Is Heaven “Unwoke?”

[mbh26]

On 4/26/2022 at 10:08 PM, teddyaware said:

With all the controversy of late about how a truly just world would be one in which there would be an equality of outcomes, rather than merely an equality opportunities , I’m wondering if there are any participants on this board who believe the Latter-Day Saint doctrine of the three degrees of post-resurrection is unjust because it’s affirmed on the belief that there will be unequal degrees of salvation and glory rewarded at the time of the final judgement?

I can't help but think of this scripture. 

 

Alma 28:13

13 And thus we see how great the ^ainequality of man is because of sin and ^btransgression, and the power of the devil, which comes by the cunning ^cplans which he hath devised to ensnare the hearts of men.

 

 

[teddyaware]

16 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

I can't help but think of this scripture. 

 

Alma 28:13

13 And thus we see how great the ^ainequality of man is because of sin and ^btransgression, and the power of the devil, which comes by the cunning ^cplans which he hath devised to ensnare the hearts of men.

 

 

An interesting quote to ponder, but it appears to only tangentially touch on the essence of my point. What I’m trying to say is that if, like some ‘woke’ LDS theorists contend, an equality of outcomes is the most imperative of goals, according to Doctrine and Covenants 76,88 and 138 that’s not at all how the post-resurrection kingdom of God works.  In fact, after the final judgement there will be a most extreme inequality of outcomes. Remarkably, even in the celestial kingdom there are three varying degrees of salvation or glory.

Therefore it appears that the “woke’ interpretation of LDS the scriptures, theology and soteriology are way off base. Now in saying this I’m not suggesting that it wouldn’t be wonderful if every member of the human family could obtain the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, but in spite of God’s best efforts that’s not at all how it will work out in the end. And as it turns out, attempting to unnaturally force things to save all mankind in the highest degree of glory is a main component Satan’s rejected “plan of salvation.”

Starting with the lowest of the post resurrection kingdoms, there is first perdition, and the scripture reveal that even in that Godforsaken kingdom there is a hierarchical order of dominance. Next we have the telestial glory in which we are told that everyone who obtains an inheritance there receives differing degrees of spiritual power and enlightenment, “for as one star different from another in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” Then we have the terrestrial kingdom of glory, which is likened to the glory or brightness of the moon. But  even our moon has different phases on the way to the full moon phase, which suggests that there is also an inequality of spiritual power and enlightenment in that kingdom of glory. Finally, I’ve already mentioned that even in the celestial kingdom there are three degrees of glory.

Now I readily acknowledge that it’s only in the highest degree of glory within celestial kingdom of glory that a true equality or oneness in inheriting the gifts and powers of God exists, but even in the celestial kingdom there is a hierarchal (patriarchal) order of rulership and authority.

So my bottom line in this exercise is to underscore the fact that individual moral agency will inevitably cause there to be an inequality of salvative outcomes in eternity, as the scriptures so abundantly testify;  and that unnaturally attempting to force there to be equal outcomes (by destroying the agency of man through oppression) is part and parcel of Satan’s unworkable and untenable plan of rebellion against God and Christ, a plan that never has  and will never work. While forcing an equality of outcomes may, at first blush, look like a noble idea, in the end it’s the reason why there was a heartbreaking war in heaven that caused a third part of God’s spirit children to we cast into perdition. The war in heaven continues on earth… whose side will we embrace?

P.S. An important point to ponder in the midst of this controversy is that those who embrace, either in part or in whole, Satan’s plan are always sincerely and powerfully convinced that they’re right. Yet in the end it will turn out that they were sincerely and powerfully wrong.

[mbh26]

54 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

An interesting quote to ponder, but it appears to only tangentially touch on the essence of my point. What I’m trying to say is that if, like some ‘woke’ LDS theorists contend, an equality of outcomes is the most imperative of goals, according to Doctrine and Covenants 76,88 and 138 that’s not at all how the post-resurrection kingdom of God works.  In fact, after the final judgement there will be a most extreme inequality of outcomes. Remarkably, even in the celestial kingdom there are three varying degrees of salvation or glory.

