As we know, the mission of the Savior neither began with His birth as a baby in Bethlehem, nor concluded as He wrought the price of our atonement with His perfect blood in the Garden of Gethsemane and as He hung on Calvary's cross. In the great council in Heaven before any of us came to earth, our Father presented a plan whereby a Savior would be provided to atone for the sins and feel all the pain, illness and sorrow any of us would ever fill in this life.
Our brother, Lucifer, presented an alternate version of that plan, whereby he would eliminate our agency and force us to live good enough lives to return home to Heaven, for which efforts he wanted all the glory. Jesus Christ, as the oldest of all of our Father's offspring, said He would work out our salvation with a process of atonement, so that all who laid hold on that promise would be able to repent and learn from their mistakes, and would have the effects of that atonement come into play when (rather than if) we ever transgressed the laws or commandments of our Father.
There followed a war between two sides: those who accepted the Father's plan (including the recognition of a need for a Savior) and those who wanted Lucifer's plan to be utilized. The idea of agency and free will was so precious to our Father that He allowed Lucifer and his followers (which comprised roughly 1/3 of all of our Father's children) to be cast out.
For a period of roughly the next 4,000 years or so (as a result of the fall of Adam), prophets and those who heeded their words looked forward with great anticipation to the future birth of the Savior. The heavens then manifested the sign that the Savior had been born of a virgin, and shepherds (and later wise men) hastened to come and see for themselves that the prophecies of His coming had been fulfilled.
Even from a very early age, He knew exactly what He had been sent here to do. Aside from His experience at age 12 talking with the rabbis in the temple and answering their questions, pretty much everything we know about His life until His mortal ministry began is summed up in a single sentence: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature: in favor with God and man."
He began His mortal ministry when He was around the age of 30. The next three years or so were spent healing the sick, raising the dead, and bringing many miracles to pass. But as His ministry progressed, many people either did not see Him for who He was or took issue with the reports of what He had been doing. Although He was overwhelmed by the weight of our sins, sorrows, and suffering through His atonement, He was determined to see it through. He was then betrayed by one of His own disciples, after which He was subjected to inquiries by the governmental leaders of His day. Although they could "find now fault in this man", they gave in to the demands of an angry crowd, who were insistent as they said: "Crucify Him!"
After the excruciating pain of hanging on His cross (with thieves on either side of Him), He commended His spirit unto the care of His Father. While His body lay entombed for three days, His spirit preached the gospel of repentance unto those who had passed away before that time. He was then resurrected, breaking the bands of death with the eternal promise that all who came unto Him would be saved from the effects of sin and death.
Roughly 1800 years or so following His ascension back to His Father, the two presented themselves to Joseph Smith, ushering in the last and the greatest of all dispensations. Among one of many tidbits the Lord has revealed as this dispensation has continued to unfold, it was made known that the Savior's birth occurred in April. But since much of the secular and religious leaders of the world mark the milestone of His birth near the end of each year (on December 25), that day has long been accepted as Christmas. And without Christ and His mission, there would be neither a Chrstimas or an Easter.
As recorded in scripture, we have the additional promise that He will come again. But as time has worn on, the Christmas season has become more commercialized, while the true reason for the season has in many ways been completely forgotten. While Christmas each year gives us the opportunity to gather with family and friends and exchange gifts, the greatest gift any of us ever have or ever will receive is that of a Savior.
It would be beneficial for all of us, in the midst of our celebrations of the season, to remember the true meaning of Christmas. The tragic reality of our modern age is that, over time, so many of us are so wrapped up in other things which have taken our focus away from the actual reason for the season, The promise of Christmas is not merely the hope for better things or the idea that we can and will be saved from our sins as we lay hold on the gift of His salvation , but also the covenant that He can and will come again.
So as this Christmas season continues to be celebrated, I hope none of us will forget the gifts of His birth, His ministry, and His atonement. I also hope and pray that we will likewise retain in remembrance the promise that He will come again. It is up to each of us to prepare ourselves for that future event. Will we be ready when that day arrives? I certainly hope so.
I have previously shared on this blog a copy of a poem which appeared in the ward newsletter one December while I was a young Aaronic Priesthood holder. The poem conveys the high importance of our being prepared for the day when He will come again. Here once again is a copy of that poem:
‘Twas the Night Before the Savior Came
‘Twas the night before Our Savior came and all through
the house,
Not a person was praying, not one in the house.
Their scriptures were lain on the shelf without care,
Thinking Our Savior would not come there.
And Mom in her rocker with baby on her lap
Was watching the late show, while I took a nap.
Where out of the East there arose such a clatter,
I sprang to my feet to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash!
When what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But angels proclaiming that our Savior was here!
With a light like the sun sending forth a bright ray,
I knew in a moment it must be the day!
The beauty of His face made me cover my head,
It was Our Savior returning just like he said....
And though I possessed worldly wisdom and wealth,
I cried when I saw Him in spite of myself.
In the Book of Life which He held in His hand,
Was written the names of every saved man.
He spoke not a word, as He searched for my name.
Then He said, “It’s not here.” My head hung in shame.
The people whose names had been written with love,
He gathered to take to His father above.
With those who were read, He rose without a sound,
While all the rest were left standing around.
I fell to my knees, but it was too late.
I had waited too long and thus sealed my fate.
I stood and cried as they rose out of sight,
“Oh, if only I’d been ready tonight.”
In the words of this poem, the meaning is clear,
The coming of Our Savior is drawing near.
There is only one life and when comes the last call,
We will find that the scriptures were true,
after all.It is my hope and prayer that all of us may keep the spirit and the true meaning of Christmas with us not just through this season when we celebrate that, but also all year round, and that we and our families may be able to make room in our hearts for Him. I likewise hope that each of us will take time away from the hustle and bustle of this season to make resolutions regarding how we will retain Him and His incomparable sacrifice ever in our memories. As we make the effort to put Christ back into Christmas, may His blessings continue to attend us all. I offer my witness that He lived and died and lives again for all of us, that He will come again, and that we need Him in our lives now more than ever before. Each of us has the choice as to whether or not we will let Him in. May each of us do so is my humble prayer for this Christmas season and all year round, which I gratefully offer in the name of Him who is the reason for the season, even Jesus Christ, Amen.
"Our brother, Lucifer, presented an alternate version of that plan, whereby he would eliminate our agency and force us to live good enough lives to return home to Heaven, for which efforts he wanted all the glory."
ReplyDeleteThis is a very common misconception which is not true.
See the Bible Dictionary: “Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication”
Satan's plan was not to force goodness, it was the idea that everyone is saved no matter what they do or think.
See this 2015 article in the Ensign:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/satans-rebellion?lang=eng
Thank you for stopping by to comment. How closely did you actually read the material you shared. The article in question that you cited (as found in the March 2015 Ensign) notes a few differences from what you said above. Under the subsection "What the Scriptures Say", the following passages were cited from Moses Chapter 4 in the Pearl of Great Price:
ReplyDelete"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
“And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."
The next section, entitled "The Father of All Lies", notes halfway through the first paragraph: "It was in this setting that Satan made an unwelcome and arrogant proposal to change Heavenly Father’s plan so that it provided universal salvation for everyone." I have more to say on this but will publish this part of my comments first.
I'm back again. In Elder James E. Talmage's book "Articles of Faith", I located a quote from the 4th President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff. If I understand the scriptures correctly, the word of the Lord given through prophets and apostles is endorsed by Him in every case, and the same cannot be said to an identical degree about articles written by lay Church members, whose interpretation of the scriptures may not reflect the official position of the Lord, His Church, or His chosen servants. an the interpretation of any lay gospel scholar (or any other lay member who writes articles published in Church magazines) whose words are not specifically or fully endorsed by the Lord or His prophets.
ReplyDeleteAs quoted by Elder Talmage, President Woodruff stated: "“We learn from the revealed word that Satan was once an angel of light, then known as Lucifer, a Son of the Morning; but his selfish ambition led him to aspire to the glory and power of the Father, to secure which he made the pernicious proposition to redeem the human family by compulsion; and, failing in this purpose, he headed an open rebellion against the Father and the Son, drawing a third of the hosts of heaven into his impious league. These rebellious spirits were expelled from heaven, and have since followed the impulses of their wicked natures by seeking to lead human souls into their own condition of darkness. They are the devil and his angels. The right of free agency, maintained and vindicated by the war in heaven, prevents the possibility of compulsion being employed in this fiendish work of degradation; but the powers of these malignant spirits to tempt and persuade are used to the utmost. …
“Satan exerts a mastery over the spirits that have been corrupted by his practises; he is the foremost of the angels who were thrust down, and the instigator of the ruin of those who fall in this life; he seeks to molest and hinder mankind in good efforts. … Yet in all these malignant doings, he can go no farther than the transgressions of the victim may enable him, or the wisdom of God may permit; and at any time he may be checked by the superior power."
