Agency: God a Liar, Satan a Hero?

[ben_dy]

Disregarding that the stories of creation offered in the Book of Moses and that offered in the Book of Abraham differ greatly, I have a question regarding ‘agency’ as presented in the Book of Moses.

Now ‘agency’, as described in the Glossary of the www.mormon.org website (which I believe is an ‘official’ site) is described thusly:

Agency - The ability and freedom to choose good or evil.

Moses 4:3 reads “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, which I had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of my Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.”

Now this is sort of a ‘back story’ - Chapter 3 tells of the creation of Adam and Eve and Chapter 4 begins with the earlier familiar ‘send me’ story of Jesus and his younger brother Satan so presumably on the spirit sphere near Kolob spirit children had agency - “the ability and freedom to choose good or evil”. BUT Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man” and so one god or the other “caused that he should be cast down.”

OK. so now we’re back to the garden and Satan tells Eve to eat the fruit of the tree that she and Adam have been told not to eat or even touch but Satan tells her (Moses 4:11) “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

So my question is this: if, as we read in 4:3, God had given man agency and if agency is “the ability and freedom to choose good or evil” then the freedom of choice presupposes the “knowing” of good and evil. However, in 4:11 the woman is told (and further reading proves this) that it is the eating of the fruit of the tree that allows the woman and then the man to ‘know’ “good and evil.”

So I’m flummoxed.

Either God lied when he said that he had given man agency and lied, too, in saying that Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man” or agency really was a gift from Satan who in no way tried to destroy the agency of man but, in fact, was the giver of the gift NOT given by God but given by Satan.

This subject has likely been addressed before but I’m new around here and haven’t yet found my footing… it’s my understanding that “the Fall”, “Original Sin”, disobeying God was a good thing according to LDS doctrine (and, yes, I’ve read many different reasons WHY it was a thing to be preferred) but what I’ve not been able to find in my readings is if it is LDS doctrine that agency was a gift given by God or by Satan.

It seems to me that in reading Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Moses, God did not in fact give man agency - he COULD NOT HAVE. If the Book of Moses is correct God lied about Satan seeking to destroy the agency of man for it was Satan who gave man agency by revealing the means to “know” good and evil.

So is God a liar and Satan a hero in LDS doctrine or are there other pertinent revelations that I may be missing?

 

[BJRumph]

Well, Amgid posted some interesting BoM scriptures over on the concurrent “The Fall: Was it a good thing?” thread.

According to the BoM veiw, Adam (and presumably us) **could not ** perform any Good, as he (without the Fall) had done no Evil. Theological Relativism & Moral Subjectivity at its “best”.

That thread also provides my take on the Fall in general, especially on the different concepts of “knowing”. Sadly, my take on what is meant by “knowing” can present the necessary bridge to eliminate the dichotomy you have presented, albeit by making associated points that I cannot agree with (such as the “necessity” of having to be corrupted by Sin in order to be capable of doing Good. So much for certain lds assertions here that God has always been “perfect” and never has sinned as a man, otherwise He couldn’t do any Good according to the BoM. Sigh. So much error stemming from such a simple thing…)

 

[amgid]

BJRumph:

Well, Amgid posted some interesting BoM scriptures over on the concurrent “The Fall: Was it a good thing?” thread.

According to the BoM veiw, Adam (and presumably us) could not perform any Good, as he (without the Fall) had done no Evil. Theological Relativism & Moral Subjectivity at its “best”.

Not correct. You had not understood the scripture I had quoted. The scripture states:

2 Nephi:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
This does not mean that they “couldn’t perform any good, because they had done no evil”. What it means is that everything is known by its opposite. Light is know in contrast to darkness. Truth is know in contrast to falsehood. Right is understood in contrast to wrong. If Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, that contrast would not have been opened to them, therefore they could not have done EITHER good or evil. That is a different thing from saying that they couldn’t have done any good because they had not done any evil. This is made clear enough in verses 11 and 12 of the same chapter, which I had quoted:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing {i.e. if it had been thus} must needs destroy {i.e. would have destroyed} the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

That thread also provides my take on the Fall in general, especially on the different concepts of “knowing”. Sadly, my take on what is meant by “knowing” can present the necessary bridge to eliminate the dichotomy you have presented, albeit by making associated points that I cannot agree with (such as the “necessity” of having to be corrupted by Sin in order to be capable of doing Good. …

No sir, the scripture does NOT mean “the necessity of having to be corrupted by sin, in order to be capable of doing good.” See above.

