Satan's plan

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
ShawnC
Minion
Posts: 1062
Location: Idaho

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ShawnC »

ereves wrote:
Bella wrote:
ereves wrote: The brethren don't agree on a lot of things, like you say, and I'm totally ok with that.
I say the contrary people do not realize how MUCH they truly do agree. On this forum I have been shocked with the amount of discussion of how the GAs do not agree on things.Where this idea comes from I have no idea. (reality) I do not see that nor have I experienced that. (you will if you look outside General Conference and the friend) For me I have seen them agree almost entirely if not entirely. (Have you ever heard of church history?) Members on the other hand (especially on this forum) disagree on a lot of things including what the Brethren say is truth or not. (which the brethren encourage us to do and seek out our own confirmations of what they teach... I for one stand by the brethren in this matter and not by your theory.)

I think the confusions and contractions in interpretations lie with the members not the Brethren.
Bella, you are a victim of contemporary mormon culture though you claim to be a "fundamentalist." You say, "On this forum I have been shocked with the amount of discussion of how the GAs do not agree on things.Where this idea comes from I have no idea." That’s funny because I have no idea where you get the idea that the teaching of the brethren is uniform and almost entirely in agreement if not entirely. I honestly don't know what you are talking about or where that teaching comes from. The brethren don't claim that. The church has never taught that. Church history does not show that. Reality does not back it up. It is a MORMON MYTH developed by the membership!!! Please show me a quote by someone who says the brethren can't be wrong and agree on everything. Of course the brethren are in agreement on the fundamental core doctrines of the gospel (and you rarely get anything beyond that in General Confernce) but they do not have to agree on things beyond that. They were split for decades on the blacks and the priesthood issue before 1978, they have not all agreed on eternal progression (whether or not there is progression between kingdoms), they have not been unanimous on evolution etc. Did Paul and Peter agree on circumcision? A committee of apostles found over 1,000 false doctrines in Bruce R McConkie's original Mormon Doctrine book and there are falsehoods in it today.

I have a strong testimony of the church, the Book of Mormon etc. but I try not to have a fantasy view of the church. The self-righteous mormon view that the brethren are perfect is what drives a lot of people away from the church and will make you doubt if you're not careful once you realize it is false. It is dangerous because it is false! It is also what has cause 75% of this thread to be dedicated to addressing this problem rather than addressing the issue at hand. I can’t be too hard on you because that is how I used to feel too. I’m only trying to help you out. Have you read Approaching Mormon Doctrine yet?? I will provide the link again: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-doctrine

I fail to see where Bella is trying to look outside of the avenues of such things like GC and the Friend as you say? Even the link you provided here suggest that members and non-members alike search out their own confirmations and answers as Bella has suggested.

I would think that Bella is trying to emphasize that the brethren are not so prideful as to think that thier opinion is the only right one. They always come to a consensus through the Spirit and present a united front on anything they are presenting to the church or the world. If they are speaking about it, then it is probably important and they agree, and we should listen and give heed and diligence to it. I see NO self righteous infallibility being suggested here at all???

Also, I think Bella is touching on how so many (members and non alike) seem to jump at the opportunity to point out any flaw that they can in the brethren like they are trying to justify some sort of prideful insecurity in themselves?!? The prophets, church, scriptures, etc. all fulfill a need and righteous desire if we use them accordingly.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

77%...

ShawnC
Minion
Posts: 1062
Location: Idaho

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ShawnC »

ereves wrote:77%...

I'm only trying to help you out.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Original_Intent »

My final thoughts on this topic:

1. Either way it is not something that our personal salvation depends on, or we would have been given specific revelation thru the brethren.

2. I recommend "Satan's War on Free Agency" for anyone who would like to EXAMINE an alternate perspective to the take our agency = forced righteousness viewpoint.

3. Do not proclaim something as church doctrine unless you have scriptural or modern day prophetic utterances to back it up. Quotes from the Friend, Liahona, or Sunday School manuals for 6 and 8 year olds do not qualify. And when someone disagrees or even only suggests that your opinion MAY not be 100% correct, I do not feel it is productive to say "As for me I will stand with the doctrine of the church." when the exact point being made is it is not the church's doctrine. And I am not saying this to slam Bella I seriously hold her in the highest regard, I loved her presentation and I feel there is much about the Gospel, spiritual forces and other things that her knowledge dwarfs mine. And I think she is far more humble, teachable, and wonderful than I am - in fact I will be the first to admit that PRIDE is a large factor in why I keep coming back and stating what I believe. All I have ever wanted is the truth, for good or ill - and I am very tenacious about wanting the truth and nothing but the truth, and sometimes I push too hard for authoritative confirmation so that I can rest assured that in that matter I do not need to "re-think" my position.

keeprunning
captain of 100
Posts: 757

Re: Satan's plan

Post by keeprunning »

ereves, so are you saying that you don't think Satan has anything to do with wanting to force or control us? so, when people compare socialism and communism to Satan's plan, you think there is nothing to that?

