Mormonism’s Satan and the Tree of Life: Part 3.1 (“Redeem All”)

Satan in the Premortal Councils in Heaven

N.B. What follows in the next series of posts is what we consider to be an internally plausible reading of Mormon theology.

In the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith, Lucifer is described as “a son of the morning” and “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God” who “rebelled… and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ.” He was jealous, “selfish, ambitious, and striving to excel,” and “became Satan” as he wickedly sought that God should give him His “own power.”

In explaining how all this took place, the Prophet revealed a Satan who, like the satan of Job, was once an active participant in divine councils. In contrast to the Jobian satan, however, Lucifer’s ostensible objective in these councils—and later in the Garden—was not really to “prove” humankind but rather, on the contrary, to provide universal “redemption” ultimately without requiring such a test—thus opposing and frustrating God’s original designs.

In the next few posts, we will explore three questions:

1. What did Satan mean when he proposed to “redeem all mankind”?
2. By what means did Satan seek to “destroy the agency of man”?
3. Why was it essential that premortal spirits be given the opportunity to receive a body?

A close examination of the answers to these questions will set the stage for further exploration of the events surrounding the Fall and Satan’s strategy in the Garden in the next section, thus arriving at the “sin of Satan.”

1. What Did Satan Mean When He Proposed to “Redeem All Mankind”?

Describing the contrast between Lucifer’s proposal and the plan of the Father that was advocated by the premortal Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith taught:

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. [Teachings, 7 April 1844, p. 357.]

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 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.” However, if we can trust the accuracy of a retrospective summary of a discourse by the Prophet from the journal of George Laub, the controversy highlighted in this statement more specifically concerned the fate of the “sons of perdition”:

Jesus Christ… 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. [J. Smith, Jr., cited in E. England, Laub, discourse apparently given 7 April 1844, p. 22, spelling and punctuation standardized.]

Laub’s version of the statement emphasizes specific limits of the guarantee of salvation promised by Jesus Christ. While, of course, allowing for the possibility of exaltation for the obedient, its burden in context was to lay out the major differences with Satan’s proposal. The statement implies that Jesus’ atonement could only provide absolute assurance of a minimal form of salvation, namely, that all men, except those who sinned against the Holy Ghost, would be “resurrected to [at least] a telestial glory, escaping the second, i.e., spiritual death.”

Satan, on the other hand, was reported in Laub’s recollection of the Prophet’s statement to have countered with an absurdly unconditional proposal:

Send me, I can save all, even those who sinned against the Holy Ghost.

Apparently trying to do away with the need for an atonement, Satan is here portrayed as having “sought… to redeem… all in their sins.” 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.

Next : 2. By What Means Did Satan Seek to “Destroy the Agency of Man”?


  1. Ah! You quoted TPJS!

    I think the Laub account of the KFD is important, even though it is the least reliable of all the accounts:

    [speaking of the Divine Council] The[y] saw till time should be no more and the[y] spoke concerning the redemption of this world and formed limited sircumstances concerning the redemption Jesus Christ being the greater light or of more intelligence for he loved rituousness 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 he could save all those who did not sin against the holy ghost & the[y] would obey the code of laws that was given But their sircumstances ware that all who would sin against the Holy ghost should have no forgiveness neither in this world nor in the world to come, for they had strove aganst light and knowledg after the[y] had tasted of the good things of the world to come the[y] should not have any pardon in the world to come because the[y] had a knowledg of the world to come and ware not willing to abide the law therefore the[y] can have no forgiveness there but must be most miserable of all and never can be renewed again referred to 6 chapter of Hebrews

    But Satan or Lucifer being the next heir and had alloted to him great power and authority even prince of power of the eir He spake emediatey and boasted of himself saying send me I can save all [he] even those who sined against the holy ghost and he accused his brethren and was herld [hurled] from the council for striving to breake the law emediatly and there was a warfare with Satan and the gods and the[y] hurld Satan out of his place and all them that would not keep the law of the councill 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 concequently all the Sons of perdition become devils &[c].

    So according to the Laub account, Jesus said he could save all except those who suffered perdition; and Lucifer said he could save all, including perdition.

