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

[Rob Osborn]

The main problem that stems from the whole debate is the assumption that Satan told the truth when he said he would save everyone. When coupled with the truth that Satan sought the destruction of our agency we perhaps wrongly assume that Satan was going to enforce salvation and save us without choice or some tangent of that idea in one form or another. The truth is that Satan was just mimicking the role and job of the true Savior when he said he would save everyone that not one soul should be lost. Christ will save all that the Father gives to him to save- not one soul which the Father gives Christ to save will be lost. The second issue then, and the main issue, is the destruction of ones agency. In the Book of Mormon and NT we read about the "chains of hell", the captivity of Satan, etc. That captivity is falling victim to Satans powers and being led down into his chains to do his will- it is the literal and real destruction of our agency- that is precisely what Satan sought then and still seeks to this day. god has allowed Satan to do his will and allowed others to follow after him also in the destruction of their agency. The two plans- Gods which preserves our agency and gives us eternal life and Satans which destroys our agency leading to eternal death are opposed to each other in every facet.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

1. Satan's yes, Lucifer's maybe.

2. Yes - don't you see why Lucifer's plan would have achieved one and prevented the other?

 

I don't want to seem like I'm coming down on the side of the evil one here, but do you really think 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven would have followed Lucifer if his plan would have resulted in perdition?

I'll say it again, Lucifer offered up a plan that if accepted would have forced salvation on every soul, but none would have become like God.  That, along with the glory hogging, is why it was rejected.  But there would also have been no perdition.

[Calm]

I don't think anyone wants to control someone's life to harm them, but rather to protect them.

I think there are people who want to control to harm though the idea can be terrifying. If you read the history of Haskell who killed all but one of the Stay family just a few days ago....there is a man who wanted to control to hurt people IMO.

[mormonnewb]

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).

Understanding that Satan is a liar does not mean that he ALWAYS lies. Take it from someone who lies for a living. A good lie ALWAYS entails much more truth than lie. Otherwise, no one would fall for it. Look at Satan's conversation with Eve in the Garden. He doesn't just tell her a bunch of "whoppers." Instead, he uses half truths, "You won't die if you eat of the fruit (at least, not today)." So there was likely SOME element of truth in Lucifer's plan.

However, even assuming that he was making it all up, we don't know what his true intentions were. If I tell you that I'm wearing green pants and I'm lying, do you know what color my pants really are? Of course not. And you certainly don't know WHY I told you they were green in the first place. Maybe I think you will give me money for wearing green pants. Or maybe I just like to lie. Or maybe it's part of a multi-stage plot to drag you to the pits of hell.

So given that we don't know anything about his motives other than the fact that he wanted glory for himself, I think it is plausible that he at least THOUGHT that his plan would result in decent results (even if not exaltation) for his followers.

Edited July 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[teddyaware]

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 plan was unworkable and would have saved no one. His plan would have never worked, not only because it was at total variance with the eternal laws of truth and righteousness, but also because the only way anyone can have their sins remitted is through the atoning sacrifice of the sinless Son of God. Satan rebelled at noonday knowing full well he was violating the will of that God who had blessed him with a sure knowledge of the truth. There is no salvation in any plan of salvation other than the Father's perfect plan. It is delusional thinking to entertain the idea that Lucifer's plan could have saved anyone even in the slightest degree. Salvation and every good thing comes only of Christ, and conversely, damnation and every evil and filthy thing is all that Lucifer ever had and now has to offer.

Edited July 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

Satan's plan was unworkable and would have saved no one. His plan would have never worked, not only because it was at total variance with the eternal laws of truth and righteousness, but also because the only way anyone can have their sins remitted is through the atoning sacrifice of the sinless Son of God. Satan rebelled at noonday knowing full well he was violating the will of that God who had blessed him with a sure knowledge of the truth. There is no salvation in any plan of salvation other than the Father's perfect plan. It is delusional thinking to entertain the idea that Lucifer's plan could have saved anyone even in the slightest degree. Salvation and every good thing comes only of Christ, and conversely, damnation and every evil and filthy thing is all that Lucifer ever had and no has to offer.

