Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom

[Urstadt]

If there is not both right and wrong in the Celestial Kingdom, then how are we to exercise agency? Can agency even exist without both right and wrong?

Right: Do Heavenly Father's will.

Wrong: Do other wise.

But there is no wrong in the Celestial Kingdom.

Then where's our agency?

[2ndRateMind]

Well, If you'll accept a suggestion from an undenominated 'mere' Christian, you might consider that the idea that God never does evil does not remove His agency. He has the opportunity. It could be the same for mortals in Heaven. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 29, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

This seems to touch on some other recent discussions we've had here; because the conundrum you posit for people who have attained the celestial kingdom is equally true for God Himself--if He can do no wrong, does He truly have agency?  And for that matter, can He truly be omnipotent?

 

Seems to me that "the wrong" doesn't exist in the Celestial Kingdom, not because it's not theoretically possible; but because the Plan of Salvation and Atonement provide a perfect training process that lead exalted beings to a point where they will have completely, voluntarily, and eternally chosen to shun the wrong.  As with the Father (in my opinion), so with the children.

 

What's that saying about how, during the Millennium, Satan will be bound and have no power simply because of the righteousness of the people?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.

 

Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.

 

The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.

[Blackmarch]

If there is not both right and wrong in the Celestial Kingdom, then how are we to exercise agency? Can agency even exist without both right and wrong?

Right: Do Heavenly Father's will.

Wrong: Do other wise.

But there is no wrong in the Celestial Kingdom.

Then where's our agency?

the potential is there, just like the potential for God to go evil is there. By the time we get to the celestial kingdom we will have the charity, discipline, and skills to never do so.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Blackmarch

[Urstadt]

Thank you, everyone. I agree. Exercising agency in one direction does not equate to no agency. I love my wife and so I would never do anything unfaithful to her. It doesn't mean I have less or no agency, I've already exercised my agency and am sticking to my decision. It would be the same in the Celestial Kingdom. I have already exercised my agency here on earth, after careful deliberation, to Follow God. Once I'm in the Celestial Kingdom (provided I have lived worthily enough) I am just sticking to my decision. I would only ever exercise my agency to disobey God if He chose evil.

P.S., Thank you to the mod/admin who cleaned up my accidental duplicate thread.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Urstadt

[Seminarysnoozer]

The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.

 

Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.

 

The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.

But remember that agency was given for that first estate test.  That doesn't have to mean that agency was around the whole time.  (distinguishing agency from different levels of being valiant.)

 

I agree with your description of the Celestial Kingdom, that evil is in existence but not in the presence of the Celestial Kingdom.   It may be along the lines of one can be in the world without being of the world or that it simply isn't found in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Just_A_Guy]

But remember that agency was given for that first estate test.  That doesn't have to mean that agency was around the whole time.  (distinguishing agency from different levels of being valiant.)

 

What authoritative sources do we have to support such a proposition?  How did Lucifer progress to a point where he could be called "Like unto the son of man" (Abraham 3:27) without some measure of agency?

[The Folk Prophet]

The only beings that need to be "given" agency are those who do not have the power to take it upon themselves. God is all powerful. He is the ultimate agent unto himself. We are given agency because we are not all powerful, and so the ability to be agents unto ourselves is given by one who is all powerful.

 

Of course God has agency. He is his own agent. He represents Himself and no other.

 

As for Sem Snoozer's idea, there is a distinct possibility that we, at some point, did not have agency. Agency requires knowledge and accountability. We may have not always had both of those things.

[Anddenex]

But remember that agency was given for that first estate test.  That doesn't have to mean that agency was around the whole time.  (distinguishing agency from different levels of being valiant.)

 

I think this is an interesting concept, could you please expound then how you would distinguish agency from being valiant?  My conception, currently, is that in order to be valiant an opposite to being valiant would have had to be presented -- agency.

 

Otherwise, how then could the firstborn been chosen, if some distinguishing trait wasn't presented within him.  Where would you suppose this distinguishing resulted from if not from agency.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Anddenex

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think this is an interesting concept, could you please expound then how you would distinguish agency from being valiant?  My conception, currently, is that in order to be valiant an opposite to being valiant would have had to be presented -- agency.

