Satan's plan

[ereves]

It is on that principle of opposites that Satan's participation in our lives is to be explained. If we can be "encircled about eternally in the arms of [God's] love" (2 Nephi 1:15), we can also be "encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction" (Alma 5:7); and if we can be perfectly united in the at-one-ment, we can also be "cast out" (Alma 5:25), separated and split off forever—"their names shall be blotted out; . . . the names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people" (Alma 5:57). When Satan claims you as his, there is indeed a horrible oneness; for he too will embrace you to get power over you: Do "not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom" (2 Nephi 2:29; cf. 1 Nephi 13:29; 2 Nephi 28:19; Alma 8:9). He will hold you in his strong embrace, having a great hold over you (Alma 10:25; 12:17; 27:12; Helaman 16:23). Joseph Smith felt that power, and it was not an imaginary power at all, a power many have felt since (JS-H 1:16). For he "get possession" of you (3 Nephi 2:2), "for Satan desireth to have you" (3 Nephi 18:18), just as the Lord does. So while on the one hand, God "inviteth and enticeth to do good" and be one with him, so on the other hand Satan "inviteth and enticeth to sin" (Moroni 7:12-13).

Really cool post clarkkent14. Thank you. I especially liked reading this last part after reading Nibley's exposition on the meaning of the atonement. That really helps me understand the atonement more. This principle of how Satan takes possession of our “house” has helped me realize how real the plans are. What you posted shows how the atonement addresses this specific issue of the plan of salvation and I think it is the core issue. At times I feel so weak spiritually and I think that’s because we really are all extremely weak. We can’t choose to be independent from God without choosing to allow the adversary to seal us his. What I mean is I don’t think there is any middle ground. We are either filled with the spirit of the Lord or we are preyed upon by satan and his angels. The Lord has set up this situation for us to learn how to be filled with the Spirit, with love, understanding, liberty etc. We are literally coming to understand what the difference between good and evil is and choosing to BECOME good or evil. Christ’s atonement is the source of ALL that is good in this world. I hope to be able to learn how to tap into that more and more and progress toward God. Thanks again.

[clarkkent14]

I think both of you are talking about the same thing.

First of all, whatever Lucifer said was a lie. It wouldn't have worked. We know that whatever he said The fact is "that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man"

1. He rebelled against Heavenly Father
2. His offering idea/plan would have thwarted agency.

Debating over agency is another topic for another day (Agency, Free Agency, Moral Agency), but for the sake of the discussion let's look at what the prophets talk about the elements of Agency.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie made this statement about free agency:

“Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency:

1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed;
2. Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling … the other.
3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and
4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. If there was no veil, which of the four principles would have been thwarted?
2. If you could do "whatever you want" which of the four would be thwarted?
3. If there were no law, which of the four would be thwarted?
4. What if there were no light of Christ which of the four would be thwarted?

Now read 2 Nephi 2 with these questions in mind... http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2 Lehi is answering these questions, thus exposing the lies!

What if He said NO VEIL and NO LAW?

What if he said NO VEIL, NO LAW, and NO LIGHT OF CHRIST? He would have created drones, that would have been subjected to him (compelled), because there would be no opposition. It wasn't possible though. "11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

Some say "He would have made us do right (compulsion)! Well if there is no law or choice, then Right and Wrong don't exist! "13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." <------ That's part of the LIE!!! Why would Lehi address this if Satan didn't preach this?

Plus Adam would have never fallen! "22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." No law ----> No Transgression ----> No FALL! Another LIE!

Bella, wouldn't you say this is part of the NEW AGE... We are not FALLEN? I think so.

We HAD to Fall! "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

AND an ATONEMENT had to be made! Without the Atonement, Agency wouldn't have come into full affect, because once again we would have been left with only ONE choice "26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." The Atonement gave us the CHOICE of freedom/redemption from the FALL! Other

"2 Nephi 9:25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no claw given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. 26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.
27 But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!"

We become subjects to one power or the other, Bruce R. McKonckie stated, "4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail." We receive the consequences of our choices. If there was no Atonement, We would have stayed in a fallen state! "Jacob 7:12 And this is not all—it has been made manifest unto me, for I have heard and seen; and it also has been made manifest unto me by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, I know if there should be no atonement made all mankind must be lost." Why? Because the first time we sin, we would have been "cast out" ala Adam and Eve. "Alma 21:9 Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood."

