Following Satan's Plan: the State as Enemy to God

Many liberty-loving Mormons base their politico-economic views on the pre-mortal war over agency versus force. In that war of ideas Satan’s plan was to rob man of his agency by forcing everyone to be good—a utilitarian utopia—while Jesus’ plan was to secure man’s agency and eternal right to choose—a moral objective; for without a respect for man’s agency God would cease to be God. As Prophet Ezra Taft Benson has wisely pointed out, this war between agency and force continues today. And it is nowhere as visible as in the power ascribed to the state and its thugs, especially the ongoing growth in the United States government, even since its founding. As this article will argue, the state is based on the same main foundations as Satan’s plan, with the same dreadful consequences. The state’s plans are not only counterproductive and irrational but attempt to nullify God’s plan for His children.

The Premortal Council

Mormons possess a unique knowledge of the pre-mortal existence. For example, in Abraham 3:18-19 we learn that man existed eternally as a spirit before this life. We also learn that those spirits who chose to do so were to be sent to earth and enter into a mortal sphere, to be proven, tried, and tested. The only method to do so was to have (a) “opposition in all things” and (b) the ability to choose between good and evil, light and darkness, truth and error (2 Ne. 2:11, 15). Without the opposition, there would be no choice involved; we would know no different. Without the ability to choose, the options wouldn’t matter and individual responsibility would not exist. Satan’s plan would remove the opposition in all things as (supposedly) only one “choice” would exist. In addition, our ability to choose would be eliminated as choices and actions would be predetermined—by force; libertarian free will would not exist.

As with Satan’s plan, the state attempts to remove our options and abilities to choose, simply by government fiat. Options are eliminated or arbitrarily defined as illegal by the stroke of a pen or through a majority vote. Had more than fifty percent of the pre-mortal spirits chosen Satan’s plan in the pre-mortal realm would it have been the moral one? Democracy in many ways is an attempt for the majority to eliminate the minority’s agency. Just as Satan’s plan was rejected and he was cast out, the state’s attempts to control man should be rejected.

Satan’s Plan and the State

There are three main characteristics of Satan’s plan that are also conspicuous in the state’s existence, all of which are interrelated.

First, Satan wanted to suspend man’s agency and ability to choose. Hyrum L. Andrus provided an excellent description of the difficulties with Satan’s position (1967, p. 110):

But Lucifer’s cure for the malady of disunion was worse than the disease. In his proposal to suspend man’s free agency, he was advocating the destruction of organized life. All life must be independent in its sphere of action if it is to exist permanently and if it is to attain further endowments of truth to enhance its joy and power. Because Lucifer rebelled against the God of truth and sought to destroy the agency of man, he was cast down from the presence of God.¹

This same lack of respect for man’s agency is found in the state.² The state is force as it requires a tax for its very existence. It forcefully controls property as a monopoly within artificially (if not arbitrarily) defined territory.

Secondly, Satan sought to destroy eternal gospel principles derived from, and only possible through, agency: stewardship, responsibility, and consecration. Contrast these gospel principles with the actions of the state. It is more difficult to be a steward over your property when imminent domain exists, when taxation laws constantly change, and when bailout money is distributed to crooks and cronies.

The state has in many ways forced others to ostensibly provide for the poor (not to mention politicians themselves) through taxation. Responsibility for the poor then becomes more dependent on the state, and many voluntary charities are discouraged or, in some cases, illegal. It is necessary to remember that charity is only charity when it is voluntary. To remove the necessary aspect of charity as voluntary is to attempt to remove the dignity of the receiver and blessings granted to the voluntary giver. The state as giver distorts the entire charity framework that is the “pure love of Christ” (Mor. 7:47). Can love be forced? Can anyone persuasively argue that the state exemplifies at its best times “the pure love of Christ”? To do so would bring into question one’s sanity, for the state is based on force. Just as Satan sought responsibility for the redemption of all mankind, the state seeks to claim responsibility for its services. In reality the state cannot produce anything. Its very existence comes from the fruits of others. It merely consumes what others produce.

Finally, Satan’s proposal was due to his lust for power and glory—“give me thine honor” was his request (Moses 4:1). In Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 we learn that such honor is also a quest for power. Thus, it was not because Satan loved God the Father or because he wanted the best for his brothers and sisters. This understanding is crucial. While under Satan’s plan not one soul would be lost—who wouldn’t want that?—it was not because of love for others but for a love of power.

The parallels to the state should be obvious. Most politicians are those who say what others want to hear in order to have their plan chosen, not what people need to hear. It is also not difficult to understand why this is the case, as latter-day revelation sheds light on the issue of lust for power. When Joseph Smith was in Liberty Jail and had been abandoned and betrayed by so many, including President of the Quorum of the Twelve Thomas B. Marsh (D&C 112:16), he received the following (D&C 121:34-35,39):

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men. . .

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

It should be no surprise that the majority of politicians fall into this category. While politicians are individually culpable for their actions, the more fundamental problem is that the state creates an institutional framework that all too easily encourages and allows such a disposition to grow. This unrighteous dominion is not only widespread among politicians but, with few exceptions, seems to be almost a necessary part of getting elected.

Contrast this with true authority—the Priesthood of God—and the only way it can be properly exercised (D&C 121:41-42):

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.

Hypocrisy and guile are two of the most suitable terms for most politicians’ actions.

Conclusion

These main aspects of Satan’s plan—removal of man’s eternal agency; destruction of stewardship, responsibility, and consecration; and a lust for power—are not only characteristics of the state but are fundamental pillars of its very existence. Both Satan and the state seek to remove man’s options and ability to choose. The state should be cast out just as Satan was.

[1] Andrus, Hyrum L. 1967. Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, Deseret Book, USA.

[2] Obviously, man’s agency cannot be taken away because it was eternally secured by the role of Jesus Christ and the plan of God. This article points out that the state attempts and would, if possible, remove man’s agency, similar to Satan’s proposed means to carry out his plan.