Is Satan A God?

[teddyaware]

If my limited status hadn't prevented me from starting a new thread topic, I must say this thread would have inspired me to start a new thread under the heading, "Is SpongeBob Squarepants a God?" 

[Tsuzuki]

I would think Lucifer was destined to be a head of dispensation or a prophet before he apostatized.

I don't think He actually apostatized, and was/is only doing part of His job as the Holy Ghost. Satan isn't a god, He's the third member of the Godhead.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Tsuzuki

[Tacenda]

I don't think He actually apostatized, and was/is only doing part of His job as the Holy Ghost. Satan isn't a god, He's the third member of the Godhead.

Well that's what you think.

[Zakuska]

If I'm not mistaken Paul refers to Satan as "The God of this world" several times in his wittings ("This" being the operative relative term, meaning during this current Age when Satan has his dominion among the Children of man).  Yet another place in scripture where the title of God is given to another real being other than the one true God thus rendering Modern Christian Hyper-Monotheism mute.

[BCSpace]

No, like many villains he mostly relies on his flunkies and toadies to do his work for him.

 

So when you are out doing the Lord's work by say, home teaching, does that mean you're a flunkie or a toadie?

[BCSpace]

Without even bothering to get into Mormon

theology, is the Christian explanation of Satan

and his supposed supernatural powers about

equal to professing that he is a god?

UD

 

We ascribe to Satan power; the power to control, enslave, imprison, to make miserable, etc. I'd say that anyone or anything who can do that to us is a god relative to us.  The interesting thing is that given agency, it is we who confer those powers on Satan.  So in a very real sense, Satan is a god that WE have created.

 

A side note to this could be that when atheists speak of humans creating God and not the other way around, they are actually instead refering to Satan, the God of gods to all the gods created by man.

Edited May 24, 2015 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not know about mind reading but if he is trying to induce the latter you may need a devil upgrade. All the modern ones realize that there are much less risky methods of acquiring pornography.

The problem is, of course, that Playboy has never been successfully sued as porn.

[Robert F. Smith]

What his status was as a "Son of the Morning" I do not know but whatever it was when he was cast out he was demoted.  i.e. cast out = demotion.

I am not so sure "son of the morning" was an actual title. While I am willing to accept the dualistic nature of Isaiah it is a stretch that the appellation for the King of Babylon is also analogous to a heavenly PreMortal title.

................................................................

You guys may need to take a more nuanced view of his Satanic Majesty, who is specifically termed "the God of this World" (II Cor 4:4).  See my short study, “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .  Originally put online in 2010.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Satan is not omniscient, and no, cannot read minds. He is the Deceiver, and pretends to know for his own purposes.

......................................................................  

Yes. Satan is the ultimate grifter.

[The Nehor]

So when you are out doing the Lord's work by say, home teaching, does that mean you're a flunkie or a toadie?

 

Kind of, though those terms refer to bootlickers and sycophants who are overly obsequious to their master. It is not possible to be overly obsequious to the Creator of the Universe.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................  

If Jehovah organized our earth (our solar system?)

(our galaxy?) and he and his wives populated that

organized world, and all of the following events told

about in the Hebrew Bible be true and authentic,

then that sort of "god" not confined within a body,

would be fully sufficient for my Jewish inlaws.

...................................................   

You are assuming once again (because we have discussed this before) that Jehovah is a name applied to one and only one personage forever.  It is rather a title, YHWH (Yahweh "He who creates that which comes into existence"), which is applied to whomever fills the role at the moment, disembodied or not.  He need have no wives until embodied, or until exalted with a glorified body in the Celestial Kingdom.  Only YHWH is invested with the full power of his Father as a unembodied spirit.  He is, in effect, the executive officer of his Father with full power to act on his behalf, and on behalf of his spirit brothers and sisters (all of whom are spirit children of the Father alone).  The means used for this executive action is the granting of keys and the utilization of them via the Priesthood of the Son of God (which we often term Melchizedek Priesthood).

[The Nehor]

You guys may need to take a more nuanced view of his Satanic Majesty, who is specifically termed "the God of this World" (II Cor 4:4).  See my short study, “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .  Originally put online in 2010.

 

I would not ascribe to him majesty. His wheedling and conniving deprive him of anything we would call dignity. He is the god of this world in the same sense that a hunk of stone or the sun or something else can be granted the status of deity. If the devil would get off his damned (both literally and figuratively) behind and actually use some godly power to reward his subjects he would be something akin to a real God but he lacks both the power and the will to do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

.

.................................................  

...........................................- or, that President

Heber C. Kimball was teaching correct doctrine, when he said

that the Holy Ghost does have a body and is a man.

Brother Heber was certainly entitled to his fallible opinions, but such a statement makes no coherent sense.

 

Is there one concise volume published by the Church, which

covers these topics in better detail than McConkie's old book

of "Mormon Doctrine" ???

................................................

No, and it was always unwise to use Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.  You must look further afield.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

The problem is, of course, that Playboy has never been successfully sued as porn.

 

Porn is, for better or worse, legal. Most professional purveyors of porn in the United States are VERY careful to follow the laws about creating the stuff as penalties are harsh.

 

There are some amateur outfits and, of course, those who operate the most debased forms of the medium (child porn, snuff films, and the like) that are explicitly illegal usually hide. The former usually by being too small to bother with and the latter by operating in the Deep Web and operating on a hidden retail basis or behind schemes similar to kickstarter where they collect a certain amount of money from anonymous donors and then release the filth.

[Robert F. Smith]

You might have meant "just as puppies turn into older dogs...".  A puppy is a young

dog, but humans are not young Deities.

 

Gail

Mormons have a firm belief that they are gods in embryo, and that they are of the same genus and species as God.  There may be some who fall by the wayside on the way to exaltation, but that is their ultimate destiny, just as an acorn's destiny is to be an oak tree.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................

Also Joseph Smith taught clearly that all beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.

.................................................  

This may be an instance of "the exception proves the rule."

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................

..................................Then again, that might be like revealing a Jumbo Jet to an ant.

An apt analogy.  We love the mysteries, but are so like children wanting to eat all the goodies from All Hallows Eve, and then finding that our stomachs just don't have the capacity.

[Robert F. Smith]

The same "Lectures on Faith" said there are only two personages in the Godhead.

 

Regards,

Jim

Yes, and primarily authored by Sidney Rigdon.

[strappinglad]

One thing raises my curiosity. Christ said that unless he left the earth, the Comforter could not come. Any reason why?

[JLHPROF]

This may be an instance of "the exception proves the rule."

 

Perhaps.  But that is speculation whereas the rule is prophetic teaching.

We would have to determine the meaning of the teaching.  WHY do those with bodies have power over those who are spirits?

Then we could determine if it applied to the premortal Christ as well.

Edited May 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

One thing raises my curiosity. Christ said that unless he left the earth, the Comforter could not come. Any reason why?

 

That is one of the most interesting passages of scripture:

 

Speaking of the Holy Ghost our Savior says in John 16:

 

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

 

Personally, this doesn't sound like it is referring to the gift of the Holy Ghost received internally, but to the mission of a personage that calls people to repentance, reveals truth, delivers revelations (not his own words), and glorifies Christ.   Christ even states that the Holy Ghost will reveal truths that the Savior himself held back because the people weren't ready.

Sounds like a certain prophet to me..but maybe that's just me.

Edited May 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[telnetd]

Yes, and primarily authored by Sidney Rigdon.

 

The Lectures on Faith formed the 'doctrine' of the Doctrine and Covenants

until 1921 (so I have read).  I could not find why it was added and removed

to the canon without a revelation 

 

Gail

[Robert F. Smith]

The Lectures on Faith formed the 'doctrine' of the Doctrine and Covenants

until 1921 (so I have read).  I could not find why it was added and removed

to the canon without a revelation 

 

Gail

The Lectures were never revelation, and did not really fit in with LDS theology.

[JLHPROF]

The Lectures were never revelation, and did not really fit in with LDS theology.

 

Except Lecture 6.

[theplains]

The Lectures were never revelation, and did not really fit in with LDS theology.

 

They were official canon until 1921. See https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

But I can understand why some choose to forget history.

 

Regards,

Jim