then there was no need to fall, it was already there. That does not make sense.

Seminarysnoozer, one more comment. You apparently did not feel that Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of good and evil about a year and a half ago. In fact you agreed with me. You said back then,

I believe they knew it well, better than anyone ever has on this earth except Jesus or at least equivalent to anyone who has communed with God without the interference of this human body.

This very discussion is why I have a hard time understanding this idea that Adam and Eve simply didn't have children because they had no knowledge as to how that could happen. I believe they had plenty of knowledge and understood the plan fully while in the Garden but the one bit of knowledge they couldn't have is experience. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/32310-did-adam-eve-knew-plan-garden.html#post505143

Looks like were on the same page.