The Great Tower and the Confounding of the Languages

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure knowledge would undermine agency relative to belief in and obedience to God, yes.

Nope. By that logic the agency of many prophets was deliberately undermined by God.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hmmm......One of the great fallacies of these kinds of discussions - that how a response is intended is more important, vital, or accurate than how it is received; or how it is received is more important, vital, or accurate than how it was intended. Methinks both are important; empathy demands the importance of both. Blindspots can keep us from understanding the impact on a person of how we frame a response; blindspots can keep us from receiving it accurately. My 300 lb father would hit me as a child "for my own good" - I am quite sure he thought it well intended. That certainly is not how I received it. I have thought most of my life that certainty is a huge barrier to empathy. I am 72 years old and still learning the dangers of certainty in human interaction and communication. I have often thought that lack of certainty, especially in matters of faith leads to relativism - the great enemy of the faithful. I have learned that uncertainty and relativism are not inexorably linked. That has been a huge and challenging life lesson. 

As you know, the ambiguity of language makes discussions like this nearly impossible. 

One can become quite certain about relativism as a solution.

This is the key to how I see the world.

All we can achieve in this world of darkened mirrors is a kind of communion of subjectivity.

And THAT is what allows us to be brothers.

Edited August 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Sure knowledge would undermine agency relative to belief in and obedience to God, yes.

Nope. By that logic the agency of many prophets was deliberately undermined by God.

Not really.  Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").  Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

Quote

As Saul of Tarsus began his mission, he changed his name to Paul and turned his life to Christ. On several different occasions the apostle Paul referred to himself as a “prisoner” of Christ (see Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1, 9, 23). Once he had made the decision to serve the Lord, that decision was irrevocable.

Paul’s frequent use of the term prisoner of Christ is very significant, for he was very familiar with prisons and prisoners. Before his conversion he had personally sent numerous Saints to prison (see Acts 26:10), and after his conversion he himself had been forcibly committed to prison (see Acts 23:10–11, 28:17–18). He had observed firsthand the restricted latitude of free will in the lives of other prisoners and had experienced this confinement in his own life when imprisoned.

Thus, when Paul confessed that he had become a willing prisoner of Christ, he disclosed that he had willingly chosen to use his moral agency to do only the will of the Lord. In doing so, he unraveled the mystery of the Savior’s paradoxical promise that “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ “shall know the truth, and the truth shall make [them] free” (John 8:32). ...

As Paul became Christ’s prisoner, his life began to more closely approximate the Savior’s life. His relationship with Christ became more like the Savior’s relationship with his Father. 

The key bit: "Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ..."

In 3 Nephi 9:20 the Lord commands us to "offer for a sacrifice ... a broken heart and a contrite spirit."  

As I said earlier: "Imagine a college professor handing out a final exam, to the back of which is stapled all the answers to it.  How would that be a "test" of the student's knowledge and effort and growth in mastering the subject matter?"  Conversely, imaging a college professor handing out a final exam without the answers.  Some students nevertheless ace it, having studied and worked for the knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bOObOO]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I said earlier: "Imagine a college professor handing out a final exam, to the back of which is stapled all the answers to it.  How would that be a "test" of the student's knowledge and effort and growth in mastering the subject matter?"  Conversely, imaging a college professor handing out a final exam without the answers.  Some students nevertheless ace it, having studied and worked for the knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

The point of the entire education process is to obtain knowledge, isn't it?  What does it matter if that knowledge comes by looking at the back of test papers or reading the same knowledge in some other papers, or hearing someone tell you the answers.

Faith is about being assured that the knowledge we are given is good or useful for its intended purpose, so even when the answers are given directly we still need faith to be assured that those answers are good.  Otherwise we won't think they are good.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching." --Aldo Leopold

But if one is ethical, it makes no difference if others are watching, does it?  

I think it does. 

