LDS: Satan says "I am also a son of God"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
I went to the lds homepage and saw an article for the “First Presidency Message” and decided to read it:
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,2043-1-3945-1,00.html
Here is a passage that caught my eye:
“The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.” Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was "an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God."12 **He came before Christ and proposed to God the Father, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."13 This he wanted to do by force, destroying the agency of man.
**In regards to the above quote, I dont understand what its saying, where/what is this “do it by force” and “destroying the agency of man”? As for this “before Christ”, what does this mean?
Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.14 In contrast, Jesus, chosen “from the beginning,” said unto God, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever."15 What a difference in approaches! Wrong as Satan was, he was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him.16 He practiced a great deception by saying, "I am also a son of God,"17 persuading others to love him more than God.

I was told by some ex-lds around here that the LDS teach Satan and Jesus were “brothers” and moreover that everyone is a “spirit child” of the Father. Was Satan a “son of God” or not?
 
Catholic_Dude said:
I went to the lds homepage and saw an article for the “First Presidency Message” and decided to read it:
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,2043-1-3945-1,00.html
Here is a passage that caught my eye:
“The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.” Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was "an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God."12 He came before Christ and proposed to God the Father, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."13 This he wanted to do by force, destroying the agency of man.
In regards to the above quote, I dont understand what its saying, where/what is this “do it by force” and “destroying the agency of man”? As for this “before Christ”, what does this mean?
Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.14 In contrast, Jesus, chosen “from the beginning,” said unto God, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever."15 What a difference in approaches! Wrong as Satan was, he was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him.16 He practiced a great deception by saying, "I am also a son of God,"17 persuading others to love him more than God.

I was told by some ex-lds around here that the LDS teach Satan and Jesus were “brothers” and moreover that everyone is a “spirit child” of the Father. Was Satan a “son of God” or not?
Click to expand...
yes. The mormon temple ceremony still emphasizes this. Their Scriptures teach this too. We are all literal offspring of the Father and thus Jesus and Satan are actual, literal siblings of ours.(if you believe the LDS church which I do not)
 
I was raised LDS and here is the gist of it- as well as I can remember–

Jesus, Satan and all the rest of us are literal brothers and sisters spewed out of the spirit wombs of one or the other of Elohim’s wives. Satan offered to save us all by forcing us to do Elohim’s bidding, but Jesus said he would come be the savior and give us all free will (mormons use the term agency). Elohim liked Jesus plan better, so Jesus got to be the Savior instead of Satan. Satan got ticked off and left home with 1/3 of the spirits. So in LDS theology-- we are all bros & sisters. In fact, it is common in momon culture to hear Jesus referred to as “My elder brother.”

As for what “before Christ” means is that Satan presented his plan first. I don’t know if he used PowerPoint or flip charts or what. Then Jesus gave his presentation. I am pretty sure in moron theology Jesus is still the OLDEST of the spirit children.
 
Hey Zerinus and rmcmullan !!

Any comments on this excellent thread demonstrating ONCE AGAIN the bizarre hooey that is called Mormonism??
 
maternus said:
I was raised LDS and here is the gist of it- as well as I can remember–

Jesus, Satan and all the rest of us are literal brothers and sisters spewed out of the spirit wombs of one or the other of Elohim’s wives. Satan offered to save us all by forcing us to do Elohim’s bidding, but Jesus said he would come be the savior and give us all free will (mormons use the term agency). Elohim liked Jesus plan better, so Jesus got to be the Savior instead of Satan. Satan got ticked off and left home with 1/3 of the spirits. So in LDS theology-- we are all bros & sisters. In fact, it is common in momon culture to hear Jesus referred to as “My elder brother.”

