What I am about to suggest is not at all doctrinal, but I have found it entertaining to ponder it.
What if … Lucifer, The Son of the Morning, rebelled against God in the pre-existence because Lucifer was secretly asked by God to do so?
Why do I entertain such a thing? A couple of reasons.
1) If heaven is a place without temptation and sin, then where did Lucifer get the idea to rebel against God?
2) I once sought to join a college social club, a process that took all semester long. I and several neophytes got along swimmingly with all of the current members of that club except two members, who were just combative and obnoxious to us neophytes. At almost every meeting, these two members would vote to reject half of us neophytes. At the end of the semester, all we neophytes made it into the club. And THEN we were told that these two obnoxious members were busting our chops all semester long because they were secretly assigned by the rest of the members to do bust our chops to give us neophytes an opportunity to show how committed we were to joining the club. That was the standard procedure for that social club every semester.
3) When Cain slew Abel, Cain became Master Mahan, the Father of All Lies. At that point, I think, Lucifer’s task was done. Hell had a new prince of darkness, and Cain probably took up the names/titles Lucifer, Satan, etc.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
While this doesn't comment at all on our current understanding of theology, the satan figure in the old testament - especially in Job's framework story - is indeed fulfilling the assigned office of Accuser. He is a member of the heavenly retinue, the divine council, and is performing an assigned duty.
posted
The endowment ceremony would seem to argue against Lucifer being assigned. It would also seem awfully unjust to make Satan suffer eternally in outer darkness without a body if he was fulfilling an assignment.
Posts: 464 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that God, when creating spirit children can somehow pick intelligences. Also, when picking he can first know their character. Thus, His first pick, He picked a "good" one, and for his second he choose a "bad" one. And the rest of us fall in between.
From my point of view, it's not in the character of God to put someone in an nonredeemable position. IMO, so long as a person obeys God they will end up in the Celestial kingdom. However, this is not an option for Satan, therefore, I conclude that he did not obey.
posted
If God could simply sort the spirits without need of a test, then there is no need of a test. As Christ said, it would be better for the failures to not have been born.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Why would God need to secretly give Satan a mission, when there were already so many willing to rebel against God? Do we then also posit that those who followed Satan were secretly given that mission from God?
It seems to me that if Satan had not rebelled and sought power and glory, someone else would have.
By the way, I agree with you that it is entertaining to consider the possibility.
Posts: 5044 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If God could simply sort the spirits without need of a test, then there is no need of a test.
IMO, this would violate the basic principle of free will. Also, it points toward a perfect knowledge of the future.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of thoughtful responses! Thank you all!
quote: Been reading the Book of Judas lately?
Haven’t heard of it.
quote: The endowment ceremony would seem to argue against Lucifer being assigned.
I agree that part of it argues against, but I think part of it argues in favor. If there was knowledge that certain actions had indeed been played out elsewhere, then so too would be known the consequences that befell those who took those actions. Also, if Lucifer knew that the success of The Plan of Salvation required The Fall, then would not Lucifer refuse to facilitate that fall? We seem to assign to Lucifer simultaneously the characteristic of being intelligent and the characteristic of being stupid.
quote: It would also seem awfully unjust to make Satan suffer eternally in outer darkness without a body if he was fulfilling an assignment.
Depends on which “Satan” we’re talking about. I’m thinking the pre-existence Lucifer was playing a role and wouldn’t be punished for that. But the New Satan (Cain) would suffer as you describe.
quote: it's not in the character of God to put someone in an nonredeemable position.
I’m not suggesting that God did so. If Elohim asked Lucifer to play-act that role, then Lucifer wouldn’t be accountable for that action. Lucifer would be like an undercover cop pretending to be a bad guy so as to flush out other bad guys. Elohim did pronounce a penalty for Lucifer’s rebellion, but I’m thinking that was just role-playing, too. They were like actors reciting a script, only no one else (except, perhaps, Jehovah) knew it was acting.
quote: Why would God need to secretly give Satan a mission, when there were already so many willing to rebel against God? Do we then also posit that those who followed Satan were secretly given that mission from God?
Because until Lucifer offered an alternative plan, it had not entered any of their minds to seek an alternative. If we were capable of ideating and acting upon rebellious thoughts while in heaven, then what reason was there for this mortal existence? This mortal earth is a place where, unlike heaven, good and evil can exist side-by-side. Also, I would have to imagine that when Lucifer presented the alternative plan, he did so in an inviting manner. If he just blurted out, “Let’s rebel against God,” no one would have joined him.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: He wanted to usurp the role of Savior in Father's plan, take Father's glory, and make slaves of all Father's children. Our first estate wasn't about choosing between two viable plans, our choice was to chose freedom or captivity--Father's plan with Jehovah as Savior, or Lucifer's rebellion.
The scriptures do not say that.
What the scriptures, in fact, do say, is quite a bit more nuanced and relevant to many concerns we have today.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because until Lucifer offered an alternative plan, it had not entered any of their minds to seek an alternative.
What makes you say that? It is not like we had never seen evil, or at least been told about evil.
quote:If we were capable of ideating and acting upon rebellious thoughts while in heaven, then what reason was there for this mortal existence?
To walk by faith. To gain bodies like our Father. To keep our second estate. etc...
quote:This mortal earth is a place where, unlike heaven, good and evil can exist side-by-side. Also, I would have to imagine that when Lucifer presented the alternative plan, he did so in an inviting manner. If he just blurted out, “Let’s rebel against God,” no one would have joined him.
I agree that this earth is a probationary state which allows for good and evil to exist side by side, which isn't the case in heaven.
I agree Satan made his plans as appealing as he could, but I also think roper got it right.
Posts: 5044 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For reference, I'll repeat the pertinent scripture.
quote:1 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.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 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;
4 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.
quote: 27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Interestingly, Abraham leaves it open as to whether Lucifer rebelled at the time he was passed over as Messiah, or if he rebelled finally at not being chosen to be Adam.
quote:He wanted to usurp the role of Savior in Father's plan
That's not obvious from the above - he could in no case be the savior without Father's approval.
quote:take Father's glory
"Give me thine honor" - not the same as taking.
quote:and make slaves of all Father's children.
That is nowhere attested to - one would have to be reading a lot of stuff into "agency" to come up with that. Agency is not "free will."
quote: Our first estate wasn't about choosing between two viable plans, our choice was to chose freedom or captivity--Father's plan with Jehovah as Savior, or Lucifer's rebellion.
We don't know if Lucifer's proposal was viable or not, without first accurately characterizing it.
quote: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.
1. Lucifer would be the Messiah. He would have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of all mankind. 2. He would redeem all mankind - and redemption has but one meaning: he would save us all from death and sin, both of which would of necessity exist, else no redemption is necessary.
In other words, he was offering to universalize the atonement, just as the resurrection is already universalized.
How would this proposal destroy agency? No choice would make a difference: all outcomes would be the same - salvation.
When no choice makes a difference, you have not got agency.
quote: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 favour 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. - Joseph Smith
posted
I did a blog post a while ago exploring the possibility that in the three pre-mortal accounts, we have Satan being rejected for three different roles. In Moses (when "the second" is the one chosen), it is for the role of Savior. In Abraham (when "the first" is chosen, the one like unto the Son of Man), it is for the role of First Man. In the Temple, it is for the role of Knowledge Bearer.
quote:Log, I find it interesting that you and I have switched our positions on this one--I've taken a more strictly literal interpretation of the scriptures and you're suggesting a more interpretive approach.
I don't see it that way. To me, you've adopted the traditional interpretation, which, as it happens, is not the literal one.
Kind of like D&C 49:18, where the traditional reading (helpfully codified in the footnote) is, quite literally, the opposite of the literal one.
