To draw out my point in dramatic fashion, let's imagine what might have happened in the oft-referred-to "war in heaven." Lucifer tells us he's going to save everyone by forcing us to do what is right. Let's suppose we don't dismiss him outright, let's ask him some of the details.
Me: How exactly does this work? You're going to force us to be righteous?
Lucifer: That's right.
Me: Well, suppose I get tired of being forced and complain about it. Is that a sin?
Lucifer: Well, you're going against my plan, so, yes.
Me: What are you going to do about it if I complain anyway?
Lucifer: Punish you.
Me: Uhhh... I thought you were going to save me.
Seriously, how exactly would this work, if none of us are lost? I can only think of two options: either we must cease to exist so that someone else does everything for us (and if we cease to exist, that puts a damper on the whole "one soul shall not be lost" thing), or we experience immediate punishment for our wrongdoings so that we can in the end be saved (which brings us back to "enforcing consequences" = "Satan's plan").
Or, there's a third option, which is that we're misunderstanding Satan's plan entirely! I'm not a prophet, so take this with a huge grain of salt. I don't want to be promoting false doctrine. However, I will try to use the scriptures to put my point across. Here are 4 clues as to what I think the plan really was.
Clue #1: Boyd K. Packer spoke once about how the scriptures do not contain the words "free agency" (see an earlier reference here), but rather speak of "moral agency," as in DC 101:78 (emphasis added):
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
That is, we are given agency to be accountable for our own sins, not to be free to choose. Of course, "free to choose" is a necessary part of that, otherwise we don't have our own sins to be accountable for. But there's a bigger picture here. Why else would Pres. Packer make a distinction?
Clue #2: We know that Satan's plan was to destroy our agency. How do we know that? Moses 4:1, 3:
Satan ... 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. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man ... 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.
Is verse 3 an explanation of what happened in verse 1, that Satan rebelled and sought to destroy our agency? If so, where in verse 1 did this happen?
Clue #3: Consider Moses 7:32 (emphasis added):
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;
We clearly made choices of our own free will before the Garden of Eden, so it must be referring to something else. Something that happened in the Garden...
Clue #4: We get a description of agency in DC 93:31-32:
Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
In other words, agency and condemnation go hand-in-hand, because we have received instructions and not followed them.
The Punch Line: Are you still with me? Agency isn't about freedom of choice, it's about personal responsibility! What I'm getting at is this: Satan's plan wasn't to take away our freedom of choice, it was to let us do whatever we wanted! Let's borrow some more from Pres. Packer. He gave a talk in April 1977 in which he described his parable of the mediator, made famous more recently in a church video. (Seminary video?) Under God's plan, Christ re-negotiates the debt and offers us new terms of payment. Under Lucifer's plan, he pays off the debt and we're scot-free. Kinda makes sense how 1/3 of the host of heaven might have liked that plan a little better, huh? The problem there is, when we aren't held responsible (at least to some degree) for our actions, we never "grow up." i.e. we never become God-like. Lucifer receives all the glory, and we get what? A body that we never really learn how to use.
Oddly enough (or perhaps it's not so odd after all), this very plan gets brought up multiple times in the scriptures and in modern day. Look at Alma's first test as the Nephites' first chief judge: the teachings of Nehor. From Alma 1:4 (emphasis added):
And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.
Sound familiar? After I first started thinking about this, I noticed that the Book of Mormon is chock full of prophets trying to fight against Nehor's doctrine. (As I read through it again this year, I'll try to update this blog entry with some examples. For starters, consider Abinadi trying to explain why his message of doom-and-gloom constitutes "good tidings of good" and "publishing salvation," as opposed to the Noah's priests' message of, you guessed it, "what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?")
So the next time someone asks you if punishments aren't just a continuation of "Satan's plan," perhaps it's safe to say "no, just the opposite. According to Satan's plan, I should let you get away with this."
PS: Do not misinterpret my post as advocating "compulsion upon the souls of the children of men." I can see how there may be a fine line between this and simply being a strict disciplinarian, and I won't pretend to be any kind of expert on such behavior. People should indeed be allowed to learn from their own experience, it's just that sometimes while they're still learning, sometimes they need a little extra incentive one way or the other. Same reason why we have fines for not stopping at stop signs, regardless of whether or not running one actually causes an accident.
PPS: Is God taking away agency in Revelation 3:9 when he says "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet"?
Wow... never have thought of it this way. I am now going to take time looking into this, to see if I can't find any "authoritative" sources that agree.
ReplyDeleteBut even if I can't, it is definitely an intriguing notion, that makes heaps sense!
I think you're on the right track, but we might still be missing some key points. It seems that Satan's attempt at removing our agency was primarily by saying he would remove all consequences. In other words, he wanted to change the laws by which we are governed. (This would clearly usurp the power of God, since by deciding what would be law Satan was making himself greater than God.) Satan's idea was, as you hint at, let people decide what they want to do, and they won't have to suffer for it. I think the biggest mystery (and tragedy) of the gospel is why on earth Lucifer thought this would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to compare this idea to something I learned in Italy. Being around the Mafia had some interesting advantages, and one was learning how their system worked. One person put it to me that gangs in America steal a car if they want a car. The Mafia takes over the car industry. The way they do this is by noticing that someone is in need, or is suffering. Say a parent cannot afford to send their child to school. Someone approaches them and says, "Hey, you can't pay for the schooling. Let me pay. You won't owe me anything for it." The "kindness and generosity" is an overwhelming temptation, and many jump on the deal. But later down the road, the payer has a great leverage point that they can use to control and manipulate the person. There may be some similarity here to what Lucifer had in mind, though what would possess him to think that way I'll never know.
In any case, he's still at it, trying to get his plan implemented. I realized a few months ago that the "Freedom of Choice" movement insofar as the topic of abortion goes is not about choice at all. Everyone knows what the consequences of promiscuous activity are. Everyone engaging in it knows that that's how children come about. They've made that choice to take the risk. When they face the consequence, they want an escape. Insisting that someone should be able to choose to have an abortion in a lot of ways is more like wanting to not have to pay for the choice that was made. They are thinking "the consequence to this law is unfair, and I shouldn't have to deal with it;" they are trying to change the law. Looking at it that way, some of the statements the church makes about the appropriateness of such an operation make a lot more sense...
If you ask me, though, how agency can be used for good and the power it really has is a far more interesting topic.
I like salt.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post--I've really been thinking a lot more about agency since reading it. Who knows exactly what Satan's initial plan was, but what you say here makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, it gives us great insight into what he's trying to use against us today.
One little bone I'll pick with you: I think there was agency in the pre-mortal life, complete with consequences for right and wrong choices. Thus those who followed Lucifer were cast out. If they didn't have agency, they wouldn't have been punished. I think that Moses 7:32 must not be talking about the first instantiation of our agency, but that God confirmed it upon us in our new mortal state. But I totally agree with you that it's referring to the choice God gave Adam and Eve and the accountability He placed on them.
Ah, Rebecca, but you actually bring up the exact point I was trying to make in Clue #3 (but perhaps I was too terse about it). Absolutely we had responsibility for our choices before, so what was so special about the Garden of Eden that this scripture would say such a thing? The text "happened in the Garden" links to another scripture that explains what I'm getting at: the Lord made Adam and Eve accountable by describing what would happen.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I guess that could also work for the other side of the argument as well-- the Lord placed a choice before them, thereby giving them agency to choose for themselves. Hm.
Lars - I think you are pretty much right. In fact, Richard Draper goes so far as to say that Satan didn't have a plan other than "Let me be thy son, give me the glory, and I'll save everybody." (I'm assuming Draper means Satan didn't give specifics of how he'd save everybody, but I digress).
ReplyDeleteI think the standard logic (which is not warranted by scripture in my opinion) goes like this:
1) Satan sought to destroy agency
2) Agency means we have the ability to choose.
3) Satan will thus take away our ability to choose
4) We can only be saved if we are righteous.
5) Therefore Satan's plan was to force us to choose right all the time.
Here's the rub: Point #4 is a fundamental tenet of AGENCY which was destroyed by Satan in point #1. Elder Christofferson gives a masterful discussion of agency in an Ensign article which I've linked below. If Satan destroyed agency, everything that Elder C. (and Lehi) describes would have been destroyed - there would be no right/wrong (or at least no predictable consequences of right/wrong). The remaining option is that Satan was suggesting that we would be saved no matter what we did, and therefore it would not matter if we were to choose :right" or "wrong."
About the premortal existence - there must have been agency (consistent with Alma 13, in my opinion), otherwise, how were there noble and great ones? They must have progressed to become noble and great, by acting (i.e. using agency) on the principles that would lead to nobility and greatness. Finally, it strikes me that the fundamental principle then as now was faith in Jesus Christ - those who had faith in Jesus Christ followed His plan and came to earth. It is the same in mortality - those who have faith in Jesus Christ follow Him.
Awesome post, Lars. And here's the Ensign article:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8481759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Good article, Tom. I like how he points out that justice simply refers to the end result of our actions, which isn't always about condemnation. For those who don't want to copy-and-paste the link, you can read the article here.
ReplyDeleteLars, it's unlikley that you'll read this since this post is now old, but I have to say that I spent several months fascinated by this very subject. The thoughts were spurred by a local issue in Cedar Hills where I live (99% LDS) deciding whether to enact a city ordinance that would place certain restrictions on commerce within the city. People actually had signs in their yards saying "Agency: you voted for it before, vote for it again. VOTE NO."
ReplyDeleteI think making such a simplistic statement about what agency is can be dangerous (apparently these folks believe that any law restricts agency and is thus a bad thing).
I completely agree with you about Satan's proposal. I don't believe for a second that (1) he would volunteer to suffer for our sins, or (2) that 1/3 of God's children would have followed him if he required strict obedience. The only reasonable explanation to me is that he was promoting an "eat drink and be merry without consequences" philosophy, the dominant tactic he uses in our society today.
However, agency is more complex than this. I read an re-read 2 Nephi 2 when I was sorting through all this, and I came to the conclusion that agency depends on at least 4 things:
1) Laws must exist. Lehi's discourse in 2 Nephi 2 goes so far as to say that law is the very foundation for not only agency, but also God's existence; i.e., laws define who God is, as an obeyer of celestial law. Without law and everything that springs from it, everything would "vanish away." Hence, the first thing God did after putting Adam and Eve in the garden was to give them a couple of laws.
2) Freedom to act must be given. We cannot be agents unto ourselves unless we are "free to act and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law" (I'm paraphrasing that).
3) Probation must be granted. There must be a space for repentance. If immediate and everlasting punishment followed wrong choices, we would all be hopelessly damned.
4) An atonement must be made. This goes hand in hand with (3). Without Christ saving us, life would be utterly futile and every reason for having our agency would be destroyed and thus our agency would be destroyed.
Like I said earlier, I believe that Satan's war on agency that started in heaven was probably over the most fundamental issue Lehi mentions, law. I believe Satan sought to destroy agency in heaven by eliminating law and consequences.
However, Satan employs all four tactics here on earth. (1) He still seeks to overthrow law. (2) He seeks to eliminate freedom to choose. (3) He seeks to end our probation through death. (4) He sought diligently to destroy Christ's ability to be our Savior, and when he failed to do so, he seeks to destroy our faith in Christ.
That's my 2 cents.