Premortal Life?

[ProDeo]

54 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

It was part of that same post. Right here:

In context (v18) it's about Jesus divinity.

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 So Jesus said to them,Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by ProDeo

[CV75]

5 hours ago, ProDeo said:

In context (v18) it's about Jesus divinity.

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 So Jesus said to them,Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

 

I think Genesis 2:4-7 answers your question about all life being created spiritually before it was created naturally or physically.

Note that in Chapter 1 (verses 26-30), “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” This is actually a fore-ordination of sorts, because in Chapter 2 the scripture explains:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The phrase “in the day [NOTE: not six days] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” refers to the pre-mortal spiritual creation, for it was accomplished and deemed good before anything was placed in the earth and before anything actually grew, and most notably, there was no man. Then the physical man was created out of the dust of the earth.

[Jane_Doe]

 

6 hours ago, ProDeo said:

IHaving said that, it's true what you stated above "We've been very accommodating", you are nice Christ-like people but reading between the lines of your post I get the impression it's time for me to leave and actually that's not such a bad idea because (as I see it) everything has been said by now. Not sure if this is my last posting on this topic, I noticed there are new replies, but if it is my last post let me thank you all for your kindness and willingness to hear me out.

You're misreading what's between the lines here.  No one here is implying that you should leave.  Please feel free to stay as long as you like.  Our apologies that something to the contrary miscommunicated.  

What @Carborendum and several of us are trying to point out the underlying Protestant assumptions you are making.  These assumptions foreign to LDS beliefs (cause we are not Protestants) and cause difficulties to you fully understanding LDS beliefs.  Such as: 

-- Do you believe that all Truth is restricted to what's in the OT & NT?  Protestants do, LDS do not.  (I'm using the generic "you" here, not referring specifically to @ProDeo).  We believe in a God which still speaks and reveals new Truth to us.

-- Protestantism ultimately comes down to believing this particular person's interpretation of scripture (Luther or Calvin or Wellselly over the Catholic Pope etc).  You're using the same approach here to evaluate LDS doctrine, hence to you* it seems like LDS is all about believing Joseph Smith and his interpretation of this.   The LDS faith isn't like that.  We don't duel scripture verses or various interpretations to decide Truth, rather we ask God.  Don't believe something because Joseph Smith said X.  Rather believe (or don't) X after asking God if it is True.    (*Disclaimer: I'm not a mindreader and apologize if I'm misreading things here).

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ProDeo said:

Talking about the idea of pre-mortal life, for you a truth, me leaning to it, so let's talk with the LDS folks, Was that not clear?

You said you found it interesting.  And that's fine.  Find it interesting.  Ask about it for better understanding.  

But your continued requests that we 'prove' it's validity based on your belief system is what is inappropriate for this forum.  I've told you multiple times that such things are unprovable in the traditional sense.  You might as well try to prove the existence of God to an atheist.

6 hours ago, ProDeo said:

I think asking why there is no shred of evidence of many LDS teachings in the OT and NT was (and still is) a reasonable question.

 I find your (or better Mr. Smith) views fascinating but I think they are way out of line with the Bible.

Just because God speaks one word (The Bible) does not mean He cannot speak another (The Book of Mormon -- and more).

6 hours ago, ProDeo said:

Having said that, it's true what you stated above "We've been very accommodating", you are nice Christ-like people but reading between the lines of your post I get the impression it's time for me to leave and actually that's not such a bad idea because (as I see it) everything has been said by now. Not sure if this is my last posting on this topic, I noticed there are new replies, but if it is my last post let me thank you all for your kindness and willingness to hear me out.

I'm glad you had a pleasant experience.  Happy trails.

[ProDeo]

On ‎13‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 3:25 PM, CV75 said:

I think Genesis 2:4-7 answers your question about all life being created spiritually before it was created naturally or physically.

The phrase “in the day [NOTE: not six days] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” refers to the pre-mortal spiritual creation, for it was accomplished and deemed good before anything was placed in the earth and before anything actually grew, and most notably, there was no man. Then the physical man was created out of the dust of the earth.

In Greek God is called "Elohim" in Gen 1 and "Jehovah" in Gen 2.

How does this fit into your theory?

[ProDeo]

On ‎13‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 3:33 PM, Jane_Doe said:

You're misreading what's between the lines here.  No one here is implying that you should leave.  Please feel free to stay as long as you like.  Our apologies that something to the contrary miscommunicated.

Ok and thanks.

Quote

What @Carborendum and several of us are trying to point out the underlying Protestant assumptions you are making.  These assumptions foreign to LDS beliefs (cause we are not Protestants) and cause difficulties to you fully understanding LDS beliefs.  Such as: 

-- Do you believe that all Truth is restricted to what's in the OT & NT?  Protestants do, LDS do not.  (I'm using the generic "you" here, not referring specifically to @ProDeo).  We believe in a God which still speaks and reveals new Truth to us.

Clear.

Quote

-- Protestantism ultimately comes down to believing this particular person's interpretation of scripture (Luther or Calvin or Wellselly over the Catholic Pope etc).  You're using the same approach here to evaluate LDS doctrine, hence to you* it seems like LDS is all about believing Joseph Smith and his interpretation of this.   The LDS faith isn't like that.  We don't duel scripture verses or various interpretations to decide Truth, rather we ask God.  Don't believe something because Joseph Smith said X.  Rather believe (or don't) X after asking God if it is True.    (*Disclaimer: I'm not a mindreader and apologize if I'm misreading things here).

On the blue - so many truth-seeking Christians (me included) do that and apparently receive different answers. In my early Christian years I believed God led me into doctrine X and doctrine Y and then years later I had to conclude both were wrong and that God didn't led me at all. Right now I am leaning to the doctrine of pre-mortal life and seeking His guidance but I won't make the mistake again to say God led me into it. It could be very well the case, but I do not know that, it's not a fact. It's were I draw the line.

Concerning Joseph Smith, he is the real deal regarding my initial question, true prophet or not. Same with the OT and NT, inspired, or not.

[zil]

3 hours ago, ProDeo said:

On the blue - so many truth-seeking Christians (me included) do that and apparently receive different answers. In my early Christian years I believed God led me into doctrine X and doctrine Y and then years later I had to conclude both were wrong and that God didn't led me at all. Right now I am leaning to the doctrine of pre-mortal life and seeking His guidance but I won't make the mistake again to say God led me into it. It could be very well the case, but I do not know that, it's not a fact. It's were I draw the line.

Have you considered that God led you to X and Y because until you had experienced those (or things that stemmed from believing them), you wouldn't be prepared to accept something truer?  In other words, God wasn't telling you X and Y were true, but rather to follow whatever path X and Y would lead you to?  Just a thought.

[zil]

4 hours ago, ProDeo said:

In Greek God is called "Elohim" in Gen 1 and "Jehovah" in Gen 2.

How does this fit into your theory?

Actually, it fits fabulously - the Father created all things spiritually, then the Son executed the physical creation.  Works for me.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, ProDeo said:

In Greek God is called "Elohim" in Gen 1 and "Jehovah" in Gen 2.

How does this fit into your theory?

"Elohim" is Hebrew, and "Jehovah" is a Latinization of the Hebrew vocalization of "‎YHWH". These are but two of seven names of God in Judaism. I thought the Greeks translated these terms as "theos" and "kyrios" respectively.

At any rate, the use of any of the names of God would have no bearing on the principle that all life was created spiritually before it was created naturally or physically, as presented in Genesis 2.

Edited July 16, 2017 by CV75

[ProDeo]

19 hours ago, zil said:

Have you considered that God led you to X and Y because until you had experienced those (or things that stemmed from believing them), you wouldn't be prepared to accept something truer?  In other words, God wasn't telling you X and Y were true, but rather to follow whatever path X and Y would lead you to?  Just a thought.

Sure.

Life (and Christain life in particular) is one big chain of experiences and sometimes you make mistakes and sometimes one even blunders. It's from those blunderrs you learn the most. And I learned from my blunder that what I believed about X and Y as 100% inspired by the Holy Spirit actually was mixed with my selfish desires. There was no fun in that realization but it was a big lesson. And so I became careful.

After that lesson (as far as I know) I never said things like "The Lord led me into ...." or "I feel I received this from the Lord" again, not even to my inner self. As in this case it's my desire that pre-mortal life is true because (in my understanding) it fits so much better and then seeking God's guidance in prayer because you want it to be true has all the ingredients of self deception. As long as I realize the danger and keep alert I am safe.

