Jesus And Satan As Brothers

[CASteinman]

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

ALL.

ALL.

You and I are not in agreement at all. I consider the core of the Gospel, the Atonement of Jesus Christ to not be symbolic. And most things are not symbolic. A few things are. But not so many that it comes close to "ALL".

We just simply do not agree. And I do not believe that there is any evidence in the teachings of the modern Prophets and Apostles for your position that Jesus and satan are symbols of something.

[Log]

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.

Here is where I am going to put something forth: it is possible to be LDS and not to subscribe to what the notion that we are, on a bio-spiritual level, the physical offspring of God, which Cobalt-70 has so crassly described. While this concept may be inferred from the scripture, it is not necessitated thereby.

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.

My point was that we could, just as we become children of Christ through entering into a covenant with him and are hence born again as his sons and daughters, be sons and daughters of God on the exact same principle.

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.

However, if he was made your brother by entering into a covenant with your parents, and not by blood, and he exits that covenant, then he is no longer your brother.

See, if we accept the notion that we, as full-fledged individuals, have eternally existed, having no beginning of days nor end of years, which position can be supportable by reference to the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants, then it becomes plausible that we became the sons and daughters of God by entering into a covenant with him and being spiritually born of him, just as in this life we enter into a covenant with Christ and are then spiritually born of him as his sons and daughters.

I find this concept interesting. I don't know that I believe it, but it is a possible belief among Mormons, and I don't find the notion distasteful. It might even be a useful position to adopt.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[altersteve]

I consider the core of the Gospel, the Atonement of Jesus Christ to not be symbolic.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is most definitely symbolic -- a symbol of God's love for us.

[CASteinman]

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is most definitely symbolic -- a symbol of God's love for us.

You and I are in terrific disagreement. It was no symbol. Jesus said: "which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, to bleed from every pore, to suffer both body and spirit - and would that I might not drink the bitter cup - and shrink"

To call that "symbolic" is so denigrating and insulting -- it makes me sad to see you say it.

There are plenty of symbols -- but they all eventually point to this core, absolute reality defining event. It was no symbol. It was actually the Love itself in eternity-shaking action.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[BCSpace]

When Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven, he essentially made the choice to no longer be part of God's family. Jesus Christ and Satan are not "brothers."

Cobalt-70, on 22 May 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

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.

No Mormon I know has ever expressed the belief that Jesus Christ, Satan, or anyone else came from our Heavenly Mother's "birth canal."

That Jesus and Satan are literal spirit brothers now is the official doctrine of the LDS Church. Lucifer's choice and fall did not change his parentage any more than someone being disowned from a family changes their parentage.

Devil

See also Antichrist; Destroyer; Hell; Lucifer; Sons of Perdition; Spirit—Evil spirits.

Satan. The devil is the enemy of righteousness and of those who seek to do the will of God. He is literally a spirit son of God and was at one time an angel in authority in the presence of God (Isa. 14:12; 2 Ne. 2:17). However, he rebelled in the premortal life and persuaded a third part of the spirit children of the Father to rebel with him (D&C 29:36; Moses 4:1–4; Abr. 3:27–28). They were cast out of heaven, were denied the opportunity of obtaining mortal bodies and experiencing mortal life, and will be eternally damned. Since the time the devil was cast out of heaven, he has sought constantly to deceive all men and women and lead them away from the work of God in order to make all mankind as miserable as he is (Rev. 12:9; 2 Ne. 2:27; 9:8–9).

http://www.lds.org/s.../devil?lang=eng

I would say that if one minimized or removed from one's apologetic the official doctrine that we are literal spirit brothers and sisters, including Satan and Jesus, however that came to pass, then one is no longer an apologist. At least not for the LDS Church but for one's own church.

Edited May 23, 2012 by BCSpace

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Do you not find it odd, strange, an awkward analogy, that you see someone with a different religion, a different point of view as someone armed with a gun and shooting? In your words, "If you try to debate with him he will just shoot you dead." It sounds like it is you who are looking for a fight.

