Is Satan Really That Bad?

[Guest HEthePrimate]

It is my opinion that evil is an eternal factor, entity, whatever. "There must needs be opposition in all things." There isn't any good without evil. But that doesn't give Satan a pass. There had to be a "satan," but Lucifer (or whatever his name was in the pre-mortal existence) didn't have to be it. Just like there had to be a "judas," but Iscariot chose to do what he did.

I agree with you, Charity, and think the "There must needs be opposition" quote is simply descriptive in nature--"This is the way things are," not "God decided there should be evil so He created it."

René Girard said something I really like: "Satan sustains himself as a parasite on what God creates by imitating God in a manner that is jealous, grotesque, perverse and as contrary as possible to the loving and obedient imitation of Jesus" (I See

Satan Fall like Lightning, 2001).

DH

[Jeny]

Has anybody here read the Screwtape letters by C. S. Lewis? They really introduce you to the enemy!! I highly recommend them!!!

[Maya]

This discussion reminds me of the book of Judas.... It was nessesary to have a Juudas, he had to do what he did or the plan hard not functioned at all... In the book it says Jesus told him to do it, and he did it because he was the ONLY one that understood how important it was to do it. He was very close to Jeus. Jesus promised him high place after death.... Interesting!

They say that Judases Book is really mixing the cristianitys beliefs...but not ours!

[bjw]

Has anyone on here ever read any quotes from Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, Eliphas Levi, and other Masonic authors? I often wonder if early Masonic thought on the subject may have influenced early Mormonism. (or vice versa?) It seems that paladism and the belief that Lucifer was the Holy Ghost was a common topic among some of these authors and the fact that one cannot exist without the other. Sort of a "necessary evil" approach. While Mormonism doesn't go to the extreme of this doctrine we still have the "opposition in all things" doctrine and the idea that evil is necessary for us to have good. We would never know happiness if we didn't know sadness. In the protestant world they think that evil exists only because of Satan's rebellion and man's depravity, and many think we would have been better off had Adam and Eve not have fallen.

[imported_StructureCop]

Has anybody here read the Screwtape letters by C. S. Lewis? They really introduce you to the enemy!! I highly recommend them!!!

It's interesting to see how little our understanding of evil and the adversary is based on scriptural accounts but is more based on anecdotal or fictional evidence.

[imported_StructureCop]

In the protestant world they think that evil exists only because of Satan's rebellion and man's depravity, and many think we would have been better off had Adam and Eve not have fallen.

It's interesting that you mention this. The marginal commentary in the New Oxford Annotated Bible for Genesis 3:1-24 states:

Though this story is often taken by Christians as an account of "original sin," the word "sin" never occurs in it. Instead, it describes how the maturing of humans into civilized life involved damage of connection established in 2.4-25 between the LORD God, man, woman, and earth.

1: This characterization (Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made) of the snake emphasizes his wise craftiness (Heb "'arum"), a characteristic that contrasts with the innocent nakedness ("'arum") of the man and woman. Snakes were a symbol in the ancient world of wisdom, fertility, and immortality. Only later was the snake in this story seen as the devil.

The woman sees that the pleasant fruit of the tree is desirable to make one wise; she eats it and shares it with her husband. The result is enlightenment, the eyes of both were opened. Such wisdom takes them from the unashamed nakedness of before (2.25) to clothing, a mark of civilization in nonbiblical primeval narratives.

[bjw]

It's interesting that you mention this. The marginal commentary in the New Oxford Annotated Bible for Genesis 3:1-24 states:

Though this story is often taken by Christians as an account of "original sin," the word "sin" never occurs in it. Instead, it describes how the maturing of humans into civilized life involved damage of connection established in 2.4-25 between the LORD God, man, woman, and earth.

1: This characterization (Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made) of the snake emphasizes his wise craftiness (Heb "'arum"), a characteristic that contrasts with the innocent nakedness ("'arum") of the man and woman. Snakes were a symbol in the ancient world of wisdom, fertility, and immortality. Only later was the snake in this story seen as the devil.

The woman sees that the pleasant fruit of the tree is desirable to make one wise; she eats it and shares it with her husband. The result is enlightenment, the eyes of both were opened. Such wisdom takes them from the unashamed nakedness of before (2.25) to clothing, a mark of civilization in nonbiblical primeval narratives.

Interesting, although most EV scholars I know would just write it off as "liberal" like they do anything else that contradicts their viewpoint. That's interesting though that a non-Mormon commentary would come up with the Mormon view of the creation story on it's own.