So much for certain lds assertions here that God has always been “perfect” and never has sinned as a man, otherwise He couldn’t do any Good according to the BoM. Sigh. So much error stemming from such a simple thing…)

I wish I knew what you were talking about here.

amgid

 

[BJRumph]

So then, Amgid, you have been given the right to re-word your religion’s scripture? Even so, your revisions of verse 12 do not eliminate the blasphemy I pointed out on the other thread; you still recognize that there is something which can (or now, “could have”) destroy the attributes of God. I find that both silly and dreadfully wrong.

No, Amgid, I did, indeed, understand fully the content of the scriptures you quoted, and I continue to do so. You, apparently, do not see what the problem is, that is the Relativism mandated by the veiw defined as “having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” Or, as you put it, “What it means is that everything is known by its opposite. Light is know in contrast to darkness. Truth is know in contrast to falsehood. Right is understood in contrast to wrong.”

The point of veiw you have defined is called “Relativism”. It denies the absolute nature of God and Truth (well, in its truest sense, it denies the absolute nature of anything), and the fact that there is, indeed, good without evil, Light without Darkness, God without Satan.

You may insist that this is a correct way of looking at the universe, but I will have to disagree, irreconcilably so. Indeed, it is because of this relativism that I had to leave masonry as well upon embarking upon my journey into catholicism. While it (masonry) did not present an obstacle to my personal faith, its religious relativism is an irreconcilable difference between the Lodge and Church, and so I humbly aquiessed.

But, to plainly state (and return to) my point; Truth is absolute, therefore it needs no opposite to define it. Light is a positive fact, and does not need Darkness (which is merely the absense of light, not a positive fact in its own right) to define it (afterall, Light is not defined as “the absense of Darkness”, now is it?).

God is; He needs nothing to oppose Him in order to know Him (indeed, nothing can exist without Him, including “nothing” in my understanding). Indeed, those things that oppose Him, drive us away from understanding Him, not bring us closer, as you want to suggest based upon your belief in the relativism given you by Smith.

Indeed this relativism of yours ties in to, and is one of the internal supports for, the mormon doctrine that god was once a man, and that we can also become god in the same sense that he is god in the future. As there is no absolute basis for Light, it is necessary that darkness, in the mormon paradigm, must re-insert itself into reality, otherwise the Light would cease to exist. Thus, Lucifer’s assertion that his interference in eden was nothing that hadn’t already been done on countless worlds before our own (in the Temple, if you want your “documentation”) is a necessary embellishment to the BoM passages, and is fully consistent with them.

But, I won’t bother getting into that in any additional detail, though some lds here with developed senses of the Divine Plan within the lds framework would enjoy such, as I know you dislike to talk about such things with us swine.

BTW, as you responded here, you obviously are reading this thread. So, any answers to Ben-dy’s questions?

 

[amgid]

BJRumph:

So then, Amgid, you have been given the right to re-word your religion’s scripture?..

The short answer to all of that is, Who are you trying to kid?

BTW, as you responded here, you obviously are reading this thread. So, any answers to Ben-dy’s questions?

Ben-day’s question is just nitpicking, it don’t deserve a reply!

amgid

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

Ben-day’s question is just nitpicking, it don’t deserve a reply!

amgid

Why is reading - and trying to understand - that which is part of the “standard works” of the LDS church ‘nitpicking’? Is “agency” NOT an LDS doctrine? If you’ve no explanation, just say so - or deny agency altogether. These are passages that I simply cannot understand - they are, as you seem to prefer, sola scriptura and I am seeking clarification. I realize that you may have been taught not to think about doctrinal issues but perhaps there are other LDS members here who were not taught in that manner and who may be able to provide an explanation to something that I find confusing.

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

Ben-day’s question is just nitpicking, it don’t deserve a reply!

amgid

amgid,

Perhaps I was too verbose in asking originally my question: let me simplify…
Moses 4:3:

“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;”

…and “agency” is described in the Glossary of the www.mormon.org website as…
www.mormon.org:

Agency - The ability and freedom to choose good or evil.

