Altering Moses To Understand "Agency"

[Webster]

By the way Rob, I can easily see how you come up with your views about Lucifer's plan and intentions given your definition of agency. My real problem is that I disagree with that definition.

[Webster]

(Sorry, it looks like my reference and link are wrong in an above comment. Here is the correct info: Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life, Nov 2010 Conference)

[Rob Osborn]

(Sorry, it looks like my reference and link are wrong in an above comment. Here is the correct info: Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life, Nov 2010 Conference)

I found a couple of things he said interesting. Here-

"Those who followed Satan lost the opportunity to receive a mortal body, live on earth, and progress. Because of the way they used their agency, they lost their agency."

"And by His perfect life, He taught us that when we choose to do the will of our Heavenly Father, our agency is preserved, our opportunities increase, and we progress."

"In our mortal journey, it is helpful to remember that the opposite is also true: when we don’t keep the commandments or follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost, our opportunities are reduced; our abilities to act and progress are diminished."

"Whenever we disobey, we spiritually paint ourselves into a corner and are captive to our choices."

"We also understand how obedience to the commandments ultimately protects our agency."

I find that his introduction has some flaws on his own part about not finding a true definition of agency. If we understand that he meant to define agency in the terms he presented- “to act for [ourselves] and not to be acted upon.” then the dictionary definition from the online Dictionary.com exactly explains this-

9. the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation: the agency of Providence.

10. a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality: nominated by the agency of friends.

To "act for ourselves" literally translates into this definition of being in a "state of being in action or of exerting power".

Just thought I would clarify that point from his talk. I honestly believe that Robert D. Hales is using agency the right way according to scripture.

[Rob Osborn]

I agree with your understanding of agency. But I do think Satan intentionally sought to destroy our agency directly when he volunteered to be the one who was sent. When this failed, he sought to destroy if by enticing us to make wrong choices thereby losing it bit by bit.

Before the war in heaven, destroying agency was inherent in his proposal that by arrangement and order of the Father, our agency would be denied (sidestepping Moses 7:32) so that not one should would be lost (so to speak, with Satan controlling our choices), meaning the Father would give Satan His own glory (intelligence, light, truth, culminating in perfect, eternal agency as you’ve defined it—in line with D&C 93:36; 29-31).

During the war in heaven and as it continues on earth, destroying man’s agency is by enticing men to give it up themselves by acting so as to be bound by the chains of h***.

The problem I have is connecting the belief that he was really intending to save everyone by destroying their agency. I think it is a stretch beyond validation. If we know Satan is a liar, and was from even that moment, then how can we believe anything he says? All the scriptures say about his real plans was that he was in rebellion to the Savior and sought to destroy man's agency. It never says that he was really going to put forth any plan to save everyone.

[CV75]

The problem I have is connecting the belief that he was really intending to save everyone by destroying their agency. I think it is a stretch beyond validation. If we know Satan is a liar, and was from even that moment, then how can we believe anything he says? All the scriptures say about his real plans was that he was in rebellion to the Savior and sought to destroy man's agency. It never says that he was really going to put forth any plan to save everyone.

I agree with that as well--he offered no sincere (or workable) plan to save God's children and I don't think he ever intended to save us. It think it is clear that his original intent was to destroy our (and possibly Heavenly Father's) agency outright; enticing us to sin on earth is his "Plan B" and not near as complete as the destruction of the agency of the spirits that were cast out with him.

I suppose his offer to the Father might have been to make it appear that he could entice the Father to sin, or that he was powerful enough to challenge the Father, in an effort to entice us to join his ranks and lose our agency. I'm not sure that Satan ever thought he could actually get God to give him His glory, but only that he could get other spirits to go along with his false plan. Those that joined him were cast out with him, so he did see the destruction of their agency.

[Rob Osborn]

I agree with that as well--he offered no sincere (or workable) plan to save God's children and I don't think he ever intended to save us. It think it is clear that his original intent was to destroy our (and possibly Heavenly Father's) agency outright; enticing us to sin on earth is his "Plan B" and not near as complete as the destruction of the agency of the spirits that were cast out with him.

I suppose his offer to the Father might have been to make it appear that he could entice the Father to sin, or that he was powerful enough to challenge the Father, in an effort to entice us to join his ranks and lose our agency. I'm not sure that Satan ever thought he could actually get God to give him His glory, but only that he could get other spirits to go along with his false plan. Those that joined him were cast out with him, so he did see the destruction of their agency.

