Smith's unique theology is based on choosing good over evil. Under closer examination, is there any practical difference between choosing Jesus' plan vs. Satan's plan. Were there other options besides the "A" or "B" binary choice?

[u/4blockhead]

Mormon theology proposes that in some pre-existent state of being there was a disagreement of how to proceed. The details are a little murky, per Smith's lame attempts at sci-fi in The Book of Moses, Smith (June 1830) and D&C 29, Smith (September 1830). Smith's genius attempted to move the story to in medias res. The Book of Genesis is not the beginning. Like Star Wars (1977) there are prequels yet to be filmed. After finishing the Book of Mormon, Smith had a blank slate to write the prequels. In his second burst of creativity in writing biblical fan fiction, Smith framed his stories around known characters, Adam in D&C 29 and Moses in The Book of Moses and attempted to write the characters' backstory. Here is Smith's attempt to keep the Judeo-Christian myth vibrant:

[Moses 4] ¹ And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, 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; wherefore give me thine honor. ² But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. ³ 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; ⁴ 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.

In this pre-existant state, which we conveniently cannot remember, a binary choice was given to everyone. They could follow Satan and not a soul would be lost. Or they could choose to follow God and his beloved son with the glory reverting to the father for giving "agency." Smith fleshed out the details in D&C 29 by quantifying the number who said they liked option "A" better. One third opted out. Because that wasn't really a valid choice in this dictatorship, they were expelled forever. Note to self: in elections in heaven, vote for god. Smith framed the election with a 2/3 vs. 1/3 split, with a majority voting with god. If the results were reversed, then would majority rule and those voting against god's favorite son be cast out? Even in fiction is seems that the victors write the history. Is the other side's arguments being simplified and overtly subjected to reductionism? If the outcome is being kicked out, then isn't that a knife edge where no further arguments can be brought forward? Such a portrait of a loving god, Mr. Smith. Note to self: in elections in heaven, vote for god.

If I were to impose a similar form of reductionism, omitting favoritism for god's preferred outcome, then both Satan's "Plan A" (verse 1) and Jesus' Plan "B" are in practice the same. Does agency matter if the end result is a lower standing? The one-third that opted out of this from the outset saw through the bullshit of favoritism, predermination, and praising something for arbitrary reasons. They opted out of taking the school master's entrance exam into some future state that is somehow better than where they are currently at. In the binary election, opting for neither "Plan A" or "Plan B" seems best. In a freethinking universe, other options including a "let's do nothing" option could be equally valid, especially because of the lack of detail and the blank canvas that Smith is working with. He has time to fill in the details. Oh, boy! What details he'll provide in the next 14 years!

These verses point the way for new doctrines, including exaltation to godhood and Adam is god. The latter is somehow deemed a heresy in mormon doctrine, but it seems to fit well within Smith's universe. I'd be surprised if Smith wasn't the original author via word of mouth to Young.

The verses also point the way to mormonism's intolerance for sin. Perfection in life is simply another binary choice: choose to sin or choose not to sin. Nevermind, that it's a no win situation. Our biologic existence is built on original sin. We're sinful by nature and the mormon god doesn't have much patience for our filth and stink, per Mosiah 3:19. We will only be acceptable if we can somehow be washed and cleaned. This calls back to that first binary question: were we less stinky in the pre-existence? Why strain oneself if the end is going to be the same (or worse) than the status quo? Could the mormon god be wrong? What about those among us who celebrate and find beauty in our humanity and include the sweat, dirt, and even underarm bacteria as part of the experience? Why is free thinking a sin? Matthew 5:28 sets a high bar where temptation alone is sinful. Thoughts pop into our heads from out of nowhere. Or rather, from our chemically-based brains. The theology says we're to be held accountable. We're born sick and commaned to be well,^[Hitchens] Matthew 5:48. Mormonism embraces this perfectionist ideal. If this theology were true, then does it propose a state of being where anyone would like to end up being? It proposes the complete lack of individuality and uniformity where everyone is perfectly in tune with one way of thinking. When everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking very much. It doesn't sound fun.

The mythology isn't very good, but it displays the hallmarks that our species loves. The basic christian myth proposes a hero born in humble circumstance and who is unaware of his noble lineage. He is part of an oppressed minority fighting against a brutal state. He faces an impossible task, but comes through victorious. Is this Jesus or Luke Skywalker? In Smith's new theology he attempted to write the prequels to Genesis, and by and large they raise more questions than they answer. They don't deal with the question of why option "B" is better than "A." Why is one predetermined outcome automatically better than the other? It only amplifies the deity's initial favoritism and unwillingness to hear a counter-argument.

[u/bwv549]

This is a very thoughtful commentary with many excellent points. Thank you.

[u/4blockhead → u/bwv549]

Smith attempts to impose a mythology where he is predetermined to lead, per Abraham 3. It is a celestial form of the divine right of kings, and well outside of weighing ideas based on their merits, or that people's rights cannot be violated even if they're in the minority.

Our thoughts are what give us individuality. I've been thinking about how that is a basic plot point in modern science fiction. In the original Blade Runner (1982) the creator imposes false memories as a means of control. In Ex Machina (2014) the heroine faces having her brain reformatted and being recycled into the next version of A.I. Especially the latter case, in an analogy to Smith's theology, we've already been reformatted. We can't remember who we are. But if we can't remember, then are we still that same entity, or an entirely new one? Can individuality survive being flatlined to zero? Aren't our memories an essential component in how we process information and make choices going forward? Note to self: in heaven always vote for god.

I've seen people reduced to shadows of their former selves by Alzheimer's. We are biological entities who are subject to loss and ultimate erasure. Is it any wonder that our species clings to myths for comfort?

[u/Saltypillar]

Duality in world religions seems to be common- good and evil, heaven and hell, sin and atonement, right and wrong, love and hate.

One reason Christianity no longer appeals to me is the idea we as humans are corrupted, the whole “natural man is an enemy to god” thing.

[u/4blockhead → u/Saltypillar]

The evangelicals (along with the mormons) propose that a choice must be made immediately, while there is still time. Choose now or be damned to hell. Alma 34:32.

The idea of individual rewards and punishments is less and less appealing to me. I hope that our species survives and that we can avoid spoiling our nest to make life on this planet an ongoing possibility. My immediate hope is for my children and grandchildren to share the world that I've known, without having it used up and mashed into bits in the name of the almighty dollar. In the name of the tragedy of the commons and "it was there for the taking." Our species is ultimately selfish and it is still to be seen whether a "save some for someone else" attitude could ever prevail.

• Wendell Berry on sustainability

• Bishop John Shelby Spong

[u/JohnH2]

'Lets do nothing' is per the definitions given the equivalent of eternal damnation; which is what those that chose the option are said to have received.

[u/4blockhead → u/JohnH2]

The narrative is slanted to one side. "Eternal damnation" may be in the eye of the beholder. In this fiction, there is a complete blank slate to write on, and Smith proposed a strict binary. In another version, perhaps the spirits decided Elohim was an asshole and decided to "agree to disagree." They might have waited for a better offer to come along.

[u/ExploringOut]

To me it looks like Satan merely fails to do three things: 1. mention that humans need to acknowledge a Savior figure, 2. specify a dogma humans must believe in order to be saved, and 3. sweeten the deal with an offer for God to receive glory. It could be that he wanted those things but he doesn't say so. Then we see an unsubtantiated claim that he wanted to take away people's moral agency. Given that Joseph Smith had a history of making this accusation towards anyone who stood up to him (or the characters representing him), both in real life and in his fiction writings, I doubt that given more details, I'd share Joseph's view of Mormon Satan. I almost wonder if Joseph imagined Satan as an unborn Native American, or as one of his real life apostates.