Scenario A: Let's say that I go into a small corner store and see my favorite candybar there.  However, I also see that the owner of the store is present, and has convex mirrors and security cameras set up throughout the store.  And the owner saw me enter the store and is watching me browse.  There is no way I could pilfer a candybar without being immediately caught.  And I also know that the owner has zero patience for shoplifters and demands prosecution of them.  Knowing all this, I take a candybar from the shelf, pay for it, and leave.  

Scenario B: Now, let's say that the next day I go into another small corner store a few blocks away.  The owner is there, but he's fallen asleep in his chair.  And I know for a fact that he does not have any security cameras.  Nobody else is there.  A display in the store has a huge stack of my favorite candybar.  Over a hundred of them.  And I also know that the owner is independently wealthy, and only runs the store for nostalgic reasons.  He doesn't need the money, and would never miss one candybar if I pocketed it and left.  Nevertheless, I leave a pile of change at the register with a note telling the owner it was for a candybar, then I walk out.

I ostensibly exhibited "ethical" behavior in both instances, right?  Except in Scenario A I had no meaningful choice.  I knew I would be caught if I tried to steal.  But in Scenario B, I could have gotten away with it, and yet I still did not do it.

Compulsory ethics are, in my view, illusory.  Where there is no meaningful choice to be made, there is no ethical question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 12, 2021 by smac97

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As you know, the ambiguity of language makes discussions like this nearly impossible. 

One can become quite certain about relativism as a solution.

This is the key to how I see the world.

All we can achieve in this world of darkened mirrors is a kind of communion of subjectivity.

And THAT is what allows us to be brothers.

Yep! Well said! That's why no one point of view, perspective, or truth is the only! In a communion of subjectivity there is no only! Especially when we know God is able to balance absolute justice with absolute mercy! That is way over our pay grade!

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yep! Well said! That's why no one point of view, perspective, or truth is the only! In a communion of subjectivity there is no only! Especially when we know God is able to balance absolute justice with absolute mercy! That is way over our pay grade!

I think you may be missing the point.  Yes, we all have subjective perspectives and see everything subjectively, but the point here on this planet is to align ourselves with God's mind and will.  Or at least that is the point for me.  So either you are or are not.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The point of the entire education process is to obtain knowledge, isn't it?

Now you are making me think! No, I don't thing the point of the entire education process is to obtain knowledge. I think the point of the entire education process is to obtain wisdom. Perhaps another question might be - Can one be both wise and certain at the same time? Perhaps so, if we are dealing only with the quantitative. But, wisdom is more the domain of the qualitative, so I think not. I think at the very least wisdom understands and recognizes the boundaries and limitations of certainty.

Sunday in elder's quorum we had a safe discussion about how we should respond when others treat us unfairly. It was too safe a conversation for me. I raised my hand and suggested that everyone in the room was perfectly capable of treating others unfairly, our workers, our neighbors, our family members, etc. I asked how can we be the kind of people who don't treat others unfairly? That was less comfortable. I think it promotes wisdom to have less comfortable conversations. FWIW

 

 

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yep! Well said! That's why no one point of view, perspective, or truth is the only! In a communion of subjectivity there is no only! Especially when we know God is able to balance absolute justice with absolute mercy! That is way over our pay grade!

Yep.

And it was atheism that showed me that and relativism that cured me, and humanism that showed me the possibility of man's perfection.

And here I am after unspeakable experiences

One must follow one's heart because it's all we have 

Edited August 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").  Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

The key bit: "Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ..."

In 3 Nephi 9:20 the Lord commands us to "offer for a sacrifice ... a broken heart and a contrite spirit."  

As I said earlier: "Imagine a college professor handing out a final exam, to the back of which is stapled all the answers to it.  How would that be a "test" of the student's knowledge and effort and growth in mastering the subject matter?"  Conversely, imaging a college professor handing out a final exam without the answers.  Some students nevertheless ace it, having studied and worked for the knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

So Elder Condie teaches that you become free by willingly surrendering to Christ and somehow you conclude that Paul’s agency was restricted which is why he used that metaphor?

Nope.

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

So either you are or are not.

Either you are or are not what? Not sure I understand your last phrase.

