Revelation 12:7-9 tells of a war in heaven: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
Outside of Mormonism, this passage has multiple interpretations and indeterminate timing. Milton, in Paradise Lost, tells this war in heaven as the origin story of the devil (Satan) and his followers, which took place after the earth was created and before Eve ate the fruit. Trinitarian theologians teach that this war in heaven refers to Christ’s victory over Satan on the cross, or suggest that the events may be figurative and not rooted in specific events that occurred at a specific time at all.
LDS doctrine firmly plants this story in the premortal existence, before the creation of this world, and then adds scenes and information to it. LDS scriptures assert that we were all present as unborn spirits at this war in heaven, and we fought the fight. “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Revelation 12:11). The ‘they’ in this scripture refers to us, unborn spirits who were eagerly awaiting the creation of this world. We participated in the war in heaven by relying on Christ’s sacrifice (long before it was made) and by testifying of Christ. This wasn’t a war of weapons, but a war of words and beliefs.
The LDS world origin story states that before this world was created, God had already prepared a Savior, his son Jesus Christ. God knew we would sin and need a Savior if we ever hoped to be saved from our sins and return to God’s presence. Christ’s life, death and sacrifice were planned before the earth was made. In the war in heaven, Satan tried to usurp Christ’s place in God’s plan and asked that he be sent as savior instead. Satan offered to do something that was impossible: save everyone. “Behold, here am I,” said Satan, “send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it” (Moses 4:1).
Satan had a convincing campaign slogan: No empty chairs in heaven! If he was chosen to be God’s son, he would save everyone. But he would accomplish this feat by destroying the agency of mankind and usurping God’s power and honor. For this, he was cast out of heaven. “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:3). Satan’s plan would have destroyed man’s agency and God’s power. The Book of Mormon contains entire chapters explaining how, exactly, Satan’s plan would have brought about those twin destructions.
In contrast, Jesus Christ said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). Christ offered to save the world according to God’s plan and give God the glory for it. The outcome was never in dispute. Of course God always planned to send Jesus Christ to be the Savior.
Satan was cast out of heaven “by the power of mine Only Begotten,” which refers to Jesus Christ (see Moses 4:3). “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, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice” (Moses 4:4).
There was never any doubt about which side would win the war in heaven. God and Christ would win. The only real suspense was which side each individual unborn spirit would choose. “A third part of the hosts of heaven” followed Satan in the war in heaven. “And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels” D&C 29:36-37). When these spirits were sent out of heaven, they gave up their chance to be born and become mortal.
These followers of Satan are called demons or evil spirits. Angels are spirits who chose to follow Christ in the war in heaven. They are either the spirits of those not yet born, or the spirits of those who have died and not yet been resurrected. “But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it” (D&C 130:5).
Of the unborn host existing in premortal heaven, two-thirds accepted Jesus Christ. We are the people who are born on this Earth. In other words, accepting Christ and rejecting Satan in the premortal existence was the ticket to mortality. Accepting Christ meant accepting his atonement, which meant that we agreed that Christ’s atonement would pay for our sins and would also heal the pain of others’ sins that would be inflicted upon us. Every pain, sin and tribulation in this fallen mortal world funnels through the power of Jesus Christ to be forgiven or healed.
The idea that everyone on this earth already accepted Christ in order to be born forms the basis for temple work. Temple work doesn’t change anyone’s religion; it just reaffirms the religion everyone chose before they were born.
And that is … the most arrogant doctrine taught by any religion. No other religion teaches that everyone actually belongs to their religion; they just forgot. There is no such thing as a non-believer born on this earth, per LDS theology. Just people who forgot the war in heaven.
Questions:
- Do you agree or disagree that everyone who is born into mortality accepted Christ in the premortal existence?
- Do you believe we existed and could make choices before we were born into mortality?
- What effect does it have on someone’s worldview to believe that everyone would actually agree with them if they were truly honest in heart?
Annotated Bibliography about the War in Heaven in other religious traditions because I got really interested in this question:
Draper, Richard D and Michael D. Rhodes. The Revelation of John the Apostle. BYU Studies, 2016. In analyzing the text of Revelation 12:7-12, these LDS authors state that the war in heaven takes place in “the premortal period” (p.451; see also p.457), and then discuss the battle. Michael and his angels fought the battle, which ended with Satan being cast out of heaven “not just [by] the power of Michael and his host but that of God” (p.454). The authors then explain the effect of changes made to the text by Joseph Smith (see p.460-61). Quotes from several modern day prophets make it clear that LDS teachings place this event in the premortal existence.
Koester, Craig R. Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale University Press, 2014, pp. 563-65. The symbolism and meaning of Revelation 12:7-12 are discussed in the context of the first century A.D., with the battle in heaven and death perhaps referring to the early Christian martyrs.
Resseguie, James L. The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, pp. 172-75. Resseguie states that the victory over Satan in these verses occurred when Christ died on the cross.
Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), pp. 322-29. The timing of the war in heaven is figurative, as the events in Revelation 12:7-11 are a symbol of Christ’s victory over Satan.
Wheat & Tares 
The Book of Revelation was almost not accepted into the canon. How much better things would have been had it been rejected.
Your point of ” No other religion teaches that everyone actually belongs to their religion; they just forgot.” is fascinating. I don’t know that I ever heard that or made that connection, but you are spot on. As to your third question, this just adds to the sense of superiority that members feel in general – even when they don’t realize it. There is a self satisfied smug feeling of “I have the truth, I’m so blessed, and I’m so lucky” that emanates whether one realizes it or not. It’s not attractive.
At this point in time, I really don’t know what I believe. I was fully in for decades only to discover that most of the “truths” I’d been indoctrinated with over decades weren’t actually true or had been altered dramatically over time. For someone as literal as I am, that is impossible to rationalize. These days, it’s difficult to even pinpoint what is actual doctrine, which is disturbing. It makes you question everything. We basically have writings and words of men (and I don’t mean that in the general sense – I mean just males) telling us their version of what they think is true. Other men say different things. In reality, none of us know anything for sure – at least while we’re here on this planet.
I do believe (no proof, just my personal belief) that we have agency and can make choices regarding our “life”. I don’t think we really know anything about life outside of this mortality – before or after. We only have words of men with no proof of their statements. I suspect most of what we’re taught is dead wrong. I do believe we continue to exist after our mortal life, but what that looks like is unclear. I personally lean toward the concept of reincarnation, but who knows!
