This is my guess as to what Lucifer’s alternative proposal was (and by implication what agency is). He couldn’t actually do it (that was the big lie), but I think he could get enough people to believe he could do it and think it was a safe alternative, which is why so many fell (literally) for it.

God’s plan was based on agency and accountability. People would have an instrumentality in their own salvation. Agency and instrumentality are synonyms (look it up). People would be instrumental in their own salvation through the principal of accountability which is based on the law of agency. The atonement would make the various kingdoms available and possible, and give people the freedom and opportunity to attain them. Agency and accountability would determine which kingdom they received. Exaltation is possible, but nothing is guaranteed.

Lucifer’s proposal was based on no agency and, therefore, no accountability. People would not be instrumental in their own salvation; he would do it all for them. He could tell them that under his proposal they could gain a physical body, do whatever they wanted, be redeemed unconditionally, receive an immortal body, and be ‘saved’ without risk on their part. Lucifer claimed he would redeem all that one sold would not be lost (unless you count lost from the possibility of exaltation). The people would not have an instrumentality (or agency) under his proposal; he would do it all for them.

Lucifer would allow the fall to occur, allow freedom and choice (but withhold accountability), allow people to gain physical bodies and have mortal experiences, and redeem all as he claimed. Remember, he can’t actually do this, he just needs to convince others that he can (perhaps if he could get God to give him His power?)

Lucifer could tell the people that they would get all the benefits of God’s plan, including a resurrected, immortal body at the end of it all, without the risks. The down side? The salvation he offered would be a terrestrial glory at best, the same level into which Adam and Eve were placed in the garden originally (since it would be unjust to either reward or punish them). The celestial is not attainable since there is no growth, merit, or reward involved in his proposal, and the telestial is unnecessary because there is no accountability and punishment.

Satan’s plan now is not to destroy agency, but to use our agency and accountability against us. Why would an adversary keep the same plan he offered while he was trying to be a savior? He wants to take the foundation of God’s plan and use it to destroy and damn as many as he can. That would be poetic.

Briefly (this will be my last post on the subject, since it is a threadjack), I’d like to offer a couple of points. Since I’m not a believer, scripture cuts no particular ice with me except in the sense that it offers wisdom and ethics in some areas. I don’t think criminal justice is one of those areas. I think the criminal justice systems Paul was familiar with were appallingly “barbaric” by modern standards. Also, your discussion of criminal punishment ignores notions of “restorative justice”: restoration, reconciliation, healing, etc. I think there is a discussion to be had regarding whether that type of justice isn’t more consistent with what are commonly termed “Christian ethics” (although this thread isn’t the place to do it).

I agree with your statement:

“So I don’t think there’s anything in the text that rises to the level of presenting two competing plans”

There was one plan. Whether you call Lucifer’s opposition a presentation or a modification, it does not elevate it to two competing plans. I just read the text with the thought that we are reading a highly abridged version of the events that transpired. Enquiring minds want details…:)

Romans 8:13 “For he [i.e. the civil authority] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

The three main purposes of criminal punishment, according to most theoretical discussions of the subject, are incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. The last consideration is often criticized as barbaric and (inexplicably, in my view; see above) contrary to Christian ethics.

I tend to think barbarism, so-called, has more going for it — if nothing else, its frank honesty — than it gets credit for. More to the point, I believe that if justice is not retributive — if a government sanction is motivated by nothing more than the moral-content-free, utilitarian notions of incapacitation and deterrence — then it is not actually “justice.” It is simply government policy — the State seeking its ends by whatever means necessary. But ironically, divorcing the “justice system” from the moral character of justice, doesn’t just mean the government shies away from primitive tribal notions like the death penalty. There’s also the possibility (if the law and morality have nothing to do with each other, and it’s all just a public-choice-theory utilitarian calculus) of the law imposing sanctions for people’s acts, regardless of the acts’ moral content. Thus we get abominations like the proliferation of regulatory felonies and “strict liabiity” offenses.

Tethering law to retributive justice doesn’t just mean that people are sometimes punished more than would technically be necessary to incapacitate them, or provide a deterrent example. (Most of the savages who commit violent crimes aren’t intelligent enough to really be deterred anyway.) It’s also a protection against being subjected to criminal sanction simply because it serves the interest of the state to do so — a guarantee that a person isn’t in danger from the law unless he’s actually doing evil. (See Romans 8:13, above.)

It’s my turn now to apologize for a first-degree aggravated threadjack with special circumstances. Although there are some fascinating overlaps between the concepts of retributive justice and moral accountability, the actual subject of the thread.

