Feast upon the Word Blog

A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching

Satan’s Priesthood?

Posted by robf on October 13, 2009

We read a bit about the sealing power of the priesthood in scriptures such as Hel. 10: 7

Behold, I give unto you apower, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

The ability to seal ordinances and other earthly acts in heaven seems to be an essential aspect of priesthood.

So what are we to make of Satan’s ability to seal as reported in Alma 34: 35?

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

Does Satan’s priesthood involve, at least in part, a power to bind or seal in hell, as it were? What, if anything, do the scriptures tell us about Satan’s power to bind? Is it somehow involved with having your “destruction…made sure” (Hel. 13:32,38) just as God’s priesthood is involved with making your “calling and election sure”?

40 Responses to “Satan’s Priesthood?”

  1. Allan said

    Interesting thought, I myself have pondered in the temple the meaning of “Lucifer’s priesthoods”, whether they are real powers granted to him, figurative, or powers he “took upon himself” to copy god and exist only in his twisted mind. I cannot say I have come to any conclusions myself, but you bring up an interesting question with the “sealing” thing and could be a case for the “powers granted to him” argument.
    I know God’s priesthood can only be present in righteousness d.c.121:36

  2. BrianJ said

    This is very insightful, Rob. “Everything has it’s opposite,” and you’ve identified one area I hadn’t even considered. In fact, I have always just blown off Satan’s claim to holding priesthood as his attempt to sound important.

  3. Jim F. said

    I assume that his priesthood is figurative and so is his power to seal.

    • Anthony said

      Same here. The true priesthood of God is connected with the Holy Ghost, with spirituality. Satan and his influence is the very opposite of spirituality. So while I’d say he doesn’t have a priesthood in that sense, he does have power given to him (only as we let him) to bind us to destruction. It really rests with us though. The priesthood of God can not force itself upon us. Neither can Satan have any real power over us, only as we let him. It’s all up to our use of agency.

  4. NathanG said

    Very interesting thought. My initial thoughts are these.

    We read another description of Satan’s power to bring people to hell as the chains of Hell. Both being sealed to heaven and sealed to hell are tied in scriptures to the choices we make. Interestingly it does not take much to to figure out where unrighteous choices lead, but Satan makes great efforts to hide the outcome. On the other hand, the outcome of righteous choices may not be immediately obvious, but God makes great efforts to reveal this outcome.

    To go along with that, we read principles to govern use of God’s priesthood in section 121. I suppose we could find several examples that are opposite these principles throughout the scriptures. I think of the chapter heading of Alma 47

    “Amalickiah uses treachery, murder, and intrigue to become king of the Lamanites—The Nephite dissenters are more wicked and ferocious than the Lamanites.”

    God’s power is used to exalt others, whereas Satan’s power would seem to be to bind others in captivity.

  5. Willy Wonka said

    Just a thought. Priesthood is the the authority to act in God’s name–do what otherwise only God could do.

    What would Satan’s “priesthood” be? It just doesn’t make sense. God doesn’t need authority to act in his own name–he’s already God; he can just act. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to me for Satan to have any sort of a “priesthood.”

  6. BrianJ said

    Willy Wonka: the definition you use for priesthood is specifically for “God’s priesthood” and does not apply to any other priesthoods (assuming that any other priesthoods actually exist).

  7. sjames said

    robf, interesting thought.

    In this context, another word for ‘seal’ may be ‘mark’ as in Rev 7:3 :’sealed … in their foreheads’ ie marked or identified(also Ezek 9:4). Gloss: ‘the devil doth mark you or identify you as his’.

    • Lynda Williams said

      I believe that seal can be interpreted as mark. Being “sealed” though is an act, so presumably, to be sealed to Satan one would need to purposely go through an act. You couldn’t be sealed to anyone without knowing it and acting upon it, could you?