Therefore it appears that the “woke’ interpretation of LDS the scriptures, theology and soteriology are way off base. Now in saying this I’m not suggesting that it wouldn’t be wonderful if every member of the human family could obtain the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, but in spite of God’s best efforts that’s not at all how it will work out in the end. And as it turns out, attempting to unnaturally force things to save all mankind in the highest degree of glory is a main component Satan’s rejected “plan of salvation.”

Starting with the lowest of the post resurrection kingdoms, there is first perdition, and the scripture reveal that even in that Godforsaken kingdom there is a hierarchical order of dominance. Next we have the telestial glory in which we are told that everyone who obtains an inheritance there receives differing degrees of spiritual power and enlightenment, “for as one star different from another in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” Then we have the terrestrial kingdom of glory, which is likened to the glory or brightness of the moon. But  even our moon has different phases on the way to the full moon phase, which suggests that there is also an inequality of spiritual power and enlightenment in that kingdom of glory. Finally, I’ve already mentioned that even in the celestial kingdom there are three degrees of glory.

Now I readily acknowledge that it’s only in the highest degree of glory within celestial kingdom of glory that a true equality or oneness in inheriting the gifts and powers of God exists, but even in the celestial kingdom there is a hierarchal (patriarchal) order of rulership and authority.

So my bottom line in this exercise is to underscore the fact that individual moral agency will inevitably cause there to be an inequality of salvative outcomes in eternity, as the scriptures so abundantly testify;  and that unnaturally attempting to force there to be equal outcomes (by destroying the agency of man through oppression) is part and parcel of Satan’s unworkable and untenable plan of rebellion against God and Christ, a plan that never has  and will never work. While forcing an equality of outcomes may, at first blush, look like a noble idea, in the end it’s the reason why there was a heartbreaking war in heaven that caused a third part of God’s spirit children to we cast into perdition. The war in heaven continues on earth… whose side will we embrace?

P.S. An important point to ponder in the midst of this controversy is that those who embrace, either in part or in whole, Satan’s plan are always sincerely and powerfully convinced that they’re right. Yet in the end it will turn out that they were sincerely and powerfully wrong.

I couldn't agree more.

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

So my bottom line in this exercise is to underscore the fact that individual moral agency will inevitably cause there to be an inequality of salvative outcomes in eternity, as the scriptures so abundantly testify;  and that unnaturally attempting to force there to be equal outcomes (by destroying the agency of man through oppression) is part and parcel of Satan’s unworkable and untenable plan of rebellion against God and Christ, a plan that never has  and will never work.

Can you explain what you mean by “destroying the agency of man through oppression”?
 

I more understand that Lucifer meant to save men in their sins, not from their sins. By taking away consequences, moral agency can also be destroyed. Lucifer would thus need to perform an atonement for sin like Christ did, and thus gain all the glory.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, filovirus said:

Can you explain what you mean by “destroying the agency of man through oppression”?
 

I more understand that Lucifer meant to save men in their sins, not from their sins. By taking away consequences, moral agency can also be destroyed. Lucifer would thus need to perform an atonement for sin like Christ did, and thus gain all the glory.

From Moses 4:1, it seems the payment for regaining possession of the souls of God's children would be made by the Father to Lucifer, the currency being His honor (power over death). What is interesting to me is that the only thing that would constitute being lost under this arrangement would be temporary physical death, brought about by skipping the choice to partake of forbidden fruit and simply giving it to Adam and Eve. In this case, the commandments to marry, steward the earth, multiply and replenish the earth, etc. would not be given and whatever Adam and Eve did and taught their children would be fine. Thus the issue of the third part not getting a second estate is circumvented. Satan would become incarnate, but without the responsibilities of the Lamb and as long a life as he wanted. There would be no one else for the erstwhile children of God of to follow but Lucifer, and they would do so without complaint, having no opposing options. All this would be done without Veil to ensure the Father does not double-cross Lucifer in the process of making him incarnate -- sooner than later -- and relinquishing His power in due course (in which case the Father might need to become mortal and subject to Lucifer's power over death).

Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

I think what matters is that YOU are the one you must live with forever. Be the person you can live with and who gives you joy.

[teddyaware]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From Moses 4:1, it seems the payment for regaining possession of the souls of God's children would be made by the Father to Lucifer, the currency being His honor (power over death). What is interesting to me is that the only thing that would constitute being lost under this arrangement would be temporary physical death, brought about by skipping the choice to partake of forbidden fruit and simply giving it to Adam and Eve. In this case, the commandments to marry, steward the earth, multiply and replenish the earth, etc. would not be granted and whatever Adam and Eve did and taught their children would be fine. Satan would become incarnate, but without the responsibilities of the Lamb and as long a life as he wanted.

Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

Lucifer is the original antiChrist, and his so-called “plan of redemption” would have had nothing at all to do with an atoning sacrifice for sin. Lucifer wasn’t nearly humble enough to voluntarily submit to making an infinite and eternal sacrifice for the sins of the world, which is why his plan, if implemented, would have attempted to sidestep the need for an atonement altogether. This “man of sin” thought he was so clever that he imagined the only thing needed to save fallen man was to destroy their moral agency by removing any and all consequences for sin. In fact, in Satan’s worldview the only ‘sin’ is believing in sin and it’s irrevocable punishment that has to be endured by either sinful man or by the Lamb of God in order for man to be reconciled to the Father.

Edited May 8, 2022 by teddyaware

[filovirus]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From Moses 4:1, it seems the payment for regaining possession of the souls of God's children would be made by the Father to Lucifer, the currency being His honor (power over death). What is interesting to me is that the only thing that would constitute being lost under this arrangement would be temporary physical death, brought about by skipping the choice to partake of forbidden fruit and simply giving it to Adam and Eve. In this case, the commandments to marry, steward the earth, multiply and replenish the earth, etc. would not be given and whatever Adam and Eve did and taught their children would be fine. Thus the issue of the third part not getting a second estate is circumvented. Satan would become incarnate, but without the responsibilities of the Lamb and as long a life as he wanted. There would be no one else for the erstwhile children of God of to follow but Lucifer, and they would do so without complaint, having no opposing options. All this would be done without Veil to ensure the Father does not double-cross Lucifer in the process of making him incarnate -- sooner than later -- and relinquishing His power in due course (in which case the Father might need to become mortal and subject to Lucifer's power over death).

Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

 

That’s a take I hadn’t considered before. I’m not sure I am completely following your logic. From what I understand, moral agency involves three key elements. MORAL AGENCY = options with consequences (law) + knowledge of the law (right and wrong, good and evil)+ freedom to choose. If we take away just one of those, moral agency will be destroyed.

An atonement saving people in their sins takes away the first. Forcing people to choose correctly takes away the latter (this is the one most espoused by members but makes the least compelling argument).

But just giving Adam and Eve of the fruit of knowledge would just take away their first option, but none of the subsequent options nor any of our options. We would still have options, knowledge, and freedom to choose. So agency would not be destroyed.

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Lucifer is the original antiChrist, and his so-called “plan of redemption” would have had nothing at all to do with an atoning sacrifice for sin. Lucifer wasn’t nearly humble enough to voluntarily submit to making an infinite and eternal sacrifice for the sins of the world, which is why his plan, if implemented, would have attempted to sidestep the need for an atonement altogether. This “man of sin” thought he was so clever that he imagined the only thing needed to save fallen man was to destroy their moral agency by removing any and all consequences for sin. In fact, in Satan’s worldview the only ‘sin’ is believing in sin and it’s irrevocable punishment that has to be endured by either sinful man or by the Lamb of God in order for man to be reconciled to the Father.

