LDS Free Agency

[alfonsobonetti]

Which scripture states that there is a Heavenly Mother?

So, because you can find the one and only theology that "seems" an exception to the rule, that somehow makes my statement invalid. Note I said "generally" and "save additional revelation", thus my statement already anticipated you simplistic obvious question.

But to expand, Heavenly Mother is "implied" all through the scriptures, and revelation to modern Prophets have designated that it is a "true" principle. Further, references to a heavenly mother was removed from the scriptures both by Jews in Old testament times and over the last 2000 years by namely the Catholic Church.

Anyway, there is enough implication from scripture which tells this is a true principle, and since modern revelation verifies it, we consider it doctrine. Again, this is the only principle within mormonism that isn't directly implied in scriptures. Although, the Father once being a man can be considered another implication, although that's not necessarily official. It's mostly kept as a mystery that must be understood by revelation. The official doctrine on that subject is that we can become like God, and God the son was once a man, thus God was once a man. The Father being once a man has not yet been officially pronounced as doctrine, hence Hinckley's interviews.

So then committing sin isn't necessary to procreation. In 2011, couples can marry first. You can not prove that Adam and Eve could not reproduce unless he disobeyed God. That is such an illogical teaching. Adam was obedient for a period of time. It would have been good for him to continue to obey his Creator and to be grateful for what God gave him.

Where in the world did you get that interpretation?
I mean, it's like your mind is simply on "auto negative" when it comes to anything mormon. Sin has never had anything to do with procreation. They were "immortal", and possibly were not of maturity yet, that's why they did not reproduce.

A lot of things are "good", but clearly in order for God's Plan to move forward they had to be tempted, thus God "allowed" it to happen, and then they went forward. Further, why would God provide the Tree of Knowledge if it wasn't part of His Plan?

You think it "sin" that adam and eve chose to obey the more important command of God, by having to disobey the lesser command. LDS do not consider this sin. LDS see it as being as the gods as we are supposed to be, i.e. the purpose of life.

If nothing including plants and animals could die in the Garden of Eden, the seeds in the fruit and herbs could be there, but they wouldn't grow. Therefore reproduction would not take place. The same fruit trees would live forever, producing fruit, but no new trees. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24).

Possible, but I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I know the basics the scriptures teach on the subject.

Do you remember what God said about reproduction?

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:12).

So the seed was to produce a tree, not only to provide fruit.

It would seem that there would have to be "reproduction" in some form in the Garden due to this fact, as to vegetation. Of course, plant reproduction is nothing similar to man or animal, so it can't really be called reproduction. It's likely that the only reproduction that was prevented was that of human and animal.

But, I don't know and don't really care. The essentials make sense to me.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

I don't recall stating that I had an issue.

What I did was ask if the Gods caused Adam and Eve to reproduce or did they give them a choice?

And as far as I can tell both us LDS and Skylark gave the necessary answers to that question.

Next?

 

[Rescued One]

But to expand, Heavenly Mother is "implied" all through the scriptures, and revelation to modern Prophets have designated that it is a "true" principle. Further, references to a heavenly mother was removed from the scriptures both by Jews in Old testament times and over the last 2000 years by namely the Catholic Church.
QUOTE=alfonsobonetti;56805435

CFR

 

[skylark1]

I was thinking about some of the things discussed in this thread concerning free will or moral agency, and wanted to ask the LDS who post here several questions.

Are the terms free will and moral agency interchangeable in LDS theology? Or is there a subtle difference?

My understanding is that LDS teach that we had a premortal existance as spirits, and at that time we had to choose to follow the plan that Jesus ofered or the one that Satan offered. In your opinion, did man have moral agency at that time? (Also did they have free will, but not moral agancy?)

If the answer is no, then why were those who choose to follow Satan held accountable?

If the answer is yes, then when God or the Gods organized Adam and Eve and placed their spirit in their bodies did they no longer have moral agency until they ate of the tree of knowledge?

I had thought that perhaps LDS believed that man had free will as premortal spirits and prior to the fall, but not moral agency until they ate from the tree of knowledge because it is taught that prior to that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, and therefore were not accountable. However, my understanding is that LDS teach that spirits were held accountable for the choice that they made premortally, so now I am thinking that somewhere along the line my understanding of LDS teachings is faulty.


Thanks.


Edit: I thought that I would add a quote from an Ensign article that might help to explain why I am associating moral agency with accountability.

When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Moral Agency​

 

[alfonsobonetti]

Are the terms free will and moral agency interchangeable in LDS theology? Or is there a subtle difference?

Well, there is likely a subtle difference given that one uses the word "Moral" and the other uses the word "Will", and the words "agency" and "free" are more or less the same meaning of word.

But, in answer to your question I think that for our purposes of this particular discussion either one could be used since we are talking about "agency" itself as the concept that existed in the pre-mortal realm, not getting into some deeper mystery in relation to those two particular word groupings. It might be possible there is something there theologically speaking, but I haven't really thought about it that I can recall. Let us know if you learn anything, if you have an interest in pursuing it further to see if there is something on it. I'm sure some LDS have written on Agency at some point, and may have gotten into that, I don't know. But, interesting question. Thanks.

My understanding is that LDS teach that we had a premortal existance as spirits, and at that time we had to choose to follow the plan that Jesus ofered or the one that Satan offered. In your opinion, did man have moral agency at that time? (Also did they have free will, but not moral agancy?)

Yes, we believe that "agency" is an Eternal Law given to all beings from the very beginning of their existance. So yes, they had agency in the pre-mortal life.

Hmm. Well, that is a good question. When I look at the question now, it might be possible that in the pre-mortal life they had Free Will, thus Agency in that sense, but when they became man a living soul, they they had access to Moral Agency, because they could comprehend good and evil. The pre-mortal rhelm, I don't know if we could comprehend good and evil, but there were simply choices, and given who we were as beings, we chose what we seemed "inclined" to choose given our nature. In this life we often choose according to our nature also, but we have reasoning skills so we don't always or ever choose that nature. It's possible that in the pre-earth life we had a slightly lesser reasoning skills because we hadn't yet gotten bodies and partaken of the fruit, because as God said, we then became as the gods, knowing good and evil. However, when I think about that, that might not be right, cause in the garden while we did walk with God, I think we might have been completely ignorant, having no knowledge of the pre-earth life. But, I'm not sure on that off hand, would have to do a bunch of reading to see if that's right or not. So, not sure if I can answer that particular question for you accurately at the moment. Let us know though.

If the answer is no, then why were those who choose to follow Satan held accountable?

They did have agency, so they are held accountable. And the reason they were held accountable was because they should have known better, for they lived with God, but they "chose" to follow another way, rather than the way God had given. This is why Sons of Perdition are the only ones who end up with Satan forever, is because they are like he, they actually for assurity know what is true and right, and yet rebel against it.

If the answer is yes, then when God or the Gods organized Adam and Eve and placed their spirit in their bodies did they no longer have moral agency until they ate of the tree of knowledge?

It's likely they had some form of free will because they could still choose, but they didn't have Moral Agency, that is the understanding of things. It's all just like children. Children can make choices, but until they become of age, they don't really entirely understand those choices. Of course, it's not exactly alike because children are born into a fallen world and so the natural man is a part of them, and so they aren't always so obedient, being susceptible to their emotions and temptations. Adam/Eve were perfectly obedient and innocent until the Serpent came along. Mortal children aren't usually so lucky before they start feeling and experiencing things both internally and externally.

It's a good point and question that there is likely a difference between free will/agency and moral agency/will.

I had thought that perhaps LDS believed that man had free will as premortal spirits and prior to the fall, but not moral agency until they ate from the tree of knowledge because it is taught that prior to that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, and therefore were not accountable. However, my understanding is that LDS teach that spirits were held accountable for the choice that they made premortally, so now I am thinking that somewhere along the line my understanding of LDS teachings is faulty.

Both would be right.... The difference would be the ability to "choose".
In the pre-mortal life we had free will, were given two choices, and we chose. In the Garden they had free will still, but they had nothing to choose between until Satan came along. It could then be said that then after partaking of the fruit, they began to have "Moral" based agency and will, instead of simply free will alone.

Does that make sense?

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

Edit: I thought that I would add a quote from an Ensign article that might help to explain why I am associating moral agency with accountability.

When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Moral Agency
​

That looks correct. Moral Agency would be a "part" of the divine gift of agency.

 

[skylark1]

Well, there is likely a subtle difference given that one uses the word "Moral" and the other uses the word "Will", and the words "agency" and "free" are more or less the same meaning of word.

But, in answer to your question I think that for our purposes of this particular discussion either one could be used since we are talking about "agency" itself as the concept that existed in the pre-mortal realm, not getting into some deeper mystery in relation to those two particular word groupings. It might be possible there is something there theologically speaking, but I haven't really thought about it that I can recall. Let us know if you learn anything, if you have an interest in pursuing it further to see if there is something on it. I'm sure some LDS have written on Agency at some point, and may have gotten into that, I don't know. But, interesting question. Thanks.



Yes, we believe that "agency" is an Eternal Law given to all beings from the very beginning of their existance. So yes, they had agency in the pre-mortal life.

Hmm. Well, that is a good question. When I look at the question now, it might be possible that in the pre-mortal life they had Free Will, thus Agency in that sense, but when they became man a living soul, they they had access to Moral Agency, because they could comprehend good and evil. The pre-mortal rhelm, I don't know if we could comprehend good and evil, but there were simply choices, and given who we were as beings, we chose what we seemed "inclined" to choose given our nature. In this life we often choose according to our nature also, but we have reasoning skills so we don't always or ever choose that nature. It's possible that in the pre-earth life we had a slightly lesser reasoning skills because we hadn't yet gotten bodies and partaken of the fruit, because as God said, we then became as the gods, knowing good and evil. However, when I think about that, that might not be right, cause in the garden while we did walk with God, I think we might have been completely ignorant, having no knowledge of the pre-earth life. But, I'm not sure on that off hand, would have to do a bunch of reading to see if that's right or not. So, not sure if I can answer that particular question for you accurately at the moment. Let us know though.



They did have agency, so they are held accountable. And the reason they were held accountable was because they should have known better, for they lived with God, but they "chose" to follow another way, rather than the way God had given. This is why Sons of Perdition are the only ones who end up with Satan forever, is because they are like he, they actually for assurity know what is true and right, and yet rebel against it.



It's likely they had some form of free will because they could still choose, but they didn't have Moral Agency, that is the understanding of things. It's all just like children. Children can make choices, but until they become of age, they don't really entirely understand those choices. Of course, it's not exactly alike because children are born into a fallen world and so the natural man is a part of them, and so they aren't always so obedient, being susceptible to their emotions and temptations. Adam/Eve were perfectly obedient and innocent until the Serpent came along. Mortal children aren't usually so lucky before they start feeling and experiencing things both internally and externally.

It's a good point and question that there is likely a difference between free will/agency and moral agency/will.



Both would be right.... The difference would be the ability to "choose".
In the pre-mortal life we had free will, were given two choices, and we chose. In the Garden they had free will still, but they had nothing to choose between until Satan came along. It could then be said that then after partaking of the fruit, they began to have "Moral" based agency and will, instead of simply free will alone.

Does that make sense?

Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that you believe that in the premortal existence spirits had agency, but not moral agency, and that this was also true for Adam and Eve prior to the fall. Then after the fall, Adam and Eve had moral agency.

Also am I understanding you correctly that you believe that children do not have moral agency until they reach the age of eight, and therefore they are not held accountable? If I understood all of that correctly so far, then it doesn't make sense that those who decided to follow Satan in the premortal existence would be held accountable if they did not have moral agency to know good and evil.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who wants to share their view. I'm not sure how much of this is individual speculation, how much it taught in the LDS Church, and how much of it is considered to be doctrine.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that you believe that in the premortal existence spirits had agency, but not moral agency, and that this was also true for Adam and Eve prior to the fall. Then after the fall, Adam and Eve had moral agency.

Also am I understanding you correctly that you believe that children do not have moral agency until they reach the age of eight, and therefore they are not held accountable? If I understood all of that correctly so far, then it doesn't make sense that those who decided to follow Satan in the premortal existence would be held accountable if they did not have moral agency to know good and evil.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who wants to share their view. I'm not sure how much of this is individual speculation, how much it taught in the LDS Church, and how much of it is considered to be doctrine.

I don't have a ton of time, but I'd offer right off the bat that we certainly did have moral agency prior to coming to earth. And the only distinction that I can see between agency and moral agency is the morality inherent in the choice being made. For example, choosing between a blue shirt and a grey one is certainly exercising agency, but it isn't moral agency, for there is no morality (right or wrong) inherent in the choice.