  8. Joshua Petersen said

    If I may join the conversation, there is some other evidence of “Satan’s Priesthood” in the New Testament. Jude (only 1 chapter) verse 4:

    4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    According to apostle Franklin D. Richards, Jude speaks of foreordination to condemnation – something the text literally says. Now, we often hold one concept of foreordination: our foreordinations by God – through His Priesthood. However, Satan also could have foreordained spirits who ‘crept in unawares’ into mortality. Now, let me clarify, I am not implying that God did not know about these ordinations or that Satan somehow tricked or outsmarted God – I am saying that God allowed it.

  9. RobF said

    Joshua, interesting thought. I have long seen Alma 13 as a good chapter discussing priesthood foreordinations, but hadn’t thought about this Satanic possibility.

    JimF, any real evidence to back up your assumption that satanic priesthood is figurative?

    Can this conversation somehow help us shed light on aspects of priesthood in general (divine or satanic) that we perhaps miss in our usual conceptions?

  10. Jim F. said

    I think Willy Wonka is on the right track: by priesthood we mean “the power of God.” Satan doesn’t have any of that.

  11. BrianJ said

    “I think Willy Wonka is on the right track”

    I never would have thought I’d hear that phrase from Jim F. Gotta love blog handles!

  12. Jim F. said

    To me Rob’s question is the more interesting one: What do we mean by priesthood and what might that help us see that we usually overlook?

    “Priesthood” can mean a number of different things. In the Church we say that it means “the authority to act in the name of God,” though I can’t tell you where that definition came from. It may be a kind of folk wisdom, it may be something given us through prophetic revelation, or it may be something that we have figured out collectively over the last almost 200 years and, so, something almost on a par with revelation.

    But it is interesting that that definition isn’t exactly in line with the way we often usually speak of priesthood. We often speak as if priesthood is a power, an ability, a force over which those who have the priesthood have control. That may be true, but the definition we use doesn’t entail that it is. Understood with the usual at definition, priesthood is something like being deputized: a deputy has the power to act in the name of the person who has deputized him. If the deputy says, “You are under arrest,” then you are, indeed, under arrest. But that isn’t because the deputy has some power over which he has control. His authority isn’t comparable, say, to the kind of thing that Harry Potter and his friends are learning to use. The deputy has the power to arrest because he has been deputized. If I think of myself as someone deputized by God rather than as someone wielding a power of some kind, does that make a difference in how I understand my relation to the Father or what I am doing?

    (And a glance back at the original question: if priesthood power is being deputized by God to act in his name, why would Satan bother to have a priesthood? We deputize people with certain powers so as to be sure that those powers are exercised in a lawful way. Does Satan want to be sure that people act evilly only in the way that he approves of? Does he want to limit who can do evil things in his name? I doubt it.)

    The word “priesthood” can also mean “the order of those who act as priests” or simply “the priests as a group or body.” There may be other reasonable definitions, but I’m not thinking of them right now. We sometimes use the word in the second of these ways, as when we talk about “the body of the priesthood.” And I”m sure that we also sometimes we also use it in the first way, though right now I can’t think of an example.

  13. Robert C. said

    Jim, I like this deputy way of thinking about the priesthood. It’s hard for me not to think of the distinction you are making in terms of the authority of the priesthood, rather than the power of the priesthood. And it is interesting to me that these two terms, “authority” and “power” occur so frequently together in Mormon scripture (see references here).

    • Jim F. said

      Robert, I just looked up your link and I don’t get it. What does a book on public management have to do with the number of times that “power” and “authority” occur together in the Book of Mormon?

      • Robert C. said

        Sorry, Jim—my bad. I meant to link to the lds.org search link for the terms “authority” and “power.” The correct link is here.

  14. RobF said

    God clearly has power. Satan clearly has power. How are their respective powers related to priesthood?

    God clearly has a kingdom. So does Satan. Do each have a priesthood to administer their respective kingdoms?

    Joseph Smith taught that we need to be resurrected (according to Brigham Young a priesthood ordinance) to escape being made captive by Satan. Is Satan’s power to bind us a power of his priesthood, just like Christ’s power to resurrect us is a function of his priesthood?

  15. Jim F. said

    Robert C., thanks. I tend to think of the power as the same as the authority.

    RobF: if the options are either / or: either be resurrected and escape from Satan or fall into his grasp, then he doesn’t need any power at all. If I weren’t resurrected (which surely does take power), then I would necessarily be in Satan’s grasp. He wouldn’t have to exercise any power to get me.

    The same kind of reasoning applies to other points as well: For example, if I am not part of God’s kingdom, then I am part of Satan’s. Being part of God’s kingdom requires that the Father exercise his power to purify me. But if he were not to do that, Satan wouldn’t have to have any power to take me. I would just be his. So I don’t see why Satan must have power that is somehow complementary to God’s.

  16. Jim F. said

    By the way, I did a word search of the stuff available in LDS Library 2009, looking for places where the priesthood is defined as the power to act in the name of God. It looks like the phrase first occurs outside of scripture in Times and Seasons 3.17 (July 1842). Then it doesn’t show up again until about 1900. It begins to gain steam among Latter-day Saints in about 1910.

    In scripture: I wonder whether our use comes originally from D&C 107:33-34: “The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord . . . . The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord.” Also D&C 128:9 identifies doing something with authority and doing it in the name of the Lord. Those are the only places where I could find what looked like explicit references to priesthood authority and doing something in the name of the Lord.

    Of course there are many places where we would infer from the use of that phrase that priesthood authority was used, as when someone was baptized in the name of the Lord, but those are the only scriptures I could find which make an explicit rather than implicit connection between doing something in the name of the Lord and having priesthood authority.

  17. Matthew said

    The original quote Hel 10:7 is a pretty good example of using the word “power” as the essence of the priesthood in the scriptures. The word authority could have been used but wasn’t.

    I’m not sure what it means to say that for the devil sealing is figurative. Is baptism, in the same sense, figurative? To me this gets to the point of the question this post raises: Does Satan really have priesthood/sealing power or is that just figurative? But, I can’t make sense of the question …

    For me it is easy to imagine a world with good and bad and no need for good ordinances. But in fact the world we live has good, bad and, at least, good ordinances. Depending on how we define figurative we could say these ordinances are figurative. But we know the need for that figurativeness (ugly word, sorry) is real. At least one outcome of these good ordinances is to set aside a group of people–the baptized. Does this world also have need for bad ordinances to set aside those who are bad in the same sort of way? I don’t know, but one thing we clearly learn from this scripture is that there is value in thinking this way–thinking of Satan as marking or sealing people as his. So in some sense the need for that figurativeness is real.

    Which really brings me back to wondering what is the difference between saying this is “only figurative” or “not just figurative but also real”? For me this is a little like looking at a painting of a pipe and asking if it is real. You have to be pretty careful to define what exactly you mean be real in order to properly answer the question.

    On a related topic, I have always been surprised by quotes which suggest that wayward children sealed to their parents “will return” such is the strength of the “sealing power.” I’m sure the actual statements are more nuanced but they are often read to imply that children who are sealed to their parents have, when all is said and done, no free agency. It is only a logical jump from there to imagine that all children get sealed to all parents and we end up with exactly Satan’s plan–with no one lost. Which of course brings us back to the question of what we mean by the sealing power.

    • Jim F. said

      Since I am a “natural man,” in other words not yet a good person, unless I repent, am baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost, there’s no need for an ordinance that sets me apart as a natural man. The verse from Alma says this fairly plainly: if you don’t have the Spirit of the Lord, then you belong to Satan. He doesn’t need to do something additional to make me his. I am his in virtue of the fact that I don’t have the Holy Ghost.

      • Matthew said


        I agree with your response to Robert (#18) in that I also don’t see the value in thinking through a “shadowy, dark priesthood governing the kingdom of hell.” But I also feel like there is something missing from your reading of Alma 34:35 which cuts against the point of what you are saying.

        In my understanding of this verse Alma is saying “if you don’t do [a] ye will become [b].” In my interpretation of your interpretation, Alma is saying “you are [b] until you do [a].” [a]=repent, [b] is something like “belongs to the devil.”