…and Moses 4:11 reads…
Moses 4:11:

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

…then, if the definition of ‘agency’ is correct (and, if it is NOT, then that makes my question, indeed, only worth answering in order to correct the definition) either:

1. The definition of agency is incorrect;
2. God did not, in fact, give agency to man (for in order to have “The ability and freedom to choose good or evil” one must “know good and evil”), so God is lying, and it was, in fact, Satan who - rather than seeking “to destroy the agency of man” was, in fact, the giver of agency, or:
3. The Book of Moses, in these particular verses, at least, are not correctly a “translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet”, or;
4. I am misunderstanding something which needs further clarification from the current president, prophet, seer, revelator, etc.

Now - have I presented the question lucidly enough so that it may not be dismissed as “nitpicking” and worthy of a reply?

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

Perhaps I was too verbose in asking originally my question: let me simplify…

You were more than verbose. You were smug and condescending. It still does not deserve a reply; but I will reply to it anyway.

Moses 4:3
“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;”

This refers to the preexistence. Satan offered an alternative plan to save all mankind by depriving them of the right of choice, in exchange for which he demanded God’s glory and power. His plan was rejected, he rebelled, and was cast down.

…and “agency” is described in the Glossary of the www.mormon.org website as…

Agency - The ability and freedom to choose good or evil.

This definition of Agency is adequate for the website. The website does not attempt to become deeply theological. But if you want to delve deeper into the theology of it, there is more to it than that. Moses 4:32 informs us that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden:

Moses 4:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
The next question therefore is, how did God give man his agency in the Garden of Eden? The following scriptures explain:

2 Nephi 2:

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man,… it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

D&C 29:

39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves;…
Agency is the right of choice. It is the ability to choose between two or more options. Agency itself, meaning the ability to choose, is inherent in man. But before man can exercise that ability, the options must be available to him. If I told you that you are free to go and watch any movie you like, but ensured that you lived in a world that there were no movies, you would not even know what a movie is, never mind being able to exercise the option of going and watching one. Before movies were invented, mankind did not have the “freedom” to watch any movie they wanted, because that option was not made available to them in the first place. When the scripture says that God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden, it means that the options were made available to him to enable him to make that choice. God gave man two options, one the tree of life, and the other the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The first would enable them to live for ever. The other would cause them to die, and He warned them not to partake of it. Then God permitted Satan to tempt man to partake of the forbidden tree, thus providing them with the option. God “enticed” them not to partake of the tree; Satan “enticed” them to partake of it. Thus the options were provided, enabling man to exercise his agency.

…and Moses 4:11 reads…

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Yes, and you have conveniently ignored the previous verse, which completes the picture. Moses 4:10-11 read as follows:

Moses 4:

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Satan lied to Eve in order to tempt her to partake of the fruit. He told her half the truth. He told her that she would not die if she ate of the fruit. He did not tempt her to partake of the fruit in order to “give them agency,” as you incorrectly assert. Firstly, he tempted them in order to cause them to die:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Moses 4:

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
Secondly, he tempted them in order to bring them into subjection to himself, and thus cause them to commit further sin, leading them to ultimate destruction:

D&C 29:

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.
Satan also was ignorant of God’s design and plan, and he thought that he would be able to destroy God’s creation:

Moses 4:

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.
These are the reasons why Satan tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. God permitted Satan to tempt man in order to provide them with that option, so that they could exercise their agency and make a choice. God Himself could not tempt them to do evil. He could only entice them to do good. An evil source was required to entice them to do evil, and Satan provided that enticement. Satan’s original plan in the preexistence had been to deprive man of that option, and he said that he would be able to save all mankind that way. God, however, wanted man to have that choice. God also knew that by giving man that choice, that many people would make the wrong choice, and would not be saved. But agency was so vital to God’s plan that He allowed them to have that privilege, and loose many souls as a result, rather than follow Satan’s plan and deprive them of it, and save everyone. Satan then rebelled, and became an instrument in God’s plan to entice men to do evil, thus providing them with that all important option.

…then, if the definition of ‘agency’ is correct (and, if it is NOT, then that makes my question, indeed, only worth answering in order to correct the definition) either:

1. The definition of agency is incorrect;

The definition of “agency” given on the website is correct as far as it goes. It is good enough for the purpose for which it is intended. But there is more to it if you want to delve deeper into he theology of it.

1. God did not, in fact, give agency to man (for in order to have “The ability and freedom to choose good or evil” one must “know good and evil”), so God is lying, and it was, in fact, Satan who - rather than seeking “to destroy the agency of man” was, in fact, the giver of agency, or:

God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden. He did so by allowing Satan to tempt man to partake of the forbidden fruit. See above.

1. The Book of Moses, in these particular verses, at least, are not correctly a “translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet”, or;

The Book of Moses, in its entirety, is correctly “a translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet”. It is an inspired translation.

1. I am misunderstanding something which needs further clarification…

That is an understatement.

…from the current president, prophet, seer, revelator, etc.

No, not from the “president, prophet, seer, revelator, etc.” Any person who intelligently reads those scriptures with an open mind would be able to find those answers in those writings. Your difficulty is that when you read LDS scriptures, you put blinkers on, and all you look for is faults rather than any truths. If you start with the premise that the books must be false, and all you are thinking about is finding faults in it, then in a million years you won’t get the true meaning out of it. If you would take those blinkers off your eyes for once, and start reading them with at least the assumption that they could be true, you might see them in a different light.

amgid

 

[ben_dy]

amgid-

Whoa! You’ve lost me at the very outset - if Moses 4:3 refers to “preexistence” and God talks of the “agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him” would that not imply, as in the verses you quoted, that man had already been created? How can God give to man if there exists no man to give unto?

No, you’ve not answered my question, only added to my confusion - and I assure you that, although you seem to enjoy reading “smug and condescending” attitudes into those who do not hold the same beliefs as yourself, my ‘analysis’ (ill-informed as it may be) was written in a spirit of attempting to make sense out of which I find none.

As I said - there exists the possibility that " I am misunderstanding something which needs further clarification…", but now you’ve added to that misunderstanding by suggesting that a past tense (“had given”) is actually a “pre”-tense (“will give”?) - unless, unknown to me, agency is enjoyed by men in the post-born spirit/pre-born human state?

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

amgid-

Whoa! You’ve lost me at the very outset - if Moses 4:3 refers to “preexistence” and God talks of the “agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him” would that not imply, as in the verses you quoted, that man had already been created? How can God give to man if there exists no man to give unto?

No, you’ve not answered my question, only added to my confusion - and I assure you that, although you seem to enjoy reading “smug and condescending” attitudes into those who do not hold the same beliefs as yourself, my ‘analysis’ (ill-informed as it may be) was written in a spirit of attempting to make sense out of which I find none.

As I said - there exists the possibility that " I am misunderstanding something which needs further clarification…", but now you’ve added to that misunderstanding by suggesting that a past tense (“had given”) is actually a “pre”-tense (“will give”?) - unless, unknown to me, agency is enjoyed by men in the post-born spirit/pre-born human state?

You are confused because you want to be confused. Like I told you, you won’t take your blinkers off at any cost. This is the context in which the verse occurs:

Moses 4:

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying–Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me–Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
The clause: “…the agency of man, which I the Lord God had given him,…” means the agency which God had predetermined to give him. The context makes it perfectly clear that it is the preexistent state that is being referred to here.

amgid

 

[BJRumph]

agency is enjoyed by men in the post-born spirit/pre-born human state?

In theory, that is, according to the mormon version of the War in Heaven, this is precisely the case.

Unlike in Catholic thought, angels are the spirits of men (in one state or another, the differences between angels not necessary to delve into here), as opposed to being a different order of being altogether, and therefore it was human spirits who joined in Lucifer’s revolt against Jehovah’s plan, and are the literal Sons of Perdition.

So, yes, the mormon idea of the first things is that agency necessarily existed before Eden. At most, Eden introduced a physical realm from which agency could be expressed which did not exist for us prior to ‘our’ mortal form (as we had none prior to the organization of our world/cosmos).

As it was only in Lucifer’s rejected Plan of Salvation wherein he sought to deny us the agency to reject said salvation (which would not be effectively “saving” us from anything, as there would have been no ‘fall’ under his plan), it does not make any real sense for God’s edenic condemnation of satan (in the BoAb) as “seeking to destroy the agency of man”, when, as you correctly point out, it is the mormons veiw that only in following satan in eating of the Tree that we gained mortal agency.