I’m no supporter of Nelson’s sad heaven or the church’s passive pro-polygamy stance. Mormon heaven is not somewhere I will be.
Interesting questions. I imagine it is an arrogant belief as it was presented.
What I find interesting is that LDS saying they believe in the War in Heaven and that it was fought over free agency are so willing to take away a person’s agency either in the home as parents or in society with the legislature. We could talk for days about how parents being overly strict lose their children as they age because kids just don’t see it the way their parents do. Then of course there’s all the guilt that goes with that on both sides. Then there’s the push legislatively to control so many of our choices. It can be done by changing what something means like abortion being murder instead of woman’s health. Or it could be the constant passing of laws to make pride flags illegal (there’s a bill like that in Utah being debated right now), doing away with DEI, all the anti-trans legislation and so much more. As a matter of fact they make these laws because they say they are pushing back on a liberal agenda which advocates for all of these things, and might say within the laws passed prohibiting discrimination or championing civil rights. There’s a big difference between advocating and legislation.
So I do think it’s an arrogant belief because of a choice made that we don’t remember that puts us in a chosen position as a member of the church. But, I also think it’s a belief that must not be that mainstream because it’s so conveniently forgotten when we interact together and someone has authority over another person. It takes faith to believe in free agency and I don’t see MAGA doing things on faith in spite of their constant references back to religious freedom.
Finally, I agree with familywomen’s stance on not wanting to be in a Mormon heaven.
I disagree with the doctrine of premortal existence. It is almost certainly a myth, rehash/riff of Milton et al. It is propagated as literal history by a high-demand religion to keep its tithing-paying members obedient and feeling special (rewarded)
I do find appealing the idea of my present conscious identity being eternal. It takes away the sting (fear) of death. It is however, almost certainly not true. It’s a myth we tell ourselves for comfort. That would be harmless enough, except as mentioned in #1, high-demand religions use it to keep their members in line and paying tithing.
The effect on me was to amplify my privileged identity as a “chosen” member of the patriarchy. This left me obtuse and annoyed by people who complain about white male privilege in general and priesthood in particular. I’m trying to do better now that I’m agnostic and have my feet on the ground, but honestly I still spend a lot of time being a disillusioned and jaded fellow (bit of a jerk)
I’ve read Milton’s Paradise Lost. I’ve certainly read and studied in detail all the Standard Works and find the Book of Moses interesting, even thought-provoking. I recently reread the Book of Revelation. Rich, operatic literature! Just, please people, stop asking to buy into the Church-marketed notion that they are historical transcripts. I bear you my testimony, they are myths and fables, and best enjoyed over a piping-hot cup of coffee (cream, no sugar)
As I see the war in heaven, the two positions were as follows:
(1) Give people agency and second chances if they fall short. The risk is that some will not be saved (as in not having to suffer for their own sins). The rewards are that (a) suffering for one’s own sins will come to an end, (b) some will never have to suffer for their own sins, and (c) some will even be exalted.
(2) Do not give people agency. There is no risk. Everybody will be saved. Nobody will be exalted.
People in the pre-existence could accept the first proposition without embracing everything about the Mormon Church. This was all conceptual. The combatants on the “agency” side had no idea how it would all play out. But they wanted to find out. I view the ones on the “no agency” side as the ones who didn’t want to find out because they were worse than Hitler and knew they had no chance of salvation under the “agency” plan. They were not just a bunch of Calvinists who were disappointed that their church was not going to be the “true” one.
The whole business about having already accepted the Mormon Church reminds me of a story (told by the 1970s equivalent of an area authority) about a guy who tried to convince a girl to marry him because he know that they had made a covenant in the pre-existence to find and marry each other on earth. The girl responded, “Well, I may have made that mistake once, but I’m certainly not going to make it again.” The AA’s point was that she was entirely justified in saying that. Nothing we may or may not have done in the pre-existence is binding on us now. If it were, the “agency” plan would be a sham. If some church leaders have taught otherwise, then shame on them.
The thing about “free agency” or “moral agency” is that when an individual actually choose an option that differs from the LDS status quo, the assumption is that this individual is wrong or bad or misguided. Here’s a great example. Brother and sister Jones stop attending LDS meetings. We never consider that they have findamental disagreements with the Church on tithing, LGBTQ issues, etc. We never consider that they may have studied Church history and believe that the Church is not truthful about it’s history or truth claims. Instead, we assume that there’s a flaw with Brother or Sister Jones….he likes to ski on Sunday…she likes coffee…their kid is gay…he has a tatoo…she has a double piercing. See? There’s always some kind of flaw that needs to be fixed by the Jones. Their lack of attendance has nothing to do with the Church itself. Yet we talk about “agency”?
Does the BYU Honor Code have anything to do with honor? If we trusted BYU students we would let them navigate their agency without compelling them via the Honor Code Office. We should rename it the “BYU Code” and take away “honor” completely from the label. And perhaps we should rename “agency” as well. How about “Church Code of Conduct”?
That idea of “You already chose to do this,” is the exact same denial of agency as, “You promised to go on a mission when you got baptized.” Or, “You promised to never turn down a calling when you were endowed.” Whether it is promises made in the pre-existence or promises we really didn’t make when we agreed to something else, it is a false and non-binding idea that seeks to override the choice someone is trying to make now. We did not really agree to join the church by following Jesus in some imaginary pre-existence. If we don’t remember it and they (the church or the boy friend or whoever is insisting that we already agreed to something) can only imagine it, there is no proof and no agreement. So, when Mormons go around claiming someone else promised to marry, promised to go on a mission, promised to join (fill in the blank) they are just lying and trying to manipulate you into doing what they want.
But Mormons are really good at taking away free agency.
I find the whole premise of the War in Heaven to be fundamentally flawed. According to LDS teachings, when both Plans of Salvation were presented, God’s only sticking point was whether or not He would get to claim all the glory for Himself. Not only that, in order for it to work, it required God’s favorite son to be tortured to death as punshment for everyone else’s misdeeds, while only a small fraction of the total human population would ever come close to qualifying for the full benefits. Therefore, God is a narcissistic egomaniac who has no reservations about purposely inflicting physical/emotional pain upon His children while also setting them up for long-term failure. That sounds like the worst kind of abusive parent imaginable, and the height of arrogance.
If God was truly loving, benevolent and omnipotent, would he really allow a simple disagreement of terms and conditions to escalate to total cosmic war?
