Evil In The Celestial Home?

[orion88]

I had a question on what I read in Gospel Principles chapter 44.

On page 17 it says, "The right to choose between good and evil and

to act for ourselves is called agency. In our premortal life we had

moral agency." Page 19 says, "We began to make choices as spirit

children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our choices there made

us worthy to come to earth" and "We cannot choose righteousness

unless the opposites of good and evil are placed before us"

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance

without a mortal body before coming to earth?

Tony

[wenglund]

Not that it matters to our working out our salvation in this life, one can only speculate in answer to your question--except to say that one of the evils was the potential denial of free agency. Other evils would by anything that contravened the will of the Father.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

Satan and the plan he proposed was the evil that we had to overcome. We had the agency to choose either him or Christ. And I imagine it was probably a much more difficult choice than we think it was.

[Deborah]

Choice isn't necessarily between good and evil. Sometimes it's between being valiant in a cause and just standing by while others fight.

However, there was a legitimate choice presented between Heavenly Father's plan and Lucifer's plan. The fact that Lucifer wanted to make it easy for everyone I think is what attracted so many to follow him, though how they thought he would prevail I can't imagine. I think many people once they get her regret not choosing Lucifer as they seem to want someone else to take care of them and be responsible for their actions.

[LeSellers]

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance without a mortal body before coming to earth?

We don't know if the "Celestial home" and the "premortal existence" are spatially co-incidental.

However, Lucifer/Satan/the devil was able to conceptualize rebellion and acted on that concept. Many (the third part—not necessarily ⅓) choose to follow his wicked lead.

Lehi

Edited October 5, 2011 by LeSellers

[CV75]

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance

without a mortal body before coming to earth?

This has been well-answered in previous posts; my two cents if that the choices between good and evil that were placed before us as premortal spirits could have been: choosing between following Christ and Satan; choosing between those principles we had conceptualized, formulated and incorporated into our premortal advancement and their opposing principles; choosing between progressing faster or slower, further or not, etc.

[Calm]

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance

without a mortal body before coming to earth?

Tony

Based on lucifer's behaviour and his followers I would say there were a number of personal characteristics we had to deal with such as pride, fear and uncertainty and laziness and avoidance of personal responsibility.

[ldsfaqs]

I had a question on what I read in Gospel Principles chapter 44.

On page 17 it says, "The right to choose between good and evil and

to act for ourselves is called agency. In our premortal life we had

moral agency." Page 19 says, "We began to make choices as spirit

children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our choices there made

us worthy to come to earth" and "We cannot choose righteousness

unless the opposites of good and evil are placed before us"

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance

without a mortal body before coming to earth?

Tony

It's not a matter of "what types of evil", it's a matter of choice between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, or right and wrong.

Evil didn't exist in the sense of the movies or life, it existed in the sense of choice between something correct and something false.

When there is choice of something false or perverted, that in it's base form is "evil" and not "good".

For example, in the case of Satan and his followers, they lived with God, thus they knew the "facts" or the truth, yet they chose to pursue the dark path, choosing to rebel. They said, what's the big deal with going to an earth life and maybe not coming back to God. Let's just make everyone have Godliness. So, in other words, they made a bad choice. As we know, we cannot escape the consequences of bad choices. Their consequence was that since they didn't believe in the plan, they wouldn't be allowed to live it.

[ldsfaqs]

Choice isn't necessarily between good and evil. Sometimes it's between being valiant in a cause and just standing by while others fight.

However, there was a legitimate choice presented between Heavenly Father's plan and Lucifer's plan. The fact that Lucifer wanted to make it easy for everyone I think is what attracted so many to follow him, though how they thought he would prevail I can't imagine. I think many people once they get her regret not choosing Lucifer as they seem to want someone else to take care of them and be responsible for their actions.

I think this is actually a good example of why and how we aren't really as "different" from God as some people think.

The fact that some thought they could contend against God, demonstrates we aren't actually so different.

Also, we know that Lucifer was one of the Elect, one of the Sons of the Morning, thus he was great among the masses.

This example also shows that even in the pre-mortal life we all are "different" from each other. Like in this life, good seeming people can be so very wrong about certain things. And depending on the degree of that wrong, there will be consequences for them for it.

[Calm]

I think this is actually a good example of why and how we aren't really as "different" from God as some people think.

The fact that some thought they could contend against God, demonstrates we aren't actually so different.

If one assume Lucifer is a fallen angel, it just means that the angels aren't so different by your reasoning.

[blackstrap]

We don't know if the "Celestial home" and the "premortal existence" are spatially co-incidental.

However, Lucifer/Satan/the devil was able to conceptualize rebellion and acted on that concept. Many (the third part—not necessarily ⅓) choose to follow his wicked lead.

Lehi

The third part must represent 1/3 of the premortals ,unless there were two other distinct parts of different sizes.

[LeSellers]

The third part must represent 1/3 of the premortals ,unless there were two other distinct parts of different sizes.

Indeed.

The term is no less ambiguous in Greek than in English: "the third part", not "one third", and not "one part in three".

As we do not know what John meant, and since it is reasonable that he could have meant the third of three (possibly unequal) parts, we are not justified in saying that those who followed Satan represent 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...% of Father's children.

We might say, for instance, that the "first part" were those of us who actively supported Father's plan, as Jesus presented it. A "second part", those who were persuaded that it was the best possible plan, and "the third part" who, for a variety of reasons, rejected it, chose Satan/Lucifer as their champion, and preferred to "rule in he11" rather than "serve in heaven".

Lehi

[Rob Osborn]

I had a question on what I read in Gospel Principles chapter 44.

