Satan's plan

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13007

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Original_Intent »

ereves in response to your request of how we could have known good and evil - it is a good point. I think my thought is that Satan's plan was that there would NOT be opposition in all things. If his plan were accepted there would have been no devil, no 1/3 of the hosts of heaven to tempt mankind. I think the learning he proposed is that man would come to earth, make various choices (i.e. some people would care for their children and some would not, some people would be faithful to their spouse and others would not, and they would learn which behaviors produced the best results. However, I believe he proposed that there would be no law given, and since no law was given, no law would be broken and therefore no sin. All could go to earth, receive a mortal body, learn, not so much to discern good from evil because the concepts would not exist, but they would learn which behaviors brought about the best results and grow in that way.

Of course whatever he proposed was absolutely a lie and a deception. And I do not say Bella is wrong in what she says, I merely say we have not been given what she says as doctrine of the church and she is not in the position to proclaim it as such. I am still waiting for scripture or prophetic utterance to back waht she says, I am sorry quotes from the friend, the Liahona, and Sunday School manuals for 6 and 8 year olds does not cut it for me. Again I am not saying it is wrong I am saying even GAs are careful to qualify their statements that destroying the agency of man could have been accomplished in any number of ways, ONE of which would be to force righteousness.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13007

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Original_Intent »

ereves, reading your last post, I find nothing to disagree with. There is so much that we have yet to learn, hopefully we can reach a point where the knowledge will be given to us.

I have always believed that if there are 10 million members in the church, there are 10 million versions of the gospel. Even among the prophets, other than those that have had all things revealed to them, I think there are areas wher understanding is stronger and weaker, and as you enter the general membership there is quite a spectrum of beliefs, some true and some incorrect that we were either incorrectly taught by parents, or just lack of understanding. As I have state repeatedly, I have believed in the "force plan" most of my 45 years as doctrine of the church, now I am highly skeptical that was the case. I am not sure one way or the other, but the evidence to me points otherwise. I would abandon my position in an instance if I were shown scriptural evidence, a prophetic utterance or if the Spirit directed me otherwise.

As much as I love Bella, I think she is incorrect in this case and that is OK. If it were a matter of doctrine that our salvation depended on, I think we would have had more specific information.

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

Re: Satan's plan

Post by shadow »

Bella wrote: Now we have a second one to see if we will have Faith in Him again and do His will as the quote says.
"Thus we could obey him because of our faith in him not because of our knowledge, or memory of him."

In regards to my personal theory of the veil stand by the Church not me (Where does the church teach this??). This idea was witnessed to me and verified, but that is just my word and my experience not yours, so therefore it is only a theory and should only be taken as such.
Do you agree that even without the veil we would have agency? Was the veil removed for Joseph Smith at age 14? Did he then lose his agency? Or did he lose his faith and replace it with knowledge, still being able to act on it?

From your quote and from the scriptures the veil was given to us to act on faith not to receive agency. We already had agency did we not? Some in the premortal life were more faithful than others. That's a choice. 1/3 used their agency to follow Lucifer and his plan. The agency we have now is a continuation of the agency we had before this life. We chose to come here to act on faith.

Remember that Satan sought (and seeks) to take away our agency. That implies we already had it.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

Thanks for your posts Originla_Intent. You bring up some good points. A lot of people don't realize how ambiguous the gospel is sometimes. The brethren don't agree on a lot of things, like you say, and I'm totally ok with that. The Lord doesn't reveal everything about everything all at once, he lets us work through it and when necessary he speaks.
Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine…The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined… The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them.
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines.
Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-doctrine

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

shadow wrote:
Bella wrote: Now we have a second one to see if we will have Faith in Him again and do His will as the quote says.
"Thus we could obey him because of our faith in him not because of our knowledge, or memory of him."

In regards to my personal theory of the veil stand by the Church not me (Where does the church teach this??). This idea was witnessed to me and verified, but that is just my word and my experience not yours, so therefore it is only a theory and should only be taken as such.
Do you agree that even without the veil we would have agency? Was the veil removed for Joseph Smith at age 14? Did he then lose his agency? Or did he lose his faith and replace it with knowledge, still being able to act on it?

From your quote and from the scriptures the veil was given to us to act on faith not to receive agency. We already had agency did we not? Some in the premortal life were more faithful than others. That's a choice. 1/3 used their agency to follow Lucifer and his plan. The agency we have now is a continuation of the agency we had before this life. We chose to come here to act on faith.

Remember that Satan sought (and seeks) to take away our agency. That implies we already had it.
As for understanding the veil, look at all references regarding agency, choice and Father's plan etc.. in talks. When you look at what they say that gives us the ability to choose good or evil in this life then think what is the opposite; it helps clarify.

Agency is our use of our will to choose Father's will or not.

The veil is a means that allows for a test to occur in this life that would could have any other way. For we were already tested by using our agency in the presence of Father and chose right. Now we are tested to see if we will choose Father's will with the veil of forgetfulness. This then tests us at another level of our Faith. These tests are just to prove ourselves worthy of being Disciples of God. It is a test to see if we are willing to summit our will to Father in all things, because that is the only way we can become like Him. If we have any pride or (our own will) we are not teachable. We must be totally teachable to become like Him.

"Do you agree that even without the veil we would have agency?" Yes, but we were already tested without the veil, so we needed a stronger test.