        The actual construct of the sentence “if ye have [a: procrastinated the day of your repentance] … ye have become [b: subject to the spirit of the devil, etc.].” I think that supports my interpretation better.

        Am I misreading your reading of Alma? Or am I wrong in how I am interpreting this verse?

  18. RobF said

    So Jim, God’s priesthood (power?) is something that he shares to mortals through ordination and through which he creates a way to escape the power of Satan, while Satan’s power (priesthood?) is based on some other principle?

    Is it more fruitful to look at what Satan’s power really is and how others share it, than to look for a shadow priesthood that might govern the Kingdom of Hell?

    (I’m thinking unified and organized Jedi Order vs. shadowy Sith worlds where deception and intrigue are used to exercise power and dominion in whatever way is expedient?)

    • Jim F. said

      I don’t see any reason to believe that Satan actually has a priesthood and I don’t know what it means to say that he does. As I said in my response above, I don’t think that we must ascribe power to him. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he has power. Joseph’s experience in the grove certainly suggests that he does. But Satan doesn’t have to exercise that power in order to have those who are “in his power.” We are all in his power, by definition, if we aren’t saved by Christ. What would be the point of actually sealing us to him if we are already his–if, as long as we live in this world without the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we are already his?

      So, if I understand you right, I agree that it is more important for us to see how his power actually is exercised in this world–in other words, how evil occurs–than it is to figure out whether there is some shadowy, dark priesthood governing the kingdom of Hell. That’s especially true since, given the LDS understanding of salvation, very few of us will be in that kingdom in the end and it appears that those who do will rule over Satan rather than be ruled by him.

  19. Robert C. said

    This discussion has been very helpful to me. I’m inclined to take Jim’s notion of priesthood power and authority as being analogous to being deputized, and to think of God’s angels and deputies vs. the devil’s angels and deputies, each with their respective allegiance/authority. Satan’s priesthood is based on the allegiance that we and others give to Satan. If we resist the kingdom of God, we are, in effect, part of Satan’s kingdom, and we are thus “in his power.” This also seems to have rich and interesting resonances with the signs and tokens of the Gadianton robbers that signified something like a priesthood deputizing order inspired by Satan….

  20. NathanG said

    Robert, Interesting thought regarding the Gadianton robbers. It leads me to think about Alma 13 and high priests after the order of the Son of God as another way to think about priesthood. Is there an order for Satan? You could say that while the natural man may be under the power of Satan, that doesn’t necessarily put them in an order of Satan, people committed to advancing Satan’s goals. The Gadianton robbers would be a good example of people entering such an order, filled with signs that might mimmick the priesthood.

    This provides another way of looking at the priesthood, particularly its administrative role. We have ordinances that one needs to be authorized to perform (which fits the deputy line of thought), but when you take ordinances away, there’s a vast amount of work that is still considered the duty of the priesthood. This work is different from ordinances, which are pretty narrow in methods of being performed, and pretty descriptive in who is able to do what, but there is great variety in how one goes about accomplishing most of this other work, both in the church and in the home. Those who enter the order of the priesthood aren’t told explicitly how something should be done, but let the goals of the Master’s work guide them in how they fulfill these duties.

    There may be a parallel of Satan’s priesthood in a sense of an order. This still leaves a question of whether there is some sort of inherent power that Satan has that is similar to what God has. In the garden we are told the serpent would have power to bruise his heel, but he bruise his head. Satan’s power isn’t impressive in comparison, but it is power of sorts. How this power is exercised and takes fruit, I don’t know. We have Joseph’s experience in the grove, but more commonly it seems to be a power to hide consequences and distract people from righteousness.

  21. Jim F said

    I want to make a change in the analogy I used earlier: in a good conversation with a smart friend, I was reminded that the servant-steward of scripture is a much better analogy to priesthood than is the sheriff and the deputy. I don’t think that changing the analogy changes the point. Indeed, it makes the point better. But I do think the analogy we should use is the one the scriptures use.

  22. joespencer said

    I’m sorry I’m coming to this fascinating discussion so late.