  2. Eveningsun says:

    I have a related question. Isn’t all this stuff essentially polytheism or maybe henotheism? I mean, you can call Satan an “angel” if you like, but doesn’t he possess all the attributes that, in openly polytheistic religions, attach to gods? He’s immortal, he has supernatural powers, etc. Sure, he’s subordinate to God, but so what? Hermes is subordinate to Zeus–but we still consider him one of the Greek gods, no? If we encountered a personage with the same attributes in some other religion, wouldn’t we term him a god?

  3. That reference was for you, Stapers! The intention is to contrast the popularly-understood account with a more refined alternative.

  4. The Devil says:

    Yes…… continue……. each post pleases me greatly…

  5. I am of the opinion that Satan intended to remove all accountability from mankind rather than force them to be righteous.

  6. Benjamin O says:

    @ #2.

    Perhaps, but frankly, I’ve never been terribly concerned with accusations of henotheism or polytheism. Oh, I know there are some on here who are, especially those who are anxious to be reconciled with mainstream Christianity. I am probably an outlier in this attitude, but the truth of the matter is that I am FAR more concerned with gaining an accurate picture of how things really are than with whether or not my beliefs lead me to something that others consider polytheistic.

    In all truth, however, the real question does remain–does this view of Satan possess the attributes that openly polytheistic religions would attach to the ‘gods’, or more importantly, does he have enough of the same characteristics as the being(s) that we in our own theology refer to as God to make our theology henotheistic or polytheistic? If we go with the second parsing of the thought rather than the first, I would say no. Satan does not have the same qualities that we attribute to Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ. We do not ascribe to him the same level of power in relation to mortals that God has.

    I’ll leave it to others to discuss the full answer more thoroughly, but I still say so what if it does? Are we here to please the world or discover the truth about these things?

  7. Yep, I agree with your “more refined alternative” here. Cf. D&C 76:43-44.

  8. M. the Archangel says:

    #4 – Beat it, you knave, or I’ll give you what for!

    #2 – Polytheism is not the belief in multiple immortal beings more powerful than humans with supernatural powers. It is the belief in or worship of multiple gods. Since Mormons do not believe Satan is a god, Mormons are not polytheistic.

    Your better argument is that since Mormons believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate Gods, Mormons are polytheistic. However, since the commonly understood meaning of polytheistic counts the Trinity as one God, Mormons also count the trinity as one God when we say we are monotheistic. Also, even though Mormons believe the Trinity are three separate beings, our worship should be primarily directed to God the Father.

  9. Ronan,

    Nothing to add. I am really enjoying this series.

    Esp the sources

  10. Eveningsun says:

    M the A, for goodness sake, I’m not a knave and I’m certainly not asking to be given what for. But I do think this question is relevant because of the prominence of the Book of Job in this discussion about who or what Satan is. I think the standard scholarly position here is that Job is adapted from a Babylonian original that was openly polytheistic and that, for whatever reason, the Jewish version retains much of that original’s polytheistic flavor. Such polytheistic “holdovers,” if you will, were then seized on by JS as he developed some of the more distinctive aspects of his theology. From the same sources he also picked up what strikes me as unabashedly polytheistic language, most obviously in the King Follett discourse, but also in hymns like “If I Could Hie to Kolob” and, maybe most important, in the scripture (e.g., D&C 132:18).

    And if, as Benjamin O. rightly says, our main concern should be “with gaining an accurate picture of how things really are,” well, it would seem that this should start with accurately naming things, regardless of whether doing so will “please the world.” And the right term seems to me to be henotheism, the belief in the existence of many gods but the worship of only one (whether that’s because he’s the most powerful one, or the one “with whom we have to do,” or whatever). Anyway, if we’re trying to understand what Satan really is, it seems silly to sidestep the question of whether he’s a god–especially given his apparent origins in polytheistic Babylonian religion.

  11. M. the Archangel says:

    #10 – I am sure you are no knave. But the Devil (#4) surely is.

    And regarding sidestepping the question of whether Satan is a god-by my definition of what a god is, he is not. If I was an ancient Greek (or Babylonian, for that matter), I might think differently.

