What was Satan's Plans at the council?

[Lightbearer]

The Prophet Joseph said:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Six 1843-44, p.357) "The contention in heaven was--Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him. (Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price, Chap. 4:1-4; Book of Abraham, Chap. 3:23-28.)

Either way you look at it either forced obedience or nullifying the consequences of sin agency was the contention. You cannot save someone against their will. So Satan's plan could not have worked even if implimented. First it would have made God a liar, because it was He who gave us our agency to begin with and anything that could be used to thwart justice and mercy and make of our agency null and void was a lie. A cheat, and thus Satan's idea of saving all mankind against their will or regardless of their choices is a lie. President Benson favored the idea of forced obedience as stated here:

(Ezra Taft Benson,

[mercyngrace]

I wouldn't count them as (to coin a phrase) first testament nor even "second testament", but certainly "third" or Mormon testament. Also, I was very careful to say that while the OT doesn't agree to the designation of ha-satan other, more modern theologies have. Like most things it would probably be a matter of faith.

To be straight in my response I would have to say at the surface of it the 2 Nephi quote is referring to a literal Satan, albeit using words that are more Greek than modern. I don't find this all that surprising since much of Mormonism is based on the Greek and early Christians concepts of evil and demons. Nor would I disagree that the quote is referencing Isaiah. The bigger question must therefore prevail: What was Isaiah meaning when he reference Lucifer and his fall?

Ignoring Isaiah for a sec (who says Lucifer, Son of the Morning, has to be THE Satan?), why doesn't the Job story present us with a personal Satan?

(Sorry to make you play Professor to my inquisitive student but could you also give me some specifics on the Ugaritic myth/Isaiah so I have some keywords for research purposes?)

[mercyngrace]

David Bokovoy has a great explanation of how Lehi came to find Satan described in the Hebrew scriptures.

Has he discussed it here, Volgadon? My site searches aren't getting many hits with the words "Satan Lehi Bokovoy".

Oddly, when I just search using keywords "Bokovoy Satan", I get redirected to Droopy's blog. (Hahahaha!)

[nicolasconnault]

The scriptures tell us what Lucifer said, not what he planned or thought. I am of the opinion that Lucifer fully intended for his proposed plan to be rejected by the Father, but enthusiastically followed by a large number of his spirit brothers and sisters. I also believe that, before he put his hand up at the council, he had conducted a very extensive and lengthy campaign of misinformation and influence, and that many spirits were already behind him when he enunciated his plan. He had already successfully mislead and confused many with vain promises of glory and honour.

I think we can gain great insight in Lucifer's plans by observing Satan's strategies in the scriptures, particularly in the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Osborn]

The scriptures tell us what Lucifer said, not what he planned or thought. I am of the opinion that Lucifer fully intended for his proposed plan to be rejected by the Father, but enthusiastically followed by a large number of his spirit brothers and sisters. I also believe that, before he put his hand up at the council, he had conducted a very extensive and lengthy campaign of misinformation and influence, and that many spirits were already behind him when he enunciated his plan. He had already successfully mislead and confused many with vain promises of glory and honour.

I think we can gain great insight in Lucifer's plans by observing Satan's strategies in the scriptures, particularly in the Book of Mormon.

I will agree with this. It is clear that the scriptures state what Satan said, not what he was truthfully going to do. I think many believe that he was being honest when he said he would save all- that not one soul should be lost. Bt why should we believe this? I would believe that it is the job of a savior to save all that is given him to save- that none should be lost.

Perhaps it is hard for us to see that he was lying because it states as a fact that he sought to destroy our agency and so we put two and two together and thus assume he was being honest about saving all and that he would do it by force. Yet, it also states that as many as follow Satan are led captive by him. Being led down into captivity is the very definition of destroying ones agency.

I believe that as you have also said that Satan lied intentionally about saving God's children. God saw through his lies and had him cast out of heaven for trying to lead his children down into the captive chains of darkness. His real plans (Satan's) haven't changed one bit.

