Jump to content

Question About Agency In The Celestial Kingdom


Veresk

Recommended Posts

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

Link to comment

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

In a perfected creature, completely knowledgeable about Heavenly Father, the realities of the Universe, and the needs of those around you, there should be no need for restrictions, because being something different than an Ape, and having the beginnings of the higher functions of Heavenly father, we should be self regulating, taking into account all things.

Link to comment

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

Free agency (free choice) is an eternal principle, which does not stop with any of the glories, from telestial to celestial, including goodhood. We are all inborn with free agency by dint of being intelligences coeternal with God. Being one with our Father means nothing if it is not completely voluntary. Jesus' atonement would have been worthless if he had not had complete free choice whether to accept the burden which the Father's plan imposed upon him. Perfection may indeed entail the absence of the disposition to do evil or to oppose our Father, but there will still be future spirit children who will rebel on the path to perfection -- even if it be a third of the hosts of heaven. There must needs be opposition in all things. We do no favors to those spirit children if we eliminate all possibility of opposition. Indeed, that would stunt their growth -- Satan's plan all along.

Link to comment

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

I would ask your teacher for a reference for that because I have never heard or taught such an idea. The Celestial Kingdom gives us more freedom not less, nothing is taken from us. However you are correct we will have no more disposition to do evil. It would be like saying God could sin, which is impossible. But I would be interested in seeing this teachers scriptural reference for this idea.
Link to comment

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

We had it before, we will always have it. But we know even as now there will the consequences. But we could choose to stay or go...
Link to comment

This last Sunday I taught Gospel Doctrine and in my lesson I expanded a bit on free / moral agency. We read that Satan sauoght to take away man's agency and ensure that all persons come to the Celestial Kingdom. Hewas rejected, then rebelled (at least that is how I chronologically read the scriptures) and, of course, lost his battle against the Almighty. It's interesting that central to Satan's plan, (and recall that Satan is ultimately declared as evil and his power "great and abominable") was to take away the agency of man. Why is agency so important? I exlained that I think it goes to who we (humans) are. I shared Psalms 82 and John 10 which declare man to be gods. I asked, according ot the Psalms, if we are children of the "most High"? The answer, of course, is yes.

At this point my own thoughts came into play. I pointed out that of all God's creations only one has the power to say "no" to God. That only one has the power ot choose to say "yes" or "no" to God. That is humans. Why? I proposed that only "gods" have the capability to choose to follow or not to follow God. That capability is moral agency. Rob man of that agency and you'll rob him of his godly inheritence. That's what Satan wanted.

These are, of course, my understanding of Satan's plan. On the flipside, God abusolutely protects our agency. Jesus said in mortality, "thy will be done", and declared to the Father in the pre-mortal existence that the Father's remains with the Father. It seems, from my reading, these were key in the Father choosing the Jesus as the Savior: honoring man's agency and always render the Father's honor to Him by doing the Father's will (in all things). Therefore, agency as well as retaining honor to the Father will be very much intact in the Celestial Kingdom so far as I can tell. By doing both, the Father receives His full eternal glory and man is eneabled to eternally progress before the Father.

Link to comment

One qestion which comes to mind in Veresk's scenario is what of infants, even fetuses', who have died before experiencing knowledge and choice in this life? It's my understanding that these will grown up in the Millenium and do good for good is all there will be to choose. To me, the question of agency is helped resolved from the doctrines of the pre-mortal existence of man. It makes sense to me that these who have been deprived of learning and growing in mortality on earth are those who may have been diligent in the pre-mortal existence. The war in heaven, which ocurred after we know the Father and the Son stood to ensure man's agency which was very real in the pre-mortal life, and among those who sided with Jehovah were "great and noble ones". It seems to me that their "greatness" and "nobility" came per their diligence in standing with Jehovah and the Father. Tht among these, their diligence was "great" and "noble" enough as to show how "great" and "noble" they would be in keeping God's commandments in mortality, on the other side of the veil. Accordingly, all results are based upon man, mortal or pre-mortal, in his own choosing to follow God.

Link to comment

I would ask your teacher for a reference for that because I have never heard or taught such an idea. The Celestial Kingdom gives us more freedom not less, nothing is taken from us. However you are correct we will have no more disposition to do evil. It would be like saying God could sin, which is impossible. But I would be interested in seeing this teachers scriptural reference for this idea.

I think this is close to being correct. Agency to me is more than choosing between good and evil. It would be a pretty dull existence if we never had to make any decisions after we are celestialized.

Link to comment

I would ask your teacher for a reference for that because I have never heard or taught such an idea. The Celestial Kingdom gives us more freedom not less, nothing is taken from us. However you are correct we will have no more disposition to do evil. It would be like saying God could sin, which is impossible. But I would be interested in seeing this teachers scriptural reference for this idea.

God can sin. But chooses not to. He would cease to be God if he did.

Link to comment

God can sin. But chooses not to. He would cease to be God if he did.

Agree, i also suspect that God and other gods may differ from time to time as to how they organize their worlds, just like we decorate our houses differently -- I at least certainly hope that if I make the Celestial Kingdom that I don't look, act, and work just like every other being that makes it. That would be very boring.

Link to comment

Hello, I am new here but I have a question that I would like some input on. Today in our Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher said that in the Celestial Kingdom there would be no agency because there would be no evil. At firs t I really didn't like this idea, I think because it feels like something is being taken away: the freedom to choose. But then I had the thought that because at that point in our progression we would have been made perfect in Christ we would have no disposition to do evil. and that the part of me that wants to hold on to my identity of being a little bit evil and not entirely perfect, will no longer be present, that it makes sense that I would not choose evil. But, just because no one who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom would want to choose evil, I still don't think that means that we would not have agency. Any thoughts?

I wonder if this teacher understands the implications of his/her ideas? It would seem to me that if the teacher is correct, in the end the devil wins the free agency vs enslavement debate? How very strange...

Link to comment

I wonder if this teacher understands the implications of his/her ideas? It would seem to me that if the teacher is correct, in the end the devil wins the free agency vs enslavement debate? How very strange...

I agree there is a misstep in the logic here somewhere.

Link to comment

This last Sunday I taught Gospel Doctrine and in my lesson I expanded a bit on free / moral agency. We read that Satan sauoght to take away man's agency and ensure that all persons come to the Celestial Kingdom. Hewas rejected, then rebelled (at least that is how I chronologically read the scriptures) and, of course, lost his battle against the Almighty. It's interesting that central to Satan's plan, (and recall that Satan is ultimately declared as evil and his power "great and abominable") was to take away the agency of man. Why is agency so important? I exlained that I think it goes to who we (humans) are. I shared Psalms 82 and John 10 which declare man to be gods. I asked, according ot the Psalms, if we are children of the "most High"? The answer, of course, is yes.

At this point my own thoughts came into play. I pointed out that of all God's creations only one has the power to say "no" to God. That only one has the power ot choose to say "yes" or "no" to God. That is humans. Why? I proposed that only "gods" have the capability to choose to follow or not to follow God. That capability is moral agency. Rob man of that agency and you'll rob him of his godly inheritence. That's what Satan wanted.

These are, of course, my understanding of Satan's plan. On the flipside, God abusolutely protects our agency. Jesus said in mortality, "thy will be done", and declared to the Father in the pre-mortal existence that the Father's remains with the Father. It seems, from my reading, these were key in the Father choosing the Jesus as the Savior: honoring man's agency and always render the Father's honor to Him by doing the Father's will (in all things). Therefore, agency as well as retaining honor to the Father will be very much intact in the Celestial Kingdom so far as I can tell. By doing both, the Father receives His full eternal glory and man is eneabled to eternally progress before the Father.

It's my understanding that it wasn't Satan putting forth his plan that caused his fall but that he refused to accept Father's decision & his leading of our brothers & sisters away in rebellion. Which begs the unanswerable question what would've happened if Lucifer had accepted Fathers decision and there had been no devil to tempt us...?

Link to comment

It's my understanding that it wasn't Satan putting forth his plan that caused his fall but that he refused to accept Father's decision & his leading of our brothers & sisters away in rebellion. Which begs the unanswerable question what would've happened if Lucifer had accepted Fathers decision and there had been no devil to tempt us...?

Lucifer's plan would not have succeeded in creating exalted beings since that requires the ability to make decisions. Good question, however, as to what happens if no one rebels, I suppose you just keep on making spirit children until someone goes rogue. My guess is that the gods over the generations have done this so often that they know out of x number of spirit children you are going to have y percentage go rogue. Another interesting question is what happens if an Eve doesn't fall for the temptation, or what happens if the designated Savior doesn't complete his task like Jesus did?

