The War in Heaven

[SpiritDragon]

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The scriptures do not teach this.

The statement being referred to has two parts. The first is that Satan promised to save everyone, and the second part is how he planned to do it (forced obedience).

The scriptures teach the following:

Moses 4:1

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.

This verifies the first part of the above statement. The scriptures don't teach that it could or would work, but it is his argument that he would redeem all mankind.

Then we get the more vague part of how;

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;

Satan's plan involved removing agency. It is true that this doesn't explicitly say "forced obedience" but it also not a wild stretch to draw that conclusion. In fact J. Reuben Clark commented on this passage and stated there are two main possibilities this can be referring to; The first is forced obedience, and the latter is the removal of consequences making choices pointless because the outcome never changes which renders agency moot - which by the way is still a form of forced obedience because it changes the rules in a way that disobedience is not possible.

So technically you are correct that the scriptures do not teach this phrase as written. Let me rephrase my understanding to say that Satan's promise was to save everyone, but agency would be lost. 

It must have been a reasonably compelling argument too, because it drew away a third part of the hosts of heaven.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

The statement being referred to has two parts. The first is that Satan promised to save everyone, and the second part is how he planned to do it (forced obedience).

The scriptures teach the following:

Moses 4:1

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.

This verifies the first part of the above statement. The scriptures don't teach that it could or would work, but it is his argument that he would redeem all mankind.

Then we get the more vague part of how;

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;

Satan's plan involved removing agency. It is true that this doesn't explicitly say "forced obedience" but it also not a wild stretch to draw that conclusion. In fact J. Reuben Clark commented on this passage and stated there are two main possibilities this can be referring to; The first is forced obedience, and the latter is the removal of consequences making choices pointless because the outcome never changes which renders agency moot - which by the way is still a form of forced obedience because it changes the rules in a way that disobedience is not possible.

So technically you are correct that the scriptures do not teach this phrase as written. Let me rephrase my understanding to say that Satan's promise was to save everyone, but agency would be lost. 

It must have been a reasonably compelling argument too, because it drew away a third part of the hosts of heaven.

Another way to put it is that Satan's plan was to remove choice...but not necessarily all choice. The only specified choice he was removing was whether to be saved or not.

Really, when it comes down to it, the plan of salvation was and is a plan of choice.

As you (or J. Reuben Clark) mention, all that is requisite is that everyone received the same outcome regardless of what they did (hello socialism! -- yes...I believe Satan's plan was, in essence, socialism). 

I'm not under the impression that forced obedience had no part in his plan. It may have. But it strikes me as odd that so many would have voted or fought for such a plan. Alternatively, a plan that stated, "Do whatever you want and I'll save you anyhow", seems much more appealing. And all we really know is that Satan A) sought to destroy our agency B) claimed he would save all, and C) wanted God's glory. I suspect that, ultimately, just as Satan here has many lies and arguments to convince as many as possible as possible, that the same was true of the pre-mortal battle. I do not believe it was a simple thing. I believe it was a long-standing war of ideas that played out over a very long time where any who so chose could adapt their peculiar personal views to fit Satan's hints, suggestions, lies, etc., just as it is here.

You cannot remove agency by forcing someone to do something anyhow because someone who is truly forced has no accountability. As in if I jump off a cliff I'm accountable. If you talk me into jumping off the cliff I'm accountable. If you push me however....  You cannot force someone to be righteous. If you force them they aren't accountable, and so they aren't actually righteous, as righteousness requires choice and accountability. So from that point of view the "force" thing doesn't really make much sense. You can, however, make a claim that their actions, whatever they may be, are righteous because morality is relative. Of course you can redefine things, which may be part of Satan's pre-mortal lies. Using the same analogy, "I'm going to force everyone to be suicidal by pushing them all off cliffs." Murdering someone isn't causing them to commit suicide, just as forcing someone to obey isn't making them righteous. So, once again, Satan's plan may have included the idea of forced righteousness, but as we know, his plan was a lie from the start. Removing accountability, after all, does nothing more to create righteousness than forced obedience does.

