T
Telstar
Guest
If the Mormon Jesus & Lucifer swapped plans, would Lucifer be our ‘savior’, instead? Or, if the father thought both of their plans were bad, and one of us had a better one, could one of us be the ‘savior’? 
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rainman10,
As a follow up comment, another question that could be asked that has some similarity, is the following:
Did Christ need to be baptized?
If the person being asked that question is told, “just answer yes or no”–then it puts them in the inadequate position of not being able to explain that the Savior said, when John asked “comest thou to me?”–
“for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15)
The Savior didn’t “need to be baptized”, but He did it–He was baptized, “to fulfil all righteousness.”
The Savior didn’t need to ask, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”–but He did it. He showed His humility, and showed “thus it becometh to fulfil all righteousness”, that He would ask that of His Father.
So let it be known that there are some things Jesus did to show the way for His followers, even though He was and is perfect and they (we) are not. He fulfilled all righteousness. He showed obedience to His Father and to His Father’s will. He prayed, “not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). He sought and did His Father’s will. His every act was according to His Father’s will. During His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, “being in an agony he prayed more earnestly”–He who was already perfect prayed more earnestly in the agony of those hours of the beginning of His atoning sacrifice for all humankind.
He merited the return to His Father in glory without “needing” to ask for it, but He showed His acknowledgement that it is the Father’s plan of salvation and glory, that the Father desires our prayers as well as He was “well pleased” with the Savior’s prayers, and that it was completely appropriate for Jesus, who merited the throne of glory through having lived a perfect life of obedience, to even yet pray “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
You don’t “get it.” The plan of salvation wasn’t the Savior’s “plan”–it was the Father’s plan.
When Lucifer rebelled, he was rebelling against the Father’s plan. He was also rebelling against the Savior and against the idea of coming to earth and being redeemed by the Savior and following the Savior–but it was the Father’s plan. You ought to make that distinction clearly in your mind.
As far as a “better” plan–there could be no “better” plan than the Father’s plan.
Your question also shows such little understanding of the Savior in the pre-mortal life. He was truly God the Son there, and we knew Him as such. The fact that the Savior offered to come to earth and be our Savior, shows His understanding of free will choice, and that He was making a free will choice–to do what?–to come here to earth, and ultimately suffer in agony for every one of us–
and what do we do with His gracious, loving gift? His offer to come to earth and be our Savior and Redeemer, knowing He would be “despised and rejected of men”?
T
Telstar
Guest
But, Parker, as I understand it, according to the BoM (or the PoGP… or wherever it is in LDS writings that the story is told), doesn’t it clearly say that Jesus offered the father his plan, then Lucifer offered his own plan, and the father had to pick between the two, which one he thought was best? How would it be called ‘the father’s plan’ if that were the case?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Testar,
What you have described shows a misunderstanding that is often shown by people who attempt to describe the Latter-day Saints belief about the Savior saying “Here am I, send me.” in response to the question, “And the Lord said, Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27)
That description is “en medias res”–“in the middle of things”. The words “Whom shall I send” shows that a plan had been presented, including the need for a Redeemer and Savior within that Plan of salvation. But the Father didn’t say, “In order to carry out this plan, I have selected my Beloved Only Begotten Son to be the One Sent to the earth to be your Savior”.
Instead, the Father showed that free will choice was in effect then, as did the loving Jehovah when Jehovah offered, “Here am I, send me.” He had chosen to be our Redeemer and Savior, and in so doing was showing complete agreement with the Father’s plan of redemption. But it was the Father’s plan–not the Son’s plan.
Moses 4:2 is also a glimpse “en medias res”–“in the middle of things”.
“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me–Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”
Moses 4:3 describes Satan’s rebellion, which is also described in Isaiah 14:13, 14 and the resulting casting out of heaven is described in Revelation 12:9.
Stephen168
New member
P
ParkerD
Guest
To those who read this statement quoted by Stephen168 that came from the King Follett Sermon of Joseph Smith, as transcribed in 1844:
Joseph Smith:
“The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he would save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him.”
Add to that statement, the following statement by Joseph Smith in 1841 (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181):
“At the first organization in heaven we were all present, and saw the Savior chosen and appointed and the plan of salvation made, and we sanctioned it.”