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Satan's plan

Post by shadow »

Bella wrote:The veil is what gives us the free agency to choose to be with Father or not. The lack of a veil would give us no choice.
Bella wrote: Lets say we were never given a veil. Would there be any test? Would we grow? would we ever sin? Having lived a sinless life we would be able to return to Father. So if Fathers plan is for us to have a veil what is the opposite?
I agree with almost everything you say except the above two quotes. And maybe you just worded them differently or I possibly am misunderstanding you or I'm just misunderstood :wink: . I don't see the veil as what gives us free agency to choose to be with God. We already had free agency. You say the lack of the veil would give us no choice. I say just look at the 1/3 that did make the choice to follow Lucifer and look at the 2/3 that chose Fathers plan (to varying degrees). I recognize the need for the veil to really prove ourselves by faith and as a step to become more like our heavenly parents, but prior to the veil we were already progressing using our agency. We were growing already. We chose our sides. You asked without the veil would we ever sin? I say yes depending on definitions. In the premortal life there were laws too. Satan sinned in the premortal life did he not? How about the 1/3 that followed him? They were cast out. There must have been a law they knowingly sinned against that required them to be cast out, else why cast them out? The scriptures don't suggest they decided to leave, they were given the Almighty boot.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

ereves wrote:
ereves wrote:Now please, either refute or confirm what I say here. I know what the church generally teaches and I acknowledged this in my original post so please don’t try to enlighten me with that. Just show me if there is any thing in the scriptures or official church doctrine to argue against this theory (which I believe and is backed by scripture) or that argues for the generally taught forced-righteousness theory (which I don’t buy into and can find no scriptural evidence for).
Bella have you read or thought about what I am arguing? I really am interested in what you think. Please tell me if it at least makes sense.

You and I seem to come from two different ways at looking at things.

You take a "doctrine" of the church that is widely taught (By the Brethren) and try to decide if it is a true doctrine based on what you deem as "true" evidence of "true doctrine". Then when you do not find evidence that fits your parameters you then create a new doctrine you feel is true. (I could be totally off base here, for I do not know you, I am just referring to what I am seeing on this thread)

I on the other hand, tend to look at church doctrine that is widely taught (by the Brethren) as true doctrines and then look at those and try to go deeper using them as a foundation to my ideas. Only trying to see the hows and whys of the doctrine or interpretations, not alternative doctrines. I do not want to find new interpretations to scriptures, I want to understand what the Church's interpretation means and why it is true (for myself) so I too can have a witness of the truthfulness of the doctrine. I am not interested in a new interpretation, only deepening my understanding of standard doctrines.

Again I could be totally off base with your intent here, and I apologizes if that is the case. It is just the comments like "what church generally teaches" that gives me that impression.

I look at the whole, what is generally taught, not just what is found just in scriptures or official church doctrines as you defined them. I tend to find the whole picture of a doctrine through the continuity of all of the resources we have been given. So I am not one to ask to discuss this with you, for I will stand with the Church in the general interpretation and quotes that are said in all the Churches doctrines, in manuals, talks, conferences etc....

At the same time I do not take one person writing a book or one talk in the ensign by a non GA that has an idea that goes contrary to what we have been taught as General interpretations as truth. I look at the Whole, the overall agreement of the doctrines of the church for I have no interest in "new doctrines" only to understand the ones we have better, unless we are given direct revelation from the first presidency of a new doctrine.

I think you and I approach things differently. You find an idea that is different then the mainstream and try to find something to prove it as true or false. I look at the mainstream doctrines to understand them better and deeper.

Lets say I decided that a scripture talking of the moon may have a different interpretation.

Psalms 136
8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Lets say I think this scripture means that the Moon and Stars are the rulers at night for they are living beings (as the earth is too), that in the mercy of the Lord he has given us the moon and the stars to rule over us by night to help us spiritually. That they are living beings that are guiding us by night and the Sun does that by day for they all are spirits. Then I say because of this it shows in the world that the tides are controlled by the moon and the Sun gives life to plants etc... So they are our guardians, that rule over us in a means of great influence by their vibrations and energy they send forth, that they know they are ruling over us and have control to influence us. Then I say find a scripture or true doctrine that proves this to be true of false.

I can find other verses and talks that say things about the moon and stars and sun for they are great symbols used. But can you find one that refutes the idea that they are given to us to rule over us?

I know this is a simplest example and what you are saying is much deeper with more meaning. I just want to show the difficulty in making reinterpretations of generally known doctrines and then trying to refute them by specific means.