I have never heard this before, from what does this meaning come from?
quote:That's not obvious from the above
I think this would depend on your definition of savior. Did he want to be the one to pay the price, no. Did he want to be the one brought the children back to father (saved them from that state), yes.
quote:he could in no case be the savior without Father's approval.
True, but we have no evidence that if the majority had chosen Satan's plan that God would have accepted the majority decision and gone with the other plan. Maybe he would have banned the majority, maybe he wouldn't. I suspect he would have banned the majority that being the case.
quote:not the same as taking.
And a bit petty to be arguing semantics. Odd phrases in English: "Take a crap" Did you take one or did you leave one? "alarm/siren went off" Did the alarm commence making noise or did it cease?
I knew what was meant, and I suspect so did most others.
quote:Lucifer would be the Messiah. He would have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of all mankind.
As I was taught, he would remove our free will and we would all obey and there would be no sin. Therefore, there would be no price for him to pay.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: not being chosen to be Adam. I have never heard this before, from what does this meaning come from?
Although I hadn't seen log's statement of this above, my blog post linked three posts above goes into detail on that view of the literal reading of the scripture.
quote:As I was taught, he would remove our free will and we would all obey and there would be no sin. Therefore, there would be no price for him to pay.
You were taught incorrectly.
"There is no other way."
I repeat: agency is not "free will."
quote:And a bit petty to be arguing semantics.
You cannot take that which cannot be taken.
quote:I have never heard this before, from what does this meaning come from?
It's a potential, and literalistic, reading of Abraham. It also happens to dovetail with Islamic teachings of the rebellion of the devil. (can't link to the wikipedia article.)
quote:I think this would depend on your definition of savior. Did he want to be the one to pay the price, no. Did he want to be the one brought the children back to father (saved them from that state), yes.
There is but one definition of Savior in the context of the council of the Gods. It entails paying the price: suffering, bleeding, and dying for the sins of all mankind.
I have no reason to believe you, and you have given me none either.
quote:I repeat: agency is not "free will."
I refer to previous comment regarding the actual the intent and meaning of the speaker. And I know you know what I meant because you rephrased to the term you want to use. Which I understand to have the same meaning.
And the rest of it ... whatever floats your boat.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no reason to believe you, and you have given me none either.
The scriptures say what they say - you either believe them (not me), or you don't.
quote:I refer to previous comment regarding the actual the intent and meaning of the speaker. And I know you know what I meant because you rephrased to the term you want to use. Which I understand to have the same meaning.
I really have no idea what you are trying to say by this.
1. Children have not got agency, but they do have free will. Therefore agency is not free will. 2. Children have not got agency because the devil is unable to tempt them. 3. It is when children begin to become accountable to God that the devil is permitted to tempt them, wherein they become agents unto themselves. 4. Elder Eyring, in 1998, defined agency as follows: the inalienable right to yield to the power (either God or the devil) of your choosing.
Agency: 2: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : operation 3: a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved : instrumentality
Free will: 1: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
So agency is the power to act, while free will the ability to make choices. Makes sense that in our Mormon lingo we've more or less created our own term, free agency, which is essentially a portmanteau of both terms.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The portmanteau makes no sense on its own terms, and it is nowhere referred to in the scriptures.
As for agency, I'll take that one, definition 2, with respect to Moses 4 and the D&C. Power to act does not make sense in context.
Children have both free will and power to act - but don't have agency: they are not responsible for themselves unto God, being unable to yield to the devil.
posted
Satan may have been acting as an agent provocateur, or he may have been a bad stick. We will find out in due course. In the meantime, I would suggest strongly to everyone that we go with the idea of Satan as a bad stick for the moment. We can always apologise later if necessary, but as his job is the Prince of Lies, it's probably safer not to get into any conversations with him.
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, many of the manuals are in some serious need of updating. The latest gospel prinicples manual is a step in the right direction.
So what do you do when there are contradictions within the scriptures, or contadicting statements from latter day apostles?
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what do you do when there are contradictions within the scriptures, or contadicting statements from latter day apostles?