 

This is just not evidenced in scripture.  Everything we know about Lucifer's plan in scripture indicates that it was EXACTLY the same as the plan eventually chosen except in 2 ways - 1. He got the glory AND 2. Acceptance of the atonement would be mandatory.  It still would have included a gethsemane, crucifixion and resurrection.  There is no other scriptural information on any difference in the plans.  And Lucifer wasn't called the "light bearer" because he was full of darkness.

 

So if Lucifer had come to Earth instead of Jesus, lived without sin and had offered up his life paying the price for our sins then salvation from the fall (sins paid, everyone resurrected) would still have occurred.

But because we would all be forced to accept his plan we could never choose to become perdition or to follow the path to be exalted.  We would all be resurrected in a telestial state for eternity.  But we would be saved for the eternal death that comes with our sins.

 

I can't believe that the basic principles of the plan of salvation and the requirements for exaltation aren't being applied to the council in heaven.

Edited July 14, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

Understanding that Satan is a liar does not mean that he ALWAYS lies. Take it from someone who lies for a living. A good lie ALWAYS entails much more truth than lie. Otherwise, no one would fall for it.

Okay so what are you? A used car salesman or defense attorney? Or do you just have a "friend" who lies for a living?

Oh nevermind. I'm not sure if your answer would be the truth and I wouldn't want anyone to be fooled.

[CV75]

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.

Anyone lacking the essential elements of agency (options and consequences; knowledge and understanding of them; and the ability to differentiate between them) will undoubtedly be acted upon. In the case of a child, the Lord expects that to be done with love and in everyone’s best interests.

 

But we were given sin filters when we came to earth—our conscience. From D&C 93 and 88, Christ is “the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” the light of Christ “quickeneth your understandings.”

 

Moroni 7:16: "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."

 

Satan was not offering a sin filter. Jesus on the other hand, is our Intermediary, the most perfect filter anyone could hope to have.

[CV75]

Understanding that Satan is a liar does not mean that he ALWAYS lies. Take it from someone who lies for a living. A good lie ALWAYS entails much more truth than lie. Otherwise, no one would fall for it. Look at Satan's conversation with Eve in the Garden. He doesn't just tell her a bunch of "whoppers." Instead, he uses half truths, "You won't die if you eat of the fruit (at least, not today)." So there was likely SOME element of truth in Lucifer's plan.

However, even assuming that he was making it all up, we don't know what his true intentions were. If I tell you that I'm wearing green pants and I'm lying, do you know what color my pants really are? Of course not. And you certainly don't know WHY I told you they were green in the first place. Maybe I think you will give me money for wearing green pants. Or maybe I just like to lie. Or maybe it's part of a multi-stage plot to drag you to the pits of hell.

So given that we don't know anything about his motives other than the fact that he wanted glory for himself, I think it is plausible that he at least THOUGHT that his plan would result in decent results (even if not exaltation) for his followers.

That is what I meant by his being a liar—he’s the best there is! He wasn’t making anything up, he was lying with all the truth he had at his disposal.

 

Satan’s true intentions are not fully revealed, but anyone who lies would have an idea that his intent was to get results for himself. On the other hand, “he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” This is the father’s intent (D&C 84:38), His work and glory (Moses 1:39).

 

Picking up on an earlier post, Satan didn’t want God’s glory (the immortality and eternal life of man) but God’s honor instead: “the devil …rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency.” (D&C 29:36).

 

It is interesting (to me) that honor is power, or priesthood. The devil was calling upon God to give him His honor (the principle of oath-keeping) and His power (priesthood). No good could have come from that. All that the Father hath—honor, power and glory--is freely offered to all His children. If honor and priesthood were given to only one, and the agency of the rest destroyed, there would be no glory anywhere for anyone.

