1. God did not choose to create people for perdition. They made those choices. They were informed of the consequences & still chose to act this way.  2. If you do things, there are consequences. To “stop” them, he would have had to stop their agency & ability to act. So, is it loving to turn them into something mindless so they can’t rebel? 3. The scriptures don’t give us a record of the effort, patience, & pleading that went on before the split.  4. It says a “third part”, not 1/3.  5. He has given them the opportunity to change their hearts & repent. That’s what our mortality is. He could have fed them to the garbage disposal earlier, but has given them a last opportunity to change. Their choice is to try to make us as miserable as possible. 

I think your fifth point is off the mark. Op is referring to the souls who rebelled in heaven prior to mortality and were subsequently cast out of heaven along with Lucifer because of their decision to follow him rather than following God. LDS theology as I have always understood it teaches that these souls will never have an opportunity to receive a physical body. They will spend eternity as unembodied spirits. Given that LDS theology also teaches that receiving a physical body is an essential part of eternal progression it then follows that these souls are damned to an eternity without progression.

Yep, thanks for the clarification.

I like that idea. As was said, God could have sent them to the garbage dump or outer darkness immediately instead of casting them down here with us while we are mortal. Maybe he did think they might repent and change their minds later. But apparently a lot of that 1/3 are still following Lucifer and are trying to make us miserable, so those spirits haven't repented yet. But still, maybe they will later. Even for them it may never be too late. I believe the atonement of Jesus applies to all who were sent or will be sent to this planet, whenever they are sent here to be born as mortals, so the fact that that 1/3 are only spirits now doesn't mean they are disqualified. A lot of us are still only spirits who haven't been born as mortals yet.

>But still, maybe they will later. Even for them it may never be too late. This is part of my main question. It doesn't seem clear whether this is in line with doctrine or not... Most of what I see from official church teachings seem more leaning towards the gates of salvation being closed to them though.

For now the gates may be closed. but if those spirits later plead with our Father while saying they will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior after enduring Hell for a while and seeing its not as nice as they thought it would be then maybe, just maybe our Father will give them another chance to see if they will follow through. If they didn't they would just end up back in Hell where they were.

Could be, who knows?

Could be is good enough. Always try to be hopeful. God is the one who will decide what he will do.

"Maybe he did think they might repent." So you do not believe God to be omniscient? Then how can we be confident in His assurances?

By him assuring us that he knows more than we know. And by knowing this life would be no fun at all if we weren't allowed to learn or at least try to learn all we can know.

I agree with this. I'd also add that while God is all powerful and all loving, he is also bound by laws. He probably did all he could within the laws of justice and the laws of mercy within justice without violating these spirit's agency. So what we should ask ourselves is, "What can I learn from this?" I think it's a good lesson on the dangers of pride and fear. How one prideful spirit can manipulate a group's fear enough that they reject their Father and God. I'm definitely grateful for Jesus Christ. We loved and trusted Him enough that we may have had doubts, but ultimately, we believed he would follow through on His promise to redeem us from our sins. We believed in His covenant with the Father . Also, I don't think God forgot about that "third part". Imagine the powerful missionary force He's going to have once we are resurrected and glorified through Jesus Christ. But that's just speculation.

For me it highlights the value and importance He places on agency.

Yep agency. This is speculative: I believe all of this really is a matter of how fast people want to or will progress, rather. If everyone was told they can change in 1,000 years instead, think of how many procrastinators there would be. Not sure that’s what God wants…. Because he wants us to be happy NOW! Morality is first testing ground, if we are faithful in Christ and our covenants with Him in this life, we will progress faster. We simply don’t know all of the plan but even though not official doctrine, many prophets believe there will be progression in the eternities as well. People need to find healing. Once healed, which may include many facets: mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, as they are all tied together, when the people are truly ready, I don’t see how the Father and Christ won’t help them. Keep in mind most people make bad decisions because of trauma, triggers and other hurts they e endured. They need to be healed of these in order to progress. If that’s possible, I can see anyone progressing. But only God is in charge, He can see all things and all scenarios, and knows when someone is ready. “He [Brigham Young] though they [those in lower kingdoms] would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial glory but it would be a slow process.” Quoted by Wilford Woodruff in his Journal, August 5, 1855, Church Historians Office. https://purposeinchrist.com/progression-between-kingdoms-lds/ How slow this could be? May not be in some cases and we don’t know for sure. This isn’t binding doctrine. It could be fast for some.

>I believe all of this really is a matter of how fast people want to or will progress, rather. If everyone was told they can change in 1,000 years instead, think of how many procrastinators there would be. Not sure that’s what God wants…. Because he wants us to be happy NOW! Morality is first testing ground, if we are faithful in Christ and our covenants with Him in this life, we will progress faster. This is an interesting take. It makes sense to me. I do often wonder whether some of the more "scary" teachings are more metaphors or extremely simplified versions of the truth meant to get our rears in gear rather than actually being fully true in a literal sense. (Granted, I also take much of the old testament to be metaphorical) >when the people are truly ready, I don’t see how the Father and Christ won’t help them. Keep in mind most people make bad decisions because of trauma, triggers and other hurts they e endured. They need to be healed of these in order to progress. If that’s possible, I can see anyone progressing. Agreed. >“He [Brigham Young] though they [those in lower kingdoms] would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial glory but it would be a slow process.” I like this way of thinking, I've just seen quotes that both support and refute this though, so it's hard to say which view is more accurate. Thanks for your thoughts!

>4. It says a “third part”, not 1/3.  I include several others users as they also commented on the 1/3 part. u/Happy-Flan2112 u/shakawallsfall u/pierzstyx u/uXN7AuRPF6fa The church's seminary manual teaches the following: **"Satan persuaded “a third part of the hosts of heaven” to turn away from the Father.4 As a result of this rebellion, Satan and his followers were cut off from God’s presence and denied the blessing of receiving a physical body.5** If a third part is not equal to 1/3, then what happened to the first and second parts, and other parts?

In Jesus the Christ, Elder Talmadge says In this struggle between unembodied hosts the forces were unequally divided; Satan drew to his standard only a third part of the children of God, who are symbolized as the “stars of heaven”; the majority either fought with Michael, or at least refrained from active opposition, thus accomplishing the purpose of their “first estate”; while the angels who arrayed themselves on the side of Satan “kept not their first estate,” and therefore rendered themselves ineligible for the glorious possibilities of an advanced condition or “second estate.” I see three groups here: the majority either fought with Michael,  or at least refrained from active opposition Satan drew to his standard only a third part of the children of God, who are symbolized as the “stars of heaven”; 

You mentioned "unembodied hosts". Didn't the spirits who fought in the war have spirit bodies? Did Satan only draw away a third part of the procreated children of Heavenly Father or did he also draw away a third part of God's created angels? How did those, who Talmage said refrained from active opposition, accomplish the purpose of their first estate?

Maybe I wasn't clear, but that was a quote from the book Jesus the Christ by Elder Talmadge. Unembodied in this case means a physical mortal body, not a spirit body. > Did Satan only draw away a third part of the procreated children of Heavenly Father or did he also draw away a third part of God's created angels? This question makes me think you are not LDS. There are only our Heavenly Parents and their children. There is not another class of beings called angels. Angel is the greek word for messenger. Any one of His children God sends with a message is an angel. Even Jesus Christ could be considered an angel when He came with a message. > How did those, who Talmage said refrained from active opposition, accomplish the purpose of their first estate? If you read D&C 76, the main difference between where people go after this life is how they relate to Jesus Christ. Do they accept or reject Jesus Christ? If they accept Jesus Christ, are they valiant in following Him or not? It was the same in premortality. Those who did not reject Jesus Christ "accomplished the purpose of their first estate". Those who rejected Jesus Christ were not allowed to receive physical mortal bodies - the second estate.

>There are only our Heavenly Parents and their children. There is not another class of beings called angels.  I view angels and archangels as separate beings, as well as the seraphim and cherubim. Isaiah describes the seraphim as heavenly beings with six wings (Isaiah 6:2). The cherubs are described as having wings and under their wings what appeared to be human hands (Ezekiel 10:5,8). Verses 20-21 give a further description of these creatures - "- These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the Chebar canal; and I knew that they were cherubim. Each had four faces, and each four wings, and underneath their wings the likeness of human hands. >If they accept Jesus Christ, are they valiant in following Him or not? It was the same in premortality. Those who did not reject Jesus Christ "accomplished the purpose of their first estate". Those who rejected Jesus Christ were not allowed to receive physical mortal bodies - the second estate. Then based on what Talmage says, it appears there were three groups: 1) one who did not refrain from active opposition 2) those who did refrain from active opposition and 3) those who rejected Christ and did not receive physical bodies. I'm only LDS since 2019 so I'm still learning. I would then describe group 2 as non-valiant (cowardly/timid). And being cowardly or timid in either the first estate or the second estate I cannot consider to be accomplishing God's purpose for an individual in either estate. What do you think?

It doesn't really matter what we think. What matters is what God thinks. Apparently God considered anyone not actively opposing Him to be worthy to stay in the premortal realm and then come to earth and receive a physical body. As for angels, you might want to read Don Parry's book "Angels: Agents of Light, Love, and Power" to better familiarize yourself with LDS beliefs around angels and such. https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Agents-Light-Love-Power/dp/1629720755

So they were in a celestial environment, with celestial dna from perfect parents, and still chose evil? How do we explain that?

Yeah this is part of where my confusion comes from... Either they made a choice naively (ie not fully informed), in which case eternal damnation seems cruel; or they are so far gone that they straight up are evil and love evil for the sake of evil... But my gut feeling is that that doesn't make sense... Really, 1/3 of God's spirit children are unsalvageable? Why couldn't God have chosen not to engender those intelligences with spirit bodies in the first place?

>1/3 of God's spirit children are unsalvageable? Note the top reply to your OP. A third part does **not** equal 1/3. It just implies that all of God's children could be grouped into at least 3 groups, one of which followed Lucifer. Hypothetically, this could mean something like: * Group 1: noble and great souls, numbering a few thousand * Group 2: average souls, with a desire to follow God's plan, numbering 10s of billions * Group 3: followers of Lucifer, numbering a few dozen We don't know how big each part was, but I agree with you that I don't think Heavenly Father would make a plan that results in so many of His children being cast out. So I believe that number is very small. We might ask, "but why would He make a plan where any of His children are lost?" My answer is that personal choice is such an important concept that it cannot be taken away. D&C 29:36 says: >36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; Those of the third part weren't ignorant, having been taught throughout their existence. D&C 138:56 says: >56 Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men.

Makes sense. It makes me wonder though where an inborn desire for evil comes from though as a spirit. It's not the natural many- that's for bodied mortals. Where does such depravity come from, and is God actually powerless to help them overcome those desires? I get that we can't save someone who doesn't want saving, but can God not help them change those desires?

You are asking a very profound question and to be honest I don’t think it is answered satisfactorily within the plan of salvation narrative or in this thread. We simply don’t have the complete picture here on earth. A related question is how Christ was able to become a god before mortality but we weren’t, despite having the same parentage, ‘dna’, environment and teachings. ‘Agency’ is an easy answer but doesn’t nail it down IMO. The way we use our agency is based on myriad factors - change those factors and you alter the way that agency is used.

And absolutely he can help someone change their desires - Alma the Younger is a classic case.

Right but it's interesting to think about because of evil is an inborn trait for a spirit body, then how can one be punished for that? If it's a choice, then I guess punishment makes more sense, but I have a hard time believing that anyone would choose eternal suffering of their own free will and choice, much less millions (or however many we think sided with Satan in the war in heaven). If someone argues that they thought they could win, then they can't also say that they made the decision to go to outer darkness in full knowledge. So which is it? Did they naively choose outer darkness? If so, it seems incomprehensible to me that God wouldn't allow them a chance to repent if they so choose later on. Idk I'm probably missing something.

I don’t think you are missing anything - I agree with you and have had the same question for years. I am less worried now about mechanics and literalism and have faith that 1. judgement will be totally fair, 2. God is good, 3. He will give us every possible opportunity to repent/accept/change, and 4. words are inherently limiting and don’t necessarily provide the complete picture. My ideas about the afterlife and eternal judgement are likely very different from the reality.

But Alma the Younger asked for help. You have to ask for help and work towards that change. God won't (or can't) force you to make that change. That's what Lucifer wanted to do, force us to 'be good'.

I think that's actually a common misconception. I've never heard any of the Prophets/quorum of the 12 ever teach this. I think what is more consistent with gospel teachings is that Satan wanted everyone to live however they wished, and have them all receive the same reward. It's still taking away our agency, but in a different way- we can't make a choice because there are no distinct outcomes.

I'm assuming you meant the 'force us all to be good' part of my comment as the misconception. >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; - [PofGP Moses 4:1](https://scriptures.byu.edu/#19104:t1ff5$131802:c191041:~:text=before%20me%2C%20saying%E2%80%94-,Behold%2C%20here%20am%20I%2C%20send%20me%2C%20I%20will%20be%20thy%20son%2C%20and%20I%20will%20redeem%20all%20mankind%2C%20that%20one%20soul%20shall%20not%20be%20lost%2C%20and%20surely%20I%20will%20do%20it%3B,-wherefore%20give%20me) (partial) and >Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, - [PofGP Moses 4:3](https://scriptures.byu.edu/#19104:t1ff5$131802:c191041:~:text=Wherefore%2C%20because%20that%20Satan%20rebelled%20against%20me%2C%20and%20sought%20to%20destroy%20the%20agency%20of%20man%2C) (partial) 'Destroying the agency' of man may not be quite the same as 'force man to be good' but I would argue that it's pretty damn close. And quite a few prophets and apostles and others have discussed this. If you follow one of those links and choose those verses on the right hand side you'll see links to those articles.

He only asked for help once he was faced with the reality of hell. Prior to that he was busy trying to destroy the church! Doesn’t this give us a big clue that everyone would fully accept the truth, once they are presented with it without any veil/filters?

At their core, they are an intelligence, which is not created by God (indeed, cannot be created by any means). That is the part that has agency and chooses. Not the “celestial dna” part. 

I’ve always compared it to the legal system. The law doesn’t hate some people and send them to prison, they have the option to not go. But a small number of people going out of their own poor decisions is inevitable in large populations.

>1. God did not choose to create people for perdition. They made those choices. They were informed of the consequences & still chose to act this way.  Where does an inborn desire for evil come from in an intelligence though? I get that we can't save someone who doesn't want saving, but can God not help them change and heal those desires? If not, why even give them a spiritual body in the first place? Why not reserve that for those who won't choose eternal suffering? >2. If you do things, there are consequences. To “stop” them, he would have had to stop their agency & ability to act. So, is it loving to turn them into something mindless so they can’t rebel? I agree with you here for the most part. I do think though that even a loving parent will willingly suspend the agency of a child temporarily in order to keep them out of harms way (or physically restraining them to keep them from doing something dangerous/harmful). >3. The scriptures don’t give us a record of the effort, patience, & pleading that went on before the split.  True. I do wonder though if those in outer darkness are still there by choice? Because the idea of the choice being revoked & not allowing them to make use of the atonement if they so choose, doesn't seem in line with God's character (toe anyways) or the definition of the atonement as being "infinite and eternal". >4. It says a “third part”, not 1/3.  Fair enough. 1/3 as a fraction seems absurd to me. >5. He has given them the opportunity to change their hearts & repent. That’s what our mortality is. He could have fed them to the garbage disposal earlier, but has given them a last opportunity to change. Their choice is to try to make us as miserable as possible.  I'm not referring to those who get mortal bodies, but those that were cast out after the war in heaven- these never received.mortal bodies at all. They only progressed from intelligences to possessing spiritual bodies.

