Council of Heaven Sequence of Events

[nandopessoa]

Trying to understand the sequence of events from the Council of Heaven and there are a couple of things I can't understand from it.

-Everyone was together in that Council: Heavenly Father, Jesus, Lucifer, Michael, and the entire host of heaven (all of us)

-Heavenly Father gives out his plan for us to be able to attain mortal bodies and He is looking for someone to send down to redeem everyone.

That's the part that I get confused... Redeem from what? Lucifer hasn't even proposed his "I''ll save them all, give me thy power" plan yet. Lucifer surely hasn't thrown his hissy fit, no yet either, no war yet, etc. So what was Heavenly Father planning on redeeming us FROM at this point in the conversation? There was no Satan yet. Just a big "happy" family at that point. If no Satan, could there be sin? If no Satan, would the Fall ever had happened?

 

thank you in advance for your enlightenment.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Father foresaw that under His plan we would make errors from which we would need to be redeemed; and that our spiritual growth on earth would require a divine exemplar who offered His enabling power.  This would be the case even in the absence of a "Satan" (Hebrew:  accuser) figure.

Satan did not create sin.  It was sin that co-opted Lucifer and turned him into Satan.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

[delete][delete][delete][delete]   I don't know why I even bother.  May as well just twiddle my thumbs for sixty seconds while JAG types the answer.

However, as long as I'm here, I'll add: Satan did not invent sin.  Sin as a possibility already existed, and God already knew (as JAG said) that under the proposed mortal conditions, we would sin.

Also, I have heard someone wiser than I teach that being our Savior was in essence a calling extended to Christ - that God wasn't asking for volunteers or nominations, but more like asking if Christ would accept this calling.  (That's me paraphrasing, cuz I can't remember for sure who taught it this way - a BYU professor I had back in the stone age, I think.)

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, nandopessoa said:

Trying to understand the sequence of events from the Council of Heaven and there are a couple of things I can't understand from it.

-Everyone was together in that Council: Heavenly Father, Jesus, Lucifer, Michael, and the entire host of heaven (all of us)

-Heavenly Father gives out his plan for us to be able to attain mortal bodies and He is looking for someone to send down to redeem everyone.

That's the part that I get confused... Redeem from what? Lucifer hasn't even proposed his "I''ll save them all, give me thy power" plan yet. Lucifer surely hasn't thrown his hissy fit, no yet either, no war yet, etc. So what was Heavenly Father planning on redeeming us FROM at this point in the conversation? There was no Satan yet. Just a big "happy" family at that point. If no Satan, could there be sin? If no Satan, would the Fall ever had happened?

 

thank you in advance for your enlightenment.

 

A great deal is left out of our mortal understanding of the great council of Heaven.  This “left out” understanding is called the veil of mortality.   We are allowed to know of some things.  For example the Plan of Salvation was also called the Plan of Happiness and this plan included: 

 1. The creation as recorded in scripture (I for one do not believe this is a plan to create the universe we are now experiencing)

2. The fall of mankind – including temptations of the flesh.

3. The Atonement of the Messiah or Christ – that Jesus would be the proctor or giver of eternal law (agency) and as the proctor of our agency would have power to atone for our sins.

4. The repentance of man as a covenant means in concert with the atonement to be eternally free of the power of sins (death – both the physical or first death and spiritual or second death).

5. The final judgment of man – where we will all stand before G-d and account for our choices, through our deeds and our desires through our actions.  At this final judgment we will determine with G-d the Father what Kingdom of Glory (according to law) we will align ourselves with.

 

I do not believe that these things all happened as an individual sequence but that billions of years passed in the development and training of G-d’s children as to the fine details of this plan.

It is obvious to me that Lucifer had understanding of this plan before he rebelled against it.  It is also obvious to me that we had input beyond listening to G-d dictate how things would be – I personally believe it was the desire of our Father that we participate in all elements of the plan.  For example I believe that we were involved in the creation of life here on earth and the fall – not just a sustaining vote kind of thing.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

7 hours ago, nandopessoa said:

There was no Satan yet. Just a big "happy" family at that point. If no Satan, could there be sin? If no Satan, would the Fall ever had happened?

I'm just curious.  What do you base this idea on?  No Satan = No Sin?

[nandopessoa]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm just curious.  What do you base this idea on?  No Satan = No Sin?

I'm basing on the limited or foggy understanding I had. Anything to add or did my answer quenched your curiosity?

