We Were Born Evil?

[Stone holm]

Why would God want us to become anything other than an initial perfect creation then?  And how could a third part of God's creations be perfect and yet rebel against God?

Why would He make us naturally flawed?

[JDave]

Mostly since I don't see it as an ex nihilo creation.  Do you have any answer to my questions?

[Bikeemikey]

Why would He make us naturally flawed?

Perhaps that was a limitation on our preexisting nature.

[Stone holm]

Mostly since I don't see it as an ex nihilo creation.  Do you have any answer to my questions?

Perfection is a process, not a destination. I do not see God creating mortals who by nature are evil.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps that was a limitation on our preexisting nature.

You mean that Spirits are naturally flawed or that intelligences are naturally disposed to evil? If that were the case, one would not have expected the fallen to have only been a third.

[JDave]

I can understand the desire for God's sons and daughters to be perfect, but I think that expectation falls more within an ex nihilo type of creation.  We believe that we were organized using eternally existing intelligences.  God told Abraham that spirits differed in brightness or intelligence. (Abraham 3)  Unless all eternally existing intelligences are equal and all perfect, it makes sense that God's spirit children have varying levels of faithfulness due to variances in the eternal intelligences.  All of God's children are capable of following God's Plan, so all are alike in potential and everyone is perfectly enabled to grow/mature/become as God is.

 

I would not say that mortals "by nature are evil", nor would I say that intelligences are naturally "disposed to evil".  If anything we are simply disposed to choose.  It seems we always had the capacity to be extra faithful, and the capacity to be less faithful.  Agency seems to assume that, and to assume that we could choose good or choose evil.  The fact that we have agency, and are not yet as God, means we will choose evil at some point.  Why?  Is it due to the flesh?  Is it taught to us in this mortal life?  Would it have been possible for us to rebel in the pre-mortal life?  What would have caused such a rebellion?

[theplains]

Agency seems to assume that, and to assume that we could choose good or choose evil.  The fact that we have agency, and are not yet as God, means we will choose evil at some point.

 

What evil choices (plural) were available to be made when you supposedly lived as a spirit child

in the pre-mortal existence?  I'm assuming Lucifer or some other person was tempting you long

before the infamous council in heaven which discussed the plan of salvation.

 

If there is no evil choices then agency cannot exist after all.  Since intelligences are eternal

(according to Joseph Smith), then it appears these intelligences were exposed to good and evil

even before being born to heavenly parents.  But what evil choices and who did the tempting?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Bikeemikey]

You mean that Spirits are naturally flawed or that intelligences are naturally disposed to evil? If that were the case, one would not have expected the fallen to have only been a third.

I'm not really sure that I would use the term flawed or evil. Spirits are however naturally given to making decisions. Some decisions we make better than others.

The idea that the spirits in the pre-earth life that followed lucifer were evil is also not really helpful, does that make the spirits who didn't go not evil? Is all evil in the world the result of those evil spirits working on us in this world?

Both good and evil are the result of agency, an action that originates out of our spiritual being. We don't think we are naturally good or evil, we are naturally agents and can be either, sometimes both.

[Bikeemikey]

What evil choices (plural) were available to be made when you supposedly lived as a spirit child

in the pre-mortal existence? I'm assuming Lucifer or some other person was tempting you long

before the infamous council in heaven which discussed the plan of salvation.

If there is no evil choices then agency cannot exist after all. Since intelligences are eternal

(according to Joseph Smith), then it appears these intelligences were exposed to good and evil

even before being born to heavenly parents. But what evil choices and who did the tempting?

Thanks,

Jim

Agency is not the result of being given choice between good and evil, agency is the recognition that choice is possible.

To say otherwise leads to the idea that god created good and evil and thereby choice... Rather, as beings in a universe filled with diversity we become like god when we realize that we can choose, as happens to Adam and Eve.

Agency is the capacity to act, rather than to simply be acted upon.

Agency creates the context in which evil choices can occur, not evil options creating agency.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[knowone]

 

 

depends on what you mean by 'were'.  we are under the veil in flesh.  i.e. my body would be pleasured by many things that are forbidden in the new & everlasting covenant.  so i would guess yes.  we were born evil.

[Stone holm]

I'm not really sure that I would use the term flawed or evil. Spirits are however naturally given to making decisions. Some decisions we make better than others.

The idea that the spirits in the pre-earth life that followed lucifer were evil is also not really helpful, does that make the spirits who didn't go not evil? Is all evil in the world the result of those evil spirits working on us in this world?

Both good and evil are the result of agency, an action that originates out of our spiritual being. We don't think we are naturally good or evil, we are naturally agents and can be either, sometimes both.

Well there is the problem of Stalin and Hitler having obtained physical bodies. And we have renounced the old spin about neutrals in heaven, but yes I tend to believe that those on the winning side of the war in heaven were basically good. If they weren't then, it would sort of put the whole first judgment into question. I don't believe in ex nihilo creation, but also tend to have faith in humanity, despite acknowledging that some people behave atrociously.

[Bikeemikey]

Well there is the problem of Stalin and Hitler having obtained physical bodies. And we have renounced the old spin about neutrals in heaven, but yes I tend to believe that those on the winning side of the war in heaven were basically good. If they weren't then, it would sort of put the whole first judgment into question. I don't believe in ex nihilo creation, but also tend to have faith in humanity, despite acknowledging that some people behave atrociously.

Just because we exercised our agency to choose well in one instance (the pre-earth life) does not mean we will choose well in all instances.

We are capable of both good and evil... It appears more choose good (but that's just my perspective). Ask other people in church and they may say more people are wicked.

Either way I'm not sure that it matters much as it is clear that we are capable of both good and evil and that the capacity to choose evil is an inherent part of our spiritual nature, not a new phenomomn that came after we got a physical body.