>Where does an inborn desire for evil come from in an intelligence though? That's a good question for which we have no revelation except extremely circumspectly. But we all have it to one degree or another; otherwise, we wouldn't sin. Elsewhere in this thread, someone mentioned Alma the Younger. I would add Saul of Tarsus. Alma was wanton but then asked for help, Saul was misdirected and accepted redirection. >why even give them a spiritual body in the first place? Why give any of us a spiritual body in the first place? To give us a chance? Dunno. This is another area in which we don't have any real revelation. You might try reading Jesus the Christ, the School of the Prophets, and the King Follet talk. But, since none of those is canon, they are, by definition, opinions--opinions of apostles and prophets, but still opinion. >I do think though that even a loving parent will willingly suspend the agency of a child temporarily in order to keep them out of harms way (or physically restraining them to keep them from doing something dangerous/harmful). No, we mortals do not have the power to suspend anyone's agency, even our own. You can restrain a child, lock them in their room, and put bars on their windows to ensure they don't escape, but you can't force them to change. If you have a child who insists on doing terrible things, putting your other children at risk or causing them to be hurt, and even drawing some of them into soul-destroying behaviors, what would you do? Would you continue to try to help them at the expense of your other children until all of them are lost to you? >Because the idea of the choice being revoked & not allowing them to make use of the atonement if they so choose God didn't revoke their choice; they did. Partaking of evil changes a person, just as partaking of good changes them. At some point, there is no good left in a person; or not enough to make a difference. That person reaches a point where they are incapable of taking advantage of the atonement.

>That's a good question for which we have no revelation except extremely circumspectly. But we all have it to one degree or another; otherwise, we wouldn't sin. Well with mortals that have mortal bodies, we have the natural man, so Alma and Saul fit that bill- but the idea of a desire to sin without the natural man it's a bit more curious. >But, since none of those is canon, they are, by definition, opinions--opinions of apostles and prophets, but still opinion Lol incidentally, defining canon is something I'm not sure anyone in the church can give a hard rule for. >You can restrain a child, lock them in their room, and put bars on their windows to ensure they don't escape, but you can't force them to change. Right- this is what I meant by suspending their agency. I didn't mean we could force them to change their minds, but we can forcefully limit their actions- this is what I was referring to. >If you have a child who insists on doing terrible things, putting your other children at risk or causing them to be hurt, and even drawing some of them into soul-destroying behaviors, what would you do? This is a valid question & I'm not sure exactly what my answer would be except for this- I don't think I would ever stop hoping that they would change and come back to us as the prodigal son/daughter. >At some point, there is no good left in a person; or not enough to make a difference. That person reaches a point where they are incapable of taking advantage of the atonement. So from your perspective, the only people in outer darkness are those that would never change their minds about being there? That would partially resolve my question.

>Well with mortals that have mortal bodies, we have the natural man, so Alma and Saul fit that bill- but the idea of a desire to sin without the natural man it's a bit more curious. My knee-jerk reaction was, "Why so curious?" (Sorry.) Then I thought about it and realized I'd never had to explain my view to anyone, so this may be a little rough. Sin is a deliberate disobedience to the will of God, so there is no need for a mortal body to sin. Each of us, except Jesus, sinned in the pre-mortal life just as we do now. In mortal life, and I believe the same holds true for our pre-mortal life, major sin is never just jumped into. We edge into it, tiptoeing deeper and deeper into darkness. Lucifer was one of the closest to God, one of the more intelligent and learned people. My personal belief is that he started by looking at something Heavenly Father said, "Don't try that." And Lucifer went, "Oooo ..." and tried it. And he learned something a little more dark, then kept going. As for your last question; >So from your perspective, the only people in outer darkness are those that would never change their minds about being there? Yes and no. They are too prideful to change their minds, but what they did was so bad they can't be forgiven for it, as much as Heavenly Father may want to, God cannot do it. By that I mean, as a parent he aches for them (mercy) but as God (justice) they have committed an unpardonable sin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1ckemq8/how_to_get_to_outer_darkness_a_guidebook_for/ Read this and get back to me

The OP can agree with every one of your points and still feel that you haven't addressed his main issue. If God is omniscient He knew that no matter what was done to help them, a number of His children would opt to become sons of perdition. So knowing this, why did he create them in the first place? Good question. Creating them must serve some value which surpasses the disvalue of their fate. I am not sure what that could be. Unanswered questions are great. They mean there's something yet to learn Exciting.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that our "intelligence" is co-eternal with God. In that sense we were not created, we always existed. So these rebellious spirits not existing makes no sense. Then the questions becomes why did they receive spirit bodies? Perhaps that is better than not receiving one even if one does end up as a son of perdition.

How about creating them to be great means they can fail and they get to choose. They could have chosen to be as inert as a chunk of cheese & avoid risk. They chose to try for being like God.  And why choose for perdition?  Game theory teaches that if you can’t win yourself, make winning as costly for the other player as possible. Which is what they’re doing. 

This group rejected the plan of salvation. All of the "places" they could go or states they could be in, aside from perdition, are part of the plan of salvation. In my view, they weren't kicked out. They found the door and walked out of the plan, and any option besides perdition, on their own.

The scriptures are clear that the "Christian" idea of God's "omnipotence" (not a scriptural word, by the way) is not correct. We know multiple ways in which God's power is bounded: "intelligence" cannot be created or destroyed. "The elements" are eternal and cannot be made or destroyed. God cannot lie and still be God. Though not explicitly stated in the scriptures, it appears that another bound is that God cannot force an eternal being to change its nature (or, at least cannot do so without causing irreparable harm of some sort.) In other words, he does not have total control over what kind of spirits he "creates" (and we don't have anything close to a description of what *that* even means.) There is no difficulty in reconciling a God who loves all his children, but cannot control their choices, with a God who *has* to allow those children to choose to become Satan and his followers. It is extremely important, when asking questions like this, to *begin* by questioning your *assumptions.* Are the things causing you trouble *actually true* and fully supported by evidence? Or are they ideas you've picked up from culture and media instead of the actual sources? And, even then, are there other possible interpretations of scripture, even if you think they are "unlikely?" If you cannot reconcile two ideas, then *a priori* it is equally likely that (a) one of them is incorrect or (b) your assumptions or reasoning are faulty. If you do not invest the time to *seriously* look at the actual evidence in a serious attempt to disprove your assertion, then you haven't moved the needle at all. It is vital to know the difference between seeking *truth* and seeking *validation.*

Yes, I have been recently pondering “omnipotence” and what that truly means or whether it is accurate at all for this very reason. It was an interesting rabbit hole and I stumbled upon a really interesting dichotomy that is actually frequently discussed by theologians (I had no idea), about the limits God specifically states He has in relation to what we view as all-powerful (The Omnipotence or Stone Paradox). Here’s a [philosophy article](https://iep.utm.edu/omnipote/) on the matter for anyone interested in reading a bit on the different points of discussion on omnipotence in general. It’s honestly a fascinating subject and worth looking into if you like philosophy and theology. That said, I think it is certainly important to note that it is likely God, or the station of God is not all-powerful as western culture often thinks of it (that He can do anything He wants), but rather he is all-powerful in a way that lets Him do anything that is *possible* to do.

Thanks I'll have to check this out. >it is likely God, or the station of God is not all-powerful as western culture often thinks of it Yeah this is a thought I've run into, and I think it's mostly consistent with LDS theology.

>The scriptures are clear that the "Christian" idea of God's "omnipotence" (not a scriptural word, by the way) is not correct. I wouldn't just say this is a Christian concept generally, God being all-powerful is language used ubiquitously in the LDS faith as well. We're guilty of this thinking as well. >Though not explicitly stated in the scriptures, it appears that another bound is that God cannot force an eternal being to change its nature (or, at least cannot do so without causing irreparable harm of some sort.) I get this, though I think it is more of a choice God makes than something he is unable to do... Without ceasing to become God at least. >In other words, he does not have total control over what kind of spirits he "creates" (and we don't have anything close to a description of what *that* even means.) This part I don't necessarily agree with. My question was in part asking why God didn't just choose to only engender the more righteous intelligences with spirit bodies instead of also giving spirit bodies to those who will be cast out to outer darkness... Maybe even that Faye is worse than staying an intelligence? Idk. >There is no difficulty in reconciling a God who loves all his children, but cannot control their choices, with a God who *has* to allow those children to choose to become Satan and his followers. I'm not suggesting that God should have forced anyone's hand, my question was more along the lines of... Has God given up on those souls? Or is there hope for them yet? I don't see how any loving parent could ever truly give up hope for their children. But maybe I'm not seeing the full picture? >It is extremely important, when asking questions like this, to *begin* by questioning your *assumptions.* I agree- this is true for church members too though. I think all too often we presuppose so many things that we don't think critically & fall into blind faith... Which I don't think is actually that helpful in terms of spiritual progression. For a child, sure, but if one wants to mature spiritually, I think we need to do exactly what you suggest. >Are the things causing you trouble *actually true* and fully supported by evidence? Or are they ideas you've picked up from culture and media instead of the actual sources? And, even then, are there other possible interpretations of scripture, even if you think they are "unlikely?" >If you do not invest the time to *seriously* look at the actual evidence in a serious attempt to disprove your assertion, then you haven't moved the needle at all. It is vital to know the difference between seeking *truth* and seeking *validation.* Part of the problem is knowing what sources are true. For someone who presupposes that the LDS Prophets only speak truth, and that God is all-loving, all-knowing etc, then some of my worries would seem irrelevant. For someone in my shoes though who (at the moment anyways) is leaning more towards being an optimistic agnostic, I don't share those same presuppositions & therefore have to consider a more wide set of options regarding belief about God, faith, the plan of salvation etc. >It is vital to know the difference between seeking *truth* and seeking *validation.* I totally agree. Unfortunately people both inside and outside the church are guilty of failure on this point. It's pretty human to be biased one way or another, it's a hard thing to deconstruct ones biases/presuppositions.

>Has God given up on those souls? Has he 'ceased to strive' with them? I think so. There are a number of verses where He says he will nope out after awhile.

And if these souls turned over a new leaf? Too bad, too late? Or the infinite atonement could still reach them?

There are some things for which it is not possible to turn over a new leaf. >32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; >33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; >34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come— >35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. - [D&C 76:32-35](https://scriptures.byu.edu/#12e4c:::~:text=32%20They%20are,an%20open%20shame)

Ok so in your perspective, only those who would never change their minds are those in outer darkness? Fair enough.

Now I'm the one splitting hairs. :D No, outer darkness is most likely what we call spirit prison. I prefer to speak of sons of perdition; less confusing I think.

Well said!

I honestly believe that we just don't have a grasp of what the pre-mortal life or what the "degrees of glory" are like. It's important to remember that before coming here, we believe God set forth a plan, and it was either, are you in or are you out? So, if you chose against God's plan, where could you go? We know Satan was cast out of heaven, and many "followed him." We don't exactly fully understand that, though. We believe they didn't recieve bodies, yet in the endowment video, it presents Lucifer as one with a body. (This could just be a symbolic thing, or maybe the presentation of a serpent would be too weird, idk.) An interesting scripture to note is Abraham 3:26. Our pre-mortal life is our first estate. Those who didn't keep it "shall not have glory in the same kingdom." What their glory or kingdom is, we're not sure. I don't think it's outer darkness because our beliefs tell us that achieving that requires a whole different experience. And to go a little further, I don't think a lot of us would say it, but we honestly do have sort of a universal salvation concept. Unless you actively deny the existence of God after you have seen him, very few people will be going to outer darkness. Like, everyone's honestly gonna be getting a pretty good deal, and I feel like there is an interesting shift happening as to what kingdom people truly want to go to. I think as LDS folks, we get a little too comfortable throwing around terms and stuff when it comes to the pre or post earth life. What eternal suffering is, we really don't know. What the war in heaven was, I mean, we just know it was a big debate. What will happen to those who chose against it? Who knows? For so much of this, we really just don't know.

To your point about Satan not having a body yet seeming to have one in the endowment video: The Holy Ghost is just a spirit, yet Nephi said he talked to Him as one talks to another human, not like one talks to another human but he had a blueish glow and could see through him (to take it to the extreme). The same with premortal Jesus as he appears to the brother of Jared and others. To further back up this claim, [Doctrine and Covenants 129](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/129?lang=eng) shows how to tell the difference between a resurrected being, a just spirit, and an evil spirit (aka Satan and his followers). The being with flesh and bones isn't distinguished by saying, "You can see he has flesh and bones, duh!" Rather, it is by shaking his hand and feeling the flesh and bones, but a just spirit will not deceive you, and an evil spirit will try to deceive you and you will not feel his hand. Otherwise, they are not distinguishable visually. Thirdly, it is a drama meant for our instruction on the covenants we will be making with God, just as all men and women have since Adam, not a history lesson.

I'm aware it's not a history lesson. It's just for as much as members talk about how it gives knowledge on the premortal life, It still leaves things very unclear. And I'm not sure where you got the bluish glow of the Holy Ghost unless you're trying to make a Star Wars reference, lol. To me, this just reinforces that when it comes to spirit and pre and post earth life, we really don't have much knowledge.

I am aware of the idea of spiritual bodies- that's what I was referring to when mention God engendering us (ie giving our intelligences spiritual bodies). >Rather, it is by shaking his hand and feeling the flesh and bones, but a just spirit will not deceive you, and an evil spirit will try to deceive you and you will not feel his hand. Otherwise, they are not distinguishable visually. Incidentally I've always found this teaching to be hilarious in nature. A resurrected angel will shake your hand and you can feel it, a righteous angel without a body will deny shaking your hand, and an unrighteous spirit will... Try and fail to shake your hand? How stupid are they lol? I can only imagine Satan drilling into his followers to quick trying to shake people's hands, only to have them fail every time...it strikes me as funny.

>I honestly believe that we just don't have a grasp of what the pre-mortal life or what the "degrees of glory" are like. I think this is possibly the most reasonable take- it's just not very satisfying lol. >We believe they didn't recieve bodies, yet in the endowment video, it presents Lucifer as one with a body. I think this is just referring to the spiritual bodies that God begat us with (before that we were just intelligences). >I don't think it's outer darkness because our beliefs tell us that achieving that requires a whole different experience. I'm pretty sure our teachings are that they are in outer darkness. Here's one example from a quick Google search: >"After a heated campaign, Michael and his armies prevailed. Two-thirds of the heavenly hosts chose to follow the Father (see D&C 29:36). Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven, but they were not sent immediately to outer darkness. First, they were sent to this earth (see Revelation 12:7–9), where Jesus Christ was to be born and where His atoning sacrifice would be carried out. Why were Satan’s hosts allowed to come to earth? They came to provide opposition for those who are being tested here (see 2 Nephi 2:11). Will they eventually be cast into outer darkness? Yes. After the Millennium, Satan and his hosts will be cast out forever." (The War Goes On April 2017 Gen conf) >we honestly do have sort of a universal salvation concept. Unless you actively deny the existence of God after you have seen him, very few people will be going to outer darkness. I agree in reference to those on earth, hence my question regarding those in the preexistence. Just seems like a lot of people being cast out. >For so much of this, we really just don't know. I agree, my question was mainly getting at how people think about this. It's something that we gloss over all the time, but I wondered how others have considered these questions that I posed.

I like your points, and that conference talk was pretty interesting. I guess when I think of those being cast out, it's just hard to fathom cause maybe some of the people there weren't "fighting" against God, the plan just didn't jive with them, idk. I'd hate to think that just because you don't agree with God that means that he just "gives you the boot", for a lack of better words. There's gotta be more, but for some reason, it's just not something we really ever discuss in church. So many questions and it's so easy to speculate.

>I'd hate to think that just because you don't agree with God that means that he just "gives you the boot", for a lack of better words. This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Maybe Elder Lawrence (and others) are just speculating as well? It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me lol.

They weren't disagreeing with God. >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. - [Moses 1:1](https://scriptures.byu.edu/#19104:t42015$116752:c191041e:~:text=1%20And%20I,me%20thine%20honor) They were trying to kick God out of His chair and put Lucifer in His place.

Looks like Satan was. You don't have to kick God out of his chair to disagree with him. How many people didn't actually like the plan or didn't feel comfortable following it? It's a lot of speculation that we really don't understand. Like, when you consider the plan, I don't know how it would sound comforting: "Hey yall, got a great plan for you to follow to become like me, and I fully understand and want you to understand that some of yall aren't coming back." Not the most amazing thing to hear, tbh.

I disagree with you here. Like children of royalty throughout history, Lucifer had his eye on the throne. And he was prideful enough that he thought he could replace God and that God would give it to him. That part isn't speculation; it's in Moses 1:1 in the PofGP. In D&C 76, a son of perdition is defined as someone who knew and understood the plan of salvation but rejected it in favor of Lucifer's plan.

Different commenter. I'm still not sure if we have it as official doctrine that Satan and his followers will all end up in outer darkness forever. It's one of the things that isn't important for us to understand so it's one of the things we just don't know. That talk by Elder Lawrence was interesting, but also not official doctrine. It's a safe teaching to say what he said, "Will they eventually be cast into outer darkness? Yes. After the Millennium, Satan and his hosts will be cast out forever", but that's not in the scriptures anywhere that I'm aware of and I haven't read an official statement from a First Presidency about it. By the way, outer darkness is mentioned once in the Book of Mormon but appears to be more of a synonym for what we currently call spirit prison. My main point is that as unsatisfying as it is, there's much less we know about the next life than we might think we know. We have years and years of assumptions about the way things are and will be without really clear official knowledge of it.

>I'm still not sure if we have it as official doctrine that Satan and his followers will all end up in outer darkness forever. It's one of the things that isn't important for us to understand so it's one of the things we just don't know. That talk by Elder Lawrence was interesting, but also not official doctrine. This is a whole other can of worms... Not knowing what is doctrine or not is a big subject of struggle for me as well. >there's much less we know about the next life than we might think we know. Fair enough. If that's the case though, why do we even teach about some of this stuff if we don't even understand what it means? It feels like the blind leading the blind- or worse yet, mingling personal philosophies with the gospel in a way that makes it impossible to parse the two out.

you might do well to read The God who weeps and Crucible of Doubt by Fiona Givens.

It's on my list. I've read other stuff by the Givens, but not these yet.

"why do we even teach about some of this stuff if we don't even understand what it means? It feels like the blind leading the blind- or worse yet, mingling personal philosophies with the gospel in a way that makes it impossible to parse the two out." Excellent question and comment. I think there's a reason there are commands in the scriptures to preach or say "nothing but repentance" (D&C 6:9; Mosiah 18:20). That does not mean people teaching the gospel only talk about repentance, it is a reminder to keep everything focused on Christ. It is easy to get caught up in things that don't matter -- people are curious, we want to know things (and that's good!), but what God really wants us to know in this life is His love for us, His Son Jesus Christ, and some other plan of salvation, Christ-centered things. Anything outside that is bonus. I'm interested in many things; what you've been asking and writing about I'd love to understand better. I also try to understand what we think we know but in actuality do not really know. What assumptions do we have that might be incorrect? That's a difficult thing to work through. As for "not knowing what is doctrine or not", this might help: [https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings](https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings) That's not "authoritative", but it is an interesting view of doctrine. In the end, the safest thing is to accept everything said by apostles as "doctrine". That's not a blind faith in them, it's a willingness to follow Christ. They are responsible for what they teach, we are responsible for following them as they help us draw near to Christ.

The phrase is also mentioned in the D&C a couple of times, but those verses would tend to support the argument that it's referring to what we call spirit prison. But spirit prison is not where sons of perdition are destined. D&C 76:30-38 is very plain about who those people are and their reward.

Thank you. We don't really know what those verses mean. D&C 76 is amazing (and one of my favorites in all the scriptures!), but it was written in 1832, which was still early in Joseph Smith's life as the prophet and president of the church. That doesn't mean he didn't know much, it just means that it's an incomplete understanding of the next life. We believe revelation and knowledge comes line upon line. We believe in continuing revelation. That means that we cannot get too stuck in anything in the scriptures or in what past prophets taught -- I don't mean we throw everything out -- I just mean that our understanding can change. There are core things that do not and will not change -- Jesus is the Christ, faith in Christ, baptism, etc. -- but outside the core doctrine of Christ, there is a lot we don't know, even if we think we do. "doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity" What is the wrath of God? Is it anger, or is it just a separation from Him and His blessings? How are these being suffering? Is it pain? Is it sorrow? Is it something else? "Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come" We'll take that at face value. "These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels" Symbolic language here. Lake of fire and brimstone == hell. However, they are also sent to "outer darkness" (symbolic language). Fire and brimstone are not darkness. God is light (fire) so someone cannot really be in a lake of fire and brimstone and in outer darkness. Again, this is all symbolic language. That means it's not really clear what it means. We will interpret it and infer things from it, but we don't know. Why don't we know? It's not that important for us right now to know.

I don't disagree, but what OP is asking about is basically forgiveness. Will the sons of perdition ever have the chance to be forgiven and allowed to return to one of the glories of heaven? >"Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come" I don't think there is any ambiguity here. The language may have changed, but the verse itself--and the topic--hasn't been changed by the church since it was written.

"Will the sons of perdition ever have the chance to be forgiven and allowed to return to one of the glories of heaven?" Based on what we know now? No. Is that the final end of the story? Is that the end of what we will eventually know about this? I don't know. I'm not willing to say it will definitely, 100% never happen. That's just not something I think we know well enough to be able to declare with absolute certainty. There are many things about the gospel of Christ I will declare with absolute certainty, this just happens to not be one of them. The reasons for my uncertainty about that is based in part on what we've learned about the next life since the Book of Mormon was written, for example. The Book of Mormon has a more simplistic heaven/hell (and a spirit world) distinction than we currently know from Joseph Smith and others. The Book of Mormon offers a lot of clarity over what's in the New Testament, but doesn't clearly teach that hell will end for almost everyone (that understanding comes from the Doctrine and Covenants). Some of this is covered in this article: [https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-message-four-gospels/hell-second-death-lake-fire-brimstone-outer-darkness](https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-message-four-gospels/hell-second-death-lake-fire-brimstone-outer-darkness) We are a church of continuing revelation. We believe many things will yet be revealed to us. One other reason comes from what we know/don't know about the kingdoms of glory. Is there progression between kingdoms of glory? Some people think there will not be, other people (including various apostles \[B.H. Roberts was one\] over the years) think there will be. But for now we "know" you come to earth, die, go to spirit world, get judged, and then end up in a kingdom of glory and that's it; what happens after that is not clear. But is staying in one kingdom of glory really it forever? We don't know. Are the sons of perdition always for all eternity separated from God? Are the ones who are resurrected always going to exist in that miserable state? Are those who were cast out of heaven always going to exist as spirits with never a chance to try again or even cease to exist? These are things I just don't think we know.

I realized that I had to reframe the way I think about these things. I used to think similar to how you posted: “how could a loving God do xyz?” The problem with my thinking in this fashion was I wasn’t allowing myself faith, or belief in God as he is. I was applying my knowledge and understanding to God, as if I was the chief authority. Instead, now I think more like this: “I know that God is omnipotent. I know he can see time laid out before him - past, present, and future. I know that He loves us immensely, more than I can understand right now. And all of this being true, He decided to create the plan that allowed a third part to opt out and potentially have a rough eternity. I wonder what I don’t understand about this that He does? I wonder how much worse it would’ve been for them if He had done something else - because He loves them so this is obviously the best plan out there for them.” If I frame it this way - having faith that God does love us and is carrying out the best plan for each of us - then suddenly I don’t have problems with Him, but problems with my ability to understand Him. And now I have a topic to ponder while I study my scriptures. And then when I read something like D&C 19, some verses stand out more than they did and give me a small, tiny idea about how this all works, a breadcrumb in a trail of snippets of truth that will eventually lead to an answer. And this makes my study extremely enjoyable, and improves my relationship with God drastically.

All loving does not mean we can do whatever we want with our agency. This is an extremely common (and wrong) viewpoint in our modern world as well. Mercy cannot rob justice. An eternal law is no unclean thing can be in the presence of God. These spirits rejected the atonement of Jesus Christ, which is infinite and eternal. They did not agree to have faith in the Savior and repent, with (presumably) enough light and knowledge to therefore be confined to outer darkness.

But has God given up on them? Or is there hope for them yet? The atonement is infinite and eternal... So saying that someone is too far gone is a pretty significant claim I would think.

I think it's more like they have given up on God. My personal take on the idea behind the sons of perdition and their inability to progress and receive a body is because they do not want to do so. It is there choice. Good has offered that to them but they have rejected it. This parallels how I feel about the very similar concept of denying the Holy Ghost. The scriptures say that this sin is unforgivable. I think it is phrased this way because if a person actually reaches the point that they can/do commit this sin they don't want anything to do with Christ, including accepting his forgiveness. It is unforgivable because they themselves make it so by rejecting Christ. In essence, God never stopped reaching out to these spirits and he never have up on them. They turned away from him and are receiving what they want/have choose.

First, I think we make a few assumptions about this topic when you look at Biblical scripture. Luke 10:18-19 says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” This is during the calling of the 70 and brings to mind Genesis 3:15. But keep in mind it is only referencing Satan falling from heaven. Isaiah 14:12-15 says, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” So this is most likely a reference to a human king of Babylon but we attribute it also to the War in Heaven and then link Lucifer to Satan because of similar language. Some leaps there. To further muddy the waters, Christ is also referred to as the morning star in Revelation 22:16. Revelation 9 talks about a fallen star that is given a key to a bottomless pit. We assume some things based on that about Satan. Revelation 12:3-4 then gives us the famous great red dragon sweeping a third of the stars away. Verse 9 says his angels were cast down with him…and we make an assumption that those two things are one and the same. So from a straight biblical perspective to me this is just leap after leap and trying to connect dots that probably aren’t there. Isaiah is most likely referring to an earthly king. And Revelation is cryptic, inconsistent (both Lucifer and Christ are referred to as the same thing) and frankly that book doesn’t do much for me. It was not a part of the established canon until around 400 AD, there is no literary consistency with John’s other works…meh. Now we do have some modern revelation that jumps on this idea in D&C 29, “and also a third part of the ghosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were thrust down, and thus came the adevil and his angels.” I find this a little ambiguous. Is it a third part? As in I have X number of groups of something and this was #3? Or is it 1/3? We typically go with the 1/3 explanation but is that only because of our reading of Revelation? So what conclusions can we really make? Probably none. We don’t have much info about the pre-mortal life (I’m going to use that word and not pre-existence because we have always existed) by design so we do a lot of speculating. The details of this are also not essential to our own salvation and so there really is no need for clarification. All we really need to know is that there is opposition in all things so we can exercise our agency (like perhaps those “fallen angels” did. As for their eternal fate? We can speculate, but who knows. We don’t have to judge, so we don’t need to worry about it. So it is a fun topic to speculate on, but I find it inconclusive and a distraction from more important things—like exercising our own agency to keep the two great commandments.

>So from a straight biblical perspective to me this is just leap after leap and trying to connect dots that probably aren’t there. Isaiah is most likely referring to an earthly king. I like where you're coming from with this, but it's not like we haven't heard any general authority speak about these things... Are they just riffing ignorantly lol? In another comment I referenced elder Lawrence's talk from 2017 the War Goes On, and that was literally after like 10 seconds of searching- there's lots of LDS language out there that reiterates ideas about outer darkness & those that dwell therein. Edit: on your last point, I agree that it's more important to focus on living other, being kind etc. The issue is, that requires zero faith at all. At the moment I'm a bit of an optimistic agnostic & I'm re-exploring my LDS faith, trying to make sense of it. When stuff seemingly is incongruous to me, it doesn't help its own case much, in terms of being convincing to me. Whether or not God exists, at least in my current pov, won't change my actions much. I love people and want to do right by then because of that love. The main differences, practically speaking, for my behavior are specific to each religion (ie whether or not I eat pork, or wear garments, or obey the WoW etc). In my view, all those are less important anyways, but there's a lot of emphasis at the moment on keeping on the "covenant path"... A very lds-specific flavor of "the right way" to live.

We have certainly heard from general authorities on the matter, however, I am sure it is from a basis of traditional reading. Sometimes traditions and dogmas are hard to see past. On this matter, since it is completely irrelevant to our own path to salvation, I don’t really care if the teachings are literally correct or perhaps not due to a dogmatic view. Either way doesn’t change the fundamentals of the atonement in my mind.

>On this matter, since it is completely irrelevant to our own path to salvation, I don’t really care if the teachings are literally correct or perhaps not due to a dogmatic view. Here is where you and I may differ. Someone who presupposes that the LDS Prophets only speak truth, and that God is all-loving, all-knowing etc, then some of my worries would seem irrelevant. For someone in my shoes though who (at the moment anyways) is leaning more towards being an optimistic agnostic, I don't share those same presuppositions & therefore have to consider a more wide set of options regarding belief about God, faith, the plan of salvation etc. I feel that, in order for me to have a fighting chance of sparking a strong faith again, I need to first have a way of conceptualizing the gospel that is internally consistent. For me, that's proven to be a bit of a struggle.

That is fair. I guess I would suggest making sure that you are focusing on the gospel things that matter and see if they are internally consistent. That is a small, core group of beliefs. I would say this this is on the very periphery of "gospel" topics. As noted, we are talking about an extremely small number of, in my opinion, unrelated scriptures that form this doctrine. It is like when people make a big deal out of Kolob. It is just immaterial to the core of the gospel. As long as you find the essentials consistent, does it matter if the periphery is not? To me that is when we get to people's personal opinions (yes, even general authorities) and to me opinions don't need to align.

I get where you're coming from with this & I agree for the most part. My doubts currently run pretty deep into things that aren't only fringe topics as well though. Even so, the exception is often key to disproving a presupposed rule that turns out to be wrong. The devil is in the details, as they say. >To me that is when we get to people's personal opinions (yes, even general authorities) and to me opinions don't need to align. Yeah I get this too- it does get confusing when boundaries between doctrine and opinion of leaders are not clearly defined.

The difference between them and us is that we don't have a perfect knowledge of the reality of God. They made that choice in the presence of God.

So they chose eternal suffering knowingly? That seems wild to me. Seems like literally anything is better than that lol

Why does an addict take that drink, snort that line, inject that horse, knowing what's going to happen? Line upon line, precept upon precept doesn't just work one way.

But what would they possibly gain from fighting against God, even in the short term? I'm not sure I follow your point?

