Hello To Everyone,
I want to tell you what I believe about why Lucifer chose to attempt an overthrow of Heavenly Father. I will use scriptures from the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
First I want you to think about everything that goes on in the world today and all of the unfortunate opportunities that people have to be led into destructive decisions. Now think to yourself, what sort of opposition could have influenced Lucifer to do what he did and convince others?
What is your conception of the pre-existence? At the end of this opinionated post you might expand your understanding of what existed there.
The principle of an opposition in all things precedes the Fall of Adam and Eve, just like the Priesthood precedes Jehovah and Elohim.
The number one reason why Lucifer did what he did was because he had seen it done before and work. This certainly ups the ante in the Great War of Heaven and rebukes the "All is well in Zion." attitude.
Everything that Jesus Christ did he learned from his Father in Heaven. John 8:28,
Interesting,
Thanks for the post. I am not sure that I agree though. I cannot agree that God had some fallen "family member' that tutored Satan. First, there is no scriptural basis for this. This is something that is not even hinted too. So I must not accept this point simply because of this reason. Besides the logic seems counter to what we know. (What little we do know). If we know that Satan will be in outer darkness, then logic would say any other Satanic beings would ultimately be there as well. So who would be around for him to learn from? I do not think that there was a dark Sith leader to tutor him.
As for the atonement- It is clear you have been influenced by Skousen's work. As I have mentioned in other threads, there are some theological problems with his ideas. With that said, I am unsure how you conclude that "Elohim" would have to atone for the sins of man" if Christ did not, thus ceasing to be God. This seems to contradict Skousen's theory which you expand upon. Skousen would say that God would not atone for the sins of man, because he has to maintain justice, thus the plan of salvation would be not. We would all then be held to the fate of justice. So I am not sure how you change that conclusion.
First off I believe that justice is taken out of context. It metaphoric, and the Hebrew notion of Justice is much different then what you or I think. Especially different then a medieval notion of justice that you and Skousen suggest. It is not just to have another suffer on your behalf for another's' sin. That is not justice especially in a liberal since of justice. (This may work in a utilitarian since of justice, but that is debatable.) With that said I do think Skousen's work is a step in the right direction.
Secondly God would cease to be God because He is Justice. It is not something he possesses, but rather it is what he is. Just like any of his attributes. If he ceased to be just then he would cease to be himself, thus he would not be God. It would be like telling you to stop being you. You would cease to be. This is what Alma is saying that we can be assured that God is Just simply because he exists, not that if he breaks a law he would loose his status. (one of the problems with Skousens' ideas)
Anyway I appreciate your willingness to share your ideas.
Hi Isiah53,
I really appreciate your response. I have never read or heard anything from a Skousen so I cannot comment on what Skousen proposed. What I can explain is how I feel.
I don't believe the requirement for the atonement is as eternal as the Priesthood. I think that the requirement for an atonement did not appear until well after the First Gods began to be. And, I do not believe that the First Gods began to be through an atonement of some sort. I believe they started as intelligences and progressed while gaining power to command the elements, with the elements themselves having agency and obeying on their own will. So they very well could have started as Spirits and progressed to Godhood in a different way than you and I will.
I think that the way in which the original Gods began to be caused some logistical issues. Such as ceasing to be God, and other scenarios we can think about (that would contribute to grief and war).
I believe that the atonement and outer darkness and other aspects of law was a fix put into place after the fact. I believe Elohim might have been the first to have held the calling of Savior. Jesus Christ being the second (But it would make better sense that Elohim came up with the plan of having a savior and Jesus Christ is the first one to do it. So Jesus Christ can learn it from Elohim without Elohim ever doing it himself).
This is how Lucifer could have learned from others without the law being broken.
Think of it this way too. Exaltation could have had a lesser and now today higher law. I don't believe the first gods began to be in the same way we will, nor the same way Jesus Christ has.
Does this make sense?
In summary, first gods became gods without a savior. Lucifer knew and saw this. Jesus Christ and the atonement becomes the fix to certain issues. Today, the only way to Exaltation is through the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
EDIT: P.S- I forgot to address one question you had.
Frothnim,
I'm going post a few quotes from Cleon Skousen. Although I can't say he is 100% accurate, I do think he gets it closer than most. He will definitely give you somethings to think about, and to pray about their truth. You seem to be on the right track here and there, but I have to agree with Isiah53 when it come to lucifer seeing slave kingdoms,and wanting to duplicate it.Thats a little far fetched for me. Everything inside Gods kingdom is Gods alone. Everything outside Gods kingdom is darkness and chaos.
As far as God becoming God, I think that it says in Abraham, that He was in the midst of all the intelligences,realized He was more intelligent than them all, and began to organise them. I guess that means He's been God ever since then.
Anyways here are some Skousen Quotes from his book Gospel Diamond Dust:
Continued:
That seems in line with what I am thinking. There is nothing there that contradicts what I am proposing. In fact, it makes a lot of sense for a Post Grand Council View. What I am saying is that there was a difference between Pre Grand Council and Post Grand Council.
What I mentioned before was that the first Gods did not become God through a Savior. But we will. That is a huge difference right there. (But that is not to say one is wrong and the other is right. I know that the system we currently have is the best)
The next time you attend an Endowment Session think about every word that is said and ask yourself what does it mean and why is it said. I wish I could point it out to you, but to do that I'd have to be in the temple with you.
While a lot of things are eternal, there are some things that have seasons. Of course, if you believe every law always existed and is eternal than you can easily reject what I am saying. I believe certain things are eternal and other things are not.
Some people cannot explain how Lucifer fell. How his ideas crept into his mind, especially since he was in an environment far better than anything we could experience on Earth where no evil existed. Some people say that if an opposition must exist then God created it. But I am telling you this is not the case. That God was not responsible for making Lucifer who he became.
A wayward son lives in a righteous household. Everything around him is proper and he behaves himself like his other siblings within his home, but when he leaves his home he makes very destructive decisions. What he does outside the home would never be taught in his home and if he never left his home he would never know about or participate in those other things. This is a very black and white way of looking at it. If Lucifer didn't learn how to be what he became in the presence of Elohim, where and how did he learn it?
This is why I am saying that at some point in time there was a change in the way things were done. Again, focus on the Endowment Ceremony.
A Frothnim Pre Grand Council View and a Skousen Post Grand Council View can go hand in hand and not contradict, with the latter fulfilling the former.
Frothnim said