A Mormon blasphemy: “Satan was a spirit brother of Christ”…

We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us by a Mormon called Stephen.(*) Click here to see the other articles in this series. You can also go to the Mormonism page to find all the articles that are in this refutation of Stephen’s document.


Stephen continues:

We LDSs have also been accused of blasphemy by many ECs for believing Satan was a spirit brother of Christ, as were all of us who come to mortality.

Yes, that’s blasphemy, because Jesus Christ is God, while Satan and we are creatures. We have seen the details of this before.

Stephen continues:

The EC claim is Satan was an “angel” and therefore not a son of God, as though this term separates these mystical beings from children of God. Let us reason together.

We have seen that Christ is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God, while all creatures are children of God by creation and not by nature. “Only-Begotten” means “unique in Nature”.

Stephen continues:

First, let us look again at the term, angel. As already explained, John the Baptist is called an “angel” in the Greek at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel, translated as “messenger” in English. (See Mark 1:2 & Luke 7:27 in Greek.)

Yes, the term angel is not always about a nature, but it is also about an office. We have seen this in details.

Birds fly, so all what flies is a bird… Good argument?… I don’t think so. Not all messengers are angels… So let it be clear: John the Baptist is a messenger, but not an angel by nature; he’s really human. We pass…

Stephen continues:

John the Revelator almost made the mistake of bowing and worshipping the angel who brought him the vision of the Revelation, as this messenger from God spoke in first person as though he were the resurrected Lord, the Being John beheld on the First Christian Sabbath.

We have seen that John is not the Revelator, but Christ is. I hope you will correct this huge error of yours. This is blasphemy, because no one other than God is the Revelator.

And the angel who was speaking to John was not speaking in first person at all. Look what he said: “And he says to me, Write, Blessed [are] they who are called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb. And he says to me, These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9) This is very clear: the angel is a messenger; he brought the message to John that he should write these things, and that those who are called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb are blessed, and that these are the true words of God, and not his own words. The angel clearly distinguished himself from the Lamb and from God. But John would do the mistake of the Roman Catholics who today worship Mary and Saints, and this was written to warn us against such errors which even true Christians may be tempted to commit.

But I don’t see where in this whole argument the angels are the brothers of Jesus… What a blasphemy!

Stephen continues:

But this angel reproved John, saying, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Rev. 22:8-10; see also Rev. 19:10) The angel was a glorified, resurrected prophet.

No, the text says that John is a prophet and all prophets are his brethren, and that angels also are servants of God just like the prophets, they are fellowservants to John and to all prophets. I don’t see where Stephen read that this angel was a glorified, resurrected prophet, especially that resurrection did not happen yet until now… Do you see how Stephen interprets the biblical passages according to his dreams?…

Stephen continues:

He was therefore not some mystical being created by God.

Angels are not mystical beings, but spiritual beings created by God.

Stephen’s “therefore” in this quote would make us think he gave a proof before this “therefore”, only if we didn’t read his silly dream above and if we didn’t see how it had no back up in the Word of God…

Stephen continues:

So, from Biblical documentation, an angel can be a spirit, such as the angel Gabriel who appeared to Daniel and later to Mary; an angel can be a mortal, such as John the Baptist; and an angel can be a resurrected being, such as the angel in Revelation.

We still need to see a proof that John the Baptist was an angel by nature, and that the angel of Revelation was a resurrected prophet. We’ll wait…

Stephen continues:

Even the saints gathered at the house of John Mark’s mother after James was martyred and Peter was imprisoned mistook the liberated Peter for a post-mortal spirit when he knocked on the door: “Then said they, It is his angel.” (Acts 12:11-17) Given John Mark wrote the second Gospel in the NT, I figure he would know something about the Former-day Saint concept on who qualifies as an angel.

WHERE does the text say that this was a “post-mortal spirit”??!! Show us where you read that!! The text simply says that those believers thought it was not Peter, but his angel. Who was this angel of Peter? It was simply the same angel already mentioned in the context! The angel who was sent by God to save Peter from the prison. How can someone be so blind as to not see what the context clearly talks about?? Hebrews 1 says that the angels are ministering spirits (spiritual beings) that God sends to be in the service of the righteous: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14) And the Psalmist said: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, And rescues them.” (Psalm 34:7) The Lord also said: “See that ye do not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you that their angels in [the] heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in [the] heavens.” (Matthew 18:10) The believers in Acts 12 believed in the truth of all these verses, and believed that God sends His angels to be in service of the saints, so they thought an angel who was sent to serve Peter should have come to bring news to them from Peter; they did not expect to receive a so quick answer to their prayers for the liberation of Peter.