 

Some want honor and power, but not glory as the Father defines it. They trade honor and power for true glory. Satan demanded it and got others to clamor for it.

[mormonnewb]

This is just not evidenced in scripture.  Everything we know about Lucifer's plan in scripture indicates that it was EXACTLY the same as the plan eventually chosen except in 2 ways - 1. He got the glory AND 2. Acceptance of the atonement would be mandatory.  It still would have included a gethsemane, crucifixion and resurrection.  There is no other scriptural information on any difference in the plans.  And Lucifer wasn't called the "light bearer" because he was full of darkness.

 

So if Lucifer had come to Earth instead of Jesus, lived without sin and had offered up his life paying the price for our sins then salvation from the fall (sins paid, everyone resurrected) would still have occurred.

But because we would all be forced to accept his plan we could never choose to become perdition or to follow the path to be exalted.  We would all be resurrected in a telestial state for eternity.  But we would be saved for the eternal death that comes with our sins.

 

I can't believe that the basic principles of the plan of salvation and the requirements for exaltation aren't being applied to the council in heaven.

 

Whoa!  This is a little different than I pictured.  I always ASSUMED that Lucifer would just keep a tight leash on everyone to prevent us from sinning at all.  I didn't realize that he would let us run wild and then corral us all in the end with the atonement.  We wouldn't get to exaltation but no one would be sent to outer darkness.  In that case, I can definitely see what the third were thinking when they chose Plan B.

 

By the way, where is this talked about in scripture or revelation again?

 

Interestingly, this seems VERY similar to the Protestant narrative of how salvation works.  In fairness, Protestants don't think that the atonement is a license to sin, but some have attempted to treat it as a "get out of hell free card."  That being said, I can see why this isn't something that we talk about very much.  I'm not sure that our Prop 8 buddies would very much appreciate that we see their view of salvation as being "of the devil" ... literally

[why me]

Whoa!  This is a little different than I pictured.  I always ASSUMED that Lucifer would just keep a tight leash on everyone to prevent us from sinning at all.  I didn't realize that he would let us run wild and then corral us all in the end with the atonement.  We wouldn't get to exaltation but no one would be sent to outer darkness.  In that case, I can definitely see what the third were thinking when they chose Plan B.

 

By the way, where is this talked about in scripture or revelation again?

 

Interestingly, this seems VERY similar to the Protestant narrative of how salvation works.  In fairness, Protestants don't think that the atonement is a license to sin, but some have attempted to treat it as a "get out of hell free card."  That being said, I can see why this isn't something that we talk about very much.  I'm not sure that our Prop 8 buddies would very much appreciate that we see their view of salvation as being "of the devil" ... literally

I believe that your questions can be answered here:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/the-great-imitator?lang=eng

 

We just recently heard President Ernest LeRoy Hatch of the Guatemala City Temple say, “The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.” Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God” (D&C 76:25). He came before Christ and proposed to God the Father, “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” (Moses 4:1). This he proposed to do by force, destroying the free agency of man. Does his statement “Give me thine honor” mean that he wanted to mount an insurrection to supplant even God the Father?

Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force (see Moses 4:3–4). But Jesus, chosen “from the beginning” (Moses 4:2), said unto God, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). What a contrast in approaches! Wrong as his plan was, Satan was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him (see D&C 29:36; Rev. 12:4). He practiced a great deception by saying, “I am also a son of God” (Moses 5:13).

Free agency, given us through the plan of our Father, is the great alternative to Satan’s plan of force. With this sublime gift, we can grow, improve, progress, and seek perfection. Without agency, none of us could grow and develop by learning from our mistakes and errors and those of others.

Because of his rebellion, Lucifer was cast out and became Satan, 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” (Moses 4:4). And so this personage who was an angel of God and in authority, even in the presence of God, was removed from the presence of God and his Son (see D&C 76:25). This caused great sadness in the heavens, “for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning” (D&C 76:26). Does this not place some responsibility on the followers of Christ to show concern for loved ones who have lost their way and “are shut out from the presence of God” (see Moses 6:49)? I know of no better help than to show unconditional love and help lost souls seek another path.