So indeed, we “gave our vote in favor of Jesus Christ” to be our Savior and Redeemer, since the Father was allowing us whether we would choose to accept His plan of salvation which included the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ the Anointed One, or some would choose to rebel as Lucifer was rebelling. (Some did make that other choice, as shown in Revelation 12:7).
We were making a double choice–the choice that we acknowledged that Jehovah was the “Chosen One”, chosen to be our Redeemer since He had offered Himself by saying, “Here am I, send me”, and thus the choice to accept Him and accept His role in the plan of salvation–and the choice to accept the Father’s plan of salvation which would bring us to earth as babies to be born and live and grow and eventually die, yet be resurrected through the atoning grace and power of the sacrifice and resurrection and holiness of Jesus Christ.
T
Telstar
Guest
So, you’re saying that you agree with the belief that Jesus was ‘voted in’ by the rest of the family and the council of gods, correct? In that case, then what if they had unanimously voted for Lucifer’s plan, instead? Would the father have had to choose in favor of Lucifer’s plan, then, because the majority always prevails? Do you believe that it is at least possible for that to have happened, since it was ultimately decided by ‘popular vote’, like in a democracy? Would the majority be allowed to rule if that were the case? Did the father have the ‘free will choice’ to still choose Jesus, even if he lost the popular vote of the council, or would the council remove his ‘choice’?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
Your questions here show a lack of understanding that God the Father knew us well enough, and knew that there were so very many of us who were ready to choose “in favor” of the plan of salvation and “in favor” of Jesus Christ being our Redeemer and Savior, the Anointed One, that He knew we were ready to make those kinds of eternal consequence choices.
Those kinds of “what if” questions plunge right into the territory where the rebellious spirits would like us to plunge into–since they are constantly seeking to justify their rebellion and mock our choice.
No, it is not “at least possible for that to have happened”, because the Father knew us, and knew we had the capacity to distinguish the light of a right choice from the darkness of a rebellious choice, and knew that He had strong spirits such as Michael and Abraham who would be able to help “our side” not be persuaded by Lucifer through his contention and rebellion and “accusations” as the “accuser”.
We weren’t so persuaded–we chose in favor of the Father’s plan of salvation and in favor that the center of that plan was the coming to this earth of Jehovah, the Savior and Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, to bring about our Redemption through His atoning grace.
Stephen168
New member
Which doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the fathers.
I don’t think you “get it.” “It” being the teaching of Joseph Smith.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Parker it is all well and good for you that you believe in those teachings. (But I hope one day that your eyes are opened as has happened for many Mormons who are here as Catholics now)
I cannot ever in any way believe what you preach here using whatever logic? or verses from books that are not scripture and are from a man who lived here in the US in the 1800s.
I think JS made the whole thing up. I don’t believe he ever had a vision.
Stephen168
New member
I agree, that is the moment of the Mormon Churches apostasy away from Christianity.
T
Telstar
Guest
Parker,
Considering those kinds of ‘what if’ questions is the way all human beings determine the voracity of any situation or belief that demands us to believe it ‘without question’ (the very first red flag goes up, right there). Whenever we are given a scenario that doesn’t seem to be logical, our minds automatically start asking ourselves those kinds of questions, so that we can come to understand it better and decide whether or not it’s really ‘believable’ at all. If those questions just provoke more and more unanswered questions, then the chances are, logic and truth are not involved in that scenario. God gave us our power of reasoning so that we wouldn’t be so easily fooled into believing whatever some stranger tries to tell us, especially about God.
God doesn’t want us to believe every Tom, Dick and Harry that tells us something about God as if they had first hand knowledge, especially if what they say is so vastly different than what anyone has ever told us, before. “John’s First Epistle, 4:1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” We are told to ‘put on trial’ whatever anyone tells us, by asking them valid questions, in order to determine whether they are telling the truth or not. If we can’t ask them the questions, directly, then we must ask ourselves those questions to determine if it seems logical or even plausible to believe it. In a case like this, we must also look at the person, themselves, and judge their level of holiness and their understanding of God, by their own words and actions. We should never risk our immortal souls by following an ‘unholy’ man.
Just because someone says that at 13 or 14 years old they claim to have had a “vision”, and later claim that they continue to have a direct line of communication to God, as a ‘prophet’, that doesn’t mean it’s true or that we should believe him just because he believes it, or that he ‘seems’ to be sincere. When his claims are so completely contrary to anything that has ever has been believed or taught by many Christian churches for almost 2000 years, we are even more compelled to question everything that he claims to be true, for that very reason. We are not making any accusations, we are just using our God given logic and reason to make sure that we are not deceived by anyone trying to send us in the wrong direction.
Contrary to what JS taught his followers, the Catholic Church has always had very high standards and means of determining the voracity of any claims of visions, or personal ‘revelation’, of those who follow Jesus. People that claim to have visions are a dime a dozen throughout Church history. Some of those were absolutely valid claims, based on the circumstances and holiness of the individuals involved. But, many more of them were only delusions that the enemy of God tries to pass off as true in order to fool us. The Church has many ways of determining which kind it is. I tend to trust them to know the difference, and to let us know if these people are worthy of belief.
The main thing that tells me that this entire scenario is extremely questionable is the fact that we’re to believe that God would ever make any of His decisions based on the ‘popular vote’ of any kind, made by His own creatures, or *anyone *else. God doesn’t need to ask anyone for permission to do whatever He wants to do. He just does it because it’s the right thing to do. He’s God. He doesn’t need our approval for anything.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
You misunderstood the idea of choosing–of being “in favor of” God’s plan of salvation and of Jehovah being our Redeemer and Savior, the Sent One as promised so many times in the Old Testament.
When Joshua asked the children of Israel, “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve,…: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)
That is a choice of the heart, and in pre-mortal life it was a choice given to us as spirits, with free will and with a real choice available to be made.
If the children of Israel had wholly chosen the “gods of the Amorites”, or whatever, it would have made no difference to Joshua–his choice was “we will serve the Lord”–and that is the same kind of situation: individual choice with personal consequences, regardless of how many were on one side of the choice being granted or how many were on the other side choosing to oppose God and His plan of salvation.
The important thing is that they (we) had been given free will choice–not force, not compulsion–a choice with consequences.
Wishing peace and good will to all readers.
Stephen168
New member
Who do Mormon’s think is the Savior?
M
Miriam1947
Guest
ParkerD,
We are not from a pre-mortal spirit life not matter how much you wish to believe that.
And you forgot to say free will choice.
Parker, pre-mortal-it just doesn’t work.
We are not from a pre-mortal spirit life not matter how much you wish to believe that.
And you forgot to say free will choice.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Miriam,
Perhaps you aren’t, but there certainly was a pre-mortal life. There were “angels which kept not their first estate,” (Jude 6) and there were angels which “kept their first estate”. There was “war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not;” (Revelation 12:7). The dragon was the “accuser of our brethren”. (v. 10) It is presented in the Bible, but is not “obvious”.
These events were known of by the apostles, as shown by John and Jude.
Not being obvious serves the good purpose of letting there be a sifting process and letting those who want to know something about their own pre-mortal life, desire to know and thus exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it out through the Holy Spirit.
But, perhaps you indeed weren’t there–it would be a new one: you’d be one of a kind.
D
Darren10
Guest
Seems like ParkerD is taking a beating. I stopped reading after the second page, it’s really late for me so this will have to do for now.
From SteveVH:
Jesus’ life, of course, was more than working out the will of the Father as an individual. He was to provide a way for man to return to God the Father. As the Book of Mormon teaches: “10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.” (Alma 34). Sacrifice literally means “to make holy” and in order to provide an “infinite and eternal sacrifice” He Himself had to be holy, unblemished from sin. Jesus always sought and obeyed the will of the Father. Jesus, therefore, being a perfect being and being of divine origin as the literal Only Begotten of the Father, could and did make a divine sacrifice “infinite and eternal” on behalf of fallen and imperfect man. Because of man’s fallen state, he could never achieve salvation on his own. King Benjamin taught: “I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.” (Mosiah 2). Thus Jesus interceded on behalf of man.
Here is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints teaches regarding the Lord Jesus Christ and His origin and mortal ministry: “5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.” (Mosiah 3). So what did he “need” salvation from? The following passage may help: " 5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" (2 Nephi 31). In this scripture, Nephi pronounces Jesus’ holiness and the “need” for baptism. Why did He need it? " 7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. 8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove." (2 Nephi 31). Jesus, like all of us, needed to fulfill the will of the Father. And, as noted in the scripture, if He needed to fulfill the will of the Father, then how much more do we, being sinners, need to fulfill the will of the Father. Jesus blessedly showed us the way to the Father by both His word and example. Furthermore, He Himself provided the way to the Father through repentance.
So, Jesus had no need to achieve salvation from anything imperfect; but He did need to fulfill the will of the Father. By doing so, we can justly look to Jesus as the perfect example of how to live.
The Book of Mormon is part of the LDS canon and thus doctrine. The king Follet Report is not and thus has no bearing upon the LDs faith or worship. According to our worship we believe that there is no “beginning” in the sense of anything before God. The idea that God the Father was once a mortal man settles well with me but do understand that it’s merely an idea, not doctrine; nor worship.
That’s all I have for now. I may come back later. I appreciate the time and space offered to me by this site.
From SteveVH:
and…
For the first question, “did Jesus need salvation”? Strictly speaking, yes, He did (and this is from my understanding of Mormon doctrine). Jesus needed to show the way for all to be saved. In LDS theology that means to achieve the highest degree of glory with God the Father. While in mortality Jesus suffered as a mortal man suffered, was tempted as mortal man was tempted, and was subject unto the Father as all mortal men/creatures are. He showed us all the way in an exact and perfect manner. He fulfilled all that the Father had Him to do; as should we all.
Jesus’ life, of course, was more than working out the will of the Father as an individual. He was to provide a way for man to return to God the Father. As the Book of Mormon teaches: “10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.” (Alma 34). Sacrifice literally means “to make holy” and in order to provide an “infinite and eternal sacrifice” He Himself had to be holy, unblemished from sin. Jesus always sought and obeyed the will of the Father. Jesus, therefore, being a perfect being and being of divine origin as the literal Only Begotten of the Father, could and did make a divine sacrifice “infinite and eternal” on behalf of fallen and imperfect man. Because of man’s fallen state, he could never achieve salvation on his own. King Benjamin taught: “I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.” (Mosiah 2). Thus Jesus interceded on behalf of man.
Here is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints teaches regarding the Lord Jesus Christ and His origin and mortal ministry: “5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.” (Mosiah 3). So what did he “need” salvation from? The following passage may help: " 5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" (2 Nephi 31). In this scripture, Nephi pronounces Jesus’ holiness and the “need” for baptism. Why did He need it? " 7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. 8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove." (2 Nephi 31). Jesus, like all of us, needed to fulfill the will of the Father. And, as noted in the scripture, if He needed to fulfill the will of the Father, then how much more do we, being sinners, need to fulfill the will of the Father. Jesus blessedly showed us the way to the Father by both His word and example. Furthermore, He Himself provided the way to the Father through repentance.
So, Jesus had no need to achieve salvation from anything imperfect; but He did need to fulfill the will of the Father. By doing so, we can justly look to Jesus as the perfect example of how to live.
The Book of Mormon is part of the LDS canon and thus doctrine. The king Follet Report is not and thus has no bearing upon the LDs faith or worship. According to our worship we believe that there is no “beginning” in the sense of anything before God. The idea that God the Father was once a mortal man settles well with me but do understand that it’s merely an idea, not doctrine; nor worship.
That’s all I have for now. I may come back later. I appreciate the time and space offered to me by this site.
D
Darren10
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think someone hit it on the head when they said, Jesus didn’t come to save us from a lower glory. (Sorry I don’t remember who said it.)
That seems to be the Mormon position, Jesus had to save Himself from a lower glory, and by doing so, showed everyone else how to save themselves. (?)
That seems to be the Mormon position, Jesus had to save Himself from a lower glory, and by doing so, showed everyone else how to save themselves. (?)
- Status