Suppose though that he was challenging the very notion of law in heaven and suppose also that he challenged that the laws of God were altogether wrong. Perhaps he had got to a point where he belived that the "natural" man was to be the supreme law and that men should be laws unto themselves (their own carnality).

I am often left to ponder what Satan was trying to get out of the deal. I don't really think he wanted to be like God- the character of his being. I believe he saw a way to make the children of God subject to him- to basically make men his eternal slaves and that pleased him and so he constructed a set or series of secret combinations in place to get them to adhere to his ways and trap them into his evil discipline. I think that was plan "A" and when he got found out he was mad and so the war in heaven unfolded into a more open field. He and his servents were thus kicked out of heaven. I still think that Satan is using many of the same aspects of his plan to still try to destroy the kingdom of heaven and subject the souls of men into his power and control.

[CV75]

Suppose though that he was challenging the very notion of law in heaven and suppose also that he challenged that the laws of God were altogether wrong. Perhaps he had got to a point where he belived that the "natural" man was to be the supreme law and that men should be laws unto themselves (their own carnality).

I am often left to ponder what Satan was trying to get out of the deal. I don't really think he wanted to be like God- the character of his being. I believe he saw a way to make the children of God subject to him- to basically make men his eternal slaves and that pleased him and so he constructed a set or series of secret combinations in place to get them to adhere to his ways and trap them into his evil discipline. I think that was plan "A" and when he got found out he was mad and so the war in heaven unfolded into a more open field. He and his servents were thus kicked out of heaven. I still think that Satan is using many of the same aspects of his plan to still try to destroy the kingdom of heaven and subject the souls of men into his power and control.

I think the first paragraph is certainly plausible and I agree with the second.

RE: how substituting “destroy the agency of man” with “lead men captive down to hell” might not support your conclusions:

Considering h*** from God’s perspective, are you saying that h*** (as you’ve introduced it into the revised scripture) is an existence without a body outside of God’s presence, or is it an immortal glory short of exaltation? It would seem that you saying that Satan actually was already in or wanted to go to h*** and rule over others there; or perhaps lead them there and rule from a better place.

I think Satan wanted a body and he wanted God’s power. I do not think his ambition was to rule in h*** as a spirit. This is why I think he did not seek to lead men captive down to h*** until after he was exiled, which is what I see as “Plan B.” “Plan B” still uses the same strategies and tactics as “Plan A” as you pointed out, but with h*** now his objective and not some other earlier goal such as your suggestion of making the “natural man” (with a body) the supreme law.

I’ve also wondered what he had to gain. I suppose with the power of God he could overcome physical death without any suffering, and with all mankind being subject to spiritual death, it would be easy for him to control them by appeasing his and their carnal appetites (the appetite does not act, only demands to be satisfied by being acted upon).

[Rob Osborn]

I think the first paragraph is certainly plausible and I agree with the second.

RE: how substituting “destroy the agency of man” with “lead men captive down to hell” might not support your conclusions:

Considering h*** from God’s perspective, are you saying that h*** (as you’ve introduced it into the revised scripture) is an existence without a body outside of God’s presence, or is it an immortal glory short of exaltation? It would seem that you saying that Satan actually was already in or wanted to go to h*** and rule over others there; or perhaps lead them there and rule from a better place.

I think Satan wanted a body and he wanted God’s power. I do not think his ambition was to rule in h*** as a spirit. This is why I think he did not seek to lead men captive down to h*** until after he was exiled, which is what I see as “Plan B.” “Plan B” still uses the same strategies and tactics as “Plan A” as you pointed out, but with h*** now his objective and not some other earlier goal such as your suggestion of making the “natural man” (with a body) the supreme law.

I’ve also wondered what he had to gain. I suppose with the power of God he could overcome physical death without any suffering, and with all mankind being subject to spiritual death, it would be easy for him to control them by appeasing his and their carnal appetites (the appetite does not act, only demands to be satisfied by being acted upon).

Perhaps Satan thought or assumed he could reign in the same kingdom and dethrone God himself. Of course he wanted to be the only begotten son so that he could attain an imortal body. Perhaps it was not his first ambition to lead men down to h***, that could be very correct. However, That is where he would have led them even without a knowledge firsthand. I was speaking from God's perspective on that matter.