 

Otherwise, how then could the firstborn been chosen, if some distinguishing trait wasn't presented within him.  Where would you suppose this distinguishing resulted from if not from agency.

According to Doctrines of the Gospel; "No principle in time or eternity is so cherished as the right of agency, the right to consider alternatives and make choices without compulsion. A war was waged in heaven over our agency—a war that was transferred to earth. Satan is determined to blind, bind, and lead captive through ignorance and sin everyone he can. Understanding our agency is imperative for our spiritual survival and fulfillment in Christ."

 

I guess the question is whether being a little bit faithful as opposed to exceeding faithful is really an "alternative".  To me, being less valiant is not an "alternative" or opposing choice and that is why it is called being valiant over simply being called righteous. The choices before the War in Heaven started were, as far as I understand it, to be faithful graded all the way to having exceedingly great faith.  At least all those that arrived at the point of being able to potentially move on to the second estate test had to have the capability of accepting the second estate test.

 

Could God offer someone the second estate option if they were evil?

 

If He could then the first estate test was not a description of agency but a judgement and all those that were evil by nature simply followed Lucifer.  Being cast out implies there was some judgement.  Would God cast judgement for a law that the person could not fufil in the first place? 

 

So, I am assuming all those spirits that found their self at the point of being involved in the War in Heaven had the ability to choose between Lucifer's plan or God's.  If they could really choose God's plan then they were righteous enough to do so, they had been faithful, not evil, up until that point. Were all those that were cast out lose something with their choice or was it never theirs in the first place, they never could have made it into the Second Estate?   In order for there to be agency with the War in Heaven, all those spirits involved had to have the second estate option possible, otherwise there was no real choice. So, the cast out spirits had to have been faithful enough to qualify for the second estate option.

 

How does God distinguish between those with exceeding faith (as in Alma 13:3) from those that have mediocre faith?  I don't know the answer to that question but I would guess it has to do with knowing the desires of the heart of that individual.   One of the antonyms of Valiant is "weakhearted".  Evil is not the opposite of "valiant".

 

Also understand that one of the purposes of the second estate test is to grade out a degree of glory (a reward for being good).  Meaning all those that make it here had faith but not all were valiant.  So it is possible to have faith and be righteous but not be valiant. If they were evil they would have been cast out with the third part but they were not and they were righteous enough to merit a degree of glory forever and to receive a body, they are all good to some degree (with maybe the exception of the sons of perdition).  Would you describe the numerous souls that make it into the Telestial Kingdom as evil or less valiant?  Can one be evil and be in the presence of the Holy Ghost as those that find their self in the Telestial Kingdom?  

 

Unless you want to say that everyone who passed the first estate test could be described as having exceedingly great faith and valiant, then the opposite of valiant is not evil. In my view, there was no evil soul that passed the first estate test.  

[Magus]

I'm kind of inclined to disagree with this idea that people who have made it to the highest degree of glory in the Celesital kingdom will never do any wrong because they are just so perfected they simply won't.

 

I kind of find that to be precarious position to place eternal exaltation on....because I feel like *wrong* is so easy to do. And eternity is a long time....to never, ever make a mistake - ever again? Forever? Just because you got an A+ on mortality's test? I still find that highly doubtful, if not possibly a bit naive (no offense to anyone).

 

My personal view is that exaltation is a staus whose achievement is based upon passing a set of tests in this mortal lifetime. Nowhere in the scriptures does exaltation demand absolute, sinless perfection in this lifetime (that I'm aware of). I think it demands pretty close to it - but I think that as mere mortals, it's in fact impossible for us to attain that level of moral perfection in exactly the same way the Savior did. I think we can come close to it - but realisitcally, I think the Savior may have had a few things going for him that we did not to help him out along the way in completing his mission. Such as being half-mortal, and such as having privileged access to the Father from the moment of his birth. (Not trying in any way to lessen the magnitude or difficulty of his trials, here. Just saying, he was a bit different from us.)

 

I also don't think that exaltation necessarily demands complete, utter, uncompromising perfection in the next life, either. Remember the words of Brigham Young and other prophets in regards to exaltation...the achievement of it alone is the successful completion of a set of tests, and thereby, the acheivement of a certain natural level of being...but it will still be an eternal journey of "eternal progression" to become even close to what Christ is in his glory, or what the Father is in His. We don't automatically become *just like them* once we pass through the veil and are crowned. And in fact we'll never catch up, as their glory is always progressing and expanding as is ours.So the thought goes that by the time, aeons down the road, we get to the level of glory they are at now, they would still be aeons ahead. But I digress..

 

In a nutshell, I think that many things that are "right" and "wrong" are definitions and parameters that are specific to this mortal probation. So many of the things we aren't supposed to do are set there as guardrails for mere mortal beings who have a limited understanding, and who are placed in a state of existence in which they are supposed to do without, supposed to be tried and tested, supposed to restrain themselves and prove themselves that they can do "all that is commanded of them." That they have that mettle.

 

But once the test is passed, once the higher nature is achieved, once the mettle has been tried and tested and the crown is given - the nature of existence and your state of being changes completely - and so naturally, the rules would also change, because the application has changed.
 

Recall that Lucifer had all kinds of pride in his heart and evil aspirations long before he was actually kicked out of heaven. He was allowed to retain his status as one of the highest ranking sons of God. He was only kicked out until it was absolutely necessary. Yet all that time he was in the presence of God in a Celestial sphere.

 

Recall also that, according to the D&C, one can have their calling and election made sure - and still sin/do that which is contrary to the will of God - in the which case they will be offered up to the buffetings of Satan until they have paid for it - but then will enter into their exaltation and stil receive their crown. So...it seems as if the the passing of mortal lifetime's tests does not necessarily mean it is impossible for you to do something terribly wrong and out of line with God's will.

 

Another important thing to consider...I think a big part of having your calling election made sure in this lifetime, or receiving it in the next, has to do with where your heart is, and not necessarily with the specifics of individual sins/mistakes. This perspective is a personal one, for me. I've struggled with sins in my life, but I have always felt a close connection to God and have felt his mercy, love, support and forgiveness because I feel He knows (and I know) that my heart is still close to Him, regardless of my weaknesses. I truly do deeply love God and Jesus Christ, despite my sins. I have felt the Lord's presence around me even in times when I would consider myself greatly unworthy of it. He continues to persist with me, and I manage to continue to still, often enough, be in tune enough to hear His whispering to my heart and His expressions of love. I feel this probably has something to do with where my heart is. Sin does not always reflect the deepest depths of your heart. Sin can be a mindless, even a thoughtless action. Sin can be done even if you hate it. Wicked actions can be done robotically, against the consent of the heart and soul. The mind can be its own creature and operate contrary to the truest wishes of your heart, and we are eternal beings in a house of imperfect, mortal flesh that is subject to frailty and compulsion. This is not to excuse it, but it is to put things in context. God sees this and takes it into account, and I have a personal testimony of this.

 

So, I feel like there is room for mistakes in the exalted realm. The mistakes, however, would be on a level entirely not of our mortal understanding/comprehension. After all, how do you explain adult mistakes to a 1 year old? But nevertheless - I think the point of mistakes is to learn from them and progress, and so in that sense, I feel like exalted beings likely progress in the same way mortals do - just on a much higher level.

 

So anyway, just my thoughts.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Magus

[askandanswer]

We chose which side of the war in heaven we would be on. That sounds like the exercise of agency to me. 

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm kind of inclined to disagree with this idea that people who have made it to the highest degree of glory in the Celesital kingdom will never do any wrong because they are just so perfected they simply won't.

 

I kind of find that to be precarious position to place eternal exaltation on....because I feel like *wrong* is so easy to do. And eternity is a long time....to never, ever make a mistake - ever again? Forever? Just because you got an A+ on mortality's test? I still find that highly doubtful, if not possibly a bit naive (no offense to anyone).

 

My personal view is that exaltation is a staus whose achievement is based upon passing a set of tests in this mortal lifetime. Nowhere in the scriptures does exaltation demand absolute, sinless perfection in this lifetime (that I'm aware of). I think it demands pretty close to it - but I think that as mere mortals, it's in fact impossible for us to attain that level of moral perfection in exactly the same way the Savior did. I think we can come close to it - but realisitcally, I think the Savior may have had a few things going for him that we did not to help him out along the way in completing his mission. Such as being half-mortal, and such as having privileged access to the Father from the moment of his birth. (Not trying in any way to lessen the magnitude or difficulty of his trials, here. Just saying, he was a bit different from us.)

