Jesus And Satan As Brothers

[Maidservant]

I disagree with those who have decided that Satan is no longer a brother. While I understand the reasoning, I simply don't share it. There's a reason that good and evil are brothers, or called brothers, and we are supposed to learn from that . . . in my opinion only.

But to the OP. Don't try to convince anybody of anything. If someone does not want to hear, don't spend the breath talking on yourself. I also refuse to be in the defensive and thereby NOT be in control of the conversation (no doubt easier said than done).

This is how I would try to do it.

"We simply believe that all beings are men and women. Some are perfected and exalted, like God. Some are mortal. Some have chosen to become evil. But everyone is a person. The idea that Satan and Jesus are brothers isn't discussed much in church, although it certainly is a background idea, and there is a lot of variation on how LDS approach this idea. Some may even reject it. But we are all brothers and sisters, we are all simply human beings, so it follows from that, that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers in that group. [THEN I WOULD GET OFF MY SUBJECT AND OVERWHELM HIM WITH QUESTIONS OF GENUINE INTEREST ON HIS BELIEFS AND BACKGROUND AND ALLOW HIM TO TALK ABOUT HIMSELF AND TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING FROM HIM =] So when did you accept Jesus as your personal Savior? I'd love to hear about that, if you are willing to share."

[CASteinman]

I disagree with those who have decided that Satan is no longer a brother. While I understand the reasoning, I simply don't share it. There's a reason that good and evil are brothers, or called brothers, and we are supposed to learn from that

In Mormon doctrines, good and evil are not persons. They are attributes or descriptions of people. Since they are not people they are not able to be brothers.

[Saints Alive]

When people ask me "those question" I turn it around and ask the atheist version of "those questions" ... "so you believe in a go so big he fills the universe, yet so small he can fit in a thimble?" etc.

[Log]

U guys r smrtr thn me. I answer the questions as best I can literally. However, I would take the opportunity, were it to present itself, to bear my testimony. That would end the conversation pretty quick if the questioner were hostile.

[blackstrap]

A biological brother is always a biological brother, he may do things to be disowned and thereby become separated from the family,but he is still a brother.Now IF Christ and Satan are both children of God as we are,then they are brothers as much to each other as to us. Evs do not accept that Christ is a child of God even though He is called the Son of God. Satan,to me,makes more sense as a rebelious son rather than a special creation made solely to tempt and torment man.

[CASteinman]

A biological brother is always a biological brother, he may do things to be disowned and thereby become separated from the family,but he is still a brother.Now IF Christ and Satan are both children of God as we are,then they are brothers as much to each other as to us. Evs do not accept that Christ is a child of God even though He is called the Son of God. Satan,to me,makes more sense as a rebelious son rather than a special creation made solely to tempt and torment man.

There is no biology involved as far as anyone can know. It is all a matter of "covenant" and satan broke the covenant. he is not a child of God as we are.

I also do not think that Jesus is quite the Child of God as we are either, seeing that He now has a new Relationship as Our Father.

And that also is not biological but covenant. Which, basically, you could say was a "legal" thing rather than biological.

[blackstrap]

Are we then children of God in a legal sense only?Were we produced by the "poof" method,or the" God spake" method? Perhaps I am too literal when I think of myself as a child of God. I guess I should be happy as an 'adoptee'.

Edited May 23, 2012 by blackstrap

[blackstrap]

I think Christ holds His position because of His intellingence( I refer to the Book of Abraham ) I also think Satan was right up there also because he was able to present his plan and was also able to draw many with him.

[cdowis]

Some instructive insight from this thread:

"Satan could be considered to have been a brother to Gabriel and Michael, the archangel. But by his own choices and behaviour he no longer can be called a brother. And clearly he is not a brother to Christ."

[CASteinman]

Are we then children of God in a legal sense only?

There are some people who believe that we who were born on this earth are also biological Children of God. I would like to believe that. I could even hope it. But its hard to see how it really could be true.

But this would not apply to people not born ... and satan was not born.

Were we produced by the "poof" method,or the" God spake" method? Perhaps I am too literal when I think of myself as a child of God. I guess I should be happy as an 'adoptee'.

Adoptee is good. And if so, then we are legally heirs... and joint heirs with Christ. (See Romans chapter 8 ). That is why we are promised that if we overcome, we shall sit in His Throne (see Revelation Chapter 3)

(BTW....We were not "created". We are eternal beings. See Abraham Chapter 3).

