Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Sidney Rigdon]

I don't think a person is qualified to assign the actions and motives of others to satan until they have come to fully appreciate satan. I, sadly, am one of the few Mormons who has been delivered to the buffetings of satan in 1844. Brigham Young did me this honor in the name of The Lord, which does give me some small peace within my buffetings.

[teddyaware]

No. When I end my talk saying the same, does it mean the same? Not in the slightest. Can you find me any reference or statement, other than your own assumptions, that conflates the two?

Think things through. The counselors in the First Presidency, the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and most especially the Church President have much greater keys of authority, much greater stewardships and much greater fields of responsibility than you do. Would you dare say that when the Prophet speaks in General Conference He is not speaking the words that Christ would have Him speak in His behalf to the entire Church at that moment in time? Nay, he is speaking the words that the Lord gave him to speak to the entire Church throughout the world.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1)

 

Notice how the Apostle Paul doesn't have to say "thus saith the Lord" to command the saints in the name of the Lord.

Edited May 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tsuzuki]

I know what you mean, Tsuzuki, I think. Not everyone will understand what you are saying.  Context is always important. Topics with you in it is always a good thing and always quite interesting and brimming with knowledge.

I first made the argument here quite a few years back, but the threads are long gone.

 

In a nutshell, being Satan is just part of the Holy Ghost's job, which is consistent with ancient Isrealite belief about "The Satan" being basically God's prosecuting attorney. The idea of an evil "god" wasn't introduced until the Babylonian captivity, when Judaism was mixed with Zoroastrianism. In the Book of Job, Satan's chillaxing with God like they're best buddies. Also, the only time the word "Lucifer" is used in the Latin New Testament is in reference to the Holy Spirit, where in 2 Peter 1:19 we're told to have Lucifer in our hearts. As far as unique Mormon teachings go, we're told that the Holy Ghost is the only member of the Godhead without a body, and I recall a Brigham Young quote where he talks about Satan "magnifying his calling" like it's just his job.

 

This leads me to believe that the essential function of Satan/Lucifer/Holy Ghost is as teacher and tester (which can sometimes include trick questions), and whether He appears as accuser or comforter depends on if you pass the test.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[DarkScythe]

I first made the argument here quite a few years back, but the threads are long gone.

 

In a nutshell, being Satan is just part of the Holy Ghost's job, which is consistent with ancient Isrealite belief about "The Satan" being basically God's prosecuting attorney. The idea of an evil "god" wasn't introduced until the Babylonian captivity, when Judaism was mixed with Zoroastrianism. In the Book of Job, Satan's chillaxing with God like they're best buddies. Also, the only time the word "Lucifer" is used in the Latin New Testament is in reference to the Holy Spirit, where in 2 Peter 1:19 we're told to have Lucifer in our hearts. As far as unique Mormon teachings go, we're told that the Holy Ghost is the only member of the Godhead without a body, and I recall a Brigham Young quote where he talks about Satan "magnifying his calling" like it's just his job.

 

This leads me to believe that the essential function of Satan/Lucifer/Holy Ghost is as teacher and tester (which can sometimes include trick questions), and whether He appears as accuser or comforter depends on if you pass the test.

 

 

that is why I like having you around. Well Diversity of types of people within Mormon Church is a good thing.

[The Nehor]

I first made the argument here quite a few years back, but the threads are long gone.

 

In a nutshell, being Satan is just part of the Holy Ghost's job, which is consistent with ancient Isrealite belief about "The Satan" being basically God's prosecuting attorney. The idea of an evil "god" wasn't introduced until the Babylonian captivity, when Judaism was mixed with Zoroastrianism. In the Book of Job, Satan's chillaxing with God like they're best buddies. Also, the only time the word "Lucifer" is used in the Latin New Testament is in reference to the Holy Spirit, where in 2 Peter 1:19 we're told to have Lucifer in our hearts. As far as unique Mormon teachings go, we're told that the Holy Ghost is the only member of the Godhead without a body, and I recall a Brigham Young quote where he talks about Satan "magnifying his calling" like it's just his job.

 

This leads me to believe that the essential function of Satan/Lucifer/Holy Ghost is as teacher and tester (which can sometimes include trick questions), and whether He appears as accuser or comforter depends on if you pass the test.