[Stone holm]

Just because we exercised our agency to choose well in one instance (the pre-earth life) does not mean we will choose well in all instances.

We are capable of both good and evil... It appears more choose good (but that's just my perspective). Ask other people in church and they may say more people are wicked.

Either way I'm not sure that it matters much as it is clear that we are capable of both good and evil and that the capacity to choose evil is an inherent part of our spiritual nature, not a new phenomomn that came after we got a physical body.

Yes, but remember the starting premise was that the natural man is always an enemy to God, which suggests that we are " naturally" evil. Nonsense.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, but remember the starting premise was that the natural man is always an enemy to God, which suggests that we are " naturally" evil. Nonsense.

I don't think that being a natural man is the same as being evil.

Nor do I think that the phrase natural man should be read as a status of total being... Rather, natural man is a facet of our character, it will always be a part of our potential and character but it is never all of what or who we are.

[Stone holm]

I don't think that being a natural man is the same as being evil.

Nor do I think that the phrase natural man should be read as a status of total being... Rather, natural man is a facet of our character, it will always be a part of our potential and character but it is never all of what or who we are.

I think the whole phrase a distraction into man made philosophy. Let's talk about the Premortal v. Mortal v Resurrected states. Would we say that the caterpillar is less perfect or less natural than the butterfly?

[JDave]

I think the whole phrase a distraction into man made philosophy. Let's talk about the Premortal v. Mortal v Resurrected states. Would we say that the caterpillar is less perfect or less natural than the butterfly?

I would say that the butterfly has much greater mobility. However in both states it is capable of moving and "choosing" where to move.

[stemelbow]

Sometimes I feel as evil as anyone. I said the s word and then the f word earlier. oops. Don't know where that came from.

[Stone holm]

I would say that the butterfly has much greater mobility. However in both states it is capable of moving and "choosing" where to move.

But is one more or less natural than the other?

[JDave]

Both are stages of progression, and since it is a part of nature both are natural. 

[JDave]

Stoneholm, I had a thought.

 

What if we describe the "natural man" as striving for independence.  We are naturally able to choose and we feel entitled to make those choices our own.  But if we are aware of God's word, and we still persist in our independence -- setting at naught the Word of God -- then we are enemies to God.  Saying we are enemies is some strong language, but Christ said that if we obey him we are His friends.  Mosiah 3:19 doesn't say the natural man is evil, or even inclined towards evil.  It just says that the natural man is at odds with God, or not fully in line with God, until we yield to the Holy Spirit.

 

What we are supposed to strive for is interdependence, working with God and allowing Him to work within us.  We are supposed to become submissive, to lay aside our desire to always have it our way and instead say, "Thy will be done."

[Bikeemikey]

Stoneholm, I had a thought.

What if we describe the "natural man" as striving for independence. We are naturally able to choose and we feel entitled to make those choices our own. But if we are aware of God's word, and we still persist in our independence -- setting at naught the Word of God -- then we are enemies to God. Saying we are enemies is some strong language, but Christ said that if we obey him we are His friends. Mosiah 3:19 doesn't say the natural man is evil, or even inclined towards evil. It just says that the natural man is at odds with God, or not fully in line with God, until we yield to the Holy Spirit.

What we are supposed to strive for is interdependence, working with God and allowing Him to work within us. We are supposed to become submissive, to lay aside our desire to always have it our way and instead say, "Thy will be done."

That is more or less my take on it.

[theplains]

Agency is not the result of being given choice between good and evil, agency is the recognition that choice is possible.

 

The 1997 version of Gospel Principles (in the Glossary section) defines agency as "the ability

and freedom to choose good or evil". True to the Faith, on page 12, describes agency as "the

ability to choose and to act for yourself" and "choices of good and righteousness lead to happiness,

peace, and eternal life, while choices of sin and evil eventually lead to heartache and misery".

 

Adam and Eve's first sin brought fear and shame.

 

If you had agency in the pre-mortal life with your heavenly parents, can you provide some

examples?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Bikeemikey]

The 1997 version of Gospel Principles (in the Glossary section) defines agency as "the ability

and freedom to choose good or evil". True to the Faith, on page 12, describes agency as "the

ability to choose and to act for yourself" and "choices of good and righteousness lead to happiness,

peace, and eternal life, while choices of sin and evil eventually lead to heartache and misery".

Adam and Eve's first sin brought fear and shame.

If you had agency in the pre-mortal life with your heavenly parents, can you provide some

examples?

Thanks,

Jim

The definition you shared is fully compatible with my expression of agency.

As for pre-earth life agency... The agency to either come to earth or not come to earth with a body comes to mind.

[JDave]

Stoneholm, I had a thought.

 

What if we describe the "natural man" as striving for independence.  We are naturally able to choose and we feel entitled to make those choices our own.  But if we are aware of God's word, and we still persist in our independence -- setting at naught the Word of God -- then we are enemies to God.  Saying we are enemies is some strong language, but Christ said that if we obey him we are His friends.  Mosiah 3:19 doesn't say the natural man is evil, or even inclined towards evil.  It just says that the natural man is at odds with God, or not fully in line with God, until we yield to the Holy Spirit.

 

What we are supposed to strive for is interdependence, working with God and allowing Him to work within us.  We are supposed to become submissive, to lay aside our desire to always have it our way and instead say, "Thy will be done."

Bumping since I am curious as to Stoneholm's thoughts.

[Stone holm]

Bumping since I am curious as to Stoneholm's thoughts.

I just plain don't like the idea that "natural" is evil, would we ever say the "artificial" man is a friend of God...but perhaps that is true because some of the most artificial people I have ever met claim to be friends of God.