However, with Lehi’s “opposition in all things” and the idea of free-agency, it seems to me that Mormonism has a much easier way to handle the idea of Satan than other religions. God is all-powerful, but since this is a test, he chooses when and when not to exercise his power, in order that we will grow via opposition. I guess I’m not seeing as big of a theological problem here, especially when we shoot McConkie Calivinism down.

Augustine explains that God created Lucifer with a good nature but it was the will that was the problem: “But God, as He is the supremely good Creator of good natures, so is He of evil wills the most just Ruler; so that, while they make an ill use of good natures, He makes a good use even of evil wills. Accordingly, He caused the devil (good by God’s creation, wicked by his own will) to be cast down from his high position, and to become the mockery of His angels, – that is, He caused his temptations to benefit those whom he wishes to injure by them. And because God, when He created him, was certainly not ignorant of his future malignity, and foresaw the good which He Himself would bring out of his evil, therefore says the psalm, “This leviathan whom Thou hast made to be a sport therein,” that we may see that, even while God in His goodness created him good, He yet had already foreseen and arranged how He would make use of him when he became wicked.” Augustine, City of God, Book XI, ch 17.

Some have interpreted Augustine to support free will, others have interpreted him to support predestination. Most Calvinists would follow the later.

As to the former, Gregory A. Boyd suggests that “Satan represents the paradigmatic case of a free agent turned bad. God created Lucifer free, for he created him with the potential to love . . . Unfortunately Lucifer chosen an evil course.” Gregory A. Boyd “Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” IVP, 2001.

I must add that Boyd’s position may be controversial as he writes from an openness perspective and thus Calvinists may take issue with him and view him as deemphasizing the sovereignty of God. Essentially, Mormonism (along with Arminianism and openness theology) stresses free will while other traditions emphasize God’s sovereignty. But both traditions present serious challenges.

One of the ironies of the Mormon tradition of the preexistence is that it has often been interpreted by Mormons in very deterministic and almost Calvinistic ways. Many have used preexistence to try to explain unfairness in life. For example, some have used the premortal existence to say that everything in this life was determined by our premortal actions, including where we are born, when we are born, our family, our race, almost all conditions in our life, and before the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, our prior actions determined whether a person would hold the priesthood or perhaps even be born in the Church. Some went so far as to say that our personalities here are simply mirror images of our personalities there, and thus in a sense downplay the role and purpose of mortality. Such interpretations tend to render mortality somewhat superfluous or redundant, and it also tends to problematically downplay free will in mortality. Those with this view tend not to see that they’ve merely pushed the problem back in time but haven’t solved it.

Further complicating Mormon though is the notion that spirits are created by God. Joseph Smith in 1844 taught that spirits are uncreated “is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it.” “God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all.” Ehat & Cook, 360. Yet, later the notion that spirits were created became the dominant model. If God creates the spirits of man, even from preexisting eternal spirit element, then why does he continue to create spirits like Lucifer that he knows will wreak havoc, or why would he persist in creating a spirit he knows will end up a son of perdition? Wouldn’t that make God the author of evil? This falls into the same problem as Arminian and Calvinistic dilemmas. Even Mormon thought cannot get out of the problem of evil, especially with the notion of spirit birth or holding to the absolute omniscience of God. Mormon theologians have proposed various models but its important to realize that Mormon thought simply does not present a clean and easy solution for the problem of evil.

This is an important question, because it seems to put Natural Law above God. Therefore, could it be said that the Law is ultimately God, for it is the highest, uncreated authority in the universe?

If God is all that is good, how can he invent Satan who is the epitome of evil? While Mormon theology believes that there must be an opposition in all things, this seems to be a problem in traditional Christian theology, doesn’t it?

The problem of evil is challenging in any theology that claims an all-powerful, all-good God, Mormonism included.

While Mormon theology believes that there must be an opposition in all things, this seems to be a problem in traditional Christian theology, doesn’t it?

Even in Mormon parlance the notion of Jesus and Satan as “brothers” can be extremely confusing. Satan clearly has no brothers since he is unembodied and he wasn’t born of Mary so he cannot be a brother to Jesus qua Jesus. Many Christians dispute whether Jesus had other brothers in the flesh. What Mormons mean to refer to is not a relationship between Jesus and Satan, but rather between Jehovah and Lucifer in a premortal realm. Even phrased in this manner, it doesn’t make sense from what developed in Christian theology because Jehovah is God, uncreated and eternal and Lucifer is a created being, merely an angel. Obviously, many critics of Mormonism use the Jesus-Satan as brothers phrase for its shock value, but simply from the perspective of Christian theology (including those Christian theologians who are unfamiliar with Mormonism) it doesn’t compute given the underlying Christian understanding of the nature of God and creation.