It's true the scriptures do appear to contradict each other on some points. I judge stuff according to the modern scriptures first - pretty much, D&C -> PoGP -> BoM, then the New Testament, then the Old Testament. I haven't quite figured out how the JST fits in there - sometimes it's a help to understanding, and at other times it's a hindrance; it all depends on what the topic is.
Curiously, the Brethren tend not to contradict each other publicly very often, nor do they tend to contradict the scriptures very often. When conflicts arise, and in the absence of revelation, I judge the words of the Brethren according to the Standard Works.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who has developed a strong love for learning, I sometimes put too much stock in my ability to prooftext this or that notion out of this or that scripture. It's amazing how often I find the scriptures support my prejudices. It's even more amazing how often people who are 180 degrees from me find that the scriptures support their prejudices.
I have concluded that I need to let the Spirit have the last word when the scriptures and other official guidance seem contradictory. Of course, that requires that I keep my life in tune with the Spirit. That's re real trick, isn't it?
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: True, but we have no evidence that if the majority had chosen Satan's plan that God would have accepted the majority decision and gone with the other plan. Maybe he would have banned the majority, maybe he wouldn't. I suspect he would have banned the majority that being the case.
I agree that there is no authoritative support to suggest that God would have changed/altered The Plan for any reason. That said, I have often imagined to myself that such an argument may well have been proposed by Lucifer, namely that if enough get on Lucifer’s wagon then God would feel hesitant, perhaps, to keep The Plan as is and then so severely punish the very many siding with Lucifer. Obviously such an argument is based upon a false assumption, but I still can see it being tried.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: his job is the Prince of Lies, it's probably safer not to get into any conversations with him.
I joined this church because I was encouraged to ask questions rather than told to shut up and be spoon fed doctrines. I expect that every Latter-day Saint will study, ponder, and pray to discern truth, and not mistake my (or any other’s) personal musings to be truth.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what do you do when there are contradictions within the scriptures, or contadicting statements from latter day apostles?
One of the things I like about Mormonism is the extreme degree of the doctrines’ internal coherence. It is like an enormous jigsaw puzzle and all of the pieces fit together rather well. When I encounter what appears to my eyes to be a contradiction, it stands out like beacon to me because, in my experience, all the pieces fit together. I study the topic (first scriptures, GA talks and books, then other sources), ponder, and when I think I have all the pieces of that part of the puzzle I pray to see how the pieces should fit. When I was new to the church (23 years old) I did this often because I was unfamiliar with the gospel. Usually by bed time I would have read all of the relevant verses and commentary. It would look to me like the jumbled mess you have when you first dump out a jigsaw puzzle on the table. I would pray. When I awoke in the morning, it was as if someone had snuck in and put all the pieces together. I could see the big picture and could see where every piece fit.
I joined the church 29 years ago, and needing to sort out contradictions doesn’t happen to me as often as it used to. Over the years I have found that most apparent contradictions were due to either semantics or perspective. Sometimes we think that the outward meaning and nuanced meanings of a certain word mean the same thing for everyone. But it doesn’t.
I have also found that two people can arrive at the same point from two different directions and will place so much emphasis on the path they took to get there that they can’t see that they are agreeing with each other. Sometimes we feel so convinced that we are right that we make no allowance for the possibility that both are right, and we feel that to give any validity at all to another’s point of view demands that we admit that our own point of view is totally wrong. But both can be right, from a certain point of view. I try to see from both perspectives.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It is like an enormous jigsaw puzzle and all of the pieces fit together rather well."
I've learned a lot since I accepted that not all the puzzle pieces do fit together, and that I really don't need to expend energy and jump through hoops to do so. Then, my focus became on understanding scripture through the lens of the nature of revelation itself, and man's reaction to, understanding of, and attempts to express it.
It places the onus far strongly on personal revelation and confirmation this way, which can understandably be terrifying for many who just want to be shown the definitive and simple list of things that they should believe and do.
It shows the great amount of trust and credit God gives us all individually.
Posts: 922 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