Korihor taught NO ATONEMENT "Alma 30:17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

That sounds like new age, and it sounds like you can do whatever you want.

Again it was all a lie, and those lies continue.

As for the veil... we will either have it lifted in two ways I believe. Death or through the opposites: Being righteous and receiving the second comforter or being evil, until we become possessed" Alma 34:35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked."

So we have a choice... thanks to the Atonement of our dear Savior.

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

1. men are free according to the flesh; and 2. all things are given them which are expedient unto man

1. We are free from immediate subjection to one force or the other and 2. We are given tools, the veil, agency, laws, strengths (spirit), weaknesses (body), and whatever the Lord deems "expedient" to choose between one or the other.

We can't even be tempted until we reach the age of accountability "After revealing that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through the atoning sacrifice of Him who died to save us all, and after specifying that Satan has no power to tempt little children until they begin to become accountable, the Lord applied the same principles to those who are mentally deficient: “And, again, I say unto you, that whoso having knowledge, have I not commanded to repent? And he that hath no understanding, it remaineth in me to do according as it is written.” (D&C 29:49–50.) - McConkie. So the Atonement claims those children: See Moroni 8 - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8

So there, I'm done for a minute! bleh!

[clarkkent14]

If there were no light of Christ there would be no Judgement: "Moroni 7:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."

We couldn't know good from evil...

Doesn't the world teach us not to judge? Christ teaches "do not judge wrongfully."

The world teaches there is NO SIN, NO JUDGEMENT, and NO CONSEQUENCES, that thwarts Agency, if it were true, but it's not "Alma 42:22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

Alma 42 is worth rereading too: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/42

[Rosabella]

clarkkent14

You have stated the closest writing which I was trying to say along with LDSConservative early post.

(Again, I want to state my being upset has nothing to do with this topic debate, but everything to do with the constant negating of Church Doctrines, Publications and the Brethren.)

Back to the topic:

I have broken down the points you laid out to compare how each part reflects its consequence:


“Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency:

1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed;

2. Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling … the other.

3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and

4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail.


Ask yourself these questions:

1. If there was no veil, which of the four principles would have been thwarted?

1. No need for Law for there is not capacity to choose otherwise.
2. No evil alternative
3. No comprehension of evil
4. We are not prevented from choosing evil, yet we could not for it would not exist.

All would be thwarted, yet by justice we could all come back into God's presence not having committed any sins or transgressions. Yet we could not become true Gods, not having demonstrated any intrinsic faithfulness.

Without a veil there is no need for law to be obeyed or disobeyed, for there is no opposition/evil nor the knowledge of such therefore no good and evil. With no knowledge of good or evil we can not enjoy agency as stated. Not having a veil ends all ability to experience an unfettered power of choice.

So all four criteria are met and agency is destroyed and yet we still have the ability to return spotless to Father and it is a very appealing plan with a 100% guarantee.

This would have been the only way to have forced righteousness.

Lucifer's Lie is you can become God with out doing Fathers will. That is the great deception and that is Pride. His great lie includes we are God now for we are divine beings. That is why he felt he could usurp Father for he claimed his own Godhood without the Will of the Father and following Father in all things to teach us to become like Him.

2. If you could do "whatever you want" which of the four would be thwarted? (I think you mean without consequence)

1. We could not have a law given
2. Comprehension of Good and Evil is only possible when a law is given.
3. Knowledge of good and evil is the same as having a law given

The only principle not thwarted here is freedom of choice, but without knowledge of good and evil nothing can be learned from the process. Also with no law there is no atonement, but with no atonement the transgression even in absence of law brings about spiritual death. Small children and retarded people and pagans born without law are only redeemed because of the atonement, else their evil acts count against them and are even inherited by their descendants. Without an atonement even blind transgressions would result in spiritual death. Justice says only perfection can inherit heaven. It is mercy that intervenes because of the atonement and says that we are forgiven if we are ignorant or if we repent.


3. If there were no law, which of the four would be thwarted?

1. Obviously if no law is given, then no law exists
2. Opposites may exist but cannot teach anything without law
3. The light of Christ is a lesser law

No law is much the same as the free-for-all scenario. It leaves us unable to progress and unable to return, since we will all do wrong and without an atonement it counts the same as sin. Transgression in ignorance is only forgivable because of the atonement.


4. What if there were no light of Christ which of the four would be thwarted?

1. Laws would be fruitless, since there can be no comprehension of reasons behind it. So a law can be given, but to no purpose.