To know God's mind I have the testimony of it in the scriptures and via the Holy Spirit. To know his will - that may be a bit more complicated. I believe God is traditionally seen as having three wills for us; His sovereign will, His moral will, and His individual will. We, at least in my tradition are often encouraged to pray about and seek His will (in these three areas).

I do not believe we need to pray about or seek His sovereign will because He isn't telling us. His sovereign will is what He knows will happen. He never reveals that to us, because it would alter our actions and we might stay in bed all day! I do not believe I need to pray about His moral will because He has provided everything we need to know about His moral will in the scriptures. I need to read, study, ponder, and follow through on what the scriptures tell me. That will place me directly in the center of His moral will. Third, I have come to the conclusion that God does not have an individual will for me. If I live in the center of His moral will, then I may make my own choices (agency, perhaps) to marry the one I love, to take the job that is best for my family, to move to a location that is best for my family, to attend an LDS ward, etc etc. So I am a bit of a skeptic about seeking God's will for my life. I believe He has already given us, via special and general revelation all that we need to be in His will. I need to align myself with what I know of His will and mind from scripture and the Spirit, and all will be well. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Edited August 12, 2021 by Navidad

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So Elder Condie teaches that you become free by willingly surrendering to Christ and somehow you conclude that Paul’s agency was restricted which is why he used that metaphor?

Nope.

I'd be interested to hear your exegesis.  Why do you think Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner of Jesus Christ?"

Also, when I married my wife, I voluntarily restricted my agency, such that I am now constrained from dating or having romantic feelings/relationships with other women.  Would you concur with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd be interested to hear your exegesis.  Why do you think Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner of Jesus Christ?"

Also, when I married my wife, I voluntarily restricted my agency, such that I am now constrained from dating or having romantic feelings/relationships with other women.  Would you concur with that?

No, I would not. You can still choose to violate that agreement. So could Paul.

‘The truth shall make you free’ by restricting your options?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I'd be interested to hear your exegesis.  Why do you think Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner of Jesus Christ?"

Also, when I married my wife, I voluntarily restricted my agency, such that I am now constrained from dating or having romantic feelings/relationships with other women.  Would you concur with that?

No, I would not. You can still choose to violate that agreement. So could Paul.

So I didn't voluntarily restrict my agency when I married my wife?  Are you sure?

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

‘The truth shall make you free’ by restricting your options?

Yes.  "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."  (2 Nephi 2:27.)

Obedience to God is nothing but an exercise in "restricting your options" to those choices that are congruent with God's will (and repenting when you make a choice that is not congruent).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bOObOO]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Now you are making me think! No, I don't thing the point of the entire education process is to obtain knowledge. I think the point of the entire education process is to obtain wisdom. Perhaps another question might be - Can one be both wise and certain at the same time? Perhaps so, if we are dealing only with the quantitative. But, wisdom is more the domain of the qualitative, so I think not. I think at the very least wisdom understands and recognizes the boundaries and limitations of certainty.

Sunday in elder's quorum we had a safe discussion about how we should respond when others treat us unfairly. It was too safe a conversation for me. I raised my hand and suggested that everyone in the room was perfectly capable of treating others unfairly, our workers, our neighbors, our family members, etc. I asked how can we be the kind of people who don't treat others unfairly? That was less comfortable. I think it promotes wisdom to have less comfortable conversations. FWIW

 

 

Okay, then try this.  Joseph Smith said something about how we can not be sved without knowing how to be saved, and that until we gained enough knbowlege about how to be saved, we would not be saved.  I think he meant total and complete salvation, which we often refer to as exaltation.

Some people don't even seem to know that they need to be saved, or they may think they are or will be even though they don't know what they need to do to be saved.  Some think Jesus already took care of all that and they don't need to do anything, at all.

So knowledge is the name of the game in my book.  And I think it is difficult if not impossible to be wise without knowing anything.  So to be wise I think we need to at least know something, and to be wise regarding salvation we need to know what is involved.