As for the Satan/Christ thing, it’s really quite simple.

Jesus is God. Jesus, like God the Father, is uncreated. Jesus and God the Father (and the Holy Ghost) are one God and all three are uncreated. This is par for the course with other Christians. Satan, like the angels, humans, and everything else, are created. So us saying Jesus and Satan are brothers sounds like saying either Satan is God-like or Jesus is Satan-like. Neither sounds good. Basically, it’s a way to focus that we’re not Christians, so much so that we blasphemous idiots (in their eyes), equated the un-created Creator with a rebellious, fallen creature.

Mormons also believe that Jesus is God and is uncreated. And while we give our own version of lip-service to Jesus being God, we really prefer saying he is the Son of God and tend to view God the Father as God. We also believe that we are uncreated, though we generally only believe it in theory and tend to believe in practise that we were created as spirit children. Jesus and Satan and us.

But yeah, the two “problems” are very tied together. We make God, Jesus, Satan, angels, humans, into a single species, a species that can either become like God, like Satan, or a variety of steps in between.

I taught the same lesson today with no preparations (found out the teacher didn’t show up). Had an interesting discussion with the group when I asked, if you take away an understanding of the pre-existence, what would then be your explanation for our life’s purpose.

If there are any Genesis scholars out there, I would be interested to know if there is a pattern that relates to the same species position. In versus 21-25, the term ‘after his kind’ is used 7 times. In verse 26, does he continue this literay pattern by saying, “Let us make man in our own image” – or am I misunderstanding what ‘after his kind’ means?

Andrew, thanks for your explanation of the pastor from my mission. I think that really helped people understand the evangelical view better. We never got to the Jesus and Satan are brothers part of the lesson, but it went ok.

I often sensed the areas of problem with the Jesus/Satan being brothers and us becoming like God are related issues. It is rooted in the idea of sacred distance and/or the idea of God.

If Jesus is the brother of Satan then conceivable he could have been Satan and therefore this brings Jesus’s divinity into question and therefore his atonement.

Further, God is considered to be radically other to humans, and it is this radical difference that enables God to atone for the sins of fifnite mortals. Question this otherness and it makes it seem less-likely that God atonement is eternal or real.

As I recall it was a simlar debate (inspired by Arius?) that promoted the Council of Nicea and the homoousia (same substance) comment in the creeds which attempts to unify Christ with God.

I think the LDS interpretation of God as lying within the realm of reality rather than outside as its Creator makes the question of the origin of Satan or the origin of natural law fundamentally the same type of question. If God is not the answer to why are things the way they are, why are things the way they are?

Each way of looking for the relationship between God and reality brings its own special world view and theological questions. If God created everything, then why are things so “poorly made” that things like Haiti occur? That’s the kind of question that has troubled mainstream Christians for centuries, with various forms of monism and dualism waxing ang waning.

My own personal answer is closer to Ecumenigal’s and relies heavily on collective properties (though with a much more nest-of-Russian-dolls and multiple descriptions of a single reality flavor to it. My denomination, which has already split theologically from LDS by Nauvoo, holds a much more mainstream picture of a non-anthropological God.

For example, “sustainable” used to mean “able to be sustained”. Now, people throw it around all the time as a synonym for “green”. Oh well. It just means I have to define it whenever I talk about it. Fact of life.

Mormons ought to be called Christians, IMHO, because Mormons believe that they are a restoration of the early Christian church started by Jesus the Christ. My Methodist/Atheist religion professor said that all the churches that call themselves a restoration of original Christianity may be right, because there were almost as many different versions of Christianity in the beginning as there are now.

Evangelicals just need to get over it and go to the work of defining themselves regularly, or call themselves “Conventional” “Biblical” or “Traditional”. All religions have to do this. Jewish, Catholic..they all have qualifiers and subsets.

Cowboy, your comment that “the King Follet discourse was a major divergence from traditional Christianity” is spot on. For those of us in the Wasatch Front, I don’t think we fully appreciate how different our theology is. Sure we understand the difference of protestant/catholic trinity vs mormon godhead, but those differences are much more profound, and it is much deeper. While I think it’s interesting that the church looks at this lesson as a basic Gospel Principle (ie going back to the basics), I think few people who teach Elder’s quorum will emphasize these theological differences from these simple statements. They are really profound. We are not a traditional Christian denomination, but more along the lines of a New Religion. As I said in my recent post on my blog, I think the transition between Judaism and Christianity is as stark as Christianity is to Mormonism. Terryl Givens even refers to the Book of Mormon as “The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion.” These basic gospel principles are very profound differences with traditional Christianity, though one can find pieces of them throughout the Bible too.

