The Pre-Fall Plan

[SamIam]

You stated,

I then asked, "So, you are saying that they were enticed to follow evil by taking the fruit?"

Instead of answering that question, you said,

Which is simply another way of saying that man has to be enticed by Satan to follow evil. Right?

 

Yes.  It is certainly the case that over time as one matures in either righteousness or evil, one will become self motivating towards one or the other.  Joseph Smith makes the statement that we can't blame everything on Satan for why man chooses evil but that is in no way diminishing the requirement of having a Satan to influence man to become conditioned to the preference of evil.

 

You will note later in the chapter of 2 Nephi 2 the following:

 

2 Nephi 2:29

29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the ^aevil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to ^bcaptivate, to bring you down to ^chell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

 

The nature of the carnal man is that there is an intrinsic element of evil within the flesh.  However, that is simply the condition that allows Satan to exploit his authority to tempt man.  Thus all of mans temptations are according to the desires of the flesh.  Except in one possible instance not relative to this discussion.  If he successfully exploits this evil of the flesh condition adequately then the individual has become a servant of Satan and thus willfully operates according to Satan's plan thus remaining in Satan's power. However, this only magnifies the necessity of Satan tempting us with the choices between good and evil. Otherwise there is no captivation.  

 

The essence of our effort here is to use the source of the knowledge of the answers to these questions which is the scriptures or the teachings of the Brethren.  Otherwise it comes down to bearing testimony by personal opinion which is a worthless endeavor.

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[Mudcat]

I've been following the extended detour in the Predestination thread.  The question of what exactly God intended is intriguing and I wanted to pursue it in a dedicated thread.

 

First off I am interested in what non-Mormon Christians believe was God's 'original' plan.  danielwoods referred to the "pre-Fall plan".  Perhaps he covered that in more detail before I started following the conversation but I am interested in knowing what God originally intended and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall.

 

Secondly, I am interested in knowing whether any think that Mormon doctrine is capable of conceiving some sort of 'Plan A'.  Not in the sense of "Was the Fall necessary?", but rather "Was following Satan necessary to the Fall?"  Was there some other way that God intended?  He certainly didn't sound pleased that Adam and Eve followed Satan's temptations.  Adam and Eve realized the benefits that came with their choice, but did those benefits stem from submitting to temptation or simply from eating the fruit?

Been awhile since I have posted JDave.

 

Hope things are good your way. As best as I can tell, there wasn't really a "Plan A". I think the fall was just as intended as what I will order for lunch tomorrow. 

 

If God could have acheived His goals without our own failures, I would find it difficult to understand why He has done thus.

 

I know you LDSers look at us more in the way of spirit children, organized intelligence and so forth.. But I dunno that such a thing really changes much.

 

If there had been a way for God to bring us freely to him without those who would regect. I can't see a reason He wouldn't have done so, based upon what I understand of His character revealed in Scripture.

[Maidservant]

I believe that the Fall is best understood from the point of view of ourselves in what is termed 'pre-mortal life'.  It is from that vantage that we each take our choice.  We have a life there and it is a celestial life, at least in the sense that our Father in heaven provides that celestial life for us.

 

However, if we have a desire to progress into beings of charity, with the seeds in ourselves, then there is no other way other than to pass through a mortal veil and participate in that hell, that struggle.

 

So plan A is--remain as we are in pre-mortal life and enjoy that.

 

Plan this one--covenant to be born into the mortal world and begin the journey to 'all that the Father hath' which journey begins with a descent below all things or we cannot be created into the Father without first that descent.  We cannot become like our Father without facing evil and loss and yet still choosing to be someone who lives in love and integrity in the face of that--and it may take our entire lifetime to learn that lesson.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cool. I was going to start a similar thread. I think does merrit it's own thread. I find it quite the subject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Been awhile since I have posted JDave.

 

Hope things are good your way. As best as I can tell, there wasn't really a "Plan A". I think the fall was just as intended as what I will order for lunch tomorrow. 

 

If God could have acheived His goals without our own failures, I would find it difficult to understand why He has done thus.

 

I know you LDSers look at us more in the way of spirit children, organized intelligence and so forth.. But I dunno that such a thing really changes much.

 

If there had been a way for God to bring us freely to him without those who would regect. I can't see a reason He wouldn't have done so, based upon what I understand of His character revealed in Scripture.

You know, in a sense I agree. But I think our failures were part of the plan too. That they were required for us to reach our potential. THere was no onther way for us to gain the necessary knowledge.

[Mudcat]

You know, in a sense I agree. But I think our failures were part of the plan too. That they were required for us to reach our potential. THere was no onther way for us to gain the necessary knowledge.

 

We probably see it a little different, but I don't know... may just be how we might word stuff.

 

I agree that it seems our failures is part of His plan and our own responsibility, and our successes are to His glory. I think some of our failures, at least the ones we learn from are like what you are suggesting.

 

I think there are other failures, equally part of things... but different than the other kind. Seems most of us, or at least me, have "built in" Achilles heals...  the repeated mistakes on the same points that require repeated repentance. My temper for one... through Him over time I have gotten better than I used to be.. and I catch myself more frequently from sharp words in a heated moment.. but it's something I struggle with. Lot's of other flaws that seem treatable but not curable, that I have too.

 

I think it's those sort of things serve to show us why we need Him.

[Ahab]

I've been following the extended detour in the Predestination thread.  The question of what exactly God intended is intriguing and I wanted to pursue it in a dedicated thread.

 

First off I am interested in what non-Mormon Christians believe was God's 'original' plan.  danielwoods referred to the "pre-Fall plan".  Perhaps he covered that in more detail before I started following the conversation but I am interested in knowing what God originally intended and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall.

 

Secondly, I am interested in knowing whether any think that Mormon doctrine is capable of conceiving some sort of 'Plan A'.  Not in the sense of "Was the Fall necessary?", but rather "Was following Satan necessary to the Fall?"  Was there some other way that God intended?  He certainly didn't sound pleased that Adam and Eve followed Satan's temptations.  Adam and Eve realized the benefits that came with their choice, but did those benefits stem from submitting to temptation or simply from eating the fruit?

Learning the difference between good and evil, knowing which is which, is all about learning the difference between God and Satan.

 

Before the Fall, they didn't know which was which, or who was the good one and who the evil one was.  From their point of view they just had 2 people giving them different advice.   Some people presume they just automatically knew which person was giving them the good advice, and which advice was the evil advice, but that's contrary to what we have been told about them.  They didn't know (or remember) who Satan was when tney saw him, and I don't think they knew who our Father was when they saw him, either.

 

So suppose that they just arbitrarily chose to do what our Father told them to do, without realizing that he was their Father.  How would they ever learn what evil was then?  Or how would they learn that what our Father told them to do, or not do, was good counsel?

 

The fruit from the tree they ate from gave them the knowledge of both good and evil.  They couldn't have one without the other, as if they could eat from the "tree of knowledge of only the good".   To know what is good, we have to learn what evil is, too.

[Tacenda]

I keep hearing that the GoE is allegorical. How come we're speaking as if it really happened? I wonder if man made it up so that they can rule over women. How much is in the bible that is real?

[JDave]

Hope things are good your way. As best as I can tell, there wasn't really a "Plan A". I think the fall was just as intended as what I will order for lunch tomorrow. 

 

If God could have acheived His goals without our own failures, I would find it difficult to understand why He has done thus.

 

I know you LDSers look at us more in the way of spirit children, organized intelligence and so forth.. But I dunno that such a thing really changes much.

 

If there had been a way for God to bring us freely to him without those who would regect. I can't see a reason He wouldn't have done so, based upon what I understand of His character revealed in Scripture.

It's good to hear from you!!  Things are going alright over here, though my little cucumbers are acting a bit too much like sour pickles.  How are the mudkittens?

 

I think you're right that the LDS perspective has the same result.  Failure seems to be either inherent or necessary.  I think the LDS view is that it is inherent.  We are children of God, but as children we aren't yet acting 'mature' all the time.

 

It also seems to me that God would have had the Fall in mind from the beginning, but how do you square that with God's omnipotence?  You say that if God could have done it otherwise, he would have.  But that seems to imply some inherent limitations in how God goes about creating us.

[JDave]

I believe that the Fall is best understood from the point of view of ourselves in what is termed 'pre-mortal life'.  It is from that vantage that we each take our choice.  We have a life there and it is a celestial life, at least in the sense that our Father in heaven provides that celestial life for us.

 

However, if we have a desire to progress into beings of charity, with the seeds in ourselves, then there is no other way other than to pass through a mortal veil and participate in that hell, that struggle.

 

So plan A is--remain as we are in pre-mortal life and enjoy that.

 

Plan this one--covenant to be born into the mortal world and begin the journey to 'all that the Father hath' which journey begins with a descent below all things or we cannot be created into the Father without first that descent.  We cannot become like our Father without facing evil and loss and yet still choosing to be someone who lives in love and integrity in the face of that--and it may take our entire lifetime to learn that lesson.

I don't think that Plan A was ever to remain in pre-mortal life, but I suppose that can't be ruled out.  I guess I had always considered that we all either decided to come to earth or we rebelled and were cast out with Satan.

 

Viewing the Garden of Eden as you do, which is an allegorical view as others have urged, does help us learn some important truths.  It has some limitations, since we followed God in coming here and those who followed Satan received somewhat the opposite of mortality.  I seem to remember somebody (David T?) posting some interesting thoughts on an allegorical view for the story of the Garden of Eden.

[Vance]

Jesus believed Adam and Eve were real people created by God. 

Do you have a Biblical reference to support that statement?

[Ahab]

I keep hearing that the GoE is allegorical. How come we're speaking as if it really happened? I wonder if man made it up so that they can rule over women. How much is in the bible that is real?

If you're going to keep asking all of us what the truth is you're going to keep getting different and contradictory answers.

 

Is that what you want, or do you want to know how to find out what is true?

[danielwoods]

Do you have a Biblical reference to support that statement?

 

Matt. 19:⁴ And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 

Mark 10:⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[Vance]

Matt. 19:⁴ And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 

Mark 10:⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

Well, those almost support your claim.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Vance

[JDave]

Just as Jesus was tempted, and didn't give in, the temptation indicates one is a free moral agent (one couldn't be tempted if one wasn't a free moral agent), the choice, exposes our heart for ourselves to see (God already knows our heart).

Satan isn't needed. We are fully capable of choosing evil without his help.

 

Yes. The difference being the curse we have to endure after the fall.

The Bible talks about people going to hell if they sin unrepentantly, and sin is part of this Fallen existence.  If more people are lost to hell than would have been without the Fall, how can it be seen as equally meeting God's goals? 

[danielwoods]

The Bible talks about people going to hell if they sin unrepentantly, and sin is part of this Fallen existence.  If more people are lost to hell than would have been without the Fall, how can it be seen as equally meeting God's goals? 

 

You lost me. How are people "lost to hell" without the fall? 

[CV75]

I think the LDS view is that it is inherent.  We are children of God, but as children we aren't yet acting 'mature' all the time.

 

It also seems to me that God would have had the Fall in mind from the beginning, but how do you square that with God's omnipotence?  You say that if God could have done it otherwise, he would have.  But that seems to imply some inherent limitations in how God goes about creating us.

If I may interject:

 

Even as pre-existent spirits, due of our spiritual dependency on God, I’m thinking that even physical separation would result in some loss of our spiritual capacity and joy. It would also require walking by faith, since we could no longer see Him. As a result, we cannot be spiritually found without a Savior to find us, and we cannot have the faith to walk without a Savior to walk toward.

 

Our spiritual dependency on God in either estate does mean that our failure in testing our independence is inherent in the testing, but it also means there is an omnipotent God that has/can overcome and reverse any such failure. His knowing we would experience failure, and our knowing we would experience failure in this test is accompanied by His knowledge and our knowledge that His omnipotence allows us to inevitably fail temporarily but not necessarily eternally.

 

The second estate adds the barrier of a physical body to this dynamic, and so this condition of testing could provide significant challenges even without a devil. All that is needed for our eternal progress is a separably-connected spirit and body, some kind of testing of both, and a Savior to pick up the pieces and inseparably reconnect them.

 

I do think the second estate can be brought about through different mechanisms, but that Plan A, B, C…ZZ are not in any order of preference or serve as a contingency to each other. Because of agency, “what happens happens,” but there is always a Savior and someone to be saved. God’s goal is the immortality and eternal life of man, and His work and glory is to bring it about. There is no end to His creations, kingdoms and mansions, children, their choices, etc., so it’s not a matter of “how many” are saved or damned, though how great is the joy in many!

[JDave]

You lost me. How are people "lost to hell" without the fall? 

Sorry for the confusing wording.  I meant that without the Fall none would be lost to hell, yet with the Fall many will be lost to hell.  How is that equally meeting God's goals? 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry for the confusing wording.  I meant that without the Fall none would be lost to hell, yet with the Fall many will be lost to hell.  How is that equally meeting God's goals? 

Now that is an interesting point you bring up that I had not considered. With out the fall all would be going or staying in paradise and sharing in God's love. But now there is a fall and not as many will be going to heaven. This goes back to Bluebell stating that it was now a 2nd infierior plan. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JDave]

Now that is an interesting point you bring up that I had not considered. With out the fall all would be going or staying in paradise and sharing in God's love. But now there is a fall and not as many will be going to heaven. This goes back to Bluebell stating that it was now a 2nd infierior plan.  Assuming we stay with the idea that God didn't have a laid out plan.

Which is what danielwoods is claiming, that there was an original plan to have mankind stay in the garden.  Mudcat has stated that he feels the Fall was intended all along, so non-LDS Christian thought on the matter is not homogeneous. 

[Vance]

Which is what danielwoods is claiming, that there was an original plan to have mankind stay in the garden.  Mudcat has stated that he feels the Fall was intended all along, so non-LDS Christian thought on the matter is not homogeneous. 

I know it gets confusing, but in the other thread Daniel claimed that there was no plan.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61482-predestination-you-asked-for-it-here-it-is/?p=1209293803

 

The question of did Satan thwart God's plan (in my view). 

 

No. In reality there is no "plan" as you and I make plans. OR as the LDS teach that there were two competing plans. Nope. No plan in that sense. Why is that? 

 

God is all knowing, so the moment he decided to create us (free-willed beings), he knew in that moment all of what would happen (down to every finite little detail of every nano second), and how it would play out. In my view Satan is a created being, similar to us (created free willed beings) Unlike Jesus/God/Spirit who are not created, but are the only infinite, all knowing, all powerful being. 

. . . .

So, the plan, if you want to call it that, is exactly how God expected it to work out, and is reaching his ultimate goal in the end. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Vance

[JDave]

If I may interject:

 

Even as pre-existent spirits, due of our spiritual dependency on God, I’m thinking that even physical separation would result in some loss of our spiritual capacity and joy. It would also require walking by faith, since we could no longer see Him. As a result, we cannot be spiritually found without a Savior to find us, and we cannot have the faith to walk without a Savior to walk toward.

 

Our spiritual dependency on God in either estate does mean that our failure in testing our independence is inherent in the testing, but it also means there is an omnipotent God that has/can overcome and reverse any such failure. His knowing we would experience failure, and our knowing we would experience failure in this test is accompanied by His knowledge and our knowledge that His omnipotence allows us to inevitably fail temporarily but not necessarily eternally.

 

The second estate adds the barrier of a physical body to this dynamic, and so this condition of testing could provide significant challenges even without a devil. All that is needed for our eternal progress is a separably-connected spirit and body, some kind of testing of both, and a Savior to pick up the pieces and inseparably reconnect them (I like that!).