2. Opposites could exist but same as with the Law, they would be unable to teach us anything. The light of Christ is not only a knowledge of Good and Evil but the capacity to understand such.

3. Obviously this would be gone.

4. Without a knowledge of good and evil or the capacity to understand it, man would be an animal and unable to learn from mistakes or develop any conscience. A cat scratches you with no comprehension of any wrongness in the act. We might be free to choose, but unable to learn
Without comprehension of Good and Evil, but possessing freedom of choice, we would all commit transgressions. With no atonement we would all be cut off from God forever.



Some argue that Lucifer was volunteering to be the redeemer and perform the necessary atonement. But atonement is a transaction that requires there to have been given a law. None of the above scenarios involve a moral law and/or capacity for mankind to understand one and so therefore there could be no atonement. Lucifer would not be ignorant of this fact and would never have offered to do something completely pointless as becoming a redeemer like Jesus became but in the absence of law. Those who claim that people can be redeemed in the absence of law do not fully understand the atonement. It is something that no one fully understands but the relationship between atonement and law is well-attested in prophetic literature. Atonement is only possible when all of these four principles are in place. Without law there can be no atonement, without a knowledge of good and evil or opposites there can be no benefit from an atonement even if one was made. The only way to get back without an atonement is to have no capacity to transgress, even in ignorance. This is only possible when we remember exactly who we are and who God is and that would only be possible if there were no veil.

The absence of the veil would have meant that earthlife was a continuation of pre-mortal life with the addition of a body. It would have meant that there would be no tests of character, no sin or even transgression in ignorance, for ignorance would not exist. It would mean that all would inherit the celestial kingdom, for none would have fallen from it in the first place. In theory earth would have just been a training ground for gods, a place where godly powers would be acquired and perfected. However, there would have been no testing or perfecting of character and the gods this school would have produced would have to remain forever ruled over by Lucifer.

Lucifer's great lie is that we can become gods without perfecting character. Lucifer clearly rejected the need for opposition and for the agency to choose evil or good.

Some of the quotes I stated earlier talked about why one third part would want to follow Lucifer and why Lucifer himself would have wanted this plan. It was because of fear. They feared they did not have what it would take to choose righteousness with a veil (and perhaps they were right. Perhaps they knew themselves well enough to know they would not). The proof that they would not have chosen righteousness is in the fruits of their not having faith in father, but using their agency to reject Father's plan. They were unwilling to submit to Father's will. So Lucifer concocted a plan to guarantee that all would be saved and he would get divine glory.

The war in heaven is over two ways of being or two choices we decide with our agency, They are the only two choices we ever have or will have: Humility or Pride; "Thy will be done" as Christ exemplified, or "My will be done", which is what Lucifer exemplified. It is important that this is the main point of the war in heaven. It is not all of the other details.

That is why I feel we are told Fear and Faith can not exist at the same time. They are in true opposition and I think the original opposition we felt in heaven. The original good and evil. This opposition is what the battle was over. Those that had Faith in Father and those that feared and did not have Faith in Father. The fear was the expression of pride. Pride is the universal sin. Where humility is the expression of Faith or Faith is the expression of Humility.

Lucifer's plan was based on Fear, Pride, Selfishness, Evil, Disobedient, My will not Thine, Not teachable = unwilling to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, no opposition in all things, No need for faith

Father's plan that Christ championed was based on Faith, Humility, Selflessness, Good, Obedient, Thy will not mine, Teachable = willingness to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, opposition in all things, Need for Faith



These quotes are from President Benson's talk, Beware of Pride.

The war in heaven still rages on earth today through the fight over doing Father's will or not. We are told that In the premortal council, it was pride that felled Lucifer, “a son of the morning.” (2 Ne. 24:12–15; see also D&C 76:25–27; Moses 4:3.) At the end of this world, when God cleanses the earth by fire, the proud will be burned as stubble and the meek shall inherit the earth. (See 3 Ne. 12:5, 3 Ne. 25:1; D&C 29:9; JS—H 1:37; Mal. 4:1.) In the pre-earthly council, Lucifer placed his proposal in competition with the Father’s plan as advocated by Jesus Christ. (See Moses 4:1–3.) He wished to be honored above all others. (See 2 Ne. 24:13.) In short, his prideful desire was to dethrone God. (See D&C 29:36; D&C 76:28.)

Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Pride is essentially competitive in nature. We pit our will against God’s. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of “my will and not thine be done.” As Paul said, they “seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.” (Philip. 2:21.)Our will in competition to God’s will allows desires, appetites, and passions to go unbridled. (See Alma 38:12; 3 Ne. 12:30.)The proud cannot accept the authority of God giving direction to their lives. (See Hel. 12:6.) They pit their perceptions of truth against God’s great knowledge, their abilities versus God’s priesthood power, their accomplishments against His mighty works.

The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us. Our enmity toward God takes on many labels, such as rebellion, hard-heartedness, stiff-neckedness, unrepentant, puffed up, easily offended, and sign seekers. The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s.

Pride is a damning sin in the true sense of that word. It limits or stops progression. (See Alma 12:10–11.) The proud are not easily taught. (See 1 Ne. 15:3, 7–11.) They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong.

The real war in heaven is the war over "Thy will be done" or "My will be done" which is the definition of the two plans.

Again these are the two plans:

Lucifer's plan was based on Fear, Pride, Selfishness, Evil, Disobedient, My will not Thine, Not teachable = unwilling to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, no opposition in all things, No need for faith

Father's plan that Christ championed was based on Faith, Humility, Selflessness, Good, Obedient, Thy will not mine, Teachable = willingness to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, opposition in all things, Need for Faith

"The war in heaven still rages on earth today through the fight over doing Father's will or not.[/b] We are told that In the premortal council, it was pride that felled Lucifer, “a son of the morning.”"

The most important thing to know is not what exactly Lucifer's plan was but to know that Lucifer would not submit his will to Father. We must learn to be like Christ and say "Father Thy will be done and the glory be Thine forever" submitting in pure obedience our will to Him in all that we think and do, to be able to become like Christ and Father.

[shadow]

1. If there was no veil, which of the four principles would have been thwarted? [/b]

1. No need for Law for there is not capacity to choose otherwise.
2. No evil alternative
3. No comprehension of evil
4. We are not prevented from choosing evil, yet we could not for it would not exist.

All would be thwarted[/b]

What compelled the 1/3 to be cast out in the premortal (before the veil??) life? Was it not the exercise of their agency to choose? If the 1/3 didn't break a law (1), if they didn't choose the evil alternative (2), if they couldn't comprehend their choice was wrong/evil (3) and if they were not prevented from making the wrong choice because it didn't exist (4) then why were they cast out? Not only that, but apparently damned forever? That's not justice if what you posted is true is it? Remember, this all took place before the veil right??

I'm not looking to argue, but I hope you see the dilemma/contradiction with agency and the veil.

[Cowell]

Brian,
I know you want this site to be a free exchange of ideas, but do you feel, as many others here do, that there is much apostasy creeping in lately? Please address it if you do feel this way.

Shawn

No offense ShawnC (sorry to hear about your family), but what are these blanket statements about apostasy I keep seeing directed at members of the forum discussing questions and interesting doctrinal topics? Why don't you mention directly what statements you're taking an issue with? What is so wrong with ereves looking for scriptural backing to what his personal understanding of a principle is? If there is anything bordering apostate on this thread, it seems to be people on this site with no jurisdiction or authority attempting to establish their understanding of the principle as the preeminent doctrinal point of view of the Church itself. Ereves has established that his point of view is consistent with scripture, so what is the issue?

[Rosabella]

1. If there was no veil, which of the four principles would have been thwarted? [/b]

1. No need for Law for there is not capacity to choose otherwise.
2. No evil alternative
3. No comprehension of evil
4. We are not prevented from choosing evil, yet we could not for it would not exist.

All would be thwarted[/b]

What compelled the 1/3 to be cast out in the premortal (before the veil??) life? Was it not the exercise of their agency to choose? If the 1/3 didn't break a law (1), if they didn't choose the evil alternative (2), if they couldn't comprehend their choice was wrong/evil (3) and if they were not prevented from making the wrong choice because it didn't exist (4) then why were they cast out? Not only that, but apparently damned forever? That's not justice if what you posted is true is it? Remember, this all took place before the veil right??

I'm not looking to argue, but I hope you see the dilemma/contradiction with agency and the veil.

Let me try to clarify since I posted a lot of data and it is hard to communicate just in posts.

The whole test of the pre-mortal world and this life is wither or not we are willing to choose to submit our wills to Father or not.