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[blackstrap]

God "created" all things on earth 'spiritually' first before they were "created" physically. Thus sayeth the scriptures. If created means nothing more or less than 'organized' ,then our spiritual bodies were organized from a less ordered form by some process,whether or not that process had a biological aspect to it.

[Garden Girl]

I don't think there is any really good apologetic approach to this. The Divine Council angle either raises Lucifer to the level of a god, or demotes Jesus to the level of an angel.

But maybe a "less bad" apologetic approach is to minimize or even get rid of the "spirit babies" doctrine--the idea that both Jesus and Lucifer emerged as spirit babies from the birth canal of a Heavenly Mother. I know that is a treasured doctrine among modern Mormons, but it is nowhere in the LDS canon. .

The problem is, how do you minimize the "spirit babies" doctrine when that noncanonical doctrine has become so widespread, and any Evangelical can go and find numerous post-Smith quotations by LDS leaders?

Cobalt...

I don't believe it is a "treasured doctrine" that both Jesus and Lucifer emerged as "spirit babies" from the birth canal of a Heavenly Mother... and you are right, it is nowhere in our canon, and I've never heard that before. And I've never heard an LDS leader teach such a doctrine... I would be more than surprised and upset if "modern Mormons" are pursuing this pure speculation...

GG

[Alexx]

I think it would be interesting to talk about "intelligences" at this point. Imho Nothing was created in the first place, just organized.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't believe it is a "treasured doctrine" that both Jesus and Lucifer emerged as "spirit babies" from the birth canal of a Heavenly Mother... and you are right, it is nowhere in our canon, and I've never heard that before. And I've never heard an LDS leader teach such a doctrine... I would be more than surprised and upset if "modern Mormons" are pursuing this pure speculation...

If someone hasn't heard Mormons express the idea that exalted women literally give birth to spirit children in the afterlife then they probably have not been through the CES system. Or maybe they are too young or haven't been Mormon for very long. Orson Pratt was the popularizer of this doctrine, but Brigham Young and others also taught it, and it has been circulating since their time. Any time a church publication or leader uses the word "literally" in reference to being children of god or heavenly parents, that is a coded reference to this doctrine.

Cobalt: Bringing Heavenly Mother's "birth canal" into the discussion is not only disrespectful, it's a claim with no reference.

--ed. by Cobalt-70: No disrespect is intended on my part. If there is disrespect, I think it is in the doctrine itself, with which I disagree. I think it was Orson Pratt who first discussed the literal model of spirit birth, with essentially a 9-month gestation (The Seer 37-38), but Young and others agreed. It was a natural element of Adam God, and carried over into the post-1916 theology.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

If someone hasn't heard Mormons express the idea that exalted women literally give birth to spirit children in the afterlife then they probably have not been through the CES system. Or maybe they are too young or haven't been Mormon for very long. Orson Pratt was the popularizer of this doctrine, but Brigham Young and others also taught it, and it has been circulating since their time. Any time a church publication or leader uses the word "literally" in reference to being children of god or heavenly parents, that is a coded reference to this doctrine.

coded reference? You mean there is not a secret eye wink; I am almost certain there is an eyewink that goes with it. Oh, and where do you find that teaching in the scriptures? If it ain't there; it ain't scripture; if it ain't scripture; you got speculation on your hands and no doctrine in sight. I hate it when people toss around speculation as if it is doctrine! It is like tossing gossip.

[CASteinman]

If someone hasn't heard Mormons express the idea that exalted women literally give birth to spirit children in the afterlife then they probably have not been through the CES system. Or maybe they are too young or haven't been Mormon for very long. Orson Pratt was the popularizer of this doctrine, but Brigham Young and others also taught it, and it has been circulating since their time. Any time a church publication or leader uses the word "literally" in reference to being children of god or heavenly parents, that is a coded reference to this doctrine.

Oh, I don't think so at all.

I have been a Mormon for about 35 years. I read more of the Doctrinal History of the Church and No Man Knows my History than the Book of Mormon before I joined. I have read large portions of the JoD in the intervening years and I graduated from Institute in the CES.

And I have never ever seen this taught. I have seen other things taught that are sketchy, hard to understand or repudiated, but never saw this.