 

No, I was attacked by his minions once. He does a lot more then just accuse.

[Rivers]

Not at all. Our prophets have, in the past, tried to teach God's law of marriage. They taught that inter-racial marriage was against God's law of marriage. They were wrong.

This is not about racism and instead about whether the prophets can always be reliable when teaching God's law of marriage. Given they are demonstrably wrong on the inter-racial marriage count, why are you certain that they are right on this count?

The current teachings about marriage are much more embedded in Mormon theology than the church's past teachings on race.

[Porter_Rockwell]

Your ideas sound amazing similar to the Book of Mormon Anti-Christ named Korihor. See for yourself:12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof. (Alma 30)

the BOM is fiction...like Dr. Suess. My opinoins are honest by comparison. You can quote Lewis Carroll, or any other author of fiction if you like.

[Porter_Rockwell]

Were the Christians who believed that blacks should be enslaved/segregated because of the mark of Cain or curse of Ham any less bigots because their prejudice was "based" on the Bible?

In my very biased opinion, the Bible isn't a Get-out-of-social-stigma card.

Nobody answered you? lol

[Porter_Rockwell]

How far off the path has one gone if they don't believe in a devil per say?

there is no devil. The enemy is us.

[Porter_Rockwell]

I will. Due to the Priesthood ban it was a bad idea then.

Why did it end?

[slamarwi]

It is good to note that the labeling goes both ways. In this thread you have implied that many who support same-sex marriage have been deceived by Satan. Homosexuality has been labeled by top leaders in the church as a perversion, sinful, an abomination, as "distorting loving relationships", heinous, and as the reason several civilizations went out of existence. I'd say bigot is pretty tame.

 

Who cares about "top leaders in the church", everyone instinctively knows homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion. That is not name calling it is simply factual.

[slamarwi]

there is no devil. The enemy is us.

Both are our enemies.

 

Evil/ Satan/ the Devil certainly exists. You are lucky to have not had a personal experience. I hope your luck continues.

[The Nehor]

there is no devil. The enemy is us.

No, it is more just you.

[Mystery Meat]

Both are our enemies.

 

Evil/ Satan/ the Devil certainly exists. You are lucky to have not had a personal experience. I hope your luck continues.

 

He does. I have been in his presence. I will say no more, other than to say I started out terrified and by the time it was done I no longer fear him. Surreal experience.

Edited May 11, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

Double.

Edited May 11, 2014 by lvjd66

[teddyaware]

the BOM is fiction...like Dr. Suess. My opinoins are honest by comparison. You can quote Lewis Carroll, or any other author of fiction if you like.

Like Korihor, you seem to be whistling past the graveyard. What other motivation could there be for someone as "enlightened" as you are to want to come around here amongst a bunch of "deluded" believers looking for validation for your existential philosophy of eternal hopelessness?

Please indulge me as It would be very interesting if you would read the following and then let me know if you agree with the ideas expressed by the "fictional" character Korihor:

25 ... And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

26 And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

27 And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

28 Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their

dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be. (Alma 30)

 

Edited May 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[california boy]

I wanted to reply to this portion individually to make sure you saw it. I admit, after reading the above quotes from President Lee that I was in part wrong. I am not above that. President Lee said:

 

 

But I do apologize for my statement which was clearly too broad.

Well at least we agree with half of my post.  Wondering why you didn't comment on the first part of the post as well.  Does that mean you agree with it?  Here is what I said.

 

Perhaps it is because of that same lack of revelation that has gotten the church into creating "doctrine" that really wasn't from God at all in the past.  And perhaps no one on this board has been able to clearly state what qualifies as a revelation from God and what is just a joint consensus by men sitting around together and agreeing unanimously on something.  If simply all agreeing that something is a revelation from God is all it takes to qualify then those joint decisions would not have later had to be denounced.  

 

You are right however.  I once thought I clearly knew what was a revelation.  The prophet declared it as such.  But now I have found out that was not something I could always rely on.  So tell me, how does one know if it is a revelation from God unless the prophet is willing to declare, like in the lifting of the ban on the priesthood, that it was indeed from God?  And if in fact if the prophet does receive direct revelation from God, why is it so difficult for him to declare it as such.