The conumdrum that you are trying to point out is lost on them due to the compartmentalized nature of how they study and learn about the story, as well as the adoption of *a priori * that keep them from rationally analyzing the issue freely. As the Church is undeniably “true” in their veiw, any paradoxes, such as this one that you are trying to reveal to them, simply become “deep doctrine” that “we don’t really know that much about”, so that they may “safely” ignore what is a pretty clear indication that things are not what they seem, or are assumed to be by its residents, in the mormon cosmos.

Despite the multiple variations of the Eden story (at least 4 including the Temple version), there is not a clarification of Truth, but a confusion and concealment of it to the end of positively rejecting the very Truth which was revealed in the original that every Chrsitian *but the lds * accept. But I think we have already discussed this point ad nauseum on your other thread

 

[majick275]

good answer. I would add the following as a commonly held belief of many LDS:

It’s a 2 part agency. The pre-existence was the “first estate” or first opportunity to exercise agency to chose God over Satan. (or actually in this case Jesus over Satan).

Those that did are said to have “kept their first estate” and thus qualified to come down to this earth and receive mortal bodies. Those that did not were cast out with Satan and are helping to work evil in the hearts of men. (somewhat like demons)

When you come down to earth your knowledge of the pre-existence is “veiled” and thus you are once again (round 2) in a state of “innocence” until you are “enticed” to either good or evil.

This theory holds also that Adam and Eve would never have had any offspring without the fall and thus it was necessary “that man might be”.

The continuation of this is that only those who achieve exaltation move to the “next round”. those that are not cast out but fall short of exaltation will either remain in a lesser kingdom or be ministering angels.

Those who are exalted get to “ave eternal increase”.

 

[ben_dy]

BJRumph:

So, yes, the mormon idea of the first things is that agency necessarily existed before Eden. At most, Eden introduced a physical realm from which agency could be expressed which did not exist for us prior to ‘our’ mortal form (as we had none prior to the organization of our world/cosmos).

See, now if I had understood that man was given agency in pre-existence, my supposition would have been rendered moot - and I would never have posted it!

What tripped me up was reading further into Moses, 7:32:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

This verse is obviously in error, since, as you’ve explained man’s “agency necessarily existed before Eden”.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

So, yes, the mormon idea of the first things is that agency necessarily existed before Eden. At most, Eden introduced a physical realm from which agency could be expressed which did not exist for us prior to ‘our’ mortal form (as we had none prior to the organization of our world/cosmos).

See, now if I had understood that man was given agency in pre-existence, my supposition would have been rendered moot - and I would never have posted it!

Neither of you had understood those verses correctly. As I had explained before, the actual ability to make a choice is innate in man. When it says that “God gave man his agency” (be it in the preexistence or in mortality), it does not mean that that innate ability was given to them. It means is that God allowed them to have the options of good and evil presented to them so that they could make that choice. In other words, He was not going to force them into heaven by dictatorial means, or against their will, as an unwise or a dictatorial parent might want to do by preventing his children from making their own decisions, for fear least they should make the wrong ones. A wise parent will counsel his children aright; but at the same time he will recognize the need for them be able to make their own decisions, even if those decisions turn out to be wrong, and they having to learn by their own tragic mistakes.

The preexistence and mortality are two entirely different spheres of existence; and each had to have their own special “options” for good and evil provided. We know that man did have agency (meaning the options of good and evil presented) in the preexistence, as this scripture affirms:

D&C 29:

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil–for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

37 And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;
We know very little about how the preexistence was organized, and how things were done there; but this verse makes it clear enough that the spirits of men in the preexistence also had these two options presented to them to enable them to make that choice, which is what it means by saying that they had agency. Satan exercised that option to make the wrong choice, and was instrumental in causing a lot of others to follow him.

When man was born into mortality, he was now in an entirely different sphere of existence. His recollection of his former life had been forgotten. Therefore in order for him to be able to exercise his agency, or make a choice, the options had again to be presented to him, this time suited to the natural environment and sphere in which he now lived.

