Assuming, for the sake of argument that in LDS theology Satan is a necessary part of God’s overall plan and that plan would fall apart if he did not exist. (No pre-mortal war in heaven, no alternate choice which we, the good guys were smart enough to accept, no evil snake in the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam & Eve into the fall, and so on.) It might be interesting to actually consider the nature of Satan himself as viewed through the Mormon lens.

Would it be fair to place him in the pre-existence at or near the level of Jesus? I think so. So, in the beginning, there is this intelligence who is Satan and he is basically made of the same stuff everyone else is, including God and Jesus and like Jesus and God he is one of the more intelligent intelligences (what ever that means). God somehow already has or creates his own body (spiritually and physically) and then through the undefined process of of spiritual procreation starts giving people like Satan and Jesus their own spiritual body along with a host of other people. (Maybe there’s a reason people utter “OH MY GOD!!!!!” so often at climactic moments, it is a similitude of some sort I suppose.)

So Satan, after existing eternally as an intelligence with God in the preexistence and getting his spiritual body from God, turns around and convinces 1/3 of the host (how many is a host?) to rebel against God and follow him. Color me a bit skeptical here. Since Satan is as intelligent (or nearly so) as Jesus, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect he knows God is.. well.. ummm God?

Why would 1/3 of the population of heaven reject a plan that has been in place since the beginning of time, a plan by the way that is backed by God (he is the omnipotent guy in the corner that no one wants to mess with) and follow a being that clearly is less godly than God? Since there were different levels of intelligences to begin with, maybe this group got the really short end of the intelligence shtick.

How does a war even start when one side is led by an omnipotent being? Why would anyone even start such a war? If they did, it could hardly be called a war because God is on one side. Maybe it should be labeled the Brief Disagreement In Heaven.

How is Satan able to tempt all men? Does he have some Evil Ghost he controls that can be everywhere at all times?

This whole concept of Satan seems to be a caricature of a comic strip bad guy.

I love your observations and would only add one.
Can't Satan frustrate all of God's plans just by doing nothing? Without his temptations life becomes too easy and the plan of salvation is Broken.
He certianly is smart enough to realize this. Does he still has the free will to choose to do it? So why doesn't he do it?

Edited to add:
I'd say that if 1/3 of a population is willing to fight in a hopeless war against the leader, it says that something is very wrong with their government.

A little chronology if you please. Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost always are and were the Very Eternal Father. They together called out all the organized intelligence and gave them the knowledge of their independent spheres of existence. Satan is no where near the level of intelligence as God.

What Satan is would be fanatical about taking God's power. He cannot originate power such as light cleaving unto light so he needs God to simply turn God's power over to him so he can do what he wants which is to enjoy the honor of holding all the glory. A glory he did nothing to deserve but thought he could tempt God to surrender to him by removing the coming WAR from ever happening.

Why war: The war was an act of perdition to openly defy God's power fully aware of it and to evangelize the same act to be joined by as many as possible. Giving God the finger is nothing new still to this day. But here we are not culpable of perdition for it unless and until we KNOW God's power by having partaken of the same. ( the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost)

Given the nature of men common in these parts it is no fantastic leap to suppose that such an ones were even more common from the beginning.
Many suppose that there was nothing behind Satan's rebellion other than his lust for power. What was most behind the rebellion and defiance of God was that intelligence refused to continue to the next estate where they would be cut in half by sexual differentiation. Either they give up half the intellectual aspect of native intelligence to accept their sexual assignments or confusion reigns. And I do mean confusion.

What motive did they have to retain their fullness of light and truth and not sacrifice according to the plan of God to progress and get a spirit body and and physical body? Satan was NEVER given a spirit body he remains to this moment only an organized intelligence. The reason they refused was their lust for power was stronger than their love of God. They refused to obey the gospel which would make them dependent upon a Savior. They wanted to be free intelligence without restraints of any kind.

Well, too bad that. Because they did NOT organize themselves neither tear themselves out of the light of truth but were MADE by their Maker into independent spheres of existence by receiving of God the knowledge of their respective sphere they are busted from the beginning and never were free ultimately. Hence they will be forced to what we call the Second Death but for them it is the only death which is the loss of all the gifts of God and a return to a non existence of independence in the light of truth.

Faced with the eminent fate of annihilation they seek to thwart the plan of God so long as their day lasts. And yes, obviously, God is using them knowing that these devils can always be depended upon to come out and reject the gospel and supply the bitter that men might learn to prize the sweet.

