Bill McKeever’s Response to Kim Farah’s Prevarication

The Relationship Between Jesus and Lucifer in a Mormon Context. “When recently asked if Jesus and the Devil are brothers, LDS spokesperson Kim Farah, gave anything but a clear answer. What have LDS leaders taught about the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?”

This entry was posted in Jesus Christ. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Bill McKeever’s Response to Kim Farah’s Prevarication

  1. Eric the Red says:

    This is nothing more than public relations prevarication. Kim’s response is disappointing but not unexpected. What are we to take away from her comment “[this] question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith, rather than clarify doctrine.”? Obviously she wants people to think that Mormons do NOT believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Since Mormons actually do believe this, then how are they being smeared when someone states that they do? She then craftily covered her bases by saying that God is the Father of us all. If called on the carpet, she could say, “I didn’t lie about Jesus being Satan’s brother. I SAID that God is the Father of us ALL!” Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. How would it sound if I responded to a question about the Trinity by saying, “Oh, that question is usual raised by those who wish to smear Evangelicals”?
    If our goal is to mislead then we are lying!

  2. Bill McKeever says:

    Thanks for the comment, Eric. Sadly, Mormons are often quick to question the motives of those who ask the hard questions. I had to chuckle when I read how Romney was recently accused of using a negative ad that questioned Huckabee’s position on tuition for children of illegal immigrants. Romney’s response? “It’s not negative; it’s accurate.” If Romney can use that as an explanation, why can’t others?

  3. Eric the Red says:

    Very good point, Bill. This interview brings to memory a conversation I had with two MMs nearly 15 years ago. I was trying to show them that by their own teachings Jesus had to have been married to become a god. I showed them the title page of Achieving Celestial Marriage which bears the imprimatur of the LDS presidency (Thanks, Bill, for sending those Xerox copies so many years ago). I asked the one missionary if the book was authoritative. He responded, “Yes.” As I began reading from the book, the other cut in, “The imprimatur doesn’t prove anything! That is just put in the front of the book for copyright purposes. That book is not authoritative!” I was recently told by an elderly Mormon missionary couple that my understanding of Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was skewed because I didn’t read it with a sincere heart. I find this personally offensive. Just like Mitt Romney, I desire to be honest and accurate in my understanding of Mormononism. Anyway, as the conversation progressed, the couple verified as correct Mormon teaching the very thing they said I incorrectly understood because I wasn’t sincere! Perhaps we should not believe Romney’s statements about Huckabee because, one, his information was not from a source approved by the Huckabee Campaign committee, two, it was not Huckabee promoting, and three, if he really wanted to know about Huckabee, he should have asked only a Huckabee supporter. Why would Romney be foolish enough to try learning about Huckabee from someone who wasn’t a Huckabean?

  4. Rick B says:

    Many, many times the Christians on this Blog point out to the LDS that their teachings or leaders are really vauge in what they say or teach. We are told by the LDS that they are crystal clear and we simply do not understand.

    So I guess I would like to hear from LDS here on this blog, why was such great care taken to avoid a honest point blank responce, and do you believe it is replys like that, that make us say, we feel LDS are not 100 percent honest in replying to us.

    I have had many LDS Missionarys tell me flat out, yes Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and were brothers of Lucifer and Jesus also. If they are honest enough to tell me that, then either Kim is hiding something, or the MM’s were not informed about keeping that issue quite. Rick b

  5. pallathu says:

    Bill, you are absolutely correct. The Mormons are 100% happy if you simply listen to them, don’t ask any questions, and take the baptism to become a Mormon in few weeks. Last week, a young boy came to my home to repair the cable. He had an Indian girl friend, so he started the conversion with me. He was knowledgeable enough to tell that many languages in Asia originated from Sanskrit, the language of India. He has a Philippino wife, so out of curiosity I asked him whether he is a Mormon. He said yes. I told him you are treating me good, but my Mormon neighbors don’t treat me good anymore. There was a shock in his face. He said they are not “real Mormons”. Then I asked him why the Mormons have a problem when I say I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon. I could see his eye brows going up like my neighbors’. He said the Book of Mormon is true. I said how I could believe in a Book which is constantly changing, and even the recent change of ancestry of American Indians. He said there were numerous “translation mistakes” corrected from time of the first publication of Book of Mormon. Then I asked him do you believe Jesus was a polygamist. He is out of answers now; he said the Protestants hijacked a letter from the Catholic Pope to denounce the pope (I did not know what he was talking about). I told him we are not talking about Catholics, but Mormonism. Then I asked him few more challenging questions. Every time when I asked him a question, he comes up with the Catholic pope story.

