This blog is a continuation of the blog entitled "Out of the Wilderness, Part I". It is recommended that the reader of this blog first become acquainted with the concepts outlined in that blog.Several ideas within the following comments regarding the war in heaven are left intentionally vague so as to leave any final conclusions to the reader.
. . . continued . . .
At this point in the story, it is worthwhile digressing to describe in more detail the things that happened in heaven that were in likeness to those that happened here on earth, as previously outlined. Because things in heaven are in the likeness of things on earth (see JST Revelation 12:1), we should expect that the adulterous conduct of the Church of God previously described as the Great Adultery on earth would parallel her conduct in heaven. Although brief, much can be learned from John's record of what he saw in his panoramic version of the heavenly war.
First, while reading John's version, it is important to recall the symbolic meaning of each of its characters, that 1) the woman is the Church of God, 2) the child is the kingdom of our God and His Christ, or Zion (see D&C 105:32), 3) Michael and his angels are, undoubtedly, many of the noble and great ones (see Abraham 3:1-3), and 4) the great red dragon is Satan (see D&C 76:25-27, compare Moses 4:1-4) and the serpent, a common enemy (see Acts 10:28) comprised of many whom he had drawn after him (see Moses 4:5-7).
Second, this was not a war wherein two opposing forces were determined. Rather, this was a war between long-time rivals of good verses an evil that had, in prior times, been cast out of God's presence for rebellion (see JST Revelation 12:4). There is recorded by Mormon an amazing resemblance of this war (see Alma 2). I highly recommend it.
Third, women have long been the cause of many disputes between male rivals. Given that the woman referred to by John had left her Husband and was fed a forbidden fruit (Abraham 1:23) by a piercing serpent (see Isaiah 27:1; compare 2 Kings 18:21) for 1,260 years (see JST Revelation 12:5), it is not unlikely that she was the object of this primeval war. However, notwithstanding that she had left her Husband in the likeness of what she would yet do on earth (see JST Revelation 12:1), she was worth fighting for as much then as she is now.
Fourth, scriptures teach that the dragon rebelled and sought to destroy the agency of man (see Moses 4:3). He further contended that all would be redeemed under his plan (see Moses 4:1). But, contrary to what is often heard in Sunday School, this does not imply that he sought to save all men by compulsion. Quite to the contrary, destroying agency is a far cry from seizing it to compel obedience. Brother Joseph Fielding McConkie (2004, pp. 54-55) has rightly observed that the notion that Lucifer was going to force us to obey is neither logical nor supported in scripture.
To reinforce this supposition, it is worthy to note that Elder Orson Pratt (Young, 1854-1886, p. 288) taught that those who hearkened to Lucifer’s proposals in the primeval council “thought it would be a very great and important thing to destroy the agency of man in the future creation that was about to be made.” This observation suggests that Lucifer proposed amendments to God’s plan which would have created conditions in mortality whereby men could be theoretically “saved” but that such conditions would result in agency being destroyed. It is not surprising that in counseling his son Corianton, Alma set forth an interesting sequence that produces this very result (see Alma 42:13-26). In dialogue with his son, Jacob, Lehi likewise underscored this sequence, but more precisely illustrated how it destroys agency (see 2 Nephi 2:11-13). Concerning opposition that must be present in all things, Lehi wrote:
To reinforce this supposition, it is worthy to note that Elder Orson Pratt (Young, 1854-1886, p. 288) taught that those who hearkened to Lucifer’s proposals in the primeval council “thought it would be a very great and important thing to destroy the agency of man in the future creation that was about to be made.” This observation suggests that Lucifer proposed amendments to God’s plan which would have created conditions in mortality whereby men could be theoretically “saved” but that such conditions would result in agency being destroyed. It is not surprising that in counseling his son Corianton, Alma set forth an interesting sequence that produces this very result (see Alma 42:13-26). In dialogue with his son, Jacob, Lehi likewise underscored this sequence, but more precisely illustrated how it destroys agency (see 2 Nephi 2:11-13). Concerning opposition that must be present in all things, Lehi wrote:
...if ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:13).
The opposition that exists between happiness that results from obedience to gospel law and misery that attends the punishment for disobedience is imperative to the existence of all things—both things to act and to be acted upon—and eliminating either happiness or punishment destroys that opposition. Happiness cannot exist without punishment—the foil on which happiness produces itself and becomes known. Thus, punishment is a necessary antithesis to happiness and essential to the realization of agency. When considering these opposites in relation to Lucifer’s aim to destroy the agency of man, it would be silly to think that he proposed to eliminate happiness—such a proposal wouldn’t pass muster with even the most boorish of God’s children.
