This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central
from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central
Download PDF
Download audio recording
Figure 1. Pieter Bruegel, the Elder, ca. 1525–1569: The Fall of the Rebel Angels, 1562.
In Essay #60, an overview was given of the proposals put forth in the council of heaven for the salvation of mankind. In the present essay, we attempt to attempt to answer related questions in more detail:
- What was the nature of Satan’s proposal to “redeem all mankind”?[1]
- How did he intend to “destroy the agency of man”?[2]
- Was his failed proposal ultimately feasible?
- Why was it essential that premortal spirits be given the opportunity to receive a body?
Thinking Twice About Common Assumptions
Because we know so little about the details of the “war in heaven,”[3] it is not surprising that Church members have gradually filled in details of the story as best they can on their own. In doing so, a set of basic assumptions about Satan’s premortal plans and doings have become widely accepted. For example, it is often assumed that the gist of Satan’s premortal proposal was that he would “‘save’ all of the Father’s children by forcing each to obey the Father’s law in all things.”[4] However, in light of what the Book of Mormon teaches and Joseph Smith’s statements on the subject, these assumptions should not be taken for granted. As we will see below, closer study offers a more likely alternative: namely that Satan put forth a proposal to “save … people in their sins,”[5] notably including the sons of perdition.
In addition, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon reveals that Satan’s proposal to “destroy the agency of man”[6] is not described as an impossible attempt to force people to obey but rather as a scheme to prevent humankind from experiencing a mortal probation after the Fall.
“I Will Redeem All Mankind.”
The best-known version of a commentary by Joseph Smith on Satan’s premortal intentions comes from a discourse recorded in rough notes within William Clayton’s official diary and later smoothed out by Church historians:[7]
The contention in Heaven was — Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the Devil said he could 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.
The most common understanding of this statement is that it implies a difference in the consequences of the two plans for mankind in general. In other words, it is generally supposed by Latter-day Saints that, according to the plan advocated by Jesus, only the righteous would be saved, whereas in the Devil’s plan, “all generations of man… would be returned into the presence of God.”[8]
A correct understanding of this passage depends on how we interpreter the term “certain souls” when it mentions that “certain souls … would not be saved.” By comparing William Clayton’s journal entry with the notes of others who heard Joseph Smith’s discourse it becomes clear that the “contention in Heaven” was not about whether ordinary souls would make it to heaven if no one forced them to be obedient in all things. Rather, the contention had to do with Satan’s deceptive claim that he was capable of saving even those relatively few individuals who would commit the unpardonable sin — in response to the premortal Jesus Christ’s previous statement He could not save such souls.[9] According to the notes in George Laub’s journal, Joseph Smith said that Satan “boasted of himself saying, ‘Send me, I can save all, even those who sinned against the Holy Ghost.’”[10]
Contradicting Satan’s boast, Wilford Woodruff recorded that Joseph Smith taught: “Jesus Christ will save all except the sons of perdition.”[11] In other words, the Atonement of Jesus Christ would guarantee that all except the sons of perdition would be “resurrected to [at least] a telestial glory, escaping the second, i.e., spiritual, death.”[12]
Apparently, the Prophet taught that when Satan proposed to “save all,” he was not thinking broadly, as Jesus did, about how to help the mass of humanity achieve salvation, but rather was focused on concocting a narrow, selfish, and farfetched proposal whose stated objective was to “save” the sons of perdition. Seemingly trying to do away with the need for an Atonement, Satan “sought… to redeem… all in their sins.”[13] Following the logic of Laub’s account, this option presumably would have been most appealing to those spirits who would stand to benefit most from it; namely, those who had already manifested a proclivity toward the unpardonable sin—and, preeminently, Satan himself.
We will return to this subject after we take a look at the second question.
“Satan … Sought to Destroy the Agency of Man.”