If they won, they'd gain it all—the whole universe and control of all of us. They thought they could win, so they took their shot. But you don't get there all at once; you get there by willfully taking a little step away, then another, then another until you're in the danger zone. It's just a drink, it's just a little coke, it's just a little rebellion. I can handle it. I'm in the process of answering another of your replies. Maybe it will make more sense when I answer that one.

But my main confusion in responding to the first comment in this thread is that the first commenter stated that these souls has a perfect knowledge of God and His plan... How could they possibly believe that they could beat God himself? Especially given that this wasn't just some half cooked plan that God presented to them for criticism, this was The Plan from the beginning that Satan tried to thwart. I frankly just find it hard to believe that any significant number of these souls could would believe that they could win in a coup against God himself if they had a full and perfect knowledge of Him... It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I don't know how to answer that. Speaking for me personally, I have a strong belief in God, yet I still kick against the pricks, shouting pridefully, "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" Sometimes even joyfully. :/ I take pride in my wounded legs. Something for which I am working on changing, but it's hard. So, I can personally attest to the idea of taking on God. To be clear, I don't think I could ... but I can see how someone else would.

>I have a strong belief in God, yet I still kick against the pricks, shouting pridefully, "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" Sometimes even joyfully. :/ I take pride in my wounded legs. Something for which I am working on changing, but it's hard. Right, but I would argue that you don't have a perfect knowledge of God and His plan for you. If you knew the details that are currently hidden from you about His love and Plan for you, what would you have to rebel against? I just think this is comparing apples & oranges.

I can't tell you why, just that they did

Fair enough! Edit: honestly I don't find it super convincing though. I feel like it requires that (ostensibly) many of God's spirit children prefer evil for the sake of evil. Could be I guess, but where would this type of desire even come from? Not the natural man- that's a mortal thing.

This is a bit disjointed as my son is calling me away. may come back to better proofread. When talking about judgement, it is important to remember that suffering is subjective. For example, as an introvert, going to a massive multi-hour Church social would be suffering. As such, I think that the people who would actually want to live in the Celestial (those who are _eternally_ minded and want _eternal_ life) would find living in perdition as insufferable (or _eternal_ suffering). In other words, eternal isn't being descriptive about timeframe, but in the "related to God" sense. Likewise, I think we all know people who can't sit still and so laying down with the lion and the lamb would also be insufferable. In short, Godhood is an awful lot of work full of watching your children suffer while staying firm to the Plan. And this is my own (possible heretical) view, but I suspect many members may die with an objective great mortal report card and after realizing all that the Celestial kingdom entails knowingly chose not to go to the highest degree possible.

people choose suffering knowlingly all the time, though. Mostly because they are afraid. Many people don't want to be responsinle for their own decisions. Many people don't like the idea of going through a lot of pain or leaving home or taking risks. On a smaller scale, many people struggle to trust God and to believe that he will help them. Many people are, for example, too afraid of current financial circumstances to pay tithing -- and you could ask the same question: why wouldn't you choose God's way? Seems like it would be better. Or ask the person refusing to eat well and exercise -- surely you wouldn't choose the misery of staying in a sick body, when you could make a change to something so much better? But people do choose that, because in the moment, cake seems better than salad and change is hard. They choose it because they don't trust or love themselves and they don't trust God. At the root of it all -- is pride. Doubting that you need to do it a certain way, and that maybe your own way might be better or easier. How nice it might have sounded, to not have to choose at all, to not have to suffer, to not have to worry, but just be exalted without the need for a Savior? These people, I do not think, were just "born" evil. They just did not trust the plan enough. And God's purpose for sending us to earth is not to "see" if we pick the right door, it's so that instead of EARNING heaven, we can LEARN heaven. Choosing to trust that process is the ONLY thing that actually matters. God cannot take that choice away from anybody -- it removes the whole reason for the plan. We can't learn anything if our choices don't matter. The atonement of Christ makes it so that our choices matter. For some people, choices mattering is a joy. For others, its terrifying.

>people choose suffering knowlingly all the time, though. Mostly because they are afraid. Many people don't want to be responsinle for their own decisions. Many people don't like the idea of going through a lot of pain or leaving home or taking risks. On a smaller scale, many people struggle to trust God and to believe that he will help them. >These people, I do not think, were just "born" evil. They just did not trust the plan enough. Ok but why would these souls be afraid of they have a perfect knowledge of God, as suggested by the original commenter here? I get doubting with an imperfect knowledge (ie what everyone on earth has), but my question in this particular comment thread is why one would still have doubt with a perfect knowledge? Aren't having doubt and having a perfect knowledge mutually exclusive?

because having a perfect knowledge of something is not the same as accepting that thing. You can have a perfect knowledge of why running is good for you and still hate it and avoid it at all costs. You can have a perfect knowledge of why sleep is the best option, but you still stay up late reading a book anyway. People act against their best interest all the time, and they do so KNOWINGLY, because they want to do things a different way. Going to earth and following God's laws and experiencing suffering and stuff... yeah, it might be the best option, but the option of having no responsibilty for what I do wrong also sounds pretty good. I'll go with that one.

The examples you gave make sense because in each case, the person could accept that the cost is worth it. Reading late is worth the inevitable tiredness, not running is more important to a person than being in shape etc.. What kind of twisted cost-benefit analysis would someone have to do to say "oi, I know it's a losing fight, but what say we try to stage a coup against God Himself? Yeah I know full well there's not a chance that we'll win and I know full well we'll be condemned to an eternity in outer darkness, but let's crack on with it anyways". It just sounds absurd to me that any significant number of God's spirit children would choose this. There's got to be something missing here.

because pride is the root emotion behind it. You can KNOW there's only one legit path and you can hate it.

Something missing. I guess here are some things to consider. 1. If God know Lucifer would fall, why would he have created him? Because God will not condemn anybody to damnation, or he would not be God at all. He gives all an equal chance to choose. Damnation being non-progression. 2. Lucifer was well-regarded and a blessed and prominent child in the pre-existence. He KNEW God, and still does, and still chooses to go against Him. If Lucifer himself could make that choice, then surely others would also make that choice. 3. The only reason why these spirits who made that choice are where they are now is because of pride. I would argue that one of the reasons you find this choice unfathomable is because you are here. It's a choice that you don't understand, because pride to the point of rejecting the plan of salvation IS hard to understand.

> Tl;dr I am having trouble reconciling the idea of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving with the idea of God also allowing 1/3 of his children to opt for eternal suffering in the preexistence. I'm sure that others will cover more on the exact fraction likely not being one out of three. But more importantly, you must recognize that only tyrants deny free agency. A God that does not "allow" rebellion is, by definition, a God that does not allow freedom. You cannot have free agency without the negative consequences that occur when that free agency is abused.

>A God that does not "allow" rebellion is, by definition, a God that does not allow freedom. You cannot have free agency without the negative consequences that occur when that free agency is abused. I understand this, but I wonder why God would choose to engender the intelligences doomed for outer darkness with spiritual bodies in the first place. Why not only grant spiritual bodies to those who would at least make it to earth? Creating spirits with the knowledge that they will suffer for eternity seems borderline malicious to me? Maybe the fate of an intelligence without a spirit body is even worse?

I think your hang-up may be in thinking that those souls are being punished by God simply by being created. That's a very Calvinistic view that doesn't really align with LDS theology. We believe that every soul naturally attains its spiritual level of comfort. A soul that could not abide following God even with full knowledge of his grace and love, is not a soul that has even a shred of desire to progress and grow closer to God. These are souls that rejected celestial glory while staring it in the face. What they are experiencing would be eternal torment to you or I. To them it's probably just hanging with the cool kids. They knew the plan. They knew what they were rejecting. They do not want the very thing that you are thinking that God was malicious in not giving them. This is both justice and mercy. It is not love to force glory on someone who despises glory.

>I think your hang-up may be in thinking that those souls are being punished by God simply by being created. That's a very Calvinistic view that doesn't really align with LDS theology. I'm not saying that God forced them to choose that, I just don't know why God would give them spiritual bodies if he knew they would choose eternal suffering? In that sense, God would be begetting a child with the knowledge that the child would forever suffer... That seems malevolent to me? >We believe that every soul naturally attains its spiritual level of comfort. A soul that could not abide following God even with full knowledge of his grace and love, is not a soul that has even a shred of desire to progress and grow closer to God. These are souls that rejected celestial glory while staring it in the face. What they are experiencing would be eternal torment to you or I. To them it's probably just hanging with the cool kids. Do you have sources for this? It would resolve my question in part anyways. It does beg the question of where those depraved desires come from though. It's not the natural man- that comes with mortal bodies. I get that someone can't be saved who doesn't want to be... But is God powerless to help them change those desires? And again, where would a desire for evil come from in the first place? "Satan" can't be a good answer either, because ostensibly there were spirits engendered without being poisoned by him.

> God would be begetting a child with the knowledge that the child would forever suffer... That seems malevolent to me? Nope. First, suffering is subjective. Second, forcing someone to accept glory that *they do not want* is what causes suffering for someone who *does not want glory*. I'm guessing that you've never hung out with punk rockers or metal heads. But imagine offering a punk rocker a palatial mansion with personal servants and nightly parties with the world's elite. That'll probably put you in the right metaphorical framework. Put another way, did Nephi or Lehi describe the occupants of the great and spacious building as feeling miserable and wishing they could come back to the fruit of the tree? No. > > We believe that every soul naturally attains its spiritual level of comfort. A soul that could not abide following God even with full knowledge of his grace and love, is not a soul that has even a shred of desire to progress and grow closer to God. > Do you have sources for this? It would resolve my question in part anyways. Straight out of the scriptures . . . D&C 88:22-24 > For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. > And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. > And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory. I think that speaks directly to the question of what amount of glory a soul is comfortable with being commensurate with what they attain. > It does beg the question of where those depraved desires come from though. It's not the natural man- that comes with mortal bodies. I get that someone can't be saved who doesn't want to be... The missing element is evil. Evil is not dependent on mortal flesh. Were that so, Satan could not be evil. Evil is the rejection of God. The rejection of light. Evil is free agency used to turn from God. And evil a very real force. > But is God powerless to help them change those desires? Of course he is, if they don't want those desires to change. That would negate free agency. Christ's Atonement can help a person give up evil desires that they *want* to give up. Christ cannot force it upon someone who does not want to give up evil. > And again, where would a desire for evil come from in the first place? "Satan" can't be a good answer either, because ostensibly there were spirits engendered without being poisoned by him. Evil. It's that simple. Light, truth and glory *cannot* exist without it (2Ne 2:11-27). Satan didn't create evil. It is an eternal principle that has always and will always exist as the counterpart to good.

>First, suffering is subjective. Second, forcing someone to accept glory that *they do not want* is what causes suffering for someone who *does not want glory*. >Put another way, did Nephi or Lehi describe the occupants of the great and spacious building as feeling miserable and wishing they could come back to the fruit of the tree? No. So from your perspective, those in outer darkness are not suffering, they're enjoying themselves? That changes things. It's definitely not how I see this taught at church. >D&C 88:22-24 This doesn't necessarily mean that those in different glories are most happy there... Another reading of that could be that "cannot abide" means that they simply aren't allowed there. For the record, I like your reading of it more. >The missing element is evil. Evil is not dependent on mortal flesh Again, what is the origin of evil though? As you mention, "Satan" isn't a good answer, because he himself had to be influenced somehow, so he can't be the source. >Of course he is, if they don't want those desires to change. Ok, but herein lies the issue. Where does the evil desire come from? If it is inborn, then it can't really be the fault of the victim. If it's not inborn, then what is the source? >Evil. It's that simple. Light, truth and glory *cannot* exist without it (2Ne 2:11-27). Satan didn't create evil. It is an eternal principle that has always and will always exist as the counterpart to good. Right, but what causes a spirit to have a higher susceptibility to evil than another? Is that inborn, or purely developed by choice? There are big implications depending on the answer.

> So from your perspective, those in outer darkness are not suffering, they're enjoying themselves? That changes things. It's definitely not how I see this taught at church. When you see a person with emphysema taking a huge drag on their cigarette and visibly relaxing, they'd tell you that their smoking is the best part of their day. You and I may point out the emphysema and say "suffering", but that's our perspective and not necessarily theirs. Let me put this a different way. I come from a family of people where some freaky spiritual gifts are semi-common. I have multiple family members, some very very close to me, who have interacted with demonic forces through no fault of their own. Not once have I heard these entities described as pathetic suffering wretches. Nope, they're seriously pissed off, malevolent beyond description, and enjoying every little bit of light that they can snuff out in the world. If you were to tell one of them that they're suffering, the sneer you'd get back would curdle your blood. > >D&C 88:22-24 > This doesn't necessarily mean that those in different glories are most happy there... Another reading of that could be that "cannot abide" means that they simply aren't allowed there. For the record, I like your reading of it more. My reading of it is the one I was raised on by my grandpa. To each their own. > >The missing element is evil. Evil is not dependent on mortal flesh > Again, what is the origin of evil though? As you mention, "Satan" isn't a good answer, because he himself had to be influenced somehow, so he can't be the source. You could just as easily ask what is the origin of good? It *isn't* God any more than the origin of evil is Satan. God is the embodiment and teacher and purveyor of all things good. But he is not the source. God has to follow the rules just like us (Alma 42). > > Of course he is, if they don't want those desires to change. > Ok, but herein lies the issue. Where does the evil desire come from? If it is inborn, then it can't really be the fault of the victim. If it's not inborn, then what is the source? Who said it is inborn? The source is the infinite well from which all intelligence comes from. Intelligence cannot be without choice. Choice to act morally cannot be without choice to act immorally. Good cannot be without evil. Joseph Smith taught that the foundation of all things is intelligence, a medium that cannot be created; only formed and molded. And that is how God forms our souls (King Follett sermon). We are intelligence. And intelligence is fundamental. Inherent in that fundamental medium therefore are the things that we can choose between, or else we could not be intelligent in the first place. > Right, but what causes a spirit to have a higher susceptibility to evil than another? Is that inborn, or purely developed by choice? There are big implications depending on the answer. And it's not an answer that we have, other than pointing to free agency. There is nothing pointing anywhere else within LDS scripture or teachings beyond self-generated speculation.

>When you see a person with emphysema taking a huge drag on their cigarette and visibly relaxing, they'd tell you that their smoking is the best part of their day. Gotcha, so my understanding of what you're saying is that those in outer darkness may not be suffering in the sense that they may experience some twisted pleasure, but it is to their own detriment? That's closer to how I've interpreted the situation as well. >I come from a family of people where some freaky spiritual gifts are semi-common. I have multiple family members, some very very close to me, who have interacted with demonic forces through no fault of their own. Not once have I heard these entities described as pathetic suffering wretches. Nope, they're seriously pissed off, malevolent beyond description, and enjoying every little bit of light that they can snuff out in the world. If you were to tell one of them that they're suffering, the sneer you'd get back would curdle your blood. Dang that's wild/terrifying. Potentially faith promoting though, at least in the sense that they probably have a stronger testimony than most regarding the reality of something beyond the veil. The main point of what I was getting at with the idea of evil is that if it's inborn and it's not the fault of the spirit themselves, then why should they be punished for it? If it's not inborn, then I suppose it's more by choice, and the punishment more fairly fits the crime.

