Good Article - written by a non-Mormon

[EarlJibbs]

So I must admit, I really feel joy when someone can write a piece without slamming the Mormons. Whether or not they agree with us is a different matter, but I love it when journalists are fair. This is a fair assessment of Mormon theology. Not very long, and a good read.

Smart Mormons

[pam]

It is a good article. I posted it on the lds.net facebook page a few days ago.

[Guest gopecon]

Wow, that was one of the most fair descriptions of our theology (the part that he touched on) I've ever seen that was written by a non-Mormon! Thanks for sharing.

[Traveler]

Hidden between the lines of the article is a sometimes lost truth understood by every devout LDS (Mormon). That is - regardless of one's religious preference - If one loves liberty, Mormons are an ally that must be included in the fight to preserve liberty. And that to reject LDS as a people is a step in giving up one's liberties.

I would submit that an individuals view of Mormonism is a litmus test in understanding and committing to Liberty - but it is hardly the only test.

The Traveler

[EarlJibbs]

It is a good article. I posted it on the lds.net facebook page a few days ago.

oooooh, look how awesome you are....

[pam]

oooooh, look how awesome you are....

I know. But thanks for pointing that out.

[Anddenex]

Yes, it is always pleasant to read a respect article which isn't trying to convert or trying to demean.

Thanks for sharing.

[Vort]

His understanding of the premortal council and Lucifer's fall is wrong, but frankly I've heard the same story told by so many Mormons that his understanding is well within the LDS norm. And it's at least much better and more coherent than the typical presentation of LDS doctrine by non-believers.

[missionary0204]

Thanks for sharing! I really enjoyed the read.

[Windseeker]

This non-member understands the core foundational principles that underpin our entire set of beliefs and it's sad that so many members don't seem to get it or just ignore it.

Smart Mormons believe and support Liberty, Agency and Accoutability

...and support the rights of the not-so-smart to choose captivity and tyranny as well.

[Windseeker]

This non-member understands the core foundational principles that underpin our entire set of beliefs and it's sad that so many members don't seem to get it or just ignore it.

Smart Mormons believe and support Liberty, Agency and Accoutability

...and support the rights of the not-so-smart to choose captivity and tyranny as well.

they can also spell accountability...lawl

[BrendaM]

So I must admit, I really feel joy when someone can write a piece without slamming the Mormons. Whether or not they agree with us is a different matter, but I love it when journalists are fair. This is a fair assessment of Mormon theology. Not very long, and a good read.

Smart Mormons

Very interesting article.

What I thought was more interesting was the title at the top of the web page -

"Canada Free Press...Because without America there is no Free World"

As a Canadian & LDS, I agree.

[Dove]

His understanding of the premortal council and Lucifer's fall is wrong, but frankly I've heard the same story told by so many Mormons that his understanding is well within the LDS norm. And it's at least much better and more coherent than the typical presentation of LDS doctrine by non-believers.

Hello, Vort;

I thought his article was a correct reflection on the premortal council and Lucifer's fall.

Can you tell me what the correct rendition is?

Thanks

Dove

[Vort]

Hello, Vort;

I thought his article was a correct reflection on the premortal council and Lucifer's fall.

Can you tell me what the correct rendition is?

Sure. Scripturally, the account is pretty much as follows:

God presented his (the Father's) plan of salvation to the premortal councils and announced the need for a Savior. Two individuals (that we are told of) spoke up: The First agreed to abide the Father's will and do all things for the Father's glory; the other lied, claiming to be able to save all so that none would be lost, and because of his amendatory offer claimed the honor of the Father for himself. God called the First to be his only begotten and Savior, and the second rebelled with his followers and were cast out of the Father's presence forever, being called Lost (Perdition).

[Dove]

Right, I should go study the Pearl of Great Price again...and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Thanks Again

Dove

[Traveler]

Sure. Scripturally, the account is pretty much as follows:

God presented his (the Father's) plan of salvation to the premortal councils and announced the need for a Savior. Two individuals (that we are told of) spoke up: The First agreed to abide the Father's will and do all things for the Father's glory; the other lied, claiming to be able to save all so that none would be lost, and because of his amendatory offer claimed the honor of the Father for himself. God called the First to be his only begotten and Savior, and the second rebelled with his followers and were cast out of the Father's presence forever, being called Lost (Perdition).

You may have missed the point of the article - that the division in heaven, the rebellion of Lucifer and the war in heaven was centered in the cause of liberty. And that the elements of that war continue on earth and have reflections in the political conflicts currently taking place in our political landscape.

I believe his assessment is spot on - I also believe (this from my personal observation) - that both political parties in our political landscape have a propensity to lie concerning their actual agenda and that in reality they pretend to support the divinely given right of liberty. Therefore, I believe the great lie that Satan is now perpetrating is that liberty is nothing more than a choice in a lesser of two evils.

The Traveler

[Vort]

You may have missed the point of the article - that the division in heaven, the rebellion of Lucifer and the war in heaven was centered in the cause of liberty. And that the elements of that war continue on earth and have reflections in the political conflicts currently taking place in our political landscape.

Perhaps you missed the point of the article, which seemed to me to be: Mormons believe in freedom of choice as a cornerstone of their foundation of faith. To demonstrate this, he recited the common but fallacious belief that Satan provided an alternate plan that we somehow voted on.

[pam]

My understanding is that it was all the same plan. The difference being Christ would give all glory to the Father and Lucifer wanted it all for himself.

[Traveler]

Perhaps you missed the point of the article, which seemed to me to be: Mormons believe in freedom of choice as a cornerstone of their foundation of faith.

I agree that the article highlighted that thought and I agree that freedom of choice is a cornerstone of our faith. To be clear - do you disagree?

To demonstrate this, he recited the common but fallacious belief that Satan provided an alternate plan that we somehow voted on.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - you claim that Satan did not present anything in opposition (alternate plan) to the Father and that you think no one in the per-existance exercised a vote (in essence a choice) between what the Father presented and what Satan presented?

For the record - I believe and I believe LDS doctrine supports my belief that the Father presented a plan - that Satan opposed the Father's plan (and still opposes the Father's plan) and that ever spiritual child of G-d chose (voted) who they would follow.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I agree that the article highlighted that thought and I agree that freedom of choice is a cornerstone of our faith. To be clear - do you disagree?

Not at all.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - you claim that Satan did not present anything in opposition (alternate plan) to the Father

Satan defied the Father. He opposed his plan. He did not present another "plan". There is no other plan possible. Your equation of opposition to "alternate plan" is faulty. Rather, Satan lied. He claimed he could bring all back to the Father and thus usurp his honor. He could in fact do no such thing. It was a lie, a ploy to gain for himself the honor and glory of the Father.

and that you think no one in the per-existance exercised a vote (in essence a choice) between what the Father presented and what Satan presented?

Again, your equation is false. Making a choice is not identical with exercising a vote. To say that we "voted" on which plan to follow very clear suggests a sort of democratic process, where the winner of the vote gets to forward his agenda. But this is nonsense. There never was another plan. The only alternate agenda that we know of was Satan's, and his agenda was simple: Usurp the Father's honor and glory for himself. To do this, Satan -- believe it or not -- lied.

Of course we made a choice. But calling that choice a "vote" negates the clear meaning of the word "vote" and how we use it.

[Traveler]

Not at all.

Glad we agree on that :)

Satan defied the Father. He opposed his plan. He did not present another "plan". There is no other plan possible. Your equation of opposition to "alternate plan" is faulty. Rather, Satan lied. He claimed he could bring all back to the Father and thus usurp his honor. He could in fact do no such thing. It was a lie, a ploy to gain for himself the honor and glory of the Father.

Satan's plan was to defy the Father. Satan's plan was to oppose the Father's plan and to claim he could bring all back - his plan was to lie his plan was to usurp the honor of the Father. Satan most certainly had a plan and that plan certainly was possible and certainly the execution of that plan did take place. Are you saying that Satan never had a plan and he never did any of those things?

Again, your equation is false. Making a choice is not identical with exercising a vote. To say that we "voted" on which plan to follow very clear suggests a sort of democratic process, where the winner of the vote gets to forward his agenda. But this is nonsense. There never was another plan. The only alternate agenda that we know of was Satan's, and his agenda was simple: Usurp the Father's honor and glory for himself. To do this, Satan -- believe it or not -- lied.

Of course we made a choice. But calling that choice a "vote" negates the clear meaning of the word "vote" and how we use it.

Not my opinion only - from Wikipedia:

Voting is a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion—often following discussions, debates,

I think that you make; to quote Shakespeare "Much to do about nothing". Rather than create a a culture of criticism towards anyone that speaks of LDS doctrines and teachings - I honestly we should look to build bridges understanding - not find every point in semantics possible to bring up disagreements. In fact I honestly think if your responses were placed along side the article - that in reality it would encourage a spirit of misunderstanding and contention rather than understanding and reconciliation with thous that have any interest in LDS theology.