I have something to think about. If we assume arguendo that paladism is a "deeper doctrine" of Mormonism to what extent does it compare to the version that is believed by Kaballists, Judaism, Freemasons, Luciferians, etc.? For instance, if we compare the views of Mackey, Pike, Levi, Acquino, Crowley, the Zohar, etc. (or any other source that has written on the subject) with what was believed by Brigham Young or maybe even our apostolic leaders today, would there be a wide variety of views or is it all pretty much consistent? For instance, current LDS doctrine has Lucifer as a tempter and tester but is punished for his rebellion in the end of the age. Has this always been so, or was LDS doctrine at one time more consistent with the above sources? I'm just wondering to what extent Masonic authors (like Mackey, Pike, and Levi) may have contributed to early Mormon thought, with the church's close affiliation with Freemasonry in the Nauvoo period.

Currently what is being taught by our opponents, like Dekker and Schnoebelen, is that paladism is the "great secret" doctrine that all "secret" societies are trying to keep from the masses, and that Lucifer worship is the goal of some mass one-world "conspiracy." I think apologetics would come a long way in silencing these critics if the proper comparisons were made, maybe in book form. I think the masonic elements still present in our church automatically cause Dekker and Schnoebelen to tie us in with Pike, Levi, Mackey, etc.

[Doctor Steuss]

Since the Book of Mormon was translated by the power and gift of God, through Joseph Smith, then JS's worldview had an impact on the process. At least, that's my view. As one who has received revelation and had to interpret it into my own language (English, in this case), I can easily see how this can be so.

Adieu, anyone?

HiJolly

I might need to do a new thread on this (don't want to sully the great Tyler of the SSCE's thread with such nonsense)...

I often have trouble squaring the influence of Joseph's worldview upon the BoM with the evidence for a tight translation process. IMO, the evidence for a tight translation outweighs that of a loose, and thus the ability for altering redactions by Joseph seems to be lessened... and least in my mediocre mind.

But, conversely, the evidence for Joseph’s influences seems overwhelmingly evident.

Any of you peeps find yourself in a similar battle between the translation evidence and Joseph’s worldview within the text?

[HiJolly]

I might need to do a new thread on this (don't want to sully the great Tyler of the SSCE's thread with such nonsense)...

...and then you fearlessly proceed to comment... being a sheep, I'll follow right along...

I often have trouble squaring the influence of Joseph's worldview upon the BoM with the evidence for a tight translation process. IMO, the evidence for a tight translation outweighs that of a loose, and thus the ability for altering redactions by Joseph seems to be lessened... and least in my mediocre mind.

Well, sort of. I really like the results of Royal Skousen's research. I just wish I could afford the published results!!!!!!! I do think the evidence shows a 'tight' process, but I don't think that is necessarily exclusive from an influence from Joseph.

But, conversely, the evidence for Joseph’s influences seems overwhelmingly evident.

Indeed.

Any of you peeps find yourself in a similar battle between the translation evidence and Joseph’s worldview within the text?

Yes, I have in the past, and I'm happy where I am now on the issue.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Has anyone on here ever read any quotes from Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, Eliphas Levi, and other Masonic authors?

Yes, I have read some quotes from Pike and Levi. I think it's good to keep in mind that these people come from a 'mystery' perspective, not the LDS perspective, which (the LDS) is a very, very practical approach to spirituality, God, and everthing else in manifestation. Where 'mystery' traditions and the occult seem to concern themselves with both the transcendent and the imminent, the LDS approach is to limit the focus to the imminent world, which is why I call it a 'practical' religion.

What's fascinating to me is that even though the LDS emphasis is clearly about living in the world and yet not being of it, it also points to the transcendent worlds by referring to 'mysteries' and things like "The Church of the Firstborn" in the D&C, much as the Bible does. Gotta love it! Something here for everyone...

I often wonder if early Masonic thought on the subject may have influenced early Mormonism. (or vice versa?)

I think there is no question about that, whatever. The influence is clear to those who look, IMO. I don't think that's a bad thing, myself. I don't buy into the nasty ideas about how evil freemasonry is. I think they do use terminology that scares the bejeebers out of ignorant men, though. "Prove all things" is excellent advice.

It seems that paladism and the belief that Lucifer was the Holy Ghost was a common topic among some of these authors and the fact that one cannot exist without the other. Sort of a "necessary evil" approach.

Brian, I don't really understand the word 'paladism'. Can you define it? Is there a definition that is acceptible to both those that believe conspiracy theories, and the Freemasons themselves? As for "necessary evil", that's what the Book of Mormon seems to teach, as you say in this next quote:

While Mormonism doesn't go to the extreme of this doctrine we still have the "opposition in all things" doctrine and the idea that evil is necessary for us to have good. We would never know happiness if we didn't know sadness. In the protestant world they think that evil exists only because of Satan's rebellion and man's depravity, and many think we would have been better off had Adam and Eve not have fallen.