Although Lucifer sought the Kingdom of our God and His Christ (see D&C 76:28), it is clear that he was not prepared to comply with the terms of obtaining the crown (see Isaiah 14:12-21). His solution was to offer another way with sufficiently alluring elements as to incite serious deliberation among God’s children. In connection therewith, Brother Robert Matthews (Top, 1988, p. 123) makes this worthy observation:
When we talk about our relationship to the Savior and our redemption, we must begin with the pre-mortal life. I think we often miss the real issue of the contention in the spirit world that eventually led to the War in Heaven. We talk about it as though Lucifer were going to force everybody to obey. Most people don’t want to be forced. As I see it, the real issue is that Lucifer would guarantee their salvation. He promised salvation without effort, without excellence, without hard work, without individual responsibility. That’s the lie that he promulgated in the pre-earth councils. That so-called shortcut to salvation captivated many gullible and lazy spirits. They wanted something for nothing . . . . On that basis Lucifer led away many spirits (emphasis added).
In my judgment, salvation in sin was the incentive package whereby Lucifer persuaded many to follow. What he presented was redemption without effort, without excellence, without hard work, and without individual responsibility. Supporting this notion, the prophet Joseph Smith (1844) affirmed that Lucifer set forth a counter-proposal in the heavenly council that was designed “to save men in their sins” (p. 758). Elder Orson Pratt (1854-1886) also settled on the idea that Lucifer proposed to “redeem them all in their sins” (p. 288), and President Brigham Young (1954) likewise concluded that “if you undertake to save all , you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption” (p. 54). The lessons learned from the parable of the ninety and nine verses the one lost sheep teach us to be suspect of any plan that guarantees 100% success. Unconditional guarantees generally come at a price much higher than most are willing to pay.
We should not be surprised, then, to discover that the philosophy of nearly every antichrist noted in the Book of Mormon validates the logic of President Young’s conclusion—that in unrighteousness and corruption is the only means whereby all can be saved. Nehor, for example, taught “that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4). The Amalekites likewise echoed the words of Nehor: “We believe that God will save all men” (Alma 21:6). To Jacob, Zeezrom declared the satanic means whereby such salvation was proposed—that God shall “save his people in their sins,” (Alma 11:34) and Korihor whistled the same tune declaring that “whatsoever man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17).
From these naive assertions, I believe we catch a whiff of Lucifer’s proposal made to the heavenly council. It is the model of secularism and moral relativism adhered to today—it is the model of the world. In each case, these antichrists suggested that there would be no lasting punishment, that all men would be saved “in their sins” and “not one of them would be lost” (compare Moses 4:1). Confirming this conclusion—that the message of these antichrists was the primeval message of Satan, Elder Oaks (1988) makes the following comments:
An episode recorded in the Book of Mormon shows the importance of knowing what we worship. The Zoramites worshipped a god who was a spirit and would be a spirit forever, who had made known to them that there would be no Christ, and who had "elected" them that they all would be saved (see Alma 31:15-17). From this description it appears that the Zoramites were, knowingly or unknowingly, worshipping the person and plan of Satan (p. 126).
What Satan presented in the primeval council was a system of redemption void of justice—a plan of "unconditional love" and universal amnesty for crime.
It has long been my experience that efforts to teach that God’s full love is conditional are met with strong resistance—opponents to this view find it impossible to accept that connecting to God’s love is premised upon one’s conduct. They would rather feel safe in their ignorance than apprehensive in the truth. But however ironic it may seem, the myth of unconditional love is most cruel as the one who lives secure in his ignorance may eventually lose all that he thought was certain. The concept of unconditional love is nothing less than the brainchild of him whose primeval design it was to “to save men in their sins”[1]—to guarantee salvation without effort, without excellence, without hard work, and without individual responsibility. It is Lucifer’s ultimate trickery. It is a “secret combination” that validates the sinner no matter how vile he may become; and because it validates the sinner, it decriminalizes his conduct.