On page 17 it says, "The right to choose between good and evil and

to act for ourselves is called agency. In our premortal life we had

moral agency." Page 19 says, "We began to make choices as spirit

children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our choices there made

us worthy to come to earth" and "We cannot choose righteousness

unless the opposites of good and evil are placed before us"

What different types of evil exit in the Celestial home for the spirits to

have agency against so that they can be tested and advance

without a mortal body before coming to earth?

Tony

I have long questioned the whole LDS philosophy of "agency". The reasoning behind it is that a person can't exersize agency unless there be evil already in place acting upon individual. I firmly disagree. That is like saying that I should, as a father, go and but cocaine, pornography, alcohol, R and X rated movies and place all of these things around my home so as to test my children. But who would ever think of doing that? No, I am actively trying to remove all evil from my home and hope one day that it gets removed from society. During the millennium that is exactly what will happen- evil and its temptation will be removed. So what then?

In the premortal life, we had laws that allowed for one to choose between obeying God or disobeying God. There was no actual evil as an object or entity that existed prior to those choosing to become evil such as Lucifer. All they chose was to not obey. So, the proper application should be that in order to be able to choose, there must be laws in place which execute different consequences for different actions. This somehow simple concept is insanely hard to get accross in LDS circles. Perhaps the BoM wording isn't the best in describing the choosing process but the truth is that righteousness can come to pass with evil as an object or entity being altogether absent. All that needs to be in place for righteousness to exist is for laws/consequences to be in place which execute justice according to how one chooses- whether to obey the law or disobey the law. This condition will be in place during the millennium and children will grow up without sin unto salvation all the while executing righteous behavior absent of an evil object or entity involved.

[LDSToronto]

Indeed.

The term is no less ambiguous in Greek than in English: "the third part", not "one third", and not "one part in three".

As we do not know what John meant, and since it is reasonable that he could have meant the third of three (possibly unequal) parts, we are not justified in saying that those who followed Satan represent 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...% of Father's children.

We might say, for instance, that the "first part" were those of us who actively supported Father's plan, as Jesus presented it. A "second part", those who were persuaded that it was the best possible plan, and "the third part" who, for a variety of reasons, rejected it, chose Satan/Lucifer as their champion, and preferred to "rule in he11" rather than "serve in heaven".

Lehi

The Bible Dictionary claims it is 1/3, or 33.3%...

H.

[LeSellers]

The Bible Dictionary claims it is 1/3, or 33.3%...

And?

The text does not unambiguously say that.

Lehi

[altersteve]

The Bible Dictionary claims it is 1/3, or 33.3%...

H.

The Bible Dictionary is not considered authoritative. It is a guide only.

[LDSToronto]

And?

The text does not unambiguously say that.

Lehi

The Bible Dictionary is not considered authoritative. It is a guide only.

How about LeGrand Richards - 1981 General Conference, or Victor L. Brown - 1974 General Conference, or Elray L. Christiansen - 1974 General Conference, or Henry D. Taylor - 1976 General Conference, or Howard W. Hunter, 1976 General Conference, or Dean L. Larsen - 1980 General Conference, or James E. Faust - 1987 General Conference, or Bruce R. McConkie - 1982 General Conference, or Richard G. Scott - 2005 General Conference?

Surely one of those sources are authoritative....

H.

[Deborah]

Surely one of those sources are authoritative....

What is your point. If it's exactly a third or a third part meaning something more general it really doesn't matter.

[LDSToronto]

What is your point. If it's exactly a third or a third part meaning something more general it really doesn't matter.

My point? I'm refuting what Lehi said earlier. Seems to me that Church leaders preach that one-third the host of heaven is fallen. Lehi is saying that may be incorrect. I'm suppose, in the bigger picture, the real question is - when can we deviate from what a leader tells us is true and when must we be aligned?

H.

[LeSellers]

I'm refuting what Lehi said earlier.

No, you were rebutting what I had said. You did not refute it.

Seems to me that Church leaders preach that one-third the host of heaven is fallen. Lehi is saying that may be incorrect [Lehi's emphasis].

While they can say that John's "third part" is equivalent to ⅓ of the hosts of heaven, there is no doctrinal statement to that effect.

In fact, we have only the Greek of John to judge form, and as I have said here and elsewhere, it may very well be that it is ⅓, but the Greek is ambiguous, and is so in exactly the same ways a literal English, French, or Italian translation is.

I'm suppose, in the bigger picture, the real question is - when can we deviate from what a leader tells us is true and when must we be aligned?

I haven't seen where any of the Brethren have said that "'the third part' means '⅓'" is "true". For the most part, it seems they (as I have in the past) used them as equivalents for convenience's sake.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

I haven't seen where any of the Brethren have said that "'the third part' means '⅓'" is "true". For the most part, it seems they (as I have in the past) used them as equivalents for convenience's sake.

In each of the references I provided, a general authority said, "one-third" in reference to the quantity of souls lost in the war in heaven. Perhaps I'm being thick here, but I fail to see how one-third can mean anything other than the commonly understood "take something, divide by three, and that is one third of that something".

H.

[LeSellers]

In each of the references I provided, a general authority said, "one-third" in reference to the quantity of souls lost in the war in heaven. Perhaps I'm being thick here, but I fail to see how one-third can mean anything other than the commonly understood "take something, divide by three, and that is one third of that something".

Assuming something is true is not at all the same thing as asserting it is true.

The mere fact that they said one-third of the spirits who were in the premortal existence does not mean the same thing as saying "There were one-third of our Father's children who chose to follow Satan, and that means, doctrinally, that one in every three who were there are now demons and angels of Satan."

The common point they make is not about 33.333333333333333333...%, but about the nfact of that third part's exercising agency poorly.

Lehi