    This is what he said at the end of the conversation. He is not a Mormon, he is not a Christian because he does not practice both. He thinks let God handle him personally. He told me his mother and grandmother grew up as Jehovah witness. They were abused at their dorms, so they became Mormons. His mother is an LDS but his dad is not.

    It may be interesting to know what is this Pope letter that Protestants hijacked.

  6. Ralph says:

    If you see the omission of known facts, or answering a question with watered down facts as lying, did you lie to your children? How often have you answered a big question of your children with just a small basic answer and missing out some of the details because they would not understand them at that point in time? Another example – here in Australia we learn whole positive numbers in our first year at school (4 yrs 9months onwards). It’s not until 2 years later after learning the basics of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division we learn about fractions and decimals and then a year after that we learn about negative numbers. In university we learn about imaginary numbers, which are used on a daily basis by mathematicians, physicists and engineers. So are our first year teachers lying to us because they do not teach us all of the different types of numbers in our first year?
    Kim’s response is just that, to give the basics. Her comment “[this] question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith, rather than clarify doctrine.” is reasonable as it is usually those who want to try and show that this church is not just unorthodox but has some ‘loony’ ideas who ask these types of questions in a public forum to try and ‘score points’. A truthful answer would take a while to explain, but in a public setting time is usually of the essence, so an abbreviated answer would confuse a person who knew little about the subject.
    I know you hate these types of answers, but you have done some research. Others have very little knowledge about this and thus need the basic footings first which is what Kim was doing (A couple of scriptures to support this are 1 Corinthians 3:2 Hebrews 5:12 Isaiah 28:10 Isaiah 28:13). But this doctrine is taught in its entirety the first 2 chapters of the Gospel Principles book from which the investigators and new members are taught from, so it’s no big secret, just needs to be the correct time and place.

  7. falcon says:

    This is how the question can be answered: Yes, according to our beliefs Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. It is based on our doctrine that there is a mother and father god who produce spirit offspring. Jesus and Lucifer are the spirit offspring of heavenly father and mother and are therefore siblings.
    That’s three sentences and if you say it, it will take about twenty seconds and accurately discribes Mormon doctrine. It is simple, direct, easy to understand and honest.

  8. And that, falcon, is why you will never be hired as a LDS public relations representative.

  9. Bill McKeever says:

    Ralph, I struggle with your classroom analogy for a couple of reasons. 1) Kim Farah was speaking to adults, not children who might be inacapable of understanding complex subjects. 2) Unlike children who will one day graduate to a higher grade and hear more details, I don’t think Farah has any intention of giving a more in-depth lesson to us “students” any time in the future.

    In an article that has been posted on for quite some time (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness), I mention an article written by BYU professor Robert J. Matthews for the October 1994 issue of Ensign. In that piece Dr. Matthews wrote that the ninth commandment is a “strong declaration against … gross understatements, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts.” He went on to say, “Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give the full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered” (pg.54).

    Ralph, do you think Kim Farah followed these rules?

  10. “In matters of honesty, there are no shortcuts; no little white lies, or big black lies, only the simple, honest truth spoken in total candor… Being true is different than being honest.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “13th Article, simple yet powerful,” Church News, September 22, 2007, p.3)

  11. dj1989 says:

    Aaron & Bill-

    Ralph’s analogy is a good one, when considering the fact that most people that are adults are still adolescents in regards to the things of the spirit. Isn’t that what Paul was referring to when he used the “milk/meat” analogy? Paul, too, knew that there was a place and time for certain gospel teachings.

    Also, the whole attempt to continue claiming that the church is not being honest, or speaks in half-truths is so contrived. You know it, too. As if any theological questions are going to be addressed in a press conference setting, or on Larry King Live. The intent of the persons that ask those questions in a press conference setting is completely transparent. They think they are clever, and you buy into it too. You say, look how they “bear false witness”, or look how they try to avoid “hard questions”, etc.

  12. pallathu says:

    Dear dj1989, I don’t have any problem in you give the milk first, and then meat. Would you wait until the personal to have the milk, meat then his digestestive system digest it, which takes some hours or days, before you make him a Mormon?

    Your analogy of milk does not apply to the Book of Mormon. Paul was talking in I Corinthians 3:1-2 about the Word of God, not the Book of Mormon. I don’t understand why you are comparing an apple to an orange?