As to, "...which by the way is still a form of forced obedience because it changes the rules in a way that disobedience is not possible." That makes no sense to me -- but that isn't important.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

The statement being referred to has two parts. The first is that Satan promised to save everyone, and the second part is how he planned to do it (forced obedience).

The scriptures teach the following:

Moses 4:1

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.

This verifies the first part of the above statement. The scriptures don't teach that it could or would work, but it is his argument that he would redeem all mankind.

Then we get the more vague part of how;

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;

Satan's plan involved removing agency. It is true that this doesn't explicitly say "forced obedience" but it also not a wild stretch to draw that conclusion. In fact J. Reuben Clark commented on this passage and stated there are two main possibilities this can be referring to; The first is forced obedience, and the latter is the removal of consequences making choices pointless because the outcome never changes which renders agency moot - which by the way is still a form of forced obedience because it changes the rules in a way that disobedience is not possible.

So technically you are correct that the scriptures do not teach this phrase as written. Let me rephrase my understanding to say that Satan's promise was to save everyone, but agency would be lost. 

It must have been a reasonably compelling argument too, because it drew away a third part of the hosts of heaven.

But, there is another possibility that Satan lied about being the savior and his real plan was instead to bring all of Gods children into captivity of sin to rule over them. A true kingdom of destruction. When we sin and become bound in the chains of hell that is how our agency is destroyed.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As to, "...which by the way is still a form of forced obedience because it changes the rules in a way that disobedience is not possible." That makes no sense to me -- but that isn't important.

Perhaps the following analogy will help, and if not that's okay too.

Picture a familial situation where a teenager really wants to get a rise out his/her parents by doing something awful and clearly disobedient. The teenager wants to rebel. However, no matter what they do it's acceptable behaviour. As you mentioned agency requires choice and accountability, or as I feel makes more sense for this analogy choice and consequences based on choice. This teenager has endless choices of things to try to do to make his/her parents upset. However, none of them can ever lead to the desired consequence. Nothing this individual can choose has any meaning because the choices don't follow natural laws of cause and effect. There are no rules to break, so there is no choice to break them. Having no choice to break rules is essentially the same as forced obedience, it is simply not possible to disobey.

If this helps, great. If not, I tried.

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by SpiritDragon

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, there is another possibility that Satan lied about being the savior and his real plan was instead to bring all of Gods children into captivity of sin to rule over them. A true kingdom of destruction. When we sin and become bound in the chains of hell that is how our agency is destroyed.

I agree and feel that part almost goes without saying. Satan's plan wouldn't work. It's like the socialist party of the day making political promises that any sensible person knows can't be kept and that if they are we'll all be screwed anyway! No doubt about it, Satan lies.

[brotherofJared]

On 5/22/2017 at 2:44 PM, Traveler said:

We are told through revelation that the war in heaven is still going on, right now, here on earth.  We are told that the war in heaven was not a war of bullets and bombs but a war of words and ideas.  With this in mind – what are some of the words and ideas being used in or day by the rebels of heaven?  And what words and ideas are being used to fight back to protect the saints of G-d and the things of G-d?

 

The Traveler

I disagree about the words or ideas. Instead, it is a war about choice. In the war that took place in heaven, the result of which we lost a third of our kindred, was freedom or captivity. Here on earth, it is a choice about doing good or doing evil. Or, in the same vein, it is a war about will both here and there. Who will we follow.

[brotherofJared]

On 5/23/2017 at 2:50 PM, Armin said:

As far as I understand it describes a new form of sex determination by some kind of self-choosing the gender role one wants or has to play considering on his social relationship and personal circumstances. It claims to be a scientific field and means there exist about one hundred genders (or roles or aspects of them) and not only the simple male and female gender with their typical behaviour.

I've just found this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderism

Maybe I'm ignorant or maybe I'm retarded, because for me a man is a man and a woman is a woman. But they seemingly like to make it more... complicated...?