[CASteinman]

That Jesus and Satan are literal spirit brothers now is the official doctrine of the LDS Church. Lucifer's choice and fall did not change his parentage any more than someone being disowned from a family changes their parentage.

If only that were so. However, the official doctrine is that he was cast out. I am unable to find creditable sources that place his position in the family of God in any context other than past tense. So, no longer a son of God, he *became* satan -- is now called "perdition" - cast out and lost -- and his followers are now his "sons" not sons of God.

[altersteve]

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

I don't think it's reasonable to make that comparison.

We're not saying that just because someone makes a wrong decision or doesn't take part in temple covenants and family sealings means they stop being children of God. Satan committed the unforgivable sin by denying God with a perfect knowledge of Him. Hitler did not have that knowledge. But Satan knew of Christ's plan and I think he knew that accepting it would bring him happiness -- but he was arrogant and he let his pride get in the way of what he knew was more important. He and those who followed him didn't want to be part of something that would put them at any kind of inconvenience.

Don't get me wrong, what Hitler did was horrific -- but at least Hitler can be forgiven. Satan can't, but only because, in my opinion, he chooses to not be. It's not in his nature to repent because he doesn't consider himself as a child of God anymore. It's not that Heavenly Father kicked him out the family -- well, He did, but Satan chose to kick himself out and Heavenly Father isn't going to force anyone to be with Him, which is why Satan's rebellion broke His heart. That's the only way the unforgivable sin can truly be unforgivable, by exercising your agency, as Satan did, to knowingly reject God and kicking yourself out of His presence after having a perfect knowledge of who He is.

What I'm trying to say is that the reason Satan is not a member of the great Heavenly Family is because he, even with a perfect knowledge of God, doesn't consider himself one.

[BCSpace]

This doctrine of literal parentage is taught to us form a very young age:

Attention Activity

Display picture 7-5, Family with a Baby. Ask the children the following questions:

•How do you think these parents feel to have this new baby?

•Where did this baby’s spirit live before it was born?

•Who is its earthly mother? Who is its earthly father? Who is the Father of its spirit?

Explain that, just like this baby, each of us has an earthly father and mother and that Heavenly Father is also the Father of our spirits.

Display the picture Jesus the Christ.

•Who is Jesus’ mother? Who is Jesus’ Father?

Help the children understand that Jesus is different from us because Heavenly Father is the father of Jesus’ earthly body. Tell them that this lesson will teach them more about Jesus’ birth.

------------------------------

•Why is Jesus called the Only Begotten of the Father? (Jesus is the only person born in mortality whose physical father is Heavenly Father.) Explain that as Mary’s husband, Joseph was chosen to be the man who would help teach and raise Jesus.

•How does Jesus’ relationship with Heavenly Father differ from our relationship with Heavenly Father?

•Why was it important for Jesus’ mother to be mortal? Help the children understand that because Mary was mortal, Jesus was also mortal and could die for us. Also help the children understand that because Heavenly Father is the father of Jesus’ physical body, Jesus did not have to die (see John 5:26; 10:17–18). He chose to suffer for our sins and overcome death (see Alma 22:14; D&C 19:16–19).

http://www.lds.org/m...father?lang=eng

Edited May 23, 2012 by BCSpace

[CASteinman]

I don't think it's reasonable to make that comparison.

We're not saying that just because someone makes a wrong decision or doesn't take part in temple covenants and family sealings means they stop being children of God. Satan committed the unforgivable sin by denying God with a perfect knowledge of Him. Hitler did not have that knowledge. But Satan knew of Christ's plan and I think he knew that accepting it would bring him happiness -- but he was arrogant and he let his pride get in the way of what he knew was more important. He and those who followed him didn't want to be part of something that would put them at any kind of inconvenience.