As for that, I agree with kuri. I think it is a misinterpretation to assume that God the Father, in the absence of an appropriate plan for his myriad children, asked for suggestions from which 2 emerged. The plan existed from the beginning to allot us our agency. God asked for someone to send, and then a contrasting idea was presented by Lucifer in an effort to gain glory. We, on earth, just weren’t down widdat so we sent’im packin’.

Nevertheless, loved the post. It would be interesting to examine this idea in the context of D&C 76 where the descriptions of those who end up in the various degrees is given (re testimony of Jesus, etc.).

I think first and second degree murder and manslaughter are legal terms and thus should be irrelevant in justifying a killing in God’s eyes. It should be quite possible to be convicted of first degree murder yet stand justified before God, or to be convicted of manslaughter (or acquitted, or not even prosecuted) yet still be condemned in his eyes.

Thomas,

But doesn’t that logic make it illegitimate for us to impose retributive justice, whether individually or even collectively, through the vehicle of the State?

It certainly does seem to suggest that revenge is an improper motive when imposing justice.

There is an assembly or council or whatever, but there is no formal presentation of competing plans in the text. One plan is presented, and the Father asks who he should send to handle it. Jehovah says, “Send me, I’ll do it your way and give you the glory,” and Lucifer says, “Send me, and I’ll save everyone, so give me all the glory.” The Father says, “OK, Jehovah, you do it.” Lucifer gets angry, rebels, and is cast out by Jehovah along with his followers.

So I don’t think there’s anything in the text that rises to the level of presenting two competing plans. Lucifer wants to modify the existing plan to his own advantage (destroy human agency and usurp God’s power), but that’s not really the same as Jehovah says, “Here’s my plan,” and Lucifer says, “Here’s my plan” (and, when people take the idea and run with it, there’s some sort of “vote” and the majority wins).

Abr 3:24: And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down

If Jehovah stood among them (the souls that were good) then that hints at some degree of assembly. If Lucifer had many follow him “at that day” they were likely either part of the assembly or at least near by.

I read that as somewhat supportive of assembled masses.

Moses 4:1: And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

If Lucifer came before the Lord God and offered to redeem all mankind, that suggests some degree of a presentation.

Moses 4:2: But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

This suggests to me that Jehovah did not make a presentation, but supported the plan given by the Father and volunteered to be the Savior of the world.

I am always amazed by the hold this idea of two people (Christ and Lucifer) making “presentations” of “their” plans to the assembled masses has on the Mormon imagination, when the text says nothing like that.

“Ultimately, the Lord has told us “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay”. So we’re probably better off leaving vengeance to the Lord, who is the only one we can trust to fully understand the situation.”

But doesn’t that logic make it illegitimate for us to impose retributive justice, whether individually or even collectively, through the vehicle of the State?

The reason we frown upon revenge killing in civilized society is not only because it pre-empts our justice system, but also because we run the risk of killing the wrong person, or perhaps the right person for the wrong reason. In either case, we then become guilty of shedding innocent blood, making the revenge killing first degree murder.

Ultimately, the Lord has told us “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay”. So we’re probably better off leaving vengeance to the Lord, who is the only one we can trust to fully understand the situation.

The fundamentalist (Terry Boyle) bemoaned the fall of Adam because we as humans couldn’t be trusted with the burden of choice. Everything would have worked out if God been allowed to control our agency. I was surprised at how much closer we are to the very liberal John Shelby Sponge. He emphasized that agency was critical component of becomming fully human (divine in our perspective). The more I learn about the broad range of Christian perspectives on agency, the more I appreciate Doestevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor.

brjones makes my point probably more calmly than I did. The point (which apparently needs repeating) is not “let’s go out and hang the animal who raped and murdered Anne Pressly because the wussy jury only imposed life.” (Enough of the rule of law still exists in this country that that would be wrong: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes.”) It is simply this: To declare, painting with a broad brush, that any killing not formally authorized by a judicial officer is “murder” and amounts to “rejecting God” — without accounting for different circumstances from ours — is to make an unrighteous judgment. I like to think that I — even in California, where I do believe the government has come perilously close to illegitimately abdicating its responsibility to do justice to murderers — would not be driven to seek the life of the murderer of a loved one. But I would not dare to judge someone to whom that case is more than a hypothetical.

The State has no inherent rights that human beings do not possess individually, before delegating them to government. When government materially breaches the social contract, the rights delegated devolve back upon the people, who may justly exercise them. That is why the Mormons in Missouri resorted to “vigilante” justice, and why they were justified in doing so.

I also apologize for the threadjack and will now be quiet.

I’m sorry if this lacks nuance.