I believe it is a way to describe the effeminate man or the masculine woman

[brotherofJared]

On 5/24/2017 at 1:08 PM, Traveler said:

 

That the teaching of certain doctrines or divine principles are hurtful to those that do not believe - this follows along with the idea that if we love someone we will not deliberately point them to things (ideas) that will cause them pain and anguish.  Therefore those that teach "painful" truths are "evil" for doing it.

 

The Traveler

Interesting. This goes or supports along the lines of calling evil good and good evil?

[brotherofJared]

10 hours ago, Armin said:

 

It's more than that, because they claim it is a subject of empiric science (however, others describe it as a pseudo research), with all its effects on social communities. They want to change the society into some odd kind of choose-yourself-your-gender-and-restroom thing and establish homosexuality as a social standard. Transgenderism (I'm not talking about those poor ones who were born as hermaphrodites and where surgery becomes necessary) is another aspect of all that blasphemy, because it's a total abuse, an expression of decadence and in total contradiction with indicated and necessary medical help in case of those born hermaphrodites, who have to pass real psychological hell-like states wearing their burdon. The WHO describes the wish of a person that wants to change his / her gender (those adults who have been living as a man and maybe in the age of forty surprisingly wish to become a woman, or reverse) as a severe mental disorder, an obsessive disorder. and genderism initiates those morbid wishes and requests, supported and brought forward by ideologically failed groups, politicians, and even churches.

 

2

 

The problem is not with them. It is with us and the society that wants to pigeon hole them. They are not like the majority of the rest of us and so they often get ostracized. I don't think this genderism is the answer. I don't think we have an answer. They aren't broken. The people who think they are are the ones who are broken. Once we get that right and fixed in our minds, we might be getting close to how to properly address it...

I lost some of my post. Not sure how I started it. The amazing return key just wiped out a chunk.

Anyway, this seems to be a topic for new thread. To bring it back to this topic (I don't think I understood the OP to begin with), pigeon holing people who are different from us is a tool of the devil.

I'm not really sure what weapon God has given us to combat that. I'm not sure it's right to be upset with people who are trying to do something about it even if it's not the right way. I believe we should be an influence in the world, but sometimes the only thing we can do is be the example; to be the light.

It kind of reminds me of a movie I once saw where a group finding themselves in enemy territory were trying to get to safety, but between them and freedom was a mine field. They had the correct means to get through, but it was tedious and took time and the enemy was fast on their heels. They tossed stones, stepping stones, into the minefield from a safe distance and if the stone didn't blow up, that was a safe spot. That's where they'd step and it's how they advanced through the field. They eventually ran out of time and found themselves in a pickle. Stuck in the mine field with the enemy behind them, they couldn't go back and get more stones. So one of the group said, follow me and step where I step and he leaped out into the minefield. Even if he landed on a mine, it would be a safe place for the others to step. The end was in view. Luckily, he made it. Though it was quite tense. Everyone made it. The point is. Be the light. Step out so that others can follow.

I don't know the tool that combats bigotry. Do you? If I presented myself as I intended to, then it should be evident that even genderism is a form of bigotry, if for no other reason than it has pigeon-holed groups of people, even the people they are trying to help.

[brotherofJared]

2 minutes ago, Armin said:

Yes. the sword.

That would end like the last Jaredite war and the last person standing would still be a bigot, but no one would know it.

[brotherofJared]

1 minute ago, Armin said:

Except himself, if he had that cognitive ability.

I think that is the problem with bigots. Everyone else is wrong, or off, or weird, or sick, or afflicted. With no one else around, then everything is cool.

[brotherofJared]

3 hours ago, Armin said:

Maybe. But even that I don't like bigots or hypocrites (and who would like them...?) I wouldn't say they are the main problem. The main problem is a sinful attitude by those ones who want to abolish sinning as a fact and replace it by raising sin to social normality and standard. That's what might be reflecting the war in heaven and what we are perceiving as a cultural and social row.

