Jesus and satan brothers? Debunked!!

[Steve Noel]

 

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is Steve Noel not a sockpuppet of Doctrine 612 (or vice-versa)?  I am working from that assumption.  If not, I apologize to Doctrine 612, who can speak for him-her-itself.

I have no idea what this even means. I have no association with Doctrine 612. From what I can tell he is LDS, I am not. Again, I have no idea where I have expressed "ignorant and blasphemous assumptions" in this thread. I'm not even certain that this was directed towards me, lol.

[Doctrine 612]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is Steve Noel not a sockpuppet of Doctrine 612 (or vice-versa)?  I am working from that assumption.  If not, I apologize to Doctrine 612, who can speak for him-her-itself.

I was drinking a glass of water when I came across your post it made and Iam still laughing.

also I did post the church news room so others could see what I was talking about. 

But here is my own take on the matter, yes God created us all but we become one family in Christ.

matt 12:50

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

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is Steve Noel not a sockpuppet of Doctrine 612 (or vice-versa)?  I am working from that assumption.  If not, I apologize to Doctrine 612, who can speak for him-her-itself.

What are you talking about? 

Here is Steve Noel's introduction post, you might want to read it:

 

[USU78]

25 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I was drinking a glass of water when I came across your post it made and Iam still laughing.

also I did post the church news room so others could see what I was talking about. 

But here is my own take on the matter, yes God created us all but we become one family in Christ.

matt 12:50

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

I'll never so besmirch you again:  lashes upon me; shackles upon me; and a big ol' combination lock on my fingers!

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

Firstborn in the Spirit.

Only Begotten in the Flesh.

The difference is significant.

And neither appellation is scriptural.

Here is a key if you will have it.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The logic of the statement that Jesus and Satan are brothers is deduced in LDS theology, but the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach such a thing.  

I agree with you that this axiom is deduced in LDS theology.

I would add that it is a deduction not required by the scriptures.

But the LDS Church most certainly does teach that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.

I shouldn't think it hard to come up with a number of examples.

[halconero]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And neither appellation is scriptural.

Here is a key if you will have it.

Sure they are. Christ is the Firstborn and the Only Begotten. The scriptures do a well enough job of explaining the differentiation.

You can have your key back. It's rusty.

[halconero]

Kinship systems are awesome and varied. The Gospel maintains several kinship systems.

I'd argue that more important in a saving sense is the covenant individual's relationship with Christ as their Father.

[strappinglad]

Some of us ( a few, most, all ? ) , take this 'Satan is our brother' so seriously that we like to visit him on occasion just to make sure we keep up the family relationship.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And neither appellation is scriptural.

Here is a key if you will have it.

You have been hanging around with Shirley again.

Shirley Youjest that is.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Based on this teaching is it accurate to say that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers? Is this how Mormons describe this belief? 

What I'm after here is how Mormons self-describe their beliefs. In his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities Dr. Roger E. Olson states that "self-description is always better than a description by an outsider" (Kindle location 2910).

Olson sounds like a smart man.  

I see you've already been answered so there's no need for me to restate. 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

So over the past month I have been talking with a Christian church group about our faith and they seem to enjoy it, but the other day a member of there church said that Mormons teach that Jesus and Sagan are brothers and he said other things but more on that later. 

I told the group that we do not teach that and that the lds church back in December 12 2007 gave a response to that statement.

 

Satan and Christ ARE spirit brothers, along with all of us.
This quote does not debunk that or even address it.
Not sure what you are referring to here.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I told the group that we do not teach that and that the lds church back in December 12 2007 gave a response to that statement.

 

That Jesus and Lucifer are brothers is OFFICIAL LDS DOCTRINE and is essentially proven by the very quote you gave.  We even teach this to Primary children: 

Quote

 

How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?

Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/06/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

 

 

Quote

 

1.In the premortal life we were spirit children and lived with our heavenly parents (Hebrews 12:9).

2.Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father (D&C 93:21) and is the older brother of our spirits.