 

 

 

 

Now I would like to address you second point.

Alas, contrary to what I said it appears there are cases where the Prophet should and must declare, "Thus Sayeth the Lord." But I note that those circumstances are limited to the unveiling of new doctrine. SSM would be such a new doctrine. As it stands, and based on President Lee's (not to mention the Lord's) definition of scripture such a declaration is not mandated to declare SSM is in violation of God's plan. Nor does the Prophet need to say it when asking us to be better hometeachers, tithe payers, or sabbath observers. Such invitations can be given, along with that to obey the revealed law of Chastity, and when it is the Prophet who says it, we should assume that the President of the Church is speaking for the Lord without having the President of the Church be forced to say, "Thus Sayeth the Lord."

 

 

 

 

The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside the legal and lawful bonds of marriage.  There has never been a change in that doctrine until the church decided that marriage did not include interracial couples.  So they changed the law of chastity to be. "No sexual relations outside of legal and lawful bonds of marriage unless you are an interracial couple.  Then this law doesn't apply to you.  "You shouldn't even be allowed to have a civil marriage, but don't even think about getting eternally married in God's church".  

 

When church leaders decided on their own to change the law of chastity to not include interracial marriages, they were wrong.  This change did not come from God but from committee unanimous vote.  A revelation from God in 1978 actually told them that deciding to exclude interracial couples was not His idea, but there's.

 

Now just recently the church leaders got together and once again took an unanimous vote and decided to change the law of chastity again.  And just like the earlier vote on excluding interracial couples they now have decided on their own to exclude gay couples.  Once again the church leaders on their own have said "You shouldn't even be allowed to have a civil marriage, but don't even think about getting eternally married in God's church.  Once again man attempting to change the law of chastity.  No revelation from God to do so.  Thus once again, creating new doctrine with no revelation from God.  

 

Here is why the church leaders are wrong again.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of inclusion not exclusion.  All are invited to come unto Christ and receive ALL the blessings the gospel has to offer.  All means all, including temple blessings.  That is why the church leaders were wrong in excluding interracial couples and that is why church leaders are wrong in prohibiting gay couples from this very important ordinance of temple marriage.  It is a key part of the plan of salvation.  To eliminate it for anyone is against all the teachings of Christ declaring that all He has to offer is available for all God's children.

 

Am I advocating for gay marriage to change?  Not really.  Church leaders can do whatever they want.  I am only pointing out that this recent decision to exclude gay couples did not come from God.  No revelation has been recorded declared or received.  If the Proclamation on the Family is such a revelation, why did it come from committee.  Why didn't the prophet himself declare it a revelation?  As you agreed earlier.  Doctrine comes from God  through His living prophet not from committee.  It was just voted on by him along with the other leaders.  Any committee decision may very well be policy, but it is not doctrine.  Can you name one doctrine that Joseph Smith introduced that came from committee?  Did Bible and Book of Mormon prophets receive doctrine by committee?  Actually, can you name ANY other doctrine that came from committee?

Edited May 11, 2014 by california boy

[Mystery Meat]

I do want to add that the point of this thread is not to discuss the existence of a fallen demon. This thread will continue under the premise that such a being exists. If you want to argue that no such personage exists by all means start a new thread. There is no sense in derailing this one.

[Mystery Meat]

Well at least we agree with half of my post.  Wondering why you didn't comment on the first part of the post as well.  Does that mean you agree with it?  Here is what I said.

 

 

 

 

Now I would like to address you second point.

 

 

 

The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside the legal and lawful bonds of marriage.  There has never been a change in that doctrine until the church decided that marriage did not include interracial couples.  So they changed the law of chastity to be. "No sexual relations outside of legal and lawful bonds of marriage unless you are an interracial couple.  Then this law doesn't apply to you.  Live in sin, but don't think about getting eternally married in God's church".  

 

When church leaders decided on their own to change the law of chastity to not include interracial marriages, they were wrong.  This change did not come from God but from committee unanimous vote.  A revelation from God in 1978 actually told them that deciding to exclude interracial couples was not His idea, but there's.

 

Now just recently the church leaders got together and once again took an unanimous vote and decided to change the law of chastity again.  And just like the earlier vote on excluding interracial couples they now have decided on their own to exclude gay couples.  Once again man attempting to change the law of chastity.  No revelation from God to do so.  Thus once again, creating new doctrine with no revelation from God.  

 

Here is why the church leaders are wrong again.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of inclusion not exclusion.  All are invited to come unto Christ and receive ALL the blessings the gospel has to offer.  All means all, including temple blessings.  That is why the church leaders were wrong in excluding interracial couples and that is why church leaders are wrong in prohibiting gay couples from this very important ordinance of temple marriage.  It is a key part of the plan of salvation.  To eliminate it for anyone is against all the teachings of Christ declaring that all He has to offer is available for all God's children.

 

Am I advocating for gay marriage to change?  Not really.  Church leaders can do whatever they want.  I am only pointing out that this recent decision to exclude gay couples did not come from God.  No revelation has been recorded declared or received.  If the Proclamation on the Family is such a revelation, why did it come from committee.  Why didn't the prophet himself declare it a revelation?  As you agreed earlier.  Doctrine comes from God  through His living prophet not from committee.  It was just voted on by him along with the other leaders.  Any committee decision may very well be policy, but it is not doctrine.  Can you name one doctrine that Joseph Smith introduced that came from committee?  

 

I did not address the first part of your previous post for the same reason I wont address this latter portion. It has been addressed time and time again in other thread and quite frankly in this thread. You believe there was never such revelation. You operate under the faulty assumption that excluding gay couples from receiving temple ordinances is not part of the gospel and that the law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage, and that any "marriage" goes.

 

You are wrong.

 

But if you can find scriptural precedent for God endorsing "Gay Marriage" you will have taken a giant leap towards convincing me. Sadly for you, no such precedent exists. God endorsed marriages have always been man and woman. That is the pattern. That is the precedent. A prophet teaching otherwise is contradicting scripture, and as President Lee taught, when a prophet contradicts scripture he is teaching false doctrine.

 

Edited to add one more thing. The prophet didn't need to declare "thus sayeth the Lord" to the proclamation because there was no revealing of new doctrine. Read the quotes from President Lee. Then read scripture (both the standard Church works and other inspired teachings of Gods anointed) and you will see that marriage is only between a man and woman. Any statement issued in support of that DOCTRINE may qualify as a revelation, but it is a revelation supporting existing doctrine. And as President Lee said, only new doctrine needs be accompanied by a divine attribution. Thus, if gay marriage was ever added to the Lord's approved list such a divine source would need to be attributed. A pronouncement of continued doctrine does not and it can still be revelation.

Edited May 11, 2014 by lvjd66

[Tsuzuki]

No, I was attacked by his minions once. He does a lot more then just accuse.

That was the Holy Ghost testing you.

[Tacenda]

Both are our enemies.

Evil/ Satan/ the Devil certainly exists. You are lucky to have not had a personal experience. I hope your luck continues.

Don't blame Satan on your experience.

[Tacenda]

I did not address the first part of your previous post for the same reason I wont address this latter portion. It has been addressed time and time again in other thread and quite frankly in this thread. You believe there was never such revelation. You operate under the faulty assumption that excluding gay couples from receiving temple ordinances is not part of the gospel and that the law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage, and that any "marriage" goes.

You are wrong.

But if you can find scriptural precedent for God endorsing "Gay Marriage" you will have taken a giant leap towards convincing me. Sadly for you, no such precedent exists. God endorsed marriages have always been man and woman. That is the pattern. That is the precedent. A prophet teaching otherwise is contradicting scripture, and as President Lee taught, when a prophet contradicts scripture he is teaching false doctrine.

Edited to add one more thing. The prophet didn't need to declare "thus sayeth the Lord" to the proclamation because there was no revealing of new doctrine. Read the quotes from President Lee. Then read scripture (both the standard Church works and other inspired teachings of Gods anointed) and you will see that marriage is only between a man and woman. Any statement issued in support of that DOCTRINE may qualify as a revelation, but it is a revelation supporting existing doctrine. And as President Lee said, only new doctrine needs be accompanied by a divine attribution. Thus, if gay marriage was ever added to the Lord's approved list such a divine source would need to be attributed. A pronouncement of continued doctrine does not and it can still be revelation.