Looking into its origins, one might be surprised to discover that the concept of unconditional love stems largely from Karl Marx and his socialistic and communistic ideals.[2] As far as I can ascertain, the term unconditional love was coined by the social psychologist Erich Fromm.[3] He is thought as one of the founders of socialist humanism who equated Marxism with matriarchal[4] feelings of unconditional love and capitalism with patriarchal[5] dominance and conditional love. He formalized these views in his 1956 book entitled, The Art of Loving, and concluded that one’s childhood relationship with his parents was central in determining which of the two views emerged as predominate. “The love of God,” he wrongly noted, “cannot be separated from the love for one’s parents.”[6]
His protégé, Carl Rogers, equally set forth the idea that one’s personal experience was the foremost authority in developing the idea of God.[7] “Experience is, for me,” Rogers wrote, “the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person’s ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets—neither Freud nor research—neither the revelations of God nor man—can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction.”[8]
Because individual up-bringing has been largely patriarchal, Fromm suggested that this experience has yielded a societal view that God’s love is patriarchal. “Quite obviously,” he boorishly explained, “the majority of people have, in their personal development, not overcome this infantile stage, and hence the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father - a childish illusion.”[9] He concluded that so long as a person retains “this childish dependence on a punishing and rewarding father, or any other authority, he cannot develop a more mature love for God.”[10] Such hodgepodge found fertile soil among the free-loving, morally-bankrupt hippies of Woodstock who wanted little to do with communal constraints and even less to do with God.
Taking an opposite view and setting forth the doctrine concerning the conditionality of God’s love, Elder Russell M. Nelson writes: “While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”[11] To those who persist that God’s full love is unconditional, Elder Nelson speaks pointedly:
Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly ‘unconditional’ can defend us against common fallacies such as these: ‘Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless . . .’; or ‘Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless . . . .’ These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception. Nehor, for example, promoted himself by teaching falsehoods: He ‘testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, . . . for the Lord had created all men, . . . and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.’ Sadly, some of the people believed Nehor’s fallacious and unconditional concepts.[12]
.png)
The doctrine of unconditional love is antichrist! It is a fabrication of the lowest order. While scriptures declare that “God is love” (see 1 John 4:8), we cannot thereby conclude that “love is God.” There are those who love darkness and those who love evil. But this love is neither God nor of God. Conversely, although we can appropriately conclude that “Satan is hate,” it does not then follow that “hate is Satan” for “hatred is a proper and holy emotion when channeled properly . . . . Manifestations of perfect hatred are shown forth by Deity himself,”[13] declared Elder Bruce R. McConkie.
In scripture we read: “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that Be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19). As we work our way through this list of things that God hates, it becomes clear that His hate is not only directed towards sin, but is also directed towards the father of all lies (see 2 Nephi 2:18) who sowed discord among His brethren and “accused them before our God day and night” (see Revelation 12:10).[14] Satan is an abomination to God and for him there is no godly affection.[15] Both love and hatred are godly attributes when properly channeled. When not properly channeled, they are driving forces of the devil’s work.
To be continued . . .
WORKS CITED
Anonymous. (1985). Know This, That Every Soul is Free. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Bednar, D. A. (2009, May 25). The Agency of Man. Saturday Evening Session. (K. L. Packard, Interviewer) Rexburg Idaho East Stake. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rexburg.
Benson, E. T. (1986, May). To the "Youth of the Noble Birthright". Ensign, pp. 43-45.
Clark, J. R. (1971). Messages of the first presidency (Vol. 5). Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.
Mann, H. (1859). Baccalaureate Address of 1859.
McConkie, B. R. (1985). A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.
McConkie, J. F. (2004). Understanding the Power God Gives Us: What Agency Really Means. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.
Nibley, H. W. (1993). Teachings of the Book of Mormon--Semester 4: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to a Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
Nyman, M. S., & Tate, J. C. (Eds.). (1990). The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy (Vol. 4). Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center.
Oaks, D. H. (1988). Pure in Heart. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.
Oaks, D. H. (2002). With Full Purpose of Heart. Salt Lake City, UT, United States: Deseret Book Company.
Packer, B. K. (1988, May). Atonement Agency Accountability. Ensign, p. 69.
Pratt, O. (2000). The Seer. Salt Lake City: EBorn Books.
Romney, M. G. (1981, April). Principles of Temporal Salvation. Ensign, pp. 3-7.
Romney, M. G. (1981, November). The Perfect Law of Liberty. Ensign, pp. 43-44.
Smith, J. (1844, December 25). Times and Seasons, V.
Smith, J. (1948-1950). History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, V. 5 (Vol. 5). (G. A. Smith, Ed.) Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.
Smith, J. F. (1957-1966). Answers to Gospel Questions (Vol. 4). Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.
