Thursday, February 11, 2010

LESSON 2 - Thou Wast Chosen Before Thou Wast Born

THE NOBLE AND GREAT ONES

Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

What was it that caused certain premortal spirits to be identified as “noble and great ones?” A friend recently told me that he is convinced that certain spirits were more righteous from the “beginning,” and that these were early on singled out for special purposes. He suggests that we can all become “noble and great,” but some have a spiritual head-start -- sort of a Mormon preexistence application of Calvinist predeterminism!! He seems to think that the number of the “noble and great,” is quite limited.

I note, however, that Joseph F. Smith, in his Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, identified a similar group of, “great and mighty ones,” and remarked that this was a “vast congregation.” He begins to enumerate these, but his list is obviously open-ended, as indicated in verse 49: “all these and many more.”

The notion that some were more righteous from the beginning, or that they had a spiritual head-start, is refuted by the prophet Alma as he discusses those who proved themselves worthy to receive the priesthood by their actions in the preexistence.

ALMA 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts…

So we see that ALL spirits were on the “same standing,” in the preexistence, but that some proved themselves more worthy by “choosing good,” and, “exercising great faith.” We had agency before we came into mortality, and how we used that agency in large part determined whether or not we would be counted among the, “noble and great ones.”

In comparing Abraham 3 and Alma 13, we see that the only requirements listed for the “noble and great,” are that they were left to choose between good and evil, and that they exercised great faith and made the decision to do good. Having done that, they are “chosen,” and given a calling to fulfill here in mortality, or “foreordained,” to a high and holy calling.

As John Taylor noted in 1882:

...there are thousands of men upon the earth to-day, among the Saints of God, of whom it was decreed before they came that they should occupy the positions they have occupied and do occupy, and many of them have performed their part and gone home; others are left to still further the duties and responsibilities devolving upon them. (Journal of Discourses 23:177)

When it is stated in Abraham 3:23 that of these God would "make my rulers," the connotation is not necessarily political nor governmental, but rather that these noble and great ones would be rulers in the Kingdom of God on earth. As we all have opportunities from time to time to hold positions of responsibility within the Church on a constantly revolving basis, I think it would be reasonable to say that we have all been chosen from the "noble and great."

--------------
LUCIFER / SON OF THE MORNING

The origin of the title, “Son of the Morning,” is associated with the statement in Isaiah 14:12 and applied to the being known as Lucifer. Although some early Christian and Eastern traditions assert that Satan and Lucifer are two different fallen angels, modern-day revelation seems to refute that.

D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

Lucifer is a Latin name meaning literally “light bearer,” and originally was a Roman name for the planet Venus, the “day star.” There is considerable debate raging regarding the translation of Isaiah 14:12, the assignation of the name Lucifer to this passage and the subsequent equating of Lucifer with Satan. A simple search of the internet will reveal the points of this debate.

The Bible Dictionary found in the LDS edition of the KJV Bible states, “Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan.” BD, p. 726.

Now, if Lucifer was known as a “Son of the Morning,” or “Day Star,” or, “Bright and Morning Star,” prior to his fall, this brings up an interesting point in reference to Revelation 22:16, where Jesus is referred to as, “the bright and morning star.”

Latter-day Saint theology asserts that Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus) was the firstborn of the Father in the spirit, and that Lucifer was among the first (if not, in fact, the second). The naming of both as “sons of the morning,” seems to validate this view, and presents the possibility that an early group of God’s spirit children were known as “children of the morning.”

2 comments:

  1. The Old Testament is fraught with birthright stories and issues. I wouldn't be surprised if there existed similar "issues" between Christ and Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have unresolved questions about the doctrine of free agency or moral agency. For argument's sake, let's equate evil with wrongness. How can a man choose evil or choose wrongly if he is not inclined or motivated to choose wrongly? If a being has no inclination to choose wrongness over rightness, then why choose it? If his choice is purely random and there is no wrong motive or inclination behind it,then how can the choice be blameworthy? If the being has an inclination toward choosing wrongly, then why is it so inclined?

    There are scriptures which seem to suggest that man by his very nature is an enemy to God and will continue to be an enemy unless he "yields" to and chooses rightness over wrongness. But why is man an enemy by nature? Is it any man's fault that he is an enemy to God by his very nature?

    What is it about any man that would allow him or motivate him to yield to rightness and choose it over wrongness? What "quality" or "attribute" would a man need to possess in order to overcome his natural inclination to choose wrongly and instead, "yield" to an enticing to choose rightly?

    Is the man who "yields" more intelligent, more in tune? Is he more humble? Is he more respectful, reverent or fearful? Is he more teachable? Does he have a softer heart? What are the qualities he would need to possess in order to overcome his natural tendancy to be an enemy to God and instead choose to yield?

    If he has the requisite qualities to make the decision to yield, then why would he not yield? By the same token, if he lacked the necessary qualities how could he ever yield? Is the quality to yield the same thing as the inclination to yield?

    If a man is lacking the inclination or qualities that would allow him to yield, it would seem that he is defective by nature and destined for eternal torment. How is his defectiveness his fault?

    ReplyDelete