He knew not the mind of God

[bay2boy]

I have a question concerning the following scripture.

Moses 4:6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

When you compare this scripture to what we learn in the temple about Satan doing what was done on other worlds, it seems Satan knew the plan and was only doing what was being done on other worlds. Many will say that Satan was duped thinking he was ruining the plan. However, what if he already knew the plan but just wanted to be the instigator of Adam and Eve transgressing the law.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with you--I think Satan was just trying to set himself up in such a way that Adam and Eve perceive him, rather than the Father, as the source of these new powers and freedoms that the Father had always intended that Adam and Eve possess when they were ready.

A couple of thoughts on your post:

1. Did Satan understand/realize that God would immediately expel Adam and Eve from the garden and/or be able to prevent them from immediately partaking of the tree of life?

2. Were Satan's statements 100% truthful? And did they represent what he actually knew, or merely what he wanted his hearers to think he knew?

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't see any conflict here. Having some knowledge doesn't equate to having all knowledge. Satan knew not the mind of God. But he clearly knew some stuff. I buy it.

[Traveler]

I am inclined to go with brother Nibly on this subject. Satan knew the plan of salvation because he was present in the great council in heaven when it was presented in precise and eternal detail. When scripture says that Satan did not know the mind of G-d - it implies to me that Satan had ideas of his own. Since Satan realized that Adam and Eve would eventually figure out that partaking of the fruit was necessary - Satan's mind was to separate the man and the woman from coming to the conclusion together. Rather Satan set about to convince each to partake on their own and create a division, keeping them from working together.

Satan's plan was to destroy G-d's covenant of marriage from the very beginning and he is still about it today. He knew all along that this was the way and the only way for him to gain an advantage and subject man to his power. As the scripture states there must needs be opposition - Satan was not so much fulfilling G-ds plan as he was reaching for that weakness in the marriage covenant and relationship to take advantage for his selfish purpose.

The Traveler

Edited January 27, 2014 by Traveler

[SpiritDragon]

Some good thoughts here team.

I can definitely see how Satan would be looking to exploit marriage by introducing opposition into the union. However, I am confused as to why Satan would want Eve to get Adam to partake as well... when if only she partook and was cast out it would have created the most potent rift he could have hoped for. Perhaps after being unsuccessful at getting Adam to partake, Lucifer was arrogant enough to believe that Eve would also be unsuccessful persuading Adam. That being said, I personally believe that Satan wanted both to be cast out and begin having posterity. He wanted to make those who kept their first estate miserable, a condition that wasn't possible in the garden state.

I also wonder if Lucifer simply planned to get Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of life next and frustrate the plan.

I don't doubt that Lucifer knew the plan quite well, so my question is: What about the mind of God was it that Satan didn't know that is being referenced?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm sure someone will dig out some quotes and give me an apostolic smack-down, but I wonder . . .

I went back to the context of Abraham 3:37--origin of the "here I am, send me/Here I am, send me/I will send the first". We typically read this as Jehovah and Lucifer offering to be the savior. But on a closer reading, it seems that Jehovah (vv. 24-26) hatches the plan to go down, create an earth, and prove mankind. Then "The Lord"--in this context, the Father?--says "OK, who, exactly, will go down and do this?", and you get both Jehovah and Lucifer volunteering--for the role of creator, not (explicitly) for the role of savior.

I've always taken it for granted that Lucifer understood that the roles of Creator and Savior were a package deal. But what if he never even understood the plan of salvation well enough to know that an Atonement would be possible?

[SpiritDragon]

I'm sure someone will dig out some quotes and give me an apostolic smack-down, but I wonder . . .

I went back to the context of Abraham 3:37--origin of the "here I am, send me/Here I am, send me/I will send the first". We typically read this as Jehovah and Lucifer offering to be the savior. But on a closer reading, it seems that Jehovah (vv. 24-26) hatches the plan to go down, create an earth, and prove mankind. Then "The Lord"--in this context, the Father?--says "OK, who, exactly, will go down and do this?", and you get both Jehovah and Lucifer volunteering--for the role of creator, not (explicitly) for the role of savior.

I've always taken it for granted that Lucifer understood that the roles of Creator and Savior were a package deal. But what if he never even understood the plan of salvation well enough to know that an Atonement would be possible?

