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

[mormonnewb]

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).

But didn't Christ propose a Plan B in the Garden of Gethsemane? It seems that HF is fine with a counter-offer so long as we resolve in the end "not mine but thine will be done."

[MDalby]

John Taylor

 

It is evident that at that council certain plans had been proposed and discussed, and that after a full discussion of those principles, and the declaration of the Father’s will pertaining to His design, Lucifer came before the Father, with a plan of his own, saying, “Behold I, send me, I will be thy Son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor.”  But Jesus, on hearing this statement made by Lucifer, said “Father, they will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”  From these remarks made by the well beloved Son, we should naturally infer that in the discussion of this subject the Father had made known His will and developed His plan and design pertaining to these matters, and all that His well beloved Son wanted to do was to carry out the will of His Father, as it would appear had been before expressed.  He also wished the glory to be given to His Father, who, as God the Father, and the originator and designer of the plan, had a right to all the honor an glory.  But Lucifer wanted to introduce a plan contrary to the will of his Father, and then wanted His honor, and said:  “I will save every soul of man, wherefore give me thine honor.”  He wanted to go contrary to the will of his Father, and presumptuously sought to deprive man of his free agency, thus making him a serf, and placing him in a position in which it was impossible for him to obtain that exaltation which God designed should be man’s, through obedience to the law which He had suggested; and again, Lucifer wanted the honor and power of his Father, to enable him to carry out principles which were contrary to the Father’s wish.

 

And further, in regard to agency; if man had not had his agency, or if he had been deprived of his agency, he could not have been tempted of the devil, or of any other power; for if they will of God prevailed, and was carried out without man’s action or agency, it would have been impossible for him to have done anything wrong, for he would have been deprived of the power of doing that wrong.  This was the position that Satan desired to place not only the spirits in the heavens, but also mankind upon the earth.  And Satan said, “Surely I will save every one of them, wherefore, give me thine honor.”  But God’s plan was different from this, and, as stated above, had been decided upon in the Councils of heaven; and the Father had made a decree as to how these things should be done; and that both the inhabitants of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth should have their free agency.  It was against this that Lucifer rebelled; and he could not have rebelled against a plan or commandment that had not been given; for rebellion signifies a violation of law, command, or authority; and he was cast out of heaven because of the rebellion.  This rebellion could not have existed without a free agency; for without a free agency they would all have been compelled to do the will of the Father.  But having the free agency, they used it; and Lucifer and a third part of the angels were cast out because they rebelled and used this agency in opposition to their Heavenly Father.  And not only because they rebelled, but because, as stated, “they sought to destroy the agency of man,”  and their agency would have been used in opposition to  the interest, happiness and eternal exaltation of mankind, which were proposed to be accomplished through the atonement and redemption provided by Jesus Christ. 

 

[Quotes D&C 29:36-39; 76:25-28).

 

There are other questions mixed up with this rebellion besides those above referred to, and those questions are directly connected with the atonement.  In the event of man having his free will and being subject to the power of temptation, the weakness of the flesh, the allurements of the world, and the powers of darkness, it was known that he must necessarily fall, and being fallen, it would be impossible for him to redeem himself, and that, according to an eternal law of justice, it would require an infinite, expiatory atonement to  redeem man, to save him from the effects and ruin of the Fall, and to place him in a condition where he could again reinstated in the favor of God, according to the eternal laws of justice and mercy; and find his way back to the presence of the Father.  Satan (it is possible) being opposed to the will of his Father, wished to avoid the responsibilities of this position, and rather than assume the consequences of the acceptance of the plan of the Father, he would deprive man of his free agency, and render it impossible for him to obtain that exaltation which God designed.  It would further seem probable that he refused to take the position of redeemer, and assume all the consequences associated therewith, but he did propose, as stated before, to take another plan and deprive man of his agency, and he probably intended to make men atone for their own acts by an act of coercion, and the shedding of their own blood as an atonement for their sins; therefore, he says, “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost; and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor.”  His plan, however, was rejected as contrary to the counsel of God, his Father.  The well beloved Son then addressed the Father, and instead of proposing to carry out any plan of his own, knowing what His Father’s will was, said, "Thy will be done; I will carry out thy plans and thy designs, and, as man will fall, I will offer myself as an atonement according to thy will, O God.  Neither do I wish the honor, but thine be the glory;”  and a covenant was entered into between Him and His Father, in which He agreed to atone for the sins of the world; and He thus, as stated, became the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.  

 

From the above we gather: 

 

First, that the proposition of Lucifer was an act of rebellion “against me” -- God.

 

Second, that God had already decreed that man should have his free agency, and this agency had been given to him by the Lord, as it is said, “which I, the Lord God, had given him.”

 

Third, that Lucifer coveted and asked for a power which was the prerogative of the Almighty and alone belonged to God; and which He called “mine own power.”

 

Fourth, that for this rebellion Lucifer was cast out and became Satan.

 

Fifth, that the power by which he was cast out, was by a certain power of Priesthood which had been conferred by God on His Only Begotten; for he said, “By the power of mine Only Begotten I caused that he should be cast down.”

 

Sixth, the being cast down and becoming Satan, “even the devil, the father of lies,” his office was to deceive and to blind men; as it is stated, “to deceive, and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.”  
(John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement [1882], pp. 93-98)

[Rob Osborn]

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.

Its my opinion but I know it to be true after much studying, personal experiences, etc. There are clues to Lucifers nature in the pre-mortal life. In Moses 3 we learn a lot. Moses is confronted by Satan who poses as Christ demanding Moses worship him. Moses refuses and after a trial of his faith Moses sees God and learns of hia true ways. Part of his instruction was learning about this council in heaven. What we must carefully discern is what actually happened. The first clue is God telling Moses that just as Lucifer appeared to Moses and was a liar pretending to be Christ even so was he the same in the begining pretending to be the Savior and lying about wanting to saveeveryone. Was it Lucifersreal objective though to be the Saviorand save all that the Father should give him to save? No, this was his lie and why we are told this in verse one . What must be understood is that the disposition of Lucifer was the same then at that council as it is today and that he has been this way from that beginning at the council. The scriptures are clear that Lucifers real plans are to lead men captive diwn into his own kingdom and destrying their agency in the process.

[strappinglad]

Satan's flaw was that he should have started with something simple, like herding a thousand cats through a croquet hoop on the Kansas plains. At least then he would have had something to point to on his resume.

[halconero]

But didn't Christ propose a Plan B in the Garden of Gethsemane? It seems that HF is fine with a counter-offer so long as we resolve in the end "not mine but thine will be done."

He didn't so much propose a plan B as ask if there was one, furthermore, he did not seek to usurp and destroy God in the process.

[MDalby]

Yes. Lucifer and followers were sinning in heaven

 

 38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

(D&C 93:38)

 

The picture is complete. Man could sin before his mortal birth. 

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, 94)

 

 

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. 

(James 4:17)

 

Therefore, I say, the evidence that we kept our first estate is to be found in the fact that we are here today with tabernacles. There may have been, and doubtless were, differences of degree in our faith and our zeal. Some, no doubt, at that great crisis, were more valiant and steadfast than others. But that we all kept our first estate is evidenced by the fact that we are here.

(George Q. Cannon, February 27, 1898)

[Rob Osborn]

Three principles involved here-

1. Lucifer/Satan is a liar

2. No plan proposed by Lucifer granted salvation

3. Lucifer/Satan's oiginal tactics and plans "remain intact" to this day

[Calm]

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.

Church's position is here: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng

Lucifer was going to "force" us home...but what forcing actually means IMO is left up to the individual to decide.

I don't think I've ever read or heard an authority say it was anything but Lucifer forcing us to do the right without choice, but that never made sense to me and I think in my 20s....especially after going through the endowment...I figured Satan was not terribly creative and humans wouldn't be so different then from now so it was much more likely that someone willing to give up any chance of salvation didn't care much about it in the first place so was all for no law, do whatever one wants version. After all, if you were willing to be forced to behave, turn your own will completely over to someone else in order just to get back to heaven with a body as the only benefit, then surely you would choose to at least take the risk of God's plan in hopes of getting back rather than giving it all up just because God said "I have the better way"? Then I read Nibley and this is how he interpreted it too and since then I often come across others who see it this way...and others certain I am wrong.

Think of what children would be like if they never suffered pain or were held responsible for their choices, but gave free rein to all their impulses....that is what I imagine Lucifer was suggesting happen. I don't see how anyone would have bought he could turn them into robots, but just allow them to be brats...we have plenty of parents who do that today so I think they saw it as plausible and if Lucifer wanted to take on all the responsibility, suffer or whatever...well, that what his problem, not theirs to figure out and deal with.

And think about the reaction if someone said "no" to such a child with such power as we had in the preexistence. Galactic tantrum barely describes it, IMO.

Edited July 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

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?

From Abraham 4:1-3, Satan was cast out for rebelling against the Father and seeking to destroy the agency of man. The war preceded his being cast out and I think consisted of the children of God trying to influence each other to one side or the other.

 

I think that Satan’s deal hinged on the Father’s trade of honor (in the form of compromising His will) while Jesus sustained the Father by honoring His will (which had been expressed from the beginning). Satan rebelled in attempting to strike an alternative deal to that which had been expressed from the beginning.

 

That the Father’s will had been evident from the beginning is described in Abraham 1:22-27. Again Jesus mentions glory in verse 26.

 

Satan said nothing of the Father’s glory or of anyone’s glory, but Jesus did, and I think that is significant. The connection between agency and glory is very pertinent to that.

[CV75]

But didn't Christ propose a Plan B in the Garden of Gethsemane? It seems that HF is fine with a counter-offer so long as we resolve in the end "not mine but thine will be done."

Yes--and I don't see where Satan ever expressed that sentiment, indicating that He was willing to force the issue. That it is emphasized that Christ said it shows where He was coming from.

[Rob Osborn]

The idea of forced obedience fails miserably. This would require that we would be forced to repent and be forced into baptism. We should ditch this idea.

[Calm]

"but he did propose, as stated before, to take another plan and deprive man of his agency, and he probably intended to make men atone for their own acts by an act of coercion, and the shedding of their own blood as an atonement for their sins"

So everyone gets to a certain age and then gets willingly executed in a blood atonement or something along those lines....I wonder if this was his actual idea just how many understood the details when demanding it be used.

Hadn't heard this nuance before, still prefer mine but take this over everyone willing to be a robot and never commit sin that needed to be repented of.

Edited July 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

Why are we so willing to belive Lucifers lie that he would save all? Can we not see that this was his big lie?

[Calm]

I don't think he was capable of it, his plan never would have worked being contrary to eternal laws...however I wonder how much he was lying to himself along with everyone else. Wouldn't be the first time someone convinced themselves they were doing stuff for someone else when the motivation is really very selfish ("I won't tell him I committed adultery because I don't want him to suffer" for example).

Would really take a huge nerve to stand up in front of God and lie through one's teeth. Makes more sense to me he was using the same sort of self justication that is portrayed in the temple ritual.

Edited July 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Through OW individuals are presenting a “Plan B” (ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood) that hinges on the prophets obtaining the Lord’s will. At the same time, they are calling attention to the world the belief that such ordination is needed, and they are are committed to its fulfillment.

 

Jesus did not express belief that He should not suffer or that He was committed to not suffering, and kept the conversation between Him and the Father.

[MorningStar]

Even if you could force people to make the right choices, you can't make them like it.  I imagine it would only bring resentment and there would be no growth because you haven't really learned anything. 

 

To me, Lucifer comes across as not genuine, but jealous of Jesus that he is the chosen one and he wants to be praised when there is no reason for anyone to do so.  On top of that, he even wants to be exalted above Heavenly Father.  Jesus wanted to be our Savior our of love.  It seems Lucifer didn't really care about us - it was about rising to the top.  How joyful would our lives be if we were forced to do everything? 

[mormonnewb]

"but he did propose, as stated before, to take another plan and deprive man of his agency, and he probably intended to make men atone for their own acts by an act of coercion, and the shedding of their own blood as an atonement for their sins"

So everyone gets to a certain age and then gets willingly executed in a blood atonement or something along those lines....I wonder if this was his actual idea just how many understood the details when demanding it be used.

Hadn't heard this nuance before, still prefer mine but take this over everyone willing to be a robot and never commit sin that needed to be repented of.

I'm not so sure that many people wouldn't happily trade their agency for the ability to always do the "right" thing. After all, who likes to be tempted by something that they can't have?

In fact, I have prayed for HF to take away certain desires and am grateful that He has sometimes done so. As a young man, I was a "gentleman" and as such, I would go to Gentlemen's Clubs. Shortly after becoming a Christian, I went to such an establishment, but it was all wrong. For the first time, I saw the young women as HF's own daughters -- MY sisters.

I have never been back or even WANTED TO. However, my "righteousness" is not the result of willpower or discipline. I have an almost anatomical aversion to those places in much the way that I have an aversion to eating dirt (or asparagus).

I wouldn't mind if HF stripped away my agency with regards to other things, like pride ... and ice cream.

[JLHPROF]

Why are we so willing to belive Lucifers lie that he would save all? Can we not see that this was his big lie?

 

I don't think it was a lie.  You have to differentiate between salvation and exaltation.

All that is required for salvation is that an atonement for sin be made so that we can get a resurrection instead of perdition.  If he took the place of Christ then we would still be saved.  Christ saved EVERYONE except perdition in some kingdom.  Satan could have done the same.

 

But under coercion nobody would make their own choices and would never progress enough to enter God's presence.  We would all be resurrected, but at the most basic telestial level.  And that would defeat God's work.

Edited July 14, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

I don't see that either.  But either way, we wouldn't be any more perfect when we moved to the next life and God's work would be thwarted.

[Duncan]

But didn't Christ propose a Plan B in the Garden of Gethsemane? It seems that HF is fine with a counter-offer so long as we resolve in the end "not mine but thine will be done."

 

 

IMO opinion it wasn't two or more plans that were presented but Christ and Lucifer and possibly others volunteered to carry out what is called in the Book of Romans, "the Gospel of God". Christ didn't make any amends or stipulations whereas Lucifer did, like "yeah i'll do it however......." Christ said "i'll go and do thy will and nothing more"

 

 The Prophet Joseph Smith, "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" (TPJS, p. 357). Italics added, Satan had plans, ulterior ones.

[mormonnewb]

I don't think it was a lie. You have to differentiate between salvation and exaltation.

All that is required for salvation is that an atonement for sin be made so that we can get a resurrection instead of perdition. If he took the place of Christ then we would still be saved. Christ saved EVERYONE except perdition in some kingdom. Satan could have done the same.

But under coercion nobody would make their own choices and would never progress enough to enter God's presence. We would all be resurrected, but at the most basic telestial level. And that would defeat God's work.

Out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to so control a person's life today that we can take away their agency and keep them from exaltation? And if not, what do you think that Lucifer had in mind that we couldn't do with the tools we have available today (eg, electroshock therapy, mind altering drugs, etc.)?

[Rob Osborn]

I don't think it was a lie.  You have to differentiate between salvation and exaltation.

All that is required for salvation is that an atonement for sin be made so that we can get a resurrection instead of perdition.  If he took the place of Christ then we would still be saved.  Christ saved EVERYONE except perdition in some kingdom.  Satan could have done the same.

 

But under coercion nobody would make their own choices and would never progress enough to enter God's presence.  We would all be resurrected, but at the most basic telestial level.  And that would defeat God's work.

Moses 4:1 tells us Lucifer was a liar at the council. Salvation, as spoken in scripture only comes through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Satans coersion is through sin and the bondage of those sins.

[JLHPROF]

Moses 4:1 tells us Lucifer was a liar at the council. Salvation, as spoken in scripture only comes through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Satans coersion is through sin and the bondage of those sins.

 

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

 

Nowhere in here is Lucifer called a liar or lying.

[Rob Osborn]

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

 

Nowhere in here is Lucifer called a liar or lying.

God tells Moses to remember that this Lucifer who lied to Moses was the same (a liar) in the beginning.

[JLHPROF]

God tells Moses to remember that this Lucifer who lied to Moses was the same (a liar) in the beginning.

 

No, in Moses 4:3-4 God tells Moses that Lucifer became a liar AFTER being cast out for rebellion and becoming Satan.  There was no lie in the plan Lucifer proposed, at least not scripturally recorded.  Lucifer's plan would have saved as many as Christ's plan.  But it would have exalted nobody.

It's true that D&C 93 & John 8 call him a liar from the beginning.  But this was the beginning.  This is where he became a liar.  But he was Lucifer, the light bearer prior to his fall.

 

"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;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

 

You are clearly supported in your belief by others - http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-12-number-3-2011/liar-beginning but I find the same errors in their scriptural reasoning.  Lucifer's plan was NOT a lie.