askandanswer Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 Some questions occurred to me this morning about which I think it would be very helpful to get the thoughts of others. At present, the Plan of Salvation is set up in such a way that progression and learning is linked to, when choosing between good and evil, the making of right choices, ie, choosing the right and rejecting the evil. This seems to be one of the main mechanisms for growth. Under the current arrangements, the necessity of, and ability to make such choices, is the, or maybe one of the, central elements of the whole plan. When thinking about this, this morning, the following questions came to mind. How might things be different if, instead of being required to choose between good and evil, the range of choices was simply between good, better, best, or between good and more good? Could the objectives that are intended to be achieved under a system of choosing between good and evil be achievable under a system of choosing between good better best? What objectives could not be achieved, or could not be achieved quite as well? If the same, or similar objectives could be achieved under a system of choosing between good better and best, is the existence of evil and a tempter still necessary? What are the pros and cons of a system where the choices are between good better best as compared with a system where the choices are between good and evil? Could an examination of the range of differing possible mechanisms – ie, one mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good and evil, and another mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good, better and best, and any other mechanisms that could exist – and an examination of the option that is ultimately decided upon, and a comparison between the option that was decided upon with the options that were rejected help us to better understand the mind, the preferences, the values and intentions of the Decider of that decision? Your thoughts and comments are most welcome because I have no clear idea about this. But it does seem to me that values, preferences, and intentions can sometimes be glimpsed when we can better understand the choices that have been made and what the alternatives were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV75 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, askandanswer said: Some questions occurred to me this morning about which I think it would be very helpful to get the thoughts of others. At present, the Plan of Salvation is set up in such a way that progression and learning is linked to, when choosing between good and evil, the making of right choices, ie, choosing the right and rejecting the evil. This seems to be one of the main mechanisms for growth. Under the current arrangements, the necessity of, and ability to make such choices, is the, or maybe one of the, central elements of the whole plan. When thinking about this, this morning, the following questions came to mind. How might things be different if, instead of being required to choose between good and evil, the range of choices was simply between good, better, best, or between good and more good? Could the objectives that are intended to be achieved under a system of choosing between good and evil be achievable under a system of choosing between good better best? What objectives could not be achieved, or could not be achieved quite as well? If the same, or similar objectives could be achieved under a system of choosing between good better and best, is the existence of evil and a tempter still necessary? What are the pros and cons of a system where the choices are between good better best as compared with a system where the choices are between good and evil? Could an examination of the range of differing possible mechanisms – ie, one mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good and evil, and another mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good, better and best, and any other mechanisms that could exist – and an examination of the option that is ultimately decided upon, and a comparison between the option that was decided upon with the options that were rejected help us to better understand the mind, the preferences, the values and intentions of the Decider of that decision? Your thoughts and comments are most welcome because I have no clear idea about this. But it does seem to me that values, preferences, and intentions can sometimes be glimpsed when we can better understand the choices that have been made and what the alternatives were. It think the two systems you describe are part of the same spectrum. wenglund and Traveler 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted January 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. But if you can get the same, or even just similar learning and progression outcomes from a system based on choosing between good, better and best, rather than the current system based on choices between good and evil, then you can do away with Satan and evil, and that would be radically different from our current system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 4 hours ago, askandanswer said: Some questions occurred to me this morning about which I think it would be very helpful to get the thoughts of others. At present, the Plan of Salvation is set up in such a way that progression and learning is linked to, when choosing between good and evil, the making of right choices, ie, choosing the right and rejecting the evil. This seems to be one of the main mechanisms for growth. Under the current arrangements, the necessity of, and ability to make such choices, is the, or maybe one of the, central elements of the whole plan. When thinking about this, this morning, the following questions came to mind. How might things be different if, instead of being required to choose between good and evil, the range of choices was simply between good, better, best, or between good and more good? Could the objectives that are intended to be achieved under a system of choosing between good