I think you are correct in pointing out some of the internal contradictions of our thinking about prophecy and free will.

A great many scientists don’t believe in free will for a variety of reasons unrelated to any aspect of theology at all.

The cutting edge of discovery — whether we call it secular science or “personal” revelation — really lies in probing these kind of internal contradictions until we find better models.

To me, the counterfactual narrative would not simply work out as simply as the author portrays it. How many times have the prophets taught that they spoke for God by citing to the past, and saying that the prophecies of Christ all came true? If as many of those turned out to be dead wrong, as in this narrative, then why should anyone believe any modern day prophets? And if Christ is goinng to begin his reign so much sooner, doesn’t that imply that the original plan was a poor one, because this one avoids an apostacy and has Christ as a much more obvious leader, like the millenium Christ, instead of the subtle carpenter Christ?

Personally, I appreciate the author’s efforts to put this narrative together but in my opinion it only reveals flaws and shows the whole idea of the plan of salvation combined with free will of all to be a contradictory and a bit too far out there. This type of narrative to me is like a movie with time travel. It’s kind of cool but when you really examine it, it becomes pointless because one could always go back one hour before to fix whatever wrong is created. Pandora’s box indeed.

This is a fascinating exercise. Thinking about what did NOT happen lends greater understanding to what DID happen. I find your analysis to be cogent and provocative.

MH, you said:

“While Latter-Day Saints believe the Garden was where he suffered, this is by no means a universal Christian belief.”

That is a little misleading. The LDS belief is that Jesus suffered for our sins to overcome spiritual death in the GofG, then he suffered on the cross to overcome physical death, extend universal resurrection and, I believe, effectuate salvation from the full result of the Fall – to free us from the effects of Adam’s transgression.

So, within Mormon theology, the suffering no other could endure but God included BOTH the Garden AND the cross in order to offer salvation AND exaltation. I think we do disservice to the cross way too much, even as I have no problem not using it as a symbol on our buildings.

Faithful Dissident wrote an excellent post about this entitled, “Are We Cross at the Cross”.

Let me just say that I think God, anticipating the future course your alternative history would take, would have acted in the past however necessary to bring to pass His ultimate purpose. There might have been no Nephites or Lamanites, for example, because there would be no need for a remnant of their seed to reconvert the Jews.

Jews in Jesus’ day believed he was to usher in a political revolution–a new David. In your scenario, this is exactly what happened. So, I tend to think the atonement would have been greatly discounted under your narrative. Certainly the 4 gospels would have been radically different (perhaps just 1 gospel.) I tend to believe there would be much less emphasis on Christ’s redemptive powers, and much more emphasis on his resurrection and revolution.

Inside a religious tradition with no premortal existence, this was likely the only way Kazantzakis could picture Jesus having a real choice. The whole book brought out Jesus’ human side in a way nothing I had read to that point did. Despite some Christian’s hatred of that book (I hope no Mormons), I found that it had the effect of returning me to Christianity from the Buddhism that I was wandering into at that time in high school. It did this by showing Christ as a real human, and not just a divine blessed being different from us, like everything I’d read to that point.

I think that in order for free agency to be real, there has to be a version of history that works for every possible choice anyone can make. Some of them are far bleaker than this one, but others are far more beauteous. For instance, if people had grown up without rebelling from God’s authority, I think it still would have worked. We’d have become free agents eventually, but our will would never have had to go so far away from the Father’s will, and perhaps Christ would have become the most blessed among many who were blessed. The world then would never have been separated from God. I think for some of God’s children, that’s likely true.

Us being who we were and are, though, we weren’t able to love and trust that much. We had to rebel and find out the truth for ourselves. The longer we linger in wickedness, the more anguish and sorrow we cause. We could bring the kingdom hither if only we would choose to embrace it truly.

One ramification is that the gulf between paradise and spirit prison would have remained for a few decades, though that’s not long compared to the time already passed since the majority had died.

Another is that the first resurrection would have been put off, so none would have seen the dead arise around the time of the atonement.

Interesting speculation…