    I’m intrigued that no one has yet mentioned the last part of D&C 121. On my reading, what Joseph is doing there (I’m thinking of the famous passage in verses 34-46) is trying to uproot precisely the understanding of the priesthood as having access to some kind of mysterious power. (And because of the setting in which he is writing, it is possible to suggest that Joseph understood that particular understanding of the priesthood to have been one of the major causes of the Missouri disaster.) At any rate, here’s the crucial passage:

    “Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world . . . that they do not learn this one lesson—[namely] that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and [read: but] that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” (D&C 121:34-36)

    From this I gather (1) that the Saints were already, by 1839, understanding the priesthood to be a question of one’s access to some kind of mysterious divine power, (2) that Joseph Smith did not agree with the simplistic version of this interpretation, and so (3) that Joseph wanted to complicate things with these verses.

    I think, moreover, that we have a lot more thinking to do about these verses if we hope to make sense of how the priesthood worked for Joseph.

    Still more: I think it is significant that Joseph went on, as Jim points out, to write D&C 128 (another letter), in which he describes the priesthood as connected with (but not equivalent to) acting or speaking in the name of the Lord. What we have not yet thought about enough in D&C 128 is the fact that the priesthood there is not the acting or speaking in the name of the Lord itself, but the writing that then seals up that act or speech.

    One more word: Jim, I think your search in LDS Gospel Library has yielded a good picture of history. It has been a while since I’ve done any hard research on this, but I have previously found that the notion of priesthood as “the power to act in the name of God” seems to have begun, for the most part, with a discourse by Joseph F. Smith. The timing and the identity of the source, I think, are very significant.

    • Jim F said

      Joe, thanks for reminding us of D&C 121! For the most part I think your reading makes sense. However, though obviously I don’t tend to understand priesthood as a mysterious power infused in us, but as authority given us to pronounce things in God’s name (and he retains and exercises whatever power is at work), I don’t understand how verses 34-36 undercut the usual understanding of priesthood as power.

      The part you put in bold can be read as referring only to authority, but the clause that immediately follows and that you italicized speaks of controlling the powers of heaven. I think that can also be read in terms of authority, but isn’t the first, plain reading one that understands the priesthood in terms of power?

      • joespencer said

        Ah, yes, let me clarify.

        My reading of this passage is that while the priesthood is in some way connected to the powers of heaven, it is not what controls them or gives access to them. Joseph is, it seems to me, trying to complicate the notion of the relationship between priesthood and the powers of heaven: there is some connection, but it is more complicated than “I have the priesthood, therefore I have access to power.” There is this third element—the principles of righteousness—that are actually what “access” the powers of heaven.

        The question I haven’t at all addressed, then, is “What does this passage say that the priesthood is (in a positive way)?” I’m not sure I have an answer to that question. But it seems quite clear that in saying what the priesthood isn’t (in a negative way), it breaks the direct equivalence between “having the priesthood” and “accessing the powers of heaven.”

  23. Jim F said

    Matthew, I suspect I wasn’t very clear. I haven’t really been offering an interpretation of Alma 34:35 as much as I started with that and then have been offering a general criticism of the idea that Satan has a priesthood.

    As for Alma 34:35: I think that you are reading the verse right, but I also think that the sealing referred to in that verse is metaphorical. (Saying that it is metaphorical was the point at which I was offering an interpretation of Alma. Then I got more general.)

    I take it that “the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you” is parallel to “ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his.” So I understand that not to have the Spirit of the Lord is to be the subject of the devil, which is as true of the living as it is of the dead or resurrected.

    When I said that a person is the subject of the devil until he or she receives the Holy Ghost, I had Mosiah 3:19 in mind. I presume that verse applies to this life and to life in spirit prison. So, I take Alma 334:35 to tell us that the condition of this life–those who don’t have the Holy Ghost are the subjects of Satan–will continue to be condition in the spirit prison.