As you see, the whole evidence of Scripture is against Stephen’s dream. I am still interested to see how all this nonsense will prove that angels are brothers of Christ by nature… And I am still interested to know who the Former-day Saints are…

Stephen continues:

Now, let us look at Satan, the man.

Spirits do not have a gender; Satan is a spirit, a fallen angel, so he doesn’t have a gender.

Stephen continues:

Isaiah referred to Satan: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, (or, ‘squint at thee and reflect upon thee’), saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?” (Isa. 14:12-17) At Judgment, we will look upon that small man with a bewildered wince, how he was able to sway so many of us to rebel against the Father either in premortality or in mortality. Hopefully for us, it will not be a look also of regret for having followed his lead.

Isaiah 14 clearly says who is this man about whom the text is talking: “that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say,” (Isaiah 14:4) So God addresses Israel and tells them that they will say this proverb against the king of Babylon; and this passage that Stephen quoted is a part of that proverb. So this man is the king of Babylon. WHICH king of Babylon? The text does not say, because it is not about ONE king of Babylon, but about many kings: many kings came from Babylon and attacked Israel. So why does the Bible say “king of Babylon” in singular? As we have seen about the Antichrist in another article, “Antichrist” or “king of Babylon” are titles of a man in a position, and not the title of one man in particular, just like the title “the Pope”. When I say “the Pope always persecuted the true Christians in history”, I do not mean a certain man but all Popes. (By the way, before I forget let me say that Isaiah 14 in its New Covenant’s dimension also refers to the Antichrist). Just as Satan is behind the Antichrist in all his actions, the same devil is behind the king of Babylon in all his actions (I remind you again that this is not about only one king of Babylon). So all the kings of Babylon had Satan in the background of their action. That’s why the text which is addressed to this king of Babylon also addresses at the same time Satan who is behind all his actions. Note that the text says about this king that he HAD weakened the nations BEFORE he was fallen. This is clearly not about pre-existence as Stephen dreams, because in pre-existence the nations did not exist in order to be weakened by Satan. This is about the fall of the king of Babylon (his defeat) and with him the defeat of Satan who was behind him and who had always wanted to take the Throne of God, but God has always defeated him. The kings of Babylon had defeated the nations and the kingdoms, but they will finally be defeated and will look very small in their defeat, just as Satan who was behind them is always in defeat before God who is Sovereign above all His creatures.

Does Stephen have any idea about this truth that evil angels who represent their chief, Satan, are behind the evil actions of the kings of the nations? Let him learn this from the Bible: “And he said unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand, and to humble thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come because of thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” (Daniel 10:12-13) As you see in this text, angels are called princes. This is not new, as we have seen that angels are principalities and authorities in the heavenly places (see Ephesians 6:12 — we have seen this before). So the evil angel who was behind the king of Persia at that time did not allow this good angel of the Lord to reach Daniel, but made war against him. Then another angel, one of the chief princes, Michael, came to help that angel against the evil angel who was behind the king of Persia, and thus this angel could come to Daniel after 21 days of delay. As you see, evil forces were behind the kings of the nations, so it is not strange that Isaiah 14 addresses Satan while it addresses the king of Babylon. When the Lord Jesus came, He defeated Satan once for all, and Satan is now bound during the Millennium of the Kingdom of Heaven and cannot deceive the nations. We may see the details about this later if there be a need.

So does this text that Stephen quoted say that Satan is a man? No. This text is about the king of Babylon as the context clearly says. But Stephen does not need to study the context, as he has a bad agenda…

Stephen continues:

If you do not believe Satan could be a spirit child of God who rebelled against Him, then how did he come to be?

God created Satan from nothing, but He created him originally a good angel. God made Lucifer from nothing. Then this angel rebelled against God, and thus he became evil.

Stephen continues:

Did he create himself or simply just exist forever?