"Was the veil removed for Joseph Smith at age 14?" No, it was thinned. The Veil was never removed completely or Joseph would have remembered all things past, present and future.

"Did he then lose his agency?" No not at all. The veil was not removed. He was given added light which mean added responsibilities. Which in someways feel even far harder of a test of faith.

"Or did he lose his faith and replace it with knowledge, still being able to act on it." No the veil was not fully removed so there was still space for agency and faith.

"From your quote and from the scriptures the veil was given to us to act on faith not to receive agency." correct, Faith is the action of Humility that make us teachable by Father. Pride ends our ability to be taught, just as it ended Lucifer's.

"Some in the premortal life were more faithful than others. That's a choice." Yes for some had more faith in Father then did others. They were more humble and teachable.

"1/3 used their agency to follow Lucifer and his plan." yes, it was their agency to chose between Father's will and theirs own will. Which was also Lucifer's will. Meaning choosing to go against Father's will is the chose Lucifer made and 1/3 of the host of heaven.

"The agency we have now is a continuation of the agency we had before this life. We chose to come here to act on faith." Yes. In this life we must use Faith even far greater then we did in Heaven, for then we knew directly the will of Father. Here we are given the light of Christ. Father's will is less obvious so it must be discovered by our natural desire for good or evil. Good or evil could be describe as Humility or Pride or Obedience or Disobedience. Our Faith is therefore tested at a higher level.

"Remember that Satan sought (and seeks) to take away our agency. That implies we already had it" Yes we have always had it. But what Lucifer sought after was for us not to be tested by our agency in this life. To just become Gods as he believed he was already. He would force all of us to do his will under his plan which was a plan of no choice and not one soul would be lost. When I look at it, it seems simple. In this life to choose between good and evil is 1) that good and evil must exist therefore opposition in all things 2) that we have the veil that makes us forget all we knew so that we need to act on faith and submission to Father's will again.

(Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away from us the freedom of choice that our Father had given to us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation. He wanted to be our God.) Gospel principles

I think Lucifer felt he had a better plan than Fathers so he declared himself a God and fought for his plan, wanting to dethrone Father and get all the glory, for it was a plan he himself created. He took parts of Father's plan but changed it therefore becoming a new plan.

For Lucifer to take away freedom of choice for me the simplest way would be to never have the veil in the first place. For if we remembered everything would we sin? I do not think so, I think we would all choose the right. Therefore the veil lets us choose.

I can not agree with the other ideas presented as Lucifer's plan for in them we are still allowed to choose. We are told that in his plan we would not be allowed to choose. The only alternative explanation that might hold water was the one where we were to come here with no law and do whatever we wanted with no consequences for there were no laws, then we would be like a child and sinless for we would not know right from wrong. But there still would be no growth, and I think no reason to suggest this idea. When a far simpler idea could be presented.

Since we had all kinds of knowledge in the pre-mortal world, why would we like the idea of coming to an earth without that knowledge? It would be like saying to a person now, I am going to wipe out your memory and all that you have learned and you have to start over.....what would be your first thoughts and feelings? Fear or Faith? Would you be fearful that you would not find your way back to the Gospel? Who would choose that unless Father said trust me this is the best way. I can see why if that was the plan why so many chose the guarantee Lucifer was presenting because the said "Why forget all we know" That would easily gain 1/3 support.

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.

I see things like this:

Fear, Pride, Selfishness, Evil, Disobedient, My will not Thine, Lucifer, Not teachable = unwilling to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, no opposition in all things, No need for faith
Faith, Humility, Selflessness, Good, Obedient, Thy will not mine, Christ, Teachable = willingness to submit to Fathers plan that included a veil, opposition in all things, Need for Faith

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

The reason I feel like this realization of what the plan of Satan is has been so significant for me is because if this is really the case, then Satan's plan is in full effect here, as is God's. The whole history of the world truly is a history of the conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. (Not a history of God trying to set up his kingdom and Satan running around like an angry little child throwing a temper tantrum trying to mess it up for God after his idea was rejected.) Satan is very organized, he is very smart and the way he sets up his kingdom in this world is through secret combinations. Secret combinations cause whole peoples to sin and they are brought into subjection (Satan's plan to destroy agency!!!) I guarantee he promises those people a place in his kingdom if they do what he says just as God does with us. This whole thing is actually really sick which is probably why the church doesn't dive into it. They don't really even get into the secret combinations. This is where I'd really like the discussion to go because this brings it into reality. With this view (of how satans plan really works) the pre-mortal council in heaven is no longer just a cool story almost like a fantasy book that we can just sit around and talk about, it becomes very significant and very real. The more we understand it and the more we understand how Satan works in this world, the more we will be able to thwart his plans and usher in the millennium which is the whole point of us knowing about the secret combinations in our day.
24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.
26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have ano power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.

Rosabella
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1186

Re: Satan's plan

Post by Rosabella »

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. I do not see that nor have I experienced that. For me I have seen them agree almost entirely if not entirely. Members on the other hand (especially on this forum) disagree on a lot of things including what the Brethren say is truth or not.

I think the confusions and contractions in interpretations lie with the members not the Brethren.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

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

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

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.

ereves
captain of 100
Posts: 171

Re: Satan's plan

Post by ereves »

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation [priesthood revelation]. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.” - Bruce R. McConkie

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: 13007

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.

Post Reply