Far from an apostolic smack-down... my meager understanding of things. My understanding is that before a third part of the spirits could be lead away by Satan/Lucifer they had to have an understanding of the plan and those of us that chose to keep our first estate did so by putting our faith in the saviour, and those who left with Lucifer lacked sufficient faith in Jehovah as the saviour to go ahead with the plan as described.

[bay2boy]

Satan's plan was to destroy G-d's covenant of marriage from the very beginning and he is still about it today.

The Traveler

Very interesting take. I never thought about it in terms of their marriage covenant. Thanks for that insight.

[bay2boy]

I'm sure someone will dig out some quotes and give me an apostolic smack-down, but I wonder . . .

I went back to the context of Abraham 3:37--origin of the "here I am, send me/Here I am, send me/I will send the first". We typically read this as Jehovah and Lucifer offering to be the savior. But on a closer reading, it seems that Jehovah (vv. 24-26) hatches the plan to go down, create an earth, and prove mankind. Then "The Lord"--in this context, the Father?--says "OK, who, exactly, will go down and do this?", and you get both Jehovah and Lucifer volunteering--for the role of creator, not (explicitly) for the role of savior.

I've always taken it for granted that Lucifer understood that the roles of Creator and Savior were a package deal. But what if he never even understood the plan of salvation well enough to know that an Atonement would be possible?

Additionally, I always wonder how Satan planned on removing something as eternal as agency. I tried to tie that with him being the creator, referring to your comment, but I'm not sure.

[The Folk Prophet]

...Jehovah (vv. 24-26) hatches the plan to go down, create an earth, and prove mankind. Then "The Lord"--in this context, the Father?--says "OK, who, exactly, will go down and do this?"

This is incorrect as I understand it. Jehovah did not hatch the plan. It was the Father's plan from the beginning. Jehovah always said, "Thy will be done."

If I'm mistaken someone can throw the apostolic smack-down my way too.

[The Folk Prophet]

Additionally, I always wonder how Satan planned on removing something as eternal as agency. I tried to tie that with him being the creator, referring to your comment, but I'm not sure.

I read a book once called Satan's War on Free Agency (with Free crossed out) that had some really interesting ideas. I did not agree with everything therein, but one of the proposals it had was that, contrary to what is popularly believed, Satan's plan was not to FORCE us to be good, but, rather, to remove consequence for sin.

The thinking goes something like this. Agency is the ability to choose between salvation and damnation. Accordingly, agency requires punishment (damnation). Remove punishment, and you remove agency.

Very interesting book, and very good at explaining what agency actually is and is not.

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't read that particular book, but I've seen similar theories. As a legal principle, an "agent" acts for the "principal"; but those actions also bind the principal. So to be an agent unto yourself means that you both act, and face the consequences (good or ill) for those actions. Technically speaking, no consequences = no agency.

[Traveler]

I read a book once called Satan's War on Free Agency (with Free crossed out) that had some really interesting ideas. I did not agree with everything therein, but one of the proposals it had was that, contrary to what is popularly believed, Satan's plan was not to FORCE us to be good, but, rather, to remove consequence for sin.

The thinking goes something like this. Agency is the ability to choose between salvation and damnation. Accordingly, agency requires punishment (damnation). Remove punishment, and you remove agency.

Very interesting book, and very good at explaining what agency actually is and is not.

By this thinking, is not repentance and the atonement by definition the removal of punishment / your agency?

Not that I disagree but that I think something is missing from the concept.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

By this thinking, is not repentance and the atonement by definition the removal of punishment / your agency?

Not that I disagree but that I think something is missing from the concept.

The Traveler

This is a question I'd like to see answered. This whole discussion intrigues me.

[SpiritDragon]

Along the lines of agency requiring punishment...

A thought I had is that in the garden of eden we know that Adam and Eve had agency to choose to partake of the fruit of the tree. Obviously this choice came with punishment (and blessings) but what about any other choices they made in the garden? There was no opposition to all things... no good, no evil, no right, no wrong.

My thought is that they either had agency or they didn't (and they did) yet only in the decision to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a punishment attached, so I am somewhat inclined to think that agency is more a matter of making the choices, as opposed to choosing the consequences.

On a similar note one theory I picked up somewhere along the way is that the real problem with Satan's plan is everyone would have remained in a "garden" state not knowing good and evil, because without agency to choose evil... sorrow could never enter the world, and without sorrow we couldn't understand joy. This is contrary to the plan of happiness because happiness would not be the end result for any of God's children.

[The Folk Prophet]

By this thinking, is not repentance and the atonement by definition the removal of punishment / your agency?

Not that I disagree but that I think something is missing from the concept.

The Traveler

The question implies that there is no punishment for sin, or another way to put it, no price to be paid. There is a price to be paid. Christ paid it.

Satan's plan (the theory goes) is that there would be no accountability, and mercy for all regardless of choice.

God's plan was that mercy would not rob justice, and that we would be accountable, either for our own sins, or to Him who paid the price for our sins.

[Just_A_Guy]

Remember, too, that the "consequences" prong of agency doesn't just require a person to suffer the punishment for his bad decisions. It is also what allows a person to personally enjoy the benefits that run with his good decisions.

Christ's atonement doesn't remove agency--it just gives us a new opportunity to exercise that agency, which (if we avail ourselves of it) will perfectly satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Along the lines of agency requiring punishment...

A thought I had is that in the garden of eden we know that Adam and Eve had agency to choose to partake of the fruit of the tree. Obviously this choice came with punishment (and blessings) but what about any other choices they made in the garden? There was no opposition to all things... no good, no evil, no right, no wrong.

My thought is that they either had agency or they didn't (and they did) yet only in the decision to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a punishment attached, so I am somewhat inclined to think that agency is more a matter of making the choices, as opposed to choosing the consequences.

On a similar note one theory I picked up somewhere along the way is that the real problem with Satan's plan is everyone would have remained in a "garden" state not knowing good and evil, because without agency to choose evil... sorrow could never enter the world, and without sorrow we couldn't understand joy. This is contrary to the plan of happiness because happiness would not be the end result for any of God's children.

As far as I understand it, agency also requires knowledge. The only knowledge they were given was, do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had to be given this command or they would not have had agency. This is why small children have no agency. No accountability, no knowledge. Once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they had knowledge. To keep their agency intact they also needed laws given to them so they would be accountable.

No law = no agency (law, meaning punishment/reward)

No knowledge = no agency

No choice = no agency

Most people only account the last of these with what agency is. But that defines freedom, and it is only a part of what agency is.

Adam and Eve were given enough in the garden to exercise agency at the most basic level. Choice, given. Knowledge, given (you shall surely die). Punishment attached. In this they had agency.

[Blackmarch]

Some good thoughts here team.

I can definitely see how Satan would be looking to exploit marriage by introducing opposition into the union. However, I am confused as to why Satan would want Eve to get Adam to partake as well... when if only she partook and was cast out it would have created the most potent rift he could have hoped for. Perhaps after being unsuccessful at getting Adam to partake, Lucifer was arrogant enough to believe that Eve would also be unsuccessful persuading Adam. That being said, I personally believe that Satan wanted both to be cast out and begin having posterity. He wanted to make those who kept their first estate miserable, a condition that wasn't possible in the garden state.

I also wonder if Lucifer simply planned to get Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of life next and frustrate the plan.

I don't doubt that Lucifer knew the plan quite well, so my question is: What about the mind of God was it that Satan didn't know that is being referenced?

Depends on what Satan wants.... if he wants to make as many as miserable as possible, then the only way to increase the number after the expulsion from heaven will be from those that will leave heaven and not return are those who succumb in mortality, sure they'll still be more powerful than he even in Hell, but he would still accomplish in removing individuals from the direct presence of god to various extents - an act of vengeance against those who sided with God and Christ as well as to God himself.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Blackmarch

[bay2boy]

On a similar note one theory I picked up somewhere along the way is that the real problem with Satan's plan is everyone would have remained in a "garden" state not knowing good and evil, because without agency to choose evil... sorrow could never enter the world, and without sorrow we couldn't understand joy. This is contrary to the plan of happiness because happiness would not be the end result for any of God's children.

Are we not to believe that procreation cannot exist while in a garden state? Satan should be aware of this obviously. Or is there more to it than that?