You make it sound like it's us against them. They are not the problem. We are the problem. There are as many hypocrites and bigots in the church as there were in the early church. They destroyed the church then and are trying to do so now. I believe the social norm issue is a distraction. It is a symptom, but it is not the problem. 

The question remains, hopefully, your offer to use the sword was in jest, do you know what to do about it?

[Vort]

On 5/30/2017 at 8:14 AM, Rob Osborn said:

John 6:39

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

[Vort]

On 6/2/2017 at 9:49 AM, redreed1 said:

Satan thought this was a stupid plan.  He knew that if Man had agency, then many would make the wrong choices and be destroyed. So he proposed that he would prevent that by removing agency and personally hand holding us all so we could not make any mistakes, or commit any sin.  In the end, Satan wanted to have all the Glory and be God to us all (It doesn't take much to figure out what it would be like to have Satan as your god).

The only part of this that I believe has any truth is the last sentence. The idea that Satan objected in principle to God's plan because it wasn't safe enough is absurd. Satan is and always has been about bringing glory to himself. That's what drives him. That is what he cares about. Nothing else. He is not and never has been concerned with the well-being of anyone not named <insert Satan's "name" here, whatever it might be -- Lucifer or Perdition or whatever>. So his rebellion against the Father was exactly 0% about worrying for the well-being of his spiritual siblings and 100% about usurping the Father's honor.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

?

[Vort]

On 6/2/2017 at 1:45 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not under the impression that forced obedience had no part in his plan. It may have.

Satan had no plan. Or, to be more specific, Satan's "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor. There is not now and never was any other plan.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Satan had no plan. Or, to be more specific, Satan's "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor. There is not now and never was any other plan.

That seems like a presumptuous presumption to me. How do you know Satan did or did not plan everything down to the last detail?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

You make it sound like it's us against them. They are not the problem. We are the problem.

This is a doctrine born of overcompensation.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

a presumptuous presumption

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Satan had no plan. Or, to be more specific, Satan's "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor. There is not now and never was any other plan.

 

Of all topics and of all people – this is a topic I would very much love to discuss and you of all people, someone I would most love to follow point by point.  But where and how to start.  Not sure if this point is the best – but I find the symbolic reference of Lucifer (the serpent) addressing Adam and Eve (as presented through revelation of the Plan of Salvation) a very cleaver misdirection.  I am of the mind that Lucifer knew very well that partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was necessary to the Father’s Plan of Salvation.  But I agree with Hugh Nibley that Lucifer had a very detailed plan – whereby he would utilize the Father’s Plan of Salvation to bring about his own purposes.  And I believe he is much more successful about bringing about his ends than many are willing to consider.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But I agree with Hugh Nibley that Lucifer had a very detailed plan – whereby he would utilize the Father’s Plan of Salvation to bring about his own purposes.

This may be true. Let me clarify what I'm talking about.

Many Latter-day Saints have the following (false) model of our premortal experience:

1. Jesus presented a plan for the salvation of mankind, which involved choice and consequences.
2. Lucifer presented a competing plan for salvation, which involved coercion and forced obedience.
3. The Father picked Jesus' plan. (Or, even falser: We voted and picked Jesus' plan.)
4. Lucifer got mad, rebelled, and was cast out with those cowardly souls who agreed with him.

The above doctrine is false, False, FALSE. It is literally wrong on every point. Yet it continues to be what many Latter-day Saints believe and teach to their children.

When I say something like "Satan didn't have 'a plan', he just lied", I am talking about the above (false) sequence. Satan had no counterplan of "salvation" that he presented in opposition to Jesus' supposed "plan". In fact, a very brief moment's reflection will convince any sober Latter-day Saint that no such counterplan is possible. Salvation cannot be offered on the terms that Lucifer supposedly gave. The whole thing is bogus.

Satan lied. He wanted Father's honor, so he lied. That was his whole plan. That's it. Nothing more. He sought to usurp the glory of God, and he lied to do it. He said that he could do something he manifestly could not do. He is the very prototype of the hypocrite.

