I’ve been reading a new book by my LDS acquaintance Robert (Bob) Millet who teaches religion at Brigham Young University. Because I know he prefers to be called a Latter Day Saint (LDS) that’s what I’ll call him here.
The book is Modern Mormonism: Myths and Realities (Greg Kofford Books).
Now, you’ll have to know a little of my own background and Bob’s to understand why I have to be open to his argument that LDSers are Christians.
Bob begins the book with autobiographical reflections on his childhood and youth in Louisiana where his life at school was made a living hell by Baptists and Catholics becuase of his LDS religion.
I didn’t experience that (school a living hell) until we moved from Iowa to South Dakota. You’d think those two states would be very much alike, but they are very different in terms of religious ecology.
I don’t recall anyone ever making fun of my religion in Iowa. When I entered school in South Dakota in 6th grade, however, things changed. The Catholics and Lutherans ridiculed me for being a “holy roller” (we were Pentecostals of a very, very mild sort). That went on through high school even though I got used to it and learned to laugh at myself along with them.
I remember picking up a book at a used book store years ago by a Lutheran theologian named Casper Nervig. The title was “Christian Truth and Religious Delusion” and, it turns out, only the Evangelical Lutheran Church (now the ALC or ELCA) was the “Church of Truth.” Pentecostals were completely misrepresented and labeled a religious movement of “some truth, much error.”
There was a time when, in spite of most Pentecostal denominations belonging to the National Association of Evangelicals, even many evangelicals considered Pentecostals less-than-fully Christian. Of course, we returned the favor. It wasn’t until I got involved in Youth for Christ in high school that I realized non-Pentecostals could be fully and completely Christian.
So, I want to be fair and open-minded with anyone of a minority religious group who claims to be Christian. I have learned from hard experiences that in spite of studying non-traditional groups (I taught a course for 17 years called “America’s Cults and New Religions”) I sometimes turn out to be wrong about what they really believe and why.
Bob is the self-appointed LDS missionary to mainstream Christians, attempting to explain LDS belief as truly Christian and not cultic or heretical. In this book, he deals with 11 common myths (as he sees them) about the LDS Church.
The first one is “A Finite God” and the last one is “No Eternal Security.” It is an eye-opening book. Everyone who has any interest in LDS religion should read it, if for no other reason, to get what LDSers really believe (or at least Bob’s version of it!).
I am not particularly concerned about the details of “Mormon underwear” and “Temple work,” etc. I go right to the heart of the matter (and did when I was at BYU twice for ecumenical dialogue events). Is Jesus God and Savior? To me, this is the crucial issue when trying to decide whether a person or group is authentically Christian. All kinds of religions and non-religious philosophies accept Jesus Christ as a prophet, a sage, a cynic, a magician, even the “Son of God” (as Jehovah’s Witnesses admit).
The World Council of Churches requires candidate denominations to confess that Jesus Christ is God and Savior. I agree.
So what does Bob say about Jesus Christ? Well, Jesus appears on almost every page of the book and he goes to great lengths to express LDS high regard for Jesus. He talks often about Jesus’ “godhood” and “divinity” and “divine powers,” etc. But what I’m looking for is a clear, unequivocal affirmation that Jesus Christ was uniquely God incarnate, eternally equal in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
On page 15 Bob says “while Jesus was fully human, He was also fully God. That means–and this is vital–that we (LDSers) worship the Son of God as God the Son, as do all other Christians. … How He became the infinite and eternal God is, from my perspective, immaterial, if in fact it does not in any way detract from my love and unbounded adoration of Him.”
My response is: Hmmmmm….. I like the first part of that confession and scratch my head vigorously and wince tightly over the last part of it. How does an infinite being “become God?”
Once I asked Bob face-to-face if he believes Jesus is God and he said yes. Then I asked him if he believes Jesus was always God and he said yes. Why now, in this book, does he imply that Jesus “became” God? Does that even make sense? And can an informed, authentic Christian believe Jesus “became God?”
I have come to the conclusion that many LDSers are, from my perspective, anyway, very confused about theology. IF Bob believes Jesus always was and is and always will be God equal with the Father and the Son, then I have no problem being open to accepting him as a Christian. (I would have to know that the LDS Church as a whole believes that before accepting it as a Christian denomination.)
Of course, yes, there are other issues, but they pale in comparison with this one.
I would like to see more LDS-Christian dialogues. And one thing I would like to challenge LDSers about is the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ and his unique incarnation on which everything about being a Christian depends.
Great post Roger. I live in Nauvoo, IL and love living here. God brought us here for one purpose; to minister and witness to the people of this small town. Nauvoo is a sort of Mecca for the LDS church and we have hundreds of thousands come through every year. I currently have the privilege of being in conversation with LDS leadership here and our focus has been on who is Jesus and what is salvation?
Although Dr. Millet’s book is no doubt good, the official doctrine of the church is slippery. The only book available with “official” teaching is the book Gospel Principles. After that you are sent through several rabbit holes of magazines, general conference speeches, etc. etc.
The official teaching is the Jesus “became” god, but no one knows when that happened. Why? Because each individual is left to figure that out on their own.
I surely hope that you can find the answer to Dr. Millet’s confusing statements. It could mean the difference between the eternal destinations available to him.
Blessings….
For me Hebrews is a big barrier to accepting the LDS church as authentically Christian. Against the back drop of what we would now consider heretical belief the writer goes out of his way to show that Jesus is God’s final and complete revelation and that the redemption Jesus provided is complete and final too.
The writers point is that Jesus does not need to be and indeed cannot be supplemented because there is no deficiency in the revelation and redemption he provides. That being the case I cannot accept the further revelation that the LDS claims to offer Christianity with its book of Mormon etc.
The LDS Church says it does not believe in any further redemption beyond Jesus Christ. They don’t believe Joseph Smith played any role in redemption. However, they do, of course, believe in on going revelation. But, of course, so do some Christians. The difference would be that the LDS church believes new doctrinal truths can be revealed beyond what is in the traditional Scriptural canon. Most Christians (especially Protestants) would argue that Scripture is sufficient for knowledge of God and needs no supplementation. However, it seems to me that many Protestants have added to the canon with their systems of theology and confessional statements that are not open to revision.
Well said
I greatly appreciate your thoughts on what LDS’ers believe. I’ve been incredibly squeamish when it comes to Mormon or JW theology . But I find as I grow in Christ a growing desperation to draw people toward the family of God. I simply want people to know the love, forgivenness, life, hope, peace, overcoming power, lordship, and salvation of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I’m looking for openings for agreement, with which, I can build relationship with people. God reached so far and gave his very heart when he gave us Jesus. I want to stretch and give as well.
I’ll take any bone anyone is willing to throw my way. This one even has some good meat on it!
It’s my understanding that the Mormon Jesus is the half-brother of Lucifer and just one of a multitude of the off-spring produced by Elohim and one of his many wives.
I don’t know how official that belief is. I have found that many common Mormon ideas are optional.
Roger,
Are you familiar with Millet’s book on Jesus? Its called A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints.
He makes clear in it that he holds to the traditional LDS view that Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of the Father (And, of course, the rarely mentioned heavenly mother). He is the elder brother of all the other spirit children (humanity) of God. He also affirms that Jesus is God, that he is endless and eternal (20). As you have pointed out, this is contradictory. This is major, but it is not the only major problem w/ Mormonism. Polytheism is just as big of a problem. As is the declaration by Joseph Smith that the Father was not always God. In Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between A Mormon and an Evangelical Millet says, “Joseph Smith taught that God is an Exalted Man, a Man of Holiness, and that while He is God and possesses every power, every divine quality, and every perfected attribute, He is not of a different species with mortal men and women” (58).
I have followed the Evangelical – Mormon conversations going on and think they have been very edifying. I believe Mormonism may be moving toward a more orthodox theology, but it would have to completely renounce it’s past and founder to do so.
I, too, have followed that conversation and been part of it. When I was at BYU I told the LDSers that I hope and pray for the day that the LDS Church as a whole goes through a change similar to the Worldwide Church of God. If it can happen to that church, why not the LDS church? With God all things are possible. In the meantime, I consider SOME LDSers Christians in spite of their church.