The Book of Moses states that Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man.”[14] The means by which this would have been accomplished have not been authoritatively explained. However, a common Latter-day Saint assumption is that, as part of the Devil’s premortal proposal, an element of compulsion was required—the idea that Satan advocated “the assertion of raw power to coerce moral sanctity from humanity.”[15] For example, in an article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Chauncey Riddle writes: “Lucifer’s plan proposed to ‘save’ all of the Father’s children by forcing each to obey the Father’s law in all things.”[16] Similarly, Victor Ludlow states that: “Lucifer… wanted to modify our agency so that there would be no opportunity at all to sin, thus enabling all God’s children to return to their celestial existence.”[17]
Yet, at least insofar as an analogy can be drawn between what was contemplated in this proposal and life on earth today, Latter-day Saint theology seems to preclude the possibility that such a plan could have succeeded. Drawing a distinction between “agency (the power of choice)” and “freedom, the right to act upon our choices,”[18] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, argued that though it is possible for our freedom to be curtailed, “no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality”[19] The principle of agency is part of humankind’s eternal nature,[20] and continues to operate even in the most coercive situations imaginable.[21]
Moreover, even if there were a way that people could be continually compelled to “do the right things,” Elder Oaks argues that they could not qualify to enter God’s presence without a concomitant transformation of their natures.[22] It is evident that salvation cannot be obtained through mere abstinence from sin, nor from the completion of some number of outwardly benevolent actions. As C. S. Lewis wrote: “We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules; whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.”[23] Thus, as James McLachlan insightfully summarizes: “There is a strong sense in Latter-day Saint doctrine that Satan’s coercive plan is a lie from the beginning because it is a rejection of reality itself which is based on the agency, creativity, and co-eternality of intelligences.”[24]
In light of these considerations, should the element of compulsion as the central feature of Satan’s premortal proposal to destroy agency be assumed without question? It is difficult to imagine that the Devil could have won so many followers in the premortal world on the basis of a supposed plan that seems, on the face of it, to be so thoroughly unworkable, if not impossible.
Is there a more plausible alternative than forced obedience by which Satan might have sought to destroy agency and thus “save” God’s children “in unrighteousness and corruption”?[25]
Our best clues to such an alternative probably can be found in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Since the story of the Garden is deliberately placed right after the story of Satan’s rebellion in heaven, it seems safe to assume that we are meant to see a connection between the two stories. We might presume that Satan’s deception of Adam and Eve in the Garden is an attempt to continue on earth, insofar as possible, the same kind of strategies he proposed in heaven.
Satan’s efforts to destroy the agency of man and to “save” him in his sins seem to have been briefly put into motion through his efforts to get Adam and Eve to take of the fruit of the Tree of Life immediately after taking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. As Alma explains: “For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.”[26] There would have been “no probationary time”[27] — hence no opportunity to exercise agency — before the spirits of Adam and Eve would be forever united with an immortal body.[28]
If Adam and Eve had taken the fruit of the Tree of Life immediately after having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, they would have been “forever miserable,”[29] having become “immortal in their fallen state.”[30] Satan’s objectives to “save” Adam and Eve “in their sins” and to “destroy their agency” would have been achieved.
Happily, God’s “wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.”[31]
Why Was It Essential That Premortal Spirits Be Given the Opportunity to Receive a Body?
Latter-day Saints believe that God has a glorified resurrected body, and that man was created in His literal image and likeness. Despite its imperfect and provisional nature, they regard the human body as a divine gift, provided to enable an essential next step in their eternal progression. Joseph Smith taught: “We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The devil has no body, and herein is his punishment.”[32]
In Latter-day Saint discussions of the purpose of the body in mortality, the necessity of being able “to experience the pleasures and pains of being alive” and to seek “perfection and discipline of the spirit along with training and health of the body”[33] are the kinds of reasons most often mentioned. However, as important as these reasons are, the teachings of Joseph Smith also include the idea that the clothing of spirits with bodies would provide power and protection for them. As Matthew Brown succinctly summarizes these teachings:[34]
“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not,” said the Prophet Joseph Smith.[35] The “spirits of the eternal world” are as diverse from each other in their dispositions as mortals are on the earth. Some of them are aspiring, ambitious, and even desire to bring other spirits into subjection to them. “As man is liable to [have] enemies [in the spirit world] as well as [on the earth] it is necessary for him to be placed beyond their power in order to be saved. This is done by our taking bodies ([having kept] our first estate) and having the power of the resurrection pass upon us whereby we are enabled to gain the ascendancy over the disembodied spirits.”[36] It might be said, therefore, that “the express purpose of God in giving [His spirit children] a tabernacle was to arm [them] against the power of darkness.”[37]
The reasons for the importance of a body that Joseph Smith most often emphasized are frequently forgotten in Latter-day Saint discussions of the purpose of earth life, yet they seem vital to a correct understanding of Satan’s efforts to undermine God’s plan.
Conclusions
In recap, we have presented three issues that bring into question core features of popular assumptions about Satan’s premortal role and objectives. It is difficult to achieve theological precision in these matters, but closer examination of the writings of Joseph Smith and his successors has led us to consider the following as tentative possibilities for a more faithful representation of these teachings:
- Satan’s claim that he would “redeem all mankind” may have been of primary interest only for the most wicked minority of God’s spirit children;
- Satan’s ploy “to destroy the agency of man” was something other than the exercise of coercive power to force mortals to do right; and
- The acquisition of a body in mortality was to enable not only the new experiences of pleasure, pain, and parenthood, but also to provide a protective power from the influences of Satan.