  12. Ronan,

    Thank you for this post. I recently came to a very similar conclusion myself, based on Moses 4:1-3. It definitely doesn’t say that Satan would force us all to do good.
    But I don’t believe, as you state, that Satan was offering to do away with the atonement, either. It seems to me, he was volunteering to take Christ’s place in the Atonement, and instead of only saving some of us, he would save all of us.

    Thus, there would be no “unforgivable sins,” rather, all sins would be forgivable. I thought this also meant that all sins would be automatically forgiven, without need for repentance, but that may not necessarily be the case.

    However, if Satan did offer to forgive all men without the need for repentance, that would destroy our agency as surely as forcing all men to do good.

  13. Eveningsun says:

    Ah–my mistake, M the A! Though I’d say that while all knavery might be deviltry, not all deviltry is knavery….

  14. Ronan – I’m confused. Are you saying the more refined approach is that Jesus proposed to save even the so-called sons of perdition? Or that Satan proposed to save all in their sins?


  15. Jeff wrote this part, so if he’s lurking, I’ll wait for him to respond.

  16. Eveningsun says:

    Adam E. — I’m thinking again about “agency” and I can’t quite agree with the claim that “if Satan did offer to forgive all men without the need for repentance, that would destroy our agency as surely as forcing all men to do good.”

    Agency is “the ability and freedom to choose good or evil,” right? (I’m quoting McConkie 1979, FWIW.) If Satan decouples repentance from forgiveness, we would still know good from evil, we would still be able to choose between them, and we would still be free to choose between them — so we would still have our agency.

    What would change is only the stakes involved in using our agency.

    Not to belabor the point, but McConkie adds to the definition of agency the following “four great principles [that] must be in force if there is to be agency”:

    “1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed;

    2. Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling one way and another pulling the other.

    3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and

    4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail.”

    Satan’s plan would not eliminate each and every one of God’s laws, so Principle 1.) above remains operative. I don’t see how 3.) or 4.) would be affected, either. That leaves 2.), which I’ve saved for last because it might at first seem to be jeopardized by Satan’s plan.

    In 2.) McConkie says not only that there must be an opposition in the abstract; he says that the opposition must amount to tangible “forces”: “one force pulling one way and another pulling the other.” This is precisely the condition that prevailed when the serpent had that little talk with Eve: she had to choose between two forces pulling her in opposite directions. And what made them forces is the fact that there were tangible consequences involved: death etc. vs. the yummy taste of the fruit. The choice was not wholly abstract but had a tangible or “real” dimension.

    Here’s the kicker. It could be argued that, by removing any consequences for choosing evil over good, Satan’s plan would have reduced moral choice to a completely academic or abstract exercise. Moral choice would be a kind of game, and therefore would not involve what McConkie called “forces.” With no real consequences, there’s no real “pulling,” which is to say, Principle 2.) would be eliminated by Satan’s plan, and agency would be eliminated along with it.

    Well, one could make that argument–but I think it’s a bad one. It works only if one assumes that the prospect of redemption is the only “force” that could “pull” or move us in the sense McConkie seems to have intended. But I don’t buy that for a minute. When I feel guilt or shame for having done something wrong, the feeling is very powerful (it is a “force” that “pulls me one way”), and it works in opposition to the greed or lust that just as forcefully pulled me the other way. And none of that has anything to do with the prospect of redemption. I think I would be pulled by these opposing forces regardless of whether giving in to them would imperil my salvation. It might be different if the promise of salvation were the only force pulling one away from evil, but surely it’s not.

    That is to say, even under Satan’s plan I would experience the conflicting pull of guilt vs. temptation, and McConkie’s Principle 2.) would remain operative, and thus agency would survive. So I’ve just never understood how the objection to Satan’s plan could be its destruction of agency. I dunno–maybe I’m not understanding agency correctly.

  17. Steve Evans says:

    At some point are you guys going to talk about whether Satan can only hear my vocal prayers and therefore I should try and just pray in my head so as to keep him guessing?

    Because a, er, friend of mine would like to know. Right away.

  18. I have a related question. Isn’t all this stuff essentially polytheism or maybe henotheism? I mean, you can call Satan an “angel” if you like, but doesn’t he possess all the attributes that, in openly polytheistic religions, attach to gods? He’s immortal, he has supernatural powers, etc. Sure, he’s subordinate to God, but so what? Hermes is subordinate to Zeus–but we still consider him one of the Greek gods, no? If we encountered a personage with the same attributes in some other religion, wouldn’t we term him a god?