Satan was damned because he chose to attempt to usurp (as in take unlawfully) the Father's power (Moses 4:3), take from Him his kingdom (D&C 76:28), and strip from God's children the agency that He'd given them (Moses 4:3). Those were all moral choices, and choosing wrong resulted in damnation for Satan and those who chose to support him in his rebellion against God.

So yes, we had moral agency the moment God gave us any agency at all. The question is, then, 1) at what point did we receive our first morality-inherent law from God, and 2) did we have a "grace period" as spirits in which God did not hold us to account for our wrong choices, as He does for his children when born into mortality? Questions I don't have time right now to delve into.

 

[skylark1]

I don't have a ton of time, but I'd offer right off the bat that we certainly did have moral agency prior to coming to earth. And the only distinction that I can see between agency and moral agency is the morality inherent in the choice being made. For example, choosing between a blue shirt and a grey one is certainly exercising agency, but it isn't moral agency, for there is no morality (right or wrong) inherent in the choice.

Satan was damned because he chose to attempt to usurp (as in take unlawfully) the Father's power (Moses 4:3), take from Him his kingdom (D&C 76:28), and strip from God's children the agency that He'd given them (Moses 4:3). Those were all moral choices, and choosing wrong resulted in damnation for Satan and those who chose to support him in his rebellion against God.

So yes, we had moral agency the moment God gave us any agency at all. The question is, then, 1) at what point did we receive our first morality-inherent law from God, and 2) did we have a "grace period" as spirits in which God did not hold us to account for our wrong choices, as He does for his children when born into mortality? Questions I don't have time right now to delve into.

I had posted the following quote from an Ensign article earlier:

When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.​

I guess that what I find to be confusing is that if Adam and Eve were like little children and not accountable for their choices prior to the fall, and if accountablity is an essential part of moral agancy, then if Adam and Eve are said to have had moral agency prior to the fall then this doesn't make sense. It doesn't sound logical.

Do LDS teach that little children have moral agency, even though they are not accountable?

 

[Rescued One]

When satan came along they were given a "choice". They chose the better part for themselves knowing that they would break one law in order to accomplish another. They could have chosen otherwise, but they were "mature" enough to know that they only had one reasonable choice, and that was the one they took.

Wasn't there a choice before Satan came along? And if they didn't know good from evil how could they choose "the better part for themselves knowing that they would break one law in order to accomplish another?"

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is a really interesting discussion. It reminds me of a discussion about angels dancing on the heads of pins. I am curious to see how these terms can be neatly divided along the lines of sin and transgression so that (free and/or moral) agency did not exist for Adam and Eve.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I had posted the following quote from an Ensign article earlier:

When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.
​

I guess that what I find to be confusing is that if Adam and Eve were like little children and not accountable for their choices prior to the fall, and if accountablity is an essential part of moral agancy, then if Adam and Eve are said to have had moral agency prior to the fall then this doesn't make sense. It doesn't sound logical.

Do LDS teach that little children have moral agency, even though they are not accountable?

I think we need to slow down. I don't know who here may have suggested that Adam and Eve were not accountable, for I totally disagree with that. They were accountable for their choices—moral agency was in play. They were childlike in their innocence, but they were not children. They were adults. They were fully able to converse with and understand God. They could reason and were capable of receiving and understanding laws and bounds and consequences. They knew and understood God's will for them insofar as He had made it known to them. They knew that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they would die. Yes, they were innocent and could not perpetrate evil (a concept they had no knowledge of), but they were not ignorant nor incapable of breaking a law. They had been given a law/rule/commandment from God which they understood, and to act contrary to that law was to break God's law—an act of moral agency. And the broken law carried with it a consequence, which they also understood prior to choosing to break the law. And they were asked by God to account for their actions, and ultimately suffered the decreed consequence.

I see nothing in any of what happened in Eden that indicates that they were either unable to choose or not accountable for their choices. They had very limited choices, to be sure, but they could and did choose, and they did have to account for them.

As far as mortal children go, I think it's improper to compare their situation with that of Adam and Eve. The conditions for each are not the same. Adam and Eve were adults, and were capable of comprehending things that little children simply cannot, at least not right off. No matter how many times I tell my 8 month old not to eat the fruit of a given tree, he will not understand me. Adam and Eve understood. That's one difference. And yet, even little children exercise moral agency, in spite of the fact that God does not hold them to account for their exercise of it.