Where would you like to steer this discussion from here?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So I didn't voluntarily restrict my agency when I married my wife?  Are you sure?

No and yes.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."  (2 Nephi 2:27.)

Obedience to God is nothing but an exercise in "restricting your options" to those choices that are congruent with God's will (and repenting when you make a choice that is not congruent).

No, it is developing a habit of using agency wisely. The option to go the other way is still there.

Liberty (and freedom) are not synonyms for agency.

Edited August 12, 2021 by The Nehor

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Okay, then try this.  Joseph Smith said something about how we can not be sved without knowing how to be saved, and that until we gained enough knbowlege about how to be saved, we would not be saved.  I think he meant total and complete salvation, which we often refer to as exaltation.

Some people don't even seem to know that they need to be saved, or they may think they are or will be even though they don't know what they need to do to be saved.  Some think Jesus already took care of all that and they don't need to do anything, at all.

So knowledge is the name of the game in my book.  And I think it is difficult if not impossible to be wise without knowing anything.  So to be wise I think we need to at least know something, and to be wise regarding salvation we need to know what is involved.

Where would you like to steer this discussion from here?

I don't have anywhere I would like to steer the discussion. I tend to look at learning from a hierarchy of (information - knowledge - wisdom).  So I don't disagree with needed knowledge as a foundation for wisdom. I just don't think that stopping at information or knowledge is very wise!

We aren't going to agree on the idea of salvation and sanctification (my terms) and salvation and exaltation (your terms) - so no need to steer down that road. For me, Christ is the Creator/Savior. He created all that we have and are. He will save unto eternal life those who He will - both (creation and salvation) were, and will be accomplished by His authority - not yours or mine. Neither you nor I have authority over the other's salvation, sanctification, or exaltation. Methinks you and I both, along with everyone else on this forum and in the wider non-LDS Christian community might just be surprised at how all that turns out!

I will simply add, that for me being saved is both a "being" thing and a "doing" thing. I believe we need both, but my priority might be on the former while yours might be on the latter. Of course I don't and can't know your mind. I barely know my own! Ha! Take care.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd be interested to hear your exegesis.  Why do you think Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner of Jesus Christ?"

Also, when I married my wife, I voluntarily restricted my agency, such that I am now constrained from dating or having romantic feelings/relationships with other women.  Would you concur with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Perfect analogy- thanks for that one.

Christ himself gave up "heaven" to voluntarily feel everything rotten about this "valley of tears" that we could throw at him, and did, knowing all along what that would include.

Was THAT limiting his agency?   Remember one of his temptations from Satan was said to be calling upon a legion of angels to "save" himself from going through it all and he VOLUNTARILY remaind subject to his Father's plan in perfect obedience.

Obedience is not giving up one's agency- it is the highest demonstration of it.

[bOObOO]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't have anywhere I would like to steer the discussion. I tend to look at learning from a hierarchy of (information - knowledge - wisdom).  So I don't disagree with needed knowledge as a foundation for wisdom. I just don't think that stopping at information or knowledge is very wise!

Well, to be wise, I think we need to know how to be wise, with all that involves.  The apostle Paul in the NT did talk about how we should add to our knowledge, wisdom, as well as some other things, with some things that precede gaining wisdom, but I think it is knowledge of what to gain and how to gain it that is the crux of everything, preceded only by faith which somewhat suffices until we gain knowledge of things. 

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We aren't going to agree on the idea of salvation and sanctification (my terms) and salvation and exaltation (your terms) - so no need to steer down that road. For me, Christ is the Creator/Savior. He created all that we have and are. He will save unto eternal life those who He will - both (creation and salvation) were, and will be accomplished by His authority - not yours or mine. Neither you nor I have authority over the other's salvation, sanctification, or exaltation. Methinks you and I both, along with everyone else on this forum might just be surprised at how all that turns out!

sanctification is our term, too... we are all called to be saints through sanctification...and Yes of course our Savior is essential to our salvation, along with all that he tells us we need to do to be saved.

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I will simply add, that for me being saved is both a "being" thing and a "doing" thing. I believe we need both, but my priority might be on the former while yours might be on the latter. Of course I don't and can't know your mind. I barely know my own! Ha! Take care.

It is both and both are equally necessary.  We become what we become by doing, and we are what we are because of all we have done nd whoever else has influenced us and given us opportunities for our growth and development.

So it's not only God, and it's also not only us who determine what we are and what we become.  Everybody we've ever known is involved, and the more we know about how to improve, the better and better we can become.

[OGHoosier]

I do agree that knowledge of God does not take away one's agency. We see this from the fact that Satan and a third of the host of heaven rejected God even though they presumably were more familiar with Him than we are now. 

I would argue that public "empirical verifiability" of God would still render impossible many types of experiences which people need to have in this life, and I do agree with @smac97 that the threat of certain retribution cheapens choice. It doesn't do away with agency but it does cheapen it, and in any case we need to learn to be good independent of certain retribution, because in the eternities we will be Sovereign. 

I'm going to say something that might be controversial. I think sin is a critical part of the experience of life. The experience of sin, that is, not the commission of it. I find the opposition cosmology of 2 Nephi 2 to be the most probative philosophical commentary in all of scripture. If there is to be good, evil must be experienced. If there is to be right action, wrong action must also be known. Reacting to the sins of others and repenting of our own are often phenomenal providers of growth, and if one of the principal attributes of Godhood is a supremely merciful nature, it seems that we need to have experience with mercy and justice, which can only occur in the presence of  wrongdoing. God needed a world where we would all be in close proximity with sin, where sin would not merely be possible but nigh universal...save for One, who is in His person the key out of the prison of evil in which we live. If God were obviously present to all, I doubt that a lot of that kind of experience would come to pass. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by OGHoosier

[bOObOO]

12 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm going to say something that might be controversial. I think sin is a critical part of the experience of life.  The experience of sin, that is, not the commission of it. I find the opposition cosmology of 2 Nephi 2 to be the most probative philosophical commentary in all of scripture. If there is to be good, evil must be experienced. If there is to be right action, wrong action must also be known. Reacting to the sins of others and repenting of our own are often phenomenal providers of growth, and if one of the principal attributes of Godhood is a supremely merciful natures, it seems that we need to have experience with mercy and justice, which can only occur in the presence of  wrongdoing. God needed a world where we would all be in close proximity with sin, where sin would not merely be possible but nigh universal...save for One, who is in His person the key out of the prison of evil in which we live. If God were obviously present to all, I doubt that a lot of that kind of experience would come to pass. 

I would replace temptation with sin, which necessarily involves a tempter, someone to offer alternate thoughts to the thoughts we get from our Father through the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Someone to challenge us, in opposition to our Father's will.

We are all being tested to determine who we will choose to follow.  Our Father, or Satan, or some combination of the 2 of our own making by our own choices.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I do agree that knowledge of God does not take away one's agency. We see this from the fact that Satan and a third of the host of heaven rejected God even though they presumably were more familiar with Him than we are now. 

I would argue that public "empirical verifiability" of God would still render impossible many types of experiences which people need to have in this life, and I do agree with @smac97 that the threat of certain retribution cheapens choice. It doesn't do away with agency but it does cheapen it, and in any case we need to learn to be good independent of certain retribution, because in the eternities we will be Sovereign. 

I'm going to say something that might be controversial. I think sin is a critical part of the experience of life. The experience of sin, that is, not the commission of it. I find the opposition cosmology of 2 Nephi 2 to be the most probative philosophical commentary in all of scripture. If there is to be good, evil must be experienced. If there is to be right action, wrong action must also be known. Reacting to the sins of others and repenting of our own are often phenomenal providers of growth, and if one of the principal attributes of Godhood is a supremely merciful nature, it seems that we need to have experience with mercy and justice, which can only occur in the presence of  wrongdoing. God needed a world where we would all be in close proximity with sin, where sin would not merely be possible but nigh universal...save for One, who is in His person the key out of the prison of evil in which we live. If God were obviously present to all, I doubt that a lot of that kind of experience would come to pass. 