[SpiritDragon]

Are we not to believe that procreation cannot exist while in a garden state? Satan should be aware of this obviously. Or is there more to it than that?

It is true that in the garden of Eden Adam and Eve could not procreate... The idea here being that Satan's plan allowed for procreation, but no choice and therefore no agency, no understanding of opposition. It would be kind of like in Satan's plan the fall would have occurred... but not by choice, but out of necessity. This line of thinking actually could take one full circle into the idea that they did not suffer the positive or negative consequences of the Fall and therefore goes along with the other theory that taking away consequences takes away agency. Either way the plan would not lead to happiness. Whether we were unhappy because we were forced into everything against our will, or because we could not discern between happy and sad.

[The Folk Prophet]

The crux of the matter is that people often mistake agency for freedom. Particularly, the book points out, in parenting or other interactions. They feel that they cannot "force" their children to be good because that was Satan's plan. It goes on to contend that this was NOT Satan's plan and therefore this sort of "let them have their free-agency" type parenting is invalid. The way it concludes that this was not Satan's plan is by showing how Satan does things on this earth...meaning that he tries to convince us of the lie that morality exists, that there is punishment for sin, and that God doesn't just love everyone and therefore will save everyone, etc., etc...

The book has some solid points and some interesting ideas but ultimately draws its conclusion based on a logical fallacy. Specifically, the means Satan is currently using to destroy the world does not logically prove that he propagated the same plan in the pre-existence.

More importantly, the parenting conclusion is invalid. Punishing your children for misbehavior is NOT taking away their agency. The author argues that we shouldn't see Satan's plan as a plan of Force, therefore forcing our children is not following Satan's plan. But punishing our children is not actually forcing them any more than the plan of salvation, which explicitly entails punishment, forces us to be good.

Agency, as has been pointed out, is not freedom. We can have our freedom taken away, in some cases by God. Sickness, death, disability, financial burden, government oppression, enemy hoards, etc., can all take away our freedom. None of these can take away our agency, however, because none of them take away our ability to choose right from wrong. Moreover, even if someone did take away our ability to choose right from wrong (which does happen) it doesn't take away our agency, because we are no longer accountable for those things. Agency requires accountability as much as it does choice.

What the book did successfully point out, I believe, is that it is non-doctrinal to state that Satan's plan was to force us to be good. That is not explicit in the scriptures. What the scriptures are clear on is that Satan tried to take away our agency. This has often been interpreted as taking away our choice. But I think it very valid to understand that removal of choice is only one facet of agency, and that Satan's plan may well have been different, or, more likely, may have been significantly more comprehensive -- that it may have addressed the other components of agency (accountability, etc.) as strongly, perhaps more strongly, than it did choice.

There is one valid argument I think the book made on the "what was Satan's plan" theory, by the way. Why would a third of the host of heavens (billions and billions of individuals) go along with a plan that turned them into robots with no free choice? Seems likely that a plan that allowed them free choice but did not hold them accountable for the choices they made would be much, much more appealing. So where I can't agree that we can conclusively say that Satan's plan was NOT to force us to be good, I can very reasonably see that Satan's tactics are much more diverse and conniving than that, and there is no reason to presume that he was not just as conniving in the pre-existence.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have a question concerning the following scripture.

Moses 4:6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

When you compare this scripture to what we learn in the temple about Satan doing what was done on other worlds, it seems Satan knew the plan and was only doing what was being done on other worlds. Many will say that Satan was duped thinking he was ruining the plan. However, what if he already knew the plan but just wanted to be the instigator of Adam and Eve transgressing the law.

"Knew not the mind" may also read, 'knew not the mindset'. Knowing the facts behind any situation is not the same as having a certain attitude or perspective. The poles of that mindset are sometimes described as being carnally minded versus spiritually minded. I think someone who is charitable and caring as our Father in Heaven is would be hard to understand for someone who is self centered.

I often ask myself, 'why would that person act that way?' and sometimes I don't know the answer because I cannot see their perspective. One's ability to see another person's perspective is directly related to their ability to empathize. Satan, clearly has next to zero ability to empathize, whereas Christ like love, or charity is a pure form of empathy to the point of even mourning with those that mourn, etc.