And how exactly does heavenly warfare work? Here on earth, the ultimate currency of war, and metric for its success or failure, is human lives. But as unembodied spirits who can’t really be killed (or aren’t technically alive to begin with), how is victory acheived? How is defeat determined? What weapons or tactics are involved? What does spritual “violence” look like, especially on such a massive scale?
Also, it reminds me of a time many years ago in a ward council meeting in which my then-bishop, while trying to encourage more member-missionary efforts, unironically declared: “You know, I’m also the bishop over the thousands of non-members who live within the ward boundaries – they just don’t know it yet!” Even as a TBM at the time, that struck me as quite arrogant, especially being a ward in the rural southeastern US where Mormons are few and far between, and often viewed with suspicion.
I find the whole premise of the War in Heaven to be fundamentally flawed. According to LDS teachings, when both Plans of Salvation were presented, God’s only sticking point was whether or not He would get to claim all the glory for Himself. Not only that, in order for it to work, it required God’s favorite son to be tortured to death as punshment for everyone else’s misdeeds, while only a small fraction of the total human population would ever come close to qualifying for the full benefits. Therefore, God is a narcissistic egomaniac who has no reservations about purposely inflicting physical/emotional pain upon His children while also setting them up for long-term failure. That sounds like the worst kind of abusive parent imaginable, and the height of arrogance.
If God was truly loving, benevolent and omnipotent, would he really allow a simple disagreement of terms and conditions to escalate to total cosmic war?
And how exactly does heavenly warfare work? Here on earth, the ultimate currency of war, and metric for its success or failure, is human lives. But as unembodied spirits who can’t really be killed (or aren’t technically alive to begin with), how is victory acheived? How is defeat determined? What weapons or tactics are involved? What does spritual “violence” look like, especially on such a massive scale?
Also, it reminds me of a time many years ago in a ward council meeting in which my then-bishop, while trying to encourage more member-missionary efforts, unironically declared: “You know, I’m also the bishop over the thousands of non-members who live within the ward boundaries – they just don’t know it yet!” Even as a TBM at the time, that struck me as quite arrogant, especially being a ward in the rural southeastern US where Mormons are few and far between, and often viewed with suspicion.
Oh, just for fun, my mother had a twin who never developed. So, she always joked that her twin was killed in the war in Heaven
I agree with lastlemming that there is a space to believe that all of us accepted the Jesus plan in a pre-mortal existence without signing up for every last bit of Mormonism. (Perhaps the third part found out about polygamy and racism and noped out of the whole thing?)
Personally, I reside in a space these days where I am not nearly so confident in many teachings from The Church. There are a number that I still like, and I like the pre-existence and the idea that I signed up for this. It feels better to me that we were all making reasonably informed decisions about how much life would suck sometimes and that we still came. (Of course, if our other option was some sort of eternal banishment, then our choice may not have been all that free.)
For a while now, I’ve considered the idea that Mormons have a monopoly on 99.9% of the Holy Spirit’s attention to be our most arrogant teaching. I’ll have to think some more about whether this one supplants it.
Actually, Muslims believe that all children are born Muslim but are led from the right path by unbelieving families and cultures. This means that all children are entitled to the protection of the Muslim community. They don’t always act like it, but this is the doctrine.
Ward Radio, arguably the most obnoxious pro-Mormon podcast on the interwebs, makes money selling “War in Heaven Veteran” merch. I saw someone in my ward wearing one of the hats at Home Depot, and I almost died from
cringe.
Humans are constantly in the business of seeking assurances. We are truly uncomfortable with risk. We want some guarantees before we embark on something. Religion provides that for many people. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to resonate or comport to your lived experience. As I understand it, the idea of the veil is nowhere in scripture, it was invented to explain why we can’t remember any existence before this one. The Book of Revelation was written to inspire marginalized people that one day they would take power and be on top. War is a common human motif. Quite a few hymns are written around the idea of war. It gives you a bad guy to go after, it gives you purpose. I kind of wonder what human existence would be like if war went away completely, if there was no “bad guy” to be constantly fighting. Would we actually be capable of sitting and just being? A lot of our identity is tied to the “bad guys” that we fight.
I for one no longer lend much credence to the Book of Revelation or the idea of the personage we can call Satan. I’ve done so because I’ve learned how the idea of the Satan we have now was created by changing thought over time. And the Book of Revelation was not written for our day or anyone anywhere near it. Both Satan and the Book of Revelation have been deployed as fear tactics consistently and repeatedly to control behavior and thought. Over the last couple years, I’ve become aware of the tremendous damage these two things have caused. I just don’t understand why it is that everything has to be framed in the context of a fight. I just have not seen a heaven in the church worth fighting for. It just seems that the closer I get to God (in the church’s view) the less agency I have. That sounds more like a prison to me. And to be quite frank, based on our current teachings of the plan of salvation–it is a terrible plan, especially when most people will not make it to the place where you supposedly want them. What’s crazy is that I’ve had a couple encounters with the divine in my lifetime what were seminal moments for me. I believe there is something, I just don’t think the church hits the mark on what that is nearly as well as it thinks it does.
I’d be interested in reading a comparative religion piece about the different interpretations of the war in heaven within Christianity, and within different cultures and religions generally. Just like most cultures have creation myths and many cultures have flood myths, so too do many cultures have myths about some kind of conflict, between some kinds of deities, in some kind of heaven, leading to some kind of banishment, with some kind of consequence for mortals.
This comment is somewhat similar to Jack Hughes’. The war in heaven doesn’t make much sense to me – what person or spirit would decide to forgo a beautiful existence on Earth with the promise of salvation and a perfect immortal body if they follow God’s plan vs eternal damnation and misery if they follow Lucifer? That’s not even a choice. Nobody would choose Lucifer’s plan if they had full information. If they didn’t have all relevant information then it’s just a repeat of our life here on Earth.
Amen! The doctrine IS Arrogant! I believe in epistemic humility! The book of Revelation was written for Nero and the Romans. Period!
It would have saved a lot of bloodshed if it had never been canonized!
Beware of anyone who professes to speak for God!