3.Lucifer, who became Satan, was also a spirit child of Heavenly Father.

4.Heavenly Father called a meeting for all his spirit children. At this meeting he explained his plan for us to become like him. He told us that he wanted us to go to earth to get a physical body. He explained that on earth we would be tested to see if we would keep his commandments.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

 

Etc. etc.

Another way to approach it:  Ask yourself, did Lucifer's parentage change when he fell?  No, it did not.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is the old guilt by association ruse. You know, Able must be an evil man because his corrupt and murderous brother was evil. Some may think it's weird that in LDS theology the Son of God and Lucifer have the same parental heritage. But even more weird, what does it say about God that he created the fallen angel who has become known to all of us as Satan? If one wants to use the guilt by association argument, what does it say about God that he actually created the being who has become the personification and source of all evil? Must we conclude God Is evil, or tainted in some way, because he created a being that became the very embodiment of evil?  And if God knows the end from the beginning, why did he even create Lucifer if he knew beforehand what he was going to turn out to be? Who's more tainted, an innocent party who observes someone become evil or the creator of the being that becomes evil?

This would be a problem for God the Father, if and only if, Lucifer was created by Him.  Like all of us, Lucifer was coeternal with God in the form of intelligence (D&C 93:29).  God the Father gave him a spirit body, which made him far more functional, and he rose to become a Son of the Morning with the same full free agency all of  us have.  We read of the ultimate confrontation between God the Father and Lucifer in Abraham 3:21-28.

II Nephi 2:11-13, Lehi's Law of Opposites:

Quote

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, ..... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

 

[Steve Noel]

This is a little off the subject, but it is doubtful that Lucifer is actually a name for Satan in the Bible. This name for Satan is based on a single text, Isaiah 14:12. "Lucifer" comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of this text. This word is not a proper name in Latin. In addition, the primary referent in the context of Isaiah 14 is the king of Babylon. This blog post from NT scholar Dan Wallace goes into this a little deeper:

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/27/is-lucifer-such-a-bad-guy-after-all/

[Steve Noel]

BCSpace,

I appreciate the link to the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" in you signature. This is very helpful to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

This is a little off the subject, but it is doubtful that Lucifer is actually a name for Satan in the Bible. This name for Satan is based on a single text, Isaiah 14:12. "Lucifer" comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of this text. This word is not a proper name in Latin. In addition, the primary referent in the context of Isaiah 14 is the king of Babylon. This blog post from NT scholar Dan Wallace goes into this a little deeper:
http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/27/is-lucifer-such-a-bad-guy-after-all/

The early Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine made the connection with Satan very explicit.  Others, such as leading evangelical theologian John Warwick Montgomery, are direct and frank in accepting the connection.  Isaiah 14:12 refers in Hebrew to Helel son of Šahar, "Bright-One, son of Dawn" (=LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Vulgate Lucifer "Light-Bearer, Morning-Star [Venus]"), and Helel is being used in that context as a metaphor for a high and mighty Assyrian or Babylonian king (perhaps Nebuchadrezzar II, Evil-Merodach, or Nabonidus; Ezekiel 28:2-10 uses similar language to describe the ruler of Tyre).

    However, Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."  He is more frequently seen as Canaanite and early South Arabic ‘Athtar, "Splendor," the Lion (I Pt 5:8), god of Venus-in-the-Morning, which is identical to Moabite ‘Aštar-Kemoš, Arabic ‘Atar-Śamayin, and Aramaic ‘Attar-Šamayin, "Morning-Star-of-Heaven," etc.  Canaanite ‘Athtar is god of the Underworld, who, like Punic Melqart, had challenged Baʿal-Zephon for his throne in the ancient Baʿal Epic known from the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra (which were first discovered in the 1930s):

Ugaritic Text 49:I:33-37 (CTA 6), is rendered by the late Mitchell Dahood:  

Quote

 And, Athtar the terrible replied: "I cannot rule in the heart of Zaphon."  Athtar the terrible came down from the throne of Baal, and became king in the vast underworld, all of it.