Edited July 17, 2017 by ProDeo
forgot some words, my dyslexia showing again

[ProDeo]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

"Elohim" is Hebrew, and "Jehovah" is a Latinization of the Hebrew vocalization of "‎YHWH". These are but two of seven names of God in Judaism. I thought the Greeks translated these terms as "theos" and "kyrios" respectively.

At any rate, the use of any of the names of God would have no bearing on the principle that all life was created spiritually before it was created naturally or physically, as presented in Genesis 2.

You are right, Hebrew, not Greek, my bad

[Guest]

On 7/16/2017 at 4:25 AM, ProDeo said:

On the blue - so many truth-seeking Christians (me included) do that and apparently receive different answers.

This is exactly what we've all been talking about.  And that's absolutely fantastic that you've made that realization.  Yes, the Lord will confirm truth to you as you come across it, study it out, and pray about it.  If you get no such confirmation on this topic or any others, ok, you don't get such confirmation.  You're going down a different path. 

What I've been puzzled at is your consistent request for "proof" when such proof is only going to come from the Holy Ghost.  We cannot give you what only comes from God personally.  We are merely tools in His hands.  We can provide you what the message is.  But the proof comes from God.

We've received such confirmation.  That is the proof for us.  You have not.  Asking for such proof from us is not going to get you anywhere.  That's all I'm saying.

The purpose of a forum such as this is to "clarify."  But where does "clarifying" become justifying or trying to "prove"?  There is some gray area.  But I'd say that you've been strongly in the "prove it to me" camp.  And that isn't what mortals do.  Only God can do that.

[person0]

@ProDeo,

I know I pretty much already asked this question, and I know I posted a big long explanation of the 'history of your existence' from my perspective, however, I am curious to know, If we did not already exist in a pre-mortal state, why would God create us knowing in advance it would cause Him to have to sacrifice His son (or Himself depending on your view)?  It's one thing to sacrifice His son to help us, but why would He bother creating something that didn't already exist that would require that of Him?  Is God some kind of masochist?  Haha, I doubt you think that but its kind of a serious question to consider.  Why didn't God come up with an alternative method of salvation to the one we have through Christ (if he had the option to do so)?

I suppose these are all variations of the same line of inquiry.  Your questions/thread inspired me to create another post containing concepts that could potentially apply to the discussion we have had so far.  I would love your perspective in the thread, or simply as part of the discussion in this thread.  

Edited July 17, 2017 by person0

[ProDeo]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

This is exactly what we've all been talking about.  And that's absolutely fantastic that you've made that realization.  Yes, the Lord will confirm truth to you as you come across it, study it out, and pray about it.  If you get no such confirmation on this topic or any others, ok, you don't get such confirmation.  You're going down a different path.

Yep, and the different path would mean, as I see it, to remain undecided on the issue in question, which I do. In the meantime (through the years) I have quite some collection gathered of undecided issues

Quote

What I've been puzzled at is your consistent request for "proof" when such proof is only going to come from the Holy Ghost.  We cannot give you what only comes from God personally.  We are merely tools in His hands.  We can provide you what the message is.  But the proof comes from God.

We've received such confirmation.  That is the proof for us.  You have not.  Asking for such proof from us is not going to get you anywhere.  That's all I'm saying.

The purpose of a forum such as this is to "clarify."  But where does "clarifying" become justifying or trying to "prove"?  There is some gray area.  But I'd say that you've been strongly in the "prove it to me" camp.  And that isn't what mortals do.  Only God can do that.

I am not aware I am constantly asking for proof, it's more asking for evidence (hints, thoughts, logic, general feedback) in the hope a light goes on. It's my usual (and normal to me) debating style and during my dwelling in several Bible fora since 2008 you are the first one to notice, or to make it a point.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, ProDeo said:

I am not aware I am constantly asking for proof, it's more asking for evidence (hints, thoughts, logic, general feedback) in the hope a light goes on. It's my usual (and normal to me) debating style and during my dwelling in several Bible fora since 2008 you are the first one to notice, or to make it a point.

I can't speak for everyone.  That is the impression I was getting.  And I won't belabor the point.  It's a red herring.

