the folk doctrine of lucifer's plan
In preparing my lesson for my 11-year-old primary class this
week, I came across the roots of the popular folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan.
Lesson 2, entitled ‘Jesus Christ Was Chosen to Be Our Savior’, reviews the
scriptures that are the source of our understanding of the conflict in the
pre-mortal existence that we call the “War in Heaven” (See Revelation 12:7-9). The lesson talks about
what we know about our pre-mortal life and how we chose to follow Heavenly
Father’s plan to come to earth and be given the gift of agency “to see if they
will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” (Abraham 3:25).
The main body of the lesson focuses on the scriptures but
refers to the first ‘Enrichment Activity’ at the end of the lesson; which is where
the doctrine veers off track. This is ground zero for the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s
Plan (Primary 6 lesson manual, Chapter 2):
1.
To help the children imagine what it might
be like to live under Lucifer’s plan, tell them that for the next few minutes
they must do exactly what you say and nothing else (make sure they know they
cannot talk). Have them stand and remain standing perfectly still for a few
seconds. Then tell each child where to sit. (Do not seat friends near each
other.) Tell the children they must sit erect, feet flat to the floor, looking
straight ahead, not moving or speaking. Have them hold the position until you
tell them otherwise. After about thirty seconds, let them stand again and sit
where they want.
· What would it be like to live under Lucifer’s plan? (Help the
children understand that Lucifer wanted us to do exactly as we were told,
without being able to decide for ourselves.) Why wouldn’t his idea have worked?
Have the
children talk about how they felt and how they would feel if they were forced
to do exactly what they were told to do all day every day.
I don’t think I’m overstating the case when I say that this
scenario is commonly taught to the children of the church and it has become
part of the LDS zeitgeist. This is an example of a non-scriptural tenet in an
official church publication that gets perpetuated throughout the whole of the
church as a folk doctrine. I remember as a child being taught exactly this idea:
that Lucifer’s Plan was to be “forced to do exactly what [you] were told to do
all day every day”.
This is a popular
folk doctrine. Something about the dystopian dictator story appeals to us because
we want to understand what Lucifer’s Plan was and why we rejected it (more on
that later). And then as all folk doctrines do, it perpetuates and grows. It
leaks into other ideas and weaves its way into our understanding of other
things[1]
thus corrupting our understanding of truth.
I believe the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan to be
low-hanging fruit in the church’s ongoing efforts to revise and improve our curriculum
in quality and accuracy[2].
Most of the time we don’t even question the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan
despite the fact that it’s not in the scriptures. It’s only recently that I’ve
questioned it myself, but the effects of folk doctrines like this one are not
always benign…
One of the malignant effects of this folk doctrine is
highlighted in an article by Mark A. Mathews published in the March
2015 Ensign entitled “Satan’s Rebellion”. One of the main ideas of
his article is how the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan confuses people about
God’s plan for his children (emphasis
added):
When I was a young man, I began noticing a curious
tendency among some Church members. When they saw a situation where rules were
agreed upon and consequences for disobedience were applied (for example, in
Church discipline, parental discipline, or enforcing mission rules or standards
of conduct at Church schools), they would often say, “But isn’t that like
Satan’s approach? Aren’t they forcing people to be righteous?”
… I have
since come to realize that misunderstandings
like this about Satan’s rebellion and the War in Heaven are actually quite
common, as are hasty accusations of what looks like that plan today.
Unfortunately, these doctrinal
misunderstandings can lead to damaging results.
For
example, these misunderstandings could lead some parents to think they cannot
encourage their children to attend church. They can lead Church members to
support the legalization of serious moral sin. And these misunderstandings can
even lead some Church members to think that making and keeping covenants and
commitments of obedience is somehow contrary to God’s plan when, ironically,
such covenant obedience is central to God’s true plan of salvation.
Brother Mathews takes a decidedly less audacious tone than
the one I have chosen (e.g. he avoids talking about how the official curriculum
of the church contributes to the problem), but he is nonetheless seeking to
show us how this folk doctrine confuses and harms people with the intent to
persuade us not to believe it. I believe the church’s decision to publish his
article is a sign that this folk doctrine
is a problem in the church today.
In this article Brother Mathews points out that the
scriptures “do not clearly state how Satan proposed to carry out this lie”, but
that Lucifer’s Plan would destroy the agency of man (Moses 4:3). That’s pretty much all we know
as far as the scriptures are concerned.
The folk doctrine part of all this is that we like to assume that we know what the details of Lucifer’s plan
were when we actually don’t[3].
Lucifer’s proposal to “redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost” (Moses 4:1) wasn’t an alternate plan of
salvation[4],
he was simply rising up in rebellion against God!
If I could set the record straight and choose how to expound
the true doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan in the Primary Manual and other church
curricula[5]
I would teach that: according to the scriptures we know that in our premortal
existence, Lucifer rebelled against God and sought to take God’s glory and consequently
destroy the agency of man[6].
Fortunately for us we rejected that rebellion and even fought against it[7].
We kept our first estate and chose to follow our Heavenly Father’s plan to give
men their agency and provide a savior for them so that when they sinned they
could be forgiven[8].
To address this issue in the context of the folk doctrine of
Lucifer’s Plan, I’d say it this way: Lucifer’s plan was not to compel mankind
to live righteously in such a way that they had no choice. On the contrary,
Lucifer’s plan was to rebel against God; and if we had chosen to follow him in
the pre-mortal life we would have chosen to follow a leader who didn’t have the
power to save us.
[1]
While I don’t have the resources to do a full historical study of when and how
this folk doctrine began in the modern church (and there doesn’t seem to be a
basis for believing it was taught anciently), it could have been started by
President David O. McKay as quoted from April 1950 General Conference in chapter
22 of the Gospel Doctrine manual bearing his name (emphasis added):
Force, on the other hand, emanates from Lucifer himself. Even in
man’s [premortal] state, Satan sought power to compel the human family to do
his will by suggesting that the free agency of man be inoperative. If his plan
had been accepted, human beings would
have become mere puppets in the hands of a dictator, and the purpose of
man’s coming to earth would have been frustrated. Satan’s proposed system of
government, therefore, was rejected, and the principle of free agency
established.
I don’t think President
McKay meant puppets in the sense of our every decision being chosen by an
outside force but rather he meant that we would be pawns in Satan’s rebellion
against our Heavenly Father and forfeit our potential as agents of our own
destiny with the possibility of exaltation. And yet, like the Primary 6 manual,
a separate rendering of this teaching bears the markings of the folk doctrine
of Lucifer’s Plan (Chapter
3 of the Gospel Principles manual):
Yes, Satan wanted to force
us all to do his will, but that means pawns, not puppets. Perhaps this
misunderstanding is because of Moses 4:4
where it says “And he became Satan, yea, even the
devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them
captive at his will...”
[2]
I have no doubt that a revision to the Primary manuals similar to the one that
has already occurred for the Youth and Adult curriculums is imminent and that
the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan is very likely to be removed, but in the
meantime it’s still the official manual and is being taught in Primary.
[3]
See “Satan’s Plan” from J. Reuben Clark Jr’s
talk in October 1949 General Conference (pp. 192-193).
[4]
My preferred understanding is that at this point in the pre-mortal life, God
wasn’t asking for alternative proposals to his plan, he had already given us
his plan and was looking for someone to fulfill it. Lucifer’s used this call
for volunteers as his chance to take the spotlight and attempt a coup. He
knowingly proposed a false “plan” to save
man in their sins and his presentation of that plan was calculated to try
to incite his spiritual siblings to join him in rebellion: “Help make me God
and I’ll save everyone.”
[5]
In my research I found forms of the folk doctrine of Lucifer’s Plan in at least
2 other publications although not as clearly incorrect as in the Primary
manual.
posted by Ben at 12:15
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home