I tend to look at Lucifer as a mob boss. He wants the same things in life as we do, he just wants to obtain them in an evil and inhumane manner. He glories in watching others suffer or fail. Somehow it lifts him up to see God's children fail.

[CV75]

Perhaps Satan thought or assumed he could reign in the same kingdom and dethrone God himself. Of course he wanted to be the only begotten son so that he could attain an imortal body. Perhaps it was not his first ambition to lead men down to h***, that could be very correct. However, That is where he would have led them even without a knowledge firsthand. I was speaking from God's perspective on that matter.

I tend to look at Lucifer as a mob boss. He wants the same things in life as we do, he just wants to obtain them in an evil and inhumane manner. He glories in watching others suffer or fail. Somehow it lifts him up to see God's children fail.

I think your conclusions are sound, and if the rewording helps you get there, no harm-no foul as far as I'm concerned. I suppose from God's perspective, destroying agency and leading men captive to h*** can mean the same thing, but I can also see where they may not. Destroying agency, to me, conveys a more thorough annihilation of agency than having it severely limited by being held captive in h***. But I suppose it could also refer to the erosion of agency, resulting in some level of damnation or captivity.

I typically think of the destruction of agency as Satan's highest goal, and leading men captive to h*** a lesser goal post-exile. I never understood how he thought he could overthrow God, it almost seems delusional. But pride and enmity are very powerful irrational motivators, as are love and unity. I think the sequence of events in the pre-mortal world also lead me to think that leading men captive to h*** was a fine-tuning of the original desire to control when the "one soul shall not be lost" proposal was deemed unacceptable.

Edited August 3, 2011 by CV75

[Ahab]

As some of you know I have a different approach to "agency" and the role it played/plays in the war between good and bad. Here is this verse-

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

Now what if we were to change it to this-

3Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to lead men captive down into h***, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

This is just my theory here but this is how I interpret this verse. In doing so it greatly modifies how I view agency and what the war in heaven was really about. Leading into verse 3 we are not told of much specifics other than just waht Satan said at the council. Of course we knew he was lying about wanting to save everyone- that wasn't his motive or interest.

What do you think? Am I onto something or am I way off?

If Satan's overall goal was to lead men captive down into h***, then that would be a reasonable understanding of what our Father meant by saying he was trying to take away our agency, but that's not what I think his main goal really was. I think Satan was proposing to come here and die for us to enable all of us to go back to the Celestial kingdom, rather than into h***, and that what our Father meant by saying he wanted to destroy our agency was that he wanted to take away our choice between good and evil by making good and evil basically amount to the same thing. In such a state of things, there would be no "good" to choose over "evil" because everything would be considered to be "good".

That's the way he operates in the world today, you know. His motto is to do what you want while considering whatever you want to be good, and I think he would still be the same way he is today had he not rebelled against our Father in heaven.

[Ahab]

Agency as defined in the dictionary is "the power and freedom of operation/ instrumentality". A person bound in chains does not exersize this power. A person in prison does not enjoy this power. A person in h*** does not exersize this power.

The ultimate question is "How did Satan seek to destroy our agency?". If we assume that he wanted to really save everyone by removing accountability then why would it be required that he come into the world to save "fallen" man? It was known that man would fall into sin and that a savior would be needed. Satan said he would go and do it. Do what? Save fallen man.

I think he wanted "fallen man" to be considered "redeemed man" by what Satan was willing to do for us... which in his mind may have simply equated to coming to Earth to "die" for our sins and then rise from the dead at which point our sins would then no longer be considered to be our sins... so that from his sacrifice we would then we able to go back to the Celestial kingdom.

But, if man had fallen then it was obvious that consequences were already in place.

The consequences being that we had become fallen man in need of some way to be redeemed.

So, we can thus assume that wasn't the deal at all. Besides that, Satan had no power to go around eternal law already in place. This meant that there was no escape from sin without a true savior and obedience to eternal law already in place.

I think Satan was actually proposing to change eternal law... to change the way things had "always been done" to what he considered to be a new and better way.

I think he was essentially saying: I'll go and die for all of man after which I will rise from the dead to open the way for everyone else to come back to the Celestial kingdom. Your part, Father, will simply be to consider everything everyone did to be "good" because of what I will do for them, while you consider nobody to have done anything evil or worthy of casting them down into h***.

From this we can know that Satan thus lied about saving everyone.

I think he may have been dead serious about what he was proposing. It's just that his way isn't our Father's way, nor was it the way it had always been done, and our Father chose to do it the "right" way than the way Satan was proposing.

In all of this you should consider the fact that 1/3 of our Father's children who otherwise would have come here under our Father's plan chose instead to follow Satan because they liked his plan better, so something must have caused them to like it. I don't think they wouldn't have sided with Satan had they thought they would end up in h***. I think they hoped and still hope to change our Father's mind about who he will allow in the Celestial kingdom with our Father agreeing (they hope) that "good" is in the eye of the beholder rather than only what God considers to be good.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Ahab

[Rob Osborn]

If Satan's overall goal was to lead men captive down into h***, then that would be a reasonable understanding of what our Father meant by saying he was trying to take away our agency, but that's not what I think his main goal really was. I think Satan was proposing to come here and die for us to enable all of us to go back to the Celestial kingdom, rather than into h***, and that what our Father meant by saying he wanted to destroy our agency was that he wanted to take away our choice between good and evil by making good and evil basically amount to the same thing. In such a state of things, there would be no "good" to choose over "evil" because everything would be considered to be "good".

That's the way he operates in the world today, you know. His motto is to do what you want while considering whatever you want to be good, and I think he would still be the same way he is today had he not rebelled against our Father in heaven.

How can we be sure that Satan initially wanted to save everyone into heaven? All we have are statements that tells us only what he said and not what he was really up to.

[Ahab]

How can we be sure that Satan initially wanted to save everyone into heaven?

I think it's reasonable to conclude that he really didn't want to be cast down into h***, himself, so rather than trying to figure out a way to bring everybody down to h*** with him I think he was proposing a plan where everybody (including himself) would be able to come back to the Celestial kingdom. That's what the conference was all about.

All we have are statements that tells us only what he said and not what he was really up to.

I think it's helpful to realize that we're getting our Father's side of the story in all true revelation we get from God, and his perspective is the overall perspective of the whole situation rather fhan from the perspective of Satan.

When our Father says Satan was trying to destroy our agency which he had given to us, he's not telling us how Satan proposed to go about doing that so much as he's telling us the overall affect of what Satan's plan would have led to. The agency our Father gave us was the freedom to choose between good and evil, with "good' being defined as what our Father considered and still considers to be "good" and with "evil" being the opposite. To destroy agency all it would take is to destroy a choice between good and evil, and in Satan's philosophy whatever people like is "good" regardless of how our Father feels about it.

I think what Satan really wanted was for our Father to allow everyone to do whatever they like while our Father considered everything to be "good", at which point Satan and our Father would be in agreement and the concept of "evil" would be eliminated because both of them would agree that everything they both is good.

No evil = no agency because there would be no good and evil to choose between and instead everything would be good.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Ahab

[Rob Osborn]

I think it's reasonable to conclude that he really didn't want to be cast down into h***, himself, so rather than trying to figure out a way to bring everybody down to h*** with him I think he was proposing a plan where everybody (including himself) would be able to come back to the Celestial kingdom. That's what the conference was all about.

I think it's helpful to realize that we're getting our Father's side of the story in all true revelation we get from God, and his perspective is the overall perspective of the whole situation rather fhan from the perspective of Satan.

When our Father says Satan was trying to destroy our agency which he had given to us, he's not telling us how Satan proposed to go about doing that so much as he's telling us the overall affect of what Satan's plan would have led to. The agency our Father gave us was the freedom to choose between good and evil, with "good' being defined as what our Father considered and still considers to be "good" and with "evil" being the opposite. To destroy agency all it would take is to destroy a choice between good and evil, and in Satan's philosophy whatever people like is "good" regardless of how our Father feels about it.

I think what Satan really wanted was for our Father to allow everyone to do whatever they like while our Father considered everything to be "good", at which point Satan and our Father would be in agreement and the concept of "evil" would be eliminated because both of them would agree that everything they both is good.

No evil = no agency because there would be no good and evil to choose between and instead everything would be good.