Well written. I am a fellow Hoosier and I have one simple, yet complex question for you. How could an intelligent and articulate Hoosier prefer Mr. Pibb over Dr. Pepper? 😁

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I would replace temptation with sin, which necessarily involves a tempter, someone to offer alternate thoughts to the thoughts we get from our Father through the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Someone to challenge us, in opposition to our Father's will.

We are all being tested to determine who we will choose to follow.  Our Father, or Satan, or some combination of the 2 of our own making by our own choices.

I appreciate your thoughts, but I did choose the word "sin" deliberately. It's not just that we are determining who to follow, if that were the case then the premortal Council should have been all we needed. The experience of dealing with our own wrongdoings and those of others offers us means of soul-expansion and teaches us in a visceral, earthy, real way what is good and what is not. It's not just about temptation, it's about evil and sin and the consequences of them, and how we react to and deal with them. Temptation alone does not do the job. 

Like I said, it's controversial. I believe that many Latter-day Saints view sin as an unmitigated evil, something God would just delete if not for our free agency and other concerns. But He hasn't, and I don't think it's for lack of ability. God will defeat and destroy sin in the end, but it has a purpose to fulfill first. I think of the weeping God of Enoch, looking down on a world full of violence and hate...and I reflect that He let it go on for a while. Couldn't He have quenched the tide? He didn't. Sin anguished Him, but He didn't stop it. I think we need to consider that He might have a reason for that which is beyond the ken of our instinctive reactions. 

[OGHoosier]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well written. I am a fellow Hoosier and I have one simple, yet complex question for you. How could an intelligent and articulate Hoosier prefer Mr. Pibb over Dr. Pepper? 😁

Hello fellow Hoosier! I've actually met quite a few people who are from Indiana or passing through it in the course of my travels in gospel-related commentary. Must be something in the water.

And speaking of beverages, I honestly can't say. Maybe it's some subtle note in the Pibb that puts it over the top. Or maybe this is my small act of rebellion. Could be both. 

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I appreciate your thoughts, but I did choose the word "sin" deliberately. It's not just that we are determining who to follow, if that were the case then the premortal Council should have been all we needed. The experience of dealing with our own wrongdoings and those of others offers us means of soul-expansion and teaches us in a visceral, earthy, real way what is good and what is not. It's not just about temptation, it's about evil and sin and the consequences of them, and how we react to and deal with them. Temptation alone does not do the job. 

Like I said, it's controversial. I believe that many Latter-day Saints view sin as an unmitigated evil, something God would just delete if not for our free agency and other concerns. But He hasn't, and I don't think it's for lack of ability. God will defeat and destroy sin in the end, but it has a purpose to fulfill first. I think of the weeping God of Enoch, looking down on a world full of violence and hate...and I reflect that He let it go on for a while. Couldn't He have quenched the tide? He didn't. Sin anguished Him, but He didn't stop it. I think we need to consider that He might have a reason for that which is beyond the ken of our instinctive reactions. 

Okay, I'm now seeing it as a blend of your point and my point.  In the first place we need to be tempted with an alternate thought to the thoughts of our Father in heaven.  To sin is to choose the thoughts of Satan over the thoughts of our Father.  To yield to temptation with sin as the result of yielding to Satan's thoughts.  Then hopefully soon we will see that we made a bad choice by yielding to temptation and Satan's thoughts, and if our desires are to do good we will not do that again because we will have experienced how that was a bad choice.  So over time we gain a better knowledge of both good and evil, and Satan's thoughts and God's thoughts.  For some it takes a while longer to discern the differences but the end result is that we align ourselves with either Satan or our Father.  We choose for ourselves how we want to become, whether good or evil, like Satan or our Father.  And the catalyst for all of it is a thought from both Satan and our Father or us to choose from.  To sin we need to be tempted with bad thoughts, and Satan gives us bad thoughts just as our Father also gives us good thoughts in this war between Satan and our Father.