and evil be achievable under a system of choosing between good better best? What objectives could not be achieved, or could not be achieved quite as well? If the same, or similar objectives could be achieved under a system of choosing between good better and best, is the existence of evil and a tempter still necessary? What are the pros and cons of a system where the choices are between good better best as compared with a system where the choices are between good and evil? Could an examination of the range of differing possible mechanisms – ie, one mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good and evil, and another mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good, better and best, and any other mechanisms that could exist – and an examination of the option that is ultimately decided upon, and a comparison between the option that was decided upon with the options that were rejected help us to better understand the mind, the preferences, the values and intentions of the Decider of that decision? Your thoughts and comments are most welcome because I have no clear idea about this. But it does seem to me that values, preferences, and intentions can sometimes be glimpsed when we can better understand the choices that have been made and what the alternatives were. The plan was in place before Lucifer fell and there was division in heaven. It's human nature to sin, we don't need an actual temptor. During the millennium Satan will be bound and the conditions will be much more ideal to make good decisions and keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 I'm not sure I understand your idea...but from what I understand... Part of the reason we are here, in my opinion, is to test our true character. This is to see who we really are. Deep inside will we choose good...or will we choose evil. If there is no chance for us to choose evil, then that nature will never present itself and thus that portion of the test to see what our true character really is would be null and void. It would thus be possible for those who truly wish to seek after and do evil within their hearts, though they were able to hide their true desires previously, could bring darkness to the Kingdom of Heaven without it. I think a fundamental part of our test here is to see whether we will Choose GOOD or EVIL. Whether, after seeing the good, we will choose to reject it and choose evil instead of good. When the choices are only between good choices, rather than the choices to determine who we will follow, the Lord or the Adversary, I feel that would defeat a great purpose of our having free agency in the first place here in mortality. askandanswer and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: When the choices are only between good choices, rather than the choices to determine who we will follow, the Lord or the Adversary, I feel that would defeat a great purpose of our having free agency in the first place here in mortality. So, what about the city of Enoch that was taken up? Certainly they are still having children, generation after generation? What about the command for us to build Zion and drive out wickedness? Is a city better off to ban porn shops or have them? If we decide to remove the wickedness in our society does the very exercise of our will destroy our will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: So, what about the city of Enoch that was taken up? Certainly they are still having children, generation after generation? What about the command for us to build Zion and drive out wickedness? Is a city better off to ban porn shops or have them? If we decide to remove the wickedness in our society does the very exercise of our will destroy our will? A community reflecting better qualities does not in and of itself stop one from sin or choosing evil. For example, a flaw in the gun control argument is that if they ban guns than gun deaths will cease, or even stranger, that there will be no more murders. However, Mexico is a prime example where banning guns did not cause gun deaths to decrease or murders to end. A society that does away with evil products and of itself can hold to it of their own accord only reflects the morality or desires of that community, but not necessarily every individual in that community. If we banned pornography it would go a long ways at preventing people from viewing it. However, if we ban fornication (which has been done in the past in communities), there would still be fornication. Individuals still have to choose whether to choose to do good or to do evil. Indeed, one may say this is inherent to our religion and what we believe in how we know that doing good will be better than doing evil, and that there MUST therefore be good and evil and we must be able to choose between the two. 2 Nephi 2:11-16 Quote 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, 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. 12 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. 13 And 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. 14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. 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. 16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. As for the City of Enoch, we know precious little about the goings on there. It could be they are having children, or it could be that they are translated and are immortal to a degree similar to the three Nephites and that all in the city were translated. It may be that they do not have children, or if they do perhaps those children are like those we have in this life that pass before the age of accountability who may have had no reason to be tested or are rewarded in accordance with how they have or have not been tested. Such things are known to the Lord but are not really expounded upon for us in the Scriptures pertaining to the City of Enoch and children. Edited January 21, 2019 by JohnsonJones Traveler and Starwatcher 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: A community reflecting better qualities does not in and of itself stop one from