    Since Alma, like other Book of Mormon writers, doesn’t seem to know about the three degrees of glory, I assume that when he speaks of hell, he is speaking of the spirit prison. That makes “this is the final state of the wicked” problematic, but it is problematic in any case unless Alma is, contrary to what seems likely, speaking only of the sons of perdition. I don’t think he is speaking of them, though. I think he was just mistaken about how long confinement in spirit prison would last because the doctrine of the three degrees hadn’t been revealed to him. However, even if he is speaking of the sons of perdition, the verse is problematic since Joseph Smith taught that they will have power over Satan.

    • DavidH said

      So I have found this discussion to be very interesting. My roommates and I were on this same discussion earlier today which led me to look for more input. Our question came up from an idea presented in class quoting Joseph Smith; “all priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Different portions like the Melchizedek, Patriarchal, and Aronic orders.

      Some of my thoughts after reading through this descussion; With God’s priesthood of righteousness, there are priesthood ordinances. While these ordinances are required for us to return to God and the celestial kingdom, a person who has not received these ordinances does not become captive and bound to the devil, even if they are a murderer or have acted against God’s commandments. These people will still inherit a kingdom of God, that being the telestial kingdom.

      It seems that you have provided ideas that if we are not living with the spirit of God, we are the devil’s captives already. One does not need to accept the the priesthood of God or even be a good person to escape eternal captivity with the devil.

      We know that some will choose to reject the Spirit and reject God in such a way that they will join the sons of perdition and be sent to outer darkness. It seems that at this state, one is truly bound or sealed to the devil. I’m not sure on what one must actually do to receive this fate, but is it possible that one might need to partake of the priesthood of Satan? Just as one wont receive exaltation from mearly performing good acts, one will not be subject to outer darkness for performing evil acts. Priesthood ordinances allow one to gain more then just salvation, so could it be that some sort of ordinance is required to receive less? This idea might go along with what the signs and tokens of the Gadhianton robbers really were.

  24. sjames said

    22: Ref to Priesthood as a ‘power of attorney’, an ‘agency’, ‘authority from God’.

    Orson Hyde, March 1860: “What is this power that is conferred upon us in the holy Priesthood? What particular power do you give when you send a man to some other land to transact business in your name? You give him a power of attorney, authorizing him to transact in your name the business that you wish to be performed; and in that letter of appointment would be conveyed all your power, your authority, and ability to transact that business, even as effectually as if you yourself were present to perform it with your hand. It is an agency, then, though it may be said that the Priesthood, which is authority from God to act in his name, differs from that authority which is given to man to transact business for his fellows.” (JoD Vol 8:20)

  25. RobF said

    Thanks for all the good thoughts. In line with the priesthood=authority interpretation, does Satan give authority to act in his name or does his work just happen through some kind of demonic anarchy? And if Heavenly powers are not the same as priesthood, but are somehow connected to them, can the same be said about demonic power and authority? If the “power” of heaven can only be controlled by righteousness, is there a corollary power of hell that is somehow controlled or triggered through unrighteousness?

  26. MANOFTRUTH said

    I can tell you for a surety that Satan does have priesthoods. Just like the signs, tokens, covenant(s) that we make with the lord today, Satan has the same concept with his followers. There are specific words, tokens, and signs that Satan emits to his priests and he (Satan) uses these specific signs, tokens, and words in movies, music, and propaganda in today’s society.

    The fact I know this to be true puts me in Jeopardy. This is a very Taboo topic and I don’t take it lightly. Basically, this world is owned by Satan until Christ returns in his second coming. Our Schools, Television, Movies, Commercials and much more support Satan’s power and priesthoods. This is his world, and he is ruling at his point in time.

    SOME PEOPLE (very few) will come to a point in their faith where they will recognized Satan’s priesthoods; or in other words, when the power of God falls upon them and opens their eyes with the ability to see the priesthoods of Satan and all his symbolisms and rituals and the meaning behind them and they will SEE how we are all surrounded (not controlled, yet…) by this evil power.

    There are those who literally know that they are following Satan and are willingly participating in his order/kingdom. Then of course, there are those who don’t know, but ignorantly follow is commands and orders.

    I don’t have time to go into specifics… but I hope you find truth in this comment. May God be with you and Bless you all with the ability to see truth and light.

  27. robf said

    Another light on this may come from Joseph Smith’s views on speculative and spurious masonry–for which see this possible influence, George Oliver’s 1824 Antiquities of Freemasonry. Oliver outlines how true (speculative) masonry from God had gone wrong and been distorted to become spurious masonry in all ages of the world. For podcast on this possible influence on Joseph Smith, see George Miller’s Mormons and Masonry podcasts on Mormon Expressions–especially Episode 145b (145a, 145b, 149).

  28. Marvin Peñalba said

    These are the word of Jedediah M. Grant abouth this subject.

    In relation to spirits, for it seems to be the subject introduced today, I have this idea, that the Lord our God absolutely gave Lucifer a mission to this earth; I will call it a mission. You may think it strange that I believe so good a being as our Father in heaven would actually send such an odd missionary as Lucifer. You may call him a missionary, or anything else you please, but we learn he was thrust out of heaven, the place where the Lord dwells, to this earth; and his mission, and the mission of his associates who were thrust down with him, and of those whom he is successful in turning away from God’s children who have tabernacles, is to continue to oppose the Almighty, scatter His Church, wage war against His kingdom, and change as far as possible His government on the earth. He could take the Savior upon the pinnacle of the temple, and show him the kingdoms of this world, and could perform many wonderful works in the days of Jesus. When the Priesthood of God is upon the earth, then the priesthood of the devil may be seen operating, for he has got one. When the kingdom of God is on the earth, you may expect to see a special display or manifestation of the opposite to the Gospel of the kingdom, or of the Priesthood of God.

  29. I don’t know if this will shed any light or not but please see:


    Which basically analyzes the Mark of the Beast, the sealing power, and other things.

  30. Jim Siniscalchi said

    While in this fallen and dreary world, Adam challenged/asked Lucifer, the nature of the apron he was wearing and Lucifer arrogantly replied, something to the effect that this is “the symbol of my power and priesthoods.” With surprise, Adam replied, “Priesthoods” and Lucifer, Yes, “Priesthoods?” We have the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek.
    He claims and seems to identify himself with holding these priesthoods. Now if he had fallen, then what is he doing with an emblem of the PH? D & C 121:34-37 is clear that no unrighteous person can hold the PH. Yet, Lucifer has been eternally denied a body /tabernacle of flesh. So why would the Lord allow this?
    1) Wear an emblem so sacred as to be identified with the holy PH? 2) How does one denied a tabernacle of flesh physically able to wear such an emblem of the priesthood ( PH)? Is it some kind of spirit illusion?
    2) Because his apron appears to be a darker color, and before 1960, it actually from my understanding, had many colors, stars (maybe something to do with the morning star?), moons, etc… on the apron, but different nonetheless.
    Is it possible for Lucifer whom was once so revered as to be considered “Son of the Morning” second spiritually borne only behind Jehovah, and that while he was cast out of Father’s presence, is it possible, possible perhaps, that heavenly father allowed him to have some sort of the PH or of the emblems and power he once had, prior to his fall; allowing him to have it, maybe as a reminder of the holy PH he will NEVER have? Also, Satan could have no power except other then what had been committed to him.
    Satan then comes here and uses this to deceive the whole world (Rev 12:9). He does this to alienate us from God. Further, Satan says, he just doing that which has always been done(imitating). He had power only to the extent it had been delivered to him. His rule is clearly indicated when he is called by Jesus, “prince of this world” and “the father of lies.” He can also manifest himself as an “angel of light” (Cor. 11:13-15), and the “prince of the power of air” (Eph. 2:2). In 2 Corinthians 4:4 he is called “the god of this world.” John says that “the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn. 5:19), and Revelation 12:9 attributes this to the fact that “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, . . . deceiveth the whole world.” That Satan does not, however, have equal power with God is affirmed when of Christ it is said that “one stronger than he” had come to “assail and overcome him” (Lk. 11:22).
    After the Apostle Paul was converted on the Road to Damascus, Jesus said to him, But rise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness… To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins… Acts 26:16-18

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: