Why Do I Need a Testimony of Satan? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

outlier · 10-13-2005, 10:22 PM

Once in a while the importance of Satan pops up in a lesson manual and he's been the subject of numerous conference talks in the past, all pointing to the importance of understanding and accepting the existence of the devil. I still haven't found a good reason why this should be.

Evil existed before Satan did. If that weren't the case, then he couldn't have chosen his contrary path. Even if evil *didn't* exist since forever, I still don't see the necessity of having to have an embodiment of evil exist in order for evil to exist.

Some people, I understand, find it easier to have a persona against which to fight their moral battles. I suppose that for some it's easier to fight "Satan" than it is to fight thousands of years of human nature that's often resulted in people being selfish, vain, and hurtful. But from a purely rational standpoint, a person shouldn't need an Emmanuel Goldstein in order to fight something bad.

That's sort of where I start having a problem with doctrinal insitence on the existence of the Devil. At the risk of trusting Nietzsche above, you know, the teachings of many apostles (sort of)... When Nietzsche said "God is dead", the context of the statement (by my reading) indicates that he wasn't being anti-religious as such (although I think he was anti-religious). Instead, he was trying to get people to take responsibility for their own lives and their own self-improvement. He was saying: "don't expect God to make you a better person, that's up to you".

I have a very similar sentiment toward Satan. Many people sin or are tempted to sin and blame that situation on the devil. How is this helpful? People should recognize that they have faults and that these faults are THEIRS. Blame-shifting over to Satan seems like the moral equivalent of political responses to Hurricane Katrina: "something really bad happened, but it's definitely not my fault".

When I hear someone say "Satan was really tempting me to break the word of wisdom", it always makes me think "no, you put yourself in a situation wherein breaking the word of wisdom would be easy and, in the meantime, you have an internal curiosity regarding the potential benefits of certain substances which you have not to this point managed to fully quell". How is the blaming Satan response better? People are imperfect and "fighting the devil" seems a less direct path toward perfection than working out your own faults.

I'm not saying that I necessarily don't believe in Satan -- I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I don't think that people who believe in Satan are idiots (although, as mentioned, I see some potential risks in this). However, I also don't understand the value of insisting that members of the church believe in the existence of a literal devil.

o

fusnik11 · 10-13-2005, 10:27 PM

interesting thoughts....

similar to my post earlier about satan and his real role in the plan of salvation....

is he inherently evil? or is he fulfilling a calling given? are we tempted by a lower being? or are we falling into the shortcomings of nature due to imperfect corpses and minds?

non sequitur · 10-13-2005, 10:28 PM

If you don't need an embodiment of evil for evil to exist, then why do you need you need an embodiment of good for good to exist. It seems that people often use both God and Satan as a crutch to not take responsibility for their own actions.

outlier · 10-13-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

If you don't need an embodiment of evil for evil to exist, then why do you need you need an embodiment of good for good to exist. It seems that people often use both God and Satan as a crutch to not take responsibility for their own actions.

Good point -- and to me, I think that's a reasonable assertion, namely that Good exists external to God.

However, what I was trying to get at more, is that given the objective of church members of attaining Celestial Glory and such, I think it's easier to understand the direct role required of God the Father and Jesus Christ. We're Their Creation, within the context of the church, the greatest aspiration is to be with Them (okay, fine, *and* with our families). So, given that our goal is to be like God, it's hard to be like Him if he doesn't exist. OTOH, I still don't see how Satan necessarily plays a role in that program.

o

ute4ever · 10-13-2005, 10:44 PM

Satan created himself, and by saying that I mean he chose to become what he became by taking his pride, lusts and selfishness to the highest levels in the preexistence.

Or so I assume that's how it went.

And as the scriptures say, there needs be opposition in all things. So in effect, God's plan of salvation was ready to move into phase two once Satan began challenging him.

By learning about Satan's character, we better understand defiance, disobedience, pride, selfishness and all of their consequences. We better see and understand the potential fate of turning our backs on God and the admonition to become like him.

10-13-2005, 10:22 PM	#1
outlier Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 180	Why Do I Need a Testimony of Satan? Once in a while the importance of Satan pops up in a lesson manual and he's been the subject of numerous conference talks in the past, all pointing to the importance of understanding and accepting the existence of the devil. I still haven't found a good reason why this should be. Evil existed before Satan did. If that weren't the case, then he couldn't have chosen his contrary path. Even if evil didn't exist since forever, I still don't see the necessity of having to have an embodiment of evil exist in order for evil to exist. Some people, I understand, find it easier to have a persona against which to fight their moral battles. I suppose that for some it's easier to fight "Satan" than it is to fight thousands of years of human nature that's often resulted in people being selfish, vain, and hurtful. But from a purely rational standpoint, a person shouldn't need an Emmanuel Goldstein in order to fight something bad. That's sort of where I start having a problem with doctrinal insitence on the existence of the Devil. At the risk of trusting Nietzsche above, you know, the teachings of many apostles (sort of)... When Nietzsche said "God is dead", the context of the statement (by my reading) indicates that he wasn't being anti-religious as such (although I think he was anti-religious). Instead, he was trying to get people to take responsibility for their own lives and their own self-improvement. He was saying: "don't expect God to make you a better person, that's up to you". I have a very similar sentiment toward Satan. Many people sin or are tempted to sin and blame that situation on the devil. How is this helpful? People should recognize that they have faults and that these faults are THEIRS. Blame-shifting over to Satan seems like the moral equivalent of political responses to Hurricane Katrina: "something really bad happened, but it's definitely not my fault". When I hear someone say "Satan was really tempting me to break the word of wisdom", it always makes me think "no, you put yourself in a situation wherein breaking the word of wisdom would be easy and, in the meantime, you have an internal curiosity regarding the potential benefits of certain substances which you have not to this point managed to fully quell". How is the blaming Satan response better? People are imperfect and "fighting the devil" seems a less direct path toward perfection than working out your own faults. I'm not saying that I necessarily don't believe in Satan -- I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I don't think that people who believe in Satan are idiots (although, as mentioned, I see some potential risks in this). However, I also don't understand the value of insisting that members of the church believe in the existence of a literal devil. o

10-13-2005, 10:27 PM	#2
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	... interesting thoughts.... similar to my post earlier about satan and his real role in the plan of salvation.... is he inherently evil? or is he fulfilling a calling given? are we tempted by a lower being? or are we falling into the shortcomings of nature due to imperfect corpses and minds?

10-13-2005, 10:28 PM	#3
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	You can make the same arguments for the existence of God. If you don't need an embodiment of evil for evil to exist, then why do you need you need an embodiment of good for good to exist. It seems that people often use both God and Satan as a crutch to not take responsibility for their own actions.

10-13-2005, 10:44 PM	#5
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Satan created himself, and by saying that I mean he chose to become what he became by taking his pride, lusts and selfishness to the highest levels in the preexistence. Or so I assume that's how it went. And as the scriptures say, there needs be opposition in all things. So in effect, God's plan of salvation was ready to move into phase two once Satan began challenging him. By learning about Satan's character, we better understand defiance, disobedience, pride, selfishness and all of their consequences. We better see and understand the potential fate of turning our backs on God and the admonition to become like him.