Please, folks, let's stop teaching this false doctrine to our children. Better yet, let's stop believing it ourselves. Each of the four numbered points above is false. Satan had no "plan" as such, beyond his megalomaniacal desire to usurp the Father's honor. Let's just leave it at that.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Vort

[brotherofJared]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

Satan had no plan. Or, to be more specific, Satan's "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor. There is not now and never was any other plan.

So, This makes me wonder what the third were fighting for if there was no other plan. In fact, can there be choice if there wasn't another plan to choose? Were they trying to overthrow God directly or did they actually have a cause that they believed in?

For me, this is an issue. I stated in my intro (in the introduce yourself section) if God's wife literally gave birth to the 50 billion or so people on this planet over its history (summing them all together), adding to those the third that rebelled. It just seems ludicrous to me that any woman would submit to being a baby farm. That is an idea born out of ignorance, IMO. The ignorance is that we are children of God, but we don't know how, exactly, that came to be. If we consider that Christ saw His Father's work, then He, Christ, was an intelligence who witnessed God's plan of salvation before the foundations of this world were laid, before He became the firstborn (I hope I didn't break anything by making that statement). From this, and other scripture, I believe we became children of God by choice, not by birth. We, every one of us, choose God and that includes this third who rebelled. On that premise, everyone knew the plan when they made the choice. Essentially, the choice to become a child of God was to accept that plan, thus acquiring our first estate.

So, it's not like Satan decided he wanted to be God and overthrow Him. It came to that, but that's not how it started. He really believed he had a better plan and those that followed him thought it was better. If we all witnessed, as did Christ, the actual plan in action, there would be those who would fear the possible results of making choices, sometimes bad ones. We are told Satan had a different plan, so I can't really accept that there never was any other plan. I'll agree that there never was any other plan that would have worked.

[brotherofJared]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is a doctrine born of overcompensation.

Which one fits that doctrine? That they are the problem? or that we are the problem?

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

This may be true. Let me clarify what I'm talking about.

Many Latter-day Saints have the following (false) model of our premortal experience:

1. Jesus presented a plan for the salvation of mankind, which involved choice and consequences.
2. Lucifer presented a competing plan for salvation, which involved coercion and forced obedience.
3. The Father picked Jesus' plan. (Or, even falser: We voted and picked Jesus' plan.)
4. Lucifer got mad, rebelled, and was cast out with those cowardly souls who agreed with him.

The above doctrine is false, False, FALSE. It is literally wrong on every point. Yet it continues to be what many Latter-day Saints believe and teach to their children.

When I say something like "Satan didn't have 'a plan', he just lied", I am talking about the above (false) sequence. Satan had no counterplan of "salvation" that he presented in opposition to Jesus' supposed "plan". In fact, a very brief moment's reflection will convince any sober Latter-day Saint that no such counterplan is possible. Salvation cannot be offered on the terms that Lucifer supposedly gave. The whole thing is bogus.

Satan lied. He wanted Father's honor, so he lied. That was his whole plan. That's it. Nothing more. He sought to usurp the glory of God, and he lied to do it. He said that he could do something he manifestly could not do. He is the very prototype of the hypocrite.

Please, folks, let's stop teaching this false doctrine to our children. Better yet, let's stop believing it ourselves. Each of the four numbered points above is false. Satan had no "plan" as such, beyond his megalomaniacal desire to usurp the Father's honor. Let's just leave it at that.

We should clarify while we're at it: It was not Jesus's plan, It was God the Father's. If we're going to teach it right, let's teach it right.

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Which one fits that doctrine? That they are the problem? or that we are the problem?

1) If we say "they are the problem" that's not the attitude of a charitable person. 

2) If we say "we are the problem" for thinking there is something wrong with a transgendered person (which is quite different than saying "they are the problem") that is overcompensating for #1.

We don't show charity to a person with issues by telling them that there is nothing wrong with them and feign some unknown fault on our part for not celebrating their issues.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Guest