This is actually an email I sent to a friend, in response to a line of thought he had, and since I know no one actually reads my blog, I am putting it up more for my own sake, and to archive it. Either way, if someone unfamiliar with me reads it, I would place the disclaimer that I am writing as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but have neither the knowledge, intelligence, or right to speak in anyway authoritatively concerning doctrine of the church. Instead, as one who studies and loves theological inquiry/speculation, that's all this is: my own opinion glossed with fancy words I am likely misusing anyway.
Without further undercutting myself, here it is:
So, first thing that I thought about was exactly what we are using as
our outright definition of a devil. If I understand you correctly, it
would be a devil on par with lucifer, not an "angel to a devil" as the
scriptures put it of those who are more or less damned. Instead, the
definition would involve a devil as one who, while possessing
authority/power of some sort, is diametrically opposed to the Divine. On
this point, we find ourselves using lots of inference rather than
direct revelation to try and grasp the nature of the devil's power. A
simple assertion gives him the power to tempt and deceive through both
mental/physical/emotive suggestion or apparition; the next step, per
biblical accounts and early church history accounts, would ascribe him
some power over the physical, to possess and impede the physical body
through possession and other obstruction (referring to Joseph Smith's
account of the first vision). Beyond that I dont find much solid ground for attributing him
more power than this, though his role in the afterlife is where I see a
possibility of an expansion of what I have already mentioned. Yet this
is enough to provide us with a workable definition of what he can do,
per his role as the devil.
The next point I though about would be the idea of eventual sanctification and theosis. The key to this, as you pointed out, is agency; that none of this is forced on us, all according to our desires and righteous action. If agency is an eternal attribute of our spiritual nature, which the gradation among premortal spirits suggests, that would not be at some future time be rescinded from us, per the premortal rejection of the same. With this simple view of the primacy of agency in our deification (not impetus or cause but a qualifier) it follows that at some future time we could reject the right path, set ourselves opposed to God. But if we would truly become a devil (a somewhat empowered enemy of God) is not answered by this, in my opinion. Instead, we have to address the 'terms' of our becoming a god in order to address this. On one hand, the process of becoming a god is one of change, progression, and upward evolution of our nature under the power of the Atonement. This suggests that if, at some future point, a person chose to turn against God, it would be possible that he would retain the attributes of his nature (which is my opinion on why the devil has some power/authority) thus becoming a devil, according to our earlier definition. On the other hand, (thanks Tevya) when we are deified, do we still remain subordinate to God to a degree? If we view deification as a gradual process of 'grace upon grace' from God, given to us in accordance with his law and our willingness to adhere to it, and we truly are dependent upon God for each step of the evolving process, it seems likely that we would be in this way subordinate to Him. This possibility of subordination is where I feel a person could possibly lose those 'graces' he attained from God, by rebelling against him. So, on one side, it seems possible to rebel and retain the attributes given to him, thus becoming a devil; while on the other side this seems impossible, as God would then take from him what was previously given based upon righteousness. A down-the-line 50/50 is how I see it, but due to a few holes in revelation/scripture/sources that feed my conjecture, I havent been able to convince myself either way.
The second have of the question, (though I might be a bit semantic and unnecessary) brings up the idea of a "path" to devilhood, with which I would disagree for a few reasons. First, as I will explain, how the devil came into being is too mercurial in my mind for it to be definitively given a path-like understanding. Second, if we continue to use my earlier definition of a devil, (which you may disagree with, and thereby make all of my reasoning useless to you... which it likely is anyway) than I do not think that after this life it would be possible to become a devil by anything other than a sudden departure from the way of God, if it is possible to rebel and maintain the acquired endowments from God. It seems that if we were to set ourselves upon a path towards eventual devilhood, our progress would be stunted and we would find ourselves unable to become an individual endowed with power, enough to rebel and be an empowered enemy of God. Finally, in my opinion, if a path must exist in relation to devilhood, I would contend (because thats of the devil, right? sorry) that the path begins when one turns against God, is severed from progression, and then exists onward doing what devils do, (further development of experience and personality perhaps) but within the state in which the person was, as he turned against God. This of course is contingent upon the truth of the first possibility, that we can rebel and maintain our empowered state. But in essence, I disagree with the idea of any sort of path/progress towards true (empowered/authority carrying) devilhood. But that is splitting lots of hair, of which I have few to spare.
One final issue that makes this very messy for me is the fact that we have so little information about how lucifer lost his high station and fell so low, and the precedence of that. Here I do have an opinion that I know a few people I have spoken with did not like. I feel that our spirits are much more like our bodies than we think, in that we do have a spiritual nature, comparable with our 'natural man.' While this spiritual nature I think is more positively-inclined than our earthly nature (otherwise making the fall not much of a fall,) but I think it is inherent in any being possessing the ability to choose for itself, that it can have both good and bad inclinations and inborn suggestions. For me, this makes the rebellion of the third part more understandable, especially in light of their sons of perdition status and its consequences. With this possibility of an inborn spiritual nature, I see no necessity for a preceding devil? I realize that this is also convoluted by my belief that much of our temptations and dumb decisions arise out of ourselves, our fallen nature and its consequences, but I am not sure that a preceding devil is necessary, though I don't cancel out the possibility. If God too possessed this spiritual nature, inclined to both good and evil, but rose above it to reach His current divine existence, to me at least that does not apply the necessity for another tempter, just as I do not think that as he "once was" as we are, and is as we "may become" that there had to be another Atonement/Savior preceding Christ, as some LDS thinkers have suggested. This is why I am hesitant to put much credit in reasoning with the genealogy of God, as I think the statement that he was as we are does not have to fit the narrow existence we are now in, but ascribe to our larger being: both spiritual and physical natures. This mess makes it very difficult to reason more directly about the previous question of becoming a devil, because I understand the quote on how God was differently than some LDS folks I am familiar with. To me, it doesnt have to apply to our exact existence as we perceive it (our perception being key here), and God can be much more like us without creating the necessity for a pre-existing savior or devil.
The next point I though about would be the idea of eventual sanctification and theosis. The key to this, as you pointed out, is agency; that none of this is forced on us, all according to our desires and righteous action. If agency is an eternal attribute of our spiritual nature, which the gradation among premortal spirits suggests, that would not be at some future time be rescinded from us, per the premortal rejection of the same. With this simple view of the primacy of agency in our deification (not impetus or cause but a qualifier) it follows that at some future time we could reject the right path, set ourselves opposed to God. But if we would truly become a devil (a somewhat empowered enemy of God) is not answered by this, in my opinion. Instead, we have to address the 'terms' of our becoming a god in order to address this. On one hand, the process of becoming a god is one of change, progression, and upward evolution of our nature under the power of the Atonement. This suggests that if, at some future point, a person chose to turn against God, it would be possible that he would retain the attributes of his nature (which is my opinion on why the devil has some power/authority) thus becoming a devil, according to our earlier definition. On the other hand, (thanks Tevya) when we are deified, do we still remain subordinate to God to a degree? If we view deification as a gradual process of 'grace upon grace' from God, given to us in accordance with his law and our willingness to adhere to it, and we truly are dependent upon God for each step of the evolving process, it seems likely that we would be in this way subordinate to Him. This possibility of subordination is where I feel a person could possibly lose those 'graces' he attained from God, by rebelling against him. So, on one side, it seems possible to rebel and retain the attributes given to him, thus becoming a devil; while on the other side this seems impossible, as God would then take from him what was previously given based upon righteousness. A down-the-line 50/50 is how I see it, but due to a few holes in revelation/scripture/sources that feed my conjecture, I havent been able to convince myself either way.
The second have of the question, (though I might be a bit semantic and unnecessary) brings up the idea of a "path" to devilhood, with which I would disagree for a few reasons. First, as I will explain, how the devil came into being is too mercurial in my mind for it to be definitively given a path-like understanding. Second, if we continue to use my earlier definition of a devil, (which you may disagree with, and thereby make all of my reasoning useless to you... which it likely is anyway) than I do not think that after this life it would be possible to become a devil by anything other than a sudden departure from the way of God, if it is possible to rebel and maintain the acquired endowments from God. It seems that if we were to set ourselves upon a path towards eventual devilhood, our progress would be stunted and we would find ourselves unable to become an individual endowed with power, enough to rebel and be an empowered enemy of God. Finally, in my opinion, if a path must exist in relation to devilhood, I would contend (because thats of the devil, right? sorry) that the path begins when one turns against God, is severed from progression, and then exists onward doing what devils do, (further development of experience and personality perhaps) but within the state in which the person was, as he turned against God. This of course is contingent upon the truth of the first possibility, that we can rebel and maintain our empowered state. But in essence, I disagree with the idea of any sort of path/progress towards true (empowered/authority carrying) devilhood. But that is splitting lots of hair, of which I have few to spare.
One final issue that makes this very messy for me is the fact that we have so little information about how lucifer lost his high station and fell so low, and the precedence of that. Here I do have an opinion that I know a few people I have spoken with did not like. I feel that our spirits are much more like our bodies than we think, in that we do have a spiritual nature, comparable with our 'natural man.' While this spiritual nature I think is more positively-inclined than our earthly nature (otherwise making the fall not much of a fall,) but I think it is inherent in any being possessing the ability to choose for itself, that it can have both good and bad inclinations and inborn suggestions. For me, this makes the rebellion of the third part more understandable, especially in light of their sons of perdition status and its consequences. With this possibility of an inborn spiritual nature, I see no necessity for a preceding devil? I realize that this is also convoluted by my belief that much of our temptations and dumb decisions arise out of ourselves, our fallen nature and its consequences, but I am not sure that a preceding devil is necessary, though I don't cancel out the possibility. If God too possessed this spiritual nature, inclined to both good and evil, but rose above it to reach His current divine existence, to me at least that does not apply the necessity for another tempter, just as I do not think that as he "once was" as we are, and is as we "may become" that there had to be another Atonement/Savior preceding Christ, as some LDS thinkers have suggested. This is why I am hesitant to put much credit in reasoning with the genealogy of God, as I think the statement that he was as we are does not have to fit the narrow existence we are now in, but ascribe to our larger being: both spiritual and physical natures. This mess makes it very difficult to reason more directly about the previous question of becoming a devil, because I understand the quote on how God was differently than some LDS folks I am familiar with. To me, it doesnt have to apply to our exact existence as we perceive it (our perception being key here), and God can be much more like us without creating the necessity for a pre-existing savior or devil.