The big question though is that if one were to remove consequence justice (everyone gets to heaven anyways plan regardless of their actions), how would that destroy agency? Agency, as far as can be understood from the scriptures only happens in one way, that being- bringing men into bondage either physically or spiritually or both. Depriving men of, or destroying of, their agency does not happen if evveryone gets back to heaven- what they wanted all along. If all were to return, it is what everyone wanted anyway and so in that exact set of terms, agency is preserved because it gives men exactly what they want according to their choice and they remain in the end- free to act and not be acted upon.

This is the exact point I challenge because from God's perspective, Satan really was trying to destroy our agency. Because we know that agency can be destroyed through acts and deeds of disobedience and evilness, then it isn't hard for me to also assume Satan was after that very thing from the beginning- destroying mens freedom to act withing God's kingdom by teaching them the life of sin and captivity so that he could rule over them in wickedness.

[Ahab]

The big question though is that if one were to remove consequence justice (everyone gets to heaven anyways plan regardless of their actions), how would that destroy agency?

It wouldn't, necessarily, unless it is a given that heaven is only for people without any sin, either because they didn't commit any sin or because all of their sins had been wiped away. If people could do anything at all and whatever they did was considered to be good, then it really wouldn't matter what people chose to do because everything they did would be good.

Agency, as far as can be understood from the scriptures only happens in one way, that being- bringing men into bondage either physically or spiritually or both.

Are you considering those who use their agency to do good as being under bondage to God? I don't consider that to be bondage. I consider that to be freedom made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Agency is basically about giving people the choice to choose between God and Satan, or good and evil, and if God and Satan are agreed as to what is good with neither one of them considering anything to be evil then there is no real choice between them because both of them represent and uphold the same things.

Depriving men of, or destroying of, their agency does not happen if everyone gets back to heaven- what they wanted all along. If all were to return, it is what everyone wanted anyway and so in that exact set of terms, agency is preserved because it gives men exactly what they want according to their choice and they remain in the end- free to act and not be acted upon.

Right, so if God had simply agreed to let everyone back into the Celestial kingdom regardless of what they had done, the Celestial kingdom would either contain a mixture of both good and evil people or everyone there would be good with nobody considering anything anyone had done to be evil.

Our Father wouldn't stand for that, though, because he didn't want the Celestial kingdom to be populated by people who had done and were continuing to do things which were evil which considering it all to be good. Thus, he had to dispel Satan and his warped sense of what is good because he knows what is good better than Satan.

This is the exact point I challenge because from God's perspective, Satan really was trying to destroy our agency.

Yes, and as I was saying, to destroy agency all it would take would be to destroy a choice between good and evil which would be done if everything was considered to be good.

Because we know that agency can be destroyed through acts and deeds of disobedience and evilness, then it isn't hard for me to also assume Satan was after that very thing from the beginning- destroying mens freedom to act within God's kingdom by teaching them the life of sin and captivity so that he could rule over them in wickedness.

I think it might help if you think about what a person is like when their agency has been "destroyed", so to speak.

It's not as if they can't choose to do something they want to do. They can still do whatever they want to do, even though all they want to do is evil, and all while saying the evil they do is "all good".

You've heard that phrase from some people before, haven't you?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

As some of you know I have a different approach to "agency" and the role it played/plays in the war between good and bad. Here is this verse-

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

Now what if we were to change it to this-

3Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to lead men captive down into h***, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

This is just my theory here but this is how I interpret this verse.

“Interpreting” it that way is one thing; proposing to rewrite the scripture in that way is something different. I am not sure if that is what you are proposing; but if you are, then of course I would disagree.

In doing so it greatly modifies how I view agency and . . .

Since you didn’t specify “how [you] view agency,” that is moot.

. . . what the war in heaven was really about.

The “war in heaven” was more than about “agency;” it was about who would be the boss. After Satan’s plan had been rejected, he then rebelled against God, and tried to dethrone God so he could take His place:

D&C 29

:

. . . for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

He wanted to be the ruler of the universe in place of God. I don’t know how he thought he could accomplish it; but evidently he thought he could. Perhaps he thought he had enough people on his side to be able to do it. But in the event he failed.

Leading into verse 3 we are not told of much specifics other than just waht Satan said at the council. Of course we knew he was lying about wanting to save everyone- that wasn't his motive or interest.

That evidently was his idea; but whether it would have achieved the desired objective or not is a different matter.

What do you think? Am I onto something or am I way off?