The medium or priesthoods that evil owns is the fact that they are only organized intelligence and there is nothing which keeps them from joining together like the legions of devils that inflicted the man in Capernaum.

Why, they can assimilate together to project false visions, UFOs, Aliens, and wonders upon wonders. But their best work is the tell men to NOT believe the truth and to rely in great pride upon their own strength and genius to fill the world with carnal wonders and novels. lol

I think Satan is utilizing the cloaking device rather effectively today. He has well blinded the world with a veil and chain of darkness and need not overtly tempt anyone. Men are proven daily well capable of tempting one another for greed and avarice. His still running silent and deep IS very effective today. How long can a devil hold his breath?

It is a sad reality that few there be that find the kingdom of God. Makes me wonder if there was a finding out who were chosen and put into Christ's hand from the beginning. Buggers, if you knew you were not making it from the beginning. Was it a secret? God told Abraham after he was in the flesh. Makes you wonder. Were many wise enough to figure it out without being told and so they said nuts?
A

As a TBM, I told myself that because God can "cease to be God" that somehow, Satan was motivated by the prospect of winning and overthrowing God. One way this could happen is per the Skousen-Widstoe doctrine that God is God because all the intelligences obey him. If Satan could convince the majority of the ranking intelligences to follow him, then that might be like a polititian convincing his fellow polititians to make him president, and once that's settled, then the lower intelligences, common voters, might fall into line and follow Satan, thus making him God. According to God, Satan was a liar from the beginning. If this is true, it could be that Satan's platform to "ensure everyone is saved" was a lie. Satan sure sounds like a Democrat according to this theory eh?

Anyway, if God is right, then without free-agency, there is no existence. Satan's plan would have eventually destroyed the intelligences. We know that intelligences can be destroyed because Brigham Young taught that in outer darkness, the intelligences can be de-organized, and the intelligence/spirit matter recycled. So Satan may have planned to rule in a sustainable way akin to God, once he was in power, and just used the platform to get elected. Why take such a huge risk? Well, why climb Mt. Everest? Why fight to the death for sport? If Satan was so talented, he might rather risk it all for a chance to be the best rather than live as a complacent ass-kisser like JC and Joseph Smith. For all we know, God the Father was the victorious Satan of his kin; the scriptures are written by the victors.

Hey, Walking Skeleton ! Are You Hungarian?


In another thread (Take this political quiz...) I wrote:

The Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost struck me as close to the Mormon vision of how a being so close to God could become so fallen.

I believe it's Islam, but am just as likely to be wrong, that views Satan as rebelling because He could not accept God's command to the angels to love and serve men since God only was worthy.

It's what I think of when I hear the tool song Right in Two.

It is bizarre.

Satan is very cross that God chose the plan Jesus presented over the plan he (Satan) presented.
An integral part of the plan of Jesus, is that Satan is an integral part, without whom the plan is unsustainable.
Is it likely that, given the success or failure of Jesus's plan relies totally on Satan's compliance, he (Satan) would go along with it?

To foil the people against whom he and a third of a host fought so strenuously all he has to do is do nothing.

So Satan must have repented of his ways, and now be in good standing again with God because he is totally on board with the plan of Jesus.
No other explanation.
Satan's now a good guy.

Perhaps he just can't go against his own nature (which, presumably, god had a hand in creating). Or kind of like politics - some opposition parties just oppose, regardless of the merits of an idea: it is sufficient that idea was proposed by the other party.

(My bold.)


This.


Thank you, Honor.

FIFM

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

2 Nephi 2

Perhaps Satan is like Eve in that he only 'transgressed.' His rebellion was all part of the plan. An apparently necessary part of the plan. Without his rebellion the whole plan is damned.

Edited to Add:
The war in heaven was an inside job.

Thanks for posting this. This always seemed like common sense to me back when I believed, but now that I'm reading it again, there's no sense in it. Years ago Neal Maxwell said that the only thing that is truly ours is our will, which is, of course, is how we act for ourselves. If that's the case, we can act for ourselves regardless whether there are opposing beings, good and bad, "enticing" us to do things.

My pleasure, Morley.

A good friend and I discussed this question after our missions and I was surprised by his thinking. He wondered who had tempted Satan in the pre-existence to rebel? Was there an uber-Satan to Lucifer just as Jesus was following in the perfect footsteps of God the Father?

Somewhere along the way I had acquired a talk from George Q. Cannon (I believe, I no longer have it) that discussed the nature of Satan in the pre-existence and suggested that it was Lucifer's own personality traits that led to his rebellion. He became the father of all lies for us, voicing the first lie that he could save everyone, but was not the actual father of all evil. Evil was just as potential in any spirit being as the good.