    Go read Milton’s Paradise Lost. Lucifer there is far more like a god than anything in LDS doctrine and scriptures. In the two temple films, Lucifer comes across in one like a Shakespearean villain and in the other like a spoiled yuppie. I think that crossing those two together gets it about right. :-) ..bruce..

  19. It seems to me that the big question is concerning exaltation, not just salvation. Possibly Satan could have walked people carefully through life and “saved” their immortal soul, but I don’t see how his plan could exalt anyone into the Father’s Kingdom or help them become like the Father.

  20. bfwebster: “Shakespearean villain and…spoiled yuppie”. Spot on, my friend!

  21. Eveningsun says:

    Sure, Bruce — but Milton was of the devil’s party without knowing it, so naturally he made his hero a god. :)

  22. @16 (eveningsun)

    I think you tried to save your 1st criterion too quickly. The plan Lucifer proposed would have violated laws currently in operation, so your 1st point would be violated and agency lost.

  23. thanks for this interesting series.

    after reading those sermons on embodiment, you may need to consider one other the 1840s Joseph Smith was beginning to preach that the reason God was God was that he provided the possibility of eternal progress to the intelligences by providing bodies to them. The glory was to go to God because he was the one that made possible their exaltation. My reading of the sources from 1842 and 1843 suggests that Joseph Smith had in mind that Satan was offering a competing mode of exaltation specifically with the hope of becoming mightier than God by stealing his glory, recognizing that such glory is connected to the number of entities undergoing a process of adoption.this may be why Satan’s punishment is specifically that he will not be able to receive the body. This is relevant in that during this period Joseph Smith was beginning to elaborate a theology of the afterlife based in his genealogical permutation of the Great Chain of Being that specifically relied upon the number of spiritual offspring for which an individual could claim fatherhood. the fact that he was interested in gaining glory from those who are otherwise destined for perdition may be a way of indicating just how greedy he was.

    I do believe that multiple explanatory frameworks are possible as Joseph Smith had little interest in narrowing downhis teachings to a particular rigorous theological system. He may have intended specifically that his description of Satan be based in several different ideas about his sin.

    I should also note that I’m not proposing this as normative for contemporary Mormonism; I am only reporting my impression of those specific sources from 1842 and 1843.

  24. #16 – Eveningsun, I think that by destroying spiritual consequences of sin, Satan would have destroyed the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, at least from man’s perspective. There may have been a law, but what would the law be without consequences? You would not repent, because you would not feel spiritual guilt (because our spiritual guilt is what drives us to repent).

  25. #19 – Larryco,

    I agree that Satan’s plan (whether forced-to-do-good, or destroy consequences of sin, or whatever) could not make us like Heavenly Father. Either way he destroys our ability to choose good from evil, which is necessary to be like God. We would be “saved” only by being given immortal bodies.

    I also doubt that Satan even had the ability to do what he proposed. I suspect he thought he was greater than he actually was.

  26. agency isn’t just about being pulled one way or another and being bandied about by the consequences of external forces. it’s also about getting what you want.

  27. The most obvious defect of Satan’s plan is that it couldn’t work. If it could work, all else being equal, it would have been accepted as superior.

    Granting the metaphysical proposition that it is impossible to deprive someone of their will, deprivation of agency requires nothing less than servitude. Servitude breeds immaturity, a life less lived and less of it.

  28. Eveningsun says:

    Well, Adam E., B, and LarryCo, I don’t think we can pursue this much further without changing the focus almost completely from Satan to agency. Maybe someone can post later on agency, which I think is more important for us (and for the Church) to understand than Satan anyway….

  29. Steve (17) – No need to discuss it. It’s already been resolved.

  30. Mark D. that’s a really good point.

    If you hold to the idea that the natural order of the universe is such that negative consequences happen as a result of bad things (an idea of eternal law) and that we all have free will no matter what, than Satan’s plan would require enslavement or some form of protection from natural consequences. What I hear you saying is that such protection is impossible.

