Consider that it was in fact impossible for Lucifer as the instrument and orchestrator of the plan to include Celestial glory as a component. The Atonement required for exaltation, as God the Father intended it, required a sacrifice that could only be performed by one specific individual only. Jehovah – the first born, perfected, infinite, a God himself, would only suffice as the great and last sacrifice (Alma 34) to perform the atonement that would enable exaltation for God’s children. Satan was not capable of performing this role and therefore it could not be a part of his plan. In his art of persuasion he proposed his version of the plan de-emphasizing this reality. It would come across much better to focus on the fact that not one would be lost.

If the previous is true, then Satan’s plan was incapable of providing God the Father His “glory” through the eternal life (or exaltation) of His children (Moses 1:39). We are taught that God takes higher exaltation and glory by the exaltation of His children (from the King Follet discourse). If God’s children were not capable of obtaining Celestial glory in Satan’s plan, it would effectively remove the glory from God. Satan proposed that he would take the glory for this plan, which glory was secondary or inferior to what God had intended for His children.

Thanks for the reminder about the JS quote about sources of revelation. I think that does address one of the central issues of the lesson. But what might a revelation from satan be like, or feel like, what kind of knowledge can it contain? I have to admit the idea is alien to me as an individual.

Who do we want to give power to indeed, do we give power by creating a picture of an evil being who has direct influence over our inner lives or is that a defense of some kind? I imagine that many would think of it as a defense but . . .

What I saw in Central America seemed like bet hedging–praying to God, but also hitting up all the Saints, local idols, traditional healers and priests, etc. Of course, not sure how that is different from our getting a priesthood blessing, then heading over to see a MD. We would say that God has inspired modern medical breakthroughs. A traditionalist would say that Saints work for God.

I like how you talk about belief giving power to those beliefs. I’m sure there is a lot to that. So the question becomes: who do you want to give power to?

Lots more to mull over here…

Thanks for bringing up witchcraft. In ways that may be a good point of reference. I spent part of my childhood in a rural part of PA where there were pow-wow doctors. pow-wowers were the Pennsylvania Dutch cross between Christian faith healers and witch doctors, I am not making that up. They thrived in the region until the late 1970′s when more medical doctors moved into the rural areas. Before the MDs moved in the pow-wow doctors were the primary means that folks used to deal with any bad situation from illness to bad luck with crops etc. The pow-wow doctors were called when someone thought that a neighbor may have put a spell on them. The pow-wow doctors would cast counter spells to heal their patients.

My father is a clinical psychologist who saw people in his practice who were using pow-wow doctors (stunning to think someone would use both a phd and a pow-wow doctor at the same time!). My father took these people’s descriptions of the workings of pow-wow doctors seriously. He observed that the pow-wow doctors were able to help people in some situations such as I mentioned above, if someone believed that a spell (also called hexes) had been cast on them, the counter spell of the pow-wow doctor could “cure” the symptoms that the individual believed were caused by the first spell. The success was rooted in the individual’s belief about their experiences. When they believed that certain physical symptoms were the result of a spell a counter spell would in some cases make the symptoms go away. This sort of witchcraft is like other types of experiences, only people who believe in evil demons are ever possessed by them, only people who believed in spells fall victim to their neighbors hexes and need the services of a pow-wow doctor.

So why might witchcraft have anything to say about LDS views of Satan? I can think of two possible reasons just for starters. First, such ideas may be parallel to the degree that they both ascribe so much power to external evil forces of various types. These views describe evil as having direct and powerful access to the human body and mind. Second, such a comparison may open the door do asking questions about the reality of such external evil forces. Some people believe in Satan but scoff at witchcraft why? How are the lives of people who believe in the reality of such evil forces different from the lives of those who do not? How do we describe the goodness of people who don’t believe in such evil and are therefore defenseless before it because they can’t see it coming, can’t defend against it?

Sorry as usual I am asking a lot of broad questions, how about in people’s own lives, is the influence of satan a good description of what you do wrong?

Regarding satan I am still trying to figure out how LDS folks understand the relation between satan, themselves as individuals and sin or evil. I started the discussion by asking “what is your personal relationship with Satan like?” which got a good laugh but I was responding to the often very direct relationship implied by the way we talk about it. For example the idea that satan plants within us “false feelings,” a phrase that was used yesterday. So a few questions:

1) It seems that some believe in a supernatural evil being that has direct, personal interactions with us and that actually can cause specific emotional responses in us although he can not compel us to behave one way or another. So are there any limits to the feelings that Satan can cause in an individual? Where is the line between feeling and behaving? Some folks would claim feelings as behaviors, while others would describe feelings as physiological reactions. But if satan can control certain aspects of an individual’s brain chemistry, why would he not be able to control others? Of course this leaves us open for several different types of responses. . .

2) It also seemed that there was some agreement on the idea that satan provides continuous pressure on us to do evil and that he is the source of all evil. I wonder about that in the context of human psychology and the process of therapy. For example, with people who’s behavior is marked by responses to sexual abuse that the church would consider sinful (promiscuity as a for instance). Are we to take this response to a specific psychological trauma as the work of satan? If so, does this have anything to say about the process of psychological healing? What I think I am hearing in discussions of satan in church is a denial of many aspects of human psychology such as the workings of the unconscious. These denials also are present in discussions of agency in which choices are presented as free from influences that we are not conscious of; that we are fully self aware, and fully rational beings.

3) Don’t humans have potential for right and wrong beyond the influences of satan and the spirit? I think our doctrine states clearly that we do, otherwise there would be no agency but its so interesting how much credit the men in my priesthood give to satan as an influence.

thoughts?

Does that make sense?