When I shared the Cannon comments with him, he seemed shocked by the idea that we didn't need a Satan to entice us to do evil since, without Satan, who WOULDN"T choose the good all the time in order to go to the celestial kingdom?

What's funny - it never occured to either of us at that time how ridiculous the entire premise of a Satan is in THIS life, just as an uber-Satan in the pre-existance was not only unnecessary but contradictory.

But let's be real about this - I think the idea of a Satan-as-cause is necessary when one considers the related idea of Jesus-as-necessary-Savior.

Why is it any less ridiculous to think that we have to rely on another being to redeem us? Why is it that the ideas of Jesus as redeemer and Satan as tempter both take away a person's personnal responsibility?

I'd say because both come from the same place - it's NICE to feel like we can't be held fully responsible for how we act. And it's nice to think that we can be redeemed from our mistakes completely.

It's like every Christian, the Mormon included, is on a 12-step program of sorts. Satan represents the disease and Jesus is the higher power.

Honorenteos, I liked your quote from George Cannon. In the post before you said,

"Somewhere along the way I had acquired a talk from George Q. Cannon (I believe, I no longer have it) that discussed the nature of Satan in the pre-existence and suggested that it was Lucifer's own personality traits that led to his rebellion. He became the father of all lies for us, voicing the first lie that he could save everyone, but was not the actual father of all evil. Evil was just as potential in any spirit being as the good."

If my memory is not failing that is ,"just do it damnit" Cannon. Now I am aware of two excellent comments from him.

Honorentheos, I feel clueless as to why you connect this to the strange notion that an atonement is unnecessary. Does the fact our decision are a result of our will not Satans mean our evil does not have consequences? Does it mean it is within our power to repair all of the harm we are responsible for? Does it mean that our evil choices have no negative effect upon what we are? No negative consequences upon what our future decisions will be? Or is repentance possible only for those of us who do no harm?

Sometimes I have wondered if the Mormon fall story may accidentally incline people to think of themselves as god children who are above the potential for evil. We here are temporarily slumming on earth for practice. We can just say oops and leave evil behind us being in truth gods with a teflon coating. Well, this story is hardly confined to Mormons. We humans have some inclination to believe this with or without the Mormon fall story. Thinking of the twelve step analogy its called denial.

Hi huckelberry,

That's not actually my point, exactly. Rather than saying atonement is unnecessary, I'm suggesting we have no more need of a literal savior than we have of a literal tempter to access both our better and worse angels.


No, no, no, no, and no. (I think I counted correctly there. If not, please add or subtract a "no" as necessary)

But does the existence of a literal Jesus-as-Saviour change this, other than perhaps as a tool for us to access that which is already in us to 1 - recognize the consequences of our actions/choices, 2 - do what is in our power to correct, apologize for, and otherwise amend the harm done, 3 - contemplate and act on the processes that enoble us, 4 - evaluate and plan for making less harmful/more beneficial choices in the future, and 5 - recognize that to err is human but to hurt is wrong. I'd add a 6 - and know that it is only in OUR individual power to make this happen so we have to accept responsibility for all of the above. In the case of the first 5, I'd say the notion we need a redeemer is a crutch, while in the case of the 6th it could become a hindrance.


A false dicotomy; a mirror of the same argument that comes from saying, "The devil made me do it", I'd say.

Take Buddhism as a non-redemptive religion as a midway point between us, if we may. Is it less effect for the Buddhist to walk the eightfold path because they have no hope in Jesus?

I think you're right about this. I think the Mormon view is based on Paradise Lost. I'm thinking it was some Jehovah's Witness tract I read this in, but according to this tract, the Milton interpretation of the couple verses in Revelation "pre-existence" was original with him, and the verses are obviously refering to Rome or something contemporary. Someone could look this up, if it's true, it would be a good anti-Mormon talking point.

Good song.

Honorentheos, thankyou for the thoughtful reply. I wondered if I got a bit carried away with rhetoric in that last post of mine. I can see significant value in asking what people do in place of the idea of Christian atonement. Outside of belief in Christian God Jesus death is just not going to have the same perceived power. Yet people out side of Christian belief are not without possibilities for repentance and some form of atonement.You have pointed that out well I thought.

That all people in the world have access to those dimension of atonement means all people in the world have potential connection to Jesus atonement in my understanding.

I am uncertain as to your meaning referring to the phrase, "the devil made me do it". I have never seen any meaning to the phrase.I thought it was something silly that drunks said when looking back at the night before.