As for what “before Christ” means is that Satan presented his plan first. I don’t know if he used PowerPoint or flip charts or what. Then Jesus gave his presentation. I am pretty sure in moron theology Jesus is still the OLDEST of the spirit children.
Click to expand...
I think it would be incorrect to say that Mormons believe Elohim liked Christ’s plan better. I think Mormons believe that Christ simply was following the plan that Elohim had already decided upon and that Satan was simply trying to usurp Christ’s authority by offering a different plan than the one Elohim had already decided upon. The idea that Satan is a brother of Christ (and our brother) seems to me to be overemphasized by non-Mormons. Mormons believe that all of us always existed as intelligence. A process occurred in which these intelligences became spirits (most Mormons seem to believe this involved some sort of co-creation by a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother of these spirits). Many Mormons seem to believe that Christ was already a God even as an intelligence. All of this Mormon theology seems to be highly speculative and even Mormon authorities seem to have different interpretations of it. See for example:

search.ldslibrary.com/1109730

Mormons simply do not see the difference between angels and humans except for the fact that some angels who followed Satan did not get to have the physical body we have. So it is entirely possible in Mormon theology that Christ could have existed as a God prior to receiving a spirit body while at the same time becoming a pre-existing human at a later point almost as if he had two incarnations – one as a Spirit body and one as a human body even though he always existed as a God as an eternal intelligence. It all gets really confusing and is unsettled in Mormon doctrine. There is no ontological difference between Gods and humans in Mormon doctrine – Gods have only progressed further than we humans have.

Our Catholic understanding of God is much more settled than the Mormon understanding of God and makes much more sense than the Mormon understanding of God. Their attempt to answer questions about God have only confused them more.
 
JonathanKinsman said:
Hey Zerinus and rmcmullan !!

Any comments on this excellent thread demonstrating ONCE AGAIN the bizarre hooey that is called Mormonism??
Click to expand...
How is this less bizaare than any other set of religoius beliefs? I understand that one has faith in their own set of religious beliefs. But take faith out of the equation on both sides, and I don’t see how one religion becomes any stranger than the other.
 
Valke2 said:
How is this less bizaare than any other set of religoius beliefs? I understand that one has faith in their own set of religious beliefs. But take faith out of the equation on both sides, and I don’t see how one religion becomes any stranger than the other.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you on this. The whole issue of angelic beings and their relations to humans is simply hard to really attain from the Bible alone. The Catholic Church has its traditions with which I agree as a matter of faith. The Protestant churches seem to just have accepted the Catholic tradition. In its own way the Mormon tradition of angels seems to have a certain logic about it – angels are simply human beings who for whatever reason have failed to achieve as high a level of salvation as some other humans achieve.
It does not seem to be something (at least in my mind) which is an important thing we need to know for our salvation. I’ve always believed that orthodox Christians look for some anti-Mormon thing they can hang their hat on easily and then sensationalize the Mormon belief that Christ was a brother of Satan without trying to understand or explain what Mormons really teach about it. Mormons have never believed that Satan was somehow on an equal footing with Christ.
 
christianley said:
I think it would be incorrect to say that Mormons believe Elohim liked Christ’s plan better. I think Mormons believe that Christ simply was following the plan that Elohim had already decided upon and that Satan was simply trying to usurp Christ’s authority by offering a different plan than the one Elohim had already decided upon.
Click to expand...
You are correct-- I was admittedly being a bit dissmissive about the whole idea. Jesus gets to be savior b/c he accepts Elohim’s plan.
Mormons simply do not see the difference between angels and humans except for the fact that some angels who followed Satan did not get to have the physical body we have.
Click to expand...
In fact, it is taught that Adam is the Archangel Michael.
*When Michael came into mortality he was known as Adam, the first man, but he was still his own self. Although he was given another name, that of Adam, he did not change his identity.

After his mortal death he resumed his position as an angel in the heavens, once again serving as the chief angel, or archangel, and took again his former name of Michael.
*

Source:library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1980.htm/ensign%20november%201980.htm/adam%20the%20archangel%20.htm
So it is entirely possible in Mormon theology that Christ could have existed as a God prior to receiving a spirit body while at the same time becoming a pre-existing human at a later point almost as if he had two incarnations – one as a Spirit body and one as a human body even though he always existed as a God as an eternal intelligence. It all gets really confusing and is unsettled in Mormon doctrine. There is no ontological difference between Gods and humans in Mormon doctrine – Gods have only progressed further than we humans have.
Click to expand...
It is not merely a possibility, it is an absolute in Mormon theology.
Our Catholic understanding of God is much more settled than the Mormon understanding of God and makes much more sense than the Mormon understanding of God. Their attempt to answer questions about God have only confused them more.
Click to expand...
AMEN!
 