Well if you believe every word the leaders say, then you most likely aren't married right either, if you're married that is, since you don't live polygamy. One or two, or more, revealed that nugget.

[Storm Rider]

Well if you believe every word the leaders say, then you most likely aren't married right either, if you're married that is, since you don't live polygamy. One or two, or more, revealed that nugget.

 

Based upon that logic you would need to be living the Law of Moses rather than following Jesus Christ. What you are trying to do is create a specific problem that does not exist - following the teachings of the past prophets.  Either the prophets lead today or they do not.  If we must always follow the previous prophet than we would have to hearken back to Moses, if not a previous prophet.

 

Further, you would prefer to ignore everything that is hard or creates a problem for a carnal way of thinking.  When did the words of Christ NOT offend the carnal and unrighteous?  When was his holiness not an offense to the desires of flesh?  When did Jesus' words not demand obedience?  

 

Everyone wants to jump on the "love" bandwagon because they think it is easy and all things are acceptable if we love. The problem is that these people never read their scriptures.  What does the Bible say about the two great commandments?  "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (See Matt. 22:40).  The law remains and is required if we love with an eye single to God.  We surrender our carnal desires - the desires of our own heart - for what God desires of us.    

[california boy]

I did not address the first part of your previous post for the same reason I wont address this latter portion. It has been addressed time and time again in other thread and quite frankly in this thread. You believe there was never such revelation. You operate under the faulty assumption that excluding gay couples from receiving temple ordinances is not part of the gospel and that the law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage, and that any "marriage" goes.

 

You are wrong.

 

But if you can find scriptural precedent for God endorsing "Gay Marriage" you will have taken a giant leap towards convincing me. Sadly for you, no such precedent exists. God endorsed marriages have always been man and woman. That is the pattern. That is the precedent. A prophet teaching otherwise is contradicting scripture, and as President Lee taught, when a prophet contradicts scripture he is teaching false doctrine.

 

Edited to add one more thing. The prophet didn't need to declare "thus sayeth the Lord" to the proclamation because there was no revealing of new doctrine. Read the quotes from President Lee. Then read scripture (both the standard Church works and other inspired teachings of Gods anointed) and you will see that marriage is only between a man and woman. Any statement issued in support of that DOCTRINE may qualify as a revelation, but it is a revelation supporting existing doctrine. And as President Lee said, only new doctrine needs be accompanied by a divine attribution. Thus, if gay marriage was ever added to the Lord's approved list such a divine source would need to be attributed. A pronouncement of continued doctrine does not and it can still be revelation.

 

Well I would say not allowing all of God's children from being married for time and eternity is the new doctrine.  The qualifier of only between one man and one woman is a recent development.  One that has not been held throughout the history of the church.

 

I think i have said my piece.  You obviously want to beieve that like before when temple marriage was not allowed for interracial couples, this repeating of that same kind of thinking is ok this time around.  And you are perfectly fine not allowing gay couples to participate in eternal marriage.  Of course, you have no skin in this game.  It doesn't effect you.  So why not have this position.  So be it.

Edited May 11, 2014 by california boy

[california boy]

Based upon that logic you would need to be living the Law of Moses rather than following Jesus Christ. What you are trying to do is create a specific problem that does not exist - following the teachings of the past prophets.  Either the prophets lead today or they do not.  If we must always follow the previous prophet than we would have to hearken back to Moses, if not a previous prophet.

 

Further, you would prefer to ignore everything that is hard or creates a problem for a carnal way of thinking.  When did the words of Christ NOT offend the carnal and unrighteous?  When was his holiness not an offense to the desires of flesh?  When did Jesus' words not demand obedience?  

 

Everyone wants to jump on the "love" bandwagon because they think it is easy and all things are acceptable if we love. The problem is that these people never read their scriptures.  What does the Bible say about the two great commandments?  "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (See Matt. 22:40).  The law remains and is required if we love with an eye single to God.  We surrender our carnal desires - the desires of our own heart - for what God desires of us.    

 

 

Well there are plenty of people who use the law of Moses when such law justifies what they want to justify.  Nothing new there.

 

And we are not talking about the "love" bandwagon, we are talking about sex within the bounds of marriage.