The Traveler

Edited February 7, 2013 by Traveler

[Vort]

Satan's plan was to defy the Father. Satan's plan was to oppose the Father's plan and to claim he could bring all back - his plan was to lie his plan was to usurp the honor of the Father. Satan most certainly had a plan and that plan certainly was possible and certainly the execution of that plan did take place. Are you saying that Satan never had a plan and he never did any of those things?

Not sure how to make it any clearer. Satan never had a "plan" that he presented to us for a "vote". That never happened, or if it did, it is nowhere recorded in scripture.

Not my opinion only - from Wikipedia:

Voting is a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion—often following discussions, debates,

Please note my emphasis in your Wikipedia quote above. No such group decision was ever made. The choice was an individual option to follow the Father or to rebel, not a group "vote" to choose between competing "plans".

I think that you make; to quote Shakespeare "Much to do about nothing".

You mean "much ado about nothing"?

Rather than create a a culture of criticism towards anyone that speaks of LDS doctrines and teachings - I honestly we should look to build bridges understanding - not find every point in semantics possible to bring up disagreements. In fact I honestly think if your responses were placed along side the article - that in reality it would encourage a spirit of misunderstanding and contention rather than understanding and reconciliation with thous that have any interest in LDS theology.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I think you mischaracterize and misjudge what I wrote:

His understanding of the premortal council and Lucifer's fall is wrong, but frankly I've heard the same story told by so many Mormons that his understanding is well within the LDS norm. And it's at least much better and more coherent than the typical presentation of LDS doctrine by non-believers.

I simply noted (correctly) that his understanding was wrong. I did not engage in any "culture of criticism". If either of us has done so, I would suggest it is you toward what I wrote, and not me toward the article on which I was commenting.

[Traveler]

Not sure how to make it any clearer. Satan never had a "plan" that he presented to us for a "vote". That never happened, or if it did, it is nowhere recorded in scripture.

The scriptures say that Satan opposed the Father - your suggestion that his actions were not according to any plan is what I find very unclear. His opposition to the Father's plan is openly recorded in scripture. - how can you say that he did not express his plan to oppose the Father - to me - the opposite is very clear. He planed to oppose the Father and when given the opportunity he executed his plan to oppose the Father - What is not clear to me is why you say he did not plan to do so and that he did not execute any such plan.

Voting is a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion—often following discussions, debates,

Please note my emphasis in your Wikipedia quote above. No such group decision was ever made. The choice was an individual option to follow the Father or to rebel, not a group "vote" to choose between competing "plans".

The reference to a group is the gathering - the group was the Father and his spiritual offspring. Are you saying no such group ever existed?

Are you saying we never had a choice in the matter?

We also have sustaining VOTES. When we sustain an individual by vote - you are right - that vote is not democratic. I have see an instance where one person cast a VOTE of objection and the person being sustained was not called.

Please note that VOTING is a means in a group of letting one's opinion known

You mean "much ado about nothing"?

does that mean something different than "much to do about nothing"?

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I think you mischaracterize and misjudge what I wrote:

I simply noted (correctly) that his understanding was wrong. I did not engage in any "culture of criticism". If either of us has done so, I would suggest it is you toward what I wrote, and not me toward the article on which I was commenting.

One think we do know - that Satan according to his plan (which was in opposition to the Father) was to claim to save everyone. Now you say that Satan lied - But he could not have lied unless he presented a plan that was a lie.

I would also submit that he was correct in pointing out that those that voted (In other words who expressed their opinions or cast a vote for Satan) with Satan and his false plan that could not work (as you say) were kicked out of heaven.

I also submit that the main point of his article was that we make a choice for liberty.

In conclusion I would introduce the concept of "type". The meaning of type that I am presenting is use in the following scripture:

Mosiah 13:10

Mosiah 13:31

Alma 13:16

Alma 25:10

Alma 33:19

Alma 37:16

Ether 13:6

I submit that a we can think of the term "vote" as a type or choice - or we may think of a "choice" as a type of vote.

Thus we did chose Liberty or vote for Liberty and that the same conflict is taking place today and we will again vote for Liberty - or choose liberty in the conflict of this existence just as we did (being a type) of the vote or choice in our pre-existence.

The Traveler

[Windseeker]

When someone says Vote, I'm assuming an election or a referendum of some sort. I think it was a choice. I don't know any scriptures that refer to a vote.

Your argument is still based on groups which Vort clarified this was not a group decision but an individual one.

[Windseeker]

When someone says vote, I'm assuming an election or a referendum of some sort. When I say I vote it's always associated with making a decision as a group. I wouldn't say I vote, that 'I' go to the store, I would say I vote that 'we' go to the store.

I think it was a choice. I don't know any scriptures that refer to a vote.

Your argument is still based on groups which Vort clarified this was not a group decision but an individual one.