Where Does Satan Come From?

[Kevin Christensen]

Here is an early Christian take on the subject. Nibely referred to this in his Enoch series, and I believe Neal Maxwell quoted it in a General Conference.

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/abbaton.htm

Also worth reading, with a different perspective, Rene Girard's book, I See Satan Fall Like Lighting.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 11, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Storm Rider]

Is Jesus the brother of Satan? I think not!

Spiritually speaking, we become “brothers and sisters” and “sons and daughters” to those whom we follow and choose to obey. For example, the Jews believed (quite rightly) that they were the “children of Abraham”. But Jesus told those Jews who were plotting to kill Him, that if Abraham was their father (as they protested he was), they would do the works of Abraham; but now in fact Satan was their father, because they were following Satan and doing his works:

John 8

:

39 They answered and said unto him,

Abraham is our father

. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would

do the works of Abraham

.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the

deeds of your father

. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them,

If God were your Father, ye would love me:

for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of

your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do

. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. . . .

Similarly, He told those who came to look for him on behalf of His mother and brothers, who had become anxious for His safety, that His mother, and brother, and sister, were those who did the will of His Father which is in heaven:

Matthew 12

:

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For

whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother

.

Thus, in answer to the question, “Is Jesus the brother of Satan?” The answer is definitely, “No!” Since Satan has rebelled against God, and been cast out of heaven and become lost forever, he is not the “brother” of anybody except the evil spirits which followed him, and those who will follow him hereafter. Jesus is a “brother” only to those who do the will of His Father which is in heaven. Satan does no such thing; it therefore follows that he and his followers are no “brother of Jesus”. They are the brother of nobody except the evil spirits who followed Satan, or who will follow him hereafter.

I am an orthodox believing Mormon, a TBM, and I strongly object to the assertion that “Jesus is the brother of Satan”. I don’t believe He is any such thing.

You have limited the definition of brother and son, which is perfectly acceptable as long as you always define it such prior to talking. In that we are all the children of God and that there are no other species of human creature, i.e. angels are not a separate species from us, then using a different definition of brother and/or son we arrive at a different conclusion.

Frankly, neither definition bothers me and my thinking of creation. I tend to be more inclusive thinking that God is the Father of all and thus my definition is the one I use most.

[Questing Beast]

...

Would you say satan is attached to the true vine, or cut off from the vine?

I would say that a parable about vines is not literal. But "Satan" is as much a manifestation of "God" as any part of the rest of the universe is.

From your understanding, can God cause something to be immortal? Meaning that it cannot be killed, obliterated, or annihilated, and can function on its own?

What would you say? Yes or No?

No. "Cannot" is fallacious when talking about the power of God....

[ERayR]

I am familiar with the scriptures you and others have cited, and with your arguments; as well as with the scriptures I have cited, and my arguments. The difference is where you like to put the emphasis. The enemies of the Church who accuse us of believing that "Jesus is the brother of Satan" follow the other emphasis because they believe that that is one way of successfully campaigning against Mormonism; and you are playing into their hands by agreeing with them. I prefer to defeat them by placing the emphasis where I have put it, rather than hand them the victory by placing the emphasis where they like to put it.

If you agree that the scriptures I have cited are correct, and the conclusions I have derived from them are valid, why do you think it is preferable to place the emphasis where you like to put it, rather than where I like to put it?

In taking this approach you are only playing word games the same as those who try to use it as a club. It is what it is. We are all children of our

Father in Heaven. Including Lucifer. I do not like "spin doctoring". A dog is a dog. A bird is a bird, etc, etc. No amount of word games can change a thing. It only tends to obfuscate things.

[zerinus]

You have limited the definition of brother and son, which is perfectly acceptable as long as you always define it such prior to talking. In that we are all the children of God and that there are no other species of human creature, i.e. angels are not a separate species from us, then using a different definition of brother and/or son we arrive at a different conclusion.

Frankly, neither definition bothers me and my thinking of creation. I tend to be more inclusive thinking that God is the Father of all and thus my definition is the one I use most.