The 1/3 did choose an evil alternative the biggest one there is, the choice not to follow Father. All evil is truly Disobedience and all good is obedience. Father made it clear what His will was and what they needed to do to obey, merely agreeing to His Plan of Salvation. They refused it therefore rejected Father's will. Father did not force them to go through a Plan they rejected so they were cast out heaven and not forced to participate in the Plan of Salvation.

Those 1/3 part used their free agency to choose not to follow Father. The did that because of Pride, Pride was the fall of Lucifer, the unwillingness to follow Father.

Agency Under Gospel Topics
"God's children have power to choose; they had this ability even before they were born. In the premortal life, Heavenly Father presented His plan, which included the principle of agency. Lucifer rebelled and "sought to destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3). As a result, Lucifer and all those who followed him were denied the privilege of receiving a mortal body. All who have been or will be born on earth chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan."

President Benson's talk, Beware of Pride.

The war in heaven still rages on earth today through the fight over doing Father's will or not. We are told that In the premortal council, it was pride that felled Lucifer, “a son of the morning.” (2 Ne. 24:12–15; see also D&C 76:25–27; Moses 4:3.)

We have agency to choose we used it in the pre-mortal world it was a test of faith in Father (if we were willing to submit our wills to Him) Those that choose not to follow Father's will and have faith in Him rebelled against Him and therefore were cast out, for they refused to be teachable by Father, they were full of Pride. Pride is the damming choose that stops our progression at whatever level that is. For 1/3 part it was not attaining the next estate.

President Benson's talk, Beware of Pride
Pride is a damning sin in the true sense of that word. It limits or stops progression. (See Alma 12:10–11.) The proud are not easily taught. (See 1 Ne. 15:3, 7–11.) They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong.

For those that past the first test in the pre-mortal world and submitted their wills to Father (in Faith) are all of us that gained a body. We needed to be tested to see if in the absence of Father we would chose with our agency to submit to Him again. This is the next test of Faith we go through in this life. The veil allows for this additional level of testing to see if we will submit to His will with having a veil of forgetfulness. We come to this life and do not to remember our pre-mortal life with Father. The veil (the loss of our past memories and choice) tests us to see if by our agency we choose Father again or choose our own wills (which is choosing Lucifer's side)

"Gospel Principles
A veil would cover our memories, and we would forget our heavenly home. This would be necessary so that we could choose good or evil because of our natural desire for good or evil. We would not be influenced by the memory of living with our Heavenly Father. Thus we could obey him because of our faith in him not because of our knowledge, or memory of him. He would help us recognize the truth when we heard it again on earth"

We will be dammed at whatever level we stop submitting our wills to Father. It is Pride that dams us. If we are humble as Christ was and submit our wills to Father in all things we then can return to Father. Pride-My will not Thine or Humility- Thy will not mine, are the two choices we have for either damnation or exaltation.

I hope this clarifies it more.

[ShawnC]

Brian,
I know you want this site to be a free exchange of ideas, but do you feel, as many others here do, that there is much apostasy creeping in lately? Please address it if you do feel this way.

Shawn

No offense ShawnC Too late, already taken! (sorry to hear about your family, I'm going to assume that you're not actually sorry??), but what are these blanket statements about apostasy I keep seeing directed at members of the forum discussing questions and interesting doctrinal topics? Did I say anything about blanket statements? Perhaps you should listen to what is being said instead of putting words into my mouth??? Why don't you mention directly what statements you're taking an issue with? The intellectualism! You use scriptural backing, but what I take issue to is that it is done in such an arrogant way. I can tell you are from Utah. When I lived there, the poor gospel doctrine teachers in most of my wards couldn't get anywhere near through a lesson because of everyone that just had to get their 2 cents in and show their doctrinal superiority and "learnedness" of the scriptures. That is what I call pride and arrogance. It's like they love to hear themselves talk, and look around the room and think that they have somehow enlightened everyone with their knowledge. I think some, at least myself, usually hope that they will just shut it! What is so wrong with ereves looking for scriptural backing to what his personal understanding of a principle is? I have said nothing about ereves. If there is anything bordering apostate on this thread, it seems to be people on this site with no jurisdiction or authority attempting to establish their understanding of the principle as the preeminent doctrinal point of view of the Church itself. Thank you for using your prophetic blessings to define this so clearly for me. Ereves has established that his point of view is consistent with scripture, so what is the issue? See above.

Shawn

[Cowell]

ShawnC,

No offense ShawnC Too late, already taken!

While I appreciate the fact that you have dealt with apostasy on a personal level, I didn't see its application here and asked that you explain instead of throwing out open endedly, an incredibly serious accusation. Not sure why that offended you. Did you ever consider the fact that you might be offending others who ARE searching for truth when you hyperactively place accusations of apostasy? Or are you too busy being offended?

(sorry to hear about your family, I'm going to assume that you're not actually sorry??),

Not sure why you assumed anything. What do you want me to say? I don't care about you or your family, because I'm speaking to you over the internet and people over the internet just don't matter to me? Sorry, but I'm not quite so shallow as to not care about individuals families and lives, even if I haven't met them. You have made this rather awkward. I felt it would be uncourteous of me to ignore the information you volunteered about your family and felt I should acknowledge that and separate that from what I disagreed with in your post.

but what are these blanket statements about apostasy I keep seeing directed at members of the forum discussing questions and interesting doctrinal topics? Did I say anything about blanket statements? Perhaps you should listen to what is being said instead of putting words into my mouth???

Ummmm...?? I said something about blanket statements. Yours WAS a blanket statement. Meaning you generalized and took things to the level of blaming others for apostate behavior and even bringing Brian into it, without even identifying specific instances of this occurring.

Why don't you mention directly what statements you're taking an issue with? The intellectualism! You use scriptural backing, but what I take issue to is that it is done in such an arrogant way. I can tell you are from Utah. When I lived there, the poor gospel doctrine teachers in most of my wards couldn't get anywhere near through a lesson because of everyone that just had to get their 2 cents in and show their doctrinal superiority and "learnedness" of the scriptures. That is what I call pride and arrogance. It's like they love to hear themselves talk, and look around the room and think that they have somehow enlightened everyone with their knowledge. I think some, at least myself, usually hope that they will just shut it!

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't quoted a scripture or attempted to add anything new to this discussion. I think this is my third post on this thread. So what are you talking about? And, what intellectualism are you referring to? I ASK again for specific examples if you have an issue. All I have seen is a discussion of a very BASIC principle of the gospel as taught by the scriptures.

What is so wrong with ereves looking for scriptural backing to what his personal understanding of a principle is? I have said nothing about ereves.

Okay, well then who the heck are you talking about? Did you post on the wrong thread?

If there is anything bordering apostate on this thread, it seems to be people on this site with no jurisdiction or authority attempting to establish their understanding of the principle as the preeminent doctrinal point of view of the Church itself. Thank you for using your prophetic blessings to define this so clearly for me.

???? What on earth again? Prophetic blessing??? I see someone discussing something in the scriptures that is interesting to them and that person being bombarded by some who are either intentionally or unintentionally berating this person with their own intellectualism. Doesn't take a prophet to see that. Just some humility.

Ereves has established that his point of view is consistent with scripture, so what is the issue? See above.

Sure, see my point above as well.

[ShawnC]

Since I am obviously no match for you intellectual superiority and your incredible humility. I will sign off of this one. Sorry to have even got involved.

Shawn

[Cowell]

Since I am obviously no match for you intellectual superiority and your incredible humility. I will sign off of this one. Sorry to have even got involved.

Shawn

Again Shawn, you are directing your concerns towards the wrong person. Here is my ONLY other post on this thread in full...so it appears you are in fact confusing me with someone else.

2) No apostate behavior. No negative/ill speaking of Church leaders. Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine.

All I have heard from ereves is scriptures quoted and his understanding of a principle based on those scriptures. Why are you so quick to shoot his discussion down? I have seen you resort to stating that you have had many meetings with the Brethren to support your positions from time to time on this forum. We all know there are hidden things in the scriptures and the Lord is able to give insight into these things. Maybe much of what the brethren have said is milk before meat. I could find hundreds of quotes from GAs that state we do not know much about our premortal life. So why are you so sure you have things figured out?

We all comprehend that without agency there cannot be righteousness. So, it would seem ereves is right, that it doesn't make sense to suggest there would be forced righteousness. Maybe you aren't understanding his overall point, which seems to be - regardless of how we believe Satan's plan was presented in the pre-mortal life, he seems to be carrying it out here the way ereves has stated. And many people don't comprehend how literal that is.

I would have thought of anyone on this forum, you would have been as interested as anyone in exploring this discussion. Instead you seem to be more interested in stifling the discussion in order to prove a point.

This appears to me to be a discussion started by someone actually interested in understanding a principle. I would suggest you put your moderator role back in your back pocket for another day when its actually necessary. It's coming off a bit like you just want to be right here, and you're about to begin "forcing" people to agree with you, frankly. Kind of ironic.

[Cowell]

I did want to add to the discussion however, a quote I just found from Dallin H, Oaks:

"Satan had his own plan. He proposed to save all the spirit children of God, assuring that result by removing their power to choose and thus eliminating the possibility of sin."
(Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72)

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7014
...Satan's method of assuring "that one soul shall not be lost" (Moses 4:1) would be to "destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3). Under his plan, Satan would have been our master, and he would have led us "captive at his will" (Moses 4:4). Without the power of choice, we would have been mere robots or puppets in his hands.

This seems to be a more accurate way to think about it. There needs to be opposition for their to be righteousness...so it appears there would have been no sin and no righteousness. I think when people think not sinning is righteousness...that is where the confusion comes in.

And...

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one.

[ready2prepare]

Bella said:

"...The whole test of the pre-mortal world and this life is
wither or not we are willing to choose to submit our wills
to Father or not..."

Sounds pretty simple to me. That's probably why I agreed to it in
the first place.

"...We needed to be tested to see if in the absence of Father we
would choose with our agency to submit to Him again.

So now I've got this body and a veil of forgetfulness placed over
my head. Which means I hav'ta walk by faith and use my noodle
'cause life's gonna hand me the whole kit and kaboodle of fiery
trials, temptations, pains, sickness, (seeming) injustices, and so
on to test my mettle and finally settle for once and for all whose
will I will to be mine. (Whew! What a mouthful!)

So regardless of who does what to me:
When I choose to let humility rule my will I obey Father.
When I choose to let pride rule my will I obey Satan.

The choice remains entirely mine regardness of the
circumstances I may be placed in, voluntarily or
otherwise. Christ paid the price to ensure that this
would always be the case.

And I am very, very grateful!

Yep. It all still sounds pretty simple to me.
Easy? Well, that's another matter...

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

Helping people prepare for uncertain times ahead:
http://www.preparednessyellowpages.com

[Rosabella]

Bella said:

"...The whole test of the pre-mortal world and this life is
wither or not we are willing to choose to submit our wills
to Father or not..."

Sounds pretty simple to me. That's probably why I agreed to it in
the first place.

"...We needed to be tested to see if in the absence of Father we
would choose with our agency to submit to Him again.

So now I've got this body and a veil of forgetfulness placed over
my head. Which means I hav'ta walk by faith and use my noodle
'cause life's gonna hand me the whole kit and kaboodle of fiery
trials, temptations, pains, sickness, (seeming) injustices, and so
on to test my mettle and finally settle for once and for all whose
will I will to be mine. (Whew! What a mouthful!)

So regardless of who does what to me:
When I choose to let humility rule my will I obey Father.
When I choose to let pride rule my will I obey Satan.

The choice remains entirely mine regardness of the
circumstances I may be placed in, voluntarily or
otherwise. Christ paid the price to ensure that this
would always be the case.

And I am very, very grateful!

Yep. It all still sounds pretty simple to me.
Easy? Well, that's another matter...

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

Helping people prepare for uncertain times ahead:
http://www.preparednessyellowpages.com

AMEN!

[Rosabella]

I did want to add to the discussion however, a quote I just found from Dallin H, Oaks:

"Satan had his own plan. He proposed to save all the spirit children of God, assuring that result by removing their power to choose and thus eliminating the possibility of sin."
(Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72)

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7014
...Satan's method of assuring "that one soul shall not be lost" (Moses 4:1) would be to "destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3). Under his plan, Satan would have been our master, and he would have led us "captive at his will" (Moses 4:4). Without the power of choice, we would have been mere robots or puppets in his hands.

This seems to be a more accurate way to think about it. There needs to be opposition for their to be righteousness...so it appears there would have been no sin and no righteousness. I think when people think not sinning is righteousness...that is where the confusion comes in.

And...

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one.

I agree.

[Cowell]

I agree.

Thanks.

[clarkkent14]

I know this topic has stopped, but my friend sent me this: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7Y ... OTQ3&hl=en

Lucifer's Plan to Save us "in sin"

[ereves]

Thanks for the link clarkkent14. I thought it was very good. Another member of the forum brought the following to my attention. I thought it expressed what I have been trying to say very well especially the last part, "Let me say this- This is exactly what Satan wanted and still wants.": http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... s-of-hell/

[clarkkent14]

"But Satan or Lucifer being the next heir and had alloted to him great power and authority even prince of power of the eir He spake emediatey and boasted of himself saying send me I can save all [he] even those who sined against the holy ghost and he accused his brethren and was herld [hurled] from the council for striving to breake the law emediatly and there was a warfare with Satan and the gods and the[y] hurld Satan out of his place and all them that would not keep the law of the councill But he himself being one of the council would not keep his or their first estate for he was one of the Sons of perdition and concequently all the Sons of perdition become devils &[c]. The Words of Joseph Smith, pg. 362"

[McStevenF]

I have read most of the postings for this thread and would like to point out that our knowledge of agency, the plan of salvation, and Satan's rebellion is very limited. I also believe that agency is misunderstood. We equate agency with choice and lack of agency with lack of choice. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. The key to agency is accountability. Without accountability we have choice but not agency. Adam and Eve in the garden were like little children which are innocent before God. Little children make choices and experience limited consequences but are not yet eternally accountable to God -- they are not yet agents unto themselves. Thus when Satan sought to destroy the agency of man, I believe that he was removing accountability but not choice. Thus our growth would have been limited. However, our present understanding of the pre-mortal council is very limited (perhaps to require faith) so this is just my opinion.

[kathyn]

McstevenF, that was very thought-provoking . The world today allows for all kinds of choices, but not accountability. It's the same as Satan saying there is no right or wrong and everything is moral equivalency. That's the prevailing notion in our world now.

[jsk]

This idea of accountability is also how I understand things...I was introduced to this idea by Brent Top in his book "The Life Before." He backed up this idea with scripture and with quotes from Prophets and General Authorities. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in light of our human experience...people don't want to be controlled...rather, they want to do what they want to do without accountability, or consequence for their actions....in other words, do as you will, there is no sin in it. I'm glad to see others have this perspective as well.

[deep water]

The two plans are being played out everywhere, every way, everyday, in our lives. Just look at our older folks, they have social security. If we as a people, would have taken care of them as in Gods plan what need would their ever had been for social security. Welfare; The same goes if we were taking care of people what need would their have been for the government to have created a welfare system. If we were acting like Gods people. The devil would never have found a way to entice us into his system. God told us to love our neighbor. We didn't believe him, and in so doing we left a crack in the door, and are now deep into how the devil wanted to run the world. Left without even a snapshot of what Christ had in mind for us to live like.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

This video has a great explanation of agency:

http://vimeo.com/22860841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tommy]

This is all very clear and straightforward. We have 2 accounts of this one event much like we have multiple accounts of the same event in the Gospels in the New Testament. The first is Abraham 3 and the second is Moses 4. In Abraham 3:27 "The Lord said: Whom shall I send?" The question is "Whom shall I send?" - for what? Pizza? There were only 2 responses to this question, one Jesus Christ who we know was sent as our redeemer and Satan who said "I will redeem all mankind. . . " Clearly the question was "Whom shall I send AS REDEEMER?" This was not an invitation to rewrite the plan of salvation. It was a very clear and straightforward and limited task. We need a redeemer, whom shall I send?

Jesus was chosen. His "Plan" as redeemer is succinctly summarized in Alma 11:40-41, "And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made,"

Satan in representing his "plan" did what we all would do, emphasize the main difference, Moses 4:1 "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall be not be lost, . ."

Both would be redeemers. Jesus would redeem the believers, Satan would redeem everyone. There is only one way to "redeem" someone who has sinned and that is to have someone else pay for that sin. Satan, by his own words, offered himself as the redeemer, ie he would pay for those sins. How was he going to do that. The exact same way the Savior, Jesus Christ did it. Take the sins upon himself and suffer for them. We have no indication there is some other way to redeem. To contend that there is some other way to redeem is to wander in abject speculation. Satan then would say I paid for all of the sins of the world and I will grant forgiveness to everyone repentant or not. ie there is no punishment no matter what you do.

so how does this impact agency? In the 2 great sermons on the atonement in the B of M this is specifically addressed. Alma 42:17, "Now how could a man repent except he should sin: how could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?" The sermon goes on ending in "God would cease to be god." Remove punishment and agency is gone.

In my mind there is no question. Satans "plan" for us was we could do whatever we wanted it didn't matter, no force do whatever, we would be saved. (of course there were other complications but that is for another discussion.)