It really seams more plausible.

[Webster]

Why do we have the idea in Mormonism that Satan wanted to destroy agency in order to save everyone (not one soul would be lost), but now he's still trying to destroy agency in order to damn everyone? That's never made sense to me. Wouldn't he change his plan? How is it that destroying agency can both save all and damn all?

If he thought destroying agency could save all, then I would suppose that allowing agency (and using it against us) would be his new plan to damn us.

[mercyngrace]

Why do we have the idea in Mormonism that Satan wanted to destroy agency in order to save everyone (not one soul would be lost), but now he's still trying to destroy agency in order to damn everyone? That's never made sense to me. Wouldn't he change his plan? How is it that destroying agency can both save all and damn all?

If he thought destroying agency could save all, then I would suppose that allowing agency (and using it against us) would be his new plan to damn us.

Destroying agency can't save everyone - that was Lucifer's fundamental misunderstanding. (See my post above citing Pres. Monson from the most recent PH session of GC)

And it really can't damn anyone either. The only permament damnation is outer darkness and becoming a son of perdition requires the exercise of agency.

[DarkScythe]

For good or for evil, Satan only cares about Power.

[cinepro]

Or perhaps in your case the veil is very thin and you just supplied us with more details of the plan that wasn't accepted.

The plan I outlined abides by all the rules of the currently used Plan of Salvation. The only change would be to the age of accountability (or the age at which humans can reproduce), and an increase in the number of unaccountable people that God allows to die through natural causes.

It would still be God's plan (the same one, in fact), and He would still get all the glory. It would just be a slightly different implementation that would use the parameters of the Plan of Salvation to drastically increase the number of souls in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Jason]

If I had been at the council, I would have suggested a plan wherein the human body is able to procreate before the age of accountability. Also, I would suggest the evolution of a virus that kills all humans before the age of accountability.

That way, everyone could be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without frustrating agency and the principles of the gospel. And since no one could sin, we wouldn't need a redeemer and all the Glory would be God's by default.

Wouldn't work.

Those who die before the age of accountability are allowed to do so because they received all they needed from this life. The rest of us need to use our agency and learn from the results - we need time where we are accountable and need to be able to make mistakes and learn from them. Killing us all by a disease before we received the lessons we needed from mortality would damn us.

Getting to the Celestial Kingdom isn't just about avoiding sin, you (should) know, it's also about learning to do good.

[Ron Beron]

Ignoring Isaiah for a sec (who says Lucifer, Son of the Morning, has to be THE Satan?), why doesn't the Job story present us with a personal Satan?

(Sorry to make you play Professor to my inquisitive student but could you also give me some specifics on the Ugaritic myth/Isaiah so I have some keywords for research purposes?)

A quick question...are you asking whether Job presents us with a personal satan or an appellation known as A satan?

Secondly, the Ugaritic story is presented in a quick and dirty Wiki piece:

The Morning Star in Isaiah 14:12

The Book of Isaiah has the following passage:

When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of

Babylon

: How the oppressor has ceased! How his insolence has ceased!

[mercyngrace]

A quick question...are you asking whether Job presents us with a personal satan or an appellation known as A satan?

The first one... Why isn't Satan in Job a personal satan? Is it just the absence of specifics... God is approached by an opponent rather than THE/HIS opponent?

PS Thanks for the wiki link. I didn't even think of looking up the scripture there (DOH!)

[urroner]

A quick question...are you asking whether Job presents us with a personal satan or an appellation known as A satan?

Secondly, the Ugaritic story is presented in a quick and dirty Wiki piece:

Good stuff Ron. Thanks.

[Rob Osborn]

For those who believe in a "forced obedience" scenerio, I am curious how this may have worked? If even our thoughts can be sinful would this mean mind control? How would a society insure people were obedient all the time? Would this be any different than parents who force their teenage children to go to church? Would that be a case of forced obedience?