II Enoch 29:4-5:  

Quote

 One from out [of] the order of angels [Satan, cf. 31:4] . . . conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the  earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power.  And I threw him from the height.

"Book of Adam and Eve," I:6:  

Quote

 But the wicked Satan set me at naught, and sought the Godhead, so that I hurled him down from heaven.

I provide greater detail and sources in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

BCSpace,

I appreciate the link to the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" in you signature. This is very helpful to me.

Just so you know, if you read that carefully, it really doesn't say much, and is highly ambiguous. The statement itself is a press release, and as such is probably not doctrine itself.

Quote

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The 15 "establish doctrine" which is proclaimed" in church publications, but the doctrine "resides" in the standard works.  Yet we are not to believe single statements by single individuals as "doctrine" even if it is "proclaimed".  It must be "consistently proclaimed".  How many times over what period makes it "consistent"?  And what about doctrines which are not "consistent"?

Many Mormons contend- as does probably the leading theologian of the church- Blake Ostler, that we do not have doctrine at all- merely orthopraxy.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

Obviously there is unity of belief on many points- basically those necessary to qualify for a temple recommend.  Beyond that, we are pretty much able to seek our own inspiration.  Personal revelation is the cornerstone.  

[flameburns623]

Why am I unable to see signatures?

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The early Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine made the connection with Satan very explicit.  Others, such as leading evangelical theologian John Warwick Montgomery, are direct and frank in accepting the connection.  Isaiah 14:12 refers in Hebrew to Helel son of Šahar, "Bright-One, son of Dawn" (=LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Vulgate Lucifer "Light-Bearer, Morning-Star [Venus]"), and Helel is being used in that context as a metaphor for a high and mighty Assyrian or Babylonian king (perhaps Nebuchadrezzar II, Evil-Merodach, or Nabonidus; Ezekiel 28:2-10 uses similar language to describe the ruler of Tyre).

    However, Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."  He is more frequently seen as Canaanite and early South Arabic ‘Athtar, "Splendor," the Lion (I Pt 5:8), god of Venus-in-the-Morning, which is identical to Moabite ‘Aštar-Kemoš, Arabic ‘Atar-Śamayin, and Aramaic ‘Attar-Šamayin, "Morning-Star-of-Heaven," etc.  Canaanite ‘Athtar is god of the Underworld, who, like Punic Melqart, had challenged Baʿal-Zephon for his throne in the ancient Baʿal Epic known from the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra (which were first discovered in the 1930s):

Ugaritic Text 49:I:33-37 (CTA 6), is rendered by the late Mitchell Dahood:  

II Enoch 29:4-5:  

"Book of Adam and Eve," I:6:  

I provide greater detail and sources in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .

Thank you for sharing this. It appears you have really studied this issue.

[Steve Noel]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just so you know, if you read that carefully, it really doesn't say much, and is highly ambiguous. The statement itself is a press release, and as such is probably not doctrine itself.

The 15 "establish doctrine" which is proclaimed" in church publications, but the doctrine "resides" in the standard works.  Yet we are not to believe single statements by single individuals as "doctrine" even if it is "proclaimed".  It must be "consistently proclaimed".  How many times over what period makes it "consistent"?  And what about doctrines which are not "consistent"?

Many Mormons contend- as does probably the leading theologian of the church- Blake Ostler, that we do not have doctrine at all- merely orthopraxy.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

Obviously there is unity of belief on many points- basically those necessary to qualify for a temple recommend.  Beyond that, we are pretty much able to seek our own inspiration.  Personal revelation is the cornerstone.  

Thank you for the link here. I have bookmarked it to read later. I have to head to work now. This is an issue I hope to better understand through my interactions here. 

[canard78]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

This would be an appropriate official teaching, though as my own post demonstrates, LDS may take the implications in a variety of directions:

https://www.lds.org/topics/satan?lang=eng

"Satan, also called the adversary or the devil, is the enemy of all righteousness and of those who seek to follow God. He is a spirit son of God who was once an angel “in authority in the presence of God” (D&C 76:25; see also Isaiah 14:12; D&C 76:26–27). But in the premortal Council in Heaven, Lucifer, as Satan was then called, rebelled against God. Since that time, he has sought to destroy the children of God on the earth and to make them miserable.

Additional Information

One primary issue in the conflict between God and Satan is agency. Agency is a precious gift from God; it is essential to His plan for His children. In Satan's rebellion against God, Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). He said: “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).

Satan persuaded “a third part of the hosts of heaven” to turn away from the Father (D&C 29:36). As a result of this rebellion, Satan and his followers were cut off from God's presence and denied the blessing of receiving a physical body (see Revelation 12:9)."

It's interesting to see some of the ambiguous language in the original post's quote and compare it to what you're quoting here Calm.

Do Mormons believe Lucifer was a spirit child of God? (Yes)

Do Mormons believe Jehovah was a spirit child of God? (Yes)

Is it reasonable to call two spirit children of the same God, siblings? (Yes)

I don't think it's unreasonable for observers to describe Mormon doctrine as teaching that Lucifer and Jehovah as, initially, spirit siblings or brothers.

Does that make Satan, in his current state, a brother of the resurrected Christ? On many levels, probably not. Jesus' role as "Son of God" means that there are lots of ways or roles in which Satan is not Christ's brother in Mormon doctrine. But at the earliest root of their existences, spirit offspring, I don't see any reasonable objection to the description of brothers or siblings.

I'm sure we could find lots of references to church doctrines describing the rest of us as spirit siblings. As such, at one point, Lucifer and the third of the host of heaven could reasonably described as such too.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

It's interesting to see some of the ambiguous language in the original post's quote and compare it to what you're quoting here Calm.

Do Mormons believe Lucifer was a spirit child of God? (Yes)

Do Mormons believe Jehovah was a spirit child of God? (Yes)

Is it reasonable to call two spirit children of the same God, siblings? (Yes)

I don't think it's unreasonable for observers to describe Mormon doctrine as teaching that Lucifer and Jehovah as, initially, spirit siblings or brothers.

Does that make Satan, in his current state, a brother of the resurrected Christ? On many levels, probably not. Jesus' role as "Son of God" means that there are lots of ways or roles in which Satan is not Christ's brother in Mormon doctrine. But at the earliest root of their existences, spirit offspring, I don't see any reasonable objection to the description of brothers or siblings.

I'm sure we could find lots of references to church doctrines describing the rest of us as spirit siblings. As such, at one point, Lucifer and the third of the host of heaven could reasonably described as such too.

Here is an aspect to this discussion that has not yet been explored: In the LDS Church we believe in sealing ordinances, performed by divine priesthood power and authority, that can transform temporary earthly family organizations (the bonds of which dissolve after death) into eternal family organizations that endure for time and all eternity. But in order for these divinely-sealed family organizations to continue throughout eternity, it's incumbent upon each individual member of a particular sealed family unit to remain personally worthy so that he can continue to be a member of the eternal family organization. So as sad to contemplate as it might be, if a member of a sealed family unit rebells against God and (for instance) becomes a son of perdition, one who rebells in this manner forefits his membership in the family and, in a specialized sense, is no longer considered a son and brother within the eternal family unit. He may be a biological son and sibling, but he is no longer a member of the eternal family. So if it's possible to apply similar principles to the pre-earth life, in a technical sense the Savior and Lucifer might have the same parental heritage, but they are no longer brothers within the same family unit.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Rain]

7 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Why am I unable to see signatures?

If I am on my phone I cannot see them.  If on the computer I can.  Perhaps you are in your phone? 

[flameburns623]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

If I am on my phone I cannot see them.  If on the computer I can.  Perhaps you are in your phone? 

I see.

Said the blind 🚹

To his deaf 🐕

On his smart ☎