  31. Eveningsun says:

    Mark D., Matt W. — I like this. Significant consequences (good and bad) are woven into the fabric of reality so deeply that Satan (especially if in fact he’s not a god!) cannot unweave them. Perhaps not even God can unweave them, in the sense that doing so would be to contradict himself. For these reasons and many more, I simply cannot understand Satan’s plan as a taking-away of our agency, rather than as a plan for getting us to misuse our agency.

    Not even slavery, not even subjection to the most tyrannical of governments, can take away one’s agency — unless we’re talking about a situation in which one’s mind is fundamentally altered through drugs, torture, or similar manipulation (as e.g. in Brave New World or 1984)….

  32. Eveningsun, I understand agency to be different from free will. Free will is inviolable. Agency can be impaired. D&C 101:77-80 states that the constitution was established so that every man may act according to his divinely granted moral agency.

    If you lock someone up in a cell, you have not affected his free will at all, but you have greatly impaired his or her agency – the freedom to direct one’s own actions and be responsible for the consequences.

    Matt W, I agree of course that protection from negative consequences is strictly impossible. However, my point is more that salvation on Satan’s terms would not be salvation at all, but more like slavery.

  33. Matt W., Mark D.

    You are talking about the law of harvest, correct? It seems to me that even God could not remove the natural consequences of our actions (justice in a law of harvest/restitution manner) or he would cease to be God.

    At some point it seems to me based upon the citations from Ronan and J. Stapley that this is what Satan was seeking to do. Not to makes sons of perdition good through force but save them in their sins thereby removing all consequences for their actions and choices.

    Where I am puzzled is how this could even be possible. The loss of agency seems to be both different and way beyond the typical mormon idea that Satan will make me do good.

  34. Eveningsun says:

    Mark D., I see where you’re coming from. But I don’t that distinguishing agency from free will solves what I see as the basic problem. You write, If you lock someone up in a cell, you have not affected his free will at all, but you have greatly impaired his or her agency. I would say, no, what you have impaired is not agency itself but the ability to exercise one’s agency. The reason I insist on this distinction is because I don’t think that, were I to be locked up by some evil dictator, I would cease to be a moral agent. I would be every bit as much a moral agent as I am now. Do we really want to say that Latter Day Saints living in, say, Burma, have less agency than those of us living in the U.S.?

    No, agency itself inheres in the person, not in the capriciousness of the outside circumstances that determine one’s ability to act. Certain forms of government are bad not because they take away agency but because they take away the ability to act upon agency. “Agency” is not like, say, “mobility.” Prevent me from moving and you do indeed take away my mobility. Prevent me from (say) speaking out against the government and you take away my ability to speak but not the prior choice to speak out in the first place. Agency is located in the purely mental realm of the choice that prompts one to act, not in the forces that might subsequently prevent one from thus acting.

    If we conceive of agency itself as diminished by every social force that impedes our ability to perform an action which our agency prompts us to perform, then it becomes a diminished and arbitrary thing indeed. Anyway, I’m just trying to follow McConkie on this one, as his treatment of the question makes most sense to me.

  35. J. Madson, The the law of the harvest is one way of expressing it yes. Inviolable natural laws (such as the impossibility of creating something out of nothing) is another.

    Moses 4:3 states that Satan was cast out because he “sought to destroy the agency of man”. The alternative theory requires an explanation with regard to the reason why.

    Supposing for purposes of argument, Satan did seek to provide an automatic alternative salvation without agency deprivation, my argument remains that automatic salvation of any type is necessarily a pale shadow of the real thing. What would it consist of?

  36. Eveningsun, You appear to be defining agency a synonym for free will. That is a popular move, but not very helpful. How exactly does God give us our will? How does Satan go about attempting to take it away? As E. Maxwell said, isn’t our will what is uniquely ours?

    And yes, political considerations aside, the agency of citizens of totalitarian states is most definitely impaired. That is the whole point of D&C 101:77-80.

  37. It seems the sticking point is the word agency. Where I think this discussion is helpful is that if we see Satan as concerned with saving even sons of perdition, ie in their sins, then that should at a minimum inform/educate the word agency in the context of Moses 4:3.