Link to comment

Lucifer's plan would not have succeeded in creating exalted beings since that requires the ability to make decisions. Good question, however, as to what happens if no one rebels, I suppose you just keep on making spirit children until someone goes rogue. My guess is that the gods over the generations have done this so often that they know out of x number of spirit children you are going to have y percentage go rogue. Another interesting question is what happens if an Eve doesn't fall for the temptation, or what happens if the designated Savior doesn't complete his task like Jesus did?

I totally agree that Lucifers plan would've failed to exalt us, I'm just saying that he didn't sin because he put forward his plan. I think a good example of this was even our Saviour in Gethsemane wanted to do things a different way if he could, the difference was he submitted to the Father's will, whereas Lucifer was prideful & rebelled.

Who know's maybe there a planet somewhere in all the gods creations where the Eve did resist and that Adam & Eve lived forever in Paradise, & that Father had to create a new planet for His plan...? :)

Link to comment

I totally agree that Lucifers plan would've failed to exalt us, I'm just saying that he didn't sin because he put forward his plan. I think a good example of this was even our Saviour in Gethsemane wanted to do things a different way if he could, the difference was he submitted to the Father's will, whereas Lucifer was prideful & rebelled.

Who know's maybe there a planet somewhere in all the gods creations where the Eve did resist and that Adam & Eve lived forever in Paradise, & that Father had to create a new planet for His plan...? :)

You ever wonder how long Adam and Eve wandered around in their private nudist colony before Eve said what the heck let's try that fruit?

Link to comment

.....................................

God abusolutely protects our agency. Jesus said in mortality, "thy will be done", and declared to the Father in the pre-mortal existence that the Father's remains with the Father. It seems, from my reading, these were key in the Father choosing the Jesus as the Savior: honoring man's agency and always render the Father's honor to Him by doing the Father's will (in all things). Therefore, agency as well as retaining honor to the Father will be very much intact in the Celestial Kingdom so far as I can tell. By doing both, the Father receives His full eternal glory and man is eneabled to eternally progress before the Father.

And God's glory is selfless in that His glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. It is all about us for Him. That is the true and unconditional love of a real Father. He wants to give us everything He has.

Link to comment

It's my understanding that it wasn't Satan putting forth his plan that caused his fall but that he refused to accept Father's decision & his leading of our brothers & sisters away in rebellion. Which begs the unanswerable question what would've happened if Lucifer had accepted Fathers decision and there had been no devil to tempt us...?

There must needs be opposition. Satan was as necessary as was Judas Iscariot. Are they merely roles in a cosmic drama?

Link to comment

There must needs be opposition. Satan was as necessary as was Judas Iscariot. Are they merely roles in a cosmic drama?

Interesting thought, I believe BY addressed it and said , no the opposition was necessary but Satan wasn't just acting he really is a bad dude that we should not feel sorry for... Course it's popular to throw BY under the bus these days.

Link to comment

It's my understanding that these will grown up in the Millenium and do good for good is all there will be to choose.

No, there will be wickedness in the Millenium but it will not be influenced by Satan. Satan is not required to convince us to choose wrongly. When discussing exorcisms one of my priesthood leaders pointed out that you should be careful. Some evil spirits should not be cast out as they are the only spirit in there.

Link to comment

It's my understanding that it wasn't Satan putting forth his plan that caused his fall but that he refused to accept Father's decision & his leading of our brothers & sisters away in rebellion. Which begs the unanswerable question what would've happened if Lucifer had accepted Fathers decision and there had been no devil to tempt us...?

That was another part of the discussion, that I wanted to think more about....that Satan is the source of evil, so without him there is no evil. My husband brought up the question of that in the temple, Satan can not be there, but people who go there may still have evil thoughts etc..... So, is he still influencing us or is he not actually the source of all evil, or is it that we have a part of evil with us, or that maybe we are not as clean or prepared as we should be before entering the temple? It almost seems like saying that if it weren't for him, we would not be tempted, is giving him too much credit.

Link to comment

No, there will be wickedness in the Millenium but it will not be influenced by Satan. Satan is not required to convince us to choose wrongly. When discussing exorcisms one of my priesthood leaders pointed out that you should be careful. Some evil spirits should not be cast out as they are the only spirit in there.

Interesting....Do you have some scriptures to back the idea that there will be wickedness in the Millenium? I have been wondering about this.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By boblloyd91
      I’m finishing up War And Peace this week, and first off want to recommend this book. It’s a long read (started reading it last January) but it’s a work that makes you think deeply about the human condition both individually and collectively, which goes to my OP discussion. As I’m reading the second epilogue, Tolstoy seems to indicate that as human beings our free will is actually more limited then we’d like to believe, as we are subject to political, cultural, and other currents that powerfully influence our behavior. This got me thinking about the LDS concept of agency. Even though I think Tolstoy has some good points about how we are influenced by our environment, I think Tolstoy underestimates how much the acquisition of knowledge can cause us to go against what some would consider fate or destiny and act more freely for ourselves. This causes me to think part of the blessings of Grace is that we are more aware of our sins and shortcomings and can choose to be changed.
      So what do you all think? Are there limits to our free will? If so why? If not why not?
    • By HappyJackWagon
      The church often teaches about the 3 degrees of glory. Within the highest glory, the Celestial Kingdom, there are also three subdivisions. It is taught that to achieve the highest level in the highest degree one must enter into celestial marriage. I further recall that the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom will be home to angels and those who will be servants, ie those who did not enter the covenant of celestial marriage. I cannot seem to recall who resides in the middle degree of the Celestial Kingdom. There seems to be very little taught about the 3 degrees within the Celestial Kingdom but I'd love to hear ideas or see references about it.
      D&C 131:1-4
      In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
      From an article by common consent I read this...
      From D&C 76: 92 96 And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one.
      Also, from another thread where we have been discussing the teaching the Jackson County, Missouri (Independence) was the location of the Garden of Eden, it has been argued by some that despite a number of different prophets/apostles teaching that in various talks, conference, books, and Ensign articles, that because we don't have anything directly from Joseph (Even though Brigham cites Joseph) that it is an unreliable teaching. But this common consent article raises the same point about the 3 degrees within the Celestial Kingdom.
      The church seems to hang on to the concept of three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom but there really isn't much known or taught about it, beyond the highest level. What do we know about the bottom 2 levels of the Celestial Kingdom?
      https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/18/is-the-celestial-kingdom-divided-into-three-subdegrees/
    • By Five Solas
      Another thread took an interesting twist on the oft-debated subject of “free agency.”  Rather than risk thread derailment, I thought the topic merited its own.  So here we go--
      The quote (I’m sure Kenngo1969 won’t mind) was intended to refute the free part of free agency. He wrote: It's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it.
      For it.  It being agency.  Jesus spilled his blood & died for agency, what LDS (back when I was a kid) used to call "free agency." 
      I never heard this before and I admitted as much.  Another poster jumped in and provided a number of passages from Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Book of Moses to make the case that the LDS Jesus certainly did die for agency.  He finished his post by excoriating me for what he takes to be my willful ignorance.  Apparently every good LDS already knows this.  You can find it here.  
      But is this really commonly understood by LDS - that their Jesus died for agency?  What do you think?  Did he die for something else?  Or for a bunch of things?  To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS. 
      --Erik
    • By Five Solas
      Okay, I'm not a huge fan of watching videos - but having gone through the YSA program back in the day, this caught my eye & I yielded to temptation (appreciation to Valentinus for his thread containing the link).  Kind of funny, kind of sad, and to tell the truth, I was multi-tasking through some of it.  But at about 26:16, it caught my attention: The speaker was talking about overlapping geographic jurisdictions between LDS stakes associated with different colleges/universities.  These overlapping jurisdictions "increase choices for young single adults"--leading to "ward shopping" and other "conflicts."
      His recommendation to address the LDS Church's declining retention of the Millennial generation is to eliminate ambiguity that might result in choice of ward.  Choice is a bad thing--and where it exists it should be taken away.  
      Isn't that a bit ironic for a church that talks so much about "agency" (by which they mean free will)? 
      --Erik
       
       
    • By Meadowchik
      This morning I came across a notion expressed by an LDS member, positing that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.
      I would like to respond to that idea here.
      As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.
      On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.
      Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.
      Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.
      Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.
      In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.
      I believe that Christ expects us to love "the least" because, in part, He wants all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.
      Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...