Let me also add that Satan’s proposal seems to require the destruction of agency in mortality (the trial period). I don’t know that he sought to destroy agency in the pre-mortal estate.

Anyway, I see my above idea as one possibility for explaining things.

A similar thing happens with Abinadi. His testimony (or knowledge) is so sure that Christ will come that he speaks as if it has already occurred:

Mosiah 16:6–7
And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption.
And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection.

It’s possible that a similar thing is happening in Moses 4:3.

That’s just a possibility—something to put on the bookshelf of ideas.

Great point, Matthew. Sometimes passages the explain the gospel are referring only to “the family of Adam,” not necessarily the “family of Elohim” (e.g., 2 Ne. 9:21; Morm. 3:20).

I think you could make a case for that with two of the passages in this article. But what about Moses 4:3? It’s talking about Lucifer during the war in heaven, trying to destroy the agency that the Father had given to man. To me, that makes it sound like we already had agency during the war in heaven.

Consider the following scriptures:

2 Nephi 2:25–26
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.

Alma 12:27
But it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

Alma 42:4
And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

The above scriptures refer to mortals. It would be hard to apply them to the third who followed Lucifer and were denied physical bodies. We commonly say that all men will be resurrected, which is true as long as we mean all mortal men. It would be incorrect to say that all of God’s children will be resurrected, because the third who are denied physical bodies will not.

Scriptures which reference God giving man his agency, might only refer to God giving (or granting) agency to beings in this present “sphere” of existence (mortality) without saying anything, one way or the other, about the existence of agency in other spheres.

In the end, however, by intent I mean not the goal or intended purpose of the action, but whether the action is motivated by love or malice. That has a lot to do with morality. Everything? I don’t know. But certainly a lot.

I’m also not so sure that ruling out “effect” also rules out intent. For example, because I love others, I share with them the gospel. I have no idea what the actual effect of my efforts will be, and thus the actual effect isn’t what makes my action right. However, that doesn’t make intent (love for others) irrelevant.

Maybe your qualm is with the “intent” part of this equation (I know you’re with me on the “effect” part). The “intent” behind an action refers to the desired outcome as a result of performance of that action. Because the eventual outcome cannot justify one’s performance of an action one believes is “wrong” by your philosophy, then ruling out effect in judging actions also quashes intent.