I don't want to make this into any sort of "I insist" or "prove it" kinda deal, but I have searched for anything like what you are talking about and cannot find it. If you have any references, citations, quotes or something, I would be interested to see them. If you don't... that's fine.

[zerinus]

The other day while in a local fast food establishment [where I have eaten adinfinentum times over the past 20 + years], and one of the owners son's [ The family are Greek Orthodox and we have a awesome relationship] introdused me to one of his friends an evangelical christian who was eating there. After a brief introduction [and him finding out I was "Mormon"] he stated that biblicaly I was a non Christian cultist for believing that Jesus was the spirit brother of lucifer. He stated that lucifer was a created being of GOD- Jesus, and was an angel who was in charge of the music in heaven. and I tried to explain our position as satan originaly being one of the bene ha elohiem [son's of God] in Gen 1-2, Duet 32:8-9, Job 1+2, Isaiah 40-50 in various assembly council meeting's/setting's in Heaven over a period before and during time.But he gave his Bible alone and Jesus creating Lucifer and no brotherhood of the two because of that explanation. I gave him some some LDS Aplogetic works concering this but the were immediatly thrown in the garbage/trash. I then remembered about pearls and swine. Any future advise ?. Thanks.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

In those situations "reasoning" with the person, or offering an explanation, will never work, because he is not interested in one. He is picking a fight, not starting a debate. He is launching an attack, and trying to put you on the defensive. An "explanation" in that situation will not do. It is like trying to argue with someone who is brandishing a gun and started shooting. If you try to debate with him he will just shoot you dead. The right way is to neutralize his attack, and put him on the defensive. Once you have turned the tables on him, there may be an opportunity to offer an explanation, if not for his benefit, then for the benefit of others who may be observing. How you neutralize his attack and put him on the defensive may vary according to the situation; but as a general rule, reminding him of the Apostasy, and that the religion he believed in is in fact an apostate religion with a lot of false and corrupt doctrines etc. will work. You are now putting him on the defensive, which he will find hard to defend against, because it is true. Having thus neutralized his attack, offering an explanation may be appropriate depending on the situation.

[Vance]

To him and many of our non LDS Christian Bro/Sis Angels are are a different level of reality/species than God The Father God Jesus Christ God Holy Ghost because angels are "created".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Does he know that in the Greek NT John the Baptist is the "angel" to prepare the way of the Lord?

(In reality, the evangelical doctrine separating "angels" from "men" can't be supported from the Greek and Hebrew. It is only in the English that they can be separated. In other words, their doctrine is a result of errors in translation.

Whoops, there goes "sola scriptura" under the bus.)

Edited to add,

According to Strong's, the Hebrew word "mal'ak" as found in Malachi 3:1 is translated "angel" 111 out of 214 times in the KJV.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4397&t=KJV

And, the Greek word "aggelos" as found in Mark 1:2 is translated "angel" 179 out of 186 times in the KJV.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G32&t=KJV

Yet in these verses they are translated "messenger" and are referring to John the Baptist.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

The problem is, how do you minimize the "spirit babies" doctrine when that noncanonical doctrine has become so widespread, and any Evangelical can go and find numerous post-Smith quotations by LDS leaders?

"spirit babies" is an anti-Mormon shibboleth. Nothing more.

[rameumptom]

What I use is Jesus' statement when he was told that his mother and brothers were waiting outside for him:

Mark 3:31-35

And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Therefore, when Lucifer was obedient and did the will of God, he was Jesus' brother. When he rebelled, he no longer was his brother.

[Maidservant]

In Mormon doctrines, good and evil are not persons. They are attributes or descriptions of people. Since they are not people they are not able to be brothers.

All things offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ are symbols. ALL.

ALL.

ALL.

Symbolism precludes neither historicity nor tangible/daily/present realities. Symbolisms allow us to gradually comprehend a greater reality.

The stories we tell in Mormonism, in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon are primers. They are not meant to be read at the primer level forever. We must pass through the veil on them, so to speak.

Now not everyone has to agree with my understanding on the symbols. And, indeed, my understanding changes over time.

But to say that the templates and patterns offered in the gospel and in the Restoration aren't symbolic or don't lend themselves to symbolism at all is to miss what the point of the stories are at all.