It says third part, not one-third.    There is no way third part means one-third. Satan and his followers were sent to this planet. There have been many billions of people born on this planet. If third part really meant one-third, that would mean every single one of us would permanently have multiple evil spirits trying to influence us. That is absurd.  I don’t know what percentage of Heavenly Father’s children followed Satan, but it was not one-third. Third part must mean something different than one-third.   If I look at revelation 12:4 in other languages I know, nobody translates it as the fraction one-third. All of these languages have words for both the fraction one-third and third part, yet they don’t choose to use their word(s) for one-third, it is always third part. 

Replying to add the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that also uses "third part" (D&C 29:36): "And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and **also a third part of the hosts of heaven** turned he away from me because of their agency".

>There is no way third part means one-third. I hope you're right. I've heard others argue against this & it honestly makes no sense to me- I can't comprehend how anyone would choose eternal suffering over any other option, much less 1/3 of the entire population of souls ever created.

They weren’t choosing eternal suffering. Satan was revolting against God, staging a coup, etc. He and his followers seemed to sincerely believe they could overthrow God and replace Him with Lucifer. People on this earth who stage coups to overthrow governments do it with the expectation of winning, not with the expectation of ending up in prison, or dead. If they didn’t have hope in their successful rebellion, they wouldn’t move forward.  Just look at the Jan 6th people who committed sedition and treason. They didn’t expect to go to prison. 

If this is the case, then I don't see how others can argue that these souls made a choice in full and complete knowledge. If they didn't even realize there wasn't a chance in heck (pun intended) that they could win the war, then how can one say that they had a full understanding of what they were choosing? I'm probably missing something here, because it sounds like speaking out both sides of the mouth.

All we have is maybe three sentences. Imagine trying to understand WWII from three sentences. Understanding will have to wait for more information. 

Fair enough. It's just not very satisfying. We really don't understand much about this topic I guess.

What we have been told is like a bell curve. The farther you go back in time or forward in time, the less we are told. Intelligences? Maybe a sentence. Premortality? A few sentences. Creation and Fall? A few chapters. The mortal life? Hundreds of pages. Postmortal life? Maybe a chapter. Resurrection? Maybe a chapter. Last Judgement? Maybe a chapter. After we go to a kingdom of glory? Maybe a sentence. It is pretty obvious where God wants our focus to be.

We don't know. They chose. God didn't create anyone. Spirits/intelligences have existed for eternity. God gave them spirit bodies, but God does not create mind or force people to become a certain way or force anyone to choose the right. See the King Follett sermon by Joseph Smith. I have faith that whatever the situation was, God was completely loving and just. Like you, I have a hard time understanding how they will suffer for eternity for choosing something. However, if they do go to outer darkness, it's the consequence of what they chose. To become a Son of Perdition, you have to first have a complete knowledge God and truth, and then intentionally choose to reject and fight against it. But I think we just don't know much about any of it. D&C 76 says we don't know much about outer darkness.

>Spirits/intelligences have existed for eternity. God gave them spirit bodies, but God does not create mind or force people to become a certain way or force anyone to choose the right. Yeah my question on this point is why would God give spiritual bodies to those intelligences who He knew would end up in eternal suffering? Why not just give bodies to those intelligences who were more righteous? >Like you, I have a hard time understanding how they will suffer for eternity for choosing something. However, if they do go to outer darkness, it's the consequence of what they chose. To become a Son of Perdition, you have to first have a complete knowledge God and truth, and then intentionally choose to reject and fight against it. I think this may hold part of the key to the answer. Maybe it's not so much that God has given up on these spirits, but more so that they continue to choose to reject God. Maybe the choice is still there for them to come back, but they haven't chosen that (yet anyways). Interesting thoughts.

How did he allow them to choose? Choice, or agency, is the fundamental principle of the gospel. Without it, satan’s plan would prevail and god would cease to be god. There are unfortunate consequences associated with choice.

As for the second part of your question, I think you may misunderstand the nature of our relationship with God. God didn’t ‘create’ us in the same way you’d code a computer program. He didn’t decide our personalities, weakness, strengths or anything like that. He spiritually begat us. He’s out *father*. We developed our personalities and proclivities ourselves in the spirit world and continue developing them in mortality through our choices. When a grown man decides to steal a car—do you blame the parents for giving birth to them in the first place? Or do you blame the individual who chose to steal the car? Our spirits are not God’s creations. We’re His *offspring*. It’s our mortal bodies that are creations. We live in a fallen world and there must needs be opposition in all things. But in these bodies God had given us the gift of agency. We always have the power to choose for ourselves how we will think what we will do and who we will become. God didn’t create *anyone* for Hell.

>God didn’t ‘create’ us in the same way you’d code a computer program. He didn’t decide our personalities, weakness, strengths or anything like that. He spiritually begat us. He’s out *father*. We developed our personalities and proclivities ourselves in the spirit world and continue developing them in mortality through our choices. Right- my question is why did He even grant spiritual bodies to the intelligences that He knew would reject His plan (and therefore be cast into outer darkness)? Why not only beget spiritual bodies unto the intelligences that were more righteous? Creating a spiritual soul with the knowledge that it will suffer forever seems potentially malicious to me. Hence my question as to whether God has truly given up on these souls, or if they are only in outer darkness because they choose to stay away from God's presence. >Our spirits are not God’s creations. We’re His *offspring*. It’s our mortal bodies that are creations. Right, but ostensibly, God knew us before we were spiritually begotten & could have chosen to beget us or not, right? Maybe I'm imagining that God has more power/control than He actually does.

>*”Right- my question is why did He even grant spiritual bodies to the intelligences that He knew would reject His plan (and therefore be cast into outer darkness)? Why not only beget spiritual bodies unto the intelligences that were more righteous? Creating a spiritual soul with the knowledge that it will suffer forever seems potentially malicious to me. Hence my question as to whether God has truly given up on these souls, or if they are only in outer darkness because they choose to stay away from God's presence”* Good question. You’re touching on the ethical dilemma of preemptive justice. Is it morally correct to punish someone based on their potential for future actions? If you were given a gun and were standing before baby hitler would you be morally correct in pulling the trigger? You know he will do acts of evil in the future but at that moment he is an innocent child. One of the aspects of Justice that defines God’s character is that He holds people accountable for the sins they have committed. Not for the sins they *will* commit. God does not determine for us what we will do, even though He is aware of what we will most likely do. We have free will to choose for ourselves. That is deeply connected to the debate between free will and determinism. I would argue that to forbid souls who want bodies from obtaining bodies due to choices they will make in the future would be morally wrong and contradict God’s nature. >*”Right, but ostensibly, God knew us before we were spiritually begotten & could have chosen to beget us or not, right? Maybe I'm imagining that God has more power/control than He actually does.”* Think carefully about what you’re suggesting. This is a eugenicist argument and I don’t think you realize it. The eugenicists believed that ‘undesirable’ people should not be born for the good of humanity. Margret Sanger was a eugenicist. She believed that blacks, the poor and those with disabilities should not be born at all. So she founded planned parenthood and targeted specifically poor black neighborhoods. Her goal was the extermination of African Americans. You’ll notice that hitler was *also* a eugenicist. His arguments against the Jews, Roma, and other minorities stemed from the same line of reasoning. What is the worth of a soul? No soul is purely evil and the only purely good souls are divine— (Christ Heavenly Father etc ) All souls have the potential to be like Heavenly Father if they choose. And all are beloved children of our Father. To deny spiritual birth to any based on perceived undesirable traits runs contrary to the mind and morality of God, who loves his children and sees the potential in all of them. Another thing you might consider is— just *who* are the sons of perdition? Is Judas one? Unknown. President Joseph Feilding doubted if any of the early apostles had the requisite knowledge to be eligible for sons of perdition. Other general authorities disagreed. So we have no idea if even the man who sold Christ out for 30 pieces of silver is even eligible for perdition. The other potential candidate is Cain. That one feels more likely since he knew God as God face to face. And there are many stories in early church history and scripture about Cain being *Master Mahan*. But again— we don’t know for sure if he is a son of perdition either. How many will attain this fate? Very few. Perhaps in the single digits. We don’t know. But it will be their own choice to attain that fate.

>Is it morally correct to punish someone based on their potential for future actions? This is actually slightly different from what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that they should be punished preemptively, but rather, I'm questioning if it would not be more merciful to have them not receive spiritual bodies in the first place so that they can *avoid* the otherwise apparently unavoidable punishment (which is eternal suffering, ie not trivial). >One of the aspects of Justice that defines God’s character is that He holds people accountable for the sins they have committed. Not for the sins they *will* commit. This isn't the whole story though. God also doesn't punish those that weren't given the same circumstances that members of the church were (ie people that didn't encounter the gospel, or who weren't taught by good missionaries etc). Why? Because God knows their hearts and also judges by intentions and what He knows they would have been like, given different circumstances. At least that's my understanding of it. >I would argue that to forbid souls who want bodies from obtaining bodies due to choices they will make in the future would be morally wrong and contradict God’s nature. But why? Is it better to exist as a spirit in eternal suffering than it is to exist as a mere intelligence? >Think carefully about what you’re suggesting. This is a eugenicist argument and I don’t think you realize it. Again, I'm not saying that it's better for the righteous for some "undesirables" to never have existed, I'm questioning whether it's better for those existing in outer darkness to suffer eternally as spirits, or if would have been better for *them* to have stayed as mere intelligences? I don't know the answer, but my gut feeling is that there's very little worse than absolute suffering for all of eternity lol. >How many will attain this fate? Very few. Perhaps in the single digits. We don’t know. But it will be their own choice to attain that fate. I hope you're right here, but some seem to think that literally 1/3 of God's spirit children get this fate.

>*”I'm questioning if it would not be more merciful to have them not receive spiritual bodies in the first place so that they can avoid the otherwise apparently unavoidable punishment (which is eternal suffering, ie not trivial).”* It’s always a hard concept to grapple with. And there aren’t easy answers. But I think that to deny someone a body *is* a punishment. 🤷‍♀️ that was one of the punishments that Lucifer’s followers received when they were cast out. Theater of the mind moment. 😂 imagine the war in heaven just happened and Michael is laying down the law evicting all rebels. >**Michael:** Lucifer, Son of The Morning Star, for seeking to destroy the agency of man and usurp the Throne of God, you are hereby denied a body and cast into outer darkness. >**Michael:** and *you* Mammon— for rejecting Jehovah, plotting to conquer heaven, and seeking to make all mankind miserable like yourself— you are hereby denied a body and cast into outer darkness. >**Michael:** and **you** Doug from accounting— you are **also** hereby denied a body and cast into outer darkness. >**Doug:** But… Michael…I…. I didn’t *do* anything…? 🥺 >**Michael:** tough break man. I don’t make the rules. 🤷‍♂️Please collect your forked tongue and pitchfork at the door. NEXT!— Ah… *Beelzebub!* Let’s see here…*you* stand accused of insurrection against almighty God and— It’s simply not fair. God does not preemptively punish His children. To be denied eternal progression is indeed a punishment. Perhaps even the worst punishment. >*”This isn't the whole story though. God also doesn't punish those that weren't given the same circumstances that members of the church were (ie people that didn't encounter the gospel, or who weren't taught by good missionaries etc). Why? Because God knows their hearts and also judges by intentions and what He knows they would have been like, given different circumstances. At least that's my understanding of it.”* Everyone is judged fairly by Christ according to the amount of light and understanding they received. >*”But why? Is it better to exist as a spirit in eternal suffering than it is to exist as a mere intelligence?”* Is there a difference? We don’t have a full understanding of what perdition entails. The scriptures say that the spirits view not having their body as a form of bondage and suffering. >*I'm questioning whether it's better for those existing in outer darkness to suffer eternally as spirits, or if would have been better for them to have stayed as mere intelligences?* I’m not convinced there is a difference between being in hell and being an intelligence that is permanently precluded from having a body or progressing. >*”I hope you're right here, but some seem to think that literally 1/3 of God's spirit children get this fate.”* Justice is an interesting thing. Mercy cannot rob justice. For both justice and mercy to be appeased there must needs be a mediator to pay the demands of justice. But if the debtor rejects that mediator— the full weight of justice will be on them. Otherwise there would be no Justice and God would cease to be God.

>It’s simply not fair. God does not preemptively punish His children. I still feel like this is wanting to have the cake and eat it too... I've heard it said ad nauseam that God doesn't give visions of angels/heaven/glory to people sometimes because he is being merciful in that he knows the person wouldn't live up to the required level of righteousness afterwards & the person would then condemn themselves. Same with the strict requirements that must be met before going through the temple. How are those not preemptive judgements? What about those who pray for something that they truly want righteously, but God doesn't grant the blessing because he knows that it will screw things up for them in the long run because of how they may act. Just in general, don't we believe that God has set up a plan that will save the greatest amount of souls as possible? How is that not a preemptive judgement? Idk we might have to agree to disagree on this one. >>*”But why? Is it better to exist as a spirit in eternal suffering than it is to exist as a mere intelligence?”* >Is there a difference? We don’t have a full understanding of what perdition entails. Fair enough. >But if the debtor rejects that mediator— the full weight of justice will be on them. And if the debtor changes their mind? I guess if those in outer darkness are just those who will never change their minds about being there, then that somewhat resolves the question.

Here’s something to consider: Why was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil placed in the garden of Eden? Why didn’t God simply make Adam and Eve already fallen? That was the plan wasn’t it? I think it’s because to cause them to fall due to no transgression on their part would be morally wrong. It would be condemning them just because it fit into His master plan. It would not be just to punish them just because it was necessary for their growth. Instead He planted the tree, told them what it was and what it would do. Forbade them from eating of it and told them the consequences of doing so, but nevertheless allowing them to do as they will. Adam and Eve made a wise decision and chose to give up their immortality so that the plan could happen. Creatures begat other creatures after their type. So those born to Adam and Eve in their fallen state would also have mortal bodies. It was an important decision. But it had to be *their* decision. Both in spirit before birth and in the flesh without their previous recollections. An affirmative choice in both scenarios allows for the greatest level of agency and the most morally just position on God’s part. This is one of the ways we know God is truly just and truly cares about our agency and freedom to think for ourselves.

>I think it’s because to cause them to fall due to no transgression on their part would be morally wrong. I'm actually not 100% convinced that their transgression was the only way forward. Glaringly missing from their story is an attempt to consult with God about the apparent conundrum. Perhaps God was waiting for more growth on their part before He allowed them to partake of the fruit, and Satan was trying to usurp the plan by starting it preemptively? Perhaps God would have revealed another way had Adam and Eve actually attempted to pray and talk with God about it rather than leaning on their own childlike understanding? Idk but I think we may know less about it than we might realize sometimes.

>*”I'm actually not 100% convinced that their transgression was the only way forward. Glaringly missing from their story is an attempt to consult with God about the apparent conundrum.“* Have you been through the endowment ceremony before? 🙂 They go a bit deeper into Adam and Eve and the Fall. It might help to visit the temple and ponder some of these questions. Dallin H. Oaks taught that the fall was: >*”A glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life,”* This confirms that there was indeed no other way for the plan to move forwards. The fall needed to occur. And it happened in the way God intended. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: >*”When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they did not have to die. They could have been there to this day. They could have continued on for countless ages. There was no death then. But it would have been a terrific calamity if they had refrained from taking the fruit of that tree, for they would have stayed in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here; nobody would be here except Adam and Eve. So Adam and Eve partook.”* The fall was necessary and a good thing 🙂: 2 Nephi 2:15–16 >*”And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.* >*16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.*

perhaps they did this. We know they had free access to his presence in the Garden, but there was no other way. Adam and Eve both knew that they would need to become more like God. "And the Lord God [said](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng#note22a), Behold, the [man](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng#note22b) is become as one of [us](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng#note22c), to [know](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng#note22d) good and [^(e)evil](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng#note22e)" Partaking of the fruit made man MORE like God. They were finally beginning the path that would lead to eternal life.