I didn't define it that way, Jesus did. Sometimes he liked to define it one way, and sometimes another way, as it suited His purpose; and I like to do the same.

[zerinus]

In taking this approach you are only playing word games the same as those who try to use it as a club. It is what it is. We are all children of our

Father in Heaven. Including Lucifer. I do not like "spin doctoring". A dog is a dog. A bird is a bird, etc, etc. No amount of word games can change a thing. It only tends to obfuscate things.

See my previous reply to Storm Rider.

[alter idem]

Did not he [Jesus] recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter?

TAO

emphasis added

Very thought provoking quote from President Kimball and a good one to keep in mind when this topic comes up again, and again, and again--as it certainly will .--thanks, Calmoriah.

In taking this approach you are only playing word games the same as those who try to use it as a club. It is what it is. We are all children of our

Father in Heaven. Including Lucifer. I do not like "spin doctoring". A dog is a dog. A bird is a bird, etc, etc. No amount of word games can change a thing. It only tends to obfuscate things

I agree Erayr, The arguments against admitting there is some element of truth in it seem like 'spin'--at the very least, IMO, it's unfairly misleading to those who genuinely have questions about what we believe.

It seems to me that sometimes when confronted by others of other religions as well as our critics, we may allow our 'fear of men' and desire to be liked and accepted persuade us from being honest about what we believe. I see nothing shameful in the FACT that our father in Heaven had 1/3 of his children(probably many with great promise such as Lucifer) turn against him. Most of us know that this happens to the best of parents in our world as well--We were given the gift to think, choose and act for ourselves and it cost our Heavenly Father dearly to grant the free exercise of this gift.

I read a book about Joseph Stalin and the thought came to me that some of the worst tyrants in history could have been some of the greatest people ever to live--had they chosen to use their talents and ability to do good, rather than evil. I suspect Lucifer was similar, before that fateful council in Heaven, when the seeds of bitterness and rebellion were sown in his soul.

[zerinus]

deleted

Edited July 10, 2011 by zerinus

[Ron Beron]

Is Jesus the brother of Satan? I think not!

A creation of God he most certainly is...a disinherited son he probably is as well. In Job satan (not a proper pronoun, hence, name) is used as an adversarial messenger angel. Only after the diaspora and into the intertestamental and New Testament periods was a considered the dichotomy of God's goodness.

[Ron Beron]

If you agree that the scriptures I have cited are correct, and the conclusions I have derived from them are valid, why do you think it is preferable to place the emphasis where you like to put it, rather than where I like to put it?

What difference does intonational emphasis have to do with it? In metaphysical reality the entity known as satan was a literal creation of God. He has placed himself outside of God's love and inheritance. He is not a son of God and therefore a "brother" of Jesus because of his self-imposed disenfranchisement not because he was an alien creature who invaded the halls of Heaven.

[Ron Beron]

Here is an early Christian take on the subject. Nibely referred to this in his Enoch series, and I believe Neal Maxwell quoted it in a General Conference.

http://www.thinlyvei...com/abbaton.htm

Also worth reading, with a different perspective, Rene Girard's book, I See Satan FallLigh Lighting.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

This reminds me of the Greek temple dedicated to Hera called, "Hera Akraia". Supposedly begun by Medea herself it housed a particularly grotesque statue called, "the Horror".

[zerinus]

A creation of God he most certainly is...a disinherited son he probably is as well. In Job satan (not a proper pronoun, hence, name) is used as an adversarial messenger angel. Only after the diaspora and into the intertestamental and New Testament periods was a considered the dichotomy of God's goodness.

What difference does intonational emphasis have to do with it? In metaphysical reality the entity known as satan was a literal creation of God. He has placed himself outside of God's love and inheritance. He is not a son of God and therefore a "brother" of Jesus because of his self-imposed disenfranchisement not because he was an alien creature who invaded the halls of Heaven.

Okay, so I will meet you half way then. We will agree that Satan was a brother of Jesus, but is not so now. So if our Evangelical friends (or enemies, depending on how you want to look at it) said that Mormons believe Satan was a brother of Jesus, we would agree with them; but if they said that Mormons believe that Satan is a brother of Jesus, we will disagree with them. Is that a good deal? Would you go along with that?

