Was Lucifer Really The Bad Guy In The War In Heaven?

[mormonnewb]

I just had the most random thought:

As I understand our narrative, HF called a council in heaven and laid out the plan of salvation with Christ as redeemer. Lucifer objected, pointing out (correctly) that the plan would result in the loss of some souls and proposed instead that he would be the redeemer and deliver ALL souls back to heaven. We're told that Lucifer's main goal here was to increase his own glory while Christ was simply looking to do HF's will.

But, in the end, Christ received far more glory than Lucifer could have ever obtained. About 2 billion people call themselves "Christians" (not Elohimians). Amongst the vast majority of these people, Christ is CO-EQUAL with HF. And Christ is no slouch in Mormonism either. In fact, our Church is named after Christ (not Elohim). We live our lives according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't imagine that Lucifer ever imagined that he would have received even a fraction of this glory under his Plan B.

That being said, I'm trying to figure out where Lucifer went wrong. HF called a COUNCIL of His children. In doing so, I presume that HF meant to get their COUNSEL. Lucifer presented an alternative plan that had some merit (freedom vs. security is an argument we often have in modern society). Sure, he wanted his own glory out of the deal, but the original plan called for glory for Christ so SOMEONE was going to get glory out of the deal and Lucifer's plan promised 100% success. In short, Lucifer was promising more souls, less sharing of glory.

Up until this point, I don't see where anyone is in the wrong. But then all heaven breaks out, and Lucifer and his supporters "lose their estate" and are cast out of heaven. I did some checking on the War in Heaven but I'm not sure that it's clear who started it. Was it the case that HF rejected Lucifer's plan and then Lucifer and his followers went into open rebellion (which seems both really dumb ... and maybe even impossible ... How do you start a "fight" with God?) Or did the simple act of proposing (and backing) Plan B put them into open rebellion for rejecting God's original plan?

Given recent events in the Church, this question isn't just purely academic for me.

[Calm]

What Lucifer wanted was to have all the glory and not share it with anyone, his plan allowed for no one else to actually progress...no sin, no choices, no learning. No progression, just stagnation...impossible really.

What the Father and Christ want is for everyone who is willing to share to share in their glory by progressing to the point they will be able to.

There is a huge difference.

Edited July 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I just had the most random thought:

As I understand our narrative, HF called a council in heaven and laid out the plan of salvation with Christ as redeemer. Lucifer objected, pointing out (correctly) that the plan would result in the loss of some souls and proposed instead that he would be the redeemer and deliver ALL souls back to heaven. We're told that Lucifer's main goal here was to increase his own glory while Christ was simply looking to do HF's will.

But, in the end, Christ received far more glory than Lucifer could have ever obtained. About 2 billion people call themselves "Christians" (not Elohimians). Amongst the vast majority of these people, Christ is CO-EQUAL with HF. And Christ is no slouch in Mormonism either. In fact, our Church is named after Christ (not Elohim). We live our lives according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't imagine that Lucifer ever imagined that he would have received even a fraction of this glory under his Plan B.

That being said, I'm trying to figure out where Lucifer went wrong. HF called a COUNCIL of His children. In doing so, I presume that HF meant to get their COUNSEL. Lucifer presented an alternative plan that had some merit (freedom vs. security is an argument we often have in modern society). Sure, he wanted his own glory out of the deal, but the original plan called for glory for Christ so SOMEONE was going to get glory out of the deal and Lucifer's plan promised 100% success. In short, Lucifer was promising more souls, less sharing of glory.

Up until this point, I don't see where anyone is in the wrong. But then all heaven breaks out, and Lucifer and his supporters "lose their estate" and are cast out of heaven. I did some checking on the War in Heaven but I'm not sure that it's clear who started it. Was it the case that HF rejected Lucifer's plan and then Lucifer and his followers went into open rebellion (which seems both really dumb ... and maybe even impossible ... How do you start a "fight" with God?) Or did the simple act of proposing (and backing) Plan B put them into open rebellion for rejecting God's original plan?

Given recent events in the Church, this question isn't just purely academic for me.

If we have a testimony of Christ, we invite his spirit to be with us.

 

If we have a testimony of Lucifer, we invite.......

 

Oh never mind. 

 

Talk to Tsuzuki - he thinks the same way.  He will probably show up anyway.

[mormonnewb]

What Lucifer wanted was to have all the glory and not share it with anyone, his plan allowed for no one else to actually progress...no sin, no choices, no learning. No progression, just stagnation...impossible really.

