LDS Question - Could you explain any doctrine about Satan?

[Tmaque]

We think that there is, but you may not agree. For example, here is a quote from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 1:

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Here is an interesting quote from the New Testament:

John 9:

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Both the question that the disciples ask, as well as the answer that Jesus gives, would be odd of you discount the preexistence. How could the disciples conclude that the man had sinned to be born blind, unless he could do so before he was born? And why does Jesus answer them in the way that He does, unless He concurs with them about the same thing?

Christians believe that God is outside of time so of course he “knows” us all before we are born.

As to John 9, Jesus refuted the notion that sin caused the blindness. He did NOT “concur” with their notion at all.

That said, there is no record that Jews at the time believed in the pre-existence. What his disciples conjectured is that God knew that this man would sin, or that his parents did sin. This suggests foreknowledge, not pre-existence. The same concept applies, that God is outside of time and sees everything that has happened and will happen.

This scripture brings up a different point however. According to LDS theology, If this man had “sinned” in the pre-existence wouldn’t he be denied a body anyway? Doesn’t LDS theology teach that newborn babes are innocent? If this man was born with sin on his soul then isn’t this a challenge to LDS theology? I think this passage hurts the LDS position more than helps.

 

[Tmaque]

scriptures.lds.org/en/ezek/37/16-17,19-20#16
Israel shall inherit the land in the resurrection—The stick of Judah (Bible) and the stick of Joseph (Book of Mormon) become one in the Lord’s hand—Israel shall be gathered and cleansed—The Messiah shall reign over them—They shall receive the everlasting gospel covenant.

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 ¶ And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

Let’s read this in context:
Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them with him together with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand. And the sticks on which you write shall be in your hand before their eyes. And say to them: Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, where they have gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

It’s obvious that this scripture is about tribes, not books.

From jewsforjudaism.org:
The Hebrew word 'aytz (“tree,” “wood”), rendered “stick” in this passage, does not mean “scroll,” the Hebrew for which is megillah (for example, Jeremiah 36:27ff). The biblical phraseology the Latter-day Saints seek is expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures by megillat-sefer, “roll of a book” (Jeremiah 36:2), “a scroll,” that is, parchment skins sewn together and attached to wooden rollers. There is nothing in Ezekiel’s prophecy to indicate that “stick” refers to anything but one piece of wood on which the prophet was commanded to write “for Judah” and a second piece of wood on which he was to write “for Joseph.” The sticks were to be symbolic representations of the two kingdoms. The prophet is to take one of them in his right hand, concealing one end of it in his clenched fist. Then he is to take the other stick and join it to the first one, end to end. His clenched fist will grasp the place where the two sticks meet, giving the appearance that he is holding one long stick in the middle. Nothing in Ezekiel’s pronouncement nor anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible suggests that God commanded that two separate records be kept for both kingdoms.

 

[zach_dunn]

scriptures.lds.org/en/ezek/37/16-17,19-20#16
Israel shall inherit the land in the resurrection—The stick of Judah (Bible) and the stick of Joseph (Book of Mormon) become one in the Lord’s hand—Israel shall be gathered and cleansed—The Messiah shall reign over them—They shall receive the everlasting gospel covenant.

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 ¶ And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

I honestly can’t see how this teaches continued revelation. To me, the sticks becoming one represent the separated tribes of Israel becoming one; and furthermore, it prophecies the Jews and Gentiles both uniting under Christ.

 

[Xavierlives]

I honestly can’t see how this teaches continued revelation. To me, the sticks becoming one represent the separated tribes of Israel becoming one; and furthermore, it prophecies the Jews and Gentiles both uniting under Christ.

I take a few days off and I get sooo lost.

 

[zach_dunn]

I take a few days off and I get sooo lost.

Haha, I know what you mean, it’s especially bad in the non-Catholic religions forum because people seem to post more often. Anyway, wyp8riot, was saying that Ezekiel 37:16-20 teach continuing revelation . . . the stick of Judah being the Bible and the stick of Jacob being the Book of Mormon . . . it doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Xavierlives]

Haha, I know what you mean, it’s especially bad in the non-Catholic religions forum because people seem to post more often. Anyway, wyp8riot, was saying that Ezekiel 37:16-20 teach continuing revelation . . . the stick of Judah being the Bible and the stick of Jacob being the Book of Mormon . . . it doesn’t make sense to me.

Well, then they would need to overcome some obvious obstacles… like having a false prophet as the father of their church. I can’t see how their stick will be united with anything other than a bundle getting ready to be thrown into a fire.

 

[zach_dunn]

I kindly disagree

This is a semi-loaded question, at least it seems that way to me. The Holy Spirit continues to communicate with us through the Church Christ has established for mankind, and there are still private revelations that occur to this very day; Catholics simply believe that there will be no more public revelation, that is, there will be no more revelation that is binding on all Christians (see here). But anyway, I’ll give you two verses to answer your question:

Hebrews 1:1-2
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe.

To many people, it seems evident that there is a change here. The verses indicate that he used to reveal little bits of His Truth at a time, but verse 2 suggests that it has changed; in these last days, he has spoken to us by a Son . . . this was definitive revelation which is demonstrated by the next verse:

Jude 3
Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.

This faith was handed down once for all to the saints, once for all. This means the faith will not be revealed in small increments as it was in the past, all that God has chosen to reveal to man has been revealed through His perfect Son, our God.

As I said previously, He communicates through the Church.

Yes, see above.

Nope.

Malachi 3:6
Surely I, the LORD, do not change, nor do you cease to be sons of Jacob.

Let me ask you something, does God introducing a new covenant constitute “change”?

The position you take is rather peculiar . . . you say that if He is not constantly communicating with us He must have ceased to be God, or He has forgotten about us, or He doesn’t love us anymore . . . what happen in the 1700 years between John dying and the “revelations” to Joseph Smith? Did He cease to be God in that time? Did He forget about us? Did He stop loving us then? Even if you believe the Book of Mormon to be true, you have to believe God did the previous three things for 1400 years; never before in history had God left that long and not communicated with us, so this argument basically amounts to not much.

Bump for any Mormon willing to answer me . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

I kindly disagree

This is a semi-loaded question, at least it seems that way to me. The Holy Spirit continues to communicate with us through the Church Christ has established for mankind, and there are still private revelations that occur to this very day; Catholics simply believe that there will be no more public revelation, that is, there will be no more revelation that is binding on all Christians (see here). But anyway, I’ll give you two verses to answer your question:

Hebrews 1:1-2
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe.

To many people, it seems evident that there is a change here. The verses indicate that he used to reveal little bits of His Truth at a time, but verse 2 suggests that it has changed; in these last days, he has spoken to us by a Son . . . this was definitive revelation which is demonstrated by the next verse:

Jude 3
Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.

This faith was handed down once for all to the saints, once for all. This means the faith will not be revealed in small increments as it was in the past, all that God has chosen to reveal to man has been revealed through His perfect Son, our God.

As I said previously, He communicates through the Church.

Yes, see above.

Nope.

Malachi 3:6
Surely I, the LORD, do not change, nor do you cease to be sons of Jacob.

Let me ask you something, does God introducing a new covenant constitute “change”?

The position you take is rather peculiar . . . you say that if He is not constantly communicating with us He must have ceased to be God, or He has forgotten about us, or He doesn’t love us anymore . . . what happen in the 1700 years between John dying and the “revelations” to Joseph Smith? Did He cease to be God in that time? Did He forget about us? Did He stop loving us then? Even if you believe the Book of Mormon to be true, you have to believe God did the previous three things for 1400 years; never before in history had God left that long and not communicated with us, so this argument basically amounts to not much.

Second bump.

 

[Xavierlives]

Second bump.

I have asked innocent questions before (some just for fun) and they have gone unanswered. I guess there are things they don’t want to get involved with or they are tied up with other threads.

 

[Monica4316]

Not accurately stated, but more or less. Traditional Christianity believes that Satan is a fallen angel, and so do we. The question is, how did he fall, and why did he fall? That is a question to which traditional Christianity does not have a clear answer, but Mormonism does. We believe we know what was the cause of Satan’s downfall. God the Father had predetermined the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ from the beginning. Satan wanted to supplant the Father and the Son by proposing an alternative plan of salvation for mankind that God rejected. Then Satan rebelled, and was cast down, became a fallen angel. If you have another explanation for the fall of Satan, I like to know. We got ours by revelation; I don’t know about yours.

I disagree that traditional Christianity doesn’t have an answer to that question.

satan fell because he wanted to be like God… he wanted to be great and didn’t have humility. The Angels got a chance to accept or reject God before they saw Him. satan rejected God because he chose to be proud instead. St Michael said to him - “no one is like God” - and he was cast out of Heaven. That’s why lucifer (the fallen angel) is now the devil and St Michael is a great Archangel and defender of the Church. Demons are other angels that chose to follow the devil, out of pride also. Angels were given free will, but once they made their choice, their will is now fixed forever. (unlike humans, who are in time and get many chances to choose God during their life)

God bless

 

[RebeccaJ]

I disagree that traditional Christianity doesn’t have an answer to that question.

satan fell because he wanted to be like God… he wanted to be great and didn’t have humility. The Angels got a chance to accept or reject God before they saw Him. satan rejected God because he chose to be proud instead. St Michael said to him - “no one is like God” - and he was cast out of Heaven. That’s why lucifer (the fallen angel) is now the devil and St Michael is a great Archangel and defender of the Church. Demons are other angels that chose to follow the devil, out of pride also. Angels were given free will, but once they made their choice, their will is now fixed forever. (unlike humans, who are in time and get many chances to choose God during their life)

God bless

We got ours by revelation; I don’t know about yours.

See Isaiah 14.

12 How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down the nations! 13 You said in your heart: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, in the recesses of the North. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!”

---

Also, LDS, in their wanderings in the dark, have come up with an idea where God relies on our sins, and the temptations of a fallen angel. :tsktsk: **God does not rely on sin, or the father of lies.
**