    Have you read I Corinthians 3:1-2 with a sincere heart? Paul was addressing the Church where there were fights between the members. Those worldly issues prevented Paul from uniting them to grow more in Christ – read verses from 10 to 15. That verse does not mean Paul practiced giving milk first and then meat. Please read acts 9:20 – 21 where you will read about Paul’s style of sharing the truth. I would say Paul was such a person who gave meat all the time because he did not have anything to hide.

  13. David says:


    Your leaders have not just obscured the truth, but have lied outright. On numerous occasions, very high ranking LDS leaders have lied and some have even been caught on tape as doing such. I think we know all about whom and to what you are referring when you mention a press conference and Larry King Live 🙂

    One could tell the truth AND NOT LIE EVEN WHEN CAMERAS ARE ROLLING. It is not that hard to discuss things of a theological nature in any setting. It is not that hard to tell the truth when you have taken an oath before Congress to do so. The only loss that may be incurred is that your organization might look bad.

    Isn’t it ironic that reporters can be “transparent” but your leaders can’t? Yes, they have an agenda when they ask loaded questions. But, your leaders could still own up to some hoakie beliefs that have tons of shock value rather than obscure the truth or lie outright. Your leaders don’t have a right to lie just because someone asked a question that was designed to generate headlines.

  14. I’ve addressed the “milk, meat, and then some dessert” issue here.

    Did this principle somehow gave Paul the ethical justification to essentially lie when asked straightforward questions?

  15. Bill McKeever says:

    So Ralph and Dj, I take your responses to mean Mormons do believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. So the answer is simply, yes.

  16. Jeff B says:

    Lets not all forget what doctrine specifically we are talking about here.. Are they Brothers? Yes, because God the Father and his wife created spirit children, two of which were Jesus and Lucifer..

    When you LDS say, “ohh that’s so deep for our minds to understand.” I say, are-you-SERIOUS?! Whats so hard to understand about having children. It happens all the time on earth every day every minute. You need to own up to the fact that Jesus and Lucifer being brothers isn’t “Too much to comprehend.”

    And also, the people are asking it. Ralph, do you think if a child in your imaginary classroom had some knowledge that there were negative numbers out there asked the teacher, “Hey, aren’t there negative numbers too?”, do you think the Teacher would be like, “Well… that question is usually asked by someone who wants to make 1st grade difficult.” Doubtful. Do you think teacher would say “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it… I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” (does that sound familiar?)

    If I were the teacher I would say “Yes, it is true that there are negative numbers, and if you want to learn about it, you can ask me after class and I will fill you in.” Chances are, that child is intrigued enough by math enough to even ask the question, therefore he should get a clear answer that he seeks if someone knows what he’s talking about.. And I would THINK the Prophet and the Spokes person for the LDS church KNOW what they are talking about.

    Give me a break?

  17. Rick B says:

    Since Kim cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question, this is what I think.

    “If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined; their foundation must be very weak.” — (Journal of Discourses 14:216-217)

    Now to the issue of, lets give milk before meat, I say, give me a break, not everyone is so ignorent of the LDS teaching that they cannot handle an honest yes or no answer. How about doing it like this, answer the question with, yes we believe that, but if you want more info on it, then let us direct you to these people or websites.

    We live in an age where anyone can get answers via the internet, so to say it is a meaty question/responce is lame.

    Then as a full grown 37 year old man, no matter if I know nothing about your beliefes, if I ask an honest question, and your reply is, milk before meat, I would think your trying to hide something.

    And since many as it is, do not fully trust the LDS church, this kinda stuff is not helping. Rick b

  18. Ralph says:

    Yes, I gave the scriptures of milk before meat, but I also said there is a proper time and place, and in a public forum, that’s not the proper time or place in my perspective, especially if its about something different.
    Jeff, I was that kid in the imaginary class and the teachers did not answer the questions for me. In fact when writing down 1-4 and asking the teacher what is the answer they said that it cannot be done. I also gave the example in another post about the square root of negative numbers. All of my teachers, until the one that taught me about the topic, said that there is NO SUCH THING as the square root of negative numbers. But now I know there is and it’s used daily by mathematicians, physicists and engineers. Now according to any definition given, that was a down right lie, but it is taught in school all the time.
    RickB, yes you are 37 years old, but unlike most of the general population you have done some research into the LDS church and have already come up with your opinion about it, so you can handle the answer to an extent. But to properly answer the question the doctrines of premortal existance, meaning of life, plan of salvation and post mortal life need to be taught and that takes time. But as I said the answer is in the first 2 chapters of the Gospel Principles book with all of the other explanations included. Its no secret.
    And Bill, the answer is Yes, they are brothers. I have no reservations about saying that on this site as most of you already know the answer and know about the other doctrine that goes with it.