Additionally, if you look over General Conference talks given by prophets and apostles on the topic of agency as I have done (which you can find on the General Conference subpage via the Church website), you will find that while Satan cannot exercise control or dominion over those of us who chose the Father's plan (as our mortal bodies give us an infinite advantage over Satan, since he will never have that blessing) unless we allow him to do so, what made Lucifer's plan so problematic was that it would involve each of us being compelled to comply with the laws and commandments of God, which would take away our agency.
Most (if not all) of those same talks additionally reference (when they do not explicitly spell out) the fact that the preservation of agency was such an integral part of our Heavenly Father's plan that he was willing to let 1/3 of His children be cast out of His presence in order to preserve that part of the plan.
There is so much more I could say to support the veracity of the statement from my post that is in question, but hopefully that gives you something to consider for now. I would be perfectly willing to provide additional supporting evidence to add context to my statement in this post later this week, if you feel that is necessary. But at the end of the day, if anyone takes the opinion of a lay Church member published in the Ensign as more doctrinally correct than the statements of those whose messages the Lord has officially, categorically, and repeatedly endorsed, I cannot do much about that. I mean no offense by anything I have said here, and I hope that no offense is taken. I have read what has been written in the scriptures and by our prophets, seers and revelators in relation to the specifics of Lucifer's plan enough times to be fully comfortable in standing by the wording I used in the post above. Thanks again for taking time to comment.
I just wanted to apologize here if my first reply came across as rude, impolite, discourteous, or disrespectful. I have every confidence when my readers have posted corrections or clarifications of things I have said that they have done the research to back it up. My concern in this case is that some who read over this thread might take the offered opinion in the Ensign article cited above as being more accurate than what has been said by prophets, seers, and revelators on such subjects in General Conference. I have actually had an article I wrote featured in the Ensign, which was an honor for me. But when it comes to a choice between taking the opinion of a lay member as gospel truth or going with what has officially been declared as Church doctrine or interpretation of the scriptures by prophets and apostles, I will always choose the latter. It does not seem likely that these special witnesses of Christ would be off base in their understanding of that plan, while a lay member of the Church who is not authorized to interpret the scriptures on behalf of the Church membership and the world would be more correct in what he said. Again, I certainly meant no offense, and sincerely hope none was taken. Thanks again for contributing your comment. I appreciate you!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. Yes, I read that article thouroughly and nothing in it goes against what I was saying. I had actually looked it up as a citation for something that was taught my multiple different religion professors at BYU. I should have found you one you would have thought was more authoritative...
ReplyDelete1) The Moses quote: “...Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man ..."
2) "War in Heaven" Bible dictionary quote: "Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication."
So the firm truth we can take from this is that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Satan's plan was a lie. He was challenging God's plan with his own version that never would have worked.
Let's look at the case of "coersion to do good." --- If everyone was coerced to be good, judgment could still happen by the will of your heart. You cannot force intention - thus, agency in this case is not eliminated. Man would still have had agency of though and intent.
Now let's look at the case of "saved no matter what." --- If everyone was saved no matter what they think or feel, the idea of "agency" itself is frustrated. For agency to exist, there must be opposition in all things (compare the situation with 2 Nephi 2:11). Otherwise, why would people choose to do good. How would people know what is good? Satan was proposing a world without the light of Christ where no one would know good from evil. This in itself would not give man the ability to progress and choose to follow God themself. This was completely opposite from God's plan for us. This is why violating "agency" was such a huge crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing I am saying is going against doctrine. The prophets have also taught us that it is ok for us to think for ourselves, so I do not agree with the implication you've made that the prophets and apostles have answered every question solidly and there are never traces of opinion in things they might say.
Yes, even apostles have been known to let their opinions sneak in. There was a period of time where apostles taught very differing ideas about matters related to evolution (among other topics). Recently topics have been selected more carefully and apostles know that it is not their platform to advance their opinions.
Also take into consideration that in modern times, the prophet and apostles have the option to ask top religion professors and scholars to read over their talks to make sure that the content is solid (and doesn't have opininated facts). Robert J. Matthews is one of those scholars who was asked to do that on occasion.
Another interesting thing to consider is that in the past prophets and apostles have used the term "Mormon" when President Nelson (and other past prophets) have reminded us that this is offensive to the Lord.
Even Book of Mormon prophets continually say that if there is fault it is their own, not the Lord's.
What I am saying is this... Looking at the past to interpret things can be messy. It's ok to think things through, especially when there are two (or more) different schools of thought.
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Round about the time I first saw your comment (in the early hours of this morning), I had to step away from replying to get a night's rest in view of my ongoing recuperation from my recent hospitalization.
ReplyDeleteI am well aware of the fact that different gospel scholars approach their positions on different issues in different ways, just as I am well aware that each of us has the freedom to think, reason, and decide for ourselves on any issue. But I have taken the Teachings of the Living Prophets class numerous times, and a few lessons from those classes spring to mind in relation to the fallibility of prophets. First of all, while none of these men is or claims to be perfect, they don't have to be: they just have to perfectly convey the will of the Lord to His people. Second, while prophets and apostles have consulted with experts in various fields when they lacked knowledge or understanding on how policies, doctrines, or procedures might affect or impact Church members, or the way the Church is seen by the world, the final say on such matters goes to the Brethren of the Church, as none of these gospel scholars would be naive enough to assert that any of their expressed positions are more harmonious with truth or with the will of the Lord for His people than those official positions taken by the Brethren, whose right it has been, continues to be, and will remain the power to have final say in those matters.
There is also a third principle at play here. Many people have questioned how to know when a prophet is speaking as such, and when he is merely voicing his own opinion. I am not at all comfortable with putting question marks behind anything any prophet or apostle has said. Rather, I believe that if I do my best to follow what is officially declared by such men, the Lord will reward me for doing so, and that if, for whatever reason, His chosen servants are merely speaking for themselves, the Lord will hold those men responsible for leading the Church astray in such cases. In other words, I choose to put an exclamation point rather than a question mark to what our prophets, seers, and revelators say. Others can do as they will. I am not comfortable doing so myself.
ReplyDeleteAs to the seeming contradiction between what previous apostles have taught as doctrine and what is accepted as such today, the Church has (as I hope you are aware) put out a series of gospel topics essays which clarify what is and is not known about why such seeming contradictions in doctrine and practice exist. If you have not done so recently, I would encourage you to look those over again. And just because previous apostles may have been speaking for themselves and not for the Church, that does not by extension indicate that modern apostles are doing the same thing. In fact, from everything i have seen, our current apostles have been very careful not to give their personal opinions. You cited examples of past apostles who did so: do you have any from the last 20 years which have later been corrected by the First Presidency? If so, you might have a point. If not, then my assumption is that, at least within that time, everything said by the apostles has received the endorsement of the Church President at that time (and therefore, that of the Lord Himself).
That said, it appears that the main point over which we differ is whether or not Lucifer's plan involved compelling each of us to comply with his plan. The following is a snippet from the Old Testament stories, which is still being sold by all distribution centers, and was last copyrighted in 1980. Two points going into my discussion of what I found there: First of all, if there had been corrections made, the Church would be offering a new edition. Second, I seriously doubt the Church would be attempting to indoctrinate children with an official resource that is not credible or is out of harmony with the scriptures or the Lord's will. Children are impressionable enough that the Church has done everything in its' power to make sure they are taught well, and taught correct doctrine. A failure to do so on their part would lead to such children falling away as they get older, which the Church would not want.
ReplyDeleteYou can find the PDF version of this volume at the following website:
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31118_eng.pdf
The first story in that volume, found on page 6, is entitled "Before the Old Testament". After taking time on pages 6 and 7 to outline the background of the plan, the first two blocks of text on page 8, along with the supporting scriptural references, illuminates the subject we are discussing here.
The relevant lines under the second picture are illustrative and illuminating: "He said he would make us be good. We could not choose. He would bring us all back to Heaven." Combined with the accompanying scriptures as support for those words, I don't think there can be much doubt. That said, I agree his idea wouldn't have worked. And God knew that. As you mentioned in the Book of Mormon passage you quoted, the plan all falls apart without agency. But the concept of cumpulsion by Lucifer is no different than what the Lord describes in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion. The mere suggestion of a plan without agency, driven by compulsion, was enough to make Lucifer and those who followed him guilty of attempted unrighteous dominion, for which they were cast out.
With all of this noted, I hope that I have satisfied you relating to this matter. You are still, as always, free to accept or believe whatever you want. But if an official source published in 1980 under the direction of many apostles and other Church leaders overseeing Church currriculum says this and has not been retracted, revised, or corrected within the 38 years since that time, that is a pretty good indicator that it is seen as gospel truth, and is still sanctioned as such by the Brethren. Let me know if you have any other questions. But if this additional comment suffices, I would not have a problem ending this conversation on this note. Thanks again.