We believe much of this topic was lost during the apostasy.  There remain only "hints".  But such hints could easily be explained in other ways (as you've pointed out).  But to one who has already received confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph was a prophet of God, then we find that these other passages (historically interpreted to mean something completely different) actually do talk about these beliefs.

That is what I meant when I said you wouldn't/couldn't understand them.  Any interpretation is going to come from our own backgrounds and understanding.  The other day I was commenting on several passages that even in my own faith I had not understood them to be referring to this or that.  But because I happened to be pondering certain subjects as I read them, a new meaning was brought to my mind.  That is the nature of scripture.

So, it is no wonder that you can't even understand why we would interpret some scriptures the way we do.  That's the nature of interpretation.

That said, if you're wondering what scriptures in the Bible speak to the pre-existence based on the background and understanding of Protestant theology, the answer is: NONE.  You're theology obviously doesn't allow it.  So, how can there be any?

But if you're curious how Mormons interpret certain scriptures to back up some of our beliefs, well, we've given them.  And we found that given your adherence to your perspective, faith, and background, it is meaningless to you.  That is the nature of a religious discussion.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Guest

[ProDeo]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

@ProDeo,

I know I pretty much already asked this question, and I know I posted a big long explanation of the 'history of your existence' from my perspective, however, I am curious to know, If we did not already exist in a pre-mortal state, why would God create us knowing in advance it would cause Him to have to sacrifice His son (or Himself depending on your view)?  It's one thing to sacrifice His son to help us, but why would He bother creating something that didn't already exist that would require that of Him?  Is God some kind of masochist?  Haha, I doubt you think that but its kind of a serious question to consider.  Why didn't God come up with an alternative method of salvation to the one we have through Christ (if he had the option to do so)?

I suppose these are all variations of the same line of inquiry.  Your questions/thread inspired me to create another post containing concepts that could potentially apply to the discussion we have had so far.  I would love your perspective in the thread, or simply as part of the discussion in this thread.  

I now see it would have been better to post my initial question in that particular section of the board?

I can give you my perspective on pre-mortal life of course ≠ to LDS. We all lived with God in harmony and peace innocent like A&E. On a bad day (so to speak) a high ranked angel we now call the devil rebelled against God and lured us into his rebellion in the same way as in Gen 3 but then on a massive scale. My hypothesis is that what we read in Gen 3 (the fall) actually is a narrative of what happened in heaven. So in my hypothesis there is only one Fall, not two. And that's why we need redemption, experience both good and evil, learn, and most of all remain obedient.

One other thing that led me into this line of reasoning is the observation that everyone is destined to die, even innocent babies die, the penalty of sin is death, thus even the baby did sin, not in this life (I am not a fan of Augustine of Hippo) but in the presence of the Lord, likely because he/she was lured into the satanic rebellion.

I will follow your link, thanks for pointing out.

[Jane_Doe]

28 minutes ago, ProDeo said:

One other thing that led me into this line of reasoning is the observation that everyone is destined to die, even innocent babies die, the penalty of sin is death, thus even the baby did sin, not in this life (I am not a fan of Augustine of Hippo) but in the presence of the Lord, likely because he/she was lured into the satanic rebellion.

I will follow your link, thanks for pointing out.

Ah, I see your reasoning there. 

From the LDS perspective, babies are sinless.  If a baby dies physically, that is the result of shortcomings no way the fault of the baby.  Almost always an child's death is due to the shortcomings of these flawed mortal bodies we have- flaws which God allowed for whichever reason (see John 9:2-3 for one example).  The baby will not die spiritually (aka be cut off from God) because it is sinless.  Hence little children have no need for baptism but are already saved in Christ. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ProDeo said:

One other thing that led me into this line of reasoning is the observation that everyone is destined to die, even innocent babies die, the penalty of sin is death, thus even the baby did sin, not in this life (I am not a fan of Augustine of Hippo) but in the presence of the Lord, likely because he/she was lured into the satanic rebellion.

This reminds me:

Quote

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

John 9:2-3

While Jesus corrects the disciples who asked (saying neither party was responsible) the point here is that the people of the day did have a belief that we lived before this life.  How else could this man have sinned prior to being born?  Can one sin in the womb?  I have a hard time believing that even if I were not LDS.

We can argue that this was a misguided doctrine from the people of the day.  But to us, it is evidence that this doctrine did not originate with us, but it pre-dated the apostles of Christ's time.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Guest

[person0]

12 minutes ago, ProDeo said:

I now see it would have been better to post my initial question in that particular section of the board?

Because you are asking about the LDS perspective of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence, this is the correct section of the forum.  I used the other section because my inquiry is addressed to non-LDS in order to better understand their perspectives.

15 minutes ago, ProDeo said:

On a bad day (so to speak) a high ranked angel we now call the devil rebelled against God and lured us into his rebellion in the same way as in Gen 3 but then on a massive scale. My hypothesis is that what we read in Gen 3 (the fall) actually is a narrative of what happened in heaven. So in my hypothesis there is only one Fall, not two. And that's why we need redemption, experience both good and evil, learn, and most of all remain obedient.

While I most definitely believe differently, I can certainly appreciate the idea of what you are saying.  It actually makes more sense to me than what a lot of other Christian denominations teach.  Let me know if I am understanding what you are trying to say, or where I am misunderstanding.  You are hypothesizing, or considering adopting the belief(s) that:

1. Mankind lived pre-mortally in the presence of God
2. We were a creation of God, and existed as spiritual beings
3. We lived in perfection and joy
4. One day, Lucifer, an angel (which to you is a different species than mankind), rebelled against God and many followed him
5. As a result of following the devil, he was cast out of heaven, and so were we
6. Every person on this earth already participated in the rebellion against God and therefore already committed sin before being born, therefore we all fell, not just Adam and Eve
7. God provided a Savior for us so that we all can repent and come back into His presence, but Satan will not be given that chance
8. The story of Adam and Eve partaking the fruit is an allegory of mankind's participation in Lucifer's rebellion
9. Our memory of pre-mortal life if masked to us while in this life

From the list I created above, if accurate to what you are considering, I accept 1,2, 7, and 9 at face value.  I accept 3 but with certain minimal limitations.  I also accept 4 with exception that we believe angels are the same species as mankind.

If I understand you accurately, I must say, I kind of find it fascinating.  It sounds to me like some things that would follow from your hypothesis are that God intended for mankind to be perfect, and to dwell in His presence from the start, but we rebelled along with Satan, and are here to try and find our way back.  So then do you also postulate that when revelation 12:4 states, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. . ." that not all of pre-mortal mankind rebelled, and therefore there are many who still dwell in the presence of God and have no need for repentance?  Also, have you considered where are the pre-mortal spirits that already rebelled and were cast out but have not yet been born?  All this also comes to another question, why did God create Lucifer if He knew this was all going to happen?  Or did he not know? Why is Satan not given the chance to repent?  Is the reason we can't remember our pre-mortal life so that we won't be biased against God since we already rebelled in the first place?  Lots of stuff to consider, I'll stop there for now.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, ProDeo said:

I now see it would have been better to post my initial question in that particular section of the board?

I can give you my perspective on pre-mortal life of course ≠ to LDS. We all lived with God in harmony and peace innocent like A&E. On a bad day (so to speak) a high ranked angel we now call the devil rebelled against God and lured us into his rebellion in the same way as in Gen 3 but then on a massive scale. My hypothesis is that what we read in Gen 3 (the fall) actually is a narrative of what happened in heaven. So in my hypothesis there is only one Fall, not two. And that's why we need redemption, experience both good and evil, learn, and most of all remain obedient.

One other thing that led me into this line of reasoning is the observation that everyone is destined to die, even innocent babies die, the penalty of sin is death, thus even the baby did sin, not in this life (I am not a fan of Augustine of Hippo) but in the presence of the Lord, likely because he/she was lured into the satanic rebellion.

I will follow your link, thanks for pointing out.

 

Traditional Christians have long debated free will verses determinism.  Determinism has been well defined in Calvinism but the anti-Calvinists have been unable to mount a sane argument using scriptures.  I, myself being a scientist and expert in industrial artificial intelligence have experienced that in my field of science there is a paradoxical gap in the free will verses determinism debate that has turned almost all devout Traditional Christians in this discipline into agnostics and atheists.   

As I openly express devotion to Jesus Christ and his teaching I am initially scoffed at by colleagues.   Few Traditional Christians (or those that think religious thinking or belief in G-d is defined by such traditional theology) realize how palpably absurd traditional arguments are in the arena human will and ability to determine their destiny and arrive at any universal justice.   The assertion that G-d is just and that death comes only from sin is disproved by the death of Jesus.   The argument that he took upon him the sins of man is contrary to justice.  Obviously, something is missing or else there is no Christ to save mankind (but there is another possibility) – plus your observation that sinless children die.  The argument that little children sinned previously is also absurd because if death is the just result of sin then such could not have justly been given life in the first place. 

If you do not understand the paradox of justice concerning human mortality – I doubt we can have an “intelligent” discussion.  But if you believe in a just G-d and that there is a means that mankind can by proxy submit their sins to G-d for redemption – we have much to discuss.   But it may require that you rethink your view of what scriptures teach concerning G-d and the will of man to determine his own destiny.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 17, 2017 by Traveler

[ProDeo]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

While I most definitely believe differently, I can certainly appreciate the idea of what you are saying.  It actually makes more sense to me than what a lot of other Christian denominations teach.  Let me know if I am understanding what you are trying to say, or where I am misunderstanding.  You are hypothesizing, or considering adopting the belief(s) that:

Well, you are certainly the first person who takes it with an open mind

Quote

1. Mankind lived pre-mortally in the presence of God
2. We were a creation of God, and existed as spiritual beings
3. We lived in perfection and joy
4. One day, Lucifer, an angel (which to you is a different species than mankind), rebelled against God and many followed him
5. As a result of following the devil, he was cast out of heaven, and so were we
6. Every person on this earth already participated in the rebellion against God and therefore already committed sin before being born, therefore we all fell, not just Adam and Eve
7. God provided a Savior for us so that we all can repent and come back into His presence, but Satan will not be given that chance
8. The story of Adam and Eve partaking the fruit is an allegory of mankind's participation in Lucifer's rebellion
9. Our memory of pre-mortal life if masked to us while in this life

From the list I created above, if accurate to what you are considering, I accept 1,2, 7, and 9 at face value.  I accept 3 but with certain minimal limitations.  I also accept 4 with exception that we believe angels are the same species as mankind.

If I understand you accurately, I must say, I kind of find it fascinating.  It sounds to me like some things that would follow from your hypothesis are that God intended for mankind to be perfect, and to dwell in His presence from the start, but we rebelled along with Satan, and are here to try and find our way back.  So then do you also postulate that when revelation 12:4 states, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. . ." that not all of pre-mortal mankind rebelled, and therefore there are many who still dwell in the presence of God and have no need for repentance?  

Basically yes to the list you produced (the main concept) although I don't have all the answers. Also note that if one is a believer of the inerrancy of the Scriptures my hypothesis can be right into the trash because Gen 5 leaves little doubt A&E are (were) historic persons.

As to your points, questions:

I don't know if satan is a different species, it's an important issue of course but not relevant to the hypothesis.

Same with satan being cast out of heaven and when that moment was Revelations speaks about. For instance, we read in Job he still had access to heaven. Not essential to the hypothesis but there is nothing against the interpretation that 2/3 of the heavenly creatures (intelligences) remained loyal.

Quote

Also, have you considered where are the pre-mortal spirits that already rebelled and were cast out but have not yet been born?  

Maybe there is some truth in the Jewish belieF of the Guf, see for instance the WIKI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guf

Quote

All this also comes to another question, why did God create Lucifer if He knew this was all going to happen?  Or did he not know?

Same question as why He created us

As for something more thoughtful I am inclined to think it has to do with God's choice to give his creatures free will. Free will tends to go into every direction and sooner or later sin will rear its ugly head. Also that, if free will rules out sin is it still free will then?

Quote

Why is Satan not given the chance to repent?  Is the reason we can't remember our pre-mortal life so that we won't be biased against God since we already rebelled in the first place?  Lots of stuff to consider, I'll stop there for now.

I stop as well, posting is already way too long.

[ProDeo]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This reminds me:

While Jesus corrects the disciples who asked (saying neither party was responsible) the point here is that the people of the day did have a belief that we lived before this life.  How else could this man have sinned prior to being born?  Can one sin in the womb?  I have a hard time believing that even if I were not LDS.

We can argue that this was a misguided doctrine from the people of the day.  But to us, it is evidence that this doctrine did not originate with us, but it pre-dated the apostles of Christ's time.

Yeah, probably the Jews of that time were influenced by Hellenistic views, Plato and friends. They believed in pre-existence. As far as I know Plato and the Stoics were the first ones who came up with the theory of pre-existence, or they documented it as first ones.

[ProDeo]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

Traditional Christians have long debated free will verses determinism.  Determinism has been well defined in Calvinism but the anti-Calvinists have been unable to mount a sane argument using scriptures.  I, myself being a scientist and expert in industrial artificial intelligence have experienced that in my field of science there is a paradoxical gap in the free will verses determinism debate that has turned almost all devout Traditional Christians in this discipline into agnostics and atheists.   

The problem with Calvinism is that they have taken a handful of passages and built their theory around it ignoring the rest of the Scriptures. Also, if predestination (as they interpret it) is true then so is double predestination and I know only one (consistent) Calvinist who was willing to admit that this is the logical consequence of his belief, the rest (and quite some) keep denying it. To use an analogy imagine 200 refugees drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. And there is a ship nearby and the captain having 500+ life buoys on board only throws 20 life buoys to 20 specific people and let the rest drown. When the captain is asked why he saved those 20 the silence is deafening, no why is given. The god of Calvin is like this captain. The captain could save all, but he did not. Calvinists (most without realizing it) have put God's loving character on trial.

BTW, I am not a scientist but like you I have been working in the AI field for 20+ years.

Quote

As I openly express devotion to Jesus Christ and his teaching I am initially scoffed at by colleagues.   Few Traditional Christians (or those that think religious thinking or belief in G-d is defined by such traditional theology) realize how palpably absurd traditional arguments are in the arena human will and ability to determine their destiny and arrive at any universal justice.   The assertion that G-d is just and that death comes only from sin is disproved by the death of Jesus.   The argument that he took upon him the sins of man is contrary to justice.  Obviously, something is missing or else there is no Christ to save mankind (but there is another possibility) – plus your observation that sinless children die.  The argument that little children sinned previously is also absurd because if death is the just result of sin then such could not have justly been given life in the first place. 

If you do not understand the paradox of justice concerning human mortality – I doubt we can have an “intelligent” discussion.  But if you believe in a just G-d and that there is a means that mankind can by proxy submit their sins to G-d for redemption – we have much to discuss.   But it may require that you rethink your view of what scriptures teach concerning G-d and the will of man to determine his own destiny.

I guess you held me for a Calvinist ?

Edited July 18, 2017 by ProDeo
corrected one word for clarity

[anatess2]

On 7/12/2017 at 5:20 PM, Carborendum said:

There is only one verse I know of.  But again, because of different backgrounds, you wouldn't understand it.

1) Recognize that to us, the Father and the Son are two distinct individuals.
2) Jesus was the greatest of the children of our Father.  He was like unto the Father in all aspects except that he was a sibling to us rather than a father.
3) As such, He also needed to come to earth just as all of us did.  His primary mission was, of course somewhat different than ours.  He came here to save us.
4) He was different than us because He was the only one among us who was completely and perfectly obedient to the will of the Father.

While on earth He said:

Just as with the passage in Jeremiah, without the proper background, this says nothing new to you.  But with the proper background, it says something completely different than what you're used to.

Jesus Christ was already God before He was born unto Mary and atoned for our sins.  The atonement did not make him God.  He did not need to come to earth to become God as He is already one.  He offered to come to earth for our sake.  His Spirit, therefore, is already perfect.  As a perfect spirit subjected to the veil, he is not subject to change even as he was stripped of knowledge of pre-mortal life.  He grew in stature and learned of the father precept upon precept as a mortal man but his Spirit - already perfect as it is, unlike our imperfect spirits - already knew Him.

 

 

[anatess2]

On 7/11/2017 at 4:25 PM, ProDeo said:

What I meant was that's impossible for me to write more than 1 or 2 (significant) postings as a) there is so many new information to process and b) I am a bit handicapped because English isn't my native language. I am a Dutchie and you know what is said: as a finishing touch God created the Dutch

Hey hey hey... English is not my native language either but you are mistaken.  It wasn't until God created the Filipinos that He felt satisfied to rest on the 7th day.