If you are proposing to rewrite scripture, then I would say, “way off!” “Sought to destroy the agency of man,” and “sought to lead men captive down into heII” are by no means verbally or linguistically equivalent. They are saying two very different things. The idea of Satan carrying people “captive down to [heII]” does occur in scripture, but in a different context:

2 Nephi 1

:

13 O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of heII, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are

carried away captive

down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe.

But just because that expression is applicable in that context, it does not follow that it is substitutable in the other context.

I believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture. That means that no uninspired person (i.e. someone having the same mandate that Joseph Smith had) can “improve” on the wording of scripture. The way that it is written is the best way that it could be written—unless it is amended by God Himself—or one who has a special mandate from God to do it, as Joseph Smith did.

Edited August 4, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

The “war in heaven” was more than about “agency;” it was about who would be the boss. After Satan’s plan had been rejected, he then rebelled against God, and tried to dethrone God so he could take His place:

D&C 29

:

. . . for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

He wanted to be the ruler of the universe in place of God. I don’t know how he thought he could accomplish it; but evidently he thought he could. Perhaps he thought he had enough people on his side to be able to do it. But in the event he failed.

I don't think Satan necessarily wanted to dethrone our Father in heaven. I think he just wanted the same honor he had, as 2 people with the same honor.

That's what our Lord has now, you know. Our Lord shares the honor with our Father, and the honor of our Father is the honor... or in other words, glory... of our Lord, as well.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

I don't think Satan necessarily wanted to dethrone our Father in heaven. I think he just wanted the same honor he had, as 2 people with the same honor.

That's what our Lord has now, you know. Our Lord shares the honor with our Father, and the honor of our Father is the honor... or in other words, glory... of our Lord, as well.

I think that the word "rebel" contains more than the idea of "sharing" in God's power, but trying to dethrone or supplant Him. The scripture says, "for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power;" (D&C 29:36); and, "Satan rebelled against me, . . . and also that I should give unto him mine own power;" (Moses 4:3). He "sought that which was evil before God" (2 Nephi 2:17). These verses suggest more than just wanting to "share in God's power". They suggest seeking something which is forbidden.

Edited August 4, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Osborn]

It wouldn't, necessarily, unless it is a given that heaven is only for people without any sin, either because they didn't commit any sin or because all of their sins had been wiped away. If people could do anything at all and whatever they did was considered to be good, then it really wouldn't matter what people chose to do because everything they did would be good.

Are you considering those who use their agency to do good as being under bondage to God? I don't consider that to be bondage. I consider that to be freedom made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Agency is basically about giving people the choice to choose between God and Satan, or good and evil, and if God and Satan are agreed as to what is good with neither one of them considering anything to be evil then there is no real choice between them because both of them represent and uphold the same things.

Right, so if God had simply agreed to let everyone back into the Celestial kingdom regardless of what they had done, the Celestial kingdom would either contain a mixture of both good and evil people or everyone there would be good with nobody considering anything anyone had done to be evil.

Our Father wouldn't stand for that, though, because he didn't want the Celestial kingdom to be populated by people who had done and were continuing to do things which were evil which considering it all to be good. Thus, he had to dispel Satan and his warped sense of what is good because he knows what is good better than Satan.

Yes, and as I was saying, to destroy agency all it would take would be to destroy a choice between good and evil which would be done if everything was considered to be good.

I think it might help if you think about what a person is like when their agency has been "destroyed", so to speak.

It's not as if they can't choose to do something they want to do. They can still do whatever they want to do, even though all they want to do is evil, and all while saying the evil they do is "all good".

You've heard that phrase from some people before, haven't you?

I guess it is all in how one defines the principles of agency. Because of God's laws which are imutable, when men sin, they become captive spiritually and physically. There is no going around that fact. One cannot possibly escape this bondage once they sin, it is just the natural nature of sin and it's power.

Agency is pretty much the power that free and righteous people possess.

[zerinus]

I guess it is all in how one defines the principles of agency. Because of God's laws which are imutable, when men sin, they become captive spiritually and physically. There is no going around that fact. One cannot possibly escape this bondage once they sin, it is just the natural nature of sin and it's power.

Agency is pretty much the power that free and righteous people possess.

Agency entails the right of choice:

D&C 29

:

39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.

God had to allow Satan to tempt the children of men in order to preserve that choice.