This is what happens when man just interprets doctrines that is why we have a Prophet and why we have conference talks and the Church Magazines and why we have Church Approved Manuals to teach us the doctrines as the Prophet wants them to be taught. We are not left to ourselves and our limited understandings. So again I say I stand by the Church Leaders and the doctrines that are promoted and taught by them, through them and exemplified by them.

Black Swan
captain of 10
Posts: 40

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Black Swan »

I had a couple of thoughts I wanted to add...

(1) Satan's War on Free Agency is a great read, and certainly one which will make you re-think the idea that Satan's plan was a plan of force. Very eye opening in that way. I'll add a few quotes at the bottom...

(2) We should be very careful about using manuals to reinforce our ideas. We have the scriptures before us (or should). Anytime we get a manual, we're getting a watered down version of the scriptures or, at the very least, someone else's interpretation of scripture. In relation to this, we must remember that the standard works are the measuring rod by which ALL revelation should be measured. Using a manual, even the Gospel Principles manual, must be verified against the scriptures to see if there's any validity to this or that question.
Joseph F. Smith said the following:

"the Standard Works of the Church are the measuring rods the Lord has given us by which we are to measure every doctrine, every theory and teaching, and if there is anything that does not conform to that which is given to us in the revelations, we do not have to accept it. Whether I say it or anyone else says it, whether it comes through the philosophy of men, or whenever a statement is made, that is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, you should know what course to take."
To that point, I'd add that there is NO scriptural proof to either the theory that Satan's plan was one of forced righteousness, NOR is there proof to the oft-mentioned "one-third" who followed him and his plan. It never says the term "one-third" (implying an even 33%), but always (at least in this context) says "one third part". Just be careful what you say when championing this or that idea. There is a difference between "one third" and "one third part", but I digress.

The entire premise of the book Satan's War on Free Agency is in regards to the "scriptural proof" of the "force" plan...and, in the end, there is NO scriptural support for those claiming that Satan was going to force us to be righteous. I don't care what this or that manual says...if it's not in the scriptures then we are advised to "know what course to take."

I'd encourage those interested in pursuing the discussion on the importance of the Standard Works versus manuals, ensigns, friends, new eras, etc., to go to this link and read a very thought provoking discussion on how Satan might try to dissuade us from using the scriptures as opposed to manuals, quotes, magazines, and the like. http://www.weepingforzion.com/?p=140

Now, some quotes on the "plan" as well as from Satan's War on Free Agency:
"As I read the scriptures, Satan's plan required one of two things: either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, or else the saving of men in their sins" - J. Reuben Clark, Oct. 1949.

"Satan desired that man should be saved through the taking away from him of his agency. He would save everybody regardless of their own acts." - George Q. Cannon, May 1891.
"The Gadiantons got what they wanted by giving the people what they wanted, but because this symbiotic relationship was purely selfish, it was doomed to fail. The desires of both sides could never have made either of them happy, for the "sought all the days of [their] lives for that which [they] could not obtain." They "sought" for happiness in doing iniquity" (Helaman 13:38). The wicked do not serve each other, they use each other, so their symbiotic relationship was really only an illusion. Both sides were actually parasites, feeding upon each other's resources. The Gadiantons siphoned the people's wealth, absorbed their votes, and devoured their government. The people were feasting off their benefactor's promises to let them do as they pleased. The unsolvable problem for the Gadiantons was that power is an insatiable lust...no matter how much power they attained, it was never enough. The unsolvable problem for the people was that unleashed iniquity is also an insatiable lust. They could not commit enough iniquity to satisfy their staving souls, for "there is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked" (Isaiah 48:22). ... Destruction is the only possible outcome for a nation terminally infected with this disease (Ether 8:22). Parasites, if not stopped, will eventually destroy their host. When the Gadianton sickness had finally killed the host society that had always fed them, the people quickly turned on each other. The Lord didn't have to destroy them; the destroyed themselves." -p. 88

"Satan's rebellion was a war fought on two fronts: (1) he accused the Father of lacking mercy and compassion and (2) he lured his followers with a flattering sales pitch of guaranteed salvation at no cost to them." - p. 71

"...when Satan said: "give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1), it was an attempt to persuade God to forfeit His stewardship as the supreme judge over mankind. To attempt to persuade God to change His plan is to assume there is a flaw in the plan. Having a flaw in God's plan would require imperfect thinking from a perfect being. Such an arrogant suggestion could only come from someone hoping to outsmart God. But an attempt to outsmart an omniscient God doesn't seem any more logical than to attempt to overpower an omnipotent one. So no matter what Satan's thinking was, it wasn't very good thinking. Maybe that's why the scripture says that "he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world" (Moses 4:6).

"Lucifer was not stupid, yet he was certainly not smart to rebel against God. How can this ... contradiction be explained? The answer comes in understanding the power of negative emotions. Typically, the more people allow negative emotions to control them, the more they lose their ability to control themselves through logical reasoning. We know that negative emotions motivated Lucifer's rebellion, because the scripture states that he "was angry, and kept not his first estate" (Abraham 3:28). Anger is one of the strongest negative emotions, one that can easily blind the rational mind. Those who rebelled had to be far more emotional than rational because an attempt to either outsmart or overpower a perfect being is not logical." - p. 50-51

"Whatever [Satan's] proposal was, it had to be something that stirred their emotions sufficiently to motivate them to rebel against an omniscient and omnipotent God." - p. 51

"The promise of reward [associated with the "University of Freedom" plan - i.e., do as you please, no law, no force] with nothing required attracts the most irresponsible people. ... The more lazy, selfish, and prideful among us were surely the most easily persuaded. Then when Father denied their desire, their stubbornness grew into anger, even rage. Such powerful negative emotions were the fertile soil necessary to motivate people to rise up in rebellion against, and defiance of an omniscient and omnipotent God." - p. 55

"The University of Freedom is represented everywhere in scripture. From the Garden of Eden to the present, man has attempted to avoid accountability for his sins. It started with Adam and Eve's rather humorous attempt to hide from God among the trees in the Garden and cover their shame with fig leaves (Genesis 3:7-8). The rest of us down through history have done no better. To one degree or another, we all wear our own kind of fig leaves to cover our shame or try to find our own kind of trees in which to hide our guilt from God. it is all a vain attempt to avoid accountability." - p. 56
Lastly, we need to be very careful not to rely on man, i.e. church leaders, too much. Joseph Smith spoke of this back in his day, relating how the saints had become "darkened in their minds" because they relied too much on "man" (Joseph used the term "the Prophet") for their direction (i.e. doctrinal teaching, manuals, magazines, etc). If Joseph thought the people of his time were relying too much on the "Prophet" versus Christ and the scriptures, how much worse is it in our day where we're told to do that in very implicit ways:
“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel – said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church – that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls – APPLIED IT TO THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS – SAID IF THE PEOPLE DEPARTED FROM THE LORD, THEY MUST FALL – THAT THEY WERE DEPENDING ON THE PROPHET, HENCE WERE DARKENED IN THEIR MINDS, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy. ” -
(TPJS Section Five 1842-43, p.237-38.)

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

Ok so what is being said on this thread is this. Church manuals, talks by the Brethren, Church Magazines, Gospel Principle book etc... all have less doctrinal reliability then an idea coming from a book by an institute teacher called "Satan's War on Free Agency" ??? hmmmmmm

I stand by the Brethren for having spent many many hours in their presence. I know they speak the voice of the Lord through all the resources they give us. What I have heard on this thread is in opposition to what I heard from them in person.

I am sadden by this and I tired of the the pseudo-apostate ideas on this thread and this forum.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

ShawnC wrote:
ereves wrote:77%...
I'm only trying to help you out.
Thank you Shawn C. I apologize it seems easy to be overly facetious in an online/electronic setting.
keeprunning wrote:ereves, so are you saying that you don't think Satan has anything to do with wanting to force or control us? so, when people compare socialism and communism to Satan's plan, you think there is nothing to that?
No. Controlling us is exactly what he wants us to do which is why he sets up secret combinations and causes us to sin and wants us to be ignorant. This way Satan takes possession of us. Evil governments use force but they don't use it to force people to be righteous. That's all I'm saying, that when the scriptures say Satan sought to destroy the agency of man I don't think it was by forcing them to be righteous, it was by bringing them into subjection to him through their carnality. He does this now, so satan's plan is in effect.
bella wrote:You take a "doctrine" of the church that is widely taught (By the Brethren) and try to decide if it is a true doctrine based on what you deem as "true" evidence of "true doctrine". Then when you do not find evidence that fits your parameters you then create a new doctrine you feel is true...
You find an idea that is different then the mainstream and try to find something to prove it as true or false. I look at the mainstream doctrines to understand them better and deeper...
This is what happens when man just interprets doctrines that is why we have a Prophet and why we have conference talks and the Church Magazines and why we have Church Approved Manuals to teach us the doctrines as the Prophet wants them to be taught. We are not left to ourselves and our limited understandings. So again I say I stand by the Church Leaders and the doctrines that are promoted and taught by them, through them and exemplified by them.
Bella, I am not using my own definition of official doctrine. I am using the church’s definition. I would really like you to read Approaching Mormon Doctrine (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-doctrine). You’ll probably be more likely to read it if I explain to you that it is a press release published by the church that explains how to understand church doctrine and know when something is officially binding. It explains that, “this doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works’ of scripture… official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.” This is why the scriptures are more binding than individual statements made by church leaders. They themselves support this. I’m not joking or trying to be rude when I say that my perspective is more in line with the brethren of the church than is yours because it is not my opinion, it is what the church teaches. Having said that I hope you will realize my intentions are not to undermine the church, the brethren, or their teachings.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

ereves

Quote from your link:

