Skip to main content

The War in Heaven, Part 1: What was the Point?

According to Mormon mythology, the war in heaven occurred before we were sent to earth. This war was incited by Satan, who presented a plan that was contrary to god’s plan. These plans were what would decide how we would live our lives on earth. God’s plan was to send us to earth to have physical bodies and to be tested. This test would be gods way to see if we would follow everything he said:
And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
                                                                Abraham 3:25
[Please note that Abraham is in the Pearl of Great Price, a book that was “translated” by Joseph Smith.]

The price for failing his “test” is to end up in one of the lower tiers of heaven, apart from families and without the presence of god, or in outer darkness (hell) for eternity. God called this free agency, and claimed it was a gift. While I think that agency is indeed, a wonderful gift, god’s concept of free agency seems contradictory to the thing itself.

Satan’s plan, similar in all ways but one, thought that rather than only a few of us being saved in the end, he would save us all. His only request was to receive the glory himself, rather than allow god to have the glory. Let’s be honest though, god doesn't contribute a whole lot to this grand plan, whether it’s Satan or Jesus who saves us all. He’s not the one suffering on earth and then allowing people to crucify him. His whole idea was to send someone else to suffer and die for our sins, rather than take the burden upon himself. Both Satan and Jesus were willing to take on this burden, but because Jesus was willing to give the glory to god, he got the gig. Lucky bastard.

The way the myth proceeds, is that we, as intelligence's, were allowed to decide whose plan we wanted to make “The Plan”, and we fought it out, although with words, not our fists. This was the first great debate, if you will. Ultimately Satan lost, and along with 1/3 of the host of heavenly beings who advocated for him, Satan was cast out of heaven forever, with no hope of ever having bodies of their own.

Mormons are taught that Satan and his hosts are continuing their fight by enticing us away from god. I suppose that this is more or less how most religions view Satan. He has been labelled as the Great Deceiver, the Father of all Lies, the Adversary, and all this because he wanted to SAVE EVERYBODY. A crime indeed.

Mormons call our existence before earth “Pre-Existence”, where we were intelligence's capable of learning and essentially making our own decisions. Why did we need to come to earth to receive bodies? Why are these bodies essential to our salvation? Why did we need saving? We were already living in the presence of god, choosing and learning for ourselves. What did we need saving from? Certainly not ourselves. We weren't imperfect beings yet. 

A staunch believer in Mormonism may answer some of the preceding questions as follows: “We needed bodies so we could become like god, who already had a physical body.” Setting aside the absurd notion that a physical body can literally exist in an immaterial world, you might ask something along the lines of, why couldn't god have just given us physical bodies in heaven? “Well that just wasn't part of god’s plan. He couldn't give us bodies in heaven because we needed to be tested,” would be the insightful response. Why do we need to be tested, and why is coming to earth and having a physical body an essential part of this plan? Mormon’s thrive on the idea that the whole reason for this test on earth is so that we can not only be like god, but become god’s ourselves. I touched on this idea of the Mormon belief in becoming gods in an earlier post, so I won't go into it here. But one is still left wonder, What the Hell was the Point!?

In Jesus the Christ, an LDS manual (with a page count of almost 800), written by James E. Talmudge- and legend has it that he wrote this in a room in the temple that only the First Presidency is allowed in, so it’s extra special- I found the following passage:

Thus it is shown that prior to the placing of man upon the earth, how long before we do not know, Christ and Satan, together with the host of the spirit children of god, existed as intelligent individuals, possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue and the leaders whom they would follow and obey.

There are at least two ways to interpret this passage. One is to assume that Talmudge is only referring to the choice between two plans and their leaders when he writes that we were “intelligent individuals, possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue…”. Another interpretation could be that this passage is alluding to the idea that this power we possessed contributed to our capability to learn. That’s what intelligence means, right? Why was this choice necessary? What couldn't we learn in heaven, of all places, and in the presence of god, no less, who is supposed to be an all knowing, all powerful being?

From a Mormon’s understanding of god’s “plan” and why we’re here on earth, the ultimate goal is to not just become like god physically, but to become gods ourselves, and for some inexplicable reason, we had to leave the presence of a god, to learn to become a god, while having our knowledge of god and our preexistence withheld from us.

Another absurdity comes in the form of “free agency”. Mormons love to promote the belief that Satan’s Plan would not have allowed us free agency. He would have “coerced” us into following the rules and thus he would save us all. I find this belief nonsensical because nowhere in Satan’s plan did he ever say that we wouldn't be able to make choices for ourselves on earth. The following passage is from Moses 4, another book from the Pearl of Great Price:

v.1 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 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.
v.3 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;

How does the phrase, “I will redeem all mankind” translate to “they will have no choice but to follow my commandments”? The above passages are as detailed as Satan’s plan gets. All other details that may be included in lessons or discussions do not come from the scriptures. They have been made up in an effort to uplift the image of god and further denigrate the image of Satan. God says in the above versus that Satan’s plan would mean we would not have free agency, but I think it’s important to address what we really wouldn't be able to “choose” between. 

Satan’s plan could very well have been to allow us the agency to choose how to live our lives while on earth, but despite those choices, we would all still have been saved. God didn’t want this though. He only wanted those who worshiped him unconditionally to be saved. Now perhaps, from a parental perspective, god’s plan does actually seem to be the most beneficial choice to the development of his children (which is what Mormon’s like to point out), but god’s plan didn’t have to happen in the first place! It’s like he suddenly got bored in heaven and felt crowded by all his spirit children, so he designed a ridiculous test that absolutely no one would be able to pass with a 100% which subsequently guarantees that not all of his “children” will return to live with him again. Why create such an unnecessary test and then implement it only after taking away our greatest tool (which we had in heaven): knowledge of our pre-earth life.

On an episode of Dogma Debate, Lydia says to their Mormon guest speaker (and I’m paraphrasing) that the idea of life being a test is silly. Five year olds don’t take the SAT because they haven’t acquired enough knowledge. Life as a test is ridiculous because we weren’t allowed to take all of the information with us. God hid himself from us.

He did all of this ON PURPOSE. What kind of a teacher is that?

Some may argue that he did give us a tool: the Bible, and in the Mormon’s case, the Book of Mormon. But as has been pointed out countless times by minds much brighter than mine, every single one of these books was written either before Jesus’ time or after. Neither Jesus nor god himself wrote anything down. We just have the hearsay of “prophets” of old, and even of today.

In my mind, Satan’s plan accounted for this lack of knowledge, and rather than punish us for something that was out of our control, he was going to save us all. God’s idea of free agency is to let us “choose”, through our actions on earth, whether we go to Heaven or Hell in end. This is god’s idea of free agency.

God rejected Satan’s proposal because he wanted to get rid of a bunch of his spirit children by imposing an impossible test on them and the inexplicable reason for this test was so we could return to live in the place that we already living in, presumably in harmony, just to see if everyone would make it back. God’s plan was solid.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Response to Mr. Greg Trimble

(Apologies for another long post) In a perusal of my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across a lovely article that a neighbor of my parents shared entitled “So…You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud” . Mr. Trimble, who authored this lovely article, uses the typical Mormon circular reasoning that states that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet; and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same Church that Christ established while he was on Earth. So in the Mormon mind, it all comes down to whether the BOM is true or not, and for this, they rely on warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that the Book is in fact, true. Mr. Trimble states that he noticed that most of the people who criticize the Book of Mormon the loudest, have not actually read it. While this may be true, I don’t think a person needs to read a book fully to understand whether it’s true or not. That’s what research is for. Reading the Book of Morm

The War in Heaven; Part 2

                I suggest that the extreme horribleness of hell, as portrayed by priests and nuns, is inflated to compensate for its implausibility. If hell were plausible, it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter. Given that it is so unlikely to be true, it has to be advertised as very scar indeed, to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value.                                 Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, pg. 361  I began the first part of this post because of a comment on Facebook and the article that it linked to. I was frustrated by both because they contradict the doctrine I was taught throughout my relation with the Church and they blatantly ignore that it was the same for every member up to the publishing of this article. Not only this, but they make it sound as though the members who believe that we had a choice in heaven between Satan and Jesus (almost every single member) misinterpreted these lessons, and they are the ones at fau

I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective. I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11 th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support. The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent