[nibbler]

Heber13 wrote:

That also makes me think of the Atonement, and it being infinite. Wouldn’t you think, just like the excommunicated member can repent and work back into the church, wouldn’t you think the 1/3 cast out from the first estate, could be given a chance to return…although it wouldn’t be easy…it would be possible somehow, sometime, in some way? Why not, right? What would the Lord have to lose if they really wanted to return?

That’s funny, that thought had occurred to me while I was thinking about the subject but I didn’t feel inclined to mention it. I’m glad you did, I was starting to feel I was “out there” with those thoughts.

Heber13 wrote:

Sometimes in church people like to feel better about ourselves…we chose right…and those poor souls who didn’t keep their first estate are damned…and I’m glad I’m not them. But clearly the Lord’s teachings of the laborers in the vineyard warns us against thinking wages have to be fair based on how we think it should be fair to us. Right?

Again, an interesting point to bring up… for me personally. I’ve always had issue with understanding Matthew 20:1-16. I don’t want to derail the thread so in short words… I understand the general principle the parable is trying to convey about it not mattering when the conversion takes place but that the conversion takes place, etc. … but the more worldly side of me is always left with a “welp householder, good luck getting some workers to come into work tomorrow morning” taste in my mouth, which is a clear indicator to me that I haven’t truly learned the principle. Perhaps a conversation left for a more focused, dedicated thread.

[nibbler]

I also had a few thoughts with respect to the notion that the third part that followed Satan were a necessary part of the plan of salvation and that theirs was the true/ultimate sacrifice. It really got me thinking about the purpose of sacrifice.

I think the purpose of sacrifice is to assist someone with their own personal progression. We understand the purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice as it relates to us, but I also think that the atonement benefited Jesus in that his light had grown brighter and brighter until that perfect day. I think that we too grow when we willingly sacrifice our own wants and needs.

Now on to that third part of heaven…

There are a few things that indicate to me that what they are doing does not constitute true sacrifice:

1) I think a sacrifice has to be willing. First off, this group was cast out, right off the bat that doesn’t imply willing participation in the plan. Also, it is said of Satan’s followers that they are captive to his will. Again, this shows a lack of willingness on the part of Satan’s followers. They become slaves to his will.

2) We have to know how our sacrifice fits into the plan in order for us to benefit from it. Intent is clear in the case of Jesus’ sacrifice. Moses 4:6 says that Satan tried to tempt Eve because he didn’t understand the mind of God. He didn’t think he had made a sacrifice to facilitate the plan of salvation, he thought he was out destroying the work.

3) Motive. The dictionary says that sacrifice (ok, I’ve now ventured into full blown sacrament talk mode now ) is an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy. I doubt that this group considered the need for tempting spirits and only followed Satan for the greater good.

I don’t know whether the hosts of heaven that followed Satan are full and willing participants and I don’t know whether they even know how they fit in the plan (but one would think that they have eavesdropped this bit from us over the years). I’m fairly confident that they didn’t do it for the greater good. All this in mind I find myself asking how much actual personal progress they are getting out of their sacrifice and the answer makes me wonder whether what they did constitutes a sacrifice at all.

I get what the OP was saying though. It certainly paints these people in a different light, one of compassion, and that can only draw people closer to Jesus. It was also very good food for thought. If anything it helped me think along the lines of a TBM (had to look that one up) again. Everyone’s comments in this thread were really edifying. Thanks.

[nibbler]

Ok, I know I’m chiming in on a thread that was created over a year ago but I did want to add a few of my thoughts to the discussion. I’m not very good at articulating my thoughts so most of this may appear to be random, disorganized ramblings. Probably because that’s what it is I also tend to the verbose.

First off, I really enjoyed reading the tread. It really got me thinking about the war in heaven for the first time. I guess there’s no need for the disclaimer that my comments represent my thoughts and that my faith in the underlying source material to the war in heaven doctrine has somewhat eroded but there it is.

Going back to the OP, I don’t believe that there was a ”you must be at least this righteous” cutoff point to determine whether an individual had kept their first estate. I’m sure there were some spirits that could be considered “bad” that kept their first estate and I’m sure there were some spirits that could be considered “good” that didn’t. I see the division as being related to which plan a spirit wished to follow, a decision which I view as being independent from one’s current level of righteousness.

Reading between the lines a bit, I think it may be time to reevaluate what I’ve always understood by the phrase “cast out.” Were the spirits that sided with Satan compelled to leave, or did they leave of their own volition? Think of it this way… if you were a member of a like-minded group and your ideals evolved away from the group ideals to the point of contention would you stick around until someone asked you to leave? Anyone relate? It’s said to have been a war, so parting ways was likely mutual. Compelled to leave but with no argument from the other party perhaps.

Semantics I guess but leaving on your own volition preserves the agency above all narrative (which is also mentioned in D&C 29:36). This also meshes well with the notion that God does not depart from his children, they depart from him. In support of a literal forcing out… there are eternal laws that bound God (justice, etc.) and there are consequences for every decision. Even then it’s still the case that a loving God didn’t force his children into a state of misery, his hands were tied as they reaped the consequences of their own decisions. This is starting to feel like the answer to a question no one asked, so I’ll leave it at that.

Riceandbeans’ post got me thinking… there really aren’t that many scriptures related to the topic at hand. I had to search a bit to find scriptures that related to the “third” that was cast out. The scriptural references are scant. I may not have found all the references.

With respect to the quantity, the scriptures consistently say third “part.” The traditional interpretation has been 33⅓ % of everyone, but there are several alternate interpretations. Perhaps it simply means that there were three “parts” with no mention as to the quantity of people making up each part. This new interpretation begs the question… what are the other two parts? Ok, I assume that one of the two parts is people that kept their first estate. And the remaining part, perhaps celestial beings? So three parts to the makeup of the preexistence: 1) Celestial beings. 2) The spirits that kept their first estate. 3) The spirits that did not keep their first estate. The quantity of people in each “part” being purely speculative. This is taking things way too literally though, even if it is in a different vein. I’m just spitballing ideas that came to me while studying the word “third.”

I’ve got a few other thoughts but I’m worried this is getting too wordy, so to be continued…

[nibbler]

Thanks everyone. I’ve read a few threads on the board since I’ve registered and yes, you appear to be a very good group.

I may chime in on a topic or two. Some of the topics I was interested in appear to be several months old so rather than bump a dead conversation I may wait for the topic to come up again.

[Author]

Posts