Children are also beneficiaries of moral agency by which we are all afforded the opportunity to progress, grow, and develop. That agency also permits children to pursue the alternate choice of selfishness, wastefulness, self-indulgence, and self-destruction. Children often express this agency when very young. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : The Greatest Challenge in the Worldgood Parenting
​

Back at Christmas time we bought some chocolates for the kids. When we portioned them out we discovered that we had an amount left over. I put them back in the bag and placed it in a drawer in my office, and up until a few weeks ago it had been forgotten. It was found by my two-and-a-half-year-old son. I found him eating a mini Hersheys bar and asked him where he found it. He showed me—in my office drawer. After that he would come into my office every day or so to get another chocolate bar, but I wouldn't always let him have one. I made it clear that he could only have one when I said it was OK, and that he could not just take them when he wanted. Otherwise we'd find him in a mess of chocolate (it has happened various times before).

Well, since then there have been various times when we were all in the living room together and I would hear my office door close. I'd go in there and find my son digging through that drawer to get to the chocolate, and when I'd come into the office he'd have a worried look on his face. Why? Because he has sufficient understanding even at his young age to know that it isn't OK to help just help himself to the chocolate, because he knows that I've told him he can't. And that's why he'd close the door. He goes into my office all the time, but he only closes the door when he's getting into the chocolate. I'd say his agency is very much active. I'd say that he has moral agency—he chooses to disobey me, or to transgress a "law." And that conscious disobedience makes him want to hide what he's doing, and makes him worried when he's caught. I reinforce each time, whether or not I let him keep the chocolate, that he can't just take the chocolate. He does understand enough to choose against my "law." I think that this is what President Faust was talking about in the excerpt above. Little children show very early that they do understand choice, and they can at very early ages begin to develop habits with their choices which can lead to problems once they are accountable. Hence, God's strict injunction to teach little children to walk uprightly.

I hope that some of this helps.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that you believe that in the premortal existence spirits had agency, but not moral agency, and that this was also true for Adam and Eve prior to the fall. Then after the fall, Adam and Eve had moral agency.

Also am I understanding you correctly that you believe that children do not have moral agency until they reach the age of eight, and therefore they are not held accountable? If I understood all of that correctly so far, then it doesn't make sense that those who decided to follow Satan in the premortal existence would be held accountable if they did not have moral agency to know good and evil.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who wants to share their view. I'm not sure how much of this is individual speculation, how much it taught in the LDS Church, and how much of it is considered to be doctrine.

First let me make clear that I can't say for sure which way it goes on this, because I don't think it's been actually revealed "how much" agency we actually had previously, or more specifically as to the issue how "moral" based it was.

Tastefortruth disagrees, but I don't think it's that simple. Reason being is because satan has "no truth" in him. Someone who has "moral agency" in my view would have to have "some" truth in them. Thus, I would think it more reasonable that Satan was like Adam & Eve in the garden before partaking of the fruit. He had agency and could make choices between things better or worse just like Adam & Eve could, which is in fact a high level of agency and thinking. But, man doesn't have moral agency I think until he has the knowledge between good and evil.

As to your question, I believe the way he is held accountable is the same way even Adam & Eve was held accountable for transgressing the law. They were cast out, no longer immortal, no longer walking with God. Satan also was cast out for being disobedient. One way of looking at it is that LDS call pre-mortality those who chose Gods plan as "keeping our first estate". Satan had enough knowledge that he could choose wisely, but because of "his" eternal nature, he chose wrong. One difference with Adam/Eves choice is that they had to choose over one law in order to be obedient to a higher law. Satan had only two ways to go, his own way, usurper God's authority, or the Fathers way, recognizing that agency was key to salvation and exaltation. Adam/Eve had kept their first estate, thus they were already willingly obedient to God, but then satan came along and gave even further understanding of things. Of course, this was all part of the test. Satan apparently doesn't have the intellectual moral realization of the consequences to his actions. It's interesting it actually reminds me of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals in my view simply haven't the ability to think far enough on issues, easy to sway intellectually, a more simplistic view of things just like children, but we do know they do have a small degree of "moral agency" being good in some ways, but perverted and deceived in other ways. Same could be said for the separation between the righteous and the wicked in a way. The righteous have a much higher level of moral agency than the wicked I think.

