Satan

[Robert_Mason]

Doesn't it seem like we're giving him a bit too much credit here? It seems that nearly every temptation is said to come from him, that there wouldn't be anything bad if he wasn't around, et cetera.

Doesn't it seem a lot more plausible that, while he does exist, he only magnifies a problem which is already there? It seems to me that people are perfectly capable of tempting themselves, and that the only thing Satan does is add a bit of spice to it every now and then, or exert a little bit of pressure on someone who he feels especially needs it, just as we might receive a bit of a boost from the Holy Ghost.

[Dravin]

Doesn't it seem like we're giving him a bit too much credit here? It seems that nearly every temptation is said to come from him, that there wouldn't be anything bad if he wasn't around, et cetera.

Well, in a sense that's true, Adam and Eve would be wondering around the Garden of Eden still if it wasn't for him and there wouldn't be any hurt, suffering or pain, also no sin (though possibly transgression). Would Adam and Eve have transgressed laws without any nudging whatsoever? No fall no carnal nature.

Though to go with what you are saying, I can believe that our own carnal natures lead us to get into hot water without Satan or one of his Angles being metaphorically perched on my shoulder telling me. Of course the question is does he ever just leave us to our own devices? He's not exactly short on manpower, if the host of heavens was over 21 Billion that leaves him one follower per person (or more) right now.

[Robert_Mason]

Well, in a sense that's true, Adam and Eve would be wondering around the Garden of Eden still if it wasn't for him and there wouldn't be any hurt, suffering or pain, also no sin (though possibly transgression). Would Adam and Eve have transgressed laws without any nudging whatsoever? No fall no carnal nature.

Though to go with what you are saying, I can believe that our own carnal natures lead us to get into hot water without Satan or one of his Angles being metaphorically perched on my shoulder telling me. Of course the question is does he ever just leave us to our own devices? He's not exactly short on manpower, if the host of heavens was over 21 Billion that leaves him one follower per person (or more) right now.

We have Satan's "Angles" perched on our shoulders?

No, I don't think he's short on manpower, but... I suppose I'm just irritated with all the "Don't let Satan tempt you" and "Satan will do everything he can to lead you astray" and "Satan is trying to bring you down" and everything else. Everyone in my class honestly believes that if Satan and the Fallen vanished today, everyone would hold hands and start singing Kumbayah.

Which was really what I was meaning when I was talking about the belief that without Satan there wouldn't be anything bad. I recognize that an outside tempter was needed for Eden, but past that, I don't think he's as necessary as everybody seems to think.

[skalenfehl]

2 Ne 2:11

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

There must be opposition in all things. We must be able to choose between good and evil. Without being persuaded one way or another, there cannot be a choice made and no reward or consequence meted. There would have been no war in heaven, no fall, no atonement needed, etc. A necessary evil. But because their is a devil, and evil and temptation, we can choose and need to choose, being persuaded by one voice or the other.

[Robert_Mason]

There must be opposition in all things. We must be able to choose between good and evil. Without being persuaded one way or another, there cannot be a choice made and no reward or consequence meted. There would have been no war in heaven, no fall, no atonement needed, etc. A necessary evil. But because their is a devil, and evil and temptation, we can choose and need to choose, being persuaded by one voice or the other.

But is "evil and temptation" dependent on the existence of "a devil," Mr. Skalenfehl?

I don't think so, but nearly everyone I've talked to does, which is why I've brought up this thread.

[skalenfehl]

But is "evil and temptation" dependent on the existence of "a devil," Mr. Skalenfehl?

I don't think so, but nearly everyone I've talked to does, which is why I've brought up this thread.

To me, being tempted is another word for being influenced or persuaded. We are influenced by many things and persuaded to act on them. But what influences our actions? There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Adultery is a grievous sin, but there are still small sins like slothfulness and idleness. If there were no devil, there would be no need for a Savior. There would be no evil for we would not know good. What then would be our motivation and how would we know the difference?

[Dravin]

We have Satan's "Angles" perched on our shoulders?

Metaphorically, it was a reference to depictions the internal battle of good and evil that's generally depicted in cartoons, such as this one.

Everyone in my class honestly believes that if Satan and the Fallen vanished today, everyone would hold hands and start singing Kumbayah.

The interesting thing is we don't have anything to draw data from (baring some scriptures some helpful soul will probably provide if they exists). The closest we have is the 3 Nephites who were changed such that Satan had no power over them but even they (ignoring the size) aren't a suitable sample even if we could interview them as they aren't just random people without Satan's influence, they are influenced by the Holy Ghost by a fair margin.

The natural man is an enemy to God, but is that because he's more susceptible to Satan or because he'll get into trouble on his own. Its an interesting thought experiment if nothing else, take a group of random people (from various belief systems from Atheist to Zoroastrian) put them in an Anti-Satan bubble and see what happens.

[Robert_Mason]

Metaphorically, it was a reference to depictions the internal battle of good and evil that's generally depicted in cartoons, such as this one.

Oh, I know that. I was just poking a bit of fun at his mispelling [sic]. He had written "Angles," not "Angels," you see.

I know I'm a tad strange, but I find things like that to be hilarious.

The interesting thing is we don't have anything to draw data from (baring some scriptures some helpful soul will probably provide if they exists). The closest we have is the 3 Nephites who were changed such that Satan had no power over them but even they (ignoring the size) aren't a suitable sample even if we could interview them as they aren't just random people without Satan's influence, they are influenced by the Holy Ghost by a fair margin.

The natural man is an enemy to God, but is that because he's more susceptible to Satan or because he'll get into trouble on his own. Its an interesting thought experiment if nothing else, take a group of random people (from various belief systems from Atheist to Zoroastrian) put them in an Anti-Satan bubble and see what happens.

I'd think that "the natural man" is an "enemy to God" because we're all too capable of sinning all by ourselves.

The best example I have, and the one which got me thinking along these lines in the first place, is Satan himself. If an outside influence is needed for someone to sin, then who caused Satan to sin? And then what caused that thing to sin?

And on and on.

[tubaloth]

If we look at pre-mortal life we learn a number of things. We made choices with out there being a "Satan" really did anybody tempt satan to fall? There was agency and opposition still in pre-mortal life. We still made choices, some made better choices (Christ) then others. From Abraham we learn that Christ progressed farther then any of us. So why didn't we? We still had to make the choice, we still had to realize that what we were doing had a purpose. Some were more motivated then others. I believe completly that the Plan of Salvation would work perfectly fine with out a "Satan". Heavenly Father didn't need to have a bad son, to blance out having a good son. What I do believe is because of Satan's knowlege of the Plan of Salvation, he knows where Heavenly Father has given us room to grow (agency) and thus knows he can put his thoughts or temptations in there. Yes we are already a natural man living by faith, you add satan trying to get us to live off the now. Just adds more to it. The test and reason why we came to this earth never changed with or with out a "satan"

[skalenfehl]

The interesting thing is we don't have anything to draw data from (baring some scriptures some helpful soul will probably provide if they exists). The closest we have is the 3 Nephites who were changed such that Satan had no power over them but even they (ignoring the size) aren't a suitable sample even if we could interview them as they aren't just random people without Satan's influence, they are influenced by the Holy Ghost by a fair margin.

The natural man is an enemy to God, but is that because he's more susceptible to Satan or because he'll get into trouble on his own. Its an interesting thought experiment if nothing else, take a group of random people (from various belief systems from Atheist to Zoroastrian) put them in an Anti-Satan bubble and see what happens.

Consider the City of Enoch. Were they righteous because Satan's influence was absent or because they exercised their agency to be persuaded to do good and avoid all sin? Of course the latter is true. There was opposition even in Enoch, though the people there did not yield to temptation. In the Book of Mormon it is written that the righteous do not yield to temptation. But never does it say that there is no temptation. Even Christ was tempted but He chose to rebuke Satan repeatedly.

[Robert_Mason]

Consider the City of Enoch. Were they righteous because Satan's influence was absent or because they exercised their agency to be persuaded to do good and avoid all sin? Of course the latter is true. There was opposition even in Enoch, though the people there did not yield to temptation. In the Book of Mormon it is written that the righteous do not yield to temptation. But never does it say that there is no temptation. Even Christ was tempted but He chose to rebuke Satan repeatedly.

Emphasis Mine.

Why does Satan need to be blamed for every sinful impulse or feeling we have?

[Justice]

We made choices with out there being a "Satan" really did anybody tempt satan to fall?

Very profound point.

I'll keep my eyes on this thread, but I'm late already for a family meeting.

[Robert_Mason]

If we look at pre-mortal life we learn a number of things. We made choices with out there being a "Satan" really did anybody tempt satan to fall? There was agency and opposition still in pre-mortal life. We still made choices, some made better choices (Christ) then others. From Abraham we learn that Christ progressed farther then any of us. So why didn't we? We still had to make the choice, we still had to realize that what we were doing had a purpose. Some were more motivated then others. I believe completly that the Plan of Salvation would work perfectly fine with out a "Satan". Heavenly Father didn't need to have a bad son, to blance out having a good son. What I do believe is because of Satan's knowlege of the Plan of Salvation, he knows where Heavenly Father has given us room to grow (agency) and thus knows he can put his thoughts or temptations in there. Yes we are already a natural man living by faith, you add satan trying to get us to live off the now. Just adds more to it. The test and reason why we came to this earth never changed with or with out a "satan"

I somehow missed this post as I was reading.

Yes.

I'll say it again.

Yes!

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Dravin]

There was opposition even in Enoch, though the people there did not yield to temptation. In the Book of Mormon it is written that the righteous do not yield to temptation. But never does it say that there is no temptation. Even Christ was tempted but He chose to rebuke Satan repeatedly.

Which is why I think it's a hypothetical, a thought experiment. We don't know what a city would do without Satan's influence, because its never happened (on earth, yet). The City of Enoch doesn't provide us with a sample, namely because of the reason you state, there was temptation.

The best example I have, and the one which got me thinking along these lines in the first place, is Satan himself. If an outside influence is needed for someone to sin, then who caused Satan to sin?

That is an interesting point, even moreso when you consider he wasn't a carnal man, the natural enemy to God, when he did such.

Oh, I know that. I was just poking a bit of fun at his mispelling [sic]. He had written "Angles," not "Angels," you see.

I know I'm a tad strange, but I find things like that to be hilarious.

Ah, okay. I'm pretty oblivious with my own typos, have an annoying habit of reading over something I've typed and it looking fine until I come back a day latter then the, "What the? How did that happen?" thoughts start. :)

Look on the bright side, you've got me thinking of a polygon with a tail, horns and a pitchfork.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Dravin

[skalenfehl]

Emphasis Mine.

Why does Satan need to be blamed for every sinful impulse or feeling we have?

Ah, ok. When I sin, it is because I choose to sin. I suppose I really wouldn't blame Satan for my own choices. I see your point now. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[Robert_Mason]

That is an interesting point, even moreso when you consider he wasn't a carnal man, the natural enemy to God, when he did such.

Which leads into me wondering if perhaps we're vulnerable to sin even when we're no longer carnal.

[Robert_Mason]

Ah, ok. When I sin, it is because I choose to sin. I suppose I really wouldn't blame Satan for my own choices. I see your point now. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, it depends. Creationism or Evolution?

If Creationism, God created the chicken, which then lay the egg.

If Evolution, the first chicken became such while still developing, and so the egg came first.

XD

[Dravin]

If Evolution, the first chicken became such while still developing, and so the egg came first.

XD

Its even simpler than that, eggs were around long before any birds, let alone chickens. I know the question implies a chicken egg, but it doesn't specify. :)

Which leads into me wondering if perhaps we're vulnerable to sin even when we're no longer carnal.

Depends how you define carnal, if its defined as vulnerability to sin than no. That said, my understanding is that we won't be perfect immediately (at least to the ultimate level that we can obtain), if those imperfections can be called sins and if carnal is referring to an imperfect body than yes.

[Robert_Mason]

Its even simpler than that, eggs were around long before any birds, let alone chickens. I know the question implies a chicken egg, but it doesn't specify. :)

Do we give and take points on this forum, like we do at RPG.net?

If we do, please take one "This is Truth" point, and one "WIN" point.

[john doe]

D&C 76:28-29 --

28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old aserpent, even the bdevil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our cGod and his Christ—

29 Wherefore, he maketh awar with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.

Yeah, I'd say Satan is more than just a facilitator. He's the enemy of man and God

[Robert_Mason]

D&C 76:28-29 --

Yeah, I'd say Satan is more than just a facilitator. He's the enemy of man and God

An enemy, yes, but not essential for the existence of sin and evil. If he wasn't around, and the rest of the Fallen were similarly absent, the world would be better, yes, but still Bad with a capital B.

[john doe]

Yeah, well, I wouldn't discount his power if I were you.

[Robert_Mason]

Yeah, well, I wouldn't discount his power if I were you.

Never said I did. Just trying to see if "Satan can tempt us, et cetera, but isn't necessary for a state of sin and evil to exist, et cetera" is able to hold any water amongst a large group of people, so that I might figure out if I'm the loony one, or if it's the vast majority of the rest of my ward.

[skalenfehl]

I have no doubt that Satan can tempt us. But he has no more strength than we choose to give him.

[Robert_Mason]

I have no doubt that Satan can tempt us. But he has no more strength than we choose to give him.

And people wouldn't sin if Satan didn't tempt us?