Edited July 11, 2011 by zerinus

[Ron Beron]

Okay, so I will meet you half way then. We will agree that Satan was a brother of Jesus, but is not so now. So if our Evangelical friends (or enemies, depending on how you want to look at it) said that Mormons believe Satan was a brother of Jesus, we would agree with them; but if they said that Mormons believe that Satan is a brother of Jesus, we will disagree with them. Is that a good deal? Would you go along with that?

Fair enough.

[zerinus]

Fair enough.

Thank you. Next question: Do you think they are going to do that any time soon? I very much doubt it, because they are the enemies of the Church and want to misrepresent it. And I for one don't believe in giving them an inch, never mind handing them victory, as other posters here have been advocating.

[Ron Beron]

Thank you. Next question: Do you think they are going to do that any time soon? I very much doubt it, because they are the enemies of the Church and want to misrepresent it. And I for one don't believe in giving them an inch, never mind handing them victory, as other posters here have been advocating.

Why worry about them? For all their prattle and obfuscation the only result will be an ensuing curiosity on the part of the unbrainwashed to ask those who know.

[zerinus]

Why worry about them? For all their prattle and obfuscation the only result will be an ensuing curiosity on the part of the unbrainwashed to ask those who know.

I disagree. I believe that when they raise a challenge, it should be answered, as commanded by the Lord:

D&C 71

:

5 Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly,

even power

.

7 Wherefore,

confound your enemies;

call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

8 Wherefore,

let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord

.

9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;

10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

We are not supposed to lie down and let them walk all over us. We are to answer their challenges; but do it properly, the way the Lord has recommended.

Edited July 11, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

Satan may have been Lucifer, a Son of the Morning, but when he rebelled he was cast down and essentially disinherited. So technically he would no longer be considered a son or brother.

No, he's still a son of our Father in heaven, which is what gives our Father the right and responsibility to put him in his place and take blessings away from him when and because he is rebelling instead of being obedient.

Our Father never has and never will disinherit any of us as his children. It's just that he can't bless us with blessings which are contingent upon obedience to his laws unless we are obedient to them, one way or another. And as most of us have learned the hard way, the only way to be obedient after being in rebellion is to accept Jesus as our Savior, which Satan hasn't done yet and probably never will do.

But I too am surprised someone in the church never heard of this.

Some people just don't pay attention very well in Church meetings, and not hearing this particular doctrien doesn't surprise me at all considering it's not repeated all that often in comparison to some other doctrines.

I do find it strange that people have a hard time with the idea. Even in mortality we may have siblings that we don't want anything to do with. The fact that they may be evil doesn't make us evil and it demonstrates the Agency that God gave us. I don't see how saying we have a fallen brother is worse than saying God created an evil Being.

I'm with you on all of those counts.

[alter idem]

I disagree. I believe that when they raise a challenge, it should be answered, as commanded by the Lord:

D&C 71

:

5 Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly,

even power

.

7 Wherefore,

confound your enemies;

call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

8 Wherefore,

let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord

.

9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;

10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

I think others here agree--I don't see any on the other side refusing to answer the challenge. But I do see that our answers are different.

We are not supposed to lie down and let them walk all over us. We are to answer their challenges; but do it properly, the way the Lord has recommended.

Yes, we ought to do it properly and honestly. If one resorts to dissembling to 'confound' your enemy, I'd say that's not right.

The question was "Where does Satan come from?" If one is to answer properly and honestly, I believe they must start with the pre-existence. This is what Joseph Fielding Smith said;

There was a council held in Heaven, when the Lord called before him his spirit children and presented to them a plan by which they should come down on this earth; partake of mortal life and physical bodies; pass through a probation of mortality, and then go on to a higher exaltation through the resurrection which should be brought about the through the atonement of his Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. pg. 58 Doc. of Salvation vol 1

We learn from the scriptures that Lucifer--once a son of the morning, who exercised authority in the presence of God before the foundations of this earth were laid--rebelled against the plan of salvation and against Jesus Christ who was chosen to be the Savior of the world and who is spoken of as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. pg. 218-219 Doctrines of Salvation vol 11

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed with more revealed knowledge than other churches, especially when it comes to an understanding of the Pre-mortal world. I think we should be clear when teaching others. All who attended the council in Heaven were God's spirit children. Lucifer was there and so were the 1/3 who followed him. They were God's children also. When they fell and were cast out, Lucifer became Perdition and those who followed him become "sons of Perdition". Likewise, we become the spiritual 'sons of God and Christ' when we follow Jesus Christ.

IMO, you can answer the additional question, 'Are Jesus and Satan brothers?' with a "No" only if you are willing to honestly share the origins of Satan--that he was once a brother to all of us--BUT, with rebelling against God has become Perdition--Satan/the Devil. If an investigator goes on to learn about the pre-mortal existence, and were told an emphatic 'NO' without explanation, they may feel later that they were misled on this subject.

Edited July 11, 2011 by alter idem

[zerinus]

Yes, we ought to do it properly and honestly. If one resorts to dissembling to 'confound' your enemy, I'd say that's not right.

Maybe that is what you think I am doing, but I am not. I am no more “dissembling” than Jesus was when He called the murderous Jews that Satan was their real father not God, nor Abraham.

The question was "Where does Satan come from?" If one is to answer properly and honestly, I believe they must start with the pre-existence. This is what Joseph Fielding Smith said;

As if the enemies of the Church don’t already know. Those who try to cast the Church in a negative (even blasphemous) light by accusing us of believing that Jesus is the “brother of Stan” know that perfectly well. They do that in order to portray the Church in a blasphemous light by accusing us of somehow tainting Jesus with evil by association with Satan. In reality they are the ones who are “dissembling,” not me. The correct answer to it is the one that I have given, not the one you are suggesting.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed with more revealed knowledge than other churches, especially when it comes to an understanding of the Pre-mortal world. I think we should be clear when teaching others. All who attended the council in Heaven were God's spirit children. Lucifer was there and so were the 1/3 who followed him. They were God's children also. When they fell and were cast out, Lucifer became Perdition and those who followed him become "sons of Perdition". Likewise, we become the spiritual 'sons of God and Christ' when we follow Jesus Christ.

That teaching has its time and place. But it serves no purpose when it comes to answering those who try to put us on a spot for example by asking in a public forum, “Do you believe that Jesus is a brother of Satan?” They know perfectly well what we believe; it is no good telling them that. The right answer to it is the one I have given. That will knock the wind out of their sail, not the answer you are trying to give. If you can find a doctrinal error in the answer I have given, then you are justified in objecting to it; but since by your own admission you can’t, then you have no valid objections to it either.

IMO, you can answer the additional question, 'Are Jesus and Satan brothers?' with a "No" only if you are willing to honestly share the origins of Satan--that he was once a brother to all of us--BUT, with rebelling against God has become Perdition--Satan/the Devil. If an investigator goes on to learn about the pre-mortal existence, and were told an emphatic 'NO' without explanation, they may feel later that they were misled on this subject.

Of course I am willing to share that; but it has its time and place. There is no point in sharing it with people who already know it, but still try to use that lie as a shock tactic to attack the Church.

“A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word spoken in due season, how good is it!”

(Proverbs 15:23.)

[Ahab]

IMO, you can answer the additional question, 'Are Jesus and Satan brothers?' with a "No" only if you are willing to honestly share the origins of Satan--that he was once a brother to all of us--BUT, with rebelling against God has become Perdition--Satan/the Devil. If an investigator goes on to learn about the pre-mortal existence, and were told an emphatic 'NO' without explanation, they may feel later that they were misled on this subject.

The fact that a child of our Father became known as Satan as well as Perdition doesn't mean he was then no longer a child of our Father in heaven. He was and always will be, after our Father did what he did to create him, and even though he's the ultimate black sheep of our Father's family a "No" to the question of whether or not he is a child of our Father is and always will be a wrong answer.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ahab