Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: BYUboner ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 12:22AM

It's pretty amazing how two folks (who might be the same person...er, demon) get a lot of attention from the Morg. The Hebrew Scriptures are remarkably slim concerning Old Scratch's activities, and the Christian New Testament also pretty sketchy.

My atheist RfM friends will say it's all bullshit, and they could be right.

What I'm interested in, is if you believe in a supreme devil (ie, Satan) what's your understanding of the critter? Thanks, The Bonerr.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: White Cliffs ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 12:46AM

The Mormon explanation would be that Lucifer--the beautiful angel, light bringer, son of the morning--rebelled and was cast out of Heaven, so he became Satan, the adversary, the father of lies.

My interpretation is that Satan represents the idea that almost all of us need to be tempted, deceived, or instructed to do something evil. It would never occur to us independently to do some of the horrible things that get done in this world. Satan was for some reason very well-informed, so he became the one that got things started, for example getting Cain to kill Abel. What, Cain never thought of doing it himself?

Now obviously humans have been killing each other for a long, long time. So the temptation relates to how each new generation of humans gets socialized and instructed in how to kill, rape, torture, etc. Satan is a weird concept, sort of the intersection of forbidden knowledge, selfish inclination, and overwhelming socialization that makes humans unbearable to each other. Blame it all on Satan.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Interested observer ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 03:17AM

In Judaism as in the Old Testament, Satan is known as the adversary, a being created by God for a specific purpose and his power is strictly controlled by God as for example, in the story of Job where permission had to be sought to attack Job. In effect he is unable to do anything that is outside of Gods will.
In Christianity Satan SEEMS, in the minds of many fundamentalists to have metamorphosed into a being with enormous power making him almost equal to God. Those who think along such lines attribute to him far greater powers than a careful reading of scripture would suggest.
It’s interesting that you should mention Satan and Lucifer in the same sentence as if both names represent the same being or person. This is a subject that could or should be faith destroying for any Mormon interested enough to do a little basic research into the subject. As I understand it Mormon belief in the nature of God and his so called spirit children would completely collapse once the truth concerning Lucifer was brought into the open. Mormon Theology tells us that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and from that simple fact springs a multitude of related beliefs that I won’t go into here. However it can be conclusively shown that the word ‘Lucifer’ is a TITLE and NOT the name of a person or being. Therefore Mormon theology by that one simple realisation is knocked into a cocked hat. Lucifer occurs just once in the Old Testament and is nothing more than a reference to the King of Babylon who enjoyed a god like status in his kingdom. The confusion arises due to a mistranslation in the KJV and does not occur in more modern translations. It’s not just Mormons who have it wrong though, it’s also the many Christians who believe that Satan and Lucifer are interchangeable names.
Oh, to answer your question I believe, assuming that Satan actually exists, that he is given far more credit than he ‘deserves’ it’s much easier to blame him when things go wrong than it is to blame ourselves. :-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tom Padley ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 03:33PM

Yup. The devil made me do it. It's nice to have a fantasy being to take the blame for bad things done by human beings.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cthlos ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 09:16PM

More correctly, the word Lucifer comes directly from the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, the Latin referring correctly to Venus, e.g. the morning star. KJV translators adopted the Latin word rather than rendering an accurate English translation. Modern translations correctly translate the Hebrew as "morning star".

And yes, read in context, the passage you mention is making reference to a king, a mortal human being. This is why, when dealing with religious people, I use their use of the terms Satan and Lucifer as a litmus test to determine how knowledgeable they really are about the Bible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: darth jesus ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 04:52AM

lucifer = satan = christ = jehovah in my book.

jehovah and satan are buddies.
they had a bet once, satan lost.
the bet was to torture a man and his family. his name was job.
that went on for several years. jehovah won.

that tells you that both are sick fucks perverted pricks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: michaelc1945 ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 09:42AM

I view Satan as the personification of man's physical state ruling his needs and desires. This sometimes causes us to do stupid and harmful things to ourselves and others. Giving the cause of this behavior a name helps to absolve us of our own guilty feelings. Just a few thoughts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: outsider ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 09:50AM

The best book on this is "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagals, an historian at Princeton.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Satan-Christians-Demonized/dp/0679731180

Here is one review I found online:

"An NBCC and National Book Awardwinning scholar of Gnosticism and early Christianity argues that the concept of Satan was central to the way apocalyptic Jews and the Christian Church saw--and treated--their enemies. When St. Paul declared that Christians were struggling with the powers of darkness and not with common flesh and blood, he was expressing an essentially cosmic attitude. Pagels (Religion/Princeton; The Gnostic Gospels, 1979, etc.) believes that this attitude led to a demonizing of human opponents and opened the door to a new kind of fanaticism and hatred.

She argues that this dualistic cosmology originated with the Jewish Essene sect who pitted the ``sons of Light'' against the ``sons of Darkness.'' Pagels argues that the Gospels invoke this apocalyptic scenario against the Jews who opposed Jesus. As the Christian movement became increasingly Gentile, this demonizing came to be directed against pagan magistrates and, finally, dissident Christians. Fundamental to Pagels's argument is the thesis of many scholars that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial and execution, by seeming to place blame on the Jews rather than the Romans, actually reflect the situation of later decades when Christians were completely separated from Judaism and anxious not to provoke the Romans.

Pagels sees the whole demonizing tendency as continuing down the centuries in anti-Semitism and in sectarian hatred generally. Her case is not entirely convincing. For instance, she seems to have forgotten that mass slaughter of enemies, e.g., the Canaanites, had already been advocated in the early Hebrew scriptures without any reference to Satan.

Furthermore, her powerful quotations of Gnostic sources and the Pagan philosopher Celsus cause her to introduce theological questions that she fails to address in any depth, e.g., her assumption that orthodox Christianity was essentially dualistic and that the proscription of heresy was merely an issue of control. An attractive and scholarly, if not entirely satisfying, presentation of a stimulating thesis."

Back to my comments:

As Mormons, we simply did not know the Bible. Reading and studying bible history now, as an atheist is really interesting.

In her book, Pagel goes over the role of the satans (note: plural and not capitalized) in the Jewish traditions, and how the role evolved over time.

The part about Lucifer being mistaken for the Satan of the New Testament is interesting. It's yet one more reason that the so-called new scriptures get thinks completely wrong.

From Wiki:

"Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12.[1] This word, transliterated hêlêl[1] or heylel,[2] occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible[1] and according to the KJV-influenced Strong's Concordance means "shining one, morning star, Lucifer".[2] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[3] which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[Isa 14:12][4][5] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".[6] The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[7][8][9][10][11] (heōsphoros),[12][13][14] a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[15]

"In this passage Isaiah applies to a king of Babylon the image of the morning star fallen from the sky, an image he is generally believed to have borrowed from a legend in Canaanite mythology.[16]

"Later Christian tradition came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for Satan as he was before his fall.[17] As a result, "Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature",[3] as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost.[14] However, the Latin word never came to be used almost exclusively, as in English, in this way, and was applied to others also, including Christ."

Here's an interesting article in Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity

Note that in Job, Satan is part of God's Court. The idea of him becoming archenemies does not occur at the time, and I believe that Pagels makes the case that the Essenes, a Jewish sect which were prior to Jesus' time, where the first to make Satan the King of Evil, as it were, and Christians followed.

The book is also valuable in helping to understand the political environment around the time the Gospels were written (starting with Mark, at about 70 CE) with the Jewish war, and how the gospels attempted to portray the Jews as being bad and the Jesus followers as less of a threat to the Roman empire.

Of course, as an atheist, I don't believe any of the story, but studying the history of how it unfolded is fascinating.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYUboner ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 11:16PM

Excellent read, of course, just about anything by Pagels is...thanks for sharing your ideas. Boner.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 01:40PM

Comic book story lines tend to develop and change over time. The Bible is one of the world's oldest comic books, and Jehovah and Lucifer are the superhero/super villain.

Darth Vader is considerably more real to most people than Lucifer, and serves the same purpose. Satan has passed his Sell By date.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 02:01PM

I see Satan not as a real being but only symbolic of evil. The whole Mormon thing as well as that adopted by various other sects is not true. Both good and evil exist without the need for personifying either. We have temptation within our own being and can create it on our own. Unlike the Calvinist theology in which man is entirely corrupt, I see man as also having the ability for good.

The concept of Satan being personified has led many people astray with such things as the witch scares in Salem and elsewhere and even today we see a tendency to paint those who disagree with the wide brush as being agents of ... SATAN. With the endowment sessions and their focus on Satan, one sees a religion giving Satan a standing virtually equal to God. In truth, Satan appears almost equally as Moroni as an imaginary figure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 10:11PM

why should it have to be personified? I don't understand that.

It isn't that difficult to be "against" the concept of evil in general. So why turn it into a more concrete target and give it a name, as if it were a real personage? Where's the logic?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 06:10PM

Catnip, I strongly concur with you! I see no reason to have "satan" or any other personification.

As an aside, I am writing a book relating to good and evil. Admittedly, one character is evil but not in the sense of being a personification or representation of evil - just being a real evil dude and it is a true story.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ASteve ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 02:07PM

In the Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the Devil" the Devil is a metaphor.

For us.

I think the christian devil is too. It's just more ironic, since they don't realize it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: David A ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 02:19PM

Since, according to Mormonism, (priesthood) power is contingent on the principles of righteousness, if you consider Satan a real being, then any power he has is God given and a built in contradiction.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: utahstateagnostics ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 02:57PM

What I know: he dresses in red, and delivers presents to kids who are vaguely Christian in North America.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 04:29PM

Which is why he appears at all TSCC Christmas parties as the chief attraction. Why in our ward, it was the bish in his red suit pretending to be you know who.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: PapaKen ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 03:27PM

Without Lucifer/Satan, the mormon plan of salvation falls to nothing.

So, he's just as important as Elohim, JC & HG. He's a member of their Godhead.

IF (it's a big IF) Lucifer/Satan is real, and IF (another big IF) s/he really wanted to thwart Elohim's plan of salvation, why doesn't s/he should just withdraw altogether, and take a cosmic vacation?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: moose ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 04:11PM

He probably does. You see, he has "minions"....

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Cinnamint ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 09:10PM

Lucifer is Cinderella's cat.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: greengobbleyguck ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 11:17PM

You all got it wrong. Satan is the martial arts fighter in dragonball.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Drew90 ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 09:20PM

It's so confusing. Lucifer is still just a spirit. We went to earth to learn right from wrong. We were all like 2 year old kids. Since he never got a body he never learned right from wrong. So pretty much god's pissed off at his 2 year old son and cast him out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Classical Guy ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 11:26PM

Well, if we came to earth to learn right from wrong, then how could God punish 1/3 of the hosts in heaven and cast them out with the Devil before they had an opportunity to learn right from wrong and didn't have the ability to KNOW right from wrong?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Zeniff ( )
Date: September 03, 2014 10:07PM

This will piss off Mormons and most evangelical Christians alike, but Lucifer is not Satan. Lucifer is only found in Isaiah 14:12, and it is from the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew "helel"--roughly, "morning star." The Vulgate's rendition survived into the King James rendering. No modern English translation I can think of off the top of my head says "Lucifer."

If you read the passage in context, it's a taunt against the King of Babylon, the "dawn star," portending his eventual judgment and downfall. The only way you could see Satan in there is "typologically." The Lucifer and the devil thing is something out of Dante's "Inferno" or Milton's "Paradise Lost."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: AKA Alma ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 04:26PM

It's easier to pretend that some third party (in this case Satan) is responsible for temptations.

Otherwise one would have to accept that those ugly thoughts, urges, inclinations, and temptations are coming from themselves and are a reflection of their secret self and desires.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scooter ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 05:04PM

have dinner with him sometime.

Just plan on picking up the tab.

He can be a dick that way.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: moose ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 05:11PM

Two names my ex likes to use in place of my name.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Interested observer ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 05:44PM

Just to repeat what I said in an earlier post, the Mormon Corporation is going to have a major problem on its hands should the members ever come to realise that the brother of Jesus doesn’t actually exist. The entire Mormon fairy story could collapse when it's realised who Lucifer is, or in this case isn't. Lucifer, is NOT a person, Isaiah was simply making a mocking reference to the King of Babylon.
“How you are fallen oh Lucifer son of the morning” Lucifer being the Latin word for Morning star or as some would have, bringer of light.

The translators of the KJV rather than translating from the Hebrew used Jerome’s Vulgate in the translation process and since that time the ‘title’ gradually became accepted as a name, even among devout Christians. This was something that Joe Smith could not possibly have known when he began translating his imaginary plates and it could prove to be very costly to the cult should it become common knowledge.
There’s no way they could wriggle out of that one with a new essay.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Zeniff ( )
Date: September 04, 2014 08:26PM

Interested observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isaiah was simply making a mocking reference to
> the King of Babylon.

Yep, spot on.

> The translators of the KJV rather than translating
> from the Hebrew used Jerome’s Vulgate in the
> translation process and since that time the
> ‘title’ gradually became accepted as a name,
> even among devout Christians.

Spot on, again.

> There’s no way they could wriggle out of that
> one with a new essay.

Yeah, I thought that about the Book of Abraham. You can fool some of the people all of the time, ya know?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Interested observer ( )
Date: September 05, 2014 09:41AM

Zeniff
"Yeah, I thought that about the Book of Abraham. You can fool some of the people all of the time, ya know?"

Unfortunately your observation is also spot on so let's just hope that the subject of Lucifer being a brother of Jesus will become as important and provably false as has the Book of Abraham.

As you rightly said, some will never be persuaded, but it could prove to be another weapon in the battle for common sense and I would very much like to see how the cult explains it away. :-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  **        ********         **   ******  
    **     **        **     **        **  **    ** 
    **     **        **     **        **  **       
    **     **        ********         **  **       
    **     **        **         **    **  **       
    **     **        **         **    **  **    ** 
    **     ********  **          ******    ******