sin or choosing evil. For example, a flaw in the gun control argument is that if they ban guns than gun deaths will cease, or even stranger, that there will be no more murders. However, Mexico is a prime example where banning guns did not cause gun deaths to decrease or murders to end. A society that does away with evil products and of itself can hold to it of their own accord only reflects the morality or desires of that community, but not necessarily every individual in that community. If we banned pornography it would go a long ways at preventing people from viewing it. However, if we ban fornication (which has been done in the past in communities), there would still be fornication. Individuals still have to choose whether to choose to do good or to do evil. As for the City of Enoch, we know precious little about the goings on there. It could be they are having children, or it could be that they are translated and are immortal to a degree similar to the three Nephites and that all in the city were translated. It may be that they do not have children, or if they do perhaps those children are like those we have in this life that pass before the age of accountability who may have had no reason to be tested or are rewarded in accordance with how they have or have not been tested. Such things are known to the Lord but are not really expounded upon for us in the Scriptures pertaining to the City of Enoch and children. I have never bought into the belief that evil is required for there to be agency. I think that we have evil here on this world because Lucifer fell. Was it required that he fell along with the third of the hosts so that the plan could proceed? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: I have never bought into the belief that evil is required for there to be agency. I think that we have evil here on this world because Lucifer fell. Was it required that he fell along with the third of the hosts so that the plan could proceed? No. Evil is the opposite of Good. I added the scripture and statements from Lehi to hopefully explain it above. I FEEL that there can be a place where evil cannot exist. This place is the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity. I believe that good can triumph and extinguish evil in the end, totally and completely. However, we MUST learn and prove ourselves while we are here. As Lehi tells us, in order to understand many things there must also be an opposition. Without it, the law becomes meaningless and purpose therefore becomes moot. The idea that we could not fall and everyone of us would be saved was the Adversary's plan. It is the plan that we could not choose for ourselves between good and evil, but rather that we could only be good and he, as enactor of this plan would thus attain the glory beyond that of the Father's, because his plan usurped the Great Plan of Salvation that the Father taught and that his Son (who would become the only begotten) championed. This indicates that while the Father cannot allow wickedness or evil within his kingdom, that it is still necessary for us to experience it and see it for ourselves to understand WHY Good is better and WHY Evil is so terrible. If we are too obtain exaltation, then understanding these fundamental ideas about Good and Evil are necessary so that we know to emulate the Father rather than his fallen children that fell away from him. Ironically, they fell in rebellion because they felt that there was no need for evil to be a choice, or that free agency to choose between good and evil should be necessary, but in doing so, choose to follow the path of wickedness from the start. One purpose for us to be here is to attain eternal life and have joy. It Is a great purpose, but how can one have joy if they cannot understand what joy is? Part of this is knowing the differences between good and evil. That does not mean we have to experience evil or choose evil, but that we see the effects it has, and at times personally experience the hardship and difficulties that it can cause. In this way we can know just how wonderful the good is compared the depravities of wickedness that we understand. In the same light we can experience joy because we can comprehend the opposite and what it does. Adding: Would evil exist without the Adversary...most likely. We know that the natural man is an enemy to God, and as such has temptations of the natural man to withstand. That said, we would still have this challenge to choose the Good or to choose the evil, and to see how evil can be manifested so that we know the qualities of wickedness and what it brings to also understand why Goodness and Light are the best choices to choose and what path wisdom would have us follow. Edited January 21, 2019 by JohnsonJones Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: I have never bought into the belief that evil is required for there to be agency. I think that we have evil here on this world because Lucifer fell. Was it required that he fell along with the third of the hosts so that the plan could proceed? No. I don’t think a measly little Lucifer is strong enough to create evil where it wasn’t meant to exist. Sure, maybe it didn’t need to happen the way it did, but I can’t fathom how a child of God rebelled in such a way that it forces evil upon the earth when God himself did not want it here. That backs my immature childhood belief that Satan has some power over God. Otherwise, why would he be here if it wasn’t in line with God’s original plan? If God needed to, he could have removed Satan and all his followers from existence. But he didn’t. Why? Because evil needs to exist for us to choose good. btw... the plans mentioned above seem to be approaching Satan’s plan. To have no choice between good and evil, but rather be forced to choose good. askandanswer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: Evil is the opposite of Good. I added the scripture and statements from Lehi to hopefully explain it above. I FEEL that there can be a place where evil cannot exist. This place is