The church has taught that we wouldn't be here at all without the fall, though I'm not sure of all the thinking behind that.

HiJolly

[bjw]

Brian, I don't really understand the word 'paladism'. Can you define it? Is there a definition that is acceptible to both those that believe conspiracy theories, and the Freemasons themselves? As for "necessary evil", that's what the Book of Mormon seems to teach, as you say in this next quote:

The church has taught that we wouldn't be here at all without the fall, though I'm not sure of all the thinking behind that.

HiJolly

Hi Jolly,

From what I have always understood, palladism was the Luciferian belief that Lucifer is a light-bearer and a bringer of knowledge, rather than an adversary. I probably do not understand the idea to its fullest extent, though.

As for the Holy Ghost, the Gospel Principles book mentions that He doesn't have a body, appears in the form of a man, and is in one place at a time while His influence is felt everywhere, like the Sun shining on Earth. I'm wondering if maybe we could think of Lucifer as an exact counter to the Holy Ghost, all of the same characteristics except He works to comfort and guide us rather than tempt and accuse us. This still begs the question of why the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body. I think our critics (like Dekker and Schnoebelen) may be hasty to draw the conclusion that we believe they are one and the same.

I've always like the "necessary evil" doctrine that is presented in the Book of Mormon, because we would not know how to be happy if we had no sadness. The fall story never made sense to me while I was an EV and I think the Book of Mormon presents it so logically. As for Lucifer's (and the spirits that followed him) influence on us, I like to think of it as how the cartoons show it, with a little angel guy on one shoulder telling you something good to do while a little devil guy is on the other shoulder trying to tell you to do something evil.

[HiJolly]

Hi Jolly,

From what I have always understood, palladism was the Luciferian belief that Lucifer is a light-bearer and a bringer of knowledge, rather than an adversary. I probably do not understand the idea to its fullest extent, though.

<snip>

From http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/B...%20We%20Get.htm :

Origin of the Title "Lucifer": The term Lucifer is the English rendering of the Hebrew term hêlÙl ("shining or brilliant one"). The meaning of the Hebrew noun was preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible through the Greek term he¿sphoros ("bright one," "morning star"). The English "Lucifer" comes from Latin; it renders the Greek he¿sphoros into the Latin lucifer, which simply means "light bearer, morning star."

So, I don't see where lucifer as 'light-bearer' is particularly "Luciferian". Then again, I have no idea what a "Luciferian" IS. It's not a term I'm familiar with. The temple seems to suggest that without Lucifer's involvement in the Garden of Eden, knowledge would not be possible to the children of Adam, so I guess I'm ok with him being a way of teaching us knowledge.

After all, if he (Satan) tempts me to steal my friend's best deck of Pokemon cards, and then I can't ever USE them because then my friend would find out, and so then I throw them away so I don't get caught but I see how sad my friend is and how I never really benefitted in any way, and in fact suffered for stealing them, well, didn't I learn something?

I can see how sin teaches us the good from the evil, via our experiences. So maybe Palladism isn't so bad after all? I dunno. Like I said before, I've don't recall having heard the term before.

HiJolly

[Jeny]

From http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/B...%20We%20Get.htm :

Origin of the Title "Lucifer": The term Lucifer is the English rendering of the Hebrew term hêlÙl ("shining or brilliant one"). The meaning of the Hebrew noun was preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible through the Greek term he¿sphoros ("bright one," "morning star"). The English "Lucifer" comes from Latin; it renders the Greek he¿sphoros into the Latin lucifer, which simply means "light bearer, morning star."

So, I don't see where lucifer as 'light-bearer' is particularly "Luciferian". Then again, I have no idea what a "Luciferian" IS. It's not a term I'm familiar with. The temple seems to suggest that without Lucifer's involvement in the Garden of Eden, knowledge would not be possible to the children of Adam, so I guess I'm ok with him being a way of teaching us knowledge.

After all, if he (Satan) tempts me to steal my friend's best deck of Pokemon cards, and then I can't ever USE them because then my friend would find out, and so then I throw them away so I don't get caught but I see how sad my friend is and how I never really benefitted in any way, and in fact suffered for stealing them, well, didn't I learn something?

I can see how sin teaches us the good from the evil, via our experiences. So maybe Palladism isn't so bad after all? I dunno. Like I said before, I've don't recall having heard the term before.

HiJolly

Don't throw them out!! I'm up for buying hot Pokemon cards!! Got any holio Arcanes?

[HiJolly]

Addendum to my previous post...

I'm not saying , though, that the Holy Ghost & Lucifer are the same thing. While they do both seem to facilitate knowledge, their methods seem quite opposite. One teaches through light and the power of God, the other via shame and regret -- "Godly sorrow".

HiJolly

[LifeOnaPlate]

It should be noted Lucifer does his job "manfully," according to Pres. Young. He's a hard and diligent worker; a few attributes to admire, at least.

[HiJolly]

It should be noted Lucifer does his job "manfully," according to Pres. Young. He's a hard and diligent worker; a few attributes to admire, at least.

Naw, he just has lots of help.

HiJolly

[bunnzy]

Do you have that quote from Pres, young i would like to read it.

When i was growing up, i was taught basic things about satan, and taught that if we talk too much about him, we are giving himm power over us. Do you guys believe that to be true (this was taught from my parents, in my home, not in sunday school, or anything)

[Steele]

Said the Prophet Joseph: "Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield" (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1991], 65).

Two ways to yield to enticings; one is good (Mosiah 3:19) and one is bad (2 Ne. 9:39).

[siouxz72]

Do you have that quote from Pres, young i would like to read it.

When i was growing up, i was taught basic things about satan, and taught that if we talk too much about him, we are giving himm power over us. Do you guys believe that to be true (this was taught from my parents, in my home, not in sunday school, or anything)

Hi Bunzy! I always heard this same thing growing up. From my parents as well. I have to tell you, while I don't think talking about him gives him power over us, I do think too much talk can invite a bad spirit to be about...

[Doctor Steuss]

Do you have that quote from Pres, young i would like to read it.

When i was growing up, i was taught basic things about satan, and taught that if we talk too much about him, we are giving himm power over us. Do you guys believe that to be true (this was taught from my parents, in my home, not in sunday school, or anything)

IMO, the power of human stupidity is far more powerful than "Satan." [edited to add: I just realized that this could be conveyed as me saying you are "stupid." Not so, and definately not my intention. Hugs?)

Which reminds me of this groovy little dilly:

Hugh often stated that "if you take yourself seriously, you won't take the gospel seriously and the other way around."8 One of my favorite examples of this comes from Curtis Wright, who was a graduate assistant for Hugh. One time Wright came into Hugh's office and found him there absorbed in reading the Book of Mormon and laughing. Wright asked Hugh what was so funny, and Hugh replied that he had found an error in the Book of Mormon. "You did, huh?" Wright responded. "Yes," Hugh stated and handed the scriptures to Wright pointing to Alma 42:10 which says that "man is carnal, sensual and devilish." "What's the matter with that?" demanded Wright. Hugh responded, "They left out stupid." Hugh's delightful sense of humor spared no one, least of all himself. He was the first to laugh at himself. "Nobody takes me seriously," wrote Hugh to his son, "which has been my salvation."9

From: This

[HiJolly]

Do you have that quote from Pres, young i would like to read it.

When i was growing up, i was taught basic things about satan, and taught that if we talk too much about him, we are giving himm power over us. Do you guys believe that to be true (this was taught from my parents, in my home, not in sunday school, or anything)

Not to get too new agey or anything, but I believe that the things we focus our will or intent on, have a more likely chance of manifesting. FWIW.

HiJolly

[Jeny]

Has anybody here read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis? Those are AWESOME!! Want to get to know the tactics of Satan? Read that book!!!

...I believe that to know the enemy is to have an advantage...

[HiJolly]

Has anybody here read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis? Those are AWESOME!! Want to get to know the tactics of Satan? Read that book!!!

...I believe that to know the enemy is to have an advantage...

I have not, though I've heard excerpts. I recently read "The Great Divorce" by Lewis, and thought it was very insightful. I would not for a moment doubt that it was a visionary dream.

HiJolly

[Jeny]

I have not, though I've heard excerpts. I recently read "The Great Divorce" by Lewis, and thought it was very insightful. I would not for a moment doubt that it was a visionary dream.

HiJolly

That man was incredible!!! I highly suggest that you get or borrow a copy of The Screwtape Letters...you will not regret it!!!

[Sheelah]

I started reading it yesterday. I've have the sad misfortune to see a little of me in some of what was being said. I do believe CS Lewis had a very good grasp on how the Enemy works. I, for one, will never minimize how dangerous he can be. He may not be able to force us to do something, but his ability to lead in the ways he wants is masterful.