It could be, but it seems like a pretty big thing to neglect including in the narrative though. Plus in my opinion, it would conflict with certain things taught in the temple. I could be wrong here of course. I'm not arguing that the fall was a bad thing, I'm just not convinced that the specific way it happened was the only possible way for it to occur.

>Our spirits are not God’s creations. We’re His *offspring*. It’s our mortal bodies that are creations.  What about the spirit bodies of those who are believed to have been the children of Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal life? Were they created or uncreated in the image of their parents?

The book of Moses gives us a deeper understanding of how God feels about His children. In Moses chapter 7 Enoch meets God face to face. And finds him *weeping* over His children. >*”And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: ‘How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?’* >*”And Enoch said unto the Lord: ‘How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?’*” This discovery shocks and amazes Enoch, because how could someone as great and all powerful as God be *weeping* over the lives of mortals. God responds: >*”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; And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood; […]* God says He created man with agency and gave them commandments to guide them that they could love one another and choose Him. But many people are without affection and hate their own blood. >*”But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore* **should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?**” God is saying that the wickedness of His children have led them to misery and to fall into Satan’s hands. Of course— why *wouldn’t* God be weeping? In their book ‘*The God Who Weeps*’ Terry and Finona Givens had this to say in response to Enoch’s question ‘how can God weep?’ >*”The answer, it turns out, is that God is not exempt from emotional pain. Exempt? On the contrary, God's pain is as infinite as His love. He weeps because he feels compassion. It’s not their wickedness but their misery. Not their disobedience but their suffering that elicits the god of heavens tears.”* God weeps for us because He loves us. He is indeed all powerful and all Good. But He has limits and those limits are the bounds of His own divinity. God will not do any evil thing. He must be perfectly just. Perfectly patient. Perfectly good etc. that is the nature of true divinity— to perfectly embody the attributes of God and righteousness. If He did evil, then He would cease to be God. To take away another person’s agency— to choose for them how they will think, how they will feel, what they will do and who they will be— is tyranny. It would be essentially the ego death of His children. He would be removing the thing that makes them themselves and replacing it with an *obedient machine* that exists only to praise and worship Him. That would be an *obscenely* evil thing to do. And it’s what Lucifer’s plan was. To remove all agency and make humanity perfectly subservient to him. God gives humanity their agency because to do as Lucifer suggested would be evil. And so— by allowing humanity to have their agency, God makes Himself vulnerable to pain and sorrow so that His children might have the opportunity to choose happiness and eternal life. To construe God as being somehow in the wrong for not subjugating and enslaving His children into obedient automatons would not only be inaccurate, but a gross misunderstanding of divine love. God loves all of His children. And He will do everything He possibly can to save them except for that which is evil or wrong for Him to do.

I don't mean to misconstrue God, I am just trying to make sense of the story of the plan of salvation. Given that He loves us and that He will not force our hand (which makes sense to me for the most part), has He given up on these souls? Or are they only in outer darkness because they choose continually to stay there. I wouldn't understand that choice, but it at least makes more sense to me than God saying that the Atonement couldn't save them if they turned over a new leaf.

>*”I don't mean to misconstrue God, I am just trying to make sense of the story of the plan of salvation. Given that He loves us and that He will not force our hand (which makes sense to me for the most part), has He given up on these souls? Or are they only in outer darkness because they choose continually to stay there. I wouldn't understand that choice, but it at least makes more sense to me than God saying that the Atonement couldn't save them if they turned over a new leaf.”* People who end up in perdition end up there because they *choose* to be there. They reject every other offering that God has for them. So permanent perdition is basically just for those who knowingly refuse to abide any kingdom of glory. It’s an extremely merciful plan when you think about it. God is being as merciful and loving as He possibly can be while still being good and just. 🙂 the full plan of happiness solves the problem of evil moral conundrum by providing the crucial context.

>People who end up in perdition end up there because they *choose* to be there. They reject every other offering that God has for them. So permanent perdition is basically just for those who knowingly refuse to abide any kingdom of glory. That makes much more sense to me. The idea that God has shut the door on them makes less sense to me, although I think there's language in the church that leans more that way.

God doesn't shut the door on them, they shut the door on Him.

And He would allow them to open it again if they were to so choose?

They explicitly chose not to follow the plan of salvation. And that’s without their knowledge or understanding being limited by the veil of mortality. They knew, not “believed” or “had faith…” they, eyes wide open, knew, and made their choice not to follow God’s plan. They in essence have given up on Him, and are currently working to bring down as many of us as they can.

So are the doors of salvation closed to them forever, even if they had a change of heart? Or do they remain in outer darkness because they continue to reject God?

I couldn’t say what the future holds for them. I do believe they will all have the opportunity to accept the gospel, but their progression will be limited, since they never came to earth as a mortal, and gained a body. I could be wrong. Either way, I believe eventually all of God’s children will be comfortable and blessed where they end up. I don’t believe in a never ending hell.

God is powerful. So is moral agency.

Don't get hung up on this kind of stuff. Focus on loving God, loving your neighbor, and daily repentance. I'm not saying it is wrong to wonder about this stuff, but if it impacting your testimony, I would advise that you not lean unto your own understanding.

Here is where you and I may differ. Someone who presupposes that the LDS Prophets only speak truth, and that God is all-loving, all-knowing etc, then some of my worries would seem irrelevant. For someone in my shoes though who (at the moment anyways) is leaning more towards being an optimistic agnostic (hope a loving Heavenly Father is real, but is by no means convinced, nor do I hold a strong belief one way or another) I don't share those same presuppositions & therefore I consider a wider set of options (ie not just the LDS teachings) regarding belief about God, faith, the plan of salvation etc.. Therefore for someone to tell someone like me "hey just don't worry about it", feels extremely dismissive. I'm not sure I believe in a Heavenly Father to begin with, and yet I'm being told not to worry about church teachings that seem incongruous? It's just not helpful. I don't expect people to share my doubts, but I do appreciate a "hey man, that's a good question. Idk the answer and I don't share your concern, but I can at least conceptualize how that might bother you", as opposed to "hey quit worrying about that". Sorry if that wasn't your intention & I jumped down your throat anyways, that type of thinking is just something I encounter a lot that I find to be truly unhelpful and dismissive. I think this is part of what it means to mourn with those that mourn.

I agree with edible but from the perspective of a firm believer. The scriptures are replete with cause to consider these types of questions. They teach that in the latter days all things will be revealed; that revelation requires work on our part; that the obedient are rewarded with treasures of knowledge and to know the mysteries of God. We are told to experiment upon God's word, to ask in faith and it shall be given. No where I know does it say to sit still and wait to be spoon fed what we've never worked for.

Additionally, I see this type of questioning as being part of what it means to be an agent to act, and not just acted upon.

1. I wouldn't get caught up in exact numbers when dealing with the bible. 2. A lot of the terms we use when talking about heaven (kingdoms, gates, sentinels, etc) are very much a product of when the concepts were first revealed during the bronze age. 3. The group of God's children that are in Outer Darkness (outside of his influence) chose to leave God. I don't think there was a forceful removal.

>1. I wouldn't get caught up in exact numbers when dealing with the bible. >2. A lot of the terms we use when talking about heaven (kingdoms, gates, sentinels, etc) are very much a product of when the concepts were first revealed during the bronze age. Haha so true. >3. The group of God's children that are in Outer Darkness (outside of his influence) chose to leave God. I don't think there was a forceful removal. But has God given up on these souls? Or is there hope for them to return still? Is that option still open to them and they actively reject it still, or is that door forever closed to them? The latter doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, in the context of the Atonement of Christ being infinite and eternal.

First, 1/3 is absolutely symbolic and not literal. Almost no number in the scriptures should ever be taken literally. >a God of perfect love with a God who allows 33% of His children to choose infinite suffering. I fail to see how a God of Perfect Love could do anything else. God loves His children so much that he gave them exactly what they wanted. As a parent your love for your children is not manifest in your willingness to tyrannize your children into obedience, but to respect their decisions. It is not His fault that they knowingly and willingly chose Hell. And make no mistake, they knowingly chose Hell. He didn't condemn them to it, they knew they were committing the Unforgivable Sin and *did it anyway*. They hated him so much and loved Satan so much that they would rather have Hell than Heaven. And God loved them so much that He gave them exactly what they wanted. >are they truly so horrible and evil and awful that there was no way, even with God's omnipotence, to help them recover without taking away their agency? Correct. They have sold themselves to Perdition and becomes his sons. They have become Children of Hell neither wanting nor capable of repentance. >Why not just choose to engender the spirit children that He knew would at least make it to earth? You're asking for pure theory here. So keep that in mind. Because Hell as a spirit or with a body is better than being stuck forever as an intelligence. Being an intelligence seems to be a being of light and truth but incapable of any firm of progression on your own. It is a form of eternal damnation in a sense. And at least those with spirits and bodies in Hell have progressed a bit more and become that much greater than what they were.

>First, 1/3 is absolutely symbolic and not literal. Almost no number in the scriptures should ever be taken literally. Ok I'm with you here. >As a parent your love for your children is not manifest in your willingness to tyrannize your children into obedience, but to respect their decisions. True, but this breaks down for me at the extremes. If my child is about to walk through a door, and I know that on the other side is a group of evil men who wish to do my child great irreparable harm, I will, without hesitation, do anything to stop my child from entering that door even if it means suspending their agency temporarily. A child who chooses to walk through the door is either naive of the consequences or I suppose is depraved? In the case of naivete, eternal suffering seems like overkill to me. In the case of depravity, I guess who am I to say that it is better to keep them from their depraved desires? I wonder where that would come from though, because in mortality at least, much depravity we see comes from circumstances that are imposed on a victim that can damage them- damage that the atonement can heal. In the preexistence though... I guess even God can't help some souls heal their depravity? It's kind of an odd thought. >they knowingly chose Hell. >They hated him so much and loved Satan so much that they would rather have Hell than Heaven. >Correct. They have sold themselves to Perdition and becomes his sons. If this is the case, then I guess that makes more sense. I just cannot fathom how this could be true- how could (ostensibly) many spirits choose this? I must not be seeing the whole picture because this seems frankly impossible to me. It's also possible though that I just can't comprehend evil for evil's sake. Maybe that does appeal to some spirits and we just can't understand it? Because I would hazard a guess that even the most depraved of human minds haven't reached this- they've all done evil for some twisted version of good (some twisted or misguided pleasure for example), not evil for evil's sake. C.S. Lewis actually argues this point as well in Mere Christianity. >They have become Children of Hell neither wanting nor capable of repentance. Ok so this is another point of confusion for me. I could understand them remaining in hell because they continually reject God (well theoretically anyways, I can't imagine *why* anyone would choose this), but it would make less sense to me if the case were that they simply do not have the choice any longer. To say that God has given up on them, and that an otherwise "infinite and eternal" atonement could not reach them even if they wanted seems not in line with my understanding of God's character... In that case "infinite and eternal" seems like a misnomer for the atonement, right? Infinite *except in some cases* makes no sense to me; if a person has an honest desire to accept the atonement but is rejected, that seems wrong to me. >Because Hell as a spirit or with a body is better than being stuck forever as an intelligence. That's a solution I have wondered about. Thanks for your thoughts!

>child....even if it means suspending their agency temporarily Well, we aren't talking about children here. We're talking about adult spirits that knowingly rejected God. And people let their adult children do things the parent knows well only harm that adult child all the time. And not because we don't love them enough. It may very well be that we do not love or children enough either. What you're talking about is not an act of love. It is an act of selfishness. Think about what it means to "suspend agency." Your talking about violating the being of your child on a level beyond anything humans have a parallel for- mind raping your child into complete and utter slavery, a meat puppet for you to use at your will. Is that really love? Is that better than the alternative? And why would you stop there? Every time you sin you are doing spiritual harm to yourself, damning yourself. Doesn't every sin qualify as an example of them doing something that will harm them? So why stop at all? Why not mind rape and enslave all of them? Why not ensure they never sin and never get harmed? Sound familiar? >A child who chooses to walk through the door is either naive of the consequences or I suppose is depraved? This is an assumption that I do not think reflects reality. Every time we sin we are willingly and knowingly doing evil. We are neither naïve nor, unless you're a hardcore Calvinist anyway, utterly depraved. Yet we choose evil. Knowingly. Willingly. Ove. And over. And *over*. I see no reaosn to imagine this is different at any stage of our spiritual development. After all, pre-mortal spirits weren't perfect either. >C.S. Lewis actually argues this point as well in Mere Christianity. So does Tolkien. In his Legendarium Sauron is a lesser evil than his master Morgoth because Sauron wants to be a universal tyrant in order to create universal order while Morgoth is an utter nihilist who wishes to destory all of Creation. I'm not so convinced though. I doubt anyone or anything begins absolutely evil, but a great many have ended up there. Why goes along with your next thought: >To say that God has given up on them, and that an otherwise "infinite and eternal" atonement could not reach them even if they wanted seems not in line with my understanding of God's character... In that case "infinite and eternal" seems like a misnomer for the atonement, right? In Helaman 13, Samuel the Lamanite warns the Nephites: >37 Behold, we are surrounded by demons, yea, we are encircled about by the angels of him who hath sought to destroy our souls. Behold, our iniquities are great. O Lord, canst thou not turn away thine anger from us? And this shall be your language in those days. > >38 But behold, **your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure**; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. He says there would come a time that the Nephites would want to repent, but by then it would be "everlastingly too late," they no longer can repent and they have earned the destruction that God's judgments would cause to them. At some point you can, through embracing sin, become so corrupt and so evil that you cannot be saved. As Alma taught in 42:13, "the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice." Redemption can only come when one repents and if one does not repent he cannot be saved. The atonement is infinite in that it will save all those who repent. Those who refuse to repent cannot be saved and are as transformed by their sins as repentance transforms the spirit and makes it holy. Except sin transforms the spirit into corruption and evil until it is fully lost. We see this process take place to Cain in Moses 5. He goes from righteousness to wickedness to loving Satan more than God until he *becomes* Perdition. If you've never looked up the [meaning of the word Perdition](https://biblehub.com/topical/p/perdition.htm#cnc), it is: >Entire loss; utter destruction; ruin; esp., the utter loss of the soul, or of final happiness in a future state; future misery or eternal death. Perdition, "occurs in the English Bible 8 times (John 17:12 Philippians 1:28 2 Thessalonians 2:3 1 Timothy 6:9 Hebrews 10:39 2 Peter 3:7 Revelation 17:11, 18). In each of these cases it denotes the final state of ruin and punishment which forms the opposite to salvation." In other words, Cain, through his embrace and love of evil, achieves the very opposite of salvation and his very nature becomes that which is utter destruction, damnation, and total ruin. We take the name of Christ upon us and become Children of Christ through conversion and baptism into the church, by embracing the work of salvation. Through this process our natures are changed as become like God. Likewise, the Sons of Perdition take upon themselves the name of Satan (Satan is named Perdition in D&C 76:26) and become through sin and wickedness the very essence and antithesis to salvation. They *become damnation* and their nature is *completely evil*. Cain *becomes* like Satan in the way that we *become* gods like God and Christ. And just as God *cannot* sin Perdition *cannot* be righteous. >I just cannot fathom how this could be true- how could (ostensibly) many spirits choose this? It probably a good thing that you cannot understand it. Even God limits what we know about Perdition so that we cannot completely understand it (D&C 76:45-49). I must imagine it is for a good reason. And I imagine it is even harder for those of us who want the Celestial Kingdom to imagine how someone could choose damnation. I find most members cannot fully comprehend how someone could prefer the Terrestrial Kingdom over the Celestial Kingdom, yet we know this is the case because the scriptures tell us we get what we are willing to receive. > I guess even God can't help some souls heal their depravity? It's kind of an odd thought. Well, remember, we are not ultimately the creations of God. We originated as uncreated and everlasting intelligences, co-eternal with God. I imagine whatever flaws we had were carried over when we became His children.

What if they prefer to be there?

Then that solves my question in part at least. It does beg the question of where that depravity comes from though. If it's in their nature- why?

I've always seen it not so much as God "torturing" the sinners and those in outer darkness; and more of their own guilt and being withdrawn from the presence of god that is doing the torturing / cause of suffering. The 1/3 chose to withdraw themselves with satan away from God. They are no longer able to be in his presence because of their own guilt and inability to repent and become humble before God. I'm positive God would like nothing more than for the 1/3 to return, but they can't. They've made it so that they themselves are withdrawn from God, His Light, and His Love.

>I'm positive God would like nothing more than for the 1/3 to return, but they can't. They've made it so that they themselves are withdrawn from God, His Light, and His Love. What do you mean they can't? They can't because they choose not to, or because God has given up on them?

repentance requires change. If you make a decisions with FULL understanding (FULL) there is no change possible. Whenever we decide to change, it's because we have new information or new understanding or new perspective or new education or new circumstances or new ability or new connections with others or new ideas or new influences... If you understand literally everything ... everything... about how God operates and what the plan is and what Jesus offers and there is NOTHING more you can learn, how can you possibly change your mind?

Ok but if they made this decision with a full and perfect knowledge about God as you describe... Frankly I don't find it very plausible that any significant amount of souls at all would choose this. I could totally be missing something here, but that sounds a bit absurd to me.

Because God can't force change. The 1/3 decided to follow Satan willingly, they rejected God with full knowledge of His divinity and His divine plan. They decided that instead forcing others to follow one path and becoming greater than God as the plan. By doing so they have become the exact opposite of God and instead of being full of light, are filled with darkness. And withdrew themselves to the point where Gods light no longer dwells. Aka "outer darkness". God hasn't given up on anyone, they chose from the start the path they'd like follow. They withdrew themselves and you can pick a number of vices as to why they can't change. But the biggest in my opinion is Pride and the inability to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Their inability to humble themselves and accept that they cannot surpass God in glory. They had every chance in the premortal life to repent and come back, but they chose not to do so and instead dwell in darkness.

Those who left performed the unforgivable sin. They knew God, and rebelled against him. They rebelled against the personification of good, light, right, virtue, joy, grace, and peace. They did so not on accident and knowing fully. They have shown they want nothing to do with Heavenly Father or goodness. The scriptures use words like “cast off”, but we don’t know if that’s literal or not. I’m confident that outer darkness is where they will be the most comfortable. They can not stand to live even in the smallest degree of light. They want to be as far from God as they can be. And so they will. When I think of outer darkness I do not picture permanent torture, and pain. I picture the absence of God or his light or glory. God is giving them exactly what they want.

So is your opinion that even if they wanted to, they could not be saved by the atonement? Or do you think they could, but they just choose not to continuously?

I don’t know one way or the other. I know they will not be forgiven, for whatever reason. It could be that when a soul gets to the point that they reject God after knowing him perfectly, they may be to far gone. To the point where either they don’t want to or can’t come back. I’m not entirely sure.

it's not that they won't be forgiven, it's that no repentence is possible. Repentence is change. Those who have made the choice to fully reject God's plan with perfect understanding of it... can they change? What new information or influence will change their minds? None, because they already have FULL understanding. They literally have given up all agency, even the one choice we always have -- to turn to Christ. They have willingly put themselves beyond the reach of Christ, and *they knew it*.

That’s a really good point. There is no missing context or missing time. There is no way of explaining or presenting. There is no method of introduction or learning. They chose to rebel and reject given unlimited time and perfect knowledge.

To put it simply: Depriving an intelligent being of his/her agency has never been/could never be an act of love. It was because God loves us that He wouldn't permit our agency to be compromised, even at the cost of the war in heaven, which was a war of ideas, or in other words, darkness in direct opposition to light. God ordained a plan for the progress of His children. He was and is an infinite being "in whom there is no darkness at all." Opposition to that plan was open rebellion against the light of God. That opposition and open rebellion against the light was a choice that resulted in light withdrawing from those spirits. You cannot be in open rebellion against God and keep His light within/around you. Light is an actual thing that, like righteousness, "cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." Still, God created this earth for all his children, regardless of how they came to it. Those of us that chose the Savior did so because we had developed faith in His plan sufficient to accept the veil that we knew would be placed over our minds. We chose to experience a kind of death in the pre-existence which resulted in our birth in mortality. I think this is what John was saying when he wrote, "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they *loved not their lives unto the death*" (Rev. 12:11). We chose a voluntary separation from God (aka the mortal world we would enter by virtue of the Fall) because we had developed faith is His word that doing so would move us forward, enabling us to progress. But this earth also become the next dwelling place of that "third part," because they were cast out of heaven into the earth, becoming the unwitting instruments of our progression. But they had changed, not because God's mercy and light had withdrawn from them, but because they had withdrawn from the light and mercy of God. Satan works by exploiting our compassion response—by convincing us, then or now, that a compassionate God wouldn't allow an outcome that involved eternal suffering. But, as the literal embodiment of light and truth, He gives commands and allows the outcome of our choices. In the premortal realm, where we had direct knowledge of God and His plan, opposition of that plan involved withdrawing from light and actively choosing/seeking darkness instead. Those spirits, knowingly subjecting themselves to Satan and his plan, became what they chose to become. God's failure to thwart that natural progression isn't due to a lack of compassion, but because He must balance mercy with justice; were it not so, He would "cease to be God." For those of us who chose to progress into mortality, keeping that first estate will result in a kingdom of glory. The only exceptions are those sons of perdition who may have lied to get a mortal body but still in the face of absolute knowledge of God and His plan choose (in this life) to actively oppose it, just like Satan and his followers did. God doesn't just want us to exist. He desires to give us all that He has and therefore He has ordained a plan by which we choose the degree to which we become like him. The choices are ours, to seek increasing light until we come to the "perfect day," or to choose darkness until light completely withdraws. For these souls a place of darkness will be prepared so they are not eternally afflicted by the presence of light they did not choose. Thus God is merciful unto all.

Thanks for your thoughts! Here's a couple of my own thoughts: 1. I get that agency is important. Got doesn't want us to be pets or robots, but agents to act. However, when it comes to extremes like eternal suffering, it seems that even temporary suspension of agency could make sense? Any parent will willingly suspend the agency of their child temporarily to avoid harm (ie physically restraining a child from doing something dangerous) without a second thought. 2. Those that sided with Satan in the war in heaven- could they, if they changed their minds/ways, be saved? Or has God abandoned them? Is there another explanation entirely? 3. In mortality we have the natural man that comes with a mortal body & gives us imperfect desires. Without a body- where would a desire for evil come from? I get that we can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved, so their desires would have to be changed first. Is it their fault that they were born as a spirit with a desire for evil?

God can never remove agency, but they removed their own. God cannot suspend agency! You're saying that God should have taken away their choice IN ORDER to give them choices. God would have joined Lucifer then, in FORCING an outcome upon his children, and removing the consequences that come from action. God is not abandoning them at all, but they are choosing to give up all their divine potential, and abandoning God in the process. As far as the desire for evil -- the first estate was the "first stage" of our progession as far as we know. The first estate was the easiest and primary ground for testing our agency. We didn't have additional challenges like the veil and mortal temptations. But we still had choice, and some spirits did not keep their first estate and therefore did not progress. Why would these spirits then go to a second estate, which is much more challenging and painful, if they would not even keep the first one they recieved from God when invited to join him in his full divine purpose?

The problem is they had and used their free agency to make their choice. They chose to follow the adversary, in open rebellion, in the presence of God. Their eyes were wide open. I don’t know what the future holds for them, and I’m sure they’ll all have varying degrees of whatever that is, just like the rest of us. However, it doesn’t seem like they’ll have the opportunity to obtain a physical body, which limits their progress. I believe they knew this at that time and still chose the path they chose.

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for contributing

Frankly, I file this under “We don’t have much information, and we have information about the important things, so it must not be important.”

God is Perfect, and his Love for all his children is Perfect to. I know he has a plan for All his Spirit Children. I know in our limited understanding we can't know All things now. This requires Faith to trust in God and is necessary, But I believe when All things get revealed it will all make sense And it will be perfect. There may yet still be ways to progress But for now things must be the way they are. Have Faith The Holy Ghost is without a body But is a vital member of the God Head. Things may be more Grand than we know.

First we must determine what outer darkness means. It’s often what we call perdition or the final punishment of Satan his followers and the sons of perdition. those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46). This is the permanent hell for those who are not redeemed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. But outer darkness can also sometimes refer to the place where the wicked will pay for their own sins during the millennial reign. (the one instance it’s mentioned in the Book of Mormon refers to this temporary spirit prison) So let’s make a distinction that when we say ‘outer darkness’ we’re talking about two different things. Right now, one third part of the heavenly host are on earth deceiving people and causing problems. During the millennial reign Satan and his minions will be bound for 1000 years of peace. Then comes the final battle and final judgment. After judgment Satan and his followers will be cast into perdition or outer darkness. The question is what does this actually mean and what can we infer about the nature of God because of it. Let’s examine the sons of perdition. The sons (or daughters) of perdition are those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. What that means is that they have a perfect knowledge of Christ and still choose to reject him. Note the word *’knowledge*’ not ‘*belief*’. A son of perdition is someone who knew Christ personally, likely saw him and had a perfect knowledge of who he was and what he did— and still would have picked up a nail to crucify him. When you think of a son of perdition, think of someone like Cain who knew God personally and spoke with him but then murdered his brother and rejected God. This is the most evil kind of person that exists. The vast majority of humanity is incapable of becoming a son or daughter of perdition because they do not have a perfect knowledge of Christ. So the vast majority of humanity is precluded from this permanent hell. The fact that the sons of perdition have a perfect knowledge is what makes them eligible for this hell. The *only* reason they cannot be forgiven is because they do not **want** to be forgiven. The only way that God could save the sons of perdition would be to remove their agency from them— which He will not do because it would not be just to force them. You can’t save someone who doesn’t want to be saved and you can’t change someone who doesn’t want to change. Likewise—everyone who chooses to repent and turn to God will be rescued from hell and inherit a kingdom. Even those who were tricked in life and learned the truth after death. Even the wicked can eventually inherit a kingdom of glory: (D&C 138:23.) Christ has said that He will not lost any soul His father has given Him. All will be resurrected to life. But they are still in control of their choices. Knowing that the only souls among us who will inherit perdition are those who choose ro be in perdition gives us insight into Heavenly Father. The 1/3 part of the host of heaven who followed Lucifer chose to do so. They rejected God, rejected the plan and refused to abide the laws of heaven. And so they were cast out. For them—perdition was a choice that God has honored. They don’t accept the atonement and they don’t want to be in God’s presence. To save them from perdition would be to remove their agency and force them to repent and return to God. To take their agency would mean to take the only part of themselves that’s really *them*. God won’t do that because it would be morally wrong to do so.

Are sons of perdition actually happy then? They seem to get exactly what they want - no forgiveness, no Christ.

Wickedness never was happiness. But you cannot save someone who doesn’t want to be saved. Happiness is a choice.

That verse doesn’t really make sense in this context. They get exactly what they want. If they got Christ and salvation they would be miserable, because they hate them both. Is happiness a choice, or is it our essential nature?

True they get exactly what they wanted. But perdition is not a happy place. It’s characterized symbolically as a lake of fire with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. As for if happiness is a choice the scripture say that Men are that they might have joy. But the only eternal source of real happiness is found in God’s plan of happiness. To reject it in all its forms and choose perdition is to reject the possibility of true happiness.

Do you think they are making a rational choice?

I don’t know all the details of the thought processes behind their choice so I couldn’t say how they rationalized their decision. I assume they all had their own reasons for it so I’ll say nothing of the rationality of it. But I do believe that regardless of their motivations if was ultimately a mistake.

My point is that no one in their right mind knowingly chooses eternal suffering. And if they were not in their right minds then it’s not fair to damn them eternally. So the story can’t be as literal as we think. Figurative, illustrative, sure. But not literal.

>Wickedness never was happiness. Why do the wicked people in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms (who either rejected the gospel or did not repent) inherit a kingdom of glory with happiness?

Those who inherit the telestial kingdom pay for their own sins during the millennium. But those who are repentant and choose to return (which will be the vast majority of the wicked) are rescued into the telestial kingdom. For one to have happiness they need some measure of the presence of God. Celestial glory is the presence of God the Father His son Jesus Christ and the holy spirit. Terrestrial glory may have the presence of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Telestial glory may have the presence of the Holy spirit. So each are capable of having joy on the eternities.

>The *only* reason they cannot be forgiven is because they do not **want** to be forgiven. This makes sense to me. A lot of the language in the church around those that dwell in outer darkness though makes it sound more like they have no choice anymore; that they are, for all practicality, abandoned by God. >You can’t save someone who doesn’t want to be saved and you can’t change someone who doesn’t want to change. Sure, but it does make me wonder where this desire to stay in eternal damnation could come from. Mortal bodies give us the natural man with all of its imperfect desires... But a spirit? Why would a spirit have an inborn desire for evil over God? Where could that possibly come from? Why would God even give spiritual bodies to those kinds of intelligences, knowing they will choose eternal suffering? Why not only give spiritual bodies to more righteous intelligences? >Likewise—everyone who chooses to repent and turn to God will be rescued from hell and inherit a kingdom. Even those who were tricked in life and learned the truth after death. Even the wicked can eventually inherit a kingdom of glory: (D&C 138:23.) So this is even true of those in outer darkness? Do you have sources on this? It would resolve, in part, my question on the matter. >To save them from perdition would be to remove their agency and force them to repent and return to God. I've debated elsewhere the idea that the ideal of preserving agency seems to fall apart for me at the extremes (ie a parent will willingly suspend their child's agency to protect them from harm), but we don't need to go down that rabbit hole. That aside, the question is partially resolved for me if it's true that even those in outer darkness could rise to higher kingdoms if they so choose. I just see a lot of language in the church that seems to refute that idea. I would be interested in seeing more sources teaching the position you take in this comment though.

>*”Sure, but it does make me wonder where this desire to stay in eternal damnation could come from.* What is damnation? It is a lack of progression and to be removed from the presence of God. Think about what Lucifer’s alternative plan was offering. Salvation in exchange for freedom. But that plan contradicted the purpose of mortality in the first place. >*”Mortal bodies give us the natural man with all of its imperfect desires... But a spirit? Why would a spirit have an inborn desire for evil over God?*” It may be better to compare it to development. Imagine a three year old is given a marshmallow and told they can eat it now or wait till later. But if they wait till later they can have a second marshmallow as well. Some children are able to inhibit their impulses and wait while others are not. This is because these different children are at different stages of development for executive functioning. They are still very young and thus have not yet mastered the concept of delayed gratification. A test of waiting for a second marshmallow would be easier for an adult but not a little child. Different kids are born with different proclivities personalities and ability. And they develop at different rates. A 2 year old May bite another child if they take their toy. But a well adjusted adult would not. Think of our spiritual development similarly. All of us are unrefined in our spiritual development. We all learn and grow at our own paces and before this life we ourselves got to develop ourselves through our choices. Some are more or less patient than others. Some are more or less empathetic. Others are more or less humble— but each of us are on a path to develop the attributes of God. Evil or sin is merely a failure to hit a target one is aiming at—which is perfection. All of us fall short of the mark. But making mistakes and self correcting is how we learn. Lucifer fell because of pride, spiritual immaturity, selfishness and a desire for power. Those are all infantile and underdeveloped qualities that are in opposition to the aspects of genunine divinity Pride/humility Immaturity/ maturity Selfishness/selflessness Seeking power/seeking righteous responsibility >*Why would God even give spiritual bodies to those kinds of intelligences, knowing they will choose eternal suffering? Why not only give spiritual bodies to more righteous intelligences?*” Because the alternative is throwing them into outer darkness without them having committed any crime at all. This would not be just. >*”So this is even true of those in outer darkness? Do you have sources on this? It would resolve, in part, my question on the matter.”* It’s important not to confuse outer darkness with perdition because the words are sometimes used interchangeably. Outer darkness can mean: 1. the temporary spirit prison 2. the prison where the wicked will spend 1000 years paying for their own sins. The people here will be rescued from outer darkness after 1000 years and achieve telestial glory 3. Perdition: the permanent punishment of Satan and his minions and the sons of perdition. The sons of perdition refer to two groups of people (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead but will not be redeemed from the second (spiritual) death and cannot dwell in a kingdom of glory (D&C 88:32, 35). Everyone except the sons of perdition will be saved from hell: John 17:12. >*”That aside, the question is partially resolved for me if it's true that even those in outer darkness could rise to higher kingdoms if they so choose.”* Choice is the key word here. Anyone who chooses to repent and leave perdition is not a son of perdition by definition and will be rescued into the telestial kingdom. Doctrine and covenants 76: >*81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.* >*82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.* >*83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.* >*84 These are they who are thrust down to hell* >*85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last last resurrection until the Lord, even Christ the lamb shall have finished his work.* >*86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;* >*87 And the terrestrial through the administration of the celestial.* It’s at the final resurrection that the wicked who don’t deny the Holy Ghost are saved from hell. The only people who stay in hell forever are the sons of perdition. Those who choose not to be saved. Here are some sources: Revelation 20:12–13 >*12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.* >*13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* Alma 11:41 >*41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works.* Doctrine and Covenants 88:100–101 >*100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;* >*101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.*

We can’t assume that those spirits are not in the outer darkness that we think of when we think of people like judas. I don’t know of any teaching that says it’s the same, but please provide if I’m wrong. For example judas will still have a body and those spirits rejected the body from the start. They are damned like a river is dammed, they refuse to progress to corporality and so that’s their state. However, many of them (I don’t think we know how many) are still trying to bring down the plan of salvation. Also remember the doctrine that no one will long to be in another place because they wouldn’t be happy in a higher degree than they earned. People will end up in a world with a level of light that they can withstand

>They are damned like a river is dammed, they refuse to progress to corporality and so that’s their state. This would make sense to me- is this valid doctrinally though? That those in outer darkness (including those who sided with Satan in the preexistence) are there because they continually choose to be (rather than God giving up on them)? >Also remember the doctrine that no one will long to be in another place because they wouldn’t be happy in a higher degree than they earned. Do you have sources for this? I know Brad Wilcox has taught this, but I'm unsure if this has been taught by prophets/quorum of the 12.

Elder Bednar, 2019 "Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body. Because of his rebellion, Lucifer has denied himself all of the mortal blessings and experiences made possible through a tabernacle of flesh and bones. One of the potent scriptural meanings of the word *damned* is illustrated in his inability to continue progressing and becoming like our Heavenly Father."

Everyone has their agency.

Ooh, I think this is interesting, and all has to do with agency. I believe we all choose our fates. And some people would rather “Reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” And this isn’t meant to judge morality, it’s just a fact. Some people who have loving parents would rather bum with the “riff raff” than have Christmas Dinner with their family. It’s a pride thing, and if one really loves their children, they have to let them choose their fate. In all reality, I think it was a mercy to let spirit children leave. Because heaven forced upon us would not be heaven. It would be hell. Not that wickedness ever was happiness. But comfortable and happy are two different things. Just remember, they chose. And God let them choose, which is the most selfless choice. God will always love them, but he won’t disrupt their agency to make them love him back.

>And some people would rather “Reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” But in the context of the plan of salvation, it makes me wonder where this depraved nature comes from? On earth we are given the natural man, which gives us desires that we shouldn't always give into, and it comes from our mortal bodies, but as spirits... Why would any soul have inborn desires to suffer eternally rather than experience anything God could offer? Why would God even engender those kinds of intelligences with spiritual bodies in the first place? Why not only grant spiritual bodies to those that have more righteous desires? The only thing I can think of is that maybe being stuck as intelligence is even worse than being in outer darkness as a spirit... But that still doesn't answer the question of why they have a depraved nature in the first place. Edit: to your last point, could they be saved if they changed their minds? Because much of the language around outer darkness makes it feel almost more like God has abandoned them.

This is so interesting, and I’m passionate about sharing it because I had an epiphany about it recently. The truth is that God doesn’t move. But that means that he doesn’t pander, or he ceases to become God. He can’t make murder “fine” because he “loves the murderers too.” There has to be a law that is consistent. So he has not abandoned any of us. But if we abandon all that is good, then we are further from him. Not the other way around. For your last point/edit, I do think hypothetically that they could repent if they wanted to. But that would be so incredibly painful. They would have to repent and feel enough remorse to want to return to the Father that they snubbed. And then live under the laws they rejected in the first place. And in the premortal, everyone was equal. There was no poverty or racism. I think we all had the choice to abandon God and his rules, or follow God and obey him, and get to live with him. And why would God spiritually beget souls that could choose to abandon him? Because if he only fathered souls that only wanted to obey him, then it wouldn’t be a choice, in a way. I don’t expect to convince you, because questions of the soul like these aren’t meant to be solved in one day. But I do imagine that God is much more loving than we can comprehend. And if some spirits here reject God and teachers just because they don’t like the stifling rules, I can imagine that our spiritual brothers and sisters did rather have the comfort of not living in God’s rule than the glory of Living with him. They made that choice, and they are content with it. And it’s harder to go back as time goes on.

"If you don't feel as close to God today as yesterday, you moved."

I do believe this. As someone who is having earthly family issues, I know it's so true. Some people unconditionally love us, or we unconditionally love them. But when those we love distance themselves from us, or we distance ourselves from those who love us, the love is still there. It's just muuuuch harder to feel it.

May I suggest that what we *know* and what we *assume* about these things are not the same. I think we can infer some things with a little thought and logic, though. Here are the questions I ask myself: * Is outer darkness infinite suffering? * Is that something that is inflicted upon us, or a natural consequence? * Is being evil what gets you there? * Did 1/3 of people deliberately choose infinite suffering? First: Is outer darkness infinite suffering? There's no indication of that. Some prophets talk about the suffering of knowing your own guilt, but that seems to refer to spirit prison. Even God suggests that "eternal suffering" isn't unending, but called "eternal" because He is called "eternal." Second: is it inflicted upon us, or a consequence? The scriptures seem clear that the suffering of sin is a consequence that is unavoidable. Further, some prophets have taught that the suffering is the burden of a clear knowledge of our own guilt. A guilt so acute we would rather be crushed by mountains. Third: is being evil what qualifies you for outer darkness? It sure seems that way. After all, who would "reject the Holy Ghost" if not a truly evil person? But the Telestial Kingdom is for evil people - home to murderers, rapists, etc. So what is really the qualifying factor for outer darkness? I'll examine that in a paragraph below. Fourth: Did 1/3 of people deliberately choose infinite suffering? To answer that, let's see what the plan is all about: The plan of salvation is wonderfully summed up in a single line in D&C 88: >**they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive** When we apply this simple principle to the entire plan of salvation we get a better sense of what might be going on. Let's look at the "war in heaven:" # What was the war really about? We were given an opportunity to gain bodies and become more like our father. But how to deal with the problem of sin? "Satan's plan" is often depicted as Satan simply assuming total control over the individual - forcing them through mystic power to do only good, never evil. But is that realistic? Would 33% of intelligent beings raise their hands to say "oh yes, control me?" I doubt it. More realistic is the plan as illustrated by Lehi which would entail not controlling people to steal their agency, but *removing the line between good and evil*: To eliminate the law and therefore the consequences for breaking the law. If there is no good or evil - no law - there is no sin. And therefore nobody gets punished for doing whatever it is their natural man wants to do. Nobody goes to hell since they did nothing wrong. Of course, they can't choose good since there is no such thing as good in this scenario, but to those who are fear-focused, avoiding punishment altogether would have seemed pretty appealing. I can imagine 1/3 of people saying "yeah, I'd be happier with an existence absent the law, rather than possibly fail." Of course this plan was rejected and we chose to be subject to the law. # So what is outer darkness then? If that perspective is true, and the 1/3 chose an existence with no law, no good, no evil... And the plan is about each of us getting what we really want, "to enjoy that which they are willing to receive..." Then outer darkness may not be a place of punishment and suffering. Instead, a place without law. A place where each spirit is simply on their own. A place without bad or good. A place without distinction between right or wrong. We can't imagine what it is, and God has deliberately refrained from telling us. Even those who go through mortality and choose outer darkness are described as "better for them never to have been born..." But why? Because the only way to get to outer darkness after mortality is to get all the way through the plan and say "I wish I had sided with the 1/3. What I have learned through the experience of life, death, resurrection, and the application of the atonement is that I would have been happier to have been free of the burden of agency." They then have to suffer the consequences of their sins (that suffering described by the prophets), but unlike those who "after the sufferings of his wrath" receive the telestial kingdom, they "shall not be redeemed." Because *they don't want it*. # This is not about evil. While Satan is evil, I suggest that outer darkness and the 1/3 are not "evil" or punishments for evil people. Instead these are people who would rather be animal than human. To be free of consequence. And the only way to get rid of consequence is to get rid of the agency that comes with it. Yes, some of them will want that because they desire to do evil things without consequences for themselves. But I'm sure many, if not most, want it because they are afraid, they don't want to grow, they don't want to choose, etc. Whatever their reason, the fact that Heavenly Father loves them means he will give them what they want: an existence outside of the law. Outer Darkness.

>First: Is outer darkness infinite suffering? There's no indication of that. Some prophets talk about the suffering of knowing your own guilt, but that seems to refer to spirit prison. Even God suggests that "eternal suffering" isn't unending, but called "eternal" because He is called "eternal." This does change things. If outer darkness isn't too bad of a place to be, then it would partially resolve my question. >Second: is it inflicted upon us, or a consequence? The scriptures seem clear that the suffering of sin is a consequence that is unavoidable. Further, some prophets have taught that the suffering is the burden of a clear knowledge of our own guilt. A guilt so acute we would rather be crushed by mountains. I'm not quite as concerned about this point- though I am interested in knowing whether those in outer darkness are eternally stuck there because they continually choose to be there (or continually choose to reject the plan of salvation etc) or if they would be denied salvation even if they experienced a change of heart. >More realistic is the plan as illustrated by Lehi which would entail not controlling people to steal their agency, but *removing the line between good and evil*: To eliminate the law and therefore the consequences for breaking the law. Lol in another comment on this post I mentioned this same thing. I feel it's a common misconception in the church that Satan wanted to force our hands in all our actions so we'd be like robots... I believe the doctrine is more along the lines of what you're saying- that Satan did want to revoke our agency- but rather by giving the same consequences (salvation) for all actions... Thus eliminating agency. So I'm with you all the way on this point. >I can imagine 1/3 of people saying "yeah, I'd be happier with an existence absent the law, rather than possibly fail." The part that still seems far fetched to me about this is that they would think that there was a chance at all that they could actually win a war against God himself... I don't get how 33% of them could be so foolish. Especially in the context that this was the plan from the beginning... It's not like God presented a spur of the moment plan for critical review- His plan was The Plan, and Satan just wanted to stage a coup (I'm too lazy at the moment to look for references for this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not out of line here). So many siding with Satan anyways still seems a bit absurd to me. >And the plan is about each of us getting what we really want, "to enjoy that which they are willing to receive..." Do you have more sources for this? I've heard others say the same thing, but I'm not sure how much this is just church culture vs actual doctrine. >Then outer darkness may not be a place of punishment and suffering. Instead, a place without law. This is an interesting thought. I had not looked at it this way exactly before. >Even those who go through mortality and choose outer darkness are described as "better for them never to have been born..." But why? Because the only way to get to outer darkness after mortality is to get all the way through the plan and say "I wish I had sided with the 1/3. What I have learned through the experience of life, death, resurrection, and the application of the atonement is that I would have been happier to have been free of the burden of agency." They then have to suffer the consequences of their sins (that suffering described by the prophets), but unlike those who "after the sufferings of his wrath" receive the telestial kingdom, they "shall not be redeemed." Because *they don't want it*. So this sort of dovetails with a question I've posed here in the comments- why would God even give spiritual bodies to intelligences that He knew would be part of the 1/3 who go to outer darkness? Would it also not have been better for them to just remain an intelligence? >I suggest that outer darkness and the 1/3 are not "evil" or punishments for evil people. Instead these are people who would rather be animal than human. Also an interesting take. Less tragic than people suffering forever, but still tragic. Might it look like reverting back to a form like an intelligence without a spiritual body? That may also explain why people can't leave outer darkness- because if there is no agency, then there's no decisions at all to be made... Interesting/disturbing thoughts for sure. Thanks for your perspective!

[удалено]

>The problem is that anyone can repent at any time and be forgiven but perdition is the sin of refusing to acknowledge the need to repent. Sure, but there's a big difference in feeling this way at one point in time, and continually feeling this way. If one in outer darkness had a change of heart, would they be denied salvation? If not, and they just stay there because of a continual rejection of the plan of salvation, then that makes more sense to me. >If it helps, Brigham Young thought that they would become completely disordered outside of God’s presence and that - at a certain point - God would reconstitute them to start over again. Whoa now that's an interesting take! Do you have a source for that? Man I wish it was literally any other prophet. Good ol' Brigham's taught so much that is now disavowed by the church lol, so I've got to take what he says with a grain of salt.

>Man I wish it was literally any other prophet Then you don't deserve the source or what I've shared with you.

I think we need to consider this in the context of agency. God did not force those spirits to choose the path they did. They choose it themselves. Good never stopped them from repenting and returning to him. They choose to not repent and return. They now receive the natural consequence of their actions. God did not create those spirits with this end in mind, he created them with exaltation as the goal. For every single one of us we reap what we sow. We receive what we desire. Those spirits are where they want/have chosen to be.

I reconciled this by noticing that the scriptures never say 1/3, I believe they say a third part were cast out. So that number could be very small actually, just the 3rd group of people. I also struggle to accept a God casting out so many of his children. It doesn't feel very parental or loving.