Random musings in response to a friend's inquiry (long and very boring)

 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of our spiritual nature, which the gradation among premortal spirits suggests, that would not be at some future time be rescinded from us, per the premortal rejection of the same.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.

Alternative Education (longest post ever)

It is important to be politically active, vote, and otherwise inform oneself in order to act appropriately in our society... in any society that allows the people a voice in their own governance. However, in doing so, I am not surprised why so many of my generation are disillusioned with politics and feel apathetic towards it. Now that I am trying to be more involved in the political realm, or at least have a better idea of what is truly going on, I am concerned about the politics in my community.

Usually, one does not think that School Board elections are worth expending much effort on, nevertheless, in my opinion, the education of society is the only cure for what I feel are the heart of our social problems: namely, generational perpetuated ignorance. Still, that people can support a candidate for School Board whose children do not even attend public school is baffling. But he has an answer for that:
(Quoting from Scott Bell's website) "While it is true that my children don’t currently attend public school, they have in the past. In addition to home education, we, at times, have used charter schools (public education) as well as the K12 public school curriculum that Alpine School District proudly provides to families wishing to teach their children at home.... This is the same curriculum many “in-school” teachers in our district use in their own classrooms... David McConkie recently said, “What matters most in learning is not… how much teaching experience a person has or even the teacher’s knowledge of… teaching techniques. What matters most is the attitude or spirit by which the teacher teaches.” My wife is qualified to teach our children simply because of her passion for learning and her untiring devotion to giving the best she can in every aspect to each of our children. She knows them better than anyone else, (including myself!) and is best equipped to teach and train them; taking into consideration their unique talents, interests, and even weaknesses. That being said, her focus in her higher education uniquely prepared her to teach. She received a bachelors degree in Human Development from BYU with double minors in Communications and Music." (accessed 31 October 2010)

I include so much because I wish to leave it in context as best as possible. Do his children receive the same education at home as they would at school? Since I do not know them personally I address "alternative education" hypothetically.

One, at times, it is the best option for a student who cannot acclimate to an often difficult social environment in public schools. Two, does it address the issue that his children are not, or as far as he makes clear, never have been in an Alpine School District school? I wish to address the curriculum later, but it is simply saying that his children have, for whatever reason, never been in public school. As to why, I assume from the issues well listed on his website.

Two, do alternatively educated children receive the same education that they would from a public school? Setting private schools aside, while a home school environment can be remedial in certain aspects, it lacks much of what provides the education in a standard school setting, regardless of curriculum. While a person may have degrees in human development, communications, or any other very useful and legitimate degree, this does not uniquely train them to be an effective teacher. Additionally, quoting a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on teaching in the church is hardly a credible source for the teaching of all subjects. While I wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by David McConkie, it should not be removed from the context of teaching Gospel principles, practical Christianity, and not the entirety of what a single "educator" would need to cover in replacing a teaching staff of six to seven trained teachers. It is not about the teacher's knowledge of "teaching techniques," rather the knowledge of the subject taught.

Three, would you employ the "K12 public school curriculum that Alpine School District proudly provides to families wishing to teach their children at home," when you feel it is deficient enough to list this as a reason for running? Given that you do employ the curriculum, is an education based solely on the curriculum, marginalizing the teacher to the simple role of babysitter, whilst the students absorb the information from the curriculum provided? What should be done when the interests of the student extend beyond the abilities and education of the teacher, who in this case is also trying to fulfill the role of parent and friend (an assumption that seems warranted)?
There is much more to a classroom education than just "the right curriculum." Having personally experienced Utah public and private schools, as well as a public school in Tennessee, I can say a few things for certain: all educations institutions have their problems regardless of their public or private status, there is much more to an education than what is just covered in class, the role of parents ought to always be important regardless of where the schooling is done, and the teacher is often the key to the success or failure of the whole enterprise of education. It is not only the excitement of the teacher, but their knowledge in the subject that makes a difference. Very excited and inspiring fallacies are nonetheless fallacies. Though one person can do many things, properly providing a balanced education usually catered by multiple individuals (obviously depending on the age of the student) is rarely possible, despite best intentions.

Four, there is no replacing the need to learn to function in society. Public school can be a very harsh place at times. I have no illusions about the realities children will come face to face with in a public school, even in Utah. While bullying is ever present and a constant worry of many, serious drugs are increasingly available to youth in Utah schools, sexual activity and experimentation is present, as are any number of criminal behaviors which was an issue as I was a student in Alpine School District. Nevertheless, while many foolishly disregard these realities in Utah Valley schools, to cloister children so tightly that their first exposure comes as a freshman in college or in some other form outside of the sanitary controlled environment created by the parents is dangerous and can have long lasting effects. Parents should see that their children are safe and should actively discuss their worries and the realities of life with them, but to deprive them of the skill of learning to live and work with others in an environment not perfectly suited to meet their every need is foolish. Life is not always easy, simple, or arbitrarily unforgiving at times. While this should not encourage parents to expose their children to every terrible thing that they can find or imagine, it should encourage them teach their children, help and support them, and then let them experience life.

Education is vitally important to our society, whether in the community, state, nation, or in the entire world, Education is, in my estimation, of supreme importance in an effort to improve life. I acknowledge that in certain cases, alternative education may be the solution for someone for whom there is no other option. I also feel, as a partial product of Alpine School District, that there are changes that ought to be made to many aspects of the system. Is the solution to simply withdraw, subjecting children to the well meaning attempts of parents to provide an entire education, for which they lack the education to adequately? Sadly, in the vast majority of cases, parents have neither the structure to facilitate other extra-curricular forms of learning, which occurs in simple human interactions between students themselves and with their teachers, nor the education to fully train their children in the variety of subjects necessary to compete in higher levels of education or professional life.

Can alternative education work? Sometimes. Dealing especially with home schooling, does it leave many children with much greater difficulties in all areas of life as a result of the sequestered and inadequate educational experience? I feel that it does.

In any case, that is how I feel.