[Ahab]

I think that the word "rebel" contains more than the idea of "sharing" in God's power, but trying to dethrone or supplant Him. The scripture says, "for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power;" (D&C 29:36); and, "Satan rebelled against me, . . . and also that I should give unto him mine own power;" (Moses 4:3). He "sought that which was evil before God" (2 Nephi 2:17). These verses suggest more than just wanting to "share in God's power". They suggest seeking something which is forbidden.

I meant he wasnt' necessarily seeking to dethrone our Father when he made his proposal to bring all of us back to the Celestial kingdom. He definitely did rebel after his proposal was rejected and our Father chose our Lord who agreed to our Father's plan, rather than humbling himself and just going along with that.

[Ahab]

I guess it is all in how one defines the principles of agency. Because of God's laws which are imutable, when men sin, they become captive spiritually and physically.

You're thinking in terms of how agency is defined now, which is fine, but I'm trying to show you the alternative which I think Satan had in his mind.

Agency as it is now is all about choosing between good and evil, with one being the opposite of the other and with there being no way to choose both at the same time. Something is either good or evil, with no harmony or middle ground between them.

Agency isn't just about being able to choose to do "something", because even those whose agency is so-caled "destroyed" are choosing to do nothing but what is evil.

There is no going around that fact.

Right, because our Father wouldn't go for what Satan was proposing. We either come back our Father's way, or we don't come back at all.

One cannot possibly escape this bondage once they sin, it is just the natural nature of sin and it's power.

Repentance is always possible, even though those who really want to do what is evil don't see it as an alternative. What they want is for our Father to allow them to do what they want to do while considering what they do to be good, or at least okay, so they can return to our Father's kingdom.

Agency is pretty much the power that free and righteous people possess.

I look at it this way:

We who have agency have the power to choose to do either one of these 3 things:

1) We can use our agency to choose good over evil, at which point God will consider us to be free and righteous.

2) We can use our agency to choose to do evil, at which point God will consider us to be bound by our sin and unrighteous and therefore not fit for the Celestial kingdom.

3) We can use our agency to choose to do evil, at which point Satan was proposing that God consider us to be good anyway and allow us back into the Celestial kingdom.

Our Father would prefer that we all choose option 1, and plan #3 was proposed and failed.

[zerinus]

I meant he wasnt' necessarily seeking to dethrone our Father when he made his proposal to bring all of us back to the Celestial kingdom. He definitely did rebel after his proposal was rejected and our Father chose our Lord who agreed to our Father's plan, rather than humbling himself and just going along with that.

I was referring to his rebellion after his plan was rejected, not to his initial proposal.

[Rob Osborn]

Agency entails the right of choice:

D&C 29

:

39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.

God had to allow Satan to tempt the children of men in order to preserve that choice.

I think one point must be clear, Satan is not needed for the plan to work. That said, God allowed Satan to tempt the children of men to see just exactly who was on what side of the game. Satan does not have to exist in order for agency to exist.

[Rob Osborn]

You're thinking in terms of how agency is defined now, which is fine, but I'm trying to show you the alternative which I think Satan had in his mind.

Agency as it is now is all about choosing between good and evil, with one being the opposite of the other and with there being no way to choose both at the same time. Something is either good or evil, with no harmony or middle ground between them.

Agency isn't just about being able to choose to do "something", because even those whose agency is so-caled "destroyed" are choosing to do nothing but what is evil.

Right, because our Father wouldn't go for what Satan was proposing. We either come back our Father's way, or we don't come back at all.

Repentance is always possible, even though those who really want to do what is evil don't see it as an alternative. What they want is for our Father to allow them to do what they want to do while considering what they do to be good, or at least okay, so they can return to our Father's kingdom.

I look at it this way:

We who have agency have the power to choose to do either one of these 3 things:

1) We can use our agency to choose good over evil, at which point God will consider us to be free and righteous.

2) We can use our agency to choose to do evil, at which point God will consider us to be bound by our sin and unrighteous and therefore not fit for the Celestial kingdom.

3) We can use our agency to choose to do evil, at which point Satan was proposing that God consider us to be good anyway and allow us back into the Celestial kingdom.

Our Father would prefer that we all choose option 1, and plan #3 was proposed and failed.

The act of choosing evil is "how" ones agency is destroyed.