I’m not so sure he would he would have sidestepped an atonement. But he wouldn’t have done it out of humility. He would have done it for the glory. It would have been him, and him alone, that received the glory. He would have usurped it from the Father.

Of course, this is all speculation on both our parts.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I’m not so sure he would he would have sidestepped an atonement. But he wouldn’t have done it out of humility. He would have done it for the glory. It would have been him, and him alone, that received the glory. He would have usurped it from the Father.

Of course, this is all speculation on both our parts.

He was imo simply lying.  His ‘Plan’ wouldn’t have worked, so no needed atonement on his part.  Now I suppose he might have believed he could pull it off because he thought the sacrifice was all that was needed, that people could be saved in their sins (I don’t see it as consistent with his current approach that he would somehow force people to be sinless to save them; rather I think he was just going to ditch any law at all, so there was no such thing as sin to begin with), but if so, it seems like he wasn’t paying much attention and we are told he was supposedly brilliant.

[teddyaware]

46 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I’m not so sure he would he would have sidestepped an atonement. But he wouldn’t have done it out of humility. He would have done it for the glory. It would have been him, and him alone, that received the glory. He would have usurped it from the Father.

Of course, this is all speculation on both our parts.

“When the Eternal Father announced his plan of salvation—a plan that called for a mortal probation for all his spirit children; a plan that required a Redeemer to ransom men from the coming fall; a plan that could only operate if mortal men had agency—when the Father announced his plan, when he chose Christ as the Redeemer and rejected Lucifer, then there was war in heaven. That war was a war of words; it was a conflict of ideologies; it was a rebellion against God and his laws. Lucifer sought to dethrone God, to sit himself on the divine throne, and to save all men without reference to their works. He sought to deny men their agency so they could not sin. He offered a mortal life of carnality and sensuality, of evil and crime and murder, following which all men would be saved. His offer was a philosophical impossibility. There must needs be an opposition in all things. Unless there are opposites, there is nothing. There can be no light without darkness, no heat without cold, no virtue without vice, no good without evil, no salvation without damnation. 

And so, in the courts of heaven, the war of wars was waged. Christ and Michael and a mighty host of noble and great spirits preached the gospel of God and exhorted their brethren to follow the Father. Lucifer and his lieutenants preached another gospel, a gospel of fear and hate and lasciviousness and compulsion. They sought salvation without keeping the commandments, without overcoming the world, without choosing between opposites. And they “prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” And his legions, the legions of hell, are everywhere. They are “the third part of the stars of heaven,” the one-third of the spirit children of the Father; and they were cast out of their heavenly home because of rebellion. And so the holy word says: “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath.” And he goes forth “to make war” with all men and particularly with those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev. 12:4-17.) And the war that is now going on among men, the war between good and evil, is but a continuation of the war that began in heaven.” (The Millennial Messiah, p.666-667)

[filovirus]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

He was imo simply lying.  His ‘Plan’ wouldn’t have worked, so no needed atonement on his part.  Now I suppose he might have believed he could pull it off because he thought the sacrifice was all that was needed, that people could be saved in their sins (I don’t see it as consistent with his current approach that he would somehow force people to be sinless to save them; rather I think he was just going to ditch any law at all, so there was no such thing as sin to begin with), but if so, it seems like he wasn’t paying much attention and we are told he was supposedly brilliant.

I see where you’re coming from. Seeing how people here on earth believe, compulsion would seem to be the worst tactic. However, saving people in their sins has a lot of draw to it, perhaps more so than no law at all. One of the scariest teachings I have seen by other denominations is the “once saved always saved” teaching. Imagine having an sacred epiphany at the age of 18 and then 80 years of no moral agency. That is what being saved in sin would look like. And that concept has a lot of adherents. Satan would get to bask in the glory that he did it all.

Of course we know that no other plan would have worked.