What the Father and Christ want is for everyone who is willing to share to share in their glory by progressing to the point they will be able to.

There is a huge difference.

So was Lucifer's sin having a bad idea? Or are you saying that he KNEW he would be harming his brothers and sisters and therefore, his plan was downright EVIL?

If the latter, what about his followers? Were they intentionally pushing a plan that they knew would hurt them as well? If not, what was their transgression?

[mfbukowski]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60755-thelema-and-mormonism/?p=1209254156

[mfbukowski]

So was Lucifer's sin having a bad idea? Or are you saying that he KNEW he would be harming his brothers and sisters and therefore, his plan was downright EVIL?

If the latter, what about his followers? Were they intentionally pushing a plan that they knew would hurt them as well? If not, what was their transgression?

Does giving everyone the answers in a test so they pass do them harm?

 

Give a man a fish.....

 

That's the road to slavery.

[Rob Osborn]

Lucifers plan was to overthrow the kingdom with unrighteous behavior and rule over Gods children in sin and wickedness. It was a lie o Lucifer that he was really going to save all. That is where the name "father of all lies" originates from.

[mormonnewb]

If we have a testimony of Christ, we invite his spirit to be with us.

If we have a testimony of Lucifer, we invite.......

Oh never mind.

Talk to Tsuzuki - he thinks the same way. He will probably show up anyway.

I was obviously being too clever by half, so let me clarify: My REAL question is NOT whether Lucifer was right and whether I should go out to worship him instead. And if I did have that question, I wouldn't come HERE for the answer any more than I would go to muslimdialogue.org for BLT recipes.

My real question is "When do we reach the stage of open rebellion of HF? When we let our own selfish desires cause us to think we have a 'better way' to accomplish His plans? Or does it require an open act of defiance for us to cross the line?"

Sorry for being so obtuse in the OP.

[halconero]

1) Lucifer proposes to save humanity through the destruction of their agency, in return for doing so he demands that God give Lucifer not his honour, but his power. This wasn't simply about praise, Lucifer's demand was that God cease to be God, and that Lucifer would take his place.

 

2) Upon Heavenly Father's declaration that Jesus would be the Messiah, and that humanity would not see their free will violated, Lucifer "became angry" and willingly gave up his place in the Kingdom of God. In effect, Lucifer resigned from the Heavenly Church and the Heavenly Kingdom, and, the scriptures say, many followed his example.

[Rob Osborn]

I was obviously being too clever by half, so let me clarify: My REAL question is NOT whether Lucifer was right and whether I should go out to worship him instead. And if I did have that question, I wouldn't come HERE for the answer any more than I would go to muslimdialogue.org for BLT recipes.

My real question is "When do we reach the stage of open rebellion of HF? When we let our own selfish desires cause us to think we have a 'better way' to accomplish His plans? Or does it require an open act of defiance for us to cross the line?"

Sorry for being so obtuse in the OP.

A continued life of sin and rebellion to the gospel is the road to where Lucifer is. It always involves rebellion to the right plan.

[Guest]

To the OP:

No one has the right to force us to do anything when it comes to matters of the conscience, even if it "is" salvation.

[mfbukowski]

My real question is "When do we reach the stage of open rebellion of HF?

Well that is an easy one.

Only he can decide that by the state of your heart.

But how close do you want to get to the line?

Do you feel lucky? Go ahead and ruin his day.

[Rob Osborn]

Classic case of bait and switch- offer souls a life of sin, do as you please and in the end telling them they will be saved but then after they sin they fall prey into Satans trap and slaves to sin in his kibgdom.

[mormonnewb]

A continued life of sin and rebellion to the gospel is the road to where Lucifer is. It always involves rebellion to the right plan.

Lucifer and his peeps were sinning in the pre-existence?

[mormonnewb]

Classic case of bait and switch- offer souls a life of sin, do as you please and in the end telling them they will be saved but then after they sin they fall prey into Satans trap and slaves to sin in his kibgdom.

Where did Lucifer say that his followers could do as they please? It seems pretty clear that the plan was to tie everyone tightly to the iron rod and pull them to salvation.

As Calmoriah points out, this life of strict obedience to Lucifer would not result in ultimate exaltation. But, that being said, I don't think Lucifer was offering Spring Break 4,000 BC to his followers.

[MDalby]

Lucifer and his peeps were sinning in the pre-existence?

 

Yes, as well as all of us that would be born on this earth, except for the Savior.

[Calm]

So was Lucifer's sin having a bad idea? Or are you saying that he KNEW he would be harming his brothers and sisters and therefore, his plan was downright EVIL?

If the latter, what about his followers? Were they intentionally pushing a plan that they knew would hurt them as well? If not, what was their transgression?

I would say his sin was pride. He was completely selfcentered. He didn't care about the outcome of his plan.

His followers probably saw stagnation as a better thing than taking a risk...especially since stagnation likely meant doing whatever they wanted diring mortality and not having to live with the consequences in their mind due to there being so sin because there was no law....but they were wrong in their understanding and when corrected by God refused to listen, demanding they knew what was best for themselves....much as people still do today.

As far as his followers, their sin was first fear and not trusting in the love of the Lord and then turning to pride and rejection.

Or so I imagine it to have happened, nothing else makes much sense to me,

[Rob Osborn]

Where did Lucifer say that his followers could do as they please? It seems pretty clear that the plan was to tie everyone tightly to the iron rod and pull them to salvation.

As Calmoriah points out, this life of strict obedience to Lucifer would not result in ultimate exaltation. But, that being said, I don't think Lucifer was offering Spring Break 4,000 BC to his followers.

Must we take what Lucifer said to be truth? He said he would save everyone that not one soul should be lost. We are told however that he was a liar from the beginning. His true plan was to destroy our agency by enticing us into sin so that he could lead us carefully down to hell.

[Calm]

Where did Lucifer say that his followers could do as they please? It seems pretty clear that the plan was to tie everyone tightly to the iron rod and pull them to salvation.

As Calmoriah points out, this life of strict obedience to Lucifer would not result in ultimate exaltation. But, that being said, I don't think Lucifer was offering Spring Break 4,000 BC to his followers.

actually i favour the other interpretation which is that there would be no law and therefore no sin...party time all night and all day and no hangovers, no stds or babies as consequences. How many would choose to follow that life even if it meant never progressing beyond it?

Also what Halconero said...

Edited July 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

In short, Lucifer was promising more souls, less sharing of glory.

Exaltation means the full sharing of glory, so by definition a design to share less glory, or some glory, or of getting more glory than another is the antithesis of charity.

 

So you can’t promise “more” souls by sharing “less” glory – it is a contradiction / lie.

[Rob Osborn]

Lucifer and his peeps were sinning in the pre-existence?

Yes. Lucifer and followers were sinning in heaven

[mormonnewb]

Must we take what Lucifer said to be truth? He said he would save everyone that not one soul should be lost. We are told however that he was a liar from the beginning. His true plan was to destroy our agency by enticing us into sin so that he could lead us carefully down to hell.

Is that the Church's position on the matter or just your opinion? And, just to be clear, I'm more than willing to entertain the latter. Just curious.

[JLHPROF]

That being said, I'm trying to figure out where Lucifer went wrong.

 

Lucifer went wrong because 1. He rebelled against his file leader and 2. Sought to destroy our agency.

 

"Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;"  Moses 4:3

 

 

 How do you start a "fight" with God?) Or did the simple act of proposing (and backing) Plan B put them into open rebellion for rejecting God's original plan?

 

Lucifer was angry that his plan (which gave him glory) was not chosen and so he apostatized.

 

"And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him." Abraham 3:28

 

 

Lucifer's plan promised 100% success. In short, Lucifer was promising more souls,

 

This was the big flaw.  Forced obedience could not have made Gods.  If we were all unable to sin and were forced to live perfect lives we could not have progressed enough to achieve Heavenly Fathers work, the bring to pass our immortality and eternal ife.  We would be saved from the grave (no perdition) but we would not achieve exaltation.

 

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"  Genesis 3:22

[CV75]

How do you start a "fight" with God?) Or did the simple act of proposing (and backing) Plan B put them into open rebellion for rejecting God's original plan?

Given recent events in the Church, this question isn't just purely academic for me.

I think it was the "simple" act of proposing an backing "Plan B" and rejecting "Plan A" (in any order), jut like we do now when we reject our conscience or choose to sin (though it may not seem so "simple" at the moment).

[mormonnewb]

This was the big flaw. Forced obedience could not have made Gods. If we were all unable to sin and were forced to live perfect lives we could not have progressed enough to achieve Heavenly Fathers work, the bring to pass our immortality and eternal ife. We would be saved from the grave (no perdition) but we would not achieve exaltation.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" Genesis 3:22

I agree with you on this point, but some have expressed the view that Lucifer was not proposing forced obedience, but rather "anything goes." I don't see where this is indicated in the scriptures, so is this a teaching of the prophets?