 

I do think the second estate can be brought about through different mechanisms, but that Plan A, B, C…ZZ are not in any order of preference or serve as a contingency to each other. Because of agency, “what happens happens,” but there is always a Savior and someone to be saved. God’s goal is the immortality and eternal life of man, and His work and glory is to bring it about. There is no end to His creations, kingdoms and mansions, children, their choices, etc., so it’s not a matter of “how many” are saved or damned, though how great is the joy in many!

 

Of course you may interject.  I think the tendency to fail is inherent in us, not inherent the testing per se.  You say that God knew and we knew that we would experience failure.  No one here is perfect and everyone sins.  We teach that the spiritual separation caused by coming to this world has already been overcome -- regardless of what we do.  We additionally teach that we are each dependent on the Savior for our own personal spiritual death caused by our own sins.  To sin is human, to repent divine.

 

I agree that our failures are temporary since through the Atonement we can become someone who no longer makes failures.  Failure is only inherent and inescapable in our current state.  I can understand that a Savior is required regardless of whether there is a devil or not, but I don't think a Savior would be required simply to overcome the initial separation from God.  If all we needed was to get bodies then the Fall doesn't make any sense.  A Savior was needed to help us BECOME something other than what we now are.  We all have room to grow and not simply because we are farther away from the Spirit now than we were before our birth.  I think Maidservant said it well that the separation places us in a position where we can grow -- because we needed the growth all along and this fallen mortality is the best way to allow it to happen.

[Questing Beast]

Now that is an interesting point you bring up that I had not considered. With out the fall all would be going or staying in paradise and sharing in God's love. But now there is a fall and not as many will be going to heaven. This goes back to Bluebell stating that it was now a 2nd infierior plan. 

Of course "fall and redemption" is an inferior plan. Make beings that must become fallen, some remain so, and save the rest through infinite suffering of a Savior. Makes, no, sense, to, me, at, all.

 

Omnipotence means the power to do literally anything. If anyone thinks, that s/he can think, up something that is impossible for "God", they are seriously not thinking clearly enough. A finite mind cannot come up with impossible things for an Infinite Mind, no matter how cleverly worded the apparent conundrums dreamed up are....

[danielwoods]

Sorry for the confusing wording.  I meant that without the Fall none would be lost to hell, yet with the Fall many will be lost to hell.  How is that equally meeting God's goals? 

 

I don't know how to get a free-willed being to not "fall". In other words, if you control or force people to "not-fall" you don't have free-will, so that doesn't get to the end goal. 

 

Which is what danielwoods is claiming, that there was an original plan to have mankind stay in the garden.  Mudcat has stated that he feels the Fall was intended all along, so non-LDS Christian thought on the matter is not homogeneous. 

 

I think the word intention is dangerous to use, because it implies that God's intentions are for us to sin, which isn't the case. 

 

I believe that God knew what would happen, and allowed it to happen and was ready. 

[CV75]

Of course you may interject.  I think the tendency to fail is inherent in us, not inherent the testing per se.

LOL--too mny words I guess! Since the testing would reveal our inevitable failure, that we would fail is inherent in the testing... probably even more too many words!

 

I can understand that a Savior is required regardless of whether there is a devil or not, but I don't think a Savior would be required simply to overcome the initial separation from God.  If all we needed was to get bodies then the Fall doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure I understand the idea of an "initial separation from God"--once it happened, it could only get worse or better. Adam and Eve had bodies, but initially they were not separated from God (except in the sense they were not exalted). After the Fall, they became separated from Him.

 

However, it does make me think that, as long as they were not perfect/exalted, they were separated from God, in a sense, from His perspective; they were not one with Him, and this supports the idea that we needed more than just bodies, and a Savior in order to progress.

 

This need to progress to become one with the Father seems to apply to the Savior too, but He could save Himself and didn't need a Savior, unless His Father can be considered to be the Son's Savior.

Edited August 29, 2013 by CV75