[Edspringer]

I wish we knew more about our pre-mortal life, but we have been taught by the prophets and apostles on the matter.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith said:

 

“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 210).

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said (and this is particularly interesting to me):

 

“Being subject to law, and having their agency, all the spirits of men, while yet in the Eternal Presence, developed aptitudes, talents, capacities, and abilities of every sort, kind, and degree. During the long expanse of life which then was, an infinite variety of talents and abilities came into being. …

 

“The Lord endowed us all with agency; he gave us laws that would enable us to advance and progress and become like him; and he counseled and exhorted us to pursue the course leading to glory and exaltation. He himself was the embodiment and personification of all good things. Every desirable characteristic and trait dwelt in him in its eternal fulness. All of his obedient children started to become like him in one way or another. There was as great a variety and degree of talent and ability among us there as there is among us here. Some excelled in one way, others in another. The Firstborn excelled all of us in all things” (The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:23).

 

So, assuming we all were endowed with agency, it is reasonable to also assume that sin, in some degree, was possible in that realm of existence. Peter taught that Jesus is the lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). So, we can conclude that the effects of the atonement were available even before the creation and the fall.

 

Robert J. Matthews, a BYU scholar, said in 2007 that the Grand Council might have been a series of meetings instead of only a single gathering. I quote:

 

“ ‘Grand Council’ is a term often used by the Prophet Joseph Smith to describe the setting for official, top-level, priesthood functions in the pre-earth life. The plan of God was introduced and taught in many meetings over an extended period of time - collectively called the Grand Council”. You can view his talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7noNAwLFr78

 

 

About the war in heaven, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:

 

“What kind of war [was the War in Heaven]? The same kind that prevails on earth; the only kind Satan and spirit beings can wage—a war of words, a tumult of opinions, a conflict of ideologies; a war between truth and error” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 3:518).

I hope that helps!

[Jane_Doe]

On 11/20/2016 at 9:58 AM, nandopessoa said:

-Heavenly Father gives out his plan for us to be able to attain mortal bodies and He is looking for someone to send down to redeem everyone.

An important difference here: the Father is not looking for someone, but had already chosen Jehovah for the task from the beginning:

Moses 4:2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning

[CV75]

On 11/20/2016 at 11:58 AM, nandopessoa said:

Trying to understand the sequence of events from the Council of Heaven and there are a couple of things I can't understand from it.

-Everyone was together in that Council: Heavenly Father, Jesus, Lucifer, Michael, and the entire host of heaven (all of us)

-Heavenly Father gives out his plan for us to be able to attain mortal bodies and He is looking for someone to send down to redeem everyone.

That's the part that I get confused... Redeem from what? Lucifer hasn't even proposed his "I''ll save them all, give me thy power" plan yet. Lucifer surely hasn't thrown his hissy fit, no yet either, no war yet, etc. So what was Heavenly Father planning on redeeming us FROM at this point in the conversation? There was no Satan yet. Just a big "happy" family at that point. If no Satan, could there be sin? If no Satan, would the Fall ever had happened?

 

thank you in advance for your enlightenment.

My two cents:

The Lord didn’t present the plan of happiness in terms of redemption, but in terms of keeping and advancing estates, adding glory through proven voluntary obedience (Abraham 3:22-28).

Through faith and obedience no one could fail their test in a scenario where “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Following the plan was a matter of keeping the first estate until ready to receive a body and testing under these terms, and then using faith and agency to bear the testing. The rulers (verse 23, 24) would lead by faith and agency.

It was Satan who, of his own thinking, brought up the concept of needing a redemption (Moses 4:1). By doubting his faith so to speak, and unwilling to exercise proper faith to obtain the promised glory, he would instead trade (redeem) for it. He would remove the test by establishing a rulership that required neither the faith nor agency of its followers. His proposal glorified himself at the expense of the Father, and destroyed the agency of man by removing the testing requirement. Thwarted, he now sabotages the test with his great influence.

Under the Lord’s original plan, Jesus would have been our ruler, leading us along the path of faith and agency. He still does, but with Satan’s alternate plan entering the mix, out of His great compassion He also chose to become our Redeemer in a different way than Satan would have, trading His suffering for ours.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My two cents:

The Lord didn’t present the plan of happiness in terms of redemption, but in terms of keeping and advancing estates, adding glory through proven voluntary obedience (Abraham 3:22-28).