Don't get me wrong, what Hitler did was horrific -- but at least Hitler can be forgiven. Satan can't, but only because, in my opinion, he chooses to not be. It's not in his nature to repent because he doesn't consider himself as a child of God anymore. It's not that Heavenly Father kicked him out the family -- well, He did, but Satan chose to kick himself out and Heavenly Father isn't going to force anyone to be with Him, which is why Satan's rebellion broke His heart. That's the only way the unforgivable sin can truly be unforgivable, by exercising your agency, as Satan did, to knowingly reject God and kicking yourself out of His presence after having a perfect knowledge of who He is.

What I'm trying to say is that the reason Satan is not a member of the great Heavenly Family is because he, even with a perfect knowledge of God, doesn't consider himself one.

Shortly after WWII a General Authority spoke in Conference about having a vision of Hitler in Spirit Prison, repenting, abjectly. He said that upon seeing that vision, that he felt it was a testimony to the love of God.

[BCSpace]

I think even people like Hitler can and will repent. It won't make them eligible for the Celestial Kingdom because, as the scriptures say, a murder has no eternal life, and also that David has lost his exaltation (he committed murder indirectly), but it would seem necessary to obatain any degree of glory at all as such are part of God's kingdom.

[Log]

If only that were so. However, the official doctrine is that he was cast out. I am unable to find creditable sources that place his position in the family of God in any context other than past tense. So, no longer a son of God, he *became* satan -- is now called "perdition" - cast out and lost -- and his followers are now his "sons" not sons of God.

An excellent point, and quite in support of the "covenant relationship" view. Maybe that position is stronger than I thought!

[altersteve]

You and I are in terrific disagreement. It was no symbol. Jesus said: "which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, to bleed from every pore, to suffer both body and spirit - and would that I might not drink the bitter cup - and shrink"

To call that "symbolic" is so denigrating and insulting -- it makes me sad to see you say it.

There are plenty of symbols -- but they all eventually point to this core, absolute reality defining event. It was no symbol. It was actually the Love itself in eternity-shaking action.

You misunderstood me. Earlier I used the term "symbolic" loosely. I completely accept the Atonement of Christ as THE absolute, reality-defining event, the most sublime event that has ever took place in the history of eternity, and the very core of everything I believe in. It was THE illustration of the pure, perfect, unconditional love that our Heavenly Father and our Savior have for us, and was thus that very Love itself.

You and I are in perfect agreement.

[BCSpace]

If only that were so. However, the official doctrine is that he was cast out. I am unable to find creditable sources that place his position in the family of God in any context other than past tense. So, no longer a son of God, he *became* satan -- is now called "perdition" - cast out and lost -- and his followers are now his "sons" not sons of God.

I just gave a present tense in post #55. But if you are merely talking about sons of God as in those who are obedient to God and want to or are going to be part of His Church (adoptive) family, I agree. In the literal sense however, he is every bit a son of God now as any mortal male on this earth is.

[altersteve]

I would say that if one minimized or removed from one's apologetic the official doctrine that we are literal spirit brothers and sisters, including Satan and Jesus, however that came to pass, then one is no longer an apologist. At least not for the LDS Church but for one's own church.

What's being "minimized" is not the doctrine that God is the Father of our spirits and that we are all therefore His sons and daughters, but is this ridiculous idea that we emerged as spirit babies from Heavenly Mother's birth canal.

[Maidservant]

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

Thanks for sharing, GG. I'm a firm believer in that every body should figure these things out for themselves, by the Spirit, or as it says I think in Isaiah, all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And, you're right, while we have the privilege of exploring these things, I don't think any question is barred, in the end, we only can know what is in front of us now, and what will be, we'll find out!

I personally am completely accepting of physical and/or sexual reproduction and birth to be sacred and vital at all points in our eternal progression. I joy in this. But this is something I've come to; again, no need to convince anyone else.

You and I are not in agreement at all. I consider the core of the Gospel, the Atonement of Jesus Christ to not be symbolic. And most things are not symbolic. A few things are. But not so many that it comes close to "ALL".