After a discussion of the circumstances of the Fall, we will argue further in following Essays that the significance of these possibilities goes beyond their potential value in revealing questionable assumptions about what the Prophet taught, providing, in addition, a cogent rationale for Satan’s actions in the Garden of Eden.
Briefly, it seems that in the Garden of Eden, Satan acted in direct defiance of God’s instructions, as he had in the premortal councils. Satan’s objective was not simply to tempt Adam and Eve; rather it was to provide a Luciferian form of universal “redemption” which would have in fact have severely limited the potential of humankind for progression, cut off their opportunities for the exercise of agency, and precluded the possibility for spirits to be embodied and saved from his dominating influence. The exercise of agency, the continuation of seed, and the worthy partaking of eternal life are fundamental to God’s plan. By opposing these objectives, the “son of the morning”[38] became the enemy of God.
This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ronan J. Head. "Mormonism’s Satan and the Tree of Life (Longer version of an invited presentation originally given at the 2009 Conference of the European Mormon Studies Association, Turin, Italy, 30-31 July 2009)." Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology 4, no. 2 (2010): 1-54. http://www.templethemes.net/publications/1%20-%20Bradshaw%20Head%20-%20Mormonisms%20Satan%20and%20the%20Tree%20of%20Life.pdf. (accessed June 30, 2021), pp. 7–11.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Public Domain, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/e/ec/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Fall_of_the_Rebel_Angels.JPG.
Further Reading
J. M. Bradshaw, et al., Mormonism’s Satan.
J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 215-234, 243-246, 577-581.
For a scripture roundtable video from The Interpreter Foundation on the subject, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmcP6FOwTt8.
References
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan J. Head. "Mormonism’s Satan and the Tree of Life (Longer version of an invited presentation originally given at the 2009 Conference of the European Mormon Studies Association, Turin, Italy, 30-31 July 2009)." Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology 4, no. 2 (2010): 1-54. http://www.templethemes.net/publications/1%20-%20Bradshaw%20Head%20-%20Mormonisms%20Satan%20and%20the%20Tree%20of%20Life.pdf.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.
Brown, Matthew B. The Plan of Salvation: Doctrinal Notes and Commentary. American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2002.
Condie, Spencer J. Your Agency: Handle with Care. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1996.
England, Eugene. "George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal." BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 151-78.
Faulconer, James E. "Self-image, self-love, and salvation." Latter-day Digest 2, June 1993, 7-26. https://www.academia.edu/3138132/Self_Image_Self_Love_and_Salvation. (accessed August 10, 2007).
Frankl, Viktor. 1945. Man’s Search for Meaning. 3rd revised and enlarged ed. New York City, NY: Pocket Books, 1985.
Gelander, Shamai. The Good Creator: Literature and Theology in Genesis 1-11. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 147, ed. Jacob Neusner, Bruce D. Chilton, Darrell J. Fashing, William Scott Green, Sara Mandell and James F. Strange. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997.
Lewis, C. S. 1942-1944. Mere Christianity. New York City, NY: Touchstone, 1996.
Ludlow, Victor L. Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992.
Madsen, Truman G. "The Latter-day Saint view of human nature." In On Human Nature: The Jerusalem Center Symposium, edited by Truman G. Madsen, David Noel Freedman and Pam Fox Kuhlken, 95-107. Ann Arbor, MI: Pryor Pettengill Publishers, 2004.
Matthews, Robert J. "The probationary nature of mortality." In Alma: "The Testimony of the Word." Papers from the Sixth Annual Book of Mormon Symposium, 1991, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. Book of Mormon Symposia 6, 47-60. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1992. Reprint, Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2008.
McConkie, Bruce R. The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ. The Messiah Series 1, ed. Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1978.
McLachlan, James. "The modernism controversy: William Henry Chamberlin, his teachers Howison and Royce, and the conception of God debate." In Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, edited by Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen, 39-83. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007.
Muggeridge, Malcolm. Jesus: The Man Who Lives. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
Nibley, Hugh W. 1975. "The meaning of the temple." In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 1-41. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992.
Oaks, Dallin H. "Free agency and freedom (BYU Fireside Address October 11, 1987)." In Brigham Young University 1987-1988 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 37-47. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Publications, 1987. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7014. (accessed September 6).
———. "The challenge to become." Ensign 30, November 2000, 32-34.