Satan does, however, perform an important negative function. In the book of 2 Nephi we are told, “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11). However, Peter warns, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).

Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.”

 

The article is a good read. I especially like the last paragraph in my paste. I find it very enlighening for the internet age. And this article was written in 1987,

Edited July 14, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I believe that your questions can be answered here:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/the-great-imitator?lang=eng

 

We just recently heard President Ernest LeRoy Hatch of the Guatemala City Temple say, “The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.” Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God” (D&C 76:25). He came before Christ and proposed to God the Father, “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” (Moses 4:1). This he proposed to do by force, destroying the free agency of man. Does his statement “Give me thine honor” mean that he wanted to mount an insurrection to supplant even God the Father?

Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force (see Moses 4:3–4). But Jesus, chosen “from the beginning” (Moses 4:2), said unto God, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). What a contrast in approaches! Wrong as his plan was, Satan was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him (see D&C 29:36; Rev. 12:4). He practiced a great deception by saying, “I am also a son of God” (Moses 5:13).

Free agency, given us through the plan of our Father, is the great alternative to Satan’s plan of force. With this sublime gift, we can grow, improve, progress, and seek perfection. Without agency, none of us could grow and develop by learning from our mistakes and errors and those of others.

Because of his rebellion, Lucifer was cast out and became Satan, 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” (Moses 4:4). And so this personage who was an angel of God and in authority, even in the presence of God, was removed from the presence of God and his Son (see D&C 76:25). This caused great sadness in the heavens, “for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning” (D&C 76:26). Does this not place some responsibility on the followers of Christ to show concern for loved ones who have lost their way and “are shut out from the presence of God” (see Moses 6:49)? I know of no better help than to show unconditional love and help lost souls seek another path.

Satan does, however, perform an important negative function. In the book of 2 Nephi we are told, “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11). However, Peter warns, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).

Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.”

 

The article is a good read. I especially like the last paragraph in my paste. I find it very enlighening for the internet age. And this article was written in 1987,

 

I didn't see anywhere in this citation (or in the linked talk) where it says that Lucifer's plan was to let people run wild and then force the atonement on them in the end.  It reads:

 

“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” (Moses 4:1). This he proposed to do by force, destroying the free agency of man.

 

When I read that "he proposed to do by force, destroying the free agency of man," I THINK it means that he was planning to control their ACTIONS by force.  Now, I guess Lucifer could have proposed to control their acceptance of the atonement by choice, but that doesn't seem to be the most obvious reading of the text.  After all, how does one control another person's THOUGHTS by force?  You can control someone's actions and restrict their movements by force, but to control whether they accept Christ's atonement?  How would that even be possible?

[JLHPROF]

Whoa!  This is a little different than I pictured.  I always ASSUMED that Lucifer would just keep a tight leash on everyone to prevent us from sinning at all.  I didn't realize that he would let us run wild and then corral us all in the end with the atonement.  We wouldn't get to exaltation but no one would be sent to outer darkness.  In that case, I can definitely see what the third were thinking when they chose Plan B.

 

By the way, where is this talked about in scripture or revelation again?

 

 

I didn't actually say that Lucifer's plan was to allow us to run wild.  The redemption is not just about sin, it is also about the fall.

Apply this line of thought:

 

1. When Adam and Eve fell we became mortal and subject to sin and in need of the resurrection, no matter how perfectly we live.  Also, since they had to transgress the law preventing sin would have stopped everything in its tracks.

2. Lucifer's plan couldn't be to prevent us from sinning, since our very fallen nature would still require redemption from the grave.

3. Therefore Lucifer's plan had to include a redeeming act as well as Christ's did.  Preventing sin wouldn't reverse the fall and we would stay "unsaved" and unresurrected.  Even if forced to live as perfectly as Christ (the tight leash) we would still need a Savior.

4. Regardless of whether Christ or Lucifer had their plan chosen, there would still need to be redemption from the fall.  And the payment for the fall always had to be a Savior.  They both said "Choose me".

 

All located in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham among other places.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm happy for everyone that came to this earth that chose Heavenly Father's plan.

[mormonnewb]

I didn't actually say that Lucifer's plan was to allow us to run wild.  The redemption is not just about sin, it is also about the fall.

Apply this line of thought:

 

1. When Adam and Eve fell we became mortal and subject to sin and in need of the resurrection, no matter how perfectly we live.  Also, since they had to transgress the law preventing sin would have stopped everything in its tracks.

2. Lucifer's plan couldn't be to prevent us from sinning, since our very fallen nature would still require redemption from the grave.

3. Therefore Lucifer's plan had to include a redeeming act as well as Christ's did.  Preventing sin wouldn't reverse the fall and we would stay "unsaved" and unresurrected.  Even if forced to live as perfectly as Christ (the tight leash) we would still need a Savior.

4. Regardless of whether Christ or Lucifer had their plan chosen, there would still need to be redemption from the fall.  And the payment for the fall always had to be a Savior.  They both said "Choose me".

 

All located in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham among other places.

 

But I thought we didn't believe in original sin.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

 

Also, if Lucifer kept Adam and Eve on a tight leash, then we would have never fallen and never needed redemption, right?

[JLHPROF]

But I thought we didn't believe in original sin.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

 

Also, if Lucifer kept Adam and Eve on a tight leash, then we would have never fallen and never needed redemption, right?

 

Don't confuse sin with the fall.  We may not be punished for Adam's sin, but we are still to lie in the grave without a savior.  We can be completely free of sin to the point of translation, but nobody gets resurrected without the Savior's sacrifice.

 

And if Adam and Eve had never fallen, then God's work and glory would have been thwarted.  The fall had to happen so we could gain mortal bodies and be resurrected.

 

Adam falls so spirit children can gain mortal bodies, A Savior provides the way back to immortality, those who are exalted get to be Gods.  This is God's work and glory and will happen again and again worlds without end as it has for eternities past.  If you want to get "scientific" it's the reproductive cycle of the God species.  It's how Gods are made and always have been.

 

Satan's plan solved the resurrection step in that we would all be raised from our graves but he denied the agency necessary to choose right from wrong which is not a condition for resurrection, but is for becoming a God.

[teddyaware]

This is just not evidenced in scripture.  Everything we know about Lucifer's plan in scripture indicates that it was EXACTLY the same as the plan eventually chosen except in 2 ways - 1. He got the glory AND 2. Acceptance of the atonement would be mandatory.  It still would have included a gethsemane, crucifixion and resurrection.  There is no other scriptural information on any difference in the plans.  And Lucifer wasn't called the "light bearer" because he was full of darkness.

 

So if Lucifer had come to Earth instead of Jesus, lived without sin and had offered up his life paying the price for our sins then salvation from the fall (sins paid, everyone resurrected) would still have occurred.

But because we would all be forced to accept his plan we could never choose to become perdition or to follow the path to be exalted.  We would all be resurrected in a telestial state for eternity.  But we would be saved for the eternal death that comes with our sins.

 

I can't believe that the basic principles of the plan of salvation and the requirements for exaltation aren't being applied to the council in heaven.

Please show me any reference at all, either in the Standard Works or in the writings or spoken words of at least one member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve (past or present), that indicates Lucifer's plan included his making an infinite and eternal atonement for sin. By the way, President John Taylor looks with disfavor on your idea of an "atoning Lucifer:"

"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..." (John, Taylor, Mediation and Atonement)

 

I'm also wondering how you would square the idea of an "atoning Lucifer" (whom we are taught sought to utterly destroy the free agency of man) with the LDS doctrine that the atonement is what enables men to exercise free agency? Are not these two things mutually exclusive? The following scripture reference indicates that the atonement and free agency are mutually exclusive:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2)

 

The "Book of Mormon Student Study Guide" says -- " (we are) Free to Choose Because of the Atonement.

