Satan and Cain

[consiglieri]

The Book of Moses gives valuable insights into both Cain and Satan, and seems to put the two on a par in ways not accessible through the Genesis account.

Enter Satan

We first meet Satan in Moses 1 when he appears to Moses and tries to get Moses to worship him. We know nothing of his background, but it is obvious he is really pissed about something, and it seems to involve the fact that he wants to be worshipped, claiming that he is, in fact, the Only Begotten.

After a bunch of intervening material, we find out in Moses 4:1-4 a little of the background, and how it is that Satan is mad because the Only Begotten was chosen over him in the pre-earth heavenly council.

Satan offered his plan but it was rejected. What Satan fails to see, or doesn't care to accept, is it was Satan's plan that was rejected, not Satan himself. Because of this perceived slight, Satan decides to rebel and work to destroy the world and God's plan for it, not understanding the mind of God.

Enter Cain

Satan instructs Cain to make an offering to God by way of a sacrifice that Satan knows beforehand will not be accepted. Satan sets Cain up to have the same experience Satan had in the council.

Cain falls for it and offers the sacrifice which is not accepted, and Cain feels slighted because Abel's sacrifice is accepted and once more, Cain feels personally slighted and rises up to slay his brother, Abel who walked in holiness before the Lord.

In this way, the Book of Moses compares Satan (who rebelled after making an unaccepted offering to the Lord and took it out by slaying his brother, who offered an acceptable blood offering) with Cain (who rebelled after making an unaccepted offering to the Lord and took it out by slaying his brother, who offered an acceptable blood offering.)

A more explicit connection is also drawn by the Book of Moses between Abel and Christ, with Seth being a long-recognized resurrection figure of the Savior.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David T]

I've come to find that one thing the JST does is often make very explicit themes and elements that are present in the original texts, but would not be recognized or understood from a 19th-21st century cultural mindset. There are actually some very interesting Cain/Satan Seth/Messiah parallels, including their roles in the Israelite Temple Drama. I wrote about some of them here.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the link to your article, which I am printing off as I write.

Also along the line of reenforcing the parity between Satan and Cain is the fact that Cain gets called Perdition, and is then given the power to rule over Satan.

(I tend to think there is more here in this power of Cain to rule over Satan but haven't put my finger on it yet to my satisfication. Any thoughts?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

What Satan fails to see, or doesn't care to accept, is it was Satan's plan that was rejected, not Satan himself. Satan sets Cain up to have the same experience Satan had in the council.

Very nice. Sadly, since it is not sated just like that in the manual, it must be a fantasy...

[volgadon]

Thanks for the link to your article, which I am printing off as I write.

Also along the line of reenforcing the parity between Satan and Cain is the fact that Cain gets called Perdition, and is then given the power to rule over Satan.

(I tend to think there is more here in this power of Cain to rule over Satan but haven't put my finger on it yet to my satisfication. Any thoughts?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Seems like this is Satan's punishment for setting the whole thing up. Very poetic too. There is nothing bound to infuriate the poweer-hungry more than someone else having power over them.

[ERMD]

The parallel breaks down when you compare who was first-born.

Otherwise, nifty observations.

[cdowis]

Satan offered his plan but it was rejected. What Satan fails to see, or doesn't care to accept, is it was Satan's plan that was rejected, not Satan himself. Because of this perceived slight, Satan decides to rebel and work to destroy the world and God's plan for it, not understanding the mind of God.

Satan was in a state of rebellion already -- he offered a plan in opposition to the real Plan. Satan wanted the glory, and he proposed this plan to achieve that aim.

The Son accepted the Father's plan because 1. the glory rightfully belonged to the Father, 2. but more importantly, the plan Satan proposed would not work. We could not become one with the Father under a plan which took away our free agency. The plan of the Father is eternal, not some new idea, and the Son accepted that eternal plan.

Satan was angry because he wanted the honor and glory and could not steal it away from the rightful Owner.

[David T]

The parallel breaks down when you compare who was first-born.

What is interesting is that while Cain held the birthright, he was disinherited. Seth became the Firstborn. Just like how Isaac wasn't literally the firstborn, (Ishmael was) but Isaac was still viewed by Abraham as "My Only Son". I don't think that breaks down the Abraham/Isaac, Father/Son parallel at all.

[volgadon]

I would say a state of opposition at first, rather out and out rebellion.

[USU78]

The "first-born"/"not-first-born" theme is repeated again and again and again in Scripture.

Cain/Abel

Ishmael/Isaac

Esau/Jacob

Reuben/Joseph

Ammon/Solomon

Laman/Nephi

etc.

Perhaps he who became Shaitan, the Enemy, had reason to believe he was firstborn as son of the morning and entitled to preference over the Only Begotten.

And his story is repeated again and again.

[David T]

This pattern is part of what I discuss in my above linked blog post. I think it's fascinating.

[consiglieri]

The parallel breaks down when you compare who was first-born.

The scriptures give every indication that Satan was the first-born.

Why do you think he gave his plan before Jesus? (Moses 4:1-2)

Why do you think he was so pissed off?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[scooby]

My problem with this analysis is that it makes it sound like Satan rebelled over a miscommunication.

Because of this perceived slight, Satan decides to rebel

That would make him stupid, not evil. I think what makes Satan perfectly evil is a perfect awareness. I could be wrong, but I just don't think he misjudged the situation or perceived a slight where there was none. I think his coup just blew up in his face.

[Mormon Vader]

The scriptures give every indication that Satan was the first-born.

Why do you think he gave his plan before Jesus? (Moses 4:1-2)

Why do you think he was so pissed off?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Abraham 3:27-28. Seems to flip again about who is the first.

[Mormon Vader]

The scriptures give every indication that Satan was the first-born.

Why do you think he gave his plan before Jesus? (Moses 4:1-2)

Why do you think he was so pissed off?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Besides, those scriptures in Moses 4:1-2 say nothing about Satan coming before God the Father first, it just says that Satan came before him. It also doesn't say that Christ came second, just that he came before the Father, too. So based on what Abraham says, I think it's safe to say the scriptures do not give every indication that Satan was the first-born.