Jared, when God says “Endless is my name”, and “I am Alpha and Omega”, and God has no beginning or end, I find such things as “liar from the beginning” a little bit hard to interpret. Beginning can refer to many things. It could refer to the Garden story, where Satan lied to Eve. It could refer to the pre-Mortal life too. Frankly, I think both options are valid.

Garold, thanks for the link. At 24 pages, I’ll have to check it out when I have more time, but I think this statement sums up Barney’s position: “In my view, the Bible as a whole is essentially neutral on the question of whether the soul had a preexistence, and how one reads the various biblical passages that have some arguable relevance to the question will unavoidably be heavily influenced by one’s preexisting theology.” I agree whole-heartedly.

I’m certainly not an authority on Evangelical Christianity, but having had some experience with them, I think Ecumenigal explanation (#05) reflects the understanding I have had on this sectarian disagreement. I think out of sense of justified ignorance, we Mormons tend to oversimplify our somewhat unique perspective on the Godhead as a distinction of deity quantity, and nothing more. To the contrary, the King Follet discourse was a major divergence from traditional Christianity. As I read this sermon all mystery seems to be resolved, except our limited mortal capacity to fathom the depth of Eternity and infinity. God, in a manner similar to us, was an Eternal intelligence who was tabernacled in a spirit body, kept a first and second estate where according to the Eternal Plan of Salvation, followed the pattern of his father, and his father before him to gain his Exaltation. In this sense God was limited, and grew and developed, but as Joseph Smith put it, God did not created himself. To the converse, the great mystery in traditional Christianity I believe is God, who he is, and what he does, and what his purpose is. For purposes unknown, he placed man in the Garden of Eden, who in his imperfection violated Gods law which brought about the fall, perhaps an unnecessary condition. Because God is perfect, and as the Bible says, God is love, he himself took mortal form in the figure Jesus, and gave us a gift we neither deserve nor can repay. His only condition, we accept his goodness and his gift by surrendering our grattitude and faith.

I think we could go on, but I think it should be clear that there is stark theological contradiction between these points of view. To challenge the very nature of God is deny his grace and mercy, and speak blaspheme of his gift. Suffice it to say, President Hinckley nailed when he acknowledged that there is some merit to common criticism that Mormons do not hold a traditional view of Christianity.

(meant to write this comment earlier…got halfway and had to leave…so yeah)

MH, I like to think I’m pretty one-of-a-kind, so finding the evangelical me would seem pretty creepy, .

I guess I have some similar reservations. For example, while I do like going to LDS & Evangelical Conversatioons (ldstalk.wordpress.com), and that’s where I got some of my thoughts about the whole “different species, uncreated vs. created), I dunno…I think there gets to be some tensions…it swings from friendly to…less friendly.

I think Jack from clobberblog (clobberblog.com) is pretty friendly, so later on I might ask her about her opinions on the pre-mortal existence. She went to BYU, married an LDS guy, and has done some forays over at T&S, so she knows a bit of the theology.

I’m totally comfortable with this idea. I can’t imagine getting to a point where my progression stops anything short of perfect, otherwise it would be very frustrating. To know that I can improve and continue to do so for a long time is very motivating to me.

“Why is it that evangelicals make such a big deal that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers? Don’t they?”

Yes they do and I have no idea why. I would like to understand what the big deal is.

Lord, what is man, that you notice him; mere man, that you pay attention to him? He is like a puff of wind; his days are like a passing shadow. Psalm 144:1-4 The Lord is loving and merciful, slow to become angry and full of constant love. He is good to everyone and has compassion on all he made. All your creatures, Lord, will praise you, and all your people will give you thanks. They will speak of the glory of your royal power and tell of your might, so that everyone will know your mighty deeds and the glorious majesty of your kingdom. Your rule is eternal, and you are king forever. Psalm 145 145:8-13. The Lord is righteous in all he does, merciful in all his acts. He is near to those who call to him, who call to him with sincerity. He supplies the needs of those who honor him; he hears their cries and saves them. He protects everyone who loves him, but he will destroy the wicked. I will always praise the Lord; let all his creatures praise his holy name forever. Psalm 145:17-21

Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, shining stars. Praise him, highest heavens, and the water above the sky. Let them all praise the name of the Lord! He commanded, and they were created; by his command they were fixed in their places forever, and they cannot disobey. Psalms 148:3-6

Let them all praise the name of the Lord! His name is greater than all others; his glory is above earth and heaven. He made his nation strong, so that all his people praise him–the people of Israel, so dear to him. Praise the Lord! Psalms 148:13-14

Thanks for the post.

I have been trying to understand a statement about satan that is recorded in the D&C.

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:23 – 25)

Question: What does it mean in verse 25 that the wicked one was a liar from the beginning? Is this referring to his existence as an intelligence? As a young spirit? What’s up?

About Satan’s relationship with God: I guess there is ultimately a dividing line between dualists and non-dualists. Evangelical Christians seem to stick with dualism, that there is and always will be Good and Evil, and that there is no ultimate redemption or reconciliation.

I’m a non-dualist. I would say that we’re living in a land of contrast, but that the ultimate underlying reality is one-ness, like the yin yang symbol. Day + Night = the 24 hour cycle. Man + woman = humanity. Good & Evil/Light&Darkness/Creator&Destroyer are necessary components of this physical reality that allows us to live in bodies, experience ourselves as individuals, and grown in discernment and compassion.

If there was no force of destruction, nothing would decompose. Disease could not be destroyed. Injustice couldn’t be stomped out. Fire from burning wood could not keep us warm. We couldn’t digest food. If there were no opposition, plants would not grow strong from resisting the wind. We would not grow strong or explore our characters through adversity. If there were no darkness, how could we learn to discern darkness and light? If there were no suffering, how would we learn deep compassion? How would we be jolted out of complacency to seek spiritual growth?

So, yes, I think God essentially created Satan. He is playing an important and valued function. In Mormonism, Satan’s plan was that we would all return, and there would be no way to get totally lost. To my way of thinking, that plan would be one where there was only light, so we couldn’t get lost. So, ironically, Satan voted for pure light. (“Angel of light”?)

Jesus, on the other hand, voted for the chance for us to develop skills of discernment, faith, repentance, humility, and for us being separate enough from God that it would be possible to get lost, but we would be much wiser for the struggle. His plan required opposition. I wonder why Satan go chosen for the job?

I think evangelicals hold on to keeping things simple and clear, less paradoxical, and that has an important function. There is real power in clearly declaring yourself the victor over darkness, no ifs ands, or buts.

But… the Christian concept of the “Refiner’s Fire” brings back the paradox. When is adversity caused by Satan, and when is it caused by God, for our good? In the end, God wins the war. Isn’t this similar to saying that God is the ultimate reality? They also say “Satan is the ruler of this world.” Isn’t that similar to saying that darkness is just part of the grand dualism experience we’re all going through, but that when ultimate reality sets in, light is all there is?

I believe that adversity or “the adversary” makes us stronger and so is ultimately here for our good also. (Like a martial arts teacher who throws you to the ground.)

The Bible states that we are the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29), but it doesn’t say the same thing about animals. Besides being our Creator, I guess you could also say he is our Progenitor. Then it wouldn’t seem like such a big stretch to say we are children of God.

If you know any nice evangelicals, please feel free to invite them. In my internet dealings, there aren’t many nice evangelicals–they usually end up picking fights by telling Mormons we’re all going to hell, and we’re a bunch of deluded idiots. I’ve tried having respectful conversations with them, but have been unsuccessful so far. I’d like to be introduced to a nice evangelical along the likes of you, Andrew (a nice atheist.) You’re the most respectful atheist I’ve ever come across, and you speak Mormon lingo eloquently. (My hat goes off to brjones and Cowboy as well for their respectful disagreements). So, if you can find an evangelical with your (Andrew) personality, they are more than welcome to join the conversation.

The distinction between evangelicals and mormons (not same species vs same species) is a very interesting point. I talked previously about how similar theosis is to exaltation, and I love the idea that the Orthodox Christians have a similar belief to Mormons. While Orthodox believers are much smaller here in America, I think this is a cool similarity between our belief systems. The Book of Mormon idea that this is a probationary state seems so natural to me, that I have a hard time understanding why evangelicals fight so vigorously against the idea. What do evangelicals believe will happen in the next life? Will we just sit around on clouds, strumming harps, praising God? That’s got to get old after a few thousand years. I’ve never received a satisfactory answer from them–I don’t know is the most common answer.

Ecumenigal, thanks for your insights. Your “concept of the collective consciousness” sounds very much like the Orthodox idea of theosis (which I posted on previously). But if God created everything, where did Satan come from? He’s either created by God, or he is not. I guess this “different species” idea comes into play, and I guess I understand better why they are repulsed by this “Jesus and Satan are brothers” idea, but it still seems quite silly to me. Once again, it comes back to the nature of God, and whether “trying to be like Jesus” should be taken literally or not. This seems to be one place where literalist evangelicals take a non-literal interpretation to being like Jesus.