 

I also don't think that exaltation necessarily demands complete, utter, uncompromising perfection in the next life, either. Remember the words of Brigham Young and other prophets in regards to exaltation...the achievement of it alone is the successful completion of a set of tests, and thereby, the acheivement of a certain natural level of being...but it will still be an eternal journey of "eternal progression" to become even close to what Christ is in his glory, or what the Father is in His. We don't automatically become *just like them* once we pass through the veil and are crowned. And in fact we'll never catch up, as their glory is always progressing and expanding as is ours.So the thought goes that by the time, aeons down the road, we get to the level of glory they are at now, they would still be aeons ahead. But I digress..

 

In a nutshell, I think that many things that are "right" and "wrong" are definitions and parameters that are specific to this mortal probation. So many of the things we aren't supposed to do are set there as guardrails for mere mortal beings who have a limited understanding, and who are placed in a state of existence in which they are supposed to do without, supposed to be tried and tested, supposed to restrain themselves and prove themselves that they can do "all that is commanded of them." That they have that mettle.

 

But once the test is passed, once the higher nature is achieved, once the mettle has been tried and tested and the crown is given - the nature of existence and your state of being changes completely - and so naturally, the rules would also change, because the application has changed.

 

Recall that Lucifer had all kinds of pride in his heart and evil aspirations long before he was actually kicked out of heaven. He was allowed to retain his status as one of the highest ranking sons of God. He was only kicked out until it was absolutely necessary. Yet all that time he was in the presence of God in a Celestial sphere.

 

Recall also that, according to the D&C, one can have their calling and election made sure - and still sin/do that which is contrary to the will of God - in the which case they will be offered up to the buffetings of Satan until they have paid for it - but then will enter into their exaltation and stil receive their crown. So...it seems as if the the passing of mortal lifetime's tests does not necessarily mean it is impossible for you to do something terribly wrong and out of line with God's will.

 

Another important thing to consider...I think a big part of having your calling election made sure in this lifetime, or receiving it in the next, has to do with where your heart is, and not necessarily with the specifics of individual sins/mistakes. This perspective is a personal one, for me. I've struggled with sins in my life, but I have always felt a close connection to God and have felt his mercy, love, support and forgiveness because I feel He knows (and I know) that my heart is still close to Him, regardless of my weaknesses. I truly do deeply love God and Jesus Christ, despite my sins. I have felt the Lord's presence around me even in times when I would consider myself greatly unworthy of it. He continues to persist with me, and I manage to continue to still, often enough, be in tune enough to hear His whispering to my heart and His expressions of love. I feel this probably has something to do with where my heart is. Sin does not always reflect the deepest depths of your heart. Sin can be a mindless, even a thoughtless action. Sin can be done even if you hate it. Wicked actions can be done robotically, against the consent of the heart and soul. The mind can be its own creature and operate contrary to the truest wishes of your heart, and we are eternal beings in a house of imperfect, mortal flesh that is subject to frailty and compulsion. This is not to excuse it, but it is to put things in context. God sees this and takes it into account, and I have a personal testimony of this.

 

So, I feel like there is room for mistakes in the exalted realm. The mistakes, however, would be on a level entirely not of our mortal understanding/comprehension. After all, how do you explain adult mistakes to a 1 year old? But nevertheless - I think the point of mistakes is to learn from them and progress, and so in that sense, I feel like exalted beings likely progress in the same way mortals do - just on a much higher level.

 

So anyway, just my thoughts.

Why do you equate "demand" with result?

 

The word inheritance implies a gift that is not achieved based on the direct result of personal action or desire or level of faith etc.  It is a reward for those requirements.  In other words, the reward is not something that one does for self.  We need a Savior to give us something we couldn't get for ourself.  If we are getting something that we could not provide for ourself then it certainly could be something that we could not achieve on our own.

 

If we believe in the result of our efforts is to receive some form of "inheritance" then the reward could be anything from 100% of what God has down to 1% (so-to-speak).  If one receives all that God has, from eternity to eternity as likely God received from His Father, then one becomes eternal, without end and becomes the originator of all, all knowing, perfect. 

