Interesting Satan Theory - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

DrumNFeather · 06-11-2007, 05:34 PM

I taught EQ yesterday and the lesson was #10 from the SWK manual..."Fortifying Ourselves Against Evil Influences."

We had a really good discussion, and one of the points that was brought up by one of the quorum members (who prefaced it by saying it is not doctrine, just a theory that was floating around) presented the following theory on Satan.

Satan got 1/3 of the host of heaven to follow him and as such, he thinks that if he gets enough souls to follow him & go against the teachings of the church, that God would then have to hand over the kingdom to him because he would at that point have the majority of God's children following him.

It lead to some interesting discussion and questions.

One of the ones we mulled over in our EQ was whether or not he believes he can still win, or if he is just trying to drag people down for the hell of it (no pun intended...okay, pun a little intended).

Thoughts welcome.

JohnnyLingo · 06-11-2007, 05:37 PM

If God is truly omnipotent, then it doesn't matter how many spirits follow Satan... He still wins.

Which isn't to say Satan doesn't doubt God's power.

il Padrino Ute · 06-11-2007, 05:37 PM

I believe Satan knows he's going to lose and that misery loves company.

I really doubt majority rules in God's Kingdom.

Still, it's an interesting thought.

DrumNFeather · 06-11-2007, 05:39 PM

Well, that's kind of the point I brought up in response.

I referred to "The Devils Advocate" (I know I know)

Reeves and Pachino are talking and Reeves says: "You lose, In the end you lose."

To which Pachino (satan) responds: "Consider the source..."

One of those things that makes you wonder if Satan really thinks he can take on the throng and win.

Indy Coug · 06-11-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Well, that's kind of the point I brought up in response.

I referred to "The Devils Advocate" (I know I know)

Reeves and Pachino are talking and Reeves says: "You lose, In the end you lose."

To which Pachino (satan) responds: "Consider the source..."

One of those things that makes you wonder if Satan really thinks he can take on the throng and win.

What's the Battle of Gog and Magog all about?

Archaea · 06-11-2007, 05:52 PM

The tangibilityof "Satan" is something that makes LDS relatively unique. Most folks see "evil" not as incarnate but as an intangible concept.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a discussion about "Satan" possibly being a calling. Imagine that. Satan has authored no works, has no real appearances of which to speak and yet we LDS will state, "The Adversary is behind this or that." I find that strange. What can we know about a personage not seen, not heard and of which the evidence is ambiguous at best. I'm not denying his existence just that we cast too much blame on an invisible personage.

What bothers me about a tangible source of evil is it dismisses personal responsibility for wrongful acts.

IOW, I think we give the Adversary too much credit. I dunno about you, but I rarely have felt or perceived any tangible evidence of authors of evil, although I have sensed tangible evidences of the authorship of good. Sometimes I screw up because I'm an idiot, not due to some invisible little guy whispering in my ear. Sometimes I want to do something stupid because I am selfish and I don't need the influence of any other source.

JohnnyLingo · 06-11-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

The tangibilityof "Satan" is something that makes LDS relatively unique. Most folks see "evil" not as incarnate but as an intangible concept.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a discussion about "Satan" possibly being a calling. Imagine that. Satan has authored no works, has no real appearances of which to speak and yet we LDS will state, "The Adversary is behind this or that." I find that strange. What can we know about a personage not seen, not heard and of which the evidence is ambiguous at best. I'm not denying his existence just that we cast too much blame on an invisible personage.

What bothers me about a tangible source of evil is it dismisses personal responsibility for wrongful acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by President Hinckley

Now I indicated earlier that I did not know why there was so much conflict and hatred and bitterness in the world. Of course, I know that all of this is the work of the adversary. He works on us as individuals. He destroys strong men.

From the April 2006 Conference. That's just one of hundreds of thousands of quotes from prophets referring to the adversary. I don't know why you seek to dismiss the concept so easily.

Archaea · 06-11-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

From the April 2006 Conference. That's just one of hundreds of thousands of quotes from prophets referring to the adversary. I don't know why you seek to dismiss the concept so easily.

I can see the rhetorical value, the sociological value of focusing upon the tangibility of the issue. It makes it more real for people, the most of which do not like to deal in abstract concepts. It galvanizes the army to have people fight against a foe of supernatural power, as opposed to focusing upon our own selfishness, which is never an appealing adversary. Which would a person prefer to do, fight against a foe and look heroic, or fight against the innner man to become better?

However, what motivates me is knowing "I" made the mistake, not somebody whispering in my ear.

We are somewhat unique in our focus upon tangible evil, but it can be successful with some.

DrumNFeather · 06-11-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can see the rhetorical value, the sociological value of focusing upon the tangibility of the issue. It makes it more real for people, the most of which do not like to deal in abstract concepts. It galvanizes the army to have people fight against a foe of supernatural power, as opposed to focusing upon our own selfishness, which is never an appealing adversary. Which would a person prefer to do, fight against a foe and look heroic, or fight against the innner man to become better?

However, what motivates me is knowing "I" made the mistake, not somebody whispering in my ear.

We are somewhat unique in our focus upon tangible evil, but it can be successful with some.

What about the tangible good?

I mean, we believe that when we mess up (caused by temptation by the tangible evil) that this person who lived 2000 years ago, who there is no evidence of, provided away for us to be forgiven of our sins.

Maybe this is the point you are getting at, I don't know...but I think that this is probably where faith comes in...on both ends of things.

BlueHair · 06-11-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can see the rhetorical value, the sociological value of focusing upon the tangibility of the issue. It makes it more real for people, the most of which do not like to deal in abstract concepts. It galvanizes the army to have people fight against a foe of supernatural power, as opposed to focusing upon our own selfishness, which is never an appealing adversary. Which would a person prefer to do, fight against a foe and look heroic, or fight against the innner man to become better?

However, what motivates me is knowing "I" made the mistake, not somebody whispering in my ear.

We are somewhat unique in our focus upon tangible evil, but it can be successful with some.

I agree 100% with this. I don't know what the deal is lately, but I feel like everything you say lately is right on the money.

06-11-2007, 05:37 PM	#3
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	I believe Satan knows he's going to lose and that misery loves company. I really doubt majority rules in God's Kingdom. Still, it's an interesting thought. __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

06-11-2007, 05:39 PM	#4
DrumNFeather Active LDS Ute Fan Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Nantucket : ) Posts: 2,566	Well, that's kind of the point I brought up in response. I referred to "The Devils Advocate" (I know I know) Reeves and Pachino are talking and Reeves says: "You lose, In the end you lose." To which Pachino (satan) responds: "Consider the source..." One of those things that makes you wonder if Satan really thinks he can take on the throng and win. __________________ "It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson.

06-11-2007, 05:52 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	The tangibilityof "Satan" is something that makes LDS relatively unique. Most folks see "evil" not as incarnate but as an intangible concept. Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a discussion about "Satan" possibly being a calling. Imagine that. Satan has authored no works, has no real appearances of which to speak and yet we LDS will state, "The Adversary is behind this or that." I find that strange. What can we know about a personage not seen, not heard and of which the evidence is ambiguous at best. I'm not denying his existence just that we cast too much blame on an invisible personage. What bothers me about a tangible source of evil is it dismisses personal responsibility for wrongful acts. IOW, I think we give the Adversary too much credit. I dunno about you, but I rarely have felt or perceived any tangible evidence of authors of evil, although I have sensed tangible evidences of the authorship of good. Sometimes I screw up because I'm an idiot, not due to some invisible little guy whispering in my ear. Sometimes I want to do something stupid because I am selfish and I don't need the influence of any other source. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

06-11-2007, 05:34 PM	#1
DrumNFeather Active LDS Ute Fan Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Nantucket : ) Posts: 2,566	Interesting Satan Theory I taught EQ yesterday and the lesson was #10 from the SWK manual..."Fortifying Ourselves Against Evil Influences." We had a really good discussion, and one of the points that was brought up by one of the quorum members (who prefaced it by saying it is not doctrine, just a theory that was floating around) presented the following theory on Satan. Satan got 1/3 of the host of heaven to follow him and as such, he thinks that if he gets enough souls to follow him & go against the teachings of the church, that God would then have to hand over the kingdom to him because he would at that point have the majority of God's children following him. It lead to some interesting discussion and questions. One of the ones we mulled over in our EQ was whether or not he believes he can still win, or if he is just trying to drag people down for the hell of it (no pun intended...okay, pun a little intended). Thoughts welcome. __________________ "It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson.

06-11-2007, 05:37 PM	#2
JohnnyLingo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,175	If God is truly omnipotent, then it doesn't matter how many spirits follow Satan... He still wins. Which isn't to say Satan doesn't doubt God's power.