I think we are overlooking the “council” in this. The Mormon teaching is that Jesus and Satan each presented their plan to ALL of us and we voted on who to follow. one third voting for Satan. Elohim denounced Satan and his plan and cast him and his followers out of the “pre-existence” spirit world and then sent Jesus (Jehovah) to take Adam (Michael…yes the archangel) and organize matter into our world. Once done then Adam is sent to earth without his memories. Satan is already here, bound and determined to punish all those who chose to follow Jesus (who was in his plan being respectful and obedient to the the Father Elohim) by tricking them into doing his will. (which would then lead to their not going to “heaven”)

The theme of spiritual democracy is not only here but in the context of eternal progression there is reference from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both to a “council of Gods” that chose Elohim to be the God of our world.

The scriptural reference of primary interest would be the Book of Abraham which refers explicitly to “the Gods” in it’s creation narrative.

The Mormon Temple Ceremony really emphasizes the role of Lucifer (Satan) as our brother. He is shown there as a petulant, rebellious “child” towards Elohim. He is allowed a lot of leeway in what he does to us and is said to be doing the same thing that has been on other worlds. (think eternal progression as having multiple scenarios including Elohim having deified brothers in his generation of “gods”)

It is only when Peter, James and John (why don’t they have different names in heaven like the others?) are sent to earth as messengers (before their birth so one assumes angels but in Mormon theology they would have to be the kind without bodies…but they shake hands with Adam…which goes against Mormon teaching on how to identify real angels vs. Satanic imitations…) that Satan is made to leave Adam an family alone so that they can be taught by Peter, James and John. Eve feels bad that her brother deceived her but tells Adam that it’s really a lot better that they sinned because now the plan works.
 
majick275 said:
I think we are overlooking the “council” in this. The Mormon teaching is that Jesus and Satan each presented their plan to ALL of us and we voted on who to follow. one third voting for Satan. Elohim denounced Satan and his plan and cast him and his followers out of the “pre-existence” spirit world and then sent Jesus (Jehovah) to take Adam (Michael…yes the archangel) and organize matter into our world. Once done then Adam is sent to earth without his memories. Satan is already here, bound and determined to punish all those who chose to follow Jesus (who was in his plan being respectful and obedient to the the Father Elohim) by tricking them into doing his will. (which would then lead to their not going to “heaven”)

The theme of spiritual democracy is not only here but in the context of eternal progression there is reference from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both to a “council of Gods” that chose Elohim to be the God of our world.

The scriptural reference of primary interest would be the Book of Abraham which refers explicitly to “the Gods” in it’s creation narrative.

The Mormon Temple Ceremony really emphasizes the role of Lucifer (Satan) as our brother. He is shown there as a petulant, rebellious “child” towards Elohim. He is allowed a lot of leeway in what he does to us and is said to be doing the same thing that has been on other worlds. (think eternal progression as having multiple scenarios including Elohim having deified brothers in his generation of “gods”)

It is only when Peter, James and John (why don’t they have different names in heaven like the others?) are sent to earth as messengers (before their birth so one assumes angels but in Mormon theology they would have to be the kind without bodies…but they shake hands with Adam…which goes against Mormon teaching on how to identify real angels vs. Satanic imitations…) that Satan is made to leave Adam an family alone so that they can be taught by Peter, James and John. Eve feels bad that her brother deceived her but tells Adam that it’s really a lot better that they sinned because now the plan works.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the Mormon concept as one of spiritual democracy. All of the pre-existent angels had free will and two thirds of them voted to follow the Father. If two thirds of them had voted to follow Satan than two thirds of them would have been thrown out. This wasn’t a vote in which Satan’s plan would ever be chosen as the plan people on earth would actually follow. It was a vote on who would follow God (and Jesus presented God’s plan) and who would reject God by following Satan. There was never any question as to which plan the Father would choose because Jesus presented the Father’s plan of free agency.
 
majick275 said:
The theme of spiritual democracy is not only here but in the context of eternal progression there is reference from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both to a “council of Gods” that chose Elohim to be the God of our world.