Amen and thankyou!
sublimeloudly, you bring up epistemic humility. I remember years ago Terry Givens’ son Nathaniel Givens writing a blog post on Times and Seasons entitled epistemic humility. This is a philosophy I too favor. I interpret the idea to mean that we should be parsimonious and not make bold assertions on lacking or bad evidence. We should similarly consider all knowledge to be tentative and subject to change upon the emergency of new evidence or a superior interpretation of existing evidence. Lastly it requires accepting that some ideas do have overwhelming evidence and are most likely correct.
That said, many apologists, neo-apologists, and quasi-apologists like Nathaniel Givens like to appeal to epistemic humility. However, there is a catch. Their message is only partly intended for a Mormon audience. It is directed mostly, instead at so-called “scientism,” in other words, people who assert that modern science debunks religious truth claims. They also appeal to epistemic humility as a way of saying something to the effect of, “knowledge and reality are so tentative that you can’t say that Mormon truth claims aren’t true.” I find this reasoning to be an abuse of the concept of epistemic humility. The church makes quite a number of very bold truth claims, based on almost no observable evidence, around which it encourages members to not just say they believe in, but actually claim they know to be true. If you’re defending a belief system that makes extraordinary truth claims with little to no evidence (which all apologists are whether they like to admit it or not) and you cannot bring yourself to demand evidence for these claims or boldly question then (partly in fear of church or church community reprisal against you), then you don’t get to preach epistemic humility. “Scientism” is also a boogeyman concept.
Pontius Python – I looked for comparative articles about the War in Heaven, and found only the scraps mentioned in the sources I listed. The War in Heaven is a non-event in other Christian churches, barely worth considering.
As several have mentioned, Revelation isn’t a prophecy and the world would be better off if it hadn’t been canonized. Years ago, I read several books in the “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye, which took Revelation literally. Like, the great beasts of war were exactly as described in Revelation and there was a literal anti-Christ. The series went on forever and I got sick of after five or six books and never finished it. Oddly, the series started with the Rapture. Half of humanity was caught up to heaven and the books were about the people who got Left Behind because they weren’t righteous enough.
Jack Hughes – I’ve got a dim view of God’s requirement that his son be tortured because none of us could follow the commandments perfectly too. And I can answer your other question about what the war actually was, at least according to my high school seminar teacher. It was a testimony meeting. Verse 11: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” The war was just us picking sides, not an attempt to defeat one group or another.
This teaching brings up a lot of really interesting ideas about agency and I’ve enjoyed reading all the comments about that.
I hadn’t really thought about Mormonism’s doctrine of the pre-existence implying that everyone once was a Mormon, but that does sound correct, and it also seems pretty unique to Mormonism as well. Unfortunately, what isn’t unique to Mormonism is a belief which is a close cousin to the belief that everyone was previously a Mormon, namely many (most?) religions hold that a person must belong to religion X (where X is almost always the religion they were born into) or that person will be damned or seriously punished in some way. Yeah, everyone is a Mormon in our origin story, but most other world religions insist that everyone else is doomed for not having faith in their religion, so I don’t see the Mormon belief in the pre-existence as much more arrogant than these other religions that say I am doomed. They’re all arrogant!
It’s a little different, but similar to Mormon belief, but a lot of origin stories in many cultures/religions do seem to claim to explain the origin of all of humanity. For example, the origin stories of many Native American cultures that I’ve heard seem to claim to explain the origin of all humans. I mean, they didn’t know that the earth was a whole lot bigger and filled with many other people when they constructed these stories, but still, they are often told as being universal. That’s kind of arrogant, too, since people from other cultures don’t think that’s where they came from.
I guess I’m a practical person. The doctrine of the pre-existence is just a nothing-burger for me. I can’t remember it, nor can I verify that it is true. It seems made up to me, but maybe there’s something worthwhile in treating it purely as a metaphor. Therefore, the pre-existence doesn’t matter to me, nor does it affect my day-to-day decisions and actions. I feel the same way about Mormonism’s obsession with various post-mortal Kingdoms and “degrees of glory”. I don’t think Paul or Joseph Smith or anyone else knew much, if anything, about what happens to us after we die. It’s so hidden from me that it has absolutely no impact on my day-to-day life. Instead of filling my days thinking about my pre-mortal life, what happens to us after we die, or spending hours each month performing special handshakes for dead people that almost certainly don’t need them, I find fulfillment in just trying to be a decent human being and helping out where I can. I don’t do those things because I’m a “War in Heaven Veteran” and was one of the “valiant ones”, nor do I do them to try to find a way to squeeze myself into the Celestial Kingdom. I just do it because it seems right and makes me feel good. I do believe in some kind of an afterlife, but I don’t know what that will entail, and I can’t prove it to you. Hopefully, just trying to be good while I was alive will be worth something once I get there.
Trevor writes, “Nobody would choose Lucifer’s plan if they had full information.”
Per LDS doctrine, most did not follow Lucifer. But a not insignificant number did. Why? What was Lucifer selling?
Since people like to have choices and since people like to be rewarded for their choices, what made Lucifer’s plan appealing? I believe he was selling the same lie that charlatans sell today: It is the idea that we can have good things without hard work and without the risk of failure. Lucifer was selling the “happy pill”. He was selling the idea that we could become “Gods” without taking the risk that we experience pain, loss and failure.
Lucifer’s plan would have destroyed Agency because he would have eliminated personal accountability. Lehi teaches that if there is no sin, then there can be no righteousness. If the outcome is the same no matter what one chooses, then there is no accountability for our choices and we are stripped of our Agency.
I always find it interesting that a portion of LDS culture views Lucifer’s plan as a Totalitarian state. I think it was the opposite. I think Lucifer was selling the naive paradise of choices without consequences. My opinion is Lucifer was selling the idea of “eat, drink & be merry” and you will never have a hangover.
The “War in Heaven” supposes that premortal souls had intelligence and discernment. Section 93 of the Doctrine & Covenants teaches the idea that “spirits” always had intelligence. Curiously, LDS doctrine on the “War in Heaven” is at odds with the Adam & Eve Garden of Eden story. For in the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve are made ignorant and unintelligent – they are said to be like children. And yet in this state of immaturity and ignorance, they make decisions that affect all mankind. How can these choices be said to demonstrate the principle of Agency? What the Garden of Eden story demonstrates is that immature people can be manipulated to make decisions favored by the manipulator.
I always find it curious that the temple endowment emphasizes the Garden of Eden narrative of manipulated Agency rather than the War in Heaven idea of total Agency. But then the Garden of Eden narrative is useful to the LDS church in teaching that while people are free to choose, the choice they need to make is to be a church member and support the church!
I never thought that the “War in Heaven” meant we were all “Mormons”. I understood that it means we had total and complete Agency and there was a conflict to decide whether we wanted to retain that Agency. I understand that for a portion of LDS culture, Mormonism is Eternal. I believe the Doctrine of Christ is Eternal. I think “Mormonism” or more specifically, the “LDS Hierarchy” means very little in the eternal scheme. And why would it?
I agree with much of what Disciple writes, but I’m not quite comfortable with his description of the implications of Satan’s plan.
Like Disciple, I have heard two different interpretations for how Satan would have denied our moral agency:
My interpretation is closer to the second, but without the implication of unbridled hedonism. Instead, I see the implications as being that the evolutionary process would never have gotten to the stage that our ancestors became accountable for their behavior. Our lifestyles would have been hedonistic only to the extent that cavemen’s lifestyles were hedonistic. A more accurate description of our lifestyles under Satan’s plan would be Hobbes’ description of life in the “state of nature”; i.e., solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Yes, we would be “saved” in the sense that we would not have to suffer for our sins, but such a state precludes any possibility of exaltation. Solitary people do not build eternal marriages. Poor, nasty, and brutish people do not build Zion. That is why we rejected the plan, not because we were offended by Satan’s hogging all the glory.
To be clear, I do not view the Garden of Eden as resembling what is shown in the temple ceremony. If our distant ancestors regarded it as paradise it was only because their brains could not comprehend anything better. I regard the Garden as whatever the environment was just before our distant ancestors’ brains developed enough that they became accountable for their actions. When that happened, we became a “fallen” species. That was not a deliberate decision on anybody’s part, but may have involved a change in diet. And our distant ancestors simultaneously recognized that surviving in what they may once have assumed was paradise was actually really hard.
And short people got no reason to live (lastlemming).
Lucifer’s plan would have destroyed Agency because he would have eliminated personal accountability.
kinda like 21st century capitalist America amiright?
I have actually always liked the War in Heaven story.
However, I look at it a little differently. I see the vast numbers and types of people on Earth now and imagine that they were all in the pre-existence. I believe we all lived there for a long time. We were people and had the personalities and traits we now exhibit. We were honest, liars, lazy, workaholics, funny, serious, outgoing, or solitary. In short we were human with all ranges of emotions and ideas. We just didn’t have a body.
When the plan was presented, people acted in many different ways according to their already developed personalities and values. Some people were all in on the religious side. I believe some just wanted a body. Some wanted the experience to come to earth, which must have seemed like a fantastic opportunity, but probably most people imagined they’d get a good experience and not a bad one. Some people looked ahead to coming back; some people were only fixated on the immediate. Seeing this only through the lens of a religious experience is probably too narrow.
While The Plan of Salvation may have weighed heavily on many, just like there are slacker students, I don’t think it was top of mind for many.
I do think it really was a choice, just not as heavy as you’re imagining. Just because those souls didn’t follow Satan, doesn’t mean they were all in on Jesus.
I also believe Satan and his crew were motivated mostly by the idea of power and glory … much like many of the leaders on earth–those who want nothing more than to subjugate and get gain. There are those people for whom that is the biggest motivator in life.
mountainclimber – Your comment about arrogant religious doctrines in other religions made me think. Yes, nearly every religion teaches they are the only true path to whatever reward in the afterlife we hope to receive. And the world’s origin stories account for every person on earth, regardless of culture. But after thinking about it, I came up with the distinction that I didn’t really develop in the post. The arrogance that is unique to Mormonism is temple work. We are actively taking steps to make sure that every person who ever lived on this earth receives Mormon religious rites. No other belief system does that.
There have been a few times when the Church has managed to majorly offend people with temple work. Doing temple work for those who were killed during the Holocaust is one example. The Church had to promise to stop doing that because it was so outrageous. Every so often, the Church has to remind people to stop submitting celebrities who have recently died for ordinance work. The reason for the rule that you can only submit your direct ancestors, or wait until someone has been dead for 100 years is because temple work is arrogant and makes others angry once they really understand what the Church is doing inside those beautiful buildings with their tall steeples. While many other cultures/religions teach that their beliefs are (or should be) universal, we’re the only belief system that has spent significant money and a lot of time to bring everyone into our belief system.
we’re the only belief system that has spent significant money and a lot of time to bring everyone into our belief system.
Some may be offended, but many with genetic diseases are grateful.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-family-history-records-lead-to-groundbreaking-genetic-research
And don’t give me the “we should be doing that anyway” line. Altruism toward those with genetic diseases does not get the job done. If it takes the “arrogant” approach of saving dead people’s souls to get it done, I say do it and take the win.
The dual of the argument is this war in heaven theology is the least arrogant. Everyone on the planet is one of the good guys – no more, no less. To get to that all that needs to be done is to introduce some scale and interpretation.
God is Everest, individuals are grains of sand, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a pile of sand somewhere around base camp, along with a bunch of other piles. All of humanity, each grain of sand has essentially the same relation to Everest – all are alike unto God. The solution to arrogance is to realize that spending a lot of energy trying to demonstrate that your grain is better because it has 8 rather than 7 facets, or your pile is inherently better because it is conical rather than dome shaped is not going to provide a big payoff in light of the reality 😉
The dual of the argument is this war in heaven theology is the least arrogant. Everyone on the planet is one of the good guys – no more, no less. To get to that all that needs to be done is to introduce some scale and interpretation.
God is Everest, individuals are grains of sand, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a pile of sand somewhere around base camp, along with a bunch of other piles. All of humanity, each grain of sand has essentially the same relation to Everest – all are alike unto God. The solution to arrogance is to realize that spending a lot of energy trying to demonstrate that your grain is better because it has 8 rather than 7 facets, or your pile is inherently better because it is conical rather than dome shaped is not going to provide a big payoff in light of the reality 😉
So–did they vote between the plans of Satan and Jesus, or did God settle the dispute by force?
I was taught as a child that everyone that was here on earth was good because they chose God in the pre-existence. I think you have to have some serious mental gymnastics to call that “arrogant.”
@Janey, I enjoyed your insightful comment about the temple. For some reason, I’ve been mulling over the ideas in this post and the comments for a few days. My following comments are kind of obvious, but for what it’s worth…
When thinking about whether the Church’s (or any religion’s) doctrines or practices are arrogant, it’s obviously a matter of perspective. There are 4 perspectives I’ve been thinking of with regards to the Church:
1. Faithful Church members. Again, this is obvious, but most Church members don’t find the pre-existence or temple work for the dead to be arrogant at all. Most Mormons feel that the teachings on the pre-existence are beautiful because it confirms that they are literal children of Heavenly Parents, everyone is one big family, there is a purpose to mortality, we all made the right choice in the pre-existence, and yes, that the Mormon church is the only way to get to heaven. It’s not arrogant to belong to the One True Church if you really believe you actually belong to the One True Church (no orthodox believer of any world thinks that their own religion is arrogant). To Church members, temple work for all the dead non-members is an act of selfless service rather than arrogance. After all, every human needs the ordinances done to get into Mormon heaven–which is the only real heaven.
2. Most of the rest of the world (outside of Mormonism). My sense is that most of the rest of the world really has no idea about Mormonism’s view of the pre-existence and temple work. However, when they are told about Mormonism’s belief that everyone was a Mormon before they were born and/or that everyone needs to become a Mormon and have a proxy stand in for them in a Mormon temple if they didn’t receive all the necessary Mormon rites before they died, I think that a lot of people might feel a sense of arrogance, but I think the more prevalent feeling is “Oh, isn’t that tiny little Mormon religion with a weird name so quaint, quirky, and provincial!” Mormonism remains such an inconsequential force in the religious world today, that most people that encounter its more unique teachings like this to be “quaint”.
Even for outsiders that do engage with Mormonism’s teachings seriously, I don’t really think that they would feel that Mormonism is much more arrogant than most of the other religions of the world who believe nonbelievers will face some kind of punishment in the afterlife. I think most people would just think, “Wow! Those Mormons take their belief in the importance of their religious rites very seriously. It seems like they’re wasting their time and money on temple work, but it’s kind of nice that they don’t necessarily think I’m going to hell just for being a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, etc. If some Mormon wants to stand-in for my baptism after I die, well, why not–what do I have to lose in the event those crazy Mormons turn out to be right after all?” Personally, if I knew that a Muslim was going to do the hajj or a Hindu was going to wash themselves in the Ganges River on my behalf after I die, well, that’s just how I’d feel about it–I really don’t believe that those actions are going to matter to me after I die, but hey, if someone else wants to do it for me, they can knock themselves out.
3. Members of religions who have been seriously persecuted by another religion, members of religions who feel it violates their own beliefs to have Mormon rites performed for them, members of religions who strongly dislike Mormonism, etc. For example, Jews suffered terribly for their religious beliefs at the hands of “Christians” during the Holocaust. I’m not a Jew or a Holocaust survivor, but I think think of a number of reasons why Mormons performing temple rites on the behalf of Holocaust victims would be offensive. My sense is that the group of people that object to having Mormons perform ordinances for them after death is pretty small, but I don’t have any data to back that up. As you’ve noted, there is a very long waiting period (100 years) to do temple ordinances for dead people unless the work was requested by direct descendants, so clearly some people do have objections. Maybe these people are onto something since religions who view themselves as superior to other religions can lead to serious problems like the Holocaust and some other examples noted below–and Mormons performing temple rites for people of other religions could lead Mormons to believe that they really are superior to people of other religions to the point of violence.
4. Mormons who are transitioning from an orthodox to a less-orthodox faith (or no faith at all). Mormons believe everyone was a Mormon before they came to earth and that ultimately everyone needs to become a Mormon, including receiving Mormon temple rites, in order to go to heaven? This is arrogant! When you take off the lenses of Mormonism and view it on equal footing with the thousands of other religions in the world, instead of as the One True Church, the arrogance is obvious. I also agree that Mormonism’s temple work for the dead people of the entire world is pretty unique to Mormonism and is viewed as especially arrogant and offensive to a small percentage of the world’s population, but I think most people just shrug their shoulders and don’t really think that the practice makes Mormonism any more arrogant than any other religion that is going to punish them after they die for not belonging to that religion during their lifetime. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Again, I don’t have any numbers to back this up.
As far as candidates for arrogance in other religions, I’ll cite just 5:
1. The sometimes brutal missionary efforts that accompanied European colonialism throughout the world. I suppose Mormonism’s missionary efforts could be considered an offshoot or extension of this, but Mormon missionaries never committed the atrocities that missionaries from Spain, Portugal, England, etc. did. (Of course, they never had the chance to do so, either.)
2. The Crusades.
3. ISIS’s stated goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate to rule over the entire world as a theocracy that enforces extreme Islamic beliefs and practices.
4. Militant Buddhist violence against Muslims in Myanmar today.
5. The White Christian Nationalist movement in the US today. It’s a perverted view of Christianity, but (shudder) it does seem to have many adherents today.
I realize that it’s tricky to extract politics from religion in some of these cases, but it seems like religious arrogance is an important element in each of them.
I guess it is arrogant, but, as pointed out by mountainclimber, is it more arrogant than a religious worldview that says “non believers go to hell permanently” or “we are God’s special chosen race and everyone else is dammed”?
In think the mormon cosmology is probably towards the less arrogant end of the spectrum. It presupposes not only that virtually every person ever can be saved but also that a tiny fraction of total past, present, and future human population (temple active mormons) will do the heavy lifting on the behalf of everyone else.
The LDS Second Anointing ordinance should also be considered in the running for most arrogant teaching/practice. The idea that men can decide who has exceeded the bar in this life to make it to Mormonism’s highest degree of heaven (and there are no heavens other than those of Mormonism) is extremely arrogant.
I’ve been learning about Jehovah’s Witnesses off and on for a few years, and they have something that competes with Mormonism’s Second Anointing. Interestingly enough, JWs refer to it as the “anointing”. From Wikipedia:
Apparently, we have a situation with the JW’s where people get to determine themselves whether they’ve been anointed by God to attain the JW heaven (which, of course, is the one and only heaven) upon death through an unmistakeable spiritual experience. This doesn’t sound all that bad if these anointings really happened (of course, most non-JWs don’t think they do) and could be verified or if they couldn’t be verified (which they obviously cannot) that people wouldn’t talk about them at all. But…the anointed people apparently get to make a show of partaking of the unleavened bread and wine at the JW’s annual “Memorial” service, so we have a situation where a bunch of JW’s who almost assuredly haven’t actually received the “anointing” from God arrogantly stand before their fellow congregants claiming that they have received it. And, yeah, my understanding is that a lot of JW’s are rightfully very, very suspicious of members who partake of the bread and wine at Memorial for obvious reasons. I can personally think of the types of members of the wards I’ve been in during my life who would likely be the type to believe that they had received the “anointing” if they were JWs. They would be extremely committed Mormons who devoted their lives to the Church. They would also frequently be among the least Christlike members of their wards.
@mountainclimber
Is it possible to reconcile your types 1 and 4 above? You contrast “devout” and “transitioning” Mormons. Do you think it’s possible that a devout Mormon could do temple work in a non-arrogant way, so that even if they changed the way they looked at Mormonism (“unorthodox”) they could continue to honestly say they always did the work in a respectful and inclusive way, helping to forge a path to God for a person whose name may have not been spoken for centuries – and not a “I’m right and you’re wrong way”?
I can see it. I can see temple rituals being done in a spirit of love and inclusion where the good intentions of the individual were clear to themselves, regardless of how they eventually came to view the truth claims of the church.
Thanks for your write-up. I appreciated the thoughtfulness of your post and the way you looked at the question from different perspectives.
Rod Holland
@rholland,
That’s an interesting question. I’m going to give a direct answer up front, so it’s clear what I think the answer is, but then I’m going to waffle a bit 🙂 You asked:
I bolded “devout” in your question, and in order to respond, I want to change that word in your question from “devout” to “orthodox”:
The reason for that change is I think that there are a lot of devout Mormons who aren’t necessarily fully orthodox, but I think you are really asking about orthodox Mormons? Forgive me if I’m wrong about that.
The reason I think that an orthodox Mormon cannot do temple work in a non-arrogant way is because of how they would have to answer this question:
There is only one orthodox answer to this question, and that is a hard no. Mormon orthodoxy is quite clear that only people that have been baptized, confirmed, endowed, and sealed by Mormon priesthood authority, whether for themselves while living or by proxy after death, have any hope of living in the Celestial Kingdom, and that there is no other place worth going than the (highest degree of) Celestial Kingdom. That answer would be perceived as arrogant by many people who aren’t members of the Church as described in the OP and my comments.
I think maybe what you are getting at is that many Mormons who attend the temple aren’t necessarily going there full of arrogance. In fact, I believe that is true. Many Mormons, including orthodox Mormons, who attend the temple feel like they are going there out of love for their fellow man–you know, 2nd Great Commandment kind of stuff. They aren’t walking into the doors shaking their heads at how stupid the rest of the planet is for not converting to Mormonism. However, like I said, when you ask the right question–the type of question I provided above–orthodox Mormons will pretty quickly tell you that no one is getting to the Celestial Kingdom without the proper Mormon ordinances being done for them, and that is going to seem pretty arrogant to anyone outside the Church.
When an orthodox Mormon transitions to a less orthodox Mormon, it seems like it is very common for that person to go through a phase (that may last a very long time, perhaps the remainder of their lives) where they sort of do a facepalm when their eyes are opened to how arrogant, narrow-minded, etc. that their previous orthodox beliefs were when they finally take a more open-minded view of other world religions and ideas. Sometimes less orthodox Mormons move past this phase so that they aren’t as shocked or disappointed in their previous views and can then view orthodox Mormon beliefs with a lens similar to the way the rest of the non-Mormon world views them. Like I said, I think the majority of the rest of the world views Mormon temple work for the dead to be similar to what you described with a “spirit of love and inclusion”: “It’s kind of weird, and yeah a bit arrogant, to be baptizing dead people, but I guess it’s kind of nice that the Mormons care for the entirety of humanity like they do.” As such, Mormons who haved transitioned from orthodox to unorthodox beliefs can certainly view the temple ordinances as being done in a spirit of love and inclusion while also questioning whether the ordinances are really valid or necessary.
The wolf in sheep clothing comparison between the Book of Daniel, to the Av tuma fraud book of Revelation: particularly the focus on their so-called shared apocalyptic and mystic natures. The latter a patented counterfeit misrepresentation of T’NaCH mysticism. Advisable to compare the mysticism of the Zohar and Ari kabbalah, with from famous Xtian mystics of the Middle Ages, in order to better grasp the differences between the Book of Daniel contrasted by the book of Revelations.
Daniel, primarily a book of visions about the future — the rise and fall of empires, the coming of “God’s Kingdom” (A key concept which refers to the dedication of tohor Torah middot.), and redemption of Israel from g’lut/exile. Daniel expresses a deep mystical nature, with much of its content, visionary visions including symbolic creatures and events, rather than ethical or moral instruction. Jewish mysticism, focused on God’s sovereignty, as defined above, and the future redemption of Cohen Israel from g’lut/exile.
Revelation exists as a product of its time, heavily influenced by Roman and Greek culture, as well as early Xtian theological development, rather than a direct continuation of the ethical and mystical prophecies found in the Tanakh. Revelation’s imagery of the beast (often thought to symbolize oppressive empires, especially Rome), “the whore of Babylon”, and other symbols, more aligned with the political realities of the Roman Empire rather than the ethical and spiritual messages found in the Tanakh’s prophets.
The idea of Revelation, in point of fact: a “counterfeit” of the Book of Daniel, where it takes elements of Jewish pre 2nd Temple mysticism and apocalyptic visions, but reinterprets them in a way that aligns more with Roman imperialism and Xstian doctrine. This counterfeit has no connection with the original ethical, justice-driven themes of the Hebrew prophets. The moral exhortations to t’shuva and righteous judicial courtroom justice – throughout the Hebrew prophets – replaced by Revelation’s more cosmic and theological framework; one concerned with salvation through Christ, which perverts, distorts, and pollutes Torah faith, with treif Av tuma avoda zarah.
Revelation exposed as a “counterfeit” distortion, alien version of the mystical and ethical apocalyptic vision found in Daniel and, more broadly, in the Tanakh. Profound differences in the nature of mysticism and prophecy between Jewish and Xtian traditions, especially regarding how these latter alien texts overshadowed by the influence exerted by the surrounding Roman and Greek cultures.
Daniel’s visions of the future, ultimately about the restoration of Jewish Constitutional Torah Republic, and the end of exile (g’lut); emphasizing the hope of divine justice and deliverance, as exemplified by the story of Daniel thrown into the furnace. Later Jewish mysticism, such as the Kabbalistic teachings of the Zohar and the teachings of the Ari (Isaac Luria), rooted in God’s – מלכות of tohor middot – sovereignty – in future social interactions between Jews in all generations, and the faith that HaShem shall redeem his people, based upon the Torah precedent of Egypt. This Jewish mysticism, it focuses on the later mystical idea, made famous by Reform Judaism, known as tikkun olam. These mystical systems, while deeply esoteric and visionary, firmly grounded in ethical behavior and the redemption of the world through spiritual practice of dedicating tohor middot which shape and determine future social interactions between Jews.
This treif book of Revelation, this utter counterfeit, it borrows mystical and apocalyptic imagery of Daniel but totally perverts it unto tuma avoda zarah belief in the son of God, lamb metaphor. Revelation often repeats its treif tuma ideas, expressed through the lens of Xtian eschatology. The pie in the sky nonsense second coming of Christ, the defeat of Satan, and the establishment of a new heaven and earth. These ideas, while apocalyptic in nature, inextricably tied to Xtian dogmatic beliefs about their Messiah, and the church replacement theologies, utterly foreign to the original Jewish context of Daniel’s visions. Xtian eschatology holds no lock & key monopoly upon the Oral Torah vision of Moshiach. The church emphatically denies the existence of the Oral Torah. Despite the fact that the Oral Torah stands upon positive and negative Torah commandments, as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of the Av tohor time oriented commandments, and specifically the Av time oriented commandment of Moshiach. All time oriented commandments require k’vanna. K’vanna defined by prophetic mussar.
The ethical imperative of t’shuvah and justice, expressed repeatedly throughout the Tanakh; replaced in Revelation by an alien cosmic theological framework that, focused upon salvation from sin through the resurrection of the dead by Christ. This focus on Xtian salvation, a total pollution of the original Torah faith, which centers on justice, ethical behavior, and the restoration of Israel. The moral and social justice themes of the Hebrew prophets in the Revelation counterfeit, overshadowed by theological salvation through Christ and divine judgment.
Contrast thee deep resonances between Meister Eckhart’s mystical ideas towards medieval Jewish mysticism, particularly Kabbalah of the Zohar and the Ari kabbalah. In absolute stark contrast the Av tuma treif Book of Revelation’s absolute distortion of Jewish apocalyptic visions as found in Daniel. Eckhart emphasizes the immanence of God within the soul, urging that each person contains a divine spark—a presence of God within them. His idea of becoming one with God mirrors the Kabbalistic view that God is not separate but rather present within everything, especially within the soul of each individual.
Eckhart’s mysticism bears a far closer similarity to the Kabbalistic journey of elevating the soul and rectifying the sparks of holiness that are scattered throughout the world (a process known the Ari’s kabbala later renamed “tikkun olam”). Both view the goal of spirituality as achieving a deeper connection with the Divine Essence.
Eckhart’s concept of the “Godhead”, a transcendent, unknowable aspect of God that lies beyond human comprehension, parallels the Kabbalistic notion of Ain Sof (literally “infinite”), which refers to the unknowable and limitless aspect of God before creation, rather than some vague focus upon “the lamb” metaphor of Revelation. Both Eckhart and Kabbalah convey the idea that God’s essence cannot be grasped directly by human understanding and that the soul must transcend worldly limitations to experience union with the Divine.
For Eckhart, the soul must be purified of its attachments to the material world in order to experience God directly, which resonates with the Kabbalistic idea of spiritual purification in order to ascend and understand higher truths. In Kabbalah, this idea also reflected in the process of elevating the soul and transcending lower desires to achieve a deeper connection with God and contribute to the overall repair of creation.
Revelation simply a distorted version that misrepresents Jewish apocalyptic visions, particularly those found in the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel rooted in ethical and justice-driven prophecies that call for Israel’s redemption and the triumph of God’s sovereignty ie tohor middot. Daniel’s visions reflect Jewish hopes for the end of exile (g’lut) and the coming of God’s Kingdom on earth, not a cosmic battle focused on salvation through Christ. Revelation’s apocalyptic themes are thus tied to a Xtian framework, focusing on salvation through Christ and divine judgment by their foreign Gods.
Meister Eckhart’s mysticism far closer to Jewish mystical ideas like those in Kabbalah, it focuses on personal transformation, the immanence of God within the soul, and the union with the Divine. Both Eckhart and Jewish mystics like the Zohar and Isaac Luria emphasize the divine spark within individuals and the transcendent unity of God that can be experienced through spiritual purification and detachment from worldly concerns.
Jesus Christ substituted with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah. Xtianity compares to war-time Fiat currencies. During the American Civil War Lincoln’s greenback replaced the gold based commodity currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism. Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed actual gold or silver with state-controlled monopoly paper money; grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.
2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).
2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.
This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.
Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.
Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study. Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.
The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah is hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.
Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.
Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.
Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).
Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.
Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”. The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic. It erases the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.
This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes is an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method is often used in Jewish thought and Kabbalah to derive deeper meanings from texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings.
Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion from two or more premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise deductive reasoning.
Syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions.
Pardes logic ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent briefs which supports their contentions made before a common law courtroom. Syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah common law. In a courtroom, lawyers may build their cases inductively by presenting specific examples and precedents that lead to broader conclusions about the law or the case at hand. This aligns with the inductive nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in formal logic and reasoning, it does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law.
Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; the warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts. The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of syllogistic statute law deductive reasoning.
Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim reject to this day, meaning they did not stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea, does not permits Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system.
A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah is not metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) is not rooted in Torah, but in a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.
Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.
Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot is like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, but t’shuva internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of its oath.
The New Testament simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.
The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion. The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down. Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation. Korbanot and Romans 12:1. Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance. New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture. Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure.
Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah. The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone.
Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves. Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal precedents. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”
Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”
If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”. The phrase ‘new covenant’ (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of…a restoration of the original Torah oath, renewed with the same nation, in the same land, under the same constitution—never with a foreign faith, foreign priesthood, or foreign god.
Paul’s super-sessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah. The new testament re-defines holy as — Power through Substitution.
Power through substitution”: a false algebraic commutative principle that declares the New Testament equal to the Old—an inversion rooted in Greek deductive logic. Torah-based PaRDeS inductive reasoning utterly rejects this framework as an Av Ha’Tumah, a primary source of spiritual avoda zarah pollution. Paul’s theology resembles Roman statute law that overrules precedent via imperial fiat.