[filovirus]

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

“When the Eternal Father announced his plan of salvation—a plan that called for a mortal probation for all his spirit children; a plan that required a Redeemer to ransom men from the coming fall; a plan that could only operate if mortal men had agency—when the Father announced his plan, when he chose Christ as the Redeemer and rejected Lucifer, then there was war in heaven. That war was a war of words; it was a conflict of ideologies; it was a rebellion against God and his laws. Lucifer sought to dethrone God, to sit himself on the divine throne, and to save all men without reference to their works. He sought to deny men their agency so they could not sin. He offered a mortal life of carnality and sensuality, of evil and crime and murder, following which all men would be saved. His offer was a philosophical impossibility. There must needs be an opposition in all things. Unless there are opposites, there is nothing. There can be no light without darkness, no heat without cold, no virtue without vice, no good without evil, no salvation without damnation. 

And so, in the courts of heaven, the war of wars was waged. Christ and Michael and a mighty host of noble and great spirits preached the gospel of God and exhorted their brethren to follow the Father. Lucifer and his lieutenants preached another gospel, a gospel of fear and hate and lasciviousness and compulsion. They sought salvation without keeping the commandments, without overcoming the world, without choosing between opposites. And they “prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” And his legions, the legions of hell, are everywhere. They are “the third part of the stars of heaven,” the one-third of the spirit children of the Father; and they were cast out of their heavenly home because of rebellion. And so the holy word says: “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath.” And he goes forth “to make war” with all men and particularly with those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev. 12:4-17.) And the war that is now going on among men, the war between good and evil, is but a continuation of the war that began in heaven.” (The Millennial Messiah, p.666-667)

This is one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject. https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/war-heaven-satans-continuing-battle-power#_ednref10 Very well laid out.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

That is what being saved in sin would look like.

So if I understand you correctly, pretty much only one law (accept whoever is anointed the saviour) rather than no laws?

[The Nehor]

Quote

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

Quote

5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;
7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.

God seems to favor an equality of temporal economic outcomes and even says that our failure to do so will cost us spiritual power and manifestations and will force unequality in obtaining heavenly things.

It is strange how rarely these verses are quoted isn’t it?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, filovirus said:

This is one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject. https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/war-heaven-satans-continuing-battle-power#_ednref10 Very well laid out.

Good article. Meanwhile I like to keep things as simple and uncomplicated as possible, and, simply put, the only way to destroy the agency of man is to deny them of an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice for sin. As long as the atoning sacrifice of God is a present and living reality, there is no way anyone or anything would be able to destroy man’s freedom to chose.. The simple declaration that Satan “sought to destroy the agency man” is all that’s needed to know to inform us that his plan did not include an effectual atoning sacrifice of God. All the above is born out by the following gleaned from the 2 Nephi 2:

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 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)

So again, the only way Satan would be able to destroy the agency of man, even in theory, would be by denying them the power and blessings of an atoning sacrifice; and God isn’t going to allow that to happen because, if he did, he would cease to be God. And to make things even more clear, Lehi goes further by letting us know that Satan’s plan never could work because without the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice od God all things, including God himself, would vanish into a void of nonexistence. This means the adversary’s plan is totally unworkable and untenable, without even the slightest possibility of even being implemented. His “plan” is nothing more than the grandiose delusion of a narcissist that has no basis in truth, reason and reality.

Edited May 9, 2022 by teddyaware

[Calm]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

gospel of fear and hate and lasciviousness and compulsion.

Anyone know what Brother McConkie meant by compulsion here since his description of Lucifer’s ‘plan’ sounds like total lack of restraint to me.  Addiction perhaps?

Edited May 9, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

12 hours ago, filovirus said:

That’s a take I hadn’t considered before. I’m not sure I am completely following your logic. From what I understand, moral agency involves three key elements. MORAL AGENCY = options with consequences (law) + knowledge of the law (right and wrong, good and evil)+ freedom to choose. If we take away just one of those, moral agency will be destroyed.

An atonement saving people in their sins takes away the first. Forcing people to choose correctly takes away the latter (this is the one most espoused by members but makes the least compelling argument).

But just giving Adam and Eve of the fruit of knowledge would just take away their first option, but none of the subsequent options nor any of our options. We would still have options, knowledge, and freedom to choose. So agency would not be destroyed.

My logic is that just giving Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit and no pre-Fall commandments (no law), removes the keys elements: their dilemma (or the options with consequences); their knowledge of law (since there is none to know); and, no freedom to make moral choices (since there is no law, and whatever they chose would be fine). 

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Good article. Meanwhile I like to keep things as simple and uncomplicated as possible, and, simply put, the only way to destroy the agency of man is to deny them of an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice for sin. As long as the atoning sacrifice of God is a present and living reality, there is no way anyone or anything would be able to destroy man’s freedom to chose.. The simple declaration that Satan “sought to destroy the agency man” is all that’s needed to know to inform us that his plan did not include an effectual atoning sacrifice of God. All the above is born out by the following gleaned from the 2 Nephi 2:

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 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)

So again, the only way Satan would be able to destroy the agency of man, even in theory, would be by denying them the power and blessings of an atoning sacrifice; and God isn’t going to allow that to happen because, if he did, he would cease to be God. And to make things even more clear, Lehi goes further by letting us know that Satan’s plan never could work because without the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice od God all things, including God himself, would vanish into a void of nonexistence. This means the adversary’s plan is totally unworkable and untenable, without even the slightest possibility of even being implemented. His “plan” is nothing more than the grandiose delusion of a narcissist that has no basis in truth, reason and reality.

I'm not sure that I fully agree with your idea that Satan could not have destroyed agency. Lucifer wanted to do away with the possibility of not-being-saved. I can see two basic approaches he could have taken.

1. He could have done away with the concept of sin and law and consequence.
2. He could do away with moral agency.

Position 1. is basically the approach, the article quoted by filovirus takes arguing as you do that Lucifer could not have done 2. I tend to side more with position 2. We weren't stupid. We knew that we'd make bad decisions and that chaos and evil would flourish absent law. I think Lucifer advocated more for making us more like animals, for which most (I do not believe) have moral agency. This is conceivable. There are many things in our flesh that we do not control and have no agency over (e.g. we cannot will our heart to stop beating, we cannot hold our breath until we die, etc.). I think one of the most remarkable aspects of mortality is that God somehow struck a balance between the necessities of mortality while still allowing us enough free will to have moral agency. It can be otherwise. There are some humans where problems of the flesh and/or mind which basically removes agency. For such the Church basically takes the position that they don't have sufficient moral agency to be held accountable. I think Lucifer basically argued that, under his plan, we'd be constrained to do good because our bodies would be made in such a way that we'd do good. Our agency would be subverted by the flesh (much as with most other animals) and we'd be compelled to do good. I also hold that the two positions aren't necessarily mutually incompatible. I can conceive a scenario where both 1. and 2. are implemented. Indeed, 2. more or less implies some degree of 1 (just not necessarily completely).

While I side with position 2 mostly, in the end I don't really know. And in some ways it doesn't matter. The downfall either position 1. or 2. is that neither allows for our growth and personal development. And since that is what God wants of us, that is the plan that was implemented on countless worlds before ours. But, it's scary too because we knew that not everybody would choose the growth and development the mortal experience was designed to have. We saw the examples of countless worlds before and that some of those inhabitants failed to achieve there potential. The prospect was very real, real enough that Lucifer's promise of a riskless mortality was enticing enough to persuade one third part (not to be confused with 33.33%).

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I'm not sure that I fully agree with your idea that Satan could not have destroyed agency. Lucifer wanted to do away with the possibility of not-being-saved. I can see two basic approaches he could have taken.

1. He could have done away with the concept of sin and law and consequence.
2. He could do away with moral agency.

Position 1. is basically the approach, the article quoted by filovirus takes arguing as you do that Lucifer could not have done 2. I tend to side more with position 2. We weren't stupid. We knew that we'd make bad decisions and that chaos and evil would flourish absent law. I think Lucifer advocated more for making us more like animals, for which most (I do not believe) have moral agency. This is conceivable. There are many things in our flesh that we do not control and have no agency over (e.g. we cannot will our heart to stop beating, we cannot hold our breath until we die, etc.). I think one of the most remarkable aspects of mortality is that God somehow struck a balance between the necessities of mortality while still allowing us enough free will to have moral agency. It can be otherwise. There are some humans where problems of the flesh and/or mind which basically removes agency. For such the Church basically takes the position that they don't have sufficient moral agency to be held accountable. I think Lucifer basically argued that, under his plan, we'd be constrained to do good because our bodies would be made in such a way that we'd do good. Our agency would be subverted by the flesh (much as with most other animals) and we'd be compelled to do good. I also hold that the two positions aren't necessarily mutually incompatible. I can conceive a scenario where both 1. and 2. are implemented. Indeed, 2. more or less implies some degree of 1 (just not necessarily completely).

While I side with position 2 mostly, in the end I don't really know. And in some ways it doesn't matter. The downfall either position 1. or 2. is that neither allows for our growth and personal development. And since that is what God wants of us, that is the plan that was implemented on countless worlds before ours. But, it's scary too because we knew that not everybody would choose the growth and development the mortal experience was designed to have. We saw the examples of countless worlds before and that some of those inhabitants failed to achieve there potential. The prospect was very real, real enough that Lucifer's promise of a riskless mortality was enticing enough to persuade one third part (not to be confused with 33.33%).

As long as there is an  existence, there is no way anyone nor anything can destroy agency. As Lehi taught in 2 Nephi 2, without the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of God nothing, not even God himself,  can exist; and it’s by means of the atoning sacrifice that men are made free forever to chose between good and evil in an existence that can only be  affirmed on there being opposition in all things.

Now while it may be true that under Satan’s plan he could attempt to suppress the exercise of  agency by employing all sorts of carnally enticing and brutally coercive means, nevertheless, unless the private thoughts of the human mind can be genuinely persuaded to freely agree that all of his tyrannical programs and tactics are good and conducive to eternal joy and happiness all he’s succeeded in accomplishing is a robotic outward compliance based on fear of reprisal rather than on a genuine free will conversion of the heart and mind.

Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon often teach that mere outward displays of hollow compliance, caused by fear, are nothing more or less than outward manifestations of inward spiritual death. And this is the reason why a great many saints have willingly gone to martyr’s deaths rather than knuckle under ungodly, coercive rule. Yes, there are many who faced death by unspeakably cruel and agonizing tortures rather than allow Satan to think he had stollen their minds and gained mastery over them.

Edited May 9, 2022 by teddyaware

[Nofear]

36 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As long as there is an  existence, there is no way anyone nor anything can destroy agency. ...

Now while it may be true that under Satan’s plan he could attempt to suppress the exercise of  agency by employing all sorts of carnally enticing and brutally coercive means, nevertheless, unless the private thoughts of the human mind can be genuinely persuaded to freely agree that all of his tyrannical programs and tactics are good and conducive to eternal joy and happiness all he’s succeeded in accomplishing is a robotic outward compliance based on fear of reprisal rather than on a genuine free will conversion of the heart and mind.

Church policy belies the first statement as being an absolute. The existence of fairly cognitive animals may well refute the second statement.

That said, I quite agree that Lucifer's advocacy was/is wrong. My existence here on earth supports that. Nonetheless, he apparently was persuasive enough to convince a non-trivial number of individuals despite the historical precedent of the plan working successfully on countless prior worlds. I also rather suspect that the scriptures don't exactly give his arguments a "fair shake" as it were and very likely presents a somewhat simplistic version of his dialog (history is written by the victors and all that). I don't mind. I sided with him being wrong and do so still. Yet, neither will I make the mistake of presuming the Adversary is a cartoonish figure devoid of any rational sounding reasoning.