Ostler, Blake T. The Problems of Theism and the Love of God. Exploring Mormon Thought 2. Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2006.
Pratt, Orson. 1880. "Discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, 18 July 1880." In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 21, 286-96. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Riddle, Chauncey C. "Devils." In Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. 4 vols. Vol. 1, 379-82. New York City, NY: Macmillan, 1992.
Skousen, W. Cleon. 1953. The First 2,000 Years. Salt Lake City, UT: Ensign Publishing, 1997.
Smith, Joseph F. 1919. Gospel Doctrine. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.
Smith, Joseph, Jr., Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, 1980. https://rsc.byu.edu/book/words-joseph-smith. (accessed August 21, 2020).
Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.
Van de Graaff, Kent M. "Physical Body." In Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. 4 vols. Vol. 3, 1080-81. New York City, NY: Macmillan, 1992. http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/. (accessed November 26).
Williams, Drew. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Mormonism. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books, 2003.
Young, Brigham. 1870. "Discourse delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, 30 October 1870." In Journal of Discourses. 282 vols. Vol. 13, 274-83. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Endnotes
- Report of Wilford Woodruff: “All will suffer until they obey Christ himself. Even the devil said, I am a savior and can save all. He rose up in rebellion against God and was cast down. Jesus Christ will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? They must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto them, and know God, and then sin against him. This is the case with many apostates in this Church: they never cease to try to hurt me, they have got the same spirit the devil had, [and] you cannot save them. They make open war like the devil” (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Words, 7 April 1844, p. 347, spelling and punctuation standardized).
- Report of Thomas Bullock: “No man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men to triumph over the devil. For he stood up for a Savior. Jesus contended that there would be certain souls that would be condemned and the devil said he could save them all. As the Grand Council gave in for Jesus Christ, so the devil fell, and all who put up their heads for him. All sin shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost” (ibid., p. 353).
- Report of William Clayton: “I said no man could commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body. Hence the salvation that the Savior wrought out for the salvation of man—if it did not [indecipherable, TPJS says “catch”] him in one place it would another. The contention in heaven was Jesus said there were certain men [who] would not be saved [i.e., because they would sin against the Holy Ghost], [and] the devil said he could save them. He rebelled against God and was thrust down” (ibid., p. 361).
- Report of George Laub: “Jesus Christ, being the greater light or of more intelligence, for he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, He being the elder brother, presented himself for to come and redeem this world as it was his right by inheritance. He stated [that] He could save all those who did not sin against the Holy Ghost and they would obey the code of laws that was given. But their circumstances were that all who would sin against the Holy Ghost should have no forgiveness neither in the world nor in the world to come. For they strove against light and knowledge after they had tasted of the good things of the world to come. They should not have any pardon in the world to come because they had a knowledge of the world to come and were not willing to abide the law. Therefore they can have no forgiveness there but must be most miserable of all and never can be renewed again [see Hebrews 6:4-8]. But Satan or Lucifer, being the next heir…, had allotted to him great power and authority, even Prince of the air. He spake immediately and boasted of himself saying, ‘Send me, I can save all, even those who sinned against the Holy Ghost.’ And he accused his brethren [see Revelation 12:10] and was hurled from the Council for striving to break the law immediately. And there was a warfare with Satan and the Gods. And they hurled Satan out of his place and all them that would not keep the law of the Council. But he himself being one of the council would not keep his or their first estate, for he was one of the sons of perdition and consequently all the sons of perdition became devils, etc.” (E. England, Laub, p. 22).
Note that Laub’s report, taken from his journal, is a retrospective summary. The value of Laub’s summary is in that it contains details not recorded elsewhere—the kinds of details that would have been implausible for him to construct on his own—however, it is certainly less reliable overall than the three contemporaneous accounts (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Words, pp. xvi-xvii.), having probably been reconstructed in 1845 “from notes of actual speeches heard but not accurately dated and from memory of those speeches and other teachings he had heard” (E. England, Laub, p. 32 n. 24).
For Glen Danielson
Glen: You say that reason, logic, and common sense can be present, but must not be preeminent. Yet, I read in D&C 9:7-9 “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.“ To my way of thinking the Lord is here saying that we should use reason, logic and common sense first, and then confirm it by the Spirit. But that’s just me, and you may have a completely different understanding of those verses. Then later you seem to be saying that not all truths are of equal import, a point with which I fully agree. However, Joseph Smith once said, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God,” (TPJS 345) so it seems to me that anything we can learn about the nature of God should rank high among our priorities.
