I had to Mormonize my Easter Lesson

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I don't have my scriptures in front of me so I could be way off here but I think it could be argued that Satan's plan was never actually on the table and thus never a real option. Satan presented his plan but in reality wasn't it just a criticism of the actual plan? One third agreed with his "plan" but even if it had been 2/3 I've seen nothing that would convince me that his plan had a chance of being put into effect. Christ's plan was THE plan. Satan's was a rebellion.

This conjures images of some sort of celestial sacrament meeting and when somoene asks if any are opposed, Ssatan is the guy thatstands upo and raised his hand. WHen told to take it up in the foyer afterwards, 1/3 of the people go with him. Not meant to be sacreligious, but in a snese perhaps this describes the process?

[Archaea]

Creek, I'm having trouble taking anything you post seriously as long as that chicken stares at me.

I chuckle with my secretary wondering what's going on.

I imagine many meetings and everybody mixing it up after the presentations are made. Perhaps we are even shown the exact lives we would lead, and that made some upset.

I like the sacrament meeting analogy. And I bet Lucifer didn't fully comprehend the full import of his offer or rejection.

OTH, I've often wondered what it means when Lucifer states, "I'm only doing what's been done in other worlds." Of course, he's a liar, so there's bound to be deception in every statement, but it has made me wonder.

[Dan]

If Satan had his way, we would not have had agency. Clear as mud?? I think the reason why we would not have had agency and why we all would have been pure enough to return and live with God is because Satan would not have tempted us. If he were not there to tempt us, we would not have acted incorrectly. But on the other hand, we would not have acted at all in making any eternal progress. Satan would not have forced us into submission, thereby making us forego our agency, rather I think it was his idea to remove temptation (and, therefore, sin).

For mankind, I think the plan that was enacted in this world was similar to the plan enacted in other worlds previously, therefore, I think Lucifer got the bright idea that he had a better way, but when his way was rejected he probably went along with things how they had been previously, all the while thinking his genius would be able to thwart the plan somewhere.

If we are looking at the doing what's been done in other worlds on a personal level (remember the scriptures, temple, etc. are parables that teach on many levels) each one of us is created, partakes of the fruit of that tree and then falls (I went over a lot of personal symbolism of these things in a couple of prior threads a couple months ago). On a personal level, each individual "world" is a "person". In fact, the more you read Joseph Smith, you will notice he often used the word "world" to refer to a person, or many worlds to refer to many people. So if we are looking at the creation as it relates to us individually, and we are led to fall indivudually and Lucifer claimes he was only doing what has been done in other worlds, we can see that this is true in that he has been giving the fruit of that tree to other people ("worlds") long before us and he will continue to do so long after us.

In fact, try this one thing and see how it potentially makes a huge impact on your understanding of the temple ceremony. Any time the words "world" or "worlds" are used, insert the word "person" or "people". That one thing may cause a flood of new or higher understanding to flush over your mind. Give it a try, nothing to lose.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Dan

In fact, try this one thing and see how it potentially makes a huge impact on your understanding of the temple ceremony. Any time the words "world" or "worlds" are used, insert the word "person" or "people". That one thing may cause a flood of new or higher understanding to flush over your mind. Give it a try, nothing to lose.

My temple worship has changed as I view things differently. My ideas of temple, family, who I am, what the 'church' is, has all evolved into a different level of thought. I feel I've personally benefitted from a shift in paradigm....

[Dan]

... insert the word "body" [not "person"] any time the word "world" is used.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by creekster

This conjures images of some sort of celestial sacrament meeting and when somoene asks if any are opposed, Ssatan is the guy thatstands upo and raised his hand. WHen told to take it up in the foyer afterwards, 1/3 of the people go with him. Not meant to be sacreligious, but in a snese perhaps this describes the process?

Don't know how I missed this post before. That's a good example.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Dan

Satan would not have forced us into submission, thereby making us forego our agency, rather I think it was his idea to remove temptation (and, therefore, sin).

That is an astonishing paradox, if true. The difficulty that I am having with it is that if Satan understands the choice between an existence with temptation and one without it, then certainly he contemplates that there is a source of temptation. But surely he is not contemplating that it would be himself in the context of considering these options?

I am probably out on a limb here (yes I know Satans greatest lie is that he doesn't exist) but it has always been easier for me to believe that the natural man is an enemy to God (or to say it another way the sinful nature of man is an emeny to God) than it has been to believe that a being is the source of evil. I personally think that Satan is the personification of evil, but he cannot be its source IMO.

I do think he has influence but I also think that it is in our nature to do evil, to sate our appetites and to act selfishly. As we live, we learn to suppress the carnal desires for the good of the whole, or in many cases funnel them into socially acceptable channels. Eventually, our nature changes but in our "natural" state we are an enemy to God.

I don't know that I believe that it is necessary for their to be a Satan in order for their to be tempation in mortality. I believe that it happens in this case that there is, I'm just not sure that it must necessarily be so. If Satan IS necessary, then the plan would be frustated not by disobedience, but by obedience. I can't see how God can be at the mercy such a scenario. I am curious to know if others disagree, however.