In Moses 4:3, where it says that Satan "rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him,… (see post #11 for the full context), the event it is referring to is in the preexistence; but the “agency which I had given him” refers to the agency which God had given, or rather predetermined to give, to mankind during their mortal probation, not the one they already possessed in the preexistence. Satan was opposed to that idea, therefore he rebelled against God, and became the devil.

What tripped me up was reading further into Moses, 7:32:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

This verse is obviously in error, since, as you’ve explained man’s “agency necessarily existed before Eden”.

Not correct. This verse is not in error. When man was born into mortality, the options had to be presented to him anew; his agency had to be given to him again in the Garden of Eden. That is what that scripture says. Also, it is symbolic of the agency that all of mankind now possess in mortality.

amgid

 

[paul_barlow]

again we seem to be arguing on points.
if there was no pre existance who was satan and how did he lead a third of the host of heaven.
adam and eve were in a state of innocence in the garden and were unable to comply with gods commandment to have children.
**how can you deny agency your church teaches of the original sin ** adam and eve chose to disobay.
this is a great forum for discusing each others views lets keep it that way. we each belive that we have the truth and as such its natural to want to argue each point of scripture. lets look at what we can agree on. whould that not be an intresting change.
yours
paul barlow

 

[catholic-rcia]

Controversies on Grace

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

 

[BJRumph]

AMGID,

I fail to see how I could possibly be incorrect as to an understanding of scriptural verses that I was not even discussing.

Regardless of what verses created the question Ben_dy was asking, I responded to the question not the “evidence”.

My answer, as you affirm in your “rebuttle”, was correct. Mankind had agency even in the premortal world. Further, Ben_dy aknowledged his originating misunderstanding in his response to my answer.

However, our being correct does not eliminate a basic conumdrum that arises from the correctness of the answer. But, I’ll let those with more time on their hands explore that one, if they find it.

 

[BJRumph]

if there was no pre existance who was satan and how did he lead a third of the host of heaven.

Simple, once you recognize that the LDS concept of “The Hosts of Heaven” is totally different than Christendom’s. Outside of the LDS, the Angelic Hosts, and the Third of which Satan led away, are a seperate order of being than mankind. It is your lds belief that angels are the spirits (in various states of being) of men that blinds you to this simple resolution. Angels are NOT a form of human being.

adam and eve were in a state of innocence in the garden and were unable to comply with gods commandment to have children.

Again, it is your lds belief, which is in total odds with Christianity, that causes you to be blind to the simple resolution of your question. Only the lds teach that A&E were incapable of having children in their pre-fallen state; which makes Eve’s portion of the punishment make no actual sense (which was an INCREASE of her pains in bearing children; how can such be an increase, if she could not already have children).

how can you deny agency your church teaches of the original sin adam and eve chose to disobay.

You are completely lost here. No one is denying agency, only the lds version of it, as it compares to the Christian veiw of it.

As you can see, you are making assumptions about the discussion that cannot be sustained by simple obsevation of the very points being discussed. The LDS veiw of the topic at hand can only reconcile with its own “facts”; facts which do not exist outside the lds church. You are trying to use teachings specific to your own religion to refute “problems” you see in our religous conclusions, without any idea that the things that support your “critical” questions do not exist outside your religion. The questions you ask can only derive from the points of doctrine that only your church holds to.

You cannot ask a Christian about something like the preexistence in the manner you have, because it does not exist for them. Using the fall of Angels is no support for a human pre-existence to someone who does not believe that Angels are human.

You seem to think that the lds are doctrinally very similar to the rest of Christendom. You are very mistaken in this regards. The only similarities that exist are purely manifested on a “practical” level, the level in which the individual members actually live their lives without regard to Theological & Doctrinal, Truth.

If doctrine doesn’t matter in your veiw, only practical “works”, then you are only going to find contention over points that you see no value in, and are going to be very dissappointed in participating in an apologetics forum.

 

[amgid]

BJRumph:

My answer, as you affirm in your “rebuttle”, was correct. Mankind had agency even in the premortal world. Further, Ben_dy aknowledged his originating misunderstanding in his response to my answer.

However, our being correct does not eliminate a basic conumdrum that arises from the correctness of the answer. But, I’ll let those with more time on their hands explore that one, if they find it.

What conundrum?

amgid