Edited July 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[why me]

 

When I read that "he proposed to do by force, destroying the free agency of man," I THINK it means that he was planning to control their ACTIONS by force.  Now, I guess Lucifer could have proposed to control their acceptance of the atonement by choice, but that doesn't seem to be the most obvious reading of the text.  After all, how does one control another person's THOUGHTS by force?  You can control someone's actions and restrict their movements by force, but to control whether they accept Christ's atonement?  How would that even be possible?

Of course you are making your statement with the knowledge that christ's plan was chosen. We would be living in a different world if satan's plan was chosen. So your question: How does one control another person's thoughts by force is not applicable now. But we can use our imagination to see what life would be if satan had gotten his way. There would be no savior or christ. Just satan and heavenly father and his plan. How he would have controlled our earthly lives can be left up to the imagination.  Luckily, satan lost and the forces of good won.

 

By the way, since I have been put on limited I am only allowed a few posts and I am running out now. So, I can't always answer your future posts when I would like to.

Edited July 14, 2014 by why me

[JLHPROF]

Please show me any reference at all, either in the Standard Works or in the writings or spoken words of at least one member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve (past or present), that indicates Lucifer's plan included his making an infinite and eternal atonement for sin. By the way, President John Taylor looks with disfavor on your idea of an "atoning Lucifer:"

"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..." (John, Taylor, Mediation and Atonement)

 

I'm also wondering how you would square the idea of an "atoning Lucifer" (whom we are taught sought to utterly destroy the free agency of man) with the LDS doctrine that the atonement is what enables men to exercise free agency? Are not these things mutually exclusive? The following scripture reference indicates that the atonement and free agency are mutually exclusive:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2)

 

The "Book of Mormon Student Study Guide" says -- " (we are) Free to Choose Because of the Atonement.

 

   

This is one of those fun times I have to admit I am wrong, but I stand fully corrected on this point.  I will have to give this some additional thought and study.

I apparently am wrong and that Lucifer's plan would not have featured an atonement, although I am unsure as to how he expected to "save every soul" any other way given the fall of Adam.  He also could not have expected any of the glory he sought without the souls being redeemed as he promised.

I can find many references from the prophets that Lucifer would have redeemed us from the fall whether we wanted to or not, but not a single reference that he would have done so in the same atoning manner.  So there is a missing piece of the puzzle to my mind still.  I think saying he blatantly lied is a cop out.  He had a goal to attain, and a way to achieve it.

 

Well done!  I love having to rethink doctrine, especially when it's as deep as this.

[pogi]

After all, how does one control another person's THOUGHTS by force?

 

If there is no devil, then there is only one option to choose from.  Thus, agency could not exist and Satan would have complete control, leaving them with "no other way".   2 Nephi states that man cannot act for himself save he is enticed by the one (God) or the other (Devil).

[teddyaware]

   

This is one of those fun times I have to admit I am wrong, but I stand fully corrected on this point.  I will have to give this some additional thought and study.

I apparently am wrong and that Lucifer's plan would not have featured an atonement, although I am unsure as to how he expected to "save every soul" any other way given the fall of Adam.  He also could not have expected any of the glory he sought without the souls being redeemed as he promised.

I can find many references from the prophets that Lucifer would have redeemed us from the fall whether we wanted to or not, but not a single reference that he would have done so in the same atoning manner.  So there is a missing piece of the puzzle to my mind still.  I think saying he blatantly lied is a cop out.  He had a goal to attain, and a way to achieve it.

Well done!  I love having to rethink doctrine, especially when it's as deep as this.