Anyway, bottom line is maybe the "terms" we are using are not accurate enough to describe the actual differences. Because there would have to be some level of moral agency, but not a higher level such as after the fruit was partaken. Cause, I don't think it can be said we were "as the Gods" in the pre-mortal life. Lived with, similar being of the same natures, but not "as" intellectually speaking.

 

[TasteForTruth]

First let me make clear that I can't say for sure which way it goes on this, because I don't think it's been actually revealed "how much" agency we actually had previously, or more specifically as to the issue how "moral" based it was.

Tastefortruth disagrees, but I don't think it's that simple. Reason being is because satan has "no truth" in him. Someone who has "moral agency" in my view would have to have "some" truth in them. Thus, I would think it more reasonable that Satan was like Adam & Eve in the garden before partaking of the fruit. He had agency and could make choices between things better or worse just like Adam & Eve could, which is in fact a high level of agency and thinking. But, man doesn't have moral agency I think until he has the knowledge between good and evil.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I'm going to disagree that Satan was in any way like Adam and Eve in the Garden. Under no conditions will he choose good—he cannot choose it precisely because he has no truth in him. Does he know truth? Of course. Is it in him? Not a shred of it. When he speaks, it is 100% assured that he is lying, even if what he says employs some degree of truth (as he showed in the Garden). He can't do anything but lie, because that's what he is—a liar. In Eden his choice was between lying and remaining silent, not between his way and God's way (he'd already made that choice, and the consequences were eternal and irreversible for him). And he chose exactly what God knew he would choose—to lie. The whole of his intent was to destroy God's work.

 

[skylark1]

I think we need to slow down. I don't know who here may have suggested that Adam and Eve were not accountable, for I totally disagree with that. They were accountable for their choices—moral agency was in play. They were childlike in their innocence, but they were not children. They were adults. They were fully able to converse with and understand God. They could reason and were capable of receiving and understanding laws and bounds and consequences. They knew and understood God's will for them insofar as He had made it known to them. They knew that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they would die. Yes, they were innocent and could not perpetrate evil (a concept they had no knowledge of), but they were not ignorant nor incapable of breaking a law. They had been given a law/rule/commandment from God which they understood, and to act contrary to that law was to break God's law—an act of moral agency. And the broken law carried with it a consequence, which they also understood prior to choosing to break the law. And they were asked by God to account for their actions, and ultimately suffered the decreed consequence.

Thank you for explaining.

This discussion is becoming more complicated, but I will try to explain what I was thinking when I wrote that. I think that because different LDS have posted here that Adam and Eve were "as little children" priot to the fall not knowing good and evil, that LDS here have stressed that Adam and Eve did not sin in the garden but transgressed, and that it is taught that little children are not accountable that I assumed that LDS taught that Adam and Eve were not accountable.

This explains why I thought that LDS teach that little children are not accountable:

“Little children … are not capable of committing sin” (Moroni 8:8). Why? They are not accountable before the Lord (see D&C 29:47). If they do something wrong, their action is not considered a sin.

Book of Mormon Teacher Manual Chapter 55: Moroni 8-9​

Is it stated somewhere in LDS scripture that "Adam and Eve were as little children," or is this a phrase that is often used by LDS?

I see nothing in any of what happened in Eden that indicates that they were either unable to choose or not accountable for their choices. They had very limited choices, to be sure, but they could and did choose, and they did have to account for them.

I dug into this a little more after reading your post, and came across the following that supports what you said (unless LDS differentiate between suffering consequences and accountability).

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).

The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve - Ensign June 2006​

As far as mortal children go, I think it's improper to compare their situation with that of Adam and Eve. The conditions for each are not the same. Adam and Eve were adults, and were capable of comprehending things that little children simply cannot, at least not right off. No matter how many times I tell my 8 month old not to eat the fruit of a given tree, he will not understand me. Adam and Eve understood. That's one difference. And yet, even little children exercise moral agency, in spite of the fact that God does not hold them to account for their exercise of it.

Children are also beneficiaries of moral agency by which we are all afforded the opportunity to progress, grow, and develop. That agency also permits children to pursue the alternate choice of selfishness, wastefulness, self-indulgence, and self-destruction. Children often express this agency when very young. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : The Greatest Challenge in the Worldgood Parenting​

Do you disagree then that accountability is an essential part of moral agency? Or do you think that statement was only applicable to those who have reached the age of eight?

Your story about your son and the chocolate was a good illustration and appreciated.

 

[skylark1]

Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that you believe that in the premortal existence spirits had agency, but not moral agency, and that this was also true for Adam and Eve prior to the fall. Then after the fall, Adam and Eve had moral agency.

Also am I understanding you correctly that you believe that children do not have moral agency until they reach the age of eight, and therefore they are not held accountable? If I understood all of that correctly so far, then it doesn't make sense that those who decided to follow Satan in the premortal existence would be held accountable if they did not have moral agency to know good and evil.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who wants to share their view. I'm not sure how much of this is individual speculation, how much it taught in the LDS Church, and how much of it is considered to be doctrine.

First let me make clear that I can't say for sure which way it goes on this, because I don't think it's been actually revealed "how much" agency we actually had previously, or more specifically as to the issue how "moral" based it was.

Tastefortruth disagrees, but I don't think it's that simple. Reason being is because satan has "no truth" in him. Someone who has "moral agency" in my view would have to have "some" truth in them. Thus, I would think it more reasonable that Satan was like Adam & Eve in the garden before partaking of the fruit. He had agency and could make choices between things better or worse just like Adam & Eve could, which is in fact a high level of agency and thinking. But, man doesn't have moral agency I think until he has the knowledge between good and evil.

As to your question, I believe the way he is held accountable is the same way even Adam & Eve was held accountable for transgressing the law. They were cast out, no longer immortal, no longer walking with God. Satan also was cast out for being disobedient. One way of looking at it is that LDS call pre-mortality those who chose Gods plan as "keeping our first estate". Satan had enough knowledge that he could choose wisely, but because of "his" eternal nature, he chose wrong. One difference with Adam/Eves choice is that they had to choose over one law in order to be obedient to a higher law. Satan had only two ways to go, his own way, usurper God's authority, or the Fathers way, recognizing that agency was key to salvation and exaltation. Adam/Eve had kept their first estate, thus they were already willingly obedient to God, but then satan came along and gave even further understanding of things. Of course, this was all part of the test. Satan apparently doesn't have the intellectual moral realization of the consequences to his actions. It's interesting it actually reminds me of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals in my view simply haven't the ability to think far enough on issues, easy to sway intellectually, a more simplistic view of things just like children, but we do know they do have a small degree of "moral agency" being good in some ways, but perverted and deceived in other ways. Same could be said for the separation between the righteous and the wicked in a way. The righteous have a much higher level of moral agency than the wicked I think.

Anyway, bottom line is maybe the "terms" we are using are not accurate enough to describe the actual differences. Because there would have to be some level of moral agency, but not a higher level such as after the fruit was partaken. Cause, I don't think it can be said we were "as the Gods" in the pre-mortal life. Lived with, similar being of the same natures, but not "as" intellectually speaking.

Thanks for your response.

When I wrote my post (that I quoted above in this post) I wasn't wondering about Satan having moral agency and being held accountable so much as I curious about the third of the spirits who are said to have followed him. However, I suppose that the response would be the same since LDS theology teaches that they were brothers and suffer the same fate.

 

[Rescued One]

LDS teaching that Adam and Eve were as little children is based on 2 Nephi 2:23.

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.
2 Nephi 2:23

Accountability for sin is based on one's understanding of good and evil, or right and wrong.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thank you for explaining.

This discussion is becoming more complicated, but I will try to explain what I was thinking when I wrote that. I think that because different LDS have posted here that Adam and Eve were "as little children" priot to the fall not knowing good and evil, that LDS here have stressed that Adam and Eve did not sin in the garden but transgressed, and that it is taught that little children are not accountable that I assumed that LDS taught that Adam and Eve were not accountable.

This explains why I thought that LDS teach that little children are not accountable:

“Little children … are not capable of committing sin” (Moroni 8:8). Why? They are not accountable before the Lord (see D&C 29:47). If they do something wrong, their action is not considered a sin.

Book of Mormon Teacher Manual Chapter 55: Moroni 8-9
​

Is it stated somewhere in LDS scripture that "Adam and Eve were as little children," or is this a phrase that is often used by LDS?

I agree that this could get complicated, but that's likely due to some misunderstandings of principles or ideas that are foundational to what we're now discussing. I'm sure we can sort it out though. Once we clear up the foundational stuff, what rests on top of it will be clearer.

I agree, within the confines of what I've already posted, that Adam and Eve were like "little children." There is a certain extent to which that is accurate, but taking it any further does not work.

Adam and Eve were innocent in the Garden of Eden, not knowing good and evil and not feeling any shame or embarrassment over their nakedness. These are emotions that came after the Fall. Adam and Eve were much like [(not exactly like)] little children who are naturally naive and trusting and lacking self-consciousness and knowledge of good and evil because they are innocent. Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 3:18 - 25 - Adam and Eve Were Husband and Wife insertion mine
​

And as far as their "sin" in concerned, the reason that we call it a transgression rather than a sin is because the act that they did—eating a piece of fruit—is not inherently wrong. It's not like murder or adultery, for example, which are sinful. It was only wrong in that instance because God had instructed them not to eat that specific fruit, for the reason he spelled out—it would cause their death. Also, the eating of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the actual means established by God himself by which man would bring upon himself mortality. He put the tree there precisely so that they would have the choice to enter mortality. The act that brought about the fall was part of the plan from the beginning. It was something Adam and Eve had to do. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 1., 115) Of course, God would not force them to do it. He would not impose upon them death—spiritual or physical. They had to choose it for themselves.

I can understand why you thought that Adam and Eve were not accountable, in connection with our referring to them as "like little children." But as I mentioned, there is a certain extent only to which that phrase applies to Adam and Eve.

I dug into this a little more after reading your post, and came across the following that supports what you said (unless LDS differentiate between suffering consequences and accountability).

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).

The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve - Ensign June 2006
​

Good call.

Do you disagree then that accountability is an essential part of moral agency? Or do you think that statement was only applicable to those who have reached the age of eight?

Your story about your son and the chocolate was a good illustration and appreciated.

Glad it helped.

I agree that accountability is essential to moral agency, but I also believe that moral agency is ours even when we are not facing moral choices (such as with Adam and Eve in the Garden, except in the case of the forbidden fruit), or when, as in the case of little children, accountability is suspended through an act of divine grace. We need to remember that "little children are alive in Christ..." and that "the power of [Christ's] redemption cometh on all them that have no law..." (Moroni 8:22) It is only because God's mercy is extended to them that little children are saved. Otherwise little children—who are simply not capable of fulfilling the law—"must have gone to an endless hell." (v. 13) But as it is, "Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy." (v. 19)

So accountability is essential to moral agency, but its absence is not necessarily indicative of absence of moral agency.

Now, I don't believe Satan has moral agency anymore. Nor his followers. They are now being acted upon by the law. (2 Ne. 2:11-27) They can no longer choose good. It is not in their power. They can only choose evil. They have no truth in them, and are therefore in total bondage. (John 8:32) That can happen to us as well if we give ourselves wholly over to the influence of Satan. (see Ether 15, where the final destruction of the Jaredites is detailed)

 

[Rescued One]

MORAL AGENCY
Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives, but we must also know what they are. If we are unaware of the choices available, the existence of those choices is meaningless to us. Lehi called this being “enticed by the one or the other” (2 Nephi 2:16). He recalled the situation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they were presented with a choice, “even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter” (2 Nephi 2:15). Adam and Eve’s choice, of course, brought about the Fall, which brought with it a knowledge of good and evil, opening to their understanding a multitude of new choices...

Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices (see 2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among alternatives is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us (see Moses 4:3).

“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” (Moses 7:32).D. Todd Christofferson, "Moral Agency", Ensign, June 2009, 46–53

"Freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws—not the freedom to alter their consequences."
ibid.

Given that spirits could choose between following Satan or Christ in the pre-mortal world, it would appear that they had agency.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

I don't think LDS are disagreeing here on anything, just sort of talking past each other and questioning on "how much" moral agency if that is even the right word was had in the pre-mortal existence. We know there was agency, and a type of higher level cognitive skills, but was it really "moral" based, like it would be after Adam/Eve ate of the fruit? I don't know that we know that per the scriptures. Maybe I'm trying to think too deep into it as well, rather than just expounding the basics as Tastfortruth has done.

But, good thoughts, and the truth and facts on the matter seem all out there per LDS theology.