Superfluity of the Adversary
We Mormons love the Tao. Yin and Yang, light and dark, hot and cold, suffering and joy. Opposition in all things, right? This bivalency is even manifested in Deity. We have God the Father and his antithesis (though subservient) Lucifer. These are the grand archetypes of this great struggle though mortality. The thing is, though, that I don’t think the Adversary is necessary to the Plan.
This goes back to whether or not you buy into Divine Command Ethics. Many Mormons believe that the Good would exist if God did not exist. So too would the Evil exist had Lucifer not rebelled. But do we have evidence for the Adversary’s superfluity to the Plan?
1) Satan tried to defend himself for giving the fruit to Eve. Why would he do that if there was not a non-transgressive precedent?
2) If he was integral to the Plan, he could thwart the Plan by inactivity. Why would he not do that?
The only thing that I struggle with, is that if there have been worlds before that have gone through the Plan without an Adversary, why would God send the third part to earth? Couldn’t he just have sent them directly to OD and saved us a fair amount of hastle?
Satan’s role and necessity (or not) are tough things to figure out. Just today I wrote about a doctrinal disagreement I had with a friend yesterday after church. Among other things, he sees a world in which Satan is quite superfluous. In fact he thinks that Satan has little real power today and that sin is entirely internally generated as part of our fallen nature. I am not so sure this is the case.
But that there were other potential ways to get mortality started than the way Adam and Eve did it on this world (meaning without Satan’s interference) seems like a defensible position.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/24/2005 @ 5:36 pm
J. Clearly great minds think alike. I too have been pondering Satan’s defense (“Just doing what is done elsewhere”), and the lack of a rebuttal on that point from God. This parallels (kind of) the evolution of Satan in the OT, where “Satan” for the most part is a member of the Divine Council, an agent provocateur of sorts, and NOT a Bad Guy. It’s his job to test humans, which he does on God’s behalf. Lucifer’s fall, then, is one of degree: the Plan needs an Adversary, BUT Lucifer wanted to fill that role AND take the glory for himself. His sin was pride, not tempting people (for that was his job).
In fact, Satan in the OT is NEVER the devil.
Comment by Ronan — 1/25/2005 @ 6:37 am
Ronan,
I think that the idea that satan fell after the fall is nto so defenisble scripturally. I know that this is a popular view in contemporary study of the bible, but I think that modern revelation does support the idea that Satan fell before this world was and was “a liar from the beginning.
that said, I ahve often thought about alternate ways that the fall could have happened, though this could be just because it doesn’t always happen that someone who rebels happens to choose this option.
I do think it is significant, however, that 1/3 of the host of heaven rebelled, so that it sounds like this is not something so uncommon that there is much of a risk of it happening that there would be a world where no one determined to reject the plan. The first estate is something we have been rewarded for keeping and so it would seem there has to have been some challenge in doing so. It would seem to me that if God then simply sent everyone into outer darkness right away, it would hardly be conducive to agency. that is to say, he could send everyone on this earth to their punishment as soon as they sinned, and besides being too great a deterent (I don’t think the contemplation of a vengeful god is the best deterrent of sin or Satan would never have rebelled–see my comments under kowledge of father and son), I think it would too greatly insulate us. “Wherefore man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other [sweet vs. bitter].” So while god may not especially like evil, and he doesn’t create it, he has to let it hang out because we could not really choose if there weren’t some enticement on each side. (The verses after this actually address the fall of satan and the fact that he did what he did in Eden at least partly to make people miserable, os in that way, perhaps he did what he did just beacuse some misery, any misery, even in the short run, would come of it.)
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 1/25/2005 @ 10:58 am
I’m actually very interested in the OT narrative. Not being a student of this, I am sadly uninformed as to how the Jewish tradition has thought about the Adversary (both historically and contemporarily).
But I will agree with Steve that the Mormon tradition, at least, favors immediate expulsion. Joseph Smith’s narrative (after explaining how Christ was the righteous heir to be the Redeemer) explains:
I’m, however, not so sure that the third part are that necessary. The appeal to enticement is well established, but could our flesh not serve the same purpose (carnal, sensual and devilish)? Moreover, there is argument 2) that I raise – if they could thwart the plan by inactivity, why would they not?
Side note: I have to believe that just as everyone that came to mortality are not “rock stars”, some of that third part (maybe most) are not either.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/25/2005 @ 11:15 am
Maybe you could entertain the idea of multiple “Satans” (which in Hebrew just means “adversary”) for multiple worlds. What makes “our” Satan different is that he himself (that is Lucifer) rebelled against God. As I’ve said before, I am not yet on board with our temporal A-B-C narrative, so I’m not that bothered with questions of what happened when and in what order.
Comment by Ronan — 1/25/2005 @ 2:00 pm
Ronan,
I’m not on board with temporality in terms of the eternities either, but I do think that time is significant in terms of this world, and that I don’t know if I can buy into Satan doing sanctioned tempting in this world.
I am, however, intrigued by the idea that perhaps many of the titles we use as proper names are just that, titles, associated with each world, and that there may be differences between what happens on one world and what happens on another as long as it tends towards the exaltation of the souls of men. Neal Maxwell, for instance, though he is of the opinion that our savior atoned for the sins of all in this universe, is careful (in his book Not My Will but Thine) to avoid saying this is definitely true. If we believe the opposite, then the implication would be that even within this universe there may be other actual ways that things began and played out, as long as in every world there was a creation, a fall, and an atonement. It would seem that the only alternative to saying that there are differences is to say that it happens the same way every time, like a well-acted script, which doesn’t seem likely. It would seem that those acting these roles would have to choose to do so and choose the way in which they will act them. My one difference with you is that I can’t imagine an appointed tempter that God asks to tempt us. Satan could, for instance have tried to do things differently elsewhere, delaying the fall indefinitely. In either case, I would think that it he would unwittingly play into the hand of God. Lucifer did so because, “he knew not the mind of God,(Moses 4:6)” which would make it seem that he was expecting one thing and then God did another. the same verse seems to suggest that he thought he would be able to thwart the plan: “wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” So, to J, perhaps this is why he didn’t seek to not participate. He thought he had really found a flaw in the plan, that somehow by his giving the woman the fruit he would short circuit things because he would be doing something that hadn’t been done in other worlds.
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 1/25/2005 @ 4:54 pm
Well, this all deserves much deep thinking. But just to state the biblical position again: there is no Devil in the Old Testament! The serpent in Genesis is the serpent, not “Satan”, and where there are “Satans” they are generally in the service of God (the angel who stood in the way of Balaam’s ass, the agent who put Job to the test). Only in the intertestamental period did Satan become the Devil.
Now that is the view from the OT. I realise modern revelation puts a different spin on things, but sometimes I wonder whether the Book of Moses is actually an inspired midrash on the Bible, rather than a statement of absolute truth – what “really happened”.
Anyway, this is something I hope to pursue in more formal forums (the biblical Satan vs. the Mormon Satan).
Comment by Ronan — 1/25/2005 @ 5:13 pm
You’re really on to something now, Stephen. I really liked several of your speculations in your last post. I think there is a lot more to the titles like “Adam” and “Satan” and “Elohim” than we normally consider. In those previous worlds without number, the inhabitants thereof had to do something. Since the course of the Lord is “one eternal round” it seems like a stretch to assume the basics of the play are not the same in all.
I also think you are on to something with Lucifer’s unwitting and unwilling attempt to short circuit the plan of salvation. The explanation you propose is the best I’ve heard to date.
Ronan: It seems more likely than not that Joseph’s Genesis translation was accurate to me. We have all that evidence from Nephi that important truths were omitted from the Bible. If Satan has any influence it makes sense to me that his encounter with Moses would be a useful piece of real truth to erase from the record. Nephi makes it clear Satan like to whisper things like “I am no devil for there is none.” Is there any evidence that Joseph felt the records in the Book of Moses should be taken any way other than literally?
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/25/2005 @ 8:39 pm
Oops. Make that Satan’s unwitting and unwilling participation in the Plan of Salvation. It makes sense that he really thought he could nip the whole thing in the bud…
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/25/2005 @ 8:42 pm
Geoff,
I don’t doubt the existence of Satan, but the Temple drama suggests to me that there is something different about our Satan than (perhaps) others that makes him particularly nasty. i can’t yet square that with a traditional reading of the scriptures so I’m trying to think outside the box a little.
Comment by Ronan — 1/26/2005 @ 5:26 am
Good point Ronan. With you I am intrigued by the idea of ours being a particularly nasty adversary. Perhaps he is an additional adversary to the “flesh” as J wonders. I don’t know, but I think it can’t hurt to study it out a bit. The whole idea that Lucifer could gain enough intelligence to have real power — albeit less that God’s — is very interesting. He then (if any of this is accurate) is really acting as an independent adversary and God is really countering his annoying moves in our world… That makes more sense than Lucifer being assigned to play the “part” of an adversary but not really meaning it…
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/26/2005 @ 9:06 am
I agree with J. Stapley that the it seems like the flesh is *enough* of an enticement.
But one of the things that strikes me about the way Satan is sometimes portrayed in LDS scripture is as the organizer of discourses and power structures that facilitate temptation and obscure truth. So perhaps flesh is enough and through Satan’s influence it becomes even more of a weakness.
At the same time, I could see one making the case that the weaknesses of the flesh inspired men to create the ways they have of indulging (I’m not talking about technologies here, but more the social structures and discursive arguments for engaging in) their carnal natures. But it seems that reasonable readings of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price suggest that Satan has some role in it.
Comment by William Morris — 1/26/2005 @ 12:06 pm
William, you sound a bit like my neighbor Bruce who I recently wrote about. But it seems to me that though most temptations do come from the flesh, Satan does have his own version of the still, small voice. I flippantly labeled it the “quiet, creepy whisper” here and a few folks (J. and DKL) cited quotes by Joseph Smith to support the idea.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/26/2005 @ 12:24 pm
Mmm. Not quite. I agree that Satan can come into direct influence over an individual — but I don’t think that he is an ever-present quite, creepy whisperer.
That is, those who give in to the carnal desires of the flesh, who seek to do evil probably do have some sort of intellectual intercourse (i.e. communication) with Lucifer (Satan). Thus Helamen 6 and the whole secret combinations thing.
In other words I see Satan as operating more bureaucratically and tactically than being some sort of ever present voice — the metaphysics of which I find unclear and somewhat troubling.
Are we to think that Satan and the 1/3 are physically always lurking around each of us ready to pounce if they observe us consider temptation (i.e. we all have our own Screwtape)? If he can speak directly to us — how is this so? He is, after all, a personage of spirt and not the “evil” Holy Ghost.
Comment by William Morris — 1/26/2005 @ 1:44 pm
I very much to agree with you William. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the 1/3 are organized at all.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/26/2005 @ 1:51 pm
Heh. Good point.
Indeed, from the few instances we have references to them in scripture (I’m thinking specifically of the Gospels), it would seem like many of them are mad with desire for corporeality.
What happens to a spirit who is stuck in temporality (which may not be the case — but I’m going to assume that that’s part and parcel of them being assigned to this sphere) and yet without access to the physical?
Hmmm. Might make for some interesting LDS fiction.
Comment by William Morris — 1/26/2005 @ 2:20 pm
Well, it sounds like we are in agreement that the Devil has some method to communicate to the minds of the wicked on occasion. Between Helaman 6 and D&C 10 there seems to be a pretty good case for that. Whether he could “prompt” the righteous or not is a good question. I think William is probably right that if there is a “wicked whisper” it is probably not ever-present — perhaps just as promptings from the Holy Host are not ever-present. (The influence of Babylon is ever-present in opposition to the ever-present light of Christ, though.)
It looks like we confused together on this. William thinks perhaps Satan has an organized bureaucracy. J finds it hard to believe the 1/3 could be very organized at all. And none of us know how on earth Satan could communicate intelligence to us since we know of no equivalent to the Holy Ghost that he has at his disposal…
Sheesh! — we don’t know much about this subject, do we?
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 1/26/2005 @ 3:09 pm
Perhaps that’s a good thing
—-
But to clarify (I throw terms around that I probably shouldn’t): I don’t know that Satan has an organized bureaucracy of spirits. I was more trying to point to the fact that I think that the way he spreads his influence among the children of men is through ‘inspiring’ the bureaucratization of evil and carnality — false priesthoods, secret combinations, etc.
Comment by William Morris — 1/26/2005 @ 3:26 pm
I’m pretty late in the discussion, but isn’t it true that Satan as well as other spirits (both good and evil) can speak to our spirits or hearts?
Comment by Marcus Tank — 6/27/2005 @ 6:30 pm
I don’t know about the exact mechanics, but Joseph Smith believed (and I see no reason no to concur) that the adversary could communicate to us:
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/27/2005 @ 8:40 pm