[urroner]

For those who believe in a "forced obedience" scenerio, I am curious how this may have worked? If even our thoughts can be sinful would this mean mind control? How would a society insure people were obedient all the time? Would this be any different than parents who force their teenage children to go to church? Would that be a case of forced obedience?

I don't know how it would work. It would probably take a completely different mindset to understand this. I don't think it's a matter of God "forcing" us to do what's right by saying "You will do this or else," rather I think that it's a matter of us not even having a choice of doing what is right or wrong, rather we wouldn't even understand that there is a choice. I figure that we would be like ants and be programmed to do whatever. Parents wouldn't be necessary other than for the purpose of procreation and maybe that wouldn't even be necessary.

[cinepro]

Those who die before the age of accountability are allowed to do so because they received all they needed from this life.

All I can find in the scriptures is this:

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

It's an interesting idea that there are some spirits that don't "need" mortal experiences beyond a few seconds of life after birth, but I'm not sure it's doctrine.

At the very least, the doctrine is that it's sin that makes us unable to return to God, and those who die before the age of accountability haven't sinned, so they're automatically worthy to return to God. There's no prerequisite for a certain level of life experience in the equation.

[zelder]

I believe the plan presented in the great counsil was a plan of forced obedience. The prophets have told us that the war in heaven is still being fought here on earth. I believe that Lucifer is still trying to implement his plan of forced obedience on earth. And yes, Osborn, it involves mind control. I suspect that Nazi and CIA MK-Ultra mind control programs are just small windows into the work that has been done in that field. The value of tempting men to sin is that it takes us out of Gods protection and puts us under Satans control. Wickedness does not just cause us to loose our spiritual freedom, we also loose our physical freedom. A wicked and rebellious nation must have a more despotic and controlling government to keep the people in line. Its a downward spiral. In fact I think it is possible for despos to create artificial crime as an excuse to exert more power over the people and rob them of more freedom.

[Rob Osborn]

I believe the plan presented in the great counsil was a plan of forced obedience. The prophets have told us that the war in heaven is still being fought here on earth. I believe that Lucifer is still trying to implement his plan of forced obedience on earth. And yes, Osborn, it involves mind control. I suspect that Nazi and CIA MK-Ultra mind control programs are just small windows into the work that has been done in that field. The value of tempting men to sin is that it takes us out of Gods protection and puts us under Satans control. Wickedness does not just cause us to loose our spiritual freedom, we also loose our physical freedom. A wicked and rebellious nation must have a more despotic and controlling government to keep the people in line. Its a downward spiral. In fact I think it is possible for despos to create artificial crime as an excuse to exert more power over the people and rob them of more freedom.

But the Nazi's nor the CIA ever had mind control programs that forced them to be obedient to the saving laws and ordinances of the gospel. If the plan - the same plan is being waged by Satan, why hasn't there ever been a case of forced obedience?

[ERayR]

Interestes in peoples answers and why they believe this way. Please explain.

To seize the power and glory of God.

[Ron Beron]

The first one... Why isn't Satan in Job a personal satan? Is it just the absence of specifics... God is approached by an opponent rather than THE/HIS opponent?

PS Thanks for the wiki link. I didn't even think of looking up the scripture there (DOH!)

Thanks for the clarification. The satan presented in Job is not a personal one. That is to say he is not a being known as Satan, but as an entity known as "A" satan, ha-satan, or an adversary. Ask yourself, if Satan aka Lucifer had been cast from God then why is he showing up in the councils of heaven prodding God to tempt Job? Secondly, why is God buying into this? The satan described in Job is not being known as Satan, but heavenly creature known as a special prosecutor of God, an adversarial advocate or a satan.

[nicolasconnault]

I think that the expression "Forced obedience" is an oxymoron. Obedience implies the possibility of disobedience, one could not exist without the other. If you force a person to act a certain way, they are no longer free to disobey, therefore their behaviour becomes compliant, but not obedient. Perhaps the term "coercion" would be better, but I'm still not sure it represents Satan's plan.

[CV75]

His plan was "They cannot do or be anything they want!" (Lois Smart, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50924048-76/elizabeth-smart-lois-mitchell.html.csp?page=2)

[William James]

I chose the first two choices, based upon what I consider to be conventional LDS teaching on the subject. That said, I should add the following caveats:

1. I am not convinced that Satan exists, but I accept the possibility that he does. Though I am no expert on history, it seems to me that Satan is likely a man-made invention. Evil does not require a Satan to exist, and I believe that temptation will always exist independent of any Satan-like being. But it seems that the primary issue regarding Satan is not whether he exists, but rather, what effect his existence could rationally have on us. If he is able to force anything upon us (either by controlling us, our thoughts, or by wielding any physical power over nature or objects), then it seems that we have diminished responsibility for our choices. If, on the other hand, Satan is nothing but a cheerleader for evil, clapping and shouting silently beyond the veil every time we sin, then it seems he is irrelevant. For my part, I believe we will all inevitably have to make choices about how we live, and we will sometimes make good choices and sometimes make bad ones. I don't believe Satan, if he exists, has anything to do with it. We should not concern ourselves with what Satan does or doesn't want, but rather, we should concern ourselves with what is and is not moral based upon our conscience, logic, study, and reason.

2. The concept of salvation through forced obedience is fascinating, and in my view, begs the question: "What is forced obedience?" It seems there are two ways to force obedience- one is to physically control a person's actions. The other is to create a system of rewards and punishments which are so immediate, obvious, consistent, and penetrating that the mind is compelled to have only one rational choice in any given situation. One of the reasons that I reject the notion, of a vengeful God waiting in the wings to deal out punishments when we sin, is that it too closely resembles this second model of forced obedience. Another reason is that it conflicts the the notion of a wise, patient, and loving God who has enough self-worth not to feel personally offended when we ignorant mortals sin. As I have remarked before in a different way, agency depends in large part upon the uncertainty of the consequences of our choices.

3. Though Satan may have thought that forcing obedience would have saved us, he would have been wrong. My concept of "salvation" is not about merely saving someone from eternal damnation and punishment, but rather, the enlightenment of our souls through increased love and wisdom. Wisdom can only come about through grappling with uncertainty and learning to exercise faith when the reward is uncertain. Thus, forced obedience would have killed off our spiritual development by insulating us from the uncertainty of randomness.

[Jason]

It's an interesting idea that there are some spirits that don't "need" mortal experiences beyond a few seconds of life after birth, but I'm not sure it's doctrine.

It may not be stated doctrine, but it seems to me to be a logical fit with what we know about mortality and the nature of God.

At the very least, the doctrine is that it's sin that makes us unable to return to God, and those who die before the age of accountability haven't sinned, so they're automatically worthy to return to God. There's no prerequisite for a certain level of life experience in the equation.

But the explicit purpose of being sent from God's presence without our memories of Him is to be tested. Those who died before the age of accountability obviously weren't tested, since they were not accountable during mortality.

[Rob Osborn]

It may not be stated doctrine, but it seems to me to be a logical fit with what we know about mortality and the nature of God.

But the explicit purpose of being sent from God's presence without our memories of Him is to be tested. Those who died before the age of accountability obviously weren't tested, since they were not accountable during mortality.

We cannt become like God without experiencing mortality and being tested. Of those who died before becoming accountable thet will have another chance to be tested which will take place during the millennium. All must become accountable before God and then choose to follow the savior by adherence to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. It would be false to believe that children automatically have a free pass to the eternities without showing the same obedience that Christ has laid out.

The baptismal covenant is more than a process of repentance. It is the very means upon which we covenant with the Father to obey all his commandments. Without this ordiance, no man who rises to an age of man can become like God. Children who are raised in the millennium must show this obedience.