Also, I don’t see why anyone needs to feel like Pres. Monson, Abraham, or others were necessarily the noble and great, while you weren’t. In Abr 3:22 it says that the group that were to be the rulers were “many of the noble and great ones” – not all of them. So some of the noble and great ones were destined to do things other than lead the church. Does that mean they were destined to be mentally handicapped, or die under 8? Maybe, but I don’t see the point in worrying a whole lot about it. You might have been one of the “great and noble ones” or you might not… you’re going to be judged on what you do now, not then.

As Spock once said, there are always possibilities. So I will happily admit that my reading is not necessary.

It’s not that I don’t believe there is some variance in valiance

So, you are a yes to the poll question now. We are on the same page.

I think that a way Geoff J. explained it makes sense. Geoff said something like imagine a range of sinning from -100 to 100. God declares “Valiant people (the great and the noble) are people who fall between 1 and 100″ That allows for some range of action, but it also includes everyone in the valiant category. It’s not that I don’t believe there is some variance in valiance; it’s that I don’t think it is significant. For that matter, I don’t find it significant on earth either (for we all are sinners and damned without Christ).

As to the them whom Christ addresses, I don’t know. I don’t believe he is testing animals (because I don’t think they can sin). At the same time, the way you are reading it makes it sound like he is talking to a bunch of buddies who aren’t going to be tested at all, which also doesn’t sound like the plan. Or, if folklore is to be believed, it makes the noble and great ones the mentally challenged and those who die before they are 8. I don’t think either of those possibilities fits our understanding of the plan of salvation, foreordination, or Abraham being a noble and great one very well.

I get that you don’t like my reading. Can you at least admit that your reading isn’t necessary? If you will offer the possibility of other interpretations, we can all move on.

As b pointed out quite well at the beginning of #73, this makes the declaration in Abr 3:23 a dramatic affirmation of the trivial and obvious. God says: “Abraham, you were not an animal nor a son of perdition. You were chosen before you were born based on that!”

Further, in vs. 25, the one like unto God turns to the noble and greats with him and says they will go create an earth “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” So, on your reading, they create the earth so that the animals and sons of perdition can be proven herewith? You may reply that the noble and greats are part of those who end up being proven, which is true, but the verse phrases it so that it is inescapable that the non-noble-and-greats are among those who will be proven herewith. Doesn’t seem to make sense to me on your reading.

These points make your reading untenable in my estimation. Beyond the Abr 3 point, I don’t see anywhere that you have explained how we can have agency in any meaningful context to choose sides in a war or to develop our intelligence without people having the possibility of being more valiant than others.

1. The idea of pre-mortal valiance is dangerous because we can abuse it by trying to say that we know who (on earth) was more or less valiant in the pre-existence. You hit this in comments 21, 33, 43, 59, 62, 81.

2. You don’t see the value of the doctrine in providing a a motivation for us to be better. You hit this in 24, 33, 34, 41, 59, 61.

The question you asked in the poll was: is it possible for a spirit to have been less valiant in the pre-existence? As has been pointed out numerous times, these two points you are driving home again and again are orthogonal to the question you asked in the poll. Perhaps next Monday you should have a poll that asks:

Should we speculate about who was more valiant in the pre-existence based on race, calling in the church, or other earthly circumstances?

If you do, I will side with you (and everyone else) in saying that we shouldn’t speculate about who was more/less valiant. No one, I repeat, no one, has said we should assume President Monson was more valiant or better than you. The only one suggesting this is you (in 62, 76, 81). Your insistence on pursuing this argument against a complete straw man is bewildering.

As to your second drum beat, Eric responded very succinctly in #56 (I didn’t see a response to his point, that just because a doctrine can be misused does not mean it is incorrect).