Hi there,

The problem is we've been given very little information that would enable us to definitively establish what Lucifer's plan was really all about. It could be that one of the reasons why God has revealed so little about his plan is tied to the following warning of Alma to his son Helamen in the Book of Mormon (read the following very carefully because one day it could be what you're about to read might prove to be an important key in helping to bring understanding to what the war in heaven was all about):

27 And now, my son, I command you that ye retain all their oaths, and their covenants, and their agreements in their secret abominations; yea, and all their signs and their wonders ye shall keep from this people, that they know them not, lest peradventure they should fall into darkness also and be destroyed.

28 For behold, there is a curse upon all this land, that destruction shall come upon all those workers of darkness, according to the power of God, when they are fully ripe; therefore I desire that this people might not be destroyed.

29 Therefore ye shall keep these secret plans of their oaths and their covenants from this people, and only their wickedness and their murders and their abominations shall ye make known unto them; and ye shall teach them to abhor such wickedness and abominations and murders; and ye shall also teach them that these people were destroyed on account of their wickedness and abominations and their murders.

30 For behold, they murdered all the prophets of the Lord who came among them to declare unto them concerning their iniquities; and the blood of those whom they murdered did cry unto the Lord their God for vengeance upon those who were their murderers; and thus the judgments of God did come upon these workers of darkness and secret combinations. (Alma 37)

 

Yes, you guessed it. Could it be that the war in heaven was the first secret combination? We know Lucifer and his followers wanted to usurp the throne of power for themselves; and in their quest to dethrone God they would have stopped at nothing, including the destruction of the Father and the Son in order to achieve their goal. The following quote reveals the depth of hatred that fills the souls of those who are consumed with such abject, murder-inducing darkness:

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. (D&C 76)

 

There's the murderous intent of those who would dethrone God.

 

Based on the few elements of Lucifer's plan that are revealed, some have concluded he would have compelled us to be righteous. But considering the fact that he's such a malevolent character, one wonders why keeping the commandments would be even slightly important to him.

 

Personally, I believe one of the possible keys to understanding his plan is to take a good look at the adversary's influence in the world today. There seem to be many leaders who are diligently trying create an earthly paradise where grievous sin is of little or no consequence; a world where, regardless of personal morals, all are to be blessed equally.

Edited July 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

After all, how does one control another person's THOUGHTS by force?  You can control someone's actions and restrict their movements by force, but to control whether they accept Christ's atonement?  How would that even be possible?

You can control another’s thoughts through the manipulation of his perceptions. Magicians do it all the time.

 

You cannot control another’s conscience, but if you can overpower and manipulate his perceptions to the point where he ignores his conscience, you can control him (D&C 93:39): "that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth [destroys agency], through disobedience [which erodes agency], from the children of men, and because of the tradition [incorrect thoughts and perceptions] of their fathers."

 

There are many ways to overpower and manipulate another person's perceptions. While God "will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able [and] will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it," (another sin filter He allows us), we often choose to go with our faulty senses rather than the pure light of Christ that is in all things, especially with so many voices and so many who are willing to commit this offense.

 

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

[CV75]

But considering the fact that he's such a malevolent character, one wonders why keeping the commandments would be even slightly important to him.

Taking this malevolence to the extreme, it is easy to see that his demand of the Father was akin to killing Him or taking possession of His immortal body.

[teddyaware]

Taking this malevolence to the extreme, it is easy to see that his demand of the Father was akin to killing Him or taking possession of His immortal body.

Good point. And let's face it. if there's anybody who takes malevolence to an extreme, it would be he.

[Calm]

Taking this malevolence to the extreme, it is easy to see that his demand of the Father was akin to killing Him or taking possession of His immortal body.

At the least a stealing of his identity to begin with...anger driving him to the extreme after rejection...but either the council took place over a lot longer time period than we generally imagine or Lucifer was in his heart much closer to the extreme than I would have once imagined someone living with God could be. By rejecting God, rejecting any influence, that part of him that would have been suppressed was unleashed. Edited July 15, 2014 by calmoriah