Huckabee: ”Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

posted at 10:50 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

I said I hoped we were done with Huck for the night. I didn’t say we were.

I’ll give him a pass here. Granted, he shouldn’t be wondering aloud about the doctrinal niceties of other faiths, particularly this one under the present circumstances. But a lot of people operate under a lot of misconceptions about Mormonism, it seems. No need to impute bad faith where simple ignorance will do.

Of course, that’s what I said at first about the “Christian Leader” ad. An LDS spokesman smells a rat:

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

”We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,” said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. ”That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”

Maybe Romney should take to casually wondering what specie of property women in covenant marriages are regarded as being. I have a feeling he won’t, though. Exit question: Why does Mitt worship Satan?

Update: A reader sends this link to the LDS website as evidence that Huck’s getting a bad rap from the AP:

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27)…

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and 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).

Sounds from this like we’re all brothers, Christ and Satan included, which jibes with what the LDS spokesman quoted in the article said. Huck isn’t technically wrong, in other words, although he does seem to be suggesting a special sibling relation between Christ and Satan — as though Mormons somehow equate the two — that I’m not seeing in this passage. As noted above, I’m willing to chalk it up to simple misunderstanding. Our LDS readers can take it from there in the comments.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


You can’t just say that, just because a group doesn’t subscribe to an Aristotelian pronouncement done by an argumentative committee some three hundred years after Jesus’ death, that group is a “Christian cult”.

Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Read the Bible, you will find that men were left with a written testament and the Holy Spirit after Christ’s departure. Hence, Joe Smith has a problem with his recent revelation.

AZ_Redneck on December 14, 2007 at 6:49 PM

What you say about Smith does not follow from what you say about the written testament and Holy Spirit (hence there’s no need for a hence), and neither thing answers my question.

My point, which I’ve made in different ways on more than one thread, but which no Catholic or Protestant has answered, is this: there’s been a lot of mention in the thread of orthodoxy and the Nicene creed–that the only real or acceptable form of Christianity is that which the individual making the post deems “orthodox”. But this is problematic for everyone except, well…the Orthodox. Catholics can hardly claim orthodoxy based on a creed they’ve changed (adding the non-scriptural filioque), which is why the Catholics (whose misnomer means “universal”) are not in communion with the Orthodox.

Also, if you’re going to accept the creed, then you must accept the council it came out of. And this is rather problematic for pretty much all Protestants other than the Anglicans (who are apostate Catholics anyway), as the council provides for the ordination of bishops and says, ex. gr., that bishops get the eucharist before deacons and elders. It also takes it for granted that there are priests (not a “priesthood of all believers”, but priests ordainded by the church). And it recognizes the See of Jerusalem. How many Protestants do that?

Further, if you accept this oecumenical synod (on what particular grounds I don’t know, except that people yearn for something definitive), shouldn’t you accept the other councils as well? But then if you accept the Council of Chalcedon, you also have to say that not only are Arians, Mormons and Swedenborgians not orthodox, and hence not real Christians, but (as I say above in an unanswered response to Tim Burton) neither are the Copts, the (Nestorian) Assyrian Church or the Armenian Church. Are you really prepared to look a Copt in the eye, or a native Aramaic speaker, and tell him he’s not a Christian?

It’s no good saying “anything unclear in the Bible [which canon by the way?] is made clear in the church councils” and then also reject inconvenient councils or elements of councils with an appeal to the Bible. If you trust the wisdom of the conveners of one council, accept that of the others. But if you’re a sola scriptura person, then you shouldn’t give any significance to the councils at all; and if you don’t do that, then you should stop waving the Nicene creed around.

Tzetzes on December 14, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Well, what do you expect from Christians? Joseph Smith said that Christianity is an abomination to God. I guess Joseph won’t let me into heaven as he stands their in judgment of my soul.

The more you know your Bible, the less there is to wonder and debate about.

Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Which Bible?

Tzetzes on December 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM