A question about Satan's plan

[Webster]

How would Satan have implemented his proposal to save all?

I ask this because I have seen various ideas on the internet and was wondering what others thought. Take the poll and briefly share your ideas (or ideas you may have heard of) if you wish. Feel free to refer to books, articles, or websites if you like. Please no arguments.

[Just_A_Guy]

What's the difference between your options 2) and 4)?

[a-train]

We know that Satan sought to take away man's agency (Moses 4:3). His plan was one of prevention, of preemption, of proactive control, of man's dependence on him. The LORD's plan was one of liberty, of a probationary state, of a judgment that would come only in the end, of man's independence through the Atonement of the Lamb.

That war in heaven was fought over this point: agency. Satan would have us give away our responsibilities and with them our control. And as Lehi so well pointed out in 2 Nephi 2, "righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

What was Satan's plan? To politicize salvation. Salvation under Satan's plan comes not through sacrifice, not through the merit, mercy, and power of the Messiah, but through Satan's benevolent dictatorship. Under this plan, evil would never be admitted into the earth. Satan, our dictator, would personally see to it and we all would be subjects of his. The political power structure under him would prevent any man to choose evil. But as Lehi pointed out, his preemption would also keep man from choosing good.

The LORD protected opposition, freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and ultimately our agency. (Moses 7:32).

The war in heaven that resulted on the question of agency continues today. In fact, the war rages tremendously. Those who were on the side of captivity, kept not their first estate. Those of us who stood on the side of agency came to the earth. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It is the second Article of Faith.

From Adam to this day, Satan has inspired men to take up paths toward political control of human beings. At every turn we are being pressured to accept some level of captivity, to give up some level of our agency. The pressure is shaded in tempting language, we are promised all the benefits of success without the hazards of responsibility, "one soul shall not be lost." (Moses 4:1) Indeed, many of those who support the usurpation of agency and the end of freedom have every good intention. They say: "Just give us control and we will end hunger, we will end poverty, we will end ignorance, we will take away the evils of the world."

All of these good intentions cannot make their failing efforts succeed. Men are constantly told: "Just give up one more freedom and that will be enough." After it is gone, another is always required to chase the ever illusive utopian ideal of a world without evil. What is worse, freedom itself is blamed for the evils of the world: "If only people could not choose evil, then there would be none." The only thing every really accomplished is the aggrandizement of a few through politicization at the expense of the many: "wherefore give me thine honor."

Our very salvation depended on our support for agency in the pre-mortal world. Can it be any different in our Second Estate?

"To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences?" -Ezra Taft Benson

-a-train

[Webster]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

What's the difference between your options 2) and 4)?

The above choices are not my own; they are various ideas that I've heard before. In my mind 3) and 4) are somewhat similar as it seems the intent of both is to make it so people do not sin, either by force or by changing the rules. The difference between 2) and 4) in my opinion, is that 4) changes the rules so people do not sin or are declared innocent while 2) implies that people would not be held accountable even when they do what's wrong, but they would be redeemed unconditionally anyway.

By the way, these are just the major ideas I've come across. Any others, or variations, are welcome.

[Giant_Son]

I vote for #2. He would not take away our agency by forcing us to choose correctly, but to take away the laws. If there are no commandments, there is no sin, and we return clean. We are born, live as a natural man (but not contrary to any law - thus no sin), and then we die. There is no development or redemption. My vision of Lucifer's plan is Anarchy and not Stepford. That was my impression anyway ... Thoughts?

[Webster]

Originally Posted by Giant_Son

I vote for #2. He would not take away our agency by forcing us to choose correctly, but to take away the laws. If there are no commandments, there is no sin, and we return clean. We are born, live as a natural man (but not contrary to any law - thus no sin), and then we die. There is no development or redemption. My vision of Lucifer's plan is Anarchy and not Stepford. That was my impression anyway ... Thoughts?

What you said sounds like #4 to me. How is it different from #4, or what is it about #2 that you liked better? (My comment #4 above tries to differentiate numbers 2 and 4, but you may agree with my description.)

[Giant_Son]

Originally Posted by Webster

What you said sounds like #4 to me. How is it different from #4, or what is it about #2 that you liked better? (My comment #4 above tries to differentiate numbers 2 and 4, but you may agree with my description.)

Not holding anyone accountable and making nothing evil sounds like the same thing to me.

[Justice]

The plan was Heavenly Father's.

Christ wanted to follow through with it verbatim, as Father presented it. He also offered to be the Savior, if it was the Father's will.

Satan thought by changing one part of Father's plan it would allow all His children to return to Him. He wanted to remove agency.

There are certain reasons I have come to know why he wanted to remove agency, but it was his idea that he could expose all men to good and evil, and force them to choose the good. To force someone to do something is removing agency.

The answer is 3.

[Webster]

Originally Posted by Giant_Son

Not holding anyone accountable and making nothing evil sounds like the same thing to me.

To me, they are opposites. If accountability is destroyed but laws still exist, you can do evil and be saved. If laws are destroyed then accountability is a moot point, since there is nothing you can do that is evil. In one, evil is possible but ignored; in the other, evil is impossible. One assumes law is eternal; the other assumes law is changeable.

Just my opinion, but I still think I see what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that Satan would not force righteousness. Instead, (regardless of the mechanics) he would make it so there was no penalty involved.

[Giant_Son]

Originally Posted by Webster

To me, they are opposites. If accountability is destroyed but laws still exist, you can do evil and be saved. If laws are destroyed then accountability is a moot point, since there is nothing you can do that is evil. In one, evil is possible but ignored; in the other, evil is impossible. One assumes law is eternal; the other assumes law is changeable.

Just my opinion, but I still think I see what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that Satan would not force righteousness. Instead, (regardless of the mechanics) he would make it so there was no penalty involved.

Webster, you're right that they're different - thanks for explaining. Your conclusion is right, though. My statement was that Satan's plan was to null the effects of justice (most likely by taking away the law, not the payment of sin). I guess that I would go with #4, then.

But, of course, I could be very wrong. I'm not basing my conclusion on any scripture. Justice could very well be right - his explanation sounds very reasonable to me, too.