We just simply do not agree. And I do not believe that there is any evidence in the teachings of the modern Prophets and Apostles for your position that Jesus and satan are symbols of something.

Fair enough.

But to be clear, symbolic does NOT mean "did not really happen" or "doesn't really exist". It simply means THERE IS A LOT MORE THERE THAT CAN HELP US DAILY.

Rosa Parks getting on the front of the bus is highly symbolic, and the principle involved can be translated so many ways, i.e. how would we each 'get on the front of the bus' in our own life (if need be)? At the same time, Ms. Parks actual act (event) was a catalyst to the way the world was shaped ever after. It was crucial and real and history and actual AND unutterably symbolic. It's very potential for symbolism was why she chose that act in the first place as what she should do to jump start human society one step forward.

it is possible to be LDS and not to subscribe to what the notion that we are, on a bio-spiritual level, the physical offspring of God, which Cobalt-70 has so crassly described. While this concept may be inferred from the scripture, it is not necessitated thereby.

Yes. There are room for variations.

My point was that we could, just as we become children of Christ through entering into a covenant with him and are hence born again as his sons and daughters, be sons and daughters of God on the exact same principle.

Understood. Not sure I agree (as already mentioned), although I've tried that on for size before. I actually believe a few different things in suspension without coming to conclusion because I don't think I have or understand all the pieces of the puzzle for the pre-mortal situation to make sense to me.

However, if he was made your brother by entering into a covenant with your parents, and not by blood, and he exits that covenant, then he is no longer your brother.

Okay, if that is where you are coming from, which as we've both said is subject to variation . And maybe this is cynical, I don't see the point in making a covenant where everybody in it are brothers, but out, you're not. I mean, we could call it something different--"covenant friends". Why "brothers", if it's revocable?

See, if we accept the notion that we, as full-fledged individuals, have eternally existed, having no beginning of days nor end of years, which position can be supportable by reference to the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants, then it becomes plausible that we became the sons and daughters of God by entering into a covenant with him and being spiritually born of him, just as in this life we enter into a covenant with Christ and are then spiritually born of him as his sons and daughters.

Certainly it becomes plausible. I do consider myself an eternal being even from before I became part of my Father in heaven's family. However, I already know I am part of Heavenly Father's family before I was born (birth event) to "John and Mary" here on earth. I would even say I am heavenly Father's daughter before theirs, and that John and Mary are my brothers and sisters from that previous state of things. But none of this takes away from the fact that Mary was in labor for 12 hours and my body at least is a genetic offspring from her and John's body (cells). Like I said, I am holding several ideas in suspension and may be in transition on what I think, but for now, I am accepting that there was a birth event that actually makes me Heavenly Father's offspring. This is regardless of what I may have been before that. I appreciate the opportunity to keep thinking through it and talking it out, it helps me to hear your insights too.

You and I are in terrific disagreement. It was no symbol. Jesus said: "which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, to bleed from every pore, to suffer both body and spirit - and would that I might not drink the bitter cup - and shrink"

To call that "symbolic" is so denigrating and insulting -- it makes me sad to see you say it.

There are plenty of symbols -- but they all eventually point to this core, absolute reality defining event. It was no symbol. It was actually the Love itself in eternity-shaking action.

Repeat from above: "symbol" doesn't mean "didn't happen". When we witness this defining, eternity-shaking action (agreed), what is the MORE we can get from it? If we follow Jesus, what kind of sacrifices for other people (sinners!) is it shown to us that we have to learn to be and do. It's sacred, not denigrating. This kind of knowledge (symbolism) has to be handled sacredly. Do we go out and put our children on altars like Abraham did, or do we rather, gather the symbolism out of it, even though it really happened. I am a FIRM believer in a mechanical, actual, scientific atonement that has ACTUAL effects on the human body (soul).

But if for example, taking the story of the council in heaven. This is a TEMPLATE. It is a PRIMER. There are a lot of holes to fill in. It may or may not refer to an actual one time conference. I wouldn't be surprised if it did or if it didn't. But if that is all we think of it, as a simple story of the pre-mortal history, we will miss the sacred experience of the symbolism involved, such as asking ourselves if we are behaving as Jesus or as Lucifer in coming before our Father in heaven? The story of the council in heaven is also a great template that allows us to discern the work of God and the work of Satan in our world and society today. So it's a discernment tool. But we will miss all this if we ONLY will read it as a history story. The atonement is the same way.

Even the Book of Mormon. Aside from its historicity, there are so many symbolisms to gain. The other day I was thinking how the Book of Mormon was full of people approaching knowledge and spirit from a variety of ways--that there is a representation of every way of knowing truth and God, all in the Book of Mormon. So each of these stories are not valuable as history, but are valuable as symbols FOR OURSELVES.

Anyway, I guess we've gone far enough that symbolism should probably be another thread.

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Edited May 23, 2012 by Maidservant

[Cobalt-70]

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.

"Coded" in the sense that because of the requirements of polite Victorianist speech, they did not typically like to talk about bodily functions such as pregnancy and childbirth. So they used words like "literally." Orson Pratt, however, was perhaps a little more rude, and used the 9-month gestation period for spirit babies to prove that God was a polygamist. (The Seer, 37-38).

So do you disagree with the doctrine of "literal" spirit birth? I'm not saying it is official doctrine, but it is doctrine (maybe false doctrine, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that), and I've been around Mormonism long enough to know that it is not merely a fringe doctrine.

[Cobalt-70]

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

I think the term "spirit babies" is quite appropriate, because it clearly expresses exactly what we are talking about. You can dispute the use of the term, but if a large fraction of Mormons (mostly men, in my experience--I haven't met a Mormon women that is happy with this doctrine) still believe that spirit children are literally born by a Heavenly Mother, then why isn't the term appropriate?

[thesometimesaint]

Because it isn't doctrine.

[Deborah]

I would say that if one minimized or removed from one's apologetic the official doctrine that we are literal spirit brothers and sisters, including Satan and Jesus, however that came to pass, then one is no longer an apologist. At least not for the LDS Church but for one's own church.

I don't question that they are literal spirit brothers and sisters, but do you agree that one can be disinherited by his actions? That is not claiming they aren't brothers and sisters spiritually but only that they have rejected that relationship and can no longer be considered a child of God.

[Vance]

I think the term "spirit babies" is quite appropriate, because it clearly expresses exactly what we are talking about. You can dispute the use of the term, but if a large fraction of Mormons (mostly men, in my experience--I haven't met a Mormon women that is happy with this doctrine) still believe that spirit children are literally born by a Heavenly Mother, then why isn't the term appropriate?

Because,

1) It isn't doctrine (as mentioned above),

2) It is an anti-Mormon shibboleth. Nothing more (as mentioned above)

3) It isn't found here, classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=%22spirit+babies%22&help=&wo=checked&search=%22spirit+babies%22&iw=all&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&anonymous_element_1_changed=

Edited to add.

It wouldn't let me post the link above so I deleted the "http//" from the beginning.

More,

Neither is it found here,

http://www.lds.org/search?query=%22spirit+babies%22〈=eng

Edited May 23, 2012 by Vance

[Maidservant]

I don't think it's reasonable to make that comparison.

We're not saying that just because someone makes a wrong decision or doesn't take part in temple covenants and family sealings means they stop being children of God. Satan committed the unforgivable sin by denying God with a perfect knowledge of Him. Hitler did not have that knowledge. But Satan knew of Christ's plan and I think he knew that accepting it would bring him happiness -- but he was arrogant and he let his pride get in the way of what he knew was more important. He and those who followed him didn't want to be part of something that would put them at any kind of inconvenience.