The scriptural reference of primary interest would be the Book of Abraham which refers explicitly to “the Gods” in it’s creation narrative.
Click to expand...
I think if you would look at this closely you would see that Elohim was the Head of the Council of Gods rather than being chosen to be the God of this world. There is really no hint of Joseph’s idea that some God existed prior to our Father in the Book of Abraham. The more likely interpretation would be that the gods referred to in the Council of the Gods included those of us who were going to come to earth or perhaps some Gods who had already become God under the Head God, our Father, prior to the creation of this earth.
 
possibly but I think that is when Joseph “went public” with his new ideas about Gods and our ability to become Gods ourselves.

I think the “democracy” bit somewhat like “votes” taken in LDS churches today. You vote to sustain someone in their proposed calling or you vote to oppose in which case you are quickly taken out and “interviewed” about you reasons. The “illusion” of common consent is very important to Mormons even though anyone who disagrees with the leadership are on the “high road to apostasy”. Same thought in the spirit world. Everyone was given a “vote” but you are correct in that it was to follow Jesus or Satan rather than deciding what Elohim would do.
 
majick275 said:
possibly but I think that is when Joseph “went public” with his new ideas about Gods and our ability to become Gods ourselves.

I think the “democracy” bit somewhat like “votes” taken in LDS churches today. You vote to sustain someone in their proposed calling or you vote to oppose in which case you are quickly taken out and “interviewed” about you reasons. The “illusion” of common consent is very important to Mormons even though anyone who disagrees with the leadership are on the “high road to apostasy”. Same thought in the spirit world. Everyone was given a “vote” but you are correct in that it was to follow Jesus or Satan rather than deciding what Elohim would do.
Click to expand...
Mormon theology has never been what led me to believe Mormonism was false. If I believed the Mormon scriptures were truly inspired by God I would believe Mormon theology. Once I came to understand the Book of Mormon was completely false and that other Mormon scriptures couldn’t hold water, I had to abandon Mormon theology.
 
but isn’t the seeming contradiction between mormon scripture and the Bible something that alerted you to this as a possibility?
 
christianley said:
I tend to agree with you on this. The whole issue of angelic beings and their relations to humans is simply hard to really attain from the Bible alone. The Catholic Church has its traditions with which I agree as a matter of faith. The Protestant churches seem to just have accepted the Catholic tradition. In its own way the Mormon tradition of angels seems to have a certain logic about it – angels are simply human beings who for whatever reason have failed to achieve as high a level of salvation as some other humans achieve.
It does not seem to be something (at least in my mind) which is an important thing we need to know for our salvation. I’ve always believed that orthodox Christians look for some anti-Mormon thing they can hang their hat on easily and then sensationalize the Mormon belief that Christ was a brother of Satan without trying to understand or explain what Mormons really teach about it. Mormons have never believed that Satan was somehow on an equal footing with Christ.
Click to expand...
The best defense of Mormonism I’ve seen was on Southpark. Where the mormon kid said essentially, it might all sound crazy, but the Mormon church today teaches family closeness, kindness, etc., and I’m a better person for that. (paraphrasing)
 
majick275 said:
but isn’t the seeming contradiction between mormon scripture and the Bible something that alerted you to this as a possibility?
Click to expand...
The Bible generally can say whatever you want it to say. Mormons find evidence for their doctrines in the Bible. That’s why I am a Catholic instead of a Protestant – it is absolutely necessary that tradition be engaged so that we know what the Bible really means. Sola scriptura is useless and leads to the kind of interpretations Mormons come up with. The advantage of Mormonism over Protestantism is that at least Mormonism claims some kind of central authority to assist in interpreting scripture.

I don’t see a lot of contradictions between Mormon scripture and the Bible. I see a lot of contradictions in the way Mormons interpret their own scripture and the Bible. For example, if you read Mormon scripture from a Trinitarian viewpoint you can actually come up with Trinitarianism. I first began to question Mormonism when I realized Mormons were rejecting the Trinitarianism in their own scriptures. It took me a few more years to realize that Mormon scriptures were completely bogus to begin with.
 
well I do believe that Mormon Scriptures contradict themselves quite a lot. I also learned a vast new meaning for the Bible when I viewed it through the context of history and tradition. Knowing the author, situation and original audience is of great value when reading the bible.
 
My CC brothers and sisters have a grand sense of humour and the ability to laugh in the face of adversity but actually
He came before Christ
Click to expand...
I find this grossely offensive, misleading and grossely inaccurate. It is not scriptural and is in total opposition to the teachings of Mother Church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top