LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Of course it makes sense. You are obfuscating. Satan did exist. He did existed as a pre-mortal spirit. As such he did have a sense of free agency and he used that agency to oppose God.But the argument is why did God make Satan, knowing that he would rebel. As I stated you can't punish someone before they intened to commit a crime, before Lucifer was created by Christ through the Power of God he had no intent to rebel since he did not exist.
Ron Beron Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 But the argument is why did God make Satan, knowing that he would rebel. As I stated you can't punish someone before they intened to commit a crime, before Lucifer was created by Christ through the Power of God he had no intent to rebel since he did not exist.God didn't make Satan, but a satan (in the subjective noun NOT a proper noun). If you follow Job satan is a special prosecutor chosen from among the many angels of God. It was only later, as I wrote, that Satan became personified as the evil dichotomy of God. Today Satan is seen as the antithesis of God not as his "advocate". Mixed among the evolution of the Satan is his role in the fall of mankind and his need for redemption, both of which are not found in the OT, but in the NT and modern revelation.
inquiringmind Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 Mixed among the evolution of the Satan is his role in the fall of mankind and his need for redemption, both of which are not found in the OT, but in the NT and modern revelation.I can imagine a couple of places where his redemption might be infered from the NT (Col. 1::16-20, for example), but where is there any hint of this in modern revelation?(And how would you explain 2 Nephi 9:16?)
Ron Beron Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I can imagine a couple of places where his redemption might be infered from the NT (Col. 1::16-20, for example), but where is there any hint of this in modern revelation?(And how would you explain 2 Nephi 9:16?)Perhaps you misunderstood me. I find little in the OT for the need of the redemption of mankind, Israel perhaps, but not humans per se. It is only in the letters and gospels of the NT and the later modern LDS revelations including 2 Nephi that the need for a redeemer due to the fall of mankind is revealed and shown to be necessary.
Questing Beast Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I've read that passage, and it also says "It's not written that their torment will have no end, it's written 'endless torment.' 'Endless is my name..." etc.How would you explain BOM passages where it does seem to "be written" that their torment will have "no end"?I mean passages like 2 Nephi 9:16?...their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever, and has no end."...I already said that Joseph Smith's concepts changed after he wrote the BofM. That is the pragmatic (some would say "apostate") explanation: it fits the evidence without any difficulty. But, if you are one to take a literal view of the BofM as history, then as I said, the Nephite cosmology was evidently incorrect on several points.It isn't requisite for the Nephites to have had a completely correct cosmology or even theology: but it is absolutely requisite for Mormonism - the "restitution of all things" - to possess a correct cosmology and theology: therefore, Joseph Smith's subsequent doctrines on such are the correct ones, not the ancient Nephite doctrines....
LeSellers Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 It isn't requisite for the Nephites to have had a completely correct cosmology or even theology: but it is absolutely requisite for Mormonism - the "restitution of all things" - to possess a correct cosmology and theology: therefore, Joseph Smith's subsequent doctrines on such are the correct ones, not the ancient Nephite doctrines....That's more than a stretch, since we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.Further, there is absolutely no reason to assume that parts of "cosmology and theology" cannot change in response to the needs and capabilities of the Saints of God in different dispensations, or even of those in the same dispensation. The XIX and early XX Saints had grown up with a trinitarian view of God that needed to be challenged, irrespective of how close to accurate it may have been. We XXI Saints have our own erroneous preconceptions, based on a century and a half of the older, perhaps over, corrections, and the melding of that with the more modern sciences that "categorically" explain the origins of the universe. (We Saints, whether alive today or dead these two thousand years, seem bent on making our theology compatible with the contemporary science.)In short, your assertion is not substantiated with facts. Lehi
zerinus Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 God didn't make Satan, but a satan (in the subjective noun NOT a proper noun). If you follow Job satan is a special prosecutor chosen from among the many angels of God. It was only later, as I wrote, that Satan became personified as the evil dichotomy of God. Today Satan is seen as the antithesis of God not as his "advocate". Mixed among the evolution of the Satan is his role in the fall of mankind and his need for redemption, both of which are not found in the OT, but in the NT and modern revelation.Although there are many "devils" or "satans," Mormonism teaches that there is only one arch demon or Satan, who rebelled against God, and persuaded others to follow him. There are many scriptures that confirm this. Here are some:2 Nephi 2:17 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.D&C 29:36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil
Ron Beron Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Although there are many "devils" or "satans," Mormonism teaches that there is only one arch demon or Satan, who rebelled against God, and persuaded others to follow him. There are many scriptures that confirm this. Here are some:I don
TAO Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Did you not read my post? I said that modern revelation aka Mormon revelation teaches of a "personalized" Satan. There are only two scriptures within the OT that talks of "big S" Satan and it isn't found in Job. Speaking of which, where did I mention Job? But, while on that subject Job has not yet achieved the status of archenemy to God, in fact, he stands as one of God's Divine Council and acts as man's adversary or accuser. If you read the passage in Hebrew, it does say "Satan", but "ha-satan" using the article determinative which indicates a title and not a name.Would not the verse in Isaiah refer to him specifically though? Oh thou son of the morning, why hast thou fallen or something like that?Best Wishes,TAO
Ron Beron Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Would not the verse in Isaiah refer to him specifically though? Oh thou son of the morning, why hast thou fallen or something like that?Best Wishes,TAOIt has been critically argued that the Isaiah passage of Lucifer falling was actually a reference to an earlier Ugaritic myth of two brothers of light one of whom was cast down. The Jewish Encyclopedia gives a bit more understanding...Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Sha?ar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel ("Sch
TAO Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 It has been critically argued that the Isaiah passage of Lucifer falling was actually a reference to an earlier Ugaritic myth of two brothers of light one of whom was cast down. The Jewish Encyclopedia gives a bit more understanding...How does that fit into the second sentence though? "how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the dnations!"Specifically, the 'weaken the nations part.... it doesn't quite fit in... that myth doesn't describe that does it? It doesn't describe a fallen brother who "made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?"Doesn't quite fit in =/.
Ron Beron Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 How does that fit into the second sentence though? "how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the dnations!"Specifically, the 'weaken the nations part.... it doesn't quite fit in... that myth doesn't describe that does it? It doesn't describe a fallen brother who "made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?"Doesn't quite fit in =/.It is describing the king of Babylon. Isaiah was ordered to taunt the king (see vs.4) in the manner proscribed. As to the brothers involved you would have to read the whole myth. The NET Bible also gives a good exegesis of this passage.What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.