the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity. I believe that good can triumph and extinguish evil in the end, totally and completely. However, we MUST learn and prove ourselves while we are here. As Lehi tells us, in order to understand many things there must also be an opposition. Without it, the law becomes meaningless and purpose therefore becomes moot. The idea that we could not fall and everyone of us would be saved was the Adversary's plan. It is the plan that we could not choose for ourselves between good and evil, but rather that we could only be good and he, as enactor of this plan would thus attain the glory beyond that of the Father's, because his plan usurped the Great Plan of Salvation that the Father taught and that his Son (who would become the only begotten) championed. This indicates that while the Father cannot allow wickedness or evil within his kingdom, that it is still necessary for us to experience it and see it for ourselves to understand WHY Good is better and WHY Evil is so terrible. If we are too obtain exaltation, then understanding these fundamental ideas about Good and Evil are necessary so that we know to emulate the Father rather than his fallen children that fell away from him. Ironically, they fell in rebellion because they felt that there was no need for evil to be a choice, or that free agency to choose between good and evil should be necessary, but in doing so, choose to follow the path of wickedness from the start. One purpose for us to be here to attain eternal life and have joy. It Is a great purpose, but how can one have joy if they cannot understand what joy is? Part of this is knowing the differences between good and evil. That does not mean we have to experience evil or choose evil, but that we see the effects it has, and at times personally experience the hardship and difficulties that it can cause. In this way we can know just how wonderful the good is compared the depravities of wickedness that we understand. In the same light we can experience joy because we can comprehend the opposite and what it does. Adding: Would evil exist without the Adversary...most likely. We know that the natural man is an enemy to God, and as such has temptations of the natural man to withstand. That said, we would still have this challenge to choose the Good or to choose the evil, and to see how evil can be manifested so that we know the qualities of wickedness and what it brings to also understand why Goodness and Light are the best choices to choose and what path wisdom would have us follow. Satan is the destroyer. Satan's plan was always to get us to fall and get chained down to destruction. He never wanted to save anyone. He is a liar, he lied in saying he would save all, he never was going to do that. Edited January 21, 2019 by Rob Osborn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Fether said: I don’t think a measly little Lucifer is strong enough to create evil where it wasn’t meant to exist. Sure, maybe it didn’t need to happen the way it did, but I can’t fathom how a child of God rebelled in such a way that it forces evil upon the earth when God himself did not want it here. That backs my immature childhood belief that Satan has some power over God. Otherwise, why would he be here if it wasn’t in line with God’s original plan? If God needed to, he could have removed Satan and all his followers from existence. But he didn’t. Why? Because evil needs to exist for us to choose good. btw... the plans mentioned above seem to be approaching Satan’s plan. To have no choice between good and evil, but rather be forced to choose good. It isn't, nor ever was Satan's intentions to force obedience. He wanted us to fall so that he could rule over us. Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Just now, Rob Osborn said: Satan is the destroyer. Satan's plan was always to get us to fall and get chained down to destruction. He never wanted to save anyone. He is a liar, he liked in saying he would save all, he never was going to do that. He is a liar, but his plan as presented was that we could not choose, we would not have free agency and thus all would be saved. This plan was that there would be no choice to do evil, but we could only choose good. If this plan was selected, it would overthrow the other plan, which was the Father's plan. In doing so, the Adversary would usurp the Father and seize his glory and power (or attempt to). This was his real intent, not to save us, but to seize power. Thus he came in open rebellion and was trying to throw down the Father to raise himself up. The worst part is that his plan COULD NOT WORK, at least not to bring us up to the level (or even some of us) to that the Father's plan would. We could never learn the differences between good and evil, thus we would never have joy and never could achieve a state where we could practice a worthy exaltation. As such, all that was created would be subject, us never having learned that evil and wickedness were wrong, to having evil overthrow righteousness and goodness (which was also part of the plan of the Adversary indirectly one could say). Thus the whole plan was to bring up a tyrannical dictator who would have us as puppets with no free agency, to overthrow the goodness and light of the Father, and rule in darkness. All this, under the guise of the plan of doing away with free agency, or the ability to choose good and evil, to experience it and to show that we would choose the good. In a way it was all part of the beginning of the plan of salvation right there (and who knows, as it is one eternal round, maybe by statistics it is almost guaranteed that in any family that size you will always have those who rebel and present this type of idea) where we got our first taste of having to make that choice between choosing the Good or choosing the Evil. Between choosing following the Lord or following wickedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: He is a liar, but his plan as presented was that we could not choose, we would not have free agency and thus all would be