Darren: I find I don’t like the “reply” box as it makes subsequent messages almost unreadable. No, there is no requirement to believe that God the Father has a resurrected body, but it is true. Brigham Young taught that resurrection is a priesthood ordinance. He compared it to baptism. In order to baptize someone you must first be baptized, then you must receive the keys to baptism. In order to resurrect anyone you must first be resurrected, and then receive the keys to resurrection. He said once you have been resurrected and have received the keys to resurrection, then it is no more difficult to resurrect someone than it is to baptize someone. There are 20 passages in the New Testament which state that Christ was resurrected by God the Father. Therefore God the Father had to have been resurrected in order to resurrect Christ. See my article “Brigham Young on the Resurrection” here: http://www.eldenwatson.net/4BYRes.htm
Ok, you have got me curious. If God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, but it is not a resurrected body, what kind of body is it? In my opinion, once a person understands the nature of the resurrection there is plenty of scriptural evidence that God the Father has a resurrected body.
Hello Elden.
I agree that it makes sense that God the Father would have a resurrected body. I personally believe that is true but that is not what scriptures teach. While I side with you in evidence supporting the idea it is never explicitly stated as a resurrected body. We know God the Father is “an exalted man”, has a “body of flesh and bone” and is His body is “perfected”. Now, when did these things happen? That is where we do not know much at all. There are teachings, most known by Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow, that God the Father was once mortal like us, died, and resurrected. But that has never been incorporated into canon so far as I know.
The Standard Works are undeniably canon and they show God the Father as always having existed as is. Even the Son is said was “like unto God”. The Son we know for certain was a mortal, died, and resurrected. That is canon. Applying it to God the Father is not canon and so far as I know, never will be before Christ’s return to earth. To me, this is what makes statements like, “ Latter-day Saints believe that God has a glorified resurrected body” difficult to support and not reflective as to what Latter-day Saints believe. Unlike the Son having a resurrected body, there is no obligation that I know of that demands Latter-day Saints believe God the Father has a resurrected body.
Hi Darren: You have confused me somewhat. You say you personally believe that God the Father has a resurrected body, yet you believe that a statement to that effect should be removed from a Church manual. I believe you have a misconception of the role of our Standard Works in determining truth. President John Taylor said “Living in the world of mankind, surrounded by the works of Nature, walking, as it were, in the presence of the Great Elohim, we wish to comprehend and embrace all truth and seek for and obtain everything that is calculated to exalt, ennoble, and dignify the human family. And wherever we find truth, no matter where, or from what source it may come, it becomes part and parcel of our religious creed, or our moral creed, or our philosophy, as the case may be, or whatever you may please to term it.”( JD, 14:337-338, March 3, 1872.) Thus, reason, logic and common sense play a great role in our determination and acceptance of truth.
There are more truths to be found outside our Standard Works than there are to be found in them. If it is true that God the Father has a resurrected body then it is appropriate to teach that in Church manuals. It is a truth that Russell M. Nelson is President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but you can’t find that anywhere in our scriptures; still, it should be believed and taught. The purpose of our Standard Works is not to establish all truth, but to give us a foundation and to keep us from believing things that are not true: if something is not in harmony with what is in the Standard Works, then it is not true and we should discard it. The living prophet has the final say on the interpretation of scripture should there be some disagreement. Joseph Smith said, “I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” (June 16, 1844, TPJS 374; HC 6:477.)
“ Thus, reason, logic and common sense play a great role in our determination and acceptance of truth. There are more truths to be found outside our Standard Works than there are to be found in them.”
Reason, logic, and common sense can be present, but must not be preeminent. That is the truth missed by secularism. It is a matter of faithful perspective, and if the Light that guides is God’s—as opposed to secularism—then real truth, real logic, and real common sense comes of His light. With regard to God’s body being resurrected, created, or made of carbonite, I could not care less. The gravel under my feet is truth—and also drivel.
I just read through the written essay and found its insights quite impressive and in depth. I really like the connection between agency, a body, and Satan’s objective in whom to save or in his claim as to who he can and would save.
I do want to quibble a bit on God, presumably God the Father, as having a resurrected body. To my knowledge there is no canonical source behind that belief. Certainly Joseph Smith taught it and I was recently shown that the Church had it as part of its lesson manuals, at least the year said lesson manual was printed. My response to which was that the Church should remove that from the lesson as there is no scripture, nor joint statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declaring God having a “resurrected body”. We most certainly do believe He has a body of flesh and bone; and that it is glorified and perfect, “pure” as we are to present our bodies before God, but not “resurrected”.
Any insights on this viewpoint? Thank you.