Through faith and obedience no one could fail their test in a scenario where “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Following the plan was a matter of keeping the first estate until ready to receive a body and testing under these terms, and then using faith and agency to bear the testing. The rulers (verse 23, 24) would lead by faith and agency.

It was Satan who, of his own thinking, brought up the concept of needing a redemption (Moses 4:1). By doubting his faith so to speak, and unwilling to exercise proper faith to obtain the promised glory, he would instead trade (redeem) for it. He would remove the test by establishing a rulership that required neither the faith nor agency of its followers. His proposal glorified himself at the expense of the Father, and destroyed the agency of man by removing the testing requirement. Thwarted, he now sabotages the test with his great influence.

Under the Lord’s original plan, Jesus would have been our ruler, leading us along the path of faith and agency. He still does, but with Satan’s alternate plan entering the mix, out of His great compassion He also chose to become our Redeemer in a different way than Satan would have, trading His suffering for ours.

I don't agree with all of that, but it's very interesting and provides good things to ponder.  Thanks.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Through faith and obedience no one could fail their test in a scenario where “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Following the plan was a matter of keeping the first estate until ready to receive a body and testing under these terms, and then using faith and agency to bear the testing. The rulers (verse 23, 24) would lead by faith and agency.

It was Satan who, of his own thinking, brought up the concept of needing a redemption (Moses 4:1). By doubting his faith so to speak, and unwilling to exercise proper faith to obtain the promised glory, he would instead trade (redeem) for it. He would remove the test by establishing a rulership that required neither the faith nor agency of its followers. His proposal glorified himself at the expense of the Father, and destroyed the agency of man by removing the testing requirement. Thwarted, he now sabotages the test with his great influence.

Look at the first paragraph quoted above and compare to the second one.  I'm not certain of the sequence being that A) no one brought up redemption,then B) Satan thought it up all by himself.

It would seem reasonable to me that the Father knew we would fail the test and therefore a redeemer was required.  So, he asked.

Quote

Abraham 3:27

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.

Coupled with other accounts, it appears that the Father presented a plan and said there should be a redeemer.  Whom shall I send?  Jehovah spoke and said he would.

THEN Satan spoke and presented his idea void of free agency.  

The Father rejected that idea and pronounced that Jehovah would be our savior.

Then the war in heaven resulted in 1/3 of the hosts of heaven being cast out (kept not their first estate) and the rest of us ended up experiencing mortality.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

On 11/20/2016 at 10:58 AM, nandopessoa said:

Trying to understand the sequence of events from "the Council of Heaven"

This is nothing more than a fun point of consideration. We sometimes hear of the term "Great Council or Grand Council in Heaven" By definition, "great or grand" compared to what other types of councils? Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Although spoken of as a single council, there may have been multiple meetings where the gospel was taught and appointments were made.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by NeedleinA

[zil]

25 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

We sometimes here of the term...

But we never, ever there of the term...  Why is that?

[NeedleinA]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

But we never, ever there of the term...  Why is that?

Gracias Zil- me and words/grammar*, oil and water

*Grammar and I?

[Guest]

I believe it's "I and Grammar."

[zil]

17 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Gracias Zil- me and words/grammar*, oil and water

*Grammar and I?

Depends: are you Tarzan?

[Guest]

Myself and Grammar. Grammar and my person. Grammar and me. 

[NeedleinA]

7 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I believe it's "I and Grammar."

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Depends: are you Tarzan?

Schooled at home was I by Yoda Do I get a pass?

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I don't agree with all of that, but it's very interesting and provides good things to ponder.  Thanks.

I’m not sure I agree with all of it either, LOL!

Just thinking through it.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Look at the first paragraph quoted above and compare to the second one.  I'm not certain of the sequence being that A) no one brought up redemption,then B) Satan thought it up all by himself.

It would seem reasonable to me that the Father knew we would fail the test and therefore a redeemer was required.  So, he asked.

Coupled with other accounts, it appears that the Father presented a plan and said there should be a redeemer.  Whom shall I send?  Jehovah spoke and said he would.

THEN Satan spoke and presented his idea void of free agency.  

The Father rejected that idea and pronounced that Jehovah would be our savior.

Then the war in heaven resulted in 1/3 of the hosts of heaven being cast out (kept not their first estate) and the rest of us ended up experiencing mortality.