  19. Rick B says:

    Ralph said,

    But to properly answer the question the doctrines of premortal existance, meaning of life, plan of salvation and post mortal life need to be taught and that takes time.

    How come I need to know this first, before getting a simple yes or no answer to a question.

    I am a baker, so that would be like someone saying to me, What is the purpose of baking soda, and me saying, before you can understand baking soda, first you need to learn how to bake a cake, then taste it, then maybe try baking some cookies, etc. A simple yes or no answer sure is not easy to come by with you guys. Rick b

  20. Jeff B says:

    Ralph, it is unfortunate that your teachers lied to you. In fact, if they would have told the truth and fed your hunger for more mathematical knowledge, you might have had a jump start on your further learnings. I’m sure not every Math teacher would say what your teachers did so neither of us can make sweeping generalizations, but the fact remains. When someone asks a question of you and you have the knowledge they seek, it is very wrong to mislead or tell half-truths.

    And like I mentioned. It’s not hard for anyone, even non-religious, to comprehend two males being brothers. If you say, “he is my real brother”, then that makes people assume that you and the other fellow are born from the same mother (at the least). Would it have been so hard for people to understand if the spokes person just said. Yes, God the father had spirit children in heaven, two of which were Jesus and whom we now call Lucifer.

    I don’t have so much a problem with this as I do with Hinckley dodging the doctrine of God once being a man like us on an earth much like our own. To me, that also isn’t hard for the general public to understand. It sounds plain and simple to me. It’s either he dodged it or he doesn’t bother reading what the past presidents of the church said, which I find hard to believe. At his age he’s probably not actively involved in kayaking or hiking. (had to throw in a little humor there)

  21. Eric the Red says:

    Jeff B, you stole my thunder! My sentiments exactly. For Ralph’s analogy to have any application to the discussion, the following must be true. First grade student, “Are there negative numbers?” Teacher, “Oh, Billy, that question is usually raised by those who wish to smear Math teachers.” The issue here is not “simple to complex.” It is willful prevarication or hedging based upon the instructor’s opinion of the investigator’s motives. Look back at my two examples in an earlier post. How do those in anyway relate to a first grade teacher withholding the truth of negative numbers from a six year old? Withholding meat is not the same as lying about it. Aaron’s article “Lying for the Lord” is outstanding. I would encourage everyone to read it. The Bible tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, but is does not tell use to lie to them. We are not to answer a fool in his folly, but that doesn’t mean we deceive him.

    Ralph said, “this doctrine is taught in its entirety in the first 2 chapters of the Gospel Principles… so it’s no big secret.” Good point, but it is not my obligation to explain why in the face of such clear written documentation the average Mormon prevaricates or misleads. I, too, shake my head in disbelief. I cannot count the times I have quoted Gospel Principles to Mormons only to hear them say, “I seldom ever use that book” or “that translation is full of errors.” I just recently had an elder Mormon couple castigate Bruce McConkie when I quoted from Mormon Doctrine. In a three hour conversation with MMs the response to every source I quoted outside the Book of Mormon was, “I never heard of that book” or “I seldom ever read that.” If what I was saying was false, they should have been shocked and demanded source material. If it was true, what was the point of saying the source was unheard of or unimportant?

    Does all this remind you of a first grade teacher not teaching negative numbers to her students? I don’t think so.

  22. falcon says:

    So we have at long last had the verification that Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. So we get back to the “techniques” Mormons use to avoid talking about certain doctrines of their church and whether or not these techniques are used in an effort to not really answer questions. We have also examined the “motives” for using these techniques. In my opinion, Mormons know that if they answer these questions in a straight forward manner, they will risk looking foolish and/or lose a prospect. I was trying to think of an orthodox Chirstian doctrine in which I would have to give an evasive answer to an adult and then say, well the person wasn’t mature enough to understand the answer. I was interacting with a Mormon Romney supporter regarding the Jesus/Lucifer question. I quoted the article in the 1986 Ensign that explains the doctrine. He blew it off and said he didn’t even know the guy who wrote the article. So that seems like a pretty standard technique for not answering a question.

  23. Jeff B says:

    Yeah, I don’t say this as a look at us type thing but there is nothing in the Bible nor in traditional Christianity in where I’m like uhh, that doctrine is too hard to understand. There is nothing in that great book that makes me want to dance around the doctrine it implies in hopes of not scaring anyone away from converting.

  24. Shederlaomach says:

    The LDS church, I’ve been told, hired a Jewish-owned Public Relations firm some years ago to help it polish up its image. This firm suggested the increased type size for the words “Jesus Christ” in the name of the church, changing the name of the genealogical libraries to “Family History Centers,” and renaming the “Plan of Salvation” to the “Plan of Happiness.” It would be interesting to see if this approach is bearing fruit, or if it is just part of the general “dumbing down” of lessons, talks, manuals, and doctrine that seems to be output of the current LDS church.

    The LDS church seems incapable of telling the “unvarnished truth” about anything. Sadly, much of what they try to “spin” is done in such an amateurish way that they end up looking very foolish and dishonest–the worst image a church could ever have. With the possible exception of corrupt.

  25. Rick B says:

    Jeff b said

    There is nothing in that great book that makes me want to dance around the doctrine it implies in hopes of not scaring anyone away from converting.

    For me their is one thing I dance around because I might convert a mormon and I would not want to do that, (SMILE).

    The issue is where Peter had a vision and God told Peter to rise, kill and eat, then not call anything unclean that God made clean. I figure if they know the truth about that it would show a contrdiction with the WoW, and I would hate that, (Smiles again). Rick b

  26. Lancaster says:

    Mormons can certainly object to the sleazy manner in which Huckabee raised the matter in the first place. Mormon politicians have no more obligation to answer for the (legal) peculiarities of their theology than followers of other sects should be required to explain the Rapture or Transubstantiation. Article VI of the Constitution states: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Moreover, I’m puzzled why this particular doctrine should be presented as something out of Ripley’s “Believe it or Not.” How is kinship between Jesus and Satan any more off-putting than the repugnant notion that God created Satan? Mormon doctrine at least answers the meatier question of ultimate responsibility for evil, by positing an eternal seat of personal accountability (or “intelligence”) in the individual.

    Besides, this idea of brothers coming in Manichean pairs has a deep provenance in scripture: Cain/Able, Jacob/Esau, etc. Frankly, sharing the spiritual gene pool with Satan would explain why the human race has produced so many “devils incarnate.”

    Unfortunately, there is no excusing the Mormon Church’s penchant for constantly putting public affairs ahead of principles. I can’t help but be amused at the conspiratorial musings about a Romney presidency when Mormons in high places have constantly shown a willingness to sell out in exchange for favorable press. Mormon PR flacks come up with such lame prevarications because their employers have never thought deeply enough about it. That’s what you get with a “lay priesthood”: amateurism.

    Which is why, were I ever to become an active Mormon again (a purely hypothetical proposition), I’m afraid I would have to become one of those wild-eyed fundamentalists, because they seem to be the only “Mormons” left who stand squarely behind what Joseph Smith preached.

    Oh, and I HATE that “new & improved” logo. PR even gets in the way of good graphic design.

  27. falcon says:

    The reason the concept of brotherhood between Jesus and Lucifer is so off putting is because it’s blasphemy.

  28. Lancaster says:

    Blasphemy? Where does it say that? Who decided that? Seriously. Who gets to decide these things? And like I said, to object to a fraternal relationship between Jesus and Lucifer while positing a paternal relationship between God and Lucifer strikes me so much choking on gnats and swallowing camels. Granted, it’s your party and you can cry blasphemy if you want to (I’m not one to insist that Mormons are generically deserving of the term “Christian”), but that doesn’t make such assertions any less illogical. Jesus is the Son of God. God created Lucifer. And that makes the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer–what? Manichaeism really starts to look attractive, doesn’t it?

  29. falcon says:

    That’s pretty typical Mormon logic given the doctrine of the LDS Church. I think in orthodox Christian terms and that of historical Biblical Christianity. So we’re talking about two completely different religions. In orthodox Christian terms, the notion that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers is blasphemy. I think historic Christianity can claim title to the term Christian because we have an unbroken lineage back to the primitive Christian Church. Mormonism was created in 1820-30. There are some terms that Mormonism borrows from the Christian Church but the meanings are quite different. So your points are valid only in Mormon terms.

Comments are closed.