    Somehow, if we believe Satan was saving people in their sins as opposed to forcing them to do good, it was still taking away “agency” which tends to put the emphasis on the consequences and not free will which Im not sure could be ever taken away

  38. Eveningsun says:

    Mark D., I see free will a little differently, actually. I understand free will more or less as the opposite of determination. Free will is not specifically bound up, as the idea of agency is, with “the ability and freedom to choose good or evil.” The two are related, but not the same. (If I choose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla for desert, that’s about free will but not about agency. Free will can be morally neutral, but not agency.) Whether agency can be completely subordinated to a broader concept of free will I wouldn’t venture to say.

    Anyway, we’re operating with different definitions here and thus I suppose we aren’t going to get any further. I’ll just qualify my statement by saying Satan’s plan does not seem to me to imperil agency as defined by McConkie. Others’ mileage may vary.

  39. Eveningsun, You are going to have to be more specific about what you mean by “Satan’s plan”, then. If you mean that God decides to forgive all of us our transgressions, then I don’t see how that saves anyone. At best it just returns us to the status quo ante.

    I submit that nothing that God can do unilaterally is sufficient to save anyone. Salvation requires a change of character, which is not the sort of thing that can be imposed from without. That is ultimately why “unconditional salvation” is an oxymoron.

  40. Matthew Andreasen says:

    What if “Agency” means something along the lines of “Accountability“?

    It seems like the common definitions of Agency (free will, freedom to choose, ability to do what you want) are all some form of McConkie’s fourth principle which is needed for agency to exist, “An unfettered power of choice must prevail.” Wouldn’t that be a bit like saying that in order to have freedom of choice you must be able to freely choose?

    McConkie’s ‘four principles’ point me in the direction of Accountability, and by extension, to the corresponding consequences. If Satan proposed a plan which guaranteed that none would be lost, wouldn’t that in effect destroy our accountability? Or would we really be accountable if we all ended up being ‘saved’ no matter what?

    By the way, I too do not believe he could have pulled off his plan, but we do know that he actually convinced or deceived many to believe that he could. Also, his ‘salvation’ would not be the same as God’s salvation, and certainly not anywhere near exaltation.

  41. Rameumptom says:

    I think that Satan’s view was that God’s plan was harsh. It didn’t allow for everyone to be saved regardless. I think some of our political groups today use this form of thinking: protect the less fortunate, regardless of whether they put themselves in the position they are in.

    Some people lost everything by purchasing a house they could not afford. Banks overextended their credit by a thousand-fold. Each of these may be bailed out by those who wish to help them avoid the consequence of their choice.

    This means that those who were honest and wise, receive no particular blessing for their prudence.

    I believe this is what happened in the Grand Council. God and Jesus promoted a plan that encouraged agency, so that we may learn and grow (eternal progression). Lucifer wished to change the plan to save all people. Without risk and agency/consequence, none could become as God is. Therefore, Lucifer offered himself as a God that all could aspire to be like. It would have forced us into a stasis pattern, with no actual growth, nor the ability to progress eternally. But none would be cast out, either.

    Think about what happens when Republicans push freedom and agency in their policies. The extreme liberal leftists will cry out that they are killing babies. Children will starve because of no school lunches. People will die because there is no health care program. I can see Lucifer using such logic in the premortal world to make God look like an evil and dark curmudgeon that doesn’t like children….

  42. I think Satan’s motive behind his plan is found with his statement that “the glory will be mine”.

    God wanted us to be like Him. He prepared a plan and a Savior that would allow us the opportunity to overcome the natural man and merge our premortal spirits with a human body and thus begin to become like God.

    Those that failed to exhibit control over the human body and the passions that come with it could not become like God and so they would not be allowed to progress, but would still be saved in some degree of glory.

    Satan’s plan never intended to let us be like God. It only promised that none of us would be lost. Satan wanted to be the only one able to hold Gods power. Our progression through choice and experience threatened HIS power. The possibility of some of us gaining as much power or more power than him must have been unthinkable to him.

    Satan alone would then be God. We would be equal to each other but he would hold the power.

    Doesn’t that sound a lot like Karl Marx vision of communism?

    Satan is selfish and hates us because we took what he saw as his. He failed to love us because he was consumed with envy of God’s power

    His plan ensured our progression would not threaten his power by limiting our ability to progress.

%d bloggers like this: