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

[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.

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.

Well, the scriptures are clear that Lucifer was a liar before we came to this mortal earth. "Beginning" in Moses 4:1 refers to his state of being at the council.

[why me]

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?"

 

I think that such questions are almost impossible to answer. Certainly we are in open rebellion when we sin and this sin is knowingly done. In terms of our selfish desires, I can say that selfishness is a natural part of who we are. The secret is in controling them and not allowing our own self-importance get in the way of god's will for us. When we sin we also cross the line but since no one is perfect, the point would be to cross over the line in the right direction and not stay over the line.

 

The lds have an interesting concept about the devil and how he was created and who he was in the pre-existence. I don't think that many churches have such an acute understanding about how the devil became the devil, he being the brother of christ and our brother too. Ask most christians how the devil became the devil and who he is, and I think that answers would be in short supply. However.not so for the lds. The questions that needs to be asked is: if god is so loving, why did he allow the devil to become the devil? If god is so loving, why did he create a devil? And how could a loving god cast out so many of his children? And where was heavenly mother in all this as her spirit children were cast out of heaven?

Edited July 14, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Initial reaction to some of your assumptions:

 

• God called a council for us to choose his plan; not to hear our ideas or even Jesus' ideas.  It was God's plan that Jesus chose to implement.
• Lucifer went wrong because he chose a plan that would glorify himself; he was me centered and selfish.
• There was no merit in God's plan.  The objective is for us to choose to follow God; not be forced to follow him.  In exchange he offers to share his glory - to make us like him.  
• Jesus' acceptance of the plan was to glorify the Father. He was already a member of the Godhead and he chose to accept the Father's will for a sacrifice.
• If we choose to follow Christ then we become joint-heirs with him.  Those who do not seek to follow him, or to follow truth, magnify the light given to them, they will be given a body, but will never share in the glory of Godhead.
• The mere fact that these spirits consciously chose to reject the Father's plan put them outside of his will and thus chose rebellion rather than obedience.  In so doing they lost their first estate - the opportunity to gain a body and become more like our Father. 

[Alan]

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.

 

In my view Lucifer went wrong when he decided not to comply with the will of the majority. He campaigned for his version of mortality and Michael campaigned for the one we have now. The majority went with Jehovah's plan (championed by Michael). If at that point Lucifer had said "Ok, the people have spoken and I'll go along with it, even though I still think I'm right", there wouldn't have been a problem. His issue is that he wouldn't accept that the majority didn't agree with him and continued the fight until it became a rebellion. He has brought the fight here and still thinks that if he can win a simple a majority (by intercepting us on our mortal journey and getting us to sin and not repent - therefore getting more people subject to him so they will change their votes) he will be vindicated.

[Helen47]

Have any of your read The Quest for the Historical Satan by De La Torre and Hernandez See page 61."If Satan is not connected to evil spirits or demonic forces in the Hebrew Bible, what then is his role there? As  we have seen, we are first introduced to a being who occupies a posiion of "the satan" the accuser This being is part fo God's council serving God, apparently at God's request, as a judicial adversary to humans"

[teddyaware]

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.

The lie in Lucifer's plan is found in the claim that his plan of salvation was superior to God's plan. In advocacy of his plan, Lucifer made the false assertion that all would be saved and not a single soul would be lost. The fact is that without free agency there is no salvation in any shape, manner or form. Lucifer may have labeled the end product of his plan 'salvation,' but just because he used the word salvation doesn't mean his plan produced any real salvation. The fact is that Lucifer's plan was absolutely fraudulent and unworkable.

Also, in his attempt to overthrow God and usurp the throne of His power, it is extremely likely that as Lucifer continued to unrighteously press his case -- after God had already rejected it -- he slandered the Father and the Son with the claim that God was actually the evil one, unjustly using the fact that the Father's plan would produce casualties in order to justify the false assertion that his plan was morally superior to the Father's.

 

Finally, the only way God could have been justified in casting Lucifer out of His presence is if Lucifer turned away from that which he knew to be right. He became the son of perdition in the same way all become son's of perdition -- he deliberately, and with malice aforethought, turned away from that which he knew to be just and true; having once been filled with a fullness of the glory and knowledge of God and then totally rebelling against the light of God at noonday. By this we know that Lucifer and the son's of perdition are in very essence liars. Lucifer was a liar during, not just after the war in heaven.

Edited July 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

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

By allowing the Lord to change your disposition to do evil, you actually gain more agency. You still have the option to fall (and if you choose to do so, you will fall further than you could before); but your choices to rise are also expanded so that if you choose to do so, you can rise higher than ever.

[CV75]

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.)?

Satan offered the option for us to choose to be coerced by having our agency destroyed. We refused, kept our first estate, and here we are. He continues to try to destroy our agency through various means (Mosiah 4:29-30).

 

Agency requires choice. A lie is not a real choice, so agency is given up when a lie is embraced. Sometimes we embrace a lie willfully, and soemtimes we are beguiled or manipulated. It is easier to repent of the latter than the former, though any intentional lie is set up with the intent to destroy another’s agency, or to force them into choosing to do something they otherwise might not.

 

I'm not sure why another person would want to control a person's life so as to keep him from exaltation, but the best way to control is be sneaky about it, such as by making a destructive option seem appealing (a lie, deception, etc.). I think it would be a contradiction to want to control a person's life so as to guarantee his exaltation; mortal tools just wouldn't accomplish that; the devil doesn't have the tools to do it, and the Lord's tools don't work that way.

[Nofear]

For my own part, I think one critical component that most LDS miss when discussing Lucifer and Plan of Salvation/Happiness issues is that we are not the first planet, not by a long shot. There have been "countless" worlds before us and my presumption is that pretty much operated all of the same way... what we call the Plan of Salvation/Happiness. Moreover, we knew it. We saw it. We were not ignorant.

 

So where does that leave us with Lucifer? Since we knew the Plan has/could work, having seen it in operation Lucifer had to come up with an alternative he thought was better. Since we only have a record of the winning side we can't necessarily expect that our version of the events are unbiased, though being biased does not necessarily mean incorrect. What we, however, must not fall into a trap of is thinking Lucifer's plan was not without persuasive power and being so it must have been at some level clever.

 

My own suspicion is that Lucifer really wanted to tweak things and obviate the need for a Redeemer.  Our currently mortality is characterized by a remarkably beautiful balance between our physical body and free will. That balance could have been different (e.g. even now we have bodies that are "broken" and the free will of the individual is mitigated to the point where the Church does not hold them accountable). What if our physical bodies were designed such that we simply never chose to do things contrary to the well being, peace, and tranquility of society (e.g. ramp up our Oxycontin levels as one small change among many). We could have gone through mortality well behaved, automated "drones" and never acting contrary to the laws/commandments simply because it wasn't in our physical nature to do so. We would give up free agency for the sake of necessary obedience.

 

Problem with that approach is, as previously pointed out, that salvation is not exaltation. Satan's plan would have only compelled outward compliance with the laws of heaven and not the internal compliance necessary for exaltation. In other words, "save" everybody but exalt none.

[Rob Osborn]

This is from www.newrevelation.net Whereas it is not considered scripture, I do call it inspired work. Here is what this prophet had to say regarding Lucifer-

"15. And Lucifer, once a shining son of the morning, but now from that bright day, forever fallen, is become the demagogue of perdition; for he was the accuser of the brethren, who accused them before the Father night and day that he might bring down judgment unto death and build up a kingdom of destruction. And with his kingdom founded on justice, he has stood boldly forth, championing, for himself alone, the spirt's eternal free-agency, and tempting the sons of men in the exercise of theirs, to become the children of disobedience. And thus, with a kingdom builded upon that eternal rock, the Father cannot withhold his demands, neither would He, for all the kingdoms of eternity are founded thereon." http://newrevelations.net/secondmessage.html

[mfbukowski]

This is from www.newrevelation.net Whereas it is not considered scripture, I do call it inspired work.

At last we find out where Rob is coming from, for better or worse.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Lucifer's mistake is that it wasn't enough to just question but when he began to act on those questions, call his leader(s) to repentance and lead others astray.

[stemelbow]

I would assume his plan was chosen because it would not supply any desirable results, was probably told something along those lines and got all upset because he felt mistreated, not listened to, or something other such thing. He probably then felt justified in his rebellion and made a pretty convincing case to some. Then he pursued it with the same sort of vigor as modern day LDS oppose SSM, or OW.

[Mystery Meat]

This is from www.newrevelation.net Whereas it is not considered scripture, I do call it inspired work. Here is what this prophet had to say regarding Lucifer-

"15. And Lucifer, once a shining son of the morning, but now from that bright day, forever fallen, is become the demagogue of perdition; for he was the accuser of the brethren, who accused them before the Father night and day that he might bring down judgment unto death and build up a kingdom of destruction. And with his kingdom founded on justice, he has stood boldly forth, championing, for himself alone, the spirt's eternal free-agency, and tempting the sons of men in the exercise of theirs, to become the children of disobedience. And thus, with a kingdom builded upon that eternal rock, the Father cannot withhold his demands, neither would He, for all the kingdoms of eternity are founded thereon." http://newrevelations.net/secondmessage.html

 

Yikes.

[JLHPROF]

The lie in Lucifer's plan is found in the claim that his plan of salvation was superior to God's plan. In advocacy of his plan, Lucifer made the false assertion that all would be saved and not a single soul would be lost. The fact is that without free agency there is no salvation in any shape, manner or form. Lucifer may have labeled the end product of his plan 'salvation,' but just because he used the word salvation doesn't mean his plan produced any real salvation. The fact is that Lucifer's plan was absolutely fraudulent and unworkable.

 

 

I've already shown from the scriptures why this is simply not true.  Lucifer's plan would have "saved" as many or more than Christ's, if we define "salvation" correctly.  The reason it was rejected (other than his selfish glory seeking) was that it would have exalted nobody.

 

Salvation - price for sin is paid and the saved souls are resurrected (aka saved) from the grave, no matter where they end up.

Exaltation - salvation in God's kingdom, Celestial, in God's presence.

[Ahab]

If Lucifer had said something like "Okay well it seems like a good idea to me, and even better than your idea, Father, but if you don't want to accept it and instead want all of us to accept your idea for how to be like you are, then fine, I'll go along with your idea and do what you want me to do" then he probably would have been okay and allowed to come to this planet like the rest of us.

But no, he didn't react that way, and instead got very upset with our Father, and his Father, for rejecting his idea, and he is still to this day upset with him and wants everybody else to be upset with him, too.

[Avatar4321]

Is this a serious question? If he wasn't the bad guy. who was? And if he wasn't the bad guy, why did he get cast out?

 

He has been trying to convince people since that he is the good guy and the messiah. But he is just the Father of lies.

[blooit]

What Lucifer did was try to blackmail Heavenly Father into giving him his throne by using his own children against him.  He is a pitiful but dangerous individual who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way.

[Avatar4321]

Satan's plan cannot work because a man cannot be saved in ignorance. we have to make that choice. If we had no choice, we could not choose it.

 

Satan is also the Father of lies, do any of you truly believe that he would have gone through with the sacrifice necessary?

[Avatar4321]

What Lucifer did was try to blackmail Heavenly Father into giving him his throne by using his own children against him.  He is a pitiful but dangerous individual who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way.

 

Blackmailing God... that's about as bright as trying to blackmail Bruce Wayne.

[Rob Osborn]

At last we find out where Rob is coming from, for better or worse.

Quite interesting that I have had my own opinions for years and years before finding this website with these revelations by doing a search.

[Rob Osborn]

I've already shown from the scriptures why this is simply not true.  Lucifer's plan would have "saved" as many or more than Christ's, if we define "salvation" correctly.  The reason it was rejected (other than his selfish glory seeking) was that it would have exalted nobody.

 

Salvation - price for sin is paid and the saved souls are resurrected (aka saved) from the grave, no matter where they end up.

Exaltation - salvation in God's kingdom, Celestial, in God's presence.

Satan's plans (remaining the same even today) were about bringing Gods children into captivity and death and subjection to his will in his filthy kingdom.

Salvation is being saved from spiritual and physical death. It is equated in the scriptures as receiving "eternal life". Exaltation is the highest degree of glory within the Celestial kingdom

Edited July 14, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[mfbukowski]

Quite interesting that I have had my own opinions for years and years before finding this website with these revelations by doing a search.

Good for you then. I can understand that feeling. That's similar to how I found the church.

[CV75]

Lucifer's plan would have "saved" as many or more than Christ's, if we define "salvation" correctly.

Maybe. He was, after all, a liar.

 

If Satan were to be given the Father's honor, there would be no more oath to keep (D&C 84:40; 124;47), for it cannot be kept without the principle of honor being in place. And if there is no oath, there is nothing to break or keep; and if no breaking or keeping, there is no forgiveness or  punishment; and if there is no forgiveness or punishment... (see 2 Nephi 2:13).

[mormonnewb]

Satan offered the option for us to choose to be coerced by having our agency destroyed. We refused, kept our first estate, and here we are. He continues to try to destroy our agency through various means (Mosiah 4:29-30).

 

Agency requires choice. A lie is not a real choice, so agency is given up when a lie is embraced. Sometimes we embrace a lie willfully, and soemtimes we are beguiled or manipulated. It is easier to repent of the latter than the former, though any intentional lie is set up with the intent to destroy another’s agency, or to force them into choosing to do something they otherwise might not.

 

I'm not sure why another person would want to control a person's life so as to keep him from exaltation, but the best way to control is be sneaky about it, such as by making a destructive option seem appealing (a lie, deception, etc.). I think it would be a contradiction to want to control a person's life so as to guarantee his exaltation; mortal tools just wouldn't accomplish that; the devil doesn't have the tools to do it, and the Lord's tools don't work that way.

I don't think anyone wants to control someone's life to harm them, but rather to protect them. We see this all the time with overprotective parents. They love their children and want to keep them from harm, even if they inadvertently stifle their development in the process.

Isn't this a line that we all walk with instructing our children in the Gospel? Keeping them frm harmful influences long enough until they can properly govern themselves. For example, most of us probably have porn filters on our computers. That takes away some of our children's agency until such time as we think they are ready to CHOOSE to not watch porn for themselves. And many of us hve chosen to have these filters on our own computers just to keep away any such trmptation.

In that vein, I can see why the third would think to themselves, "Why not let us install 'sin filters' before we even go down to earth?" Obviously, it's not the choice that we made, but I don't see at as being totally unreasonable either.