So is Satan essential to the plan of happiness described by JS?
Without Satan, would there even be a plan?
Would we need a savior if there was no sin?
This is how silly Mormonism is, how ridiculous JS was and how ridiculous Rusty is.
Satan is the author of all things bad and wants all men to be miserable like he is, for all eternity...but the plan falls apart without him.
God's plan for man, depends just as much on the existence of Satan, as it does on Jesus.

So, when G was making his "plan", he had to have a Satan. So did someone volunteer to be Satan, or did someone get volunteered to be Satan?
Am I advocating satan worship? No.
There's no satan, and no god. That is the only way the "plan" makes sense.

read your bible OPie ~

Satan was a calling from before the first person came to earth. After the final judgement, Satan will be released from his calling. At least that makes a good story.

Golly, what a stinging comeback Ziller.

Cut him some slack. Ziller’s busy looking for land in Wyoming.

That was intended as a joke, btw.

There's nothing like a talking snake in the Bible to support the story.

If Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil before eating the fruit, it wasn't possible they knew disobeying God to eat an apple was wrong.

So, Satan tempts Eve when they had no knowledge of who was evil and God punishes them. Satan is just a manifestation of God's mean side.

Reading the Bible without faith glasses confirms how the mythology tried to deal with explaining the good and bad we see in nature. Unfortunately parts of the mythology can have your reasoning tied in knots. The "Plan" makes zero sense.

Satan won the War in Heaven(™) which is why Mormons are such authoritarian jerks who would force everyone to be "good" if they thought they could get away with it. That also explains how people like Bednar and BKP could become "religious leaders".

And of course everyone who goes through the Endowment notices that Satan gets the best dialogue, and has the coolest apron.

I'm telling you, Satan won. How else do you explain Mormonism?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2019 11:23PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan won the War in Heaven(™) which is why
> Mormons are such authoritarian jerks who would
> force everyone to be "good" if they thought they
> could get away with it. That also explains how
> people like Bednar and BKP could become "religious
> leaders".
>
> And of course everyone who goes through the
> Endowment notices that Satan gets the best
> dialogue, and has the coolest apron.
>
> I'm telling you, Satan won. How else do you
> explain Mormonism?


Satan no longer has the actual SYMBOLS of his power and priesthoods on the Apron. Only older types have seen them, members now only see a blank apron. Does this mean "no powers and priesthoods"?

but satan has such a great laugh.

high-quality satan can give you a more pleasurable sleeping experience. You can tell whether you've got genuine high-quality satan based on how many layers warp yarns are involved.

My understanding is that Joseph Smith was a purveyor of many warped yarns, but I usually don't think of him in connection with high-quality satan.

This is a good example of how literalism in the religious traditions degenerates quickly into nonsense. And this nonsense seems to become more exposed and transparent in modern, secular societies. Mormonism, of course, has always been a champion of literalism. And this dogmatic commitment is finally coming an embarrassment.

The question becomes whether non-literal interpretations of religious myth can salvage anything of value; for example as a personal, subjective, window to transcendent reality. Personally, I think the non-religious critic should keep an open mind about this, and not let the nonsense of literalism automatically invoke a dismissive attitude of religion and faith generally. After all, art and literature are also literal fictions. But we usually allow them some latitude to offer transcendent glimpses into a reality that literalism does not service.

Allow me to push back on this a bit more. It is sometimes helpful--even on the Board--to set aside religious cynicism and to try to look more charitably on religious myths to see of there might be a hidden nugget of truth that remains helpful to one's post-religion worldview.

Given this post, I am reminded of the oft-quoted 2Nephi 2:11, which serves as a religious attempt to explain Satan, and suggests perhaps a metaphor in contrast to Mormon literalism:

"For, there must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore [in that event] all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Now, although this is overstated, and couched in religious terms that bury and obscure metaphysical or transcendent significance, the idea in strictly human terms is much deeper than an explanation of a literal person identified as Satan, or a salvation myth. Certainly, it is correct to say that personal meaning in life *is* fundamentally dependent upon free will, which exists and is dependent upon the opposition imposed by choices, which are themselves dependent upon some notion of both practical and moral "good and bad" and "right and wrong." Human values in a world without such genuine oppositions would indeed be meaningless.

In short, if you are committed to human values, then you are of necessity committed to human free will (agency). As such, there must indeed be "opposition" (alternative choices with alternative results) in order to make free will and human values meaningful.

So, here is an example--even in Mormonism--where something deep, philosophical, and non-religious can be gleaned out of otherwise religious nonsense.

Henry, this is the definition of bathos.

Your first post was compelling. Much of life, particularly artistic life, is mythological and has great value as such. So too religious documents from which literalism and superstition have withered away. As I tell my children, one should be careful when dismissing religion because it is the language through which most people for most of history have discussed ontology and morality.

But must you in your second post cite as exemplary the "opposition in all things" nonsense? That foray into philosophy is one of the most transparently risible in all of Mormonism. The notion that pain is necessary for people to feel happiness, that slavery is necessary for freedom, that evil is required for the existence of good: it follows that we should want people to grow more stupid and racist so that we can become more intelligent.