What constitutes as scripture:

"Joseph Smith added new revelations to the body of scripture: the volume of sacred writ was not to be closed. Many of these revelations were communicated during regular conferences, then printed in official reports. Significantly, these revelations stand as scripture itself: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

Thus, by experience and revelation, Joseph learned and taught (1) that scripture is nothing more or less than the word of the Lord, (2) that the book of God’s word is not closed, (3) that God speaks to all dispensations, (4) that scripture must be correctly understood through the spirit of truth, and (5) that the words of the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture, too. (See 2 Pet. 1:20–21; D&C 68:4.)"

Also:
"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.' (what are Church publications??? maybe Manuals or Magazines?

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

Bella wrote: Ok so what is being said on this thread is this. Church manuals, talks by the Brethren, Church Magazines, Gospel Principle book etc... all have less doctrinal reliability then an idea coming from a book by an institute teacher called "Satan's War on Free Agency" ??? hmmmmmm (My previous post should clear this up. No, that is not what is being said. We are saying that manuals, talks by the brethren, church magazines etc are less binding than scripture, proclamations, declarations and the Articles or Faith)
I stand by the Brethren for having spent many many hours in their presence. I know they speak the voice of the Lord through all the resources they give us. What I have heard on this thread is in opposition to what I heard from them in person. (Their own explanation of official doctrine seems to be in opposition to your personal experience also)

I am sadden by this and I tired of the the pseudo-apostate ideas on this thread and this forum. (I sincerely hope you no longer consider this psuedo-apostate after reading my last post. If not, there is no hope.)
Regarding "Satan's War on Free Agency", I had not heard of this book until I started this thread but I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. I did not come up with an idea which I am now trying to back up with scripture. The process was the complete opposite. I studied the scriptures and came to this conclusion. It seemed incompatible with my understanding of Satan's plan at the time so I went back to the scriptures to see if there was any support for the forced-righteousness theory. There wasn't and isn't. The scriptures are one of the ultimate sources of truth for me and I'm sorry if that seems apostate.

Great points Black Swan.
"As I read the scriptures, Satan's plan required one of two things: either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, or else the saving of men in their sins" - J. Reuben Clark, Oct. 1949.

"Satan desired that man should be saved through the taking away from him of his agency. He would save everybody regardless of their own acts." - George Q. Cannon, May 1891.
Bella this is a perfect demonstration of what I meant when I said the brethren aren't in complete agreement on every issue. This also further proves that the forced-righteousness theory is not official doctrine... it isn't even consitently proclaimed. This also shows that if I'm apostate for thinking Satan's plan was not to force us to be righteous but was to allow us to do what we want, follow our carnal desires and become subject to Satan, that at least I'm in good company. George Q. Cannon and Ruben Clark are aparently apostate too. :)

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

ereves

Let me say this again from your link you gave.

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.' (what are Church publications??? maybe Manuals or Magazines?

So why am I accused of using non doctrinal sources when I use Church publications to show doctrines? When the Church has clearly said that the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications that I quote.

My statement about pseudoapostate is due to the constant diminishing of the Church publications that is stated clearly by our Church as works of our standard doctrines.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: Satan's plan

Post by clarkkent14 »

I emailed one of my previous teachers about this, he's at BYU now. This was his response:
Scripturally, there was only one "plan" under discussion in heaven. As the pre-mortal council met to determine the various spirits' foreordained roles in that plan, the question was raised "who will be the Savior?" It was a foregone conclusion that Jesus was the only one to fulfill this role; however, Lucifer offered himself. He wanted to be God's son on the earth (i.e., born of Mary) and he wanted to "redeem" all (both these are mentioned in Moses 4:1). To "redeem" suggests that Lucifer was willing to pay the price of the atonement, except that he proposes that his offering would leave no one behind. _All_ would be redeemed, which suggests that he wanted to save us no matter what we did (i.e., "in sin"). Doing away with consequence of sin (i.e., permissiveness) is just as destructive to agency as force because it negates the effectiveness of the law (see 2 Nephi 2:13, Alma 42:17-22).
He is going to send some quotes in regards to this.

Bella, please don't be upset... it's good to discuss these matters, and if someone disagrees, so be it. I wouldn't let it distract you. I personally don't want to be seen as right, just state what I have found. If it doesn't match up with someone else, I want to hear their perspective.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

Bella wrote:Quote from your link:

What constitutes as scripture:

"Joseph Smith added new revelations to the body of scripture: the volume of sacred writ was not to be closed. Many of these revelations were communicated during regular conferences, then printed in official reports. Significantly, these revelations stand as scripture itself: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

Thus, by experience and revelation, Joseph learned and taught (1) that scripture is nothing more or less than the word of the Lord, (2) that the book of God’s word is not closed, (3) that God speaks to all dispensations, (4) that scripture must be correctly understood through the spirit of truth, and (5) that the words of the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture, too. (See 2 Pet. 1:20–21; D&C 68:4.)"

(Where are you qouting that from??? I can't find that anywhere in the link I gave you.)
Also:
"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.' (what are Church publications??? maybe Manuals or Magazines?

(Don't take it out of context. Read the next sentence: "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture,...official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.")
Bella if we are going to discuss what is and is not doctrine we should start a new thread. There have been like 5 posts in this whle thread that have to do with my original post.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

ereves wrote:
Bella wrote:Quote from your link:

What constitutes as scripture:

"Joseph Smith added new revelations to the body of scripture: the volume of sacred writ was not to be closed. Many of these revelations were communicated during regular conferences, then printed in official reports. Significantly, these revelations stand as scripture itself: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

Thus, by experience and revelation, Joseph learned and taught (1) that scripture is nothing more or less than the word of the Lord, (2) that the book of God’s word is not closed, (3) that God speaks to all dispensations, (4) that scripture must be correctly understood through the spirit of truth, and (5) that the words of the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture, too. (See 2 Pet. 1:20–21; D&C 68:4.)"

(Where are you qouting that from??? I can't find that anywhere in the link I gave you.)
Also:
"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.' (what are Church publications??? maybe Manuals or Magazines?

(Don't take it out of context. Read the next sentence: "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture,...official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.")
Bella if we are going to discuss what is and is not doctrine we should start a new thread. There have been like 5 posts in this whle thread that have to do with my original post.

You need to click the Here and Here link that it gives to find this quote.

User avatar
Avid Disciple
captain of 10
Posts: 24

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Avid Disciple »

I have read over this thread thoroughly and wish to say that I believe strongly that the church verifies that the contents of those manuals that are used for church instruction are in full agreement with standard doctrine. Nothing could be more important than teaching the children and I would place as much trust in the primary manual as I would in the Book of Mormon. I am also aware that the book Gospel Principles is recommended to missionaries for their reading as part of the missionary reference library and missionaries are never discouraged from using it to aid them in their teaching. In fact it is used as the textbook for all new members during their first six months or more of Sunday School. The Brethren are not so clueless and clumsy that they would allow manuals and books to be used for such important church functions as the instruction of children and the teaching of new converts if those books contained anything other than perfectly correct church doctrines.

I have seen some behavior that appears rude and self-righteous regarding personal theories which are only theories at best and possibly downright wrong, but are supported with scriptures that can without the guidance of the brethren be interpreted in many different ways. It is a very common mistake of intellectuals to assume that their personal interpretation of a text is obviously the only correct one and anyone who doesn't see that is hopelessly ignorant. I see a very marked similarity between such insistance on personal viewpoints expressed on this forum and the insistance of evangelical christians on their narrow interpretation of John's comment in Revelation about not adding to his book. They are absolutely sure they are right and we (all LDS) are wrong about this. I for one choose to rely completely on the Prophet and Apostles for interpretation of scripture. I choose to regard all conference talks as well as all church manuals and textbooks approved for use in church and missionary instruction as holy scripture equal to the standard works. I verify everything with the Holy Spirit to gain my own testimony that whay they say is true.

One more note. People have made comments to the effect that the brethren including the first presidency and apostles are not unified and not infallable when they issue official church statements such as conference talks and official church manuals. Whether you regard this as apostasy or not (I do) is beside the point. It is a violation of the rules of this forum. I appeal to to the moderators of this forum to please inforce the rules and ban all persons from this forum who express a vote of no confidence in the leaders of this church in any shape or form.

I generally have taken to avoiding this forum because of the apostate nature of much of its content. I came back after a long break, hoping that things had changed. I am sad to see they have not and may consider leaving the forum altogether.

User avatar
kathyn
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4156
Location: UT

Re: Satan's plan

Post by kathyn »

I'm with Avid Disciple; discussion is good but it borders on contention sometimes and becomes a bit counter-productive. The important thing to understand is that there WAS a war in heaven. And that we're still fighting it today. It's just a different battlefield is all. And what really matters is that we continue to stay on the Lord's side. The particulars of Satan's plan are not important to know. In fact, I don't WANT to know them. I just want to do whatever is necessary in this life to be counted among the Lord's valiant ones.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

You can take this it or leave it for it is only my word which is meaningless.

When I met with the Brethren we discussed this concept in great detail. We discussed the Veil and Agency and Lucifer's plan. For that is what my years of research is on. What is being presented here as a theory was not what was told to me by the Brethren. They backed what we have been told all along of what Lucifer's plan was. What I was told came from the Prophet and 12 Apostles. I met with many of them over a period of months.

As I said take it or leave it, but that is why I stand for what they say in talks and put in the manuals and magazines that is stated multiple times, for it is what they told me was true. The Mormon myths are what the members say not the Brethren. Now if the Brethren come out with new revelation I will happily wholeheartedly agree with them. When this new idea is put into our manuals and magazines and clearly declared as doctrine I will agree readily. But I can not agree with anyone else's "theory" at this time that contradicts what doctrine they told me was true. I did not want to bring that up, but
that is why I have been steadfast in my points regarding this matter.

I find it very frustrating how much emphasis is put on what is REALLY doctrines. Everyone has a different idea. Some say it is only the Scriptures, others only living prophets, others only dead Prophets, others only if it is from the Prophet while he was prophet, others only when the Prophet was speaking as a prophet at conference, others only when it is an unanimous voice of all of them, or only in a declaration signed by all of them, others do not accept the declaration as the word of God, others only personal revelation, others say you must dissect every word out of the prophets mouth and check each one by the Spirit, others say every word must be checked against scripture or previous revelations, other say the Prophet is fallible so you decide whatever you want to believe or not, others say the Prophet is only speaking as a voice of God when he is not talking about politics, other say the Prophet is the only one to trust and the rest of the GAs are pretty worthless, others say the 70's have nothing to say worth while, on and on and on... .....................................................If I were to believe all of the people on this forum I would have to leave the Church for there is no one left in the the Church to trust.


Is there wisdom and truth mixed with this mess of opinions? Yes, but I say it is what is taught continually by the brethren throughout all of it is where the truth is. For they teach the same things again and again. These are the most important things to listen to.

Things must be kept in the perspective of importance and we need to be very careful not to get off onto hobby doctrine. I for one would not wish to risk my salvation on some opinion that I formed that was not in continuity with the majority of statements by the Brethren. I was very fortunate to have been given personal tutoring (you could call it), by the Brethren on many various issues that has guided me to understand things. I in no way say I understand all of it, but was very fortunate to have the opportunity to get some matters confirmed that enable me to do what I am suppose to do with that knowledge. I wish everyone could have that opportunity then there would be far less confusion. The Brethren do speak unitedly. I experienced that process first hand. Everything is guided by the Spirit and through revelation that directs The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-saints

Also I do recall just a few years back the Church correction and admonition for us to use the Church Manuals when teaching Lessons in Church. As a Relief Society teacher that was brought to my attention. We were told not to go out and ad lib at our discretion but to teach from the manuals the Church had given us, for too many people were teaching there own opinions as doctrines. So based on that correction we received I would say that the manuals are far more correct then the members.

I will stand by our Prophet unto my death if I am asked to do that. Nor will I deny Christ or Father. I have been given a witness of the truthfulness of this Gospel that I will stand up for no matter what may come.

This is the last baiting I will get caught up into with persons that do not support the Church's basic doctrines or those that even elude to the Brethren being off track and wrong.


Also as a monitor of this site, I will be monitoring far more greatly then I have in the past for apostate comments as requested by many persons on this forum. I am not saying any of you are apostate.

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

User avatar
Cowell
captain of 100
Posts: 545
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Cowell »

Bella wrote: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.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

Cowell wrote:
Bella wrote: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.
hmmm I am not allowed to quote from manual for they are not doctrine of the Church...that is the issue I am having with this thread. Forced righteousness is taught in our manuals. So I suggest anyone that has a question regarding the manuals go to their Bishop then Stake President and on up to find out if our manuals are correct or not.

I merely have stated what the Brethren said to me which I will never utter again to anyone ever unless I trust them completely. Also I have only quoted what the manuals teach. So for that tare and feather me for that and I will be in good company too.

I think I am going to leave this forum and move on to other things that are far more fruitful and bring the Spirit of Peace into my home instead of the Spirit of Contention that is so strong on this site. I have grown tired of the apostate attitudes and constant questioning of the Brethren and basic doctrines of the Church. I am not saying this thread is an true example of that but the site is and continues to be.

I apologize this thread is catching me at a difficult time were I have been under great persecutions for stating only true doctrines of the Church (not this issue) But because of that and the contentions of this site I am at the point of leaving this site and I am seriously considering canceling all my lectures that I have been doing for this site. My husband does not want me participating here anymore from all that he reads, I have to agree with him now.

This should solve your issue regarding my monitoring. You will not hear from me now. I am done. I stated my beliefs and for that have only been non stopped told that my sources of doctrines is wrong. So I stood my ground this time. But it is my last stand.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: Satan's plan

Post by clarkkent14 »

Bella don't make a rash decision. I don't like the contention on this site either, but I don't think it should be grounds for leaving. Take a break from it for a bit, cool down some.

I was just thinking about it though, what if you are both right. I have to put my thoughts together, and then I will present it. Also we must remember we are trying to make sense out of a lie. No matter what Lucifer said, it wasn't possible.

User avatar
Avid Disciple
captain of 10
Posts: 24

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Avid Disciple »

I am in agreement with Bella. Folks can eat each other alive with trying to prove their picky little opinions to one another. I have better things to do and nicer people to associate with. I do predict, however that those of you who make a hobby of trying to clarify how fallable the church leaders are will not have a testimony to stand on in the near future, but will soon find themselves prefering to leave the church, convinced that the brethren have all gone apostate when they begin saying and doing things that are difficult to swallow. You thought it was diffiult now. You have no idea. I suggest everyone toss out their closet doctrines, toss away their doubt in the brethren and start practicing absolute faith in the Lord and his annointed. Start reading Gospel Principles again and get back to the basics where the truth lies, as some of you have wandered off into the mists of darkness of the pursuit of mysteries. It is the Milk wherin lies salvation. If you find yourselves tired of milk, perhaps that is a warning sign that something in your attitude needs to change. Sort of sheds new light on the maxim to "become like a little child" doesn't it. Children drink milk.

The Church is calling us back to the basics. It is faithfulness to the basics that will save us in the final tribulations. Meat and mysteries will not do that, on the contrary an excessive penchant for mysteries will be the undoing of many. Lucifer's gospel is full of mysteries (over 160 esoteric spiritual laws of which the law of attraction is only one). It is complex and mysterious beyond your wildest imagination. In contrast the Gospel of Jesus Christ is so very simple, not secret, complicated or hidden, and can unlock the door to true happiness (paraphrased from President Uchtdorf's talk "The way of the disciple"). It is intentionally simple enough to be understood by a child. Perhaps we all need to become simpler too.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

clarkkent14 wrote:Bella don't make a rash decision. I don't like the contention on this site either, but I don't think it should be grounds for leaving. Take a break from it for a bit, cool down some.

I was just thinking about it though, what if you are both right. I have to put my thoughts together, and then I will present it. Also we must remember we are trying to make sense out of a lie. No matter what Lucifer said, it wasn't possible.
Truthfully I do not care whether people think my idea of the veil is right or wrong. That is not at all what upsets me. What upsets me is the disdain people have for the Church and its processes and ways it does things. Everyone wants to reinvent it, tell the GAs what to do, fix the Church as if it is a old worn-out messed up Faith. I stand not for my ideas but for the fundamental basic doctrines of our Church and our wonderful Leaders that should be talked of only in respect as we have been told by the Lord to do.

I do not feel that I make a real contribution to this site. What I have to say rarely is wanted or needed. This is the wrong venue. I do not think my research is meant to be used in the fashion that it is right now here. It is not just this thread, it is far more. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. It is interesting how freely I could talk to the GAs about these things and how freely I can with many people, but not people on this site. I find it ironic for this site has people that understand parts about the secret combinations, which is a deeper doctrine, yet have so much of contention, games, arguments, jabs, viciousness, attacks, and huge lack of Faith in the Brethren etc. I do not dislike those on this thread nor are they the complete cause of my decision. I think the final straw was the constant attack on the materials the Church creates to help us understand the doctrines. They create them with great thought and purpose. They are where we can find truths along with scriptures and conference talks and Church magazines. But they along with the Brethren are minimized constantly here. I do not feel nor ever have felt the Spirit on this site, which I should. I feel it on the Church site other sites but not here. This site is fulfillment of the scripture "All we like sheep have gone astray, everyone to his own way."

I hope this site can find its way back to the truths it was founded on.

This is not the place for me. I really like you and you know how to contact me.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Mark »

What upsets me is the disdain people have for the Church and its processes and ways it does things. Everyone wants to reinvent it, tell the GAs what to do, fix the Church as if it is a old worn-out messed up Faith. I stand not for my ideas but for the fundamental basic doctrines of our Church and our wonderful Leaders that should be talked of only in respect as we have been told by the Lord to do.

Its called pride Bella. I have seen it happen often to several in the church. The Manti group was a perfect example of this. They began to question the inspiration of the current leadership when Pres. Benson was ill and hinted of neferious goings on saying that the prophet had been muzzled etc etc. This turned into evil speaking of the Lords annointed by using Isaiahs words to their advantage and perception which then eventually turned into full scale apostasy.

The adversary is very quick to seize on any opportunity presented to get the Lords children into muddy waters. That is why Joseph warned repeatedly of this. Heber C Kimball reiterated that principle when He said “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”

Those who think they are immuned to this are sadly mistaken. Satan is a clever devil and he will find a way to capitalize on any loss of confidence in the church and its leaders.

Post Reply