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 fault for damaging doctrine.

                

What’s interesting about being so fresh out of this religion is that I recognize the circular reasoning, the non-answers and the doctrinal changes, and I react with indignation and frustration. The frustration stems mostly from the knowledge that a year ago I would have willfully ignored any previous doctrine (assuming I would have even recognized it) and I would have blindly accepted whatever these “men of god” deemed accurate. It’s frustrating to see people that I used to associate with on a very personal level fall victim to this herd mentality. I’m indignant because of this recognition.

                

The title of the article that started all this is Satan’s Rebellion by Mark Mathews. It can be found in the March 2015 Ensign. Mathews overall argument is that if members continue to misinterpret our pre-existence and the concept of god’s plan, damaging results (like legalizing gay marriage) will continue to be the result.

                

What he believes to be misinterpreted by church members is the idea that we had a choice in heaven between Jesus and Satan. Mathews argues that there never was a choice, and that the Church supports this claim. This is evidenced by the very existence of this article in the Ensign.

              

  I could go into a lot more detail on this article and give my reactions to the more salient issues, but to save on length, I’m going to resist the urge. It’s even ridiculous to argue about any of this as doctrine, considering that the Pearl of Great Price (where this story originates from), was the brain child of Joseph Smith, and therefore holds no water as far as the possibility of a pre-existence is concerned.

                

Just to prove to myself that I wasn’t remembering incorrectly, I researched the War in Heaven on lds.org (a Church sanctioned website) and found that every article or lesson I read through supported my memories. They all talk about a council in heaven, with being presented with two plans and then debating which one we would implement. Mathew’s article states otherwise. He says that we never had another choice. It was going to be god’s plan all along. It is amazing to me that members will accept the notion that we didn’t actually have a choice in heaven. This implies that the whole council in heaven would have been a charade instigated by god, who would have gone with his own plan regardless of our decision. He is not an objective judge. He never intended to give us “free agency” from the outset. Not only that, but this means Satan was damned over something that was never a viable option to begin with.

                

A popular trend in most of these articles and lessons was how they all indicate that Satan’s plan would force or coerce us into obedience and that god’s plan would only require him to persuade us. Coincidentally, these words all mean the same thing. They are synonymous, but the Church does a wonderful job masking the truth and manipulating it to fit our agenda. If god’s plan was so perfect, why would he need to persuade us at all? Oh wait, that’s right, he took away all our knowledge and hid himself from us.

                

One more thing that I would like to point out is that Jesus was predetermined to be the Chosen One from the very beginning. No one else was given a chance. This implies, at least to me, that even in heaven, god created all of the intelligences unequally. He made us imperfect from the outset. Either that, or god arbitrarily decided that the first born, of any family, would automatically be better than the others. Both seem likely, but seeing as how I’m the first born in my family, I’d say this tradition was not upheld.

                

Again, I recognize that it is ridiculous to argue details about an event that hasn’t been proven as factual, but things like this are slowly beginning to irritate, frustrate and then anger me because I now recognize that I was being spoon-fed bullshit and that I accepted it gratefully. I was told to trust these people implicitly, and I did.

                

War in heaven or not though, the article and the comment on Facebook are prime examples of the way the Church changes doctrine by subtly introducing a problem that doesn’t actually exist, and then redirecting the members attention to new doctrine that contradicts whatever was said previously; and they do all of this without calling attention to the discrepancies, or on the off chance that these are picked up, they quell any unrest by declaring that everything must be taken on faith. This tactic is deplorable and it’s maddening now that I have been made aware of their trickery.