Formal Mormon Theology

[I Have Questions]

But here’s what’s interesting. According to Mormonism, temptation and sin etc are necessary components of Mormon god’s plan temptation and sin are of the devil - Satan. So if Satan was as evil as Mormonism suggests he is, to scupper God’s plan all Satan need do is to stop doing his part of it. and if Satan is sticking to Mormon god’s plan and complying with it, playing his part, doing his bit, is he really the bad guy?

This is why I think Will is so important. If Satan always acted motivated by pride then he would still be the bad guy. It was a skill issue that his moves were all used against him by the master strategist God.

According to the SLC LDS Church, Satan is behaving exactly how Mormon God wants him to behave as part of His original plan. As far as Mormon God is concerned, Satan is a good little boy, doing as he’s told, taking one for the team, but ultimately ensuring God’s plan works. If he really wanted to be prideful and scupper God’s plan, then all he’d have to do is…well…nothing. Mormon Satan is on Mormon Team God, whichever way you look at it.

[Ego]

This is why I think Will is so important. If Satan always acted motivated by pride then he would still be the bad guy. It was a skill issue that his moves were all used against him by the master strategist God.

According to the SLC LDS Church, Satan is behaving exactly how Mormon God wants him to behave as part of His original plan. As far as Mormon God is concerned, Satan is a good little boy, doing as he’s told, taking one for the team, but ultimately ensuring God’s plan works. If he really wanted to be prideful and scupper God’s plan, then all he’d have to do is…well…nothing. Mormon Satan is on Mormon Team God, whichever way you look at it.

If two people play chess and one happens to way outwit the other, such that every move of the one playing black is playing into the hands of the one playing white, does that make the one playing black on his team? Say he loathes the other player with a burning passion, if anything he would be furious with himself for continuously blundering in white’s favor. Sure Mormon God needed an opponent in order to win at all. But it seems less like ‘you be a good boy now and play my opponent’ and more like, a third of my children hate me, there’s about to be war at home, I’m going to make sure that my loyal children come out as strong as they can after the fallout.

[I Have Questions]

According to the SLC LDS Church, Satan is behaving exactly how Mormon God wants him to behave as part of His original plan. As far as Mormon God is concerned, Satan is a good little boy, doing as he’s told, taking one for the team, but ultimately ensuring God’s plan works. If he really wanted to be prideful and scupper God’s plan, then all he’d have to do is…well…nothing. Mormon Satan is on Mormon Team God, whichever way you look at it.

If two people play chess and one happens to way outwit the other, such that every move of the one playing black is playing into the hands of the one playing white, does that make the one playing black on his team? Say he loathes the other player with a burning passion, if anything he would be furious with himself for continuously blundering in white’s favor. Sure Mormon God needed an opponent in order to win at all. But it seems less like ‘you be a good boy now and play my opponent’ and more like, a third of my children hate me, there’s about to be war at home, I’m going to make sure that my loyal children come out as strong as they can after the fallout.

In your example it would be like Satan knowing that he has checkmate in 1, but going ahead and sacrificing his Queen instead of making the move that wins the game.

[Ego]

If two people play chess and one happens to way outwit the other, such that every move of the one playing black is playing into the hands of the one playing white, does that make the one playing black on his team? Say he loathes the other player with a burning passion, if anything he would be furious with himself for continuously blundering in white’s favor. Sure Mormon God needed an opponent in order to win at all. But it seems less like ‘you be a good boy now and play my opponent’ and more like, a third of my children hate me, there’s about to be war at home, I’m going to make sure that my loyal children come out as strong as they can after the fallout.

In your example it would be like Satan knowing that he has checkmate in 1, but going ahead and sacrificing his Queen instead of making the move that wins the game.

Honest answer: Mr. Smith didn’t think it through that well.
“It’s not that kind of movie kid” - Harrison Ford

Theologically minded answer: It is clear from the Endowment that Lucifer was aware enough of the nature of the Plan of Salvation and how it had operated on other worlds to know that eating the fruit was a thing done on those other worlds and presumably he knew it always turned out as a win for God. I think he made the blunder because he thought he was more intelligent than previous Satans and he was too impatient to not have anything happen on earth when instead he could have it be his playground of evil by ruling over it as long as possible.

[I Have Questions]

In your example it would be like Satan knowing that he has checkmate in 1, but going ahead and sacrificing his Queen instead of making the move that wins the game.

Honest answer: Mr. Smith didn’t think it through that well.
“It’s not that kind of movie kid” - Harrison Ford

Theologically minded answer: It is clear from the Endowment that Lucifer was aware enough of the nature of the Plan of Salvation and how it had operated on other worlds to know that eating the fruit was a thing done on those other worlds and presumably he knew it always turned out as a win for God. I think he made the blunder because he thought he was more intelligent than previous Satans and he was too impatient to not have anything happen on earth when instead he could have it be his playground of evil by ruling over it as long as possible.

Previous Satans?

So despite knowing that playing his part gives God the win, Satan goes ahead anyway, instead of not playing the game which ensures God loses?

Note: The “endowment” as you put it, is a man-made piece of amateur dramatics. I wouldn’t be betting the farm on that being an accurate reflection on <insert religion> God's thinking.

[Mag’ladroth]

Honest answer: Mr. Smith didn’t think it through that well.
“It’s not that kind of movie kid” - Harrison Ford

Theologically minded answer: It is clear from the Endowment that Lucifer was aware enough of the nature of the Plan of Salvation and how it had operated on other worlds to know that eating the fruit was a thing done on those other worlds and presumably he knew it always turned out as a win for God. I think he made the blunder because he thought he was more intelligent than previous Satans and he was too impatient to not have anything happen on earth when instead he could have it be his playground of evil by ruling over it as long as possible.

Previous Satans?

So despite knowing that playing his part gives God the win, Satan goes ahead anyway, instead of not playing the game which ensures God loses?

Note: The “endowment” as you put it, is a man-made piece of amateur dramatics. I wouldn’t be betting the farm on that being an accurate reflection on <insert religion> God's thinking.

Previous Satans implies that there will be future Satans and future Jesus’s. If “Free Agency” is ultimate to preserve relationship as Neo-Mormon apologists like Ostler, Hansen, and Ward Radio posit, then that implies the exalted man who plays Satan in the next metaphysical reality can just choose not to play and win the game ultimately. Or that the future Jesus can fail dooming the metaphysical project entirely. This of course leads to things like, who would ever want to be exalted only to be Satan? This leads to a Byzantine array of distasteful options and entailments for Mormon theology.

[I Have Questions]

To be fair, according to Mormonism, our iteration of Jesus did fail. The Church He established crumbled and went into apostasy shortly after he died. So Joseph Smith was more successful than Jesus, according to Mormonism.

[Ego]

Previous Satans?

So despite knowing that playing his part gives God the win, Satan goes ahead anyway, instead of not playing the game which ensures God loses?

Note: The “endowment” as you put it, is a man-made piece of amateur dramatics. I wouldn’t be betting the farm on that being an accurate reflection on <insert religion> God's thinking.

Previous Satans implies that there will be future Satans and future Jesus’s. If “Free Agency” is ultimate to preserve relationship as Neo-Mormon apologists like Ostler, Hansen, and Ward Radio posit, then that implies the exalted man who plays Satan in the next metaphysical reality can just choose not to play and win the game ultimately. Or that the future Jesus can fail dooming the metaphysical project entirely. This of course leads to things like, who would ever want to be exalted only to be Satan? This leads to a Byzantine array of distasteful options and entailments for Mormon theology.

The exalted man who plays Satan? As far as I know Satan was an unembodied spirit, an angel with high status but certainly not exaltation.
One has to assume in their omniscience the Gods only choose those they foresee as making the right choices as saviors. Kind of manipulative but that’s the only solution to that problem I see.

As for a Satan not getting the ball rolling… there’s nothing really stopping that from happening. I think we’re supposed to assume that Satan is the archetype of the evil dark lord and so he’s always going to lose and it’s always going ti be his own doing. To me it’s a mythology, the theology has its limits.

[Mag’ladroth]

To be fair, according to Mormonism, our iteration of Jesus did fail. The Church He established crumbled and went into apostasy shortly after he died. So Joseph Smith was more successful than Jesus, according to Mormonism.

The new apologetic for this is that Jesus only meant that it Hell wouldn’t ultimately prevail. Christ didn’t mean that Satan wouldn’t prevail for 1700 years.

[MG 2.0]

Without getting too much into the weeds on characters and names I would propose that rather than look at 'other worlds' with other Satans that are bumbling idiots feeding into God's overall plan, we might simply look at other creations that are inhabited by sentient beings with agency to make choices more in alignment with 'Satan"s' plan' than they are with the Father's plan. And visa versa.

It fits within the world (s) of naturalism and human agency. There will be good and evil on any world that has been created and put into operation to provide an opportunity for souls to experience the good and the evil and make choices in regards to each. God cannot create sentient and independent beings who are all 'naturally' good.

That would be similar to the Borg in Star Trek.

Getting into the weeds as far as to 'put the blame' on Satan theologically doesn't make sense. Now to say that Satan is ultimately the god of those who choose to do evil rather than good and stands at their head, I don't think is unreasonable. And that souls who are by choice opposed to God's plan of happiness are all 'in it together' as the eternities roll on seems fair.

Remember, the temple endowment drama is simply that. A dramatization using symbols, characters, and templates/scaffolding to teach precepts/concepts that lead to the greater/greatest good in regards to truth and light.

Regards,
MG