The Book of Abraham doesn’t mention redemption in connection with the council, but the Book of Moses does. The Book of Moses also mentions the redemption coming about in response to Adam’s fall (5:9), but that was after the council and even the creation, etc.

The Book of Abraham shows the Lord laying out the original plan and selecting a ruler for it (Whom shall I send [as the ruler – not the redeemer]?”, and the Book of Moses shows the devil’s proposal. There is no order of events in Moses 4:1-2, but Satan saying, “Behold, here am I, send me…” indicates it is a response to the Father’s plan, showing that the Father’s plan came up first. He does not propose to go as a ruler under the Father’s schema, but as a redeemer in his own turned-around, dishonest sense.

I understand we typically envision the Father knowing that we would fail and require redemption, but this was in consequence to Satan and his followers rebelling against the original plan. I’m thinking that the original plan might have allowed faith, agency and testing to operate without a devil adversary. Relatively speaking, it would not have seemed any easier to those of us tested, but the original plan, according to Abraham 3, was built only upon a foundation of faith and agency, which things cannot fail. I still think that plan allowed us to choose how much glory we wanted to receive (as much glory is added upon us to the the extent we exercise our as our faith and agency). The same holds true in the plan we are given today, except the glory is bestowed by the merits of our Ruler/Redeemer and not our Ruler.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Book of Abraham shows the Lord laying out the original plan and selecting a ruler for it (Whom shall I send [as the ruler – not the redeemer]?”

Ruler... Redeemer...

While I don't disagree that Christ is our ruler, I don't get that the question the Father asked was about the ruler.  I'm not even sure where that could even be inferred from the text or from tradition.  We can't take this as an isolated entry.  We put this together with other passages that talk about the same thing.  All of them are incomplete.  But when we put them together we get a more complete picture.  Based on that method, I understand it to be about a Redeemer (primarily).

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand we typically envision the Father knowing that we would fail and require redemption, but this was in consequence to Satan and his followers rebelling against the original plan. I’m thinking that the original plan might have allowed faith, agency and testing to operate without a devil adversary.

First, when truths are (first?) mentioned (where in scripture) is not necessarily indicative of when those truths were known or first taught.

Second, see 2 Nephi 2.  Opposition was mandatory.  I submit that opposition always has and always will exist (Satan did not invent it), because without it, our agency is useless, because there is no choice (oh yes, I'm fully aware of what I just said and how it relates to your suggestion of progress without opposition* and how terrifying that is; *I'm also saying there is opposition even in your idea, you just may not see it as opposition - and where there is opposition, there is sin and righteousness).

To respond directly: the requirement for redemption was NOT in consequence to Satan's rebellion.  Opposition and temptation would come from somewhere, even if not from him.

Third, study everywhere that truth is to be found (e.g. scriptures, modern prophets, in the temple) and it becomes clear, IMO, that even before Satan's scheme, there was a plan for us to be redeemed, by Jehovah.

Finally, we are living the original plan (my testimony).  I think it is dangerous to believe otherwise.  Satan did not (cause God to) alter God's plan - he Satan rejected it.  And God knew before it happened that Satan would rebel.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

Myself and Grammar. Grammar and my person. Grammar and me. 

Isn't it "mie and grahmer"?

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Schooled at home was I by Yoda Do I get a pass?

 

 

I'm going to get technical 'cause that's just the way I roll.  

Syntax is a subset of grammar.  Yoda's issue was specifically syntax.  His grammar otherwise was ok.  But the usage of here vs. hear falls into vocabulary or possibly spelling.  And I don't think that even fits into the category of grammar.

On the other hand the topics of vocabulary, spelling, and grammar all fall under the umbrella of mechanics.

So, Needle, in your line of work, do you do any mechanical work?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Ruler... Redeemer...

While I don't disagree that Christ is our ruler, I don't get that the question the Father asked was about the ruler.  I'm not even sure where that could even be inferred from the text or from tradition.  We can't take this as an isolated entry.  We put this together with other passages that talk about the same thing.  All of them are incomplete.  But when we put them together we get a more complete picture.  Based on that method, I understand it to be about a Redeemer (primarily).

“Rule” and “redeem” are two different concepts. I have no issue with combining them, and in my mind Christ is certainly both. But He was first a ruler, as Abraham 3:23-24 indicates (“These I will make my rulers [not redeemers] ...And there stood one among them that was like unto God…”). Now that I look at it closer, the “one among them that was like unto God” may not have been the same Being as the one “like unto the Son of Man.” The “another” is clearly the devil.