Don't get me wrong, what Hitler did was horrific -- but at least Hitler can be forgiven. Satan can't, but only because, in my opinion, he chooses to not be. It's not in his nature to repent because he doesn't consider himself as a child of God anymore. It's not that Heavenly Father kicked him out the family -- well, He did, but Satan chose to kick himself out and Heavenly Father isn't going to force anyone to be with Him, which is why Satan's rebellion broke His heart.

Again, fair enough. So I guess my point is what is it about post-actions erases a birth event that already happened? Not to belabor the points, I think we went all round. I see where you are coming from.

That's the only way the unforgivable sin can truly be unforgivable, by exercising your agency, as Satan did, to knowingly reject God and kicking yourself out of His presence after having a perfect knowledge of who He is.

What I'm trying to say is that the reason Satan is not a member of the great Heavenly Family is because he, even with a perfect knowledge of God, doesn't consider himself one.

And this is a lovely insight, an angle I hadn't thought of before. Perfect. And very symbolic for the rest of us here on earth.

[Cobalt-70]

Here is where I am going to put something forth: it is possible to be LDS and not to subscribe to what the notion that we are, on a bio-spiritual level, the physical offspring of God, which Cobalt-70 has so crassly described. While this concept may be inferred from the scripture, it is not necessitated thereby.

...

See, if we accept the notion that we, as full-fledged individuals, have eternally existed, having no beginning of days nor end of years, which position can be supportable by reference to the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants, then it becomes plausible that we became the sons and daughters of God by entering into a covenant with him and being spiritually born of him, just as in this life we enter into a covenant with Christ and are then spiritually born of him as his sons and daughters.

I agree that the covenant relationship is one way that we are children of God. But my interpretation of Abraham 3 is that the parent-child relationship is actually depicted as a something like a feudal lord-vassal relationship.

Moreover, Abraham 3 does not give any indication that God "created" any of his children. In fact, it says that "two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal." (v. 18). Thus, spirits could not have been born.

Abraham 3 does say that God "organized" the spirits, but this is in the context of his reference to ordaining the "noble and great ones" (the Melchizedek priests) to be his "vassal rulers" (Abr. 3:22-23). From the context, it appears that he organized them socially and politically, and provided them with two "estates." In other words, he made them his heirs by deeding them two properties--one being an angelic/Telestial vassalage, and the other being the earthly/Celestial vassalage.

So in this context, Jesus and Lucifer were both vassals of the heavenly lord, with two differences. First, Jesus was "like unto God" (v. 24), which I interpret to mean that he was God at the time, and Abraham could tell no difference. Second, Lucifer gave up his angelic vassalage, and thereby lost his status of nobility and his degree of glory. Carrying the feudal analogy further, you could say, at that point, that he had broken his oath of fealty, and that God was no longer is lord. So if Jesus and Lucifer were brothers because they were fellow vassals of God, then that changed when Lucifer broke his oath of fealty.

[zerinus]

Do you not find it odd, strange, an awkward analogy, that you see someone with a different religion, a different point of view . . .

I don't see the situation that the OP was describing as one of "someone with a different religion and a different point of view".

. . . as someone armed with a gun and shooting?

No, I don't find it an "odd, strange, awkward" analogy. Do you think these people are interested in a respectful debate with Mormons? I don't think so.

In your words, "If you try to debate with him he will just shoot you dead." It sounds like it is you who are looking for a fight.

Not at all. I think they are the ones looking for a fight, and I think I can give them a run for their money.

[Cobalt-70]

I think even people like Hitler can and will repent. It won't make them eligible for the Celestial Kingdom because, as the scriptures say, a murder has no eternal life, and also that David has lost his exaltation (he committed murder indirectly), but it would seem necessary to obatain any degree of glory at all as such are part of God's kingdom.

I disagree. Paul the Apostle committed murder "indirectly" of Stephen. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis committed "many murders" (Alma 24:9), yet God allowed them to repent and took away their guilt (v. 10).