If you want to promote belief in free will, which is fine, please find a philosophically coherent rationale for it. You can do so much better than Joseph Smith's fevered imagination.

Your first post was compelling. Much of life, particularly artistic life, is mythological and has great value as such. So too religious documents from which literalism and superstition have withered away. As I tell my children, one should be careful when dismissing religion because it is the language through which most people for most of history have discussed ontology and morality.

COMMENT: O.K. But let's be clear. A religious text has value in the context of religion (outside of literalism) because of its *personal* connection to ontology and morality. It is not the nature of the "discussion" or the abstract use of language that is of primary interest in the religious context. (Nor the authors of the text!) For this reason the value of religious texts is not to be equated with, or compared to, its connection with philosophy, science or literature.
___________________________________________________

But must you in your second post cite as exemplary the "opposition in all things" nonsense? That foray into philosophy is one of the most transparently risible in all of Mormonism.

COMMENT: See my comment above. Religious texts, including Mormon scripture, should not be viewed or judged as "forays into philosophy." That is not their point, and by that standard they will all fall short of value. And, I disagree that in this case a charitable, non literal, reading of the text is utter nonsense, to be laughed away with scorn. It appears to me that your anti-Mormon attitude is creating a double-standard as to how much logical leeway you are willing to grant an isolated religious text as having value in a religious context.
______________________________________________

The notion that pain is necessary for people to feel happiness, that slavery is necessary for freedom, that evil is required for the existence of good: it follows that we should want people to grow more stupid and racist so that we can become more intelligent.

COMMENT: Stick to the text we are discussing. None of this is implied by the isolated text quoted here. The transcendental point (non-literal and charitable) is that meaningfulness in human life, both in moral and practical terms, involves a context of resistance and struggle. Your insistence to assign a pejorative interpretation (e.g. racism) is your anti-Mormonism coming through. If when interpreting the religious texts of other religions you allow your external cultural (and personal) objections to the underlying religion to rule, you could readily dismiss the value of virtually all such texts.

___________________________________________________

If you want to promote belief in free will, which is fine, please find a philosophically coherent rationale for it. You can do so much better than Joseph Smith's fevered imagination.

COMMENT: This is not about what I am promoting. And, I have never read a religious text (text presented as scripture) that was "philosophically coherent," as if that is the standard from which to judge such texts. The fact that you make the author of the text the issue, over and above the text itself, again demonstrates that for you this is about Mormonism, and not about finding value in non-literal interpretations of religious texts.

You act as if I have never thought about that verse before, which is incorrect.

You say, for example, that I read into it things that are not there and then deride them. Arguably true. But you then write, "Certainly, it is correct to say that personal meaning in life *is* fundamentally dependent upon free will, which exists and is dependent upon the opposition imposed by choices, which are themselves dependent upon some notion of both practical and moral "good and bad" and "right and wrong." But the verse says nothing about free will or about meaning in life. Those are your interpolations, your misreadings.

You then go further, asserting that your interpretation is "certain." That seems a strong statement, as if you have a unique grasp of the fundamentals of moral life. But is meaning in life really dependent on free will? What basis can you offer for that other than your own intuition?

And what is free will? Can you demonstrate how people are not free if they don't have opposing choices--without, for example, defining the choice between green and red apples as perforce one between "opposites?" In many cases the choice is between varying shades of something. I go to a fruit stand and decide to buy some fruit. Are bananas "opposite" to apples? Are red apples "opposite" to green ones? Does my free will depend on those questions? What if the fruit stand is closed? Am I no longer free?

And what of morality? How do you define that concept? Are moral options really finite and opposite choices rather than fluid ones whose normative values change based on such circumstances as whether the person you are killing is Mother Theresa or Charlie Manson? I assert that an insistent that moral life consists of binary decisions is one that leads to immoral behavior in many instances. Victor Hugo wrote a book about that although he may have been wrong given that he hadn't read Second Nephi.

Then you add that "human values in a world without such genuine oppositions would indeed be meaningless." That's rather bald, isn't it?

I am indeed "anti-Mormon." But that is not the source of my dissatisfaction with that verse. While a TBM I thought deeply about that passage and ended up finding it embarrassingly vacuous, for it makes the most sweeping of claims with no real foundation. Are you aware of a single serious person from a non-Mormon background who has ever found that verse worthy of significant consideration? I doubt it. It is only Mormons and perhaps some ex-Mormons who think JS was saying something profound when he put those words into the mouth of his imaginary friend.

You act as if I have never thought about that verse before, which is incorrect.

COMMENT: Whether you or I have thought about this verse, analyzed it, or whatever, is irrelevant to my point. It is simply part of a religious text; to be read and assimilated for religious purposes. The post was about Satan in Mormonism and all I was saying was that there is potentially a non-literal, religious interpretation of this passage that might carry religious, transcendental meaning to a reader as related to the vicissitudes of human life. That's all.
_______________________________________

You say, for example, that I read into it things that are not there and then deride them. Arguably true. But you then write, "Certainly, it is correct to say that personal meaning in life *is* fundamentally dependent upon free will, which exists and is dependent upon the opposition imposed by choices, which are themselves dependent upon some notion of both practical and moral "good and bad" and "right and wrong." But the verse says nothing about free will or about meaning in life. Those are your interpolations, your misreadings.

COMMENT: Well, perhaps I was expanding on the text somewhat. But, free will is really the whole point of this chapter. After all, verse 16 sums it up by saying, "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself." As to "meaning in life" again this verse (and chapter) centers on man's predicament and "enticements" and how to respond to them. So, I don't think I am being too far off in suggesting a "meaning of life" view of this chapter as it might be religiously understood.
______________________________________

You then go further, asserting that your interpretation is "certain." That seems a strong statement, as if you have a unique grasp of the fundamentals of moral life. But is meaning in life really dependent on free will? What basis can you offer for that other than your own intuition?

COMMENT: What I said was "Certainly, it is correct to say that personal meaning in life *is* fundamentally dependent upon free will." Although my use of "certainly" was clearly rhetorical, and not offered as "logical certainty" I stand by my assertion that there is no meaning in life without the ability to make free choices that affect our own life and the lives of others. I just have no idea how someone might argue otherwise. Perhaps you can help me here!
__________________________________________

And what is free will? Can you demonstrate how people are not free if they don't have opposing choices--without, for example, defining the choice between green and red apples as perforce one between "opposites?" In many cases the choice is between varying shades of something. I go to a fruit stand and decide to buy some fruit. Are bananas "opposite" to apples? Are red apples "opposite" to green ones? Does my free will depend on those questions? What if the fruit stand is closed? Am I no longer free?

COMMENT: Free will involves the ability to make genuine choices; but of course not all choices involve opposites. Moreover, all choices involve constraints. Nonetheless, choices we *are* able to make involve consequences that arguably either promote some personal, practical, or moral good, or they do not. We have reasons for our actions, and generally such reasons are in the service of some idea of "good." Granted this is an over-simplification, but that is precisely what religious texts do--over simplify. Remember, we are not talking philosophy here, we are talking about religion.
___________________________________________

And what of morality? How do you define that concept? Are moral options really finite and opposite choices rather than fluid ones whose normative values change based on such circumstances as whether the person you are killing is Mother Theresa or Charlie Manson? I assert that an insistent that moral life consists of binary decisions is one that leads to immoral behavior in many instances. Victor Hugo wrote a book about that although he may have been wrong given that he hadn't read Second Nephi.

COMMENT: Moral options are indeed complex, difficult and "fluid." And, I would agree that religious texts that tend to make things morally black and white are objectionable on philosophical grounds. But, how many times do I have to say it; this is about a potential, personal religious interpretation of a religious text; i.e. what transcendental meaning it might have for some TBM reader (not me or you, obviously). If you insist upon nit-picking it philosophically, you immediately dismiss its religious context and significance. AND THE POINT IS THAT THIS IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT RELIGIOUS TEXT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, MORMON OR OTHERWISE!
________________________________________

Then you add that "human values in a world without such genuine oppositions would indeed be meaningless." That's rather bald, isn't it?

COMMENT: Well, I wouldn't use "genuine oppositions." But human values without "genuine choices" with resultant consequences would indeed be "meaningless" in a very fundamental sense because in that situation we would all be just going on a deterministic ride through life with no control over anything; including what we think or what we do. (Including, for example, leaving Mormonism) Now, for me that is very close to meaningless but I suppose one could argue the point.
_____________________________________________

I am indeed "anti-Mormon." But that is not the source of my dissatisfaction with that verse. While a TBM I thought deeply about that passage and ended up finding it embarrassingly vacuous, for it makes the most sweeping of claims with no real foundation. Are you aware of a single serious person from a non-Mormon background who has ever found that verse worthy of significant consideration? I doubt it. It is only Mormons and perhaps some ex-Mormons who think JS was saying something profound when he put those words into the mouth of his imaginary friend.

COMMENT: Look, I do not like the passage either. It does nothing for me. It provides no insight for me. There is much to criticize here. Certainly, a non-Mormon would likely not be impressed, just as a non-Christian would not be impressed with many Biblical passages that are important to a Christian, and a non-Muslim would not be impressed with many passages in the Koran. Such passages would have no religious or transcendental meaning for them. But, again, that is not the point of this post; or the point of my comments. It is not value in the abstract that we are looking for here. It is the ability of a religious text to inspire those that subscribe to it, on an individual and personal level, not its ability to inspire or impress those who reject it.

Well, Henry, with our now clarified disdain for 2 Nephi passage we are moving back to your preceding post, which I liked very much.

That's nice.

Thanks, LW. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family! (Its still O.K. to say that, right?)

You too, my friend and sparring partner!

I enjoyed that, thanks.

Take ol' Stan out of the temple ceremony and what do you learn?

Not much.

Ok. You don't learn much anyway but...

Ba ba black sheep--have you any money? ExMo life with a toddler in the house is fun. I also like singing "Rubber Ducky" in a Thomas Monson voice.