I think it would be helpful to identify when “the foundation of the world” took place. It could refer to the pre-existence, the creation, the fall into the mortal world. That would shed light on the meaning of Ether 3:14, “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people,” and D&C 29:46, “that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” since there were no little children before the fall.

Alma 22:13 says, “the plan of redemption …was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ…” but there is no scripture that says it was prepared “before the foundation of the world.” References to “before the foundation of the world” do not speak to the Savior’s atoning or redemptive role, but to laws, blessings, temple ordinances, love, glory, our potential, Christ’s foreordination and preparation (I'll say as the Ruler). "Atone" does not necessarily mean "redeem' as I explain in my response to zil below.

Of course this whole discussion can be simplified by adhering to this talk by Elder Nelson in 2002, but I don’t think his point was to pinpoint the sequence of events: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/how-firm-our-foundation?lang=eng

Perhaps, since there is no sequence clearly laid out in scripture, it doesn’t really matter. But it’s certainly something to think about if it can be done in good faith.

1 hour ago, zil said:

First, when truths are (first?) mentioned (where in scripture) is not necessarily indicative of when those truths were known or first taught.

Second, see 2 Nephi 2.  Opposition was mandatory.  I submit that opposition always has and always will exist (Satan did not invent it), because without it, our agency is useless, because there is no choice (oh yes, I'm fully aware of what I just said and how it relates to your suggestion of progress without opposition* and how terrifying that is; *I'm also saying there is opposition even in your idea, you just may not see it as opposition - and where there is opposition, there is sin and righteousness).

To respond directly: the requirement for redemption was NOT in consequence to Satan's rebellion.  Opposition and temptation would come from somewhere, even if not from him.

Third, study everywhere that truth is to be found (e.g. scriptures, modern prophets, in the temple) and it becomes clear, IMO, that even before Satan's scheme, there was a plan for us to be redeemed, by Jehovah.

Finally, we are living the original plan (my testimony).  I think it is dangerous to believe otherwise.  Satan did not (cause God to) alter God's plan - he Satan rejected it.  And God knew before it happened that Satan would rebel.

I definitely believe in the law of opposition in all things, but also that opposition can exist without a devil adversary. As long as there are greater and lesser intelligences, there will always be some point of opposition until they become one. Imperfection (as in our earlier estate) opposes Perfection (The Father’s ultimate estate) until they come together. This needn’t be an adversarial form of opposition, but just the result of separate forces of ability (President Hunter spoke of this in “God Will Have a Tried People,” Ensign, May 1980, where “Resistance creates both the opposition and the forward movement,” in other words, the difference between the two intelligences inspires the forward movement of the lesser intelligence by exerting his faith and will in the highest intelligence). This is the purpose of the plan of happiness, to become one with the Father, and the function of an Atoning One within that plan is to offset the difference or gap in intelligence.

Yes, opposition and temptation would come from somewhere, even if not from the devil. But neither of these principles constitute sin, and in an environment without a devil, the Atonement would not be manifest in the form of a redemption since all movement is forward and none backward. I’m just glad that in the particular kind of testing ground we live in, Jesus stepped forward and we have in Him a Redeemer.

Edited November 23, 2016 by CV75

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Alma 22:13 says, “the plan of redemption …was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ…” but there is no scripture that says it was prepared “before the foundation of the world.” References to “before the foundation of the world” do not speak to the Savior’s atoning or redemptive role, but to laws, blessings, temple ordinances, love, glory, our potential, Christ’s foreordination and preparation (I'll say as the Ruler). "Atone" does not necessarily mean "redeem' as I explain in my response to zil below.

Of course this whole discussion can be simplified by adhering to this talk by Elder Nelson in 2002, but I don’t think his point was to pinpoint the sequence of events: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/how-firm-our-foundation?lang=eng

From your own link:

Quote

Before the foundation of the earth, the plan of salvation was prepared.  It included the glorious possibility of a divine inheritance in the kingdom of God.

...

Central to that plan was the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In premortal councils, He was foreordained by His Father to atone for our sins and break the bands of physical and spiritual death...

If "breaking the bonds of physical and spiritual death" are not redeeming us, then I don't know what is.

Then you just keep reading and count how many times everything was done before the foundation of the earth.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Guest