[filovirus]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

So if I understand you correctly, pretty much only one law (accept whoever is anointed the saviour) rather than no laws?

That is one way to look at it. The law could be as simple as "Love the Lord thy God (Lucifer) with all thy might, mind, and strength". But because there was an atonement provided for all sin (both repentant and unrepentant) by Lucifer, one really would not have to even keep that law. No repentance would ever be necessary. We see how quickly moral agency breaks down if this were the case.

I may be totally off the mark, as all we really have to go off is that Lucifer sought to "destroy the agency of man". As we see in this thread alone, there are many theories as to how this would work. What I do believe is that Lucifer was persuasive enough to lead many away. I don't think his plan was as simple as most of us are lead to believe.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

As long as there is an  existence, there is no way anyone nor anything can destroy agency. As Lehi taught in 2 Nephi 2, without the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of God nothing, not even God himself,  can exist; and it’s by means of the atoning sacrifice that men are made free forever to chose between good and evil in an existence that can only be  affirmed on there being opposition in all things.

Now while it may be true that under Satan’s plan he could attempt to suppress the exercise of  agency by employing all sorts of carnally enticing and brutally coercive means, nevertheless, unless the private thoughts of the human mind can be genuinely persuaded to freely agree that all of his tyrannical programs and tactics are good and conducive to eternal joy and happiness all he’s succeeded in accomplishing is a robotic outward compliance based on fear of reprisal rather than on a genuine free will conversion of the heart and mind.

Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon often teach that mere outward displays of hollow compliance, caused by fear, are nothing more or less than outward manifestations of inward spiritual death. And this is the reason why a great many saints have willingly gone to martyr’s deaths rather than knuckle under ungodly, coercive rule. Yes, there are many who faced death by unspeakably cruel and agonizing tortures rather than allow Satan to think he had stollen their minds and gained mastery over them.

There would be no fear and only passive compliance if there were no opposition in the first place.

The Lord gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden (Moses 7: 32), a) before the Fall with the initial commandments and that concerning the two kinds of fruit, and b) after the Fall with the space for repentance (Alma 42: 4-5). Lucifer's plan would have removed both a) and b) by eliminating "a" in the first place (no need for a "b" ). The coercion against a) would be denial of the most fundamental agency, not control by fear. As we have it, the way things played out is that coercion against b) arose after the Fall and destroys the agency of man that had already been given there (Moses 4: 3-4).

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by CV75

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

There would be no fear and only passive compliance if there were no opposition in the first place.

Opposition doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be active opposition, only that an alternative exists (e.g. partake or not partake, no need to "tempt" one way or the other). My position, which I've stated on this board a few times, is that Lucifer wasn't a feature of the Plan but one who sought to disrupt it. Alas, this would be a diversion to the OP topic though.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Opposition doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be active opposition, only that an alternative exists (e.g. partake or not partake, no need to "tempt" one way or the other). My position, which I've stated on this board a few times, is that Lucifer wasn't a feature of the Plan but one who sought to disrupt it. Alas, this would be a diversion to the OP topic though.

Yes, the devil certainly sought to disrupt the plan and gain by it. A lack of enticement, or meaning, would render Adam and Eve's actions a matter of chance, hence the Lord's original instructions to them.

But as the Lord presented things in the Garden of Eden, the two trees seem to have had their own enticements (they had both "bitter" and "sweet" properties for the couple to weigh). It seems to me that, had there been no Lucifer or war in heaven, a spiritual war would have erupted at some point here in mortality due to the effects of the Veil, with the spirits of the wicked taking their crusade into the spirit world, opposing the Christ who would still have come in the meridian of time. For example, there would have been a Cain or a Perdition. But we live with the history as it's been given!