Smith, J. F. (1967, April 9). Conference Report, pp. 120-121.
Top, B. L. (1988). The Life Before. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft.
Young, B. (1854-1886). Journal of Discourses (Vol. 21). Liverpool, London, England: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot.
Young, B. (1954). Discourses of Brigham Young. (J. A. Widtsoe, Ed.) Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.
ENDNOTES
[1] Smith, Joseph, Times and Seasons, Volume V, Nauvoo, Illinois, 25 December 1844, 758.
[2] Marxist notions, in part, flows from Darwin’s theories of organic evolution, which might account for the reason why President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that “organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in destroying the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer through which men may be saved from their sins and find place in the Kingdom of God” (see Smith, Joseph Fielding, His Origin and Destiny, 184 – 185). Much of the nonsense today in education, psychology, and social science ties back to Darwin’s theories which postulate that man is nothing more than a highly-evolved animal.
[3] Unconditional love,” he wrote, “corresponds to one of the deepest longings, not only of the child, but of every human being; on the other hand, to be loved because of one’s merit, because one deserved it, always leaves doubt; maybe I did not please the person whom I want to love me, maybe this, or that—there is always a fear that love could disappear. Furthermore, ‘deserved’ love easily leaves a bitter feeling that one is not loved for oneself, that one is loved only because one pleases, that one is, in the last analysis, not loved at all but used” (see page 35).
[4] Fromm summarized the matriarchal view as: “I am loved because I am. This experience of being loved by mother is a passive one. There is nothing I have to do in order to be loved—mother’s love is unconditional. All I have to do is to be—to be her child. Mother’s love is bliss, is peace, it need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. But there is a negative side, too, to the unconditional quality of mother’s love. Not only does it not need to be deserved—it also cannot be acquired, produced, controlled. If it is there, it is like a blessing; if it is not there, it is as if all beauty had gone out of life—and there is nothing I can do to create it” (see page 33).
[5] “Fatherly love is conditional love,” Fromm wrote. “Its principle is ‘I love you because you fulfill my expectations, because you do your duty, because you are like me.’ In conditional fatherly love we find . . . a negative and a positive aspect. The negative aspect is the very fact that fatherly love has to be deserved, that it can be lost if one does not do what is expected. In the nature of fatherly love lies the fact that obedience becomes the main virtue, that disobedience is the main sin—and its punishment the withdrawal of fatherly love. The positive side is equally important. Since his love is conditioned, I can do something to acquire it, I can work for it; his love is not outside my control as motherly love is” (see page 36).
[6] See page 64.
[7] Rogers downgraded the concept of unconditional love to unconditional positive regard; a common term used in psychology today.
[8] See Rogers, Carl, On Becoming a Person, 23-34. John Rector, a student counselor at a local university used these philosophies to suggest that the “doctrines of our faith may spell out aspects of God’s composition for us, but it is we who fill in nuances of God’s personality and character.” Mr. Rector concluded from this that “since none of us knows very deeply what God is like, we can make a conscious choice to form a concept of divine personality which ‘works’ for us” (see Rector, John, “What is the Character of Your God?” Perspectives, Autumn 2006, 79-80).
[9] See page 64.
[10] See pages 68-69.
[11] Nelson, “Divine Love,” Ensign, February 2003, 20.
[12] Ibid; emphasis added.
[13] McConkie, Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine, 344.
[14] It is often heard that we are to “hate the sin and love the sinner.” Although I do not question the present appropriateness and political correctness of this rhetoric, the statement itself does not logically hold together. Sin does not exist without a cause. God recognizes this fact and, thus, it is the sinner who is punished, not the sin. Can one hate sin and at the same time love the cause of sin? In the telestial realm in which we presently live, we are commanded to love our enemy and do good to those who despitefully use us. This we do to allow the sinner every opportunity to repent and be reconciled to God. And at times, we are called to endure the cruelty of the wicked that the judgments of the Lord might be just. Failure to do so with patience may itself earn the judgments of God. But, from an eternal perspective, the sin and the sinner are uniquely and inseparably tied together. God can love a people and be patient with them in their days of iniquity, but God’s patience and love can wear thin (see Helaman 15:3-4).
[15] We are no different than God. We have set limits to our love and have identified those who will receive it. From a lesser to greater degree we love our servants, friends, and sons and daughters, but in no degree should our heart give place for the enemy of our soul (see 2 Nephi 4:28).