I maintain: There are no beings other than human beings (in terms of god/angel/demon/man; obviously there are animals and plants, etc). I maintain that this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches plainly. Whether there is one kingpin who is called Satan, or whether that represents all of us or any of us depending on our choices--OR BOTH--it is all people, all brothers and sisters, because that familyhood is based on a literal spirit birth from our Heavenly Father (or whatever that represents).

Again, on this basis, I have never heard until this thread that Satan has un-become our brother. I have never heard that his brother-hood is covenant based only. Now, I trust that other people may have come to that understanding in their own learning and spiritual progression. Or maybe there is a conference quote I missed. But I trust that I am able to learn on my own as well, and thus I disagree with these takes. The basics that I have to believe are in the thirteen articles of faith (etc). Everything else is going to have a variation among LDS and that is allowed and even encouraged.

If you SAY that Jesus and Satan are brothers, then YES, there is a door to opening the symbolism that good and evil are brothers and this is in the realm of symbolism which some people are comfortable in. There is no purpose to a semantics game on this (in my opinion). Even if you disagree in the end, I don't know why it's not worth thinking on a bit.

God bless .

[Log]

Whether there is one kingpin who is called Satan, or whether that represents all of us or any of us depending on our choices--OR BOTH--it is all people, all brothers and sisters, because that familyhood is based on a literal spirit birth from our Heavenly Father (or whatever that represents).

Again, on this basis, I have never heard until this thread that Satan has un-become our brother. I have never heard that his brother-hood is covenant based only.

MS - do you not see that we become the children of Christ by covenant, which covenant is accompanied by a literal spiritual rebirth? Whence, therefore, cometh your distaste for this concept?

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[altersteve]

What I use is Jesus' statement when he was told that his mother and brothers were waiting outside for him:

Mark 3:31-35

Therefore, when Lucifer was obedient and did the will of God, he was Jesus' brother. When he rebelled, he no longer was his brother.

Awesome.

And if you'll allow me to briefly digress here -- according to Jesus' words here, Latter-day Saints are members of His family too. Good luck to non-LDS Christians in trying to make the case that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't "do the will of God" through service to His children.

Edited May 23, 2012 by altersteve

[Maidservant]

MS - do you not see that we become the children of Christ by covenant, which covenant is accompanied by a literal spiritual rebirth? Whence, therefore, cometh your distaste for this concept?

To begin with, symbolically or otherwise, to be a (literal and ontological) spirit child of our Father in heaven is different to me than being a child of Christ by covenant. Those are both important concepts, but apples and oranges to me. It's obvious that Satan (as himself and/or whatever he represents) has not made any covenant with Christ and therefore doesn't have a portion of anything we could discuss on that. But I didn't know that was ever up-for-grabs on the definition of brotherhood for Satan.

Was or was there not a pre-mortal birth event for Lucifer that is identical to all of our own, including Jehovah's? Yes. Whether this is actual or theological doesn't matter in some sense (in others it would), only that we conceive of it as identical. Some identical beginning for all of us--the same family, brothers and sisters. And this IS important because it means that you become Satan subsequent to the birth event.

One of my brothers doesn't have his temple covenants like the rest of us (6 others) in my earth sibling family. Obviously I'm not saying he's evil (he's a sweetheart) so that part of the metaphor isn't going to hold. But while he doesn't have the same opportunity to be in that covenant family, I don't waste any breath explaining how he isn't my brother because of that. He's my brother because he was born from my mother and begat from my father.

So how is this different from Lucifer's situation? What about Hitler? Has he stopped being a son of God?

In any case, I'm not trying to convince anyone else, but just sharing and discussing. I don't have a problem with the way others are expressing it--oh, well, I do, I guess, but I'm only responsible for my own thinking--but I just don't subscribe to it.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Maidservant...

I, for one, have never believed that the method of procreation we have here is the way it has been, is, or will be beyond the veil... I believe the intimate physical act is for this sphere. Rather, I follow the symbolism of Adam being created from the elements of the earth to more accurately portray a higher level of "creation."

I think of D&C 101:32,33 where we are told that "in that day when the Lord shall come" the Lord shall reveal all things... things that have passed... hidden things... things that no man knew. The things of the earth, how it was made, the purpose and end thereof... Things most precious, things above, beneath, in and upon the earth... including us.

This says to me we have a lot to learn... which takes me to Isaiah 55:8,9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

GG