 

Part of repentence is to promise to never do it again.  If one is fully repentant and all sins are cleaned, white as snow as is promised and one receives a glorfied Celestial body, one that does not have any propensity for sin, then how could that individual sin?   Where would the influence to sin come from?  It could not be internal as that soul would have been judged erroneously, God would not do that.  If it is not internal then what external force could allow the person to sin?  All evil would have been overcome.  Or do you think Christ does not overcome the world for us?

 

I see nothing in our teachings, scriptures, writings anywhere that says a soul that finds their self in any kingdom of glory after the final judgement can sin.  Please, if you know differently, I am open to change my understanding about that but I see nothing that says a glorifed person of any stature could sin.  I think that is what is meant by a degree of glory.   What darkness could withstand the light?  Only in mortality can darkness exist with light as we are dual beings both body and spirit.  In resurrection we become one, never to be separate again.

[Magus]

Why do you equate "demand" with result?

 

The word inheritance implies a gift that is not achieved based on the direct result of personal action or desire or level of faith etc.  It is a reward for those requirements.  In other words, the reward is not something that one does for self.  We need a Savior to give us something we couldn't get for ourself.  If we are getting something that we could not provide for ourself then it certainly could be something that we could not achieve on our own.

 

If we believe in the result of our efforts is to receive some form of "inheritance" then the reward could be anything from 100% of what God has down to 1% (so-to-speak).  If one receives all that God has, from eternity to eternity as likely God received from His Father, then one becomes eternal, without end and becomes the originator of all, all knowing, perfect. 

 

Part of repentence is to promise to never do it again.  If one is fully repentant and all sins are cleaned, white as snow as is promised and one receives a glorfied Celestial body, one that does not have any propensity for sin, then how could that individual sin?   Where would the influence to sin come from?  It could not be internal as that soul would have been judged erroneously, God would not do that.  If it is not internal then what external force could allow the person to sin?  All evil would have been overcome.  Or do you think Christ does not overcome the world for us?

 

I see nothing in our teachings, scriptures, writings anywhere that says a soul that finds their self in any kingdom of glory after the final judgement can sin.  Please, if you know differently, I am open to change my understanding about that but I see nothing that says a glorifed person of any stature could sin.  I think that is what is meant by a degree of glory.   What darkness could withstand the light?  Only in mortality can darkness exist with light as we are dual beings both body and spirit.  In resurrection we become one, never to be separate again.

 

The first half of your response....I'm sorry, I don't know what you're getting at.

 

The second half - I think you're missing my points. A lot of people think that all sin is something eternal in nature. But if you critically examine certain sins, and critically examine the definition of sin, the concept of all sin being sin, for every being, for all time, starts to unravel. Sin, as defined by leaders of the Church, is simply defined as doing that which is contrary to the will of God. And what is the will of God? One minute He says thou shalt not kill, and the next he tells the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Canaanites. Which is it? On a surface level, it appears to be a contradiction, and this is the type of fodder people who are against religion use to try and attack it - but they do so in error, because they don't understand the over-arching context. God has an over-arching will for mankind and for us individually, and what is sin and what is not sin has to be put into the context of "what is God's will at this given moment, under these sets of circumstances, for me and for mankind in general?" The example of "thou shalt not kill" is a general commandment not to go around murdering each other - but the caveat is that if God tells you to kill, you do it. So in other words, for us mortals who are in a training wheels stage of existence, being tested, learning to overcome certain obstacles, etc....the over-arching rule is "Thy will be done," as opposed to "my will be done" when it comes to the application of morality and obedience to any set of principles.

 

So in a nutshell - what is sin and what is not sin is going to depend on the context of what God's will is for us mortals at any given time, under any given circumstance. 

 

There are a lot of sins that are rather trivial in nature and pertain to mortality. At a certain point in time, it was against God's will (sinful) for his people to eat pork. This is no longer the case. There was a time when it was not considered sinful to enjoy a glass of wine with your evening meal, and Joseph Smith even did so on occasion - and after the Word of Wisdom was revealed. But this is no longer the case. So you can see that some of the standards of what is "sin" and what is not "sin" have changed over time as God has dealt with us.

 

You have to keep in mind that all of this is God dealing with mortal children of severely limited understanding and capability, who are in a state of existence that is probationary - in other words, we are supposed to be tried and tested, and certain things that are considered "sins" in this lifetime may possibly not be considered sinful in the next lifetime after we have passed the required tests. If you critically examine certain sins of sexual nature, for example, and why those certain sins are sinful, you'll find that a lot of the reasons you come up with have to do with the circumstantial nature of our mortal existence. The same goes for many of the sins of the flesh. Gluttony, etc. Much of it applies to the weaknesses and frailties of the mortal body and mind, as well as to the nature and circumstances of our probationary existence. But when you pass through the veil, and the nature of your existence changes, and the nature of your body changes, the nature of what is going to be against the will of God ("sinful") will likely also be altered. It is all about context.

 

Furthermore, the parameters of the test of this mortal lifetime are that we are assigned to a kingdom of glory based upon our actions in this lifetime, and this lifetime alone. So say you pass the test and you receive your crown of exaltation. Great. Now what? Are you at that point just like the Father, or even Jesus Christ? Not anywhere close. It will be an eternal progression to obtain glory. And how is that glory to be obtained? Work. Will that work be done for us? No. In the process of that work, is there potential for mistakes? Why not? We are "perfected" in terms of our mortal understanding, but if you define "perfection" as the absence of the need for improvement (i.e, the capacity to make mistakes), then there would be no need for "progression," would there?  Are mistakes against the will of God? Technically speaking - yes. Would that make it a "sin" then, defining sin as "being against the will of God?" Yes, technically speaking. But does that mean the mistake would necesssarily be something of an eternally evil nature in and of itself? No.

 

What about the nature of Evil? Where does it come from? Is Lucifer the originator of it? No. Lucifer himself was an angel of light - but he found something within himself that brought him down. His agency was always his, and he used it to fulfill an evil nature he discovered within himself that was built upon Pride, which then likely evolved into Hate. So I posit that Evil is always ever-present. Now could a Celestial being, such as a god, do something evil or wicked in nature? I theorize that, based upon the concept of agency, that it is at least possible, but what the consequences of that might be, I can only guess.

 

You have to again recall that a person can have their calling and election made sure in this lifetime and still sin, and then pay for that sin be being delivered up to the buffetings of Satan, but that once it has been paid for, they will obtain the crown. The implications of this, as a principle, are of enormous magnitude. But it requires critical thinking, and this isn't something you're likely to find any Church leaders speaking in depth on. At some point, your understanding of the gospel, and the depth of it, depends entirely upon you. And that's just how it should be.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Magus

[Seminarysnoozer]

The first half of your response....I'm sorry, I don't know what you're getting at.

 

The second half - I think you're missing my points. A lot of people think that all sin is something eternal in nature. But if you critically examine certain sins, and critically examine the definition of sin, the concept of all sin being sin, for every being, for all time, starts to unravel. Sin, as defined by leaders of the Church, is simply defined as doing that which is contrary to the will of God. And what is the will of God? One minute He says thou shalt not kill, and the next he tells the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Canaanites. Which is it? On a surface level, it appears to be a contradiction, and this is the type of fodder people who are against religion use to try and attack it - but they do so in error, because they don't understand the over-arching context. God has an over-arching will for mankind and for us individually, and what is sin and what is not sin has to be put into the context of "what is God's will at this given moment, under these sets of circumstances, for me and for mankind in general?" The example of "thou shalt not kill" is a general commandment not to go around murdering each other - but the caveat is that if God tells you to kill, you do it. So in other words, for us mortals who are in a training wheels stage of existence, being tested, learning to overcome certain obstacles, etc....the over-arching rule is "Thy will be done," as opposed to "my will be done" when it comes to the application of morality and obedience to any set of principles.

 

So in a nutshell - what is sin and what is not sin is going to depend on the context of what God's will is for us mortals at any given time, under any given circumstance. 

 

There are a lot of sins that are rather trivial in nature and pertain to mortality. At a certain point in time, it was against God's will (sinful) for his people to eat pork. This is no longer the case. There was a time when it was not considered sinful to enjoy a glass of wine with your evening meal, and Joseph Smith even did so on occasion - and after the Word of Wisdom was revealed. But this is no longer the case. So you can see that some of the standards of what is "sin" and what is not "sin" have changed over time as God has dealt with us.

 

You have to keep in mind that all of this is God dealing with mortal children of severely limited understanding and capability, who are in a state of existence that is probationary - in other words, we are supposed to be tried and tested, and certain things that are considered "sins" in this lifetime may possibly not be considered sinful in the next lifetime after we have passed the required tests. If you critically examine certain sins of sexual nature, for example, and why those certain sins are sinful, you'll find that a lot of the reasons you come up with have to do with the circumstantial nature of our mortal existence. The same goes for many of the sins of the flesh. Gluttony, etc. Much of it applies to the weaknesses and frailties of the mortal body and mind, as well as to the nature and circumstances of our probationary existence. But when you pass through the veil, and the nature of your existence changes, and the nature of your body changes, the nature of what is going to be against the will of God ("sinful") will likely also be altered. It is all about context.

 

Furthermore, the parameters of the test of this mortal lifetime are that we are assigned to a kingdom of glory based upon our actions in this lifetime, and this lifetime alone. So say you pass the test and you receive your crown of exaltation. Great. Now what? Are you at that point just like the Father, or even Jesus Christ? Not anywhere close. It will be an eternal progression to obtain glory. And how is that glory to be obtained? Work. Will that work be done for us? No. In the process of that work, is there potential for mistakes? Why not? We are "perfected" in terms of our mortal understanding, but if you define "perfection" as the absence of the need for improvement (i.e, the capacity to make mistakes), then there would be no need for "progression," would there?  Are mistakes against the will of God? Technically speaking - yes. Would that make it a "sin" then, defining sin as "being against the will of God?" Yes, technically speaking. But does that mean the mistake would necesssarily be something of an eternally evil nature in and of itself? No.

 

What about the nature of Evil? Where does it come from? Is Lucifer the originator of it? No. Lucifer himself was an angel of light - but he found something within himself that brought him down. His agency was always his, and he used it to fulfill an evil nature he discovered within himself that was built upon Pride, which then likely evolved into Hate. So I posit that Evil is always ever-present. Now could a Celestial being, such as a god, do something evil or wicked in nature? I theorize that, based upon the concept of agency, that it is at least possible, but what the consequences of that might be, I can only guess.

 

You have to again recall that a person can have their calling and election made sure in this lifetime and still sin, and then pay for that sin be being delivered up to the buffetings of Satan, but that once it has been paid for, they will obtain the crown. The implications of this, as a principle, are of enormous magnitude. But it requires critical thinking, and this isn't something you're likely to find any Church leaders speaking in depth on. At some point, your understanding of the gospel, and the depth of it, depends entirely upon you. And that's just how it should be.

I think I agree with most everything you are saying.  I don't think we are that far off but a couple phrases.

 

The war in Heaven was over agency.  There could only be a war in Heaven over agency if there was indeed an option to have a time without agency.  If agency had to be present all the time or it wasn't given for a period of time then there would be no discussion, it would just be.   Why wasn't there a war in heaven about having eye balls or not?  That was never an option. The war in Heaven was over having agency and to what degree.  Agency doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.  We are agents over certain stewardships in this life but not over all things.  Who sinned to make the blind man blind, the blind man himself or the parents? Neither.  Is being blind perfect?  and yet nobody sinned.

 

Does God progress in glory and works? Or is His glory fixed?  If He gains something over time then one would have to agree that there was a period of time when He was lacking the the thing that He now has.  If you definition of sin is to not have all that one could have then God would fit that description, unless you believe God is stagnant and does no work. His work and His glory is to "bring to pass..."  meaning it wasn't there before and now it is.  That is His glory to cause something to happen that wasn't there before.  That cannot be the description of sin. Perfection is a description of how on track one is to becoming like God, not necessarily a description of having made it. Perfection can describe the journey as well as the destination.  Gods "perfect" is to progress eternally.  Once a person has reached the stage in which they are progressing eternally then they are made perfect.  If there is a limit to ones progression then they are not perfect.  It doesn't matter where one is on the path of progression so much as whether the path is eternal or not.

 

Also in D&C it says; "29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

 30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

 31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

 32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

 33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift."

 

What we get at the final judgement is what we are "willing" to receive, that is our will. They will receive even a fullness, not a portion. So, what they are willing to receive is the fullness of that Kingdom, not a part.  If one makes it into the Celestial Kingdom, what they are willing to receive (even if they haven't gone through all the steps yet, they are still progressing) is the fullness, the whole path of Celestial life.  They will not be given a gift that she is not willing to receive.  If the person is willing to receive it and their receiving it is dependent on the willingness being a fullness of will, then when will they ever not have that same will?  That is an impossibility.  If they are only willing to receive a portion then the "fullness" of the gift they receive will not extend that willingness.

 

God knowing what we are willing to receive based in our agency as man during the first and second estate will make a true and correct judgement.  He will not make a mistake.  The judgement is based in will.   The willingness to live to that Kingdoms fullness. God would not make a mistake in that regard and later say, I guess she was not that willing.  It has to be there eternally to enter into that respective Kingdom.  If there is any lack of capacity to do so then they are put into that respective place, cast out for example, for those who failed the first estate test of will.

[Urstadt]

This topic still continues to bother me. Every time I resolve the conflict in my mind, something new pops up to make me question the nature of agency in the Celestial Kingdom. I also tend to go back and forth between agency and determinism, and possibility and constraint. The issue to me is not whether we have agency or not, the issue is to what degree? Or put in different terms, what will be possible and what will be constrained?

Hmmm...

[Seminarysnoozer]

This topic still continues to bother me. Every time I resolve the conflict in my mind, something new pops up to make me question the nature of agency in the Celestial Kingdom. I also tend to go back and forth between agency and determinism, and possibility and constraint. The issue to me is not whether we have agency or not, the issue is to what degree? Or put in different terms, what will be possible and what will be constrained?

Hmmm...

Constraint occurs when laws are disobeyed.

 

I wonder if what you are really asking is if a Celestial being could be capricious or whimsical. Is a Celestial being free to do whatever his/her heart desires.  Maybe I am wrong.

 

We believe in an unchangeable God, a God that is not whimiscal or capricious.  He doesn't waver in His thought purpose or task.  He is a God of laws which allow for freedom and liberty.  D&C 88; "“And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

“That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.”  This is why the saying 'be yourself, do what you like cause God made you that way' is a tool of Satan that ultimately binds and constrains.

 

In commentary, it has been written about these particular verses of scripture as follows: “Every law God has given us is of such a nature that by keeping it, we are preserved, perfected and sanctified. If we keep the word of wisdom, our bodies will be kept pure. If we observe the law of tithing we shall learn to be unselfish and honest. If we pray, we shall hold communion with the holy spirit. If we try to do our duty in everything, we shall come day by day nearer to perfection. On the other hand, those who refuse to be governed by law and are a law unto themselves cannot be sanctified. They are outside the pale of mercy and justice and judgment as well as law and must remain filthy still. It is only when we try to obey God’s laws that we have claim upon His mercy. Justice will take into account in the judgment every honest effort to do the will of God.” (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Deseret Book Co., 1972, p. 546.)

 

L. Tom Perry; "Thus, the Lord in his wisdom and great affection for us did establish a foundation which is firm, unchangeable, and can be relied upon, on which we can build our lives with positive assurance that the results will be contingent upon our worthiness."

 

In other words, the closer we are to perfection the more unchangeable we become.  Those that find their self in the Celestial Kingdom are the most unchangeable beings. Those that love variety and whimsical thought and capriciousness will be found in a Kingdom of variety, as one star differs from another. And that becomes constraining, limiting.  To have limitless freedom requires being unchangeable. When one lets go of the iron rod one travels in diverse places which leads to less freedom.

 

One of the requirements to enter the Celestial Kingdom is to endure and not grow weary of doing righteousness.  In other words, those are people that will not have a desire to do something different, they are not the people that say 'let me have a break from doing this for a while'.  We can't let the desires of the flesh drive the spirit.  The flesh wants variety and uniqueness and is whimsical and spontaneous and capricious.  Galations 6; "7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."

[Blackmarch]

Well, If you'll accept a suggestion from an undenominated 'mere' Christian, you might consider that the idea that God never does evil does not remove His agency. He has the opportunity. It could be the same for mortals in Heaven. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually thats exactly what i believe, for both.