saved. This plan was that there would be no choice to do evil, but we could only choose good. If this plan was selected, it would overthrow the other plan, which was the Father's plan. In doing so, the Adversary would usurp the Father and seize his glory and power (or attempt to). This was his real intent, not to save us, but to seize power. Thus he came in open rebellion and was trying to throw down the Father to raise himself up. The worst part is that his plan COULD NOT WORK, at least not to bring us up to the level (or even some of us) to that the Father's plan would. We could never learn the differences between good and evil, thus we would never have joy and never could achieve a state where we could practice a worthy exaltation. As such, all that was created would be subject, us never having learned that evil and wickedness were wrong, to having evil overthrow righteousness and goodness (which was also part of the plan of the Adversary indirectly one could say). Thus the whole plan was to bring up a tyrannical dictator who would have us as puppets with no free agency, to overthrow the goodness and light of the Father, and rule in darkness. All this, under the guise of the plan of doing away with free agency, or the ability to choose good and evil, to experience it and to show that we would choose the good. In a way it was all part of the beginning of the plan of salvation right there (and who knows, as it is one eternal round, maybe by statistics it is almost guaranteed that in any family that size you will always have those who rebel and present this type of idea) where we got our first taste of having to make that choice between choosing the Good or choosing the Evil. Between choosing following the Lord or following wickedness. We mustn't believe Satan when he said he would save all and connect that with the destruction of agency. That's bad on our logic. The scriptures state he very much did say he would save all. But in the very same verse Moses also says he was a liar. Thus we get the real context of what was going on. One of the antonyms of "agency" is "captive". Let's put it all into place then- Satan said he would save everyone, but he was being deceptive in this, he was lying, instead he sought to bring men into captivity and destruction. This is what the scriptures really mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV75 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, askandanswer said: Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. But if you can get the same, or even just similar learning and progression outcomes from a system based on choosing between good, better and best, rather than the current system based on choices between good and evil, then you can do away with Satan and evil, and that would be radically different from our current system. I'd say the current system allows for choices between good and evil and between good, better and best. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng It seems the current system is part of an eternal pattern where opposing forces arise against their Father in the spirit estate, are allowed into the paradisaical creation estate, thrive in the fallen mortal estate, are defeated in the mortal paradisaical (millennial) estate, and cut off from further progress in the post-resurrection estates. Progress of course is contingent upon one's agency and its proper use, retention and expansion, and being cut off is contingent upon one's misuse, loss and destruction of his agency. Edited January 21, 2019 by CV75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: It isn't, nor ever was Satan's intentions to force obedience. He wanted us to fall so that he could rule over us. Regardless, do you believe Satan has the power to prevent Hid from getting rid of him? You claim evil is here purely because Lucifer rebelled against God and that evil was not meant to be a part of the plan. So does that mean God is unable to remove Satan? Is Satan to strong for God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Fether said: Regardless, do you believe Satan has the power to prevent Hid from getting rid of him? You claim evil is here purely because Lucifer rebelled against God and that evil was not meant to be a part of the plan. So does that mean God is unable to remove Satan? Is Satan to strong for God? God allows Satan because the line is still being divided and the Father is trying to reclaim all that is possible. Once the Father has reclaimed those he sets out to reclaim then Satan and his angels will be utterly destroyed. It's not a matter of if but when. The "when" is most important. Why? To allow people to divide out as they will now that a line had been made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: God allows Satan because the line is still being divided and the Father is trying to reclaim all that is possible. Once the Father has reclaimed those he sets out to reclaim then Satan and his angels will be utterly destroyed. It's not a matter of if but when. The "when" is most important. Why? To allow people to divide out as they will now that a line had been made. So do you believe God is trying to find out who will be good and who will be evil? THEN he will destroy the wicked? Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, Fether said: So do you believe God is trying to find out who will be good and who will be evil? THEN he will destroy the wicked? In a sense yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: In a sense yes. Do you believe God already knows who these people are that will be evil? Edited January 21, 2019 by Fether Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 31 minutes ago, Fether said: Do you believe God already knows who these people are that will be evil? No. Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted January 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Fether said: I don’t think a measly little Lucifer is strong enough to create evil where it wasn’t meant to exist. Sure, maybe it didn’t need to happen the way it did, but I can’t fathom how a child of God rebelled in such a way that it forces evil upon the earth when God himself did not want it here. That backs my immature childhood belief that Satan has some power over God. Otherwise, why would he be here if it wasn’t in line with God’s original plan? If God needed to, he could have removed Satan and all his followers from existence. But he didn’t. Why? Because evil needs to exist for us to choose good. btw... the plans mentioned above seem to be approaching Satan’s plan. To have no choice between good and evil, but rather be forced to choose good. I agree that Lucifer is not strong enough to create evil where it wasn't meant to exist. I also agree with Rob who suggested that evil exists independently of Satan and I agree that evil could not exist on earth if God did want it to be here. I'm not sure if I agree that evil needs to exist for us to choose good because I'm still open to the possibility that we can experience a kind of growth from choosing between good and better than the kind of growth we can gain from choosing between good and evil. I can see how the plan I am referring to has some similarities with Satan's plan. However, an important difference is that Satan's plan forces us to choose good by taking over our agency while the plan I am referring to removes the possibility of choosing evil by removing evil as an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) On 1/20/2019 at 4:40 PM, askandanswer said: Some questions occurred to me this morning about which I think it would be very helpful to get the thoughts of others. At present, the Plan of Salvation is set up in such a way that progression and learning is linked to, when choosing between good and evil, the making of right choices, ie, choosing the right and rejecting the evil. This seems to be one of the main mechanisms for growth. Under the current arrangements, the necessity of, and ability to make such choices, is the, or maybe one of the, central elements of the whole plan. When thinking about this, this morning, the following questions came to mind. How might things be different if, instead of being required to choose between good and evil, the range of choices was simply between good, better, best, or between good and more good? Could the objectives that are intended to be achieved under a system of choosing between good and evil be achievable under a system of choosing between good better best? What objectives could not be achieved, or could not be achieved quite as well? If the same, or similar objectives could be achieved under a system of choosing between good better and best, is the existence of evil and a tempter still necessary? What are the pros and cons of a system where the choices are between good better best as compared with a system where the choices are between good and evil? Could an examination of the range of differing possible mechanisms – ie, one mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good and evil, and another mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good, better and best, and any other mechanisms that could exist – and an examination of the option that is ultimately decided upon, and a comparison between the option that was decided upon with the options that were rejected help us to better understand the mind, the preferences, the values and intentions of the Decider of that decision? Your thoughts and comments are most welcome because I have no clear idea about this. But it does seem to me that values, preferences, and intentions can sometimes be glimpsed when we can better understand the choices that have been made and what the alternatives were. I have pondered also the dichotomy and variations of this dichotomy, and here are scriptures that entice this: 1) Moroni 7:15, "For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night." 2. 1 Nephi 14:10, "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil..." 3. 2 Nephi 15:20, "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (This refers to what you are specifying and adds bitter vs. sweet comparison). 4. The obvious is that of Jesus Christ and Lucifer Choice, moral agency, is the number one reason why we are here and why we can be tested. If we look at the following verse Mose 1:39 in light of who our Father is the end result isn't to have a variation of good, but to become "good" like our Savior and our Father in heaven. In this light, the contrast I think is very important. We are commanded to be perfect. We are commanded to be good. We are commanded to be like Christ -- who is perfect and who is good. So if we can rightfully learn how to distinguish the daylight from dark night, good from evil, sweet from bitter, then eventually we will become like God. We then place ourselves in a position never to give heed to any temptation from the adversary because we don't deal with any gray areas. However, in saying this, we learn line upon line, precept upon precept, and as such we hear in the Church the constant idea of "becoming." If a person needs to be able to distinguish between good, better, and best that is a stepping stone in the right direction. In some avenues of our lives that distinction is good, and reminds me of President Hinckley's statement, "This, my beloved friends, is what the gospel is all about—to make bad men good and good men better, as President McKay was wont to say. There is a process of change, a procedure in the Church by which even those who have sinned seriously may come back." You might like this talk though: Dallin H. Oaks Ultimately though, what is our goal? To be like Christ, and if so, being "good" is the way we need to get there. Edited January 22, 2019 by Anddenex head to heed JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: I have never bought into the belief that evil is required for there to be agency. I thought you were a master scriptorian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: I thought you were a master scriptorian. How does being snide contribute to the discussion at hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.