God created him. Did you forget that all principalities and heavenly powers were created by Christ?? Read this again: “because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)

Stephen continues:

Would not this go against the basic EC tenet God created everything?

Yes, that’s why we refuse your satanic doctrine that says Satan existed before God created him.

Stephen continues:

Paul referred to Jesus Christ as “the firstborn of every creature” who created all things and “is before all things.” (See Col. 1:15-17.) Jesus, known as Jehovah, was the Firstborn Son of God in the spirit.

We have seen how silly and non-biblical are your assumptions when reading those passages. In the Bible, Firstborn also means Preeminent and Heir and Chief or Head, because the firstborn son in a family was the heir and the preeminent. Yes, Christ is the Preeminent and the Heir and the Head in God’s creation, because all were created BY Him and FOR Him. The Bible says that God is the First and the Last. What does this mean? This means that He is the First of His Creation and the Last of His Creation; all things come from Him and go to Him; He is the Source and the Goal. As Christ is God the Son, so He also is called the First and the Last. Yes, Christ is the First of His Creation, the Firstborn, the Head, the Heir of all things, because He is God the Son. The Bible CLEARLY says that Jesus is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God, so there is no one like Him in Nature; He is the unique-in-Nature Son of God.

And we have seen how God is Jehovah; God has no beginning, so the Son has no beginning because He is God.

Stephen continues:

Lucifer was born some time after Him.

Lucifer is a creature; he was created sometime in those six days of creation. The biblical evidence shows that all angels, including Lucifer, were created before the third day in which the earth was made.

Stephen continues:

Lucifer was a rebellious son who sought his Father’s throne and convinced a third of our brothers and sisters to follow him.

No, Lucifer was not always a rebellious creature, but one day he became evil when he rebelled: “Thou wast perfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15) And no, it was not a third of humans who followed Satan in his rebellion, but angels.

Stephen continues:

There is Biblical silence specifying Lucifer was a son of God.

The Bible CLEARLY says that Lucifer is one of the angels who are called the sons of God in Job 1:6, and we have seen that that does not mean the angels are the sons of God by nature, but by creation. We have seen that Jesus is the ONLY-Begotten Son of God; He alone is the Son of God by Nature.

Stephen continues:

It also does not say he was not His son, though some ECs claim Ezekiel 28:13-19 refers to Satan and confirms he was just a “creation” and not a son of God.

Yes, Ezekiel 28 and many other passages of Scripture say that all angels, including Lucifer, were created by God. By the way, Ezekiel 28 also talks against some other errors that Mormons have in their beliefs about Satan: Mormons believe Lucifer rebelled BEFORE the creation, while Ezekiel 28 says that Lucifer was a GOOD angel when Eden was made, and that he was created the day Eden was created (i.e. in the same time-period when Eden was created which is the six day period of creation): thou wast in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the chrysolite, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the emerald, and gold. The workmanship of thy tambours and of thy pipes was in thee: in the day that thou wast created were they prepared.” (Ezekiel 28:13) Lucifer was NOT a “rebellious son” originally, as Stephen dreams, but he was a good cherub: “Thou wast the anointed covering cherub, and I had set thee [so]” (Ezekiel 28:14); “Thou wast perfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15)

The whole Bible is against the teachings of Mormons, and Stephen still wants to defend those teachings with the Bible. That’s why he is obliged to twist the Scripture in order to defend his cause…

Stephen continues:

This is an addition to Scripture, as verses 11 and 12 specify this passage refers to the king of Tyrus (Tyre) and that Ezekiel was to relay this message from God to him.

Wow! So, when Stephen talked about Satan as man quoting a passage from Isaiah 14 that talked about the king of Babylon, that was not an addition to Scripture, but now seeing Satan behind the king of Tyre is an addition to Scripture?? Can Stephen tell us WHEN the king of Tyre was ever blameless in all his ways as the text of Ezekiel 28 says about Lucifer?… And WHEN was he in Eden?!

I have explained above how Satan and his evil angels were behind the actions of evil kings of the nations, and how the Scripture used to address Satan while addressing any of those kings at the same time.

Stephen continues:

And since when has God sent prophets to deliver messages to Satan?

Let me guess: since Isaiah 14 which you yourself quoted as referring to Satan as man?…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ


Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 33 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.