Dr. Olson,
I have talked to Mormons about this subject, and you are right when they seen somewhat unstable on this issue of divinity. A Jehovah Witness once told me that God could make a perfect divine being, one capable of being able to save us from our sins.
Many would say that the Bible could imply Jesus as God since he is perfect yet created. I am not convinced that God could make another perfect divine being, just like God not being able to sin.
So I would not be Mormon because many of their doctrines contradict the Bible, yet I know a few I would consider Christian who at least believe that Jesus is God
Going to LDS sources (vice websites attacking Mormons) I find the official LDS website reveals not all that much that is troubling in the general statements about LDS beliefs, though it gets interesting if you start to search through the Book of Mormon. On the other hand several websites by LDS members about the LDS are fairly candid in their answers and confirm (not intentionally) that Mormons are not Christians. You’ll find statements that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct beings. You find a belief in our pre-mortal existence as spirit children of God, and that Jesus, though firstborn, was also a spirit child of God like us. In answering a question/accusation one website said plainly that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, but emphasized it is in the sense that both were made by God. If this does not represent actual LDS doctrine then indeed many LDS members are very very confused. If Bob believes like they do Bob is not a Christian. If Bob does not believe like they do, is Bob a Mormon?
I suspect the LDS Church has become so large and diverse that it is impossible to generalize that “all Mormons….” For example, only about half of them ever go to a temple to do temple work. I have met LDSers who don’t seem to know much about the more esoteric doctrines of the Mormon past.
I have seen very few people claim that Mormons reject the divinity of Christ. The accusation that I usually here is that Mormons do not embrace Monotheism; that they believe the term ‘god’ to be an economical term rather than an ontological one. Thus the Father, Son and Spirit share the same office of god, and are thus one god, but they are ontologically seperate beings.
I have also found in my experience that Mormons are very confused about theology. I tend to get a lot of double-speak about what they believe, and different accounts by different Mormons. What I understand is that there are different levels of revelation of truth in Mormonism, and what the truth is can very depending upon your position within the church.
Hi jc,
You wrote, “Thus the Father, Son and Spirit share the same office of god, and are thus one god, but they are ontologically seperate beings.”
Actually, the official teaching of the LDS is church is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually not one god, but are three separate Gods, 3 Gods among un untold number of Gods in a polytheistic universe. They Father and Son and Holy Ghost, the ‘Godhead”, are resurrected men who progressed to godhood, just as any obedient male LDS church member who attains the highest level of salvation can do. (There are 3 levels of salvation, and 3 heavens, the highest is known as eternal life, exaltation in the celestial kingdom.) Any man reaching exaltaion becomes a God, can be a God and rule over his own planet someday, and have many celestial wives.
The church teaches that Jesus the Son is a person called Jehovah and has a physical body as tangible as any man’s, the Father is a person called Elohim and also has a physical flesh and blood body as well, and the Holy Ghost is a separate God from the Father and Son, a person with a spirit body, but does not have a physical body. In LDS terminology, the Holy Ghost is a person and God, but the Holy Spirit is just influence from the Father and not personal.
Bill, often they use the term “Godhead” and “God” interchangably. Apart from that, you simply said what I said with different words.
Hi jc,
There are 2 important areas where we differ, which is why I commented. They are not just semantics, but are very important for those reading this thread about mormonism and wanting a clear picture of what official church teaching is.
1) You wrote, “often they use the term “Godhead” and “God” interchangably”
As far as official church teaching goes, these are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. If anyone says the words godhead and god are interchangeable in LDS theology, they are mistaken, as the godhead is not god, but rather 3 totally separate Gods. The Church’s first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead, and are three separate Gods.
2) Also, you wrote, “Thus the Father, Son and Spirit share the same office of god, and are thus one god, but they are ontologically seperate beings.”
The difference here is “are thus one god”. This is not LDS teaching, and is a very important difference. Trinitarian theology teaches the 3 persons are one god, but the LDS church never teaches that. It is very important for people to know that the Godhead in LDS theology is made up of Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost, (not holy spirit, which is just “influence” and not a person). These are three persons and THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE GODS.
This idea of “one god in three persons” is one of the many “false, corrupt concepts of god” which the prophet Joseph Smith came to restore to the earth. He came to restore both the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ, as directed by the Lord, and one of these false teachings was the trinitarian concept of these persons “making up one god.”
Hope that helps clear up why I felt the need to comment.
-Blessings.
I thought the LDS statement of faith simply says they are “three separate personages.” Does it actually say “three separate gods?” Or is that just how it is sometimes interpreted by LDSers? In any case, “three separate personages” is at best infelicitious language for the Trinity. However, I hear Christians use the word “separate” all the time to describe the relationship between the three divine persons. I try to correct this by saying they are “distinct but never separate.”
Roger,
Yes, since the time the church was founded, the Trinitarian concept of God was considered to be an errant and pagan concept hatched by early apostates, leading to the TOTAL apostasy of the true Christian church from off the face of the earth until it was restored by Joseph Smith Junior. Just one of the many, many errors that the “christian” churches had fallen into. The following areas of traditional Christian theology are all considered corrupt by the LDS church, which holds to different definitions and theologies of each:
God
Father
Son
Ghost
Spirit
Resurrection
Atonement
Salvation
The Gospel
Eternal life
Virgin Birth
Baptism
Reliability of the Bible
Heaven(s)
Hell
and many other areas which are peripheral in nature.
Ironically, though official church teachings of the restored church oppose traditional biblical concepts of the three persons of the Trinity and the belief in one tri-personal God, yet mormon scriptures and writings contradict each other in each of these areas, just as the various prophets contradict each other, and just as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants contradict each other in areas.
Regarding the “godhead”, the church has always held the Godhead to be three gods, one in PURPOSE, but not one god.
The traditional concept of the “Trinity” is often seen and caricatured as a “three headed” god, or 3 people stuffed into one body, a “monster” of a god.
As pertaining the ‘Trinity” the following is official mormon teaching:
“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three!…. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God – he would be a giant or a monster.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.372) (Also see Articles of Faith, pps.41, 48).
As to the orthodox teaching that God is eternal, the official church teaching stands:
“…for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)
Knowledgeable mormons are aware that the church teaches that Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer, a separate God altogether from the Father (in other words they don’t share the same essence), who was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. God the father is an exalted man who progressed to godhood. He is relegated to a position on the “Council of the Gods” who got together and “concocted a plan to create the earth.” HOWEVER, to be fair, young mormons or those in the church but not knowledgeable about church teachings, may not.
Regarding the Adam/God quote someone else referenced, it is found in Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.50, but most present day Mormons do not see Adam as their God, and that is NOT official church teaching.
The Father and the Son are separate gods with separate flesh and bone bodies.
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;… ” (D&C 130:22)
The idea of God being an omnipresent Spirit rather than a God of flesh and bones limited in space, is the teaching of corrupt apostates per the official church teaching.
Mormon Doctrine, page 318, by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, states, “GOD AS A SPIRIT. See Apostasy, Creeds, God. False creeds teach that God is a spirit essence that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. In a vain attempt to support this doctrine, formulated by councils in the early days of the great apostasy, …” He goes on to say that the teaching that “God is a Spirit” is from a mistranslation of John 4:22-24 and attacks both the Spirit essence and the onmipresence of God, teaching these ideas were hatched in the minds of early apostates.
“…His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, he cannot be in more than one place at any one time.” (Articles of Faith, p.43)
When you’ve got a god who is just an exalted man, who is locked into a body of flesh and bones, it’s not surprising that you would claim that he can’t be everywhere at the same time.
Ironically, Roger, though the LDS church still officially remains a polytheistic church which mocks the historic doctrine of the Trinity, and teaches that all “christian churches” are corrupt apostate churches and their minsters are hirelings of satan, yet MONOTHEISM is taught in a number of places in both the BOM and the D&C.
Joseph Smith was an evolutionary prophet whose views on some issues changed over time, and of course he was a false prophet per Biblical standards, so I hold out hope that as loving dialogue continues, God will be working on the hearts and minds of LDS members. I especially have hope for the youth, that as Christians take the time to learn to witness to mormon missionaries and mormon friends and neighbors, God will make them aware of the Biblical teaching on the important issues, such as the nature of God, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the good news that salvation is by grace thru faith and not of works (the LDS gospel is a works-filled “mission impossible” plan that no one can achieve). It is a labor of love, and love never fails, right?
-Blessings
I know that my acquaintance Bob Millett would argue with you about much of this. It seems that the sayings of past LDS presidents are not binding. What is considered “official church teaching” evolves. It seems the LDS Church is “evolving” in a more Christian direction and for that I am glad.
Roger, I cannot tell you how totally delighted I am by this post.
Not that I have anything to do with Mormonism (though I made my first ever Mormon friend while dogwalking last year), but just to see Christians taking other people & their views & committments seriously, & listening to them does my heart no end of good. How has it ended up that so many Christians are so dismissive of others, & can’t listen before having to butt in with their own point of view?
I’m not saying the pint of view is wrong – not at all – but how we express it, & the relationships we destroy instead of nurturing, the lack of wanting to connect with our fellow humans, makes me profoundly sad.
Not to mention all the extras heaped onto people, who truly, at the start, just need to start with Jesus, & let him guide them through all the other stuff.
Warmest wishes from a sunny springtime England
Becka
Thank you so much for the polite dialogue with your Mormon friend.
I am rather tolerant of numerous views & perspectives in christian theology. However, the one area that I can’t waver on is the essence & centrality of Jesus. You’re dead on that so many people want to claim Jesus for themselves in one way or another. My problem with the LDS church goes all the way back to Joe Smith’s first vision/encounter with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three separate beings in human form. That’s a very radical departure from the God of the bible, and one that simply goes to far for me.
That having been said, mocking and deriding people for their beliefs is not exactly the most Jesus-like way to interact with others. So keep doing what you are doing.
Joe
P.S. Ages ago, I read a book by Fawn Brodie called “No man knows my history.” It was an excellent biography of Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, it got her excommunicated from the LDS church. Since you don’t have to worry about that, I would recommend it to you.
Joe–
I’m a former Mormon (one of the few non-bitter ones that seem to exist), but I have to clarify: Joseph Smith’s account of his first vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ the son was only of those two beings, not of the Holy Ghost in a personal form. Mormon theology holds that the three (God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost) are indeed separate beings, but the Holy Ghost does not maintain a physical, corporeal form in the way that God and Christ do.
Regardless, a fascinating discussion. I’d take various issues with various comments, but more than anything, I think that the most important thing is a fair discussion based not on hearsay, but on actual beliefs of both the Church’s official doctrine, as well as the predominant beliefs of the actual members.
Most of you have been incredibly gracious and open-minded, and for that (and on behalf of my family, all of whom are still devout), I’m grateful.
My discussions with LDS believers is that Jesus was not always God and before that the Father was not always God. Also, Brigham Young said that there could have been an infinite number of past generations of Gods while none of them have always been Gods. I also heard that some reformed sect of Mormonism believes in both the book of Mormon and the catholic Christian Trinity.
The Mormon sect holding to catholic Trinitarianism was called the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and is now called the “Community of Christ.”
Hello all. I’m a Mormon who has lurked at Dr. Olson’s blog for some time now. I became a fan of Dr. Olson when I purchased and read his “The Story of Christian Theology.”
Regarding the issue of whether Jesus is God in Mormonism, the discussion is hampered by an unclear definition of the word “god” in Mormonism and in the rest of Christendom. When we claim that “X is God” we have a set of prior assumptions or beliefs about what it means for a thing to be “God”. Whether consciously or unconsciously we are applying a set of criteria when evaluating whether a thing is “God”.
Mormons and non-Mormon Christians generally approach this question with different sets of criteria. Much can be said about why (and I think it is largely due to our respective views about the relationship between God and man), but the bottom line is that when a Mormon says that “Jesus is God” his criteria has more to do with the things that Jesus has done or accomplished, whereas when an Evangelical says that “Jesus is God” his criteria has more to do with Christ’s ontology.
Just some Monday morning thoughts…
Well, that muddies the waters even more! That sounds like what we call “functional Christology” (e.g., Schleiermacher and all his theological descendents). Orthodox Christianity in all its varieties has always confessed Jesus as ontologically divine which is why he could function as Savior.
Dr. Olson states:
“Is Jesus God and Savior? To me, this is the crucial issue when trying to decide whether a person or group is authentically Christian.”
One issue I’ve always had with most definitions of “Christian” provided by Evangelicals is that they are in some way or another synonymous with ideas about being “saved”. In the Evangelical community, the word “Christian” has become synonymous with “correct beliefs about God, and therefore saved.”
While this theological litmus test for who is a “Christian” functions fine within a particular sub-community (Evangelical), it may not function well in the wider community that includes all devotees to the person Jesus Christ. Can a person be a “Christian” and yet not be “saved”? Well that depends on how you define the word “Christian”. Mormons typically do *not* define “Christian” as being synonymous with “saved”.
I prefer a definition that is inclusive, instead of exclusive. My preferred definition for “Christian” is “one who places the person Jesus Christ at the very center of his theology.” I believe this was the simple definition that the biblical authors had in mind when they used that word (thought it was very seldom).
I would prefer to say that there are people who are “saved” but not yet fully “Christian.” And I have known too many people who place Jesus Christ at the very center of their theology who deny his deity. Think, for example, of Arius and his legion of followers down through the ages. Many of them place Jesus Christ at the center of their theology (e.g., as supreme prophet, incarnated archangel, etc.) but deny that he is ontologically, equally one with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. What I am saying is that, for me, the incarnation is what Christianity is all about. (Not that it’s ONLY about that, of course!)
James,
“Saved” is nothing other than Jesus Christ himself residing in one’s heart. So, with that in mind one cannot both be a Christian and not saved, regardless of one’s theology.
It depends on what “Christian” means. Insofar as it means “member of a Christian church,” of course one can be unsaved and a “Christian.” But my main point was that I recognize some people as saved who are not “Christians.”
Roger,
According to Acts 11:25-26, the disciples (or believers) were first called Christians in Antioch; not because these people studied the Bible or maintained a certain theology, but because they were believers in Jesus Christ, and thus took the name Christian to identify their personal relationship with Christ.
According to the context of this scripture passage, one is not a Christian unless one is a believer – the two are synonymous. It just so happens that the world today assigns the word “Christian” to anyone or any group who is remotely associated with Christian beliefs or teaching. The bottom line: If Jesus Christ resides within one’s heart and is thereby saved, then according to Acts 11:25-26, that person is a Christian, but otherwise, not.
Of course you can simply define “Christian” that way. The problem is, in some parts of the world, for example, using the word “Christian” is like “fundamentalist” here (or worse). I have been told by people who traveled in Lebanon, for example, that during the civil war there, anyone who called himself or herself “Christian” was automatically assumed to be a member or supporter of a certain violent milita. So non-militia Christians in Lebanon used other words to label themselves. “Christian” isn’t a sacred word. One can be a Jesus follower and saved and not use that label. To say otherwise would seem to make an idol out of a word.
Roger,
I understand where you are coming from. The point of my comment was to address the original meaning of the word for use in purely theological and doctrinal terms. I am really trying to distinguish between the original meaning and usage of the word “Christian”, as originated in Antioch, and the hijacking of the word by so many non-believers in the world today. I believe that when we are speaking strictly in theological and doctrinal terms, we need to stick with the original meaning and usage of the word “Christian”, and not callously speak of it as if it is only a generic label or in some way trivial. However, I fully understand that when addressing a certain group who has incorrectly assumed that label for their collective identity, unfortunately we must think of the word “Christian” strictly as only a label, one that bears a different meaning altogether than what it truly means, a believer in whom Christ Jesus resides.
Thanks for an interesting post. I appreciate your loving attitude and openness for dialog! Now, I agree that christology should be the very center of evaluating to what extent LDS (and any other movement for that matter) is within the parameters of “Christianity”. Yet, I wonder, if worldview could present another such criteria of evaluation? From my interaction with LDSers and studies it seems to me that their basic worldview is not what can be considered orthodox Christian. So even if we find some statements that match a Christian christology, so to speak, I wonder if that would still qualify them if it is made while retaining a different worldview.
I would be interested to hear your comments in regards to using worldview as a general criteria of evaluating a movement, be it LDS or other.
I agree that a certain view of reality forms a backdrop, as it were, for orthodoxy Christianity. But, when it comes to identifying the center or core of the matter (viz., deciding who is and who isn’t Christian) I prefer to stick to Christology and work out from there. In other words, I am prone to allow a certain amount of inconsistency so long as a group firmly affirms the deity of Jesus Christ and his sole saviorhood.
Its been my observation and experience in talking with LDS that while we use the same language in conversing – we both have a very different understanding of what we mean by it.
Take the topic of forgiveness of sins as one example… we can say and both affirm isn’t it great we have forgiveness of sins through Christ..and find we both nod our heads in agreement…. yet – in reality we both understand this statement in a vastly different way. ..deeper communication of understanding what is actually meant in our usage of terminology is needed.
My experience of talking with LDS theologians at BYU is that sometimes I think we are using the same words to mean ths same things and then, soon, I’m not so sure. It’s very slippery. (I don’t mean that as a value judgment but only that my perception of whether we are meaning the same things by the same words slips around a lot.)
My concern with the view that “Jesus ‘became’ God” is that I know some Mormons believe (and whether or not this is an official teaching, I do not know) that anyone can become a god, inherit a star and solar system, etc. Does his book say anything about this teaching and its validity within the LDS church?
Millet tends to dismiss this as opinion and not official church teaching.
Good to know. I think that in order to count Mormons as Christians, one not only needs to affirm the diety of Christ, but also the uniqueness of this – that Jesus is the only one who was, is, or ever will be fully God and fully man.
Hi guys,
The church teaches that both the Father and the Son are God. They are 2 separate Gods, who are both resurrected men who became God. Neither existed as God from the beginning. Both also have physical bodies of flesh and bone as tangible as any man’s. Both have glorified and perfected bodies of flesh and bones.
The church teaches that Jesus existed as a pre-existent spirit being along with Lucifer and many others, just did not fall as Lucifer did. Jesus is the first in a long line of spirit children to come from the physical relationship of a “flesh and bones” Heavenly Father and Mother.
The church teaches that in order to attain “exaltation” and godhood, one must be married so therefore Jesus was married and remains to this day married (Doctrines and Salvation, V2, p.65). Jesus “attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence” (What the Mormons Think of Christ, p36).
I know of no LDS missionary, bishop, stake president, apostle or prophet who ever affirmed that Jesus was created God, or who denied that Jesus had to become God.
If Mr.Millet dismisses these teachings as “just opinion” I think he is either uninformed, or confused, since it is official church teaching, has been for years, and is taught at the MTC to LDS youth training for their missions, as well as those studying for the Melchizedek priesthood. It is also found in many official church publications, including the Journal of Discourses, What the Mormons Think of Christ, The Gospel Through the Ages, The Uniform System for Teaching Families, Doctrines of Salvation, and others. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the church has never officially denounced any of these teachings nor the writings in which they are found.
Mormonism does indeed teach that God “became” God, inasmuch as He was once like us (mortal, of a physical body, etc.) and was essentially elevated to the Chairman of the Board, so to speak. But Jesus did not “become” God in the same way, and Jesus Christ is indeed the Only Begotten, the Lamb, and what have you.
Past differences of trinitarian theology, what I can only think to call “mainline Christianity” (I’m an amateur theologian and former Mormon, so I’ve thus far had to create my own terminology as I enter the broader world of theological writing) and Mormonism share a predominantly similar view of Christ’s role in salvation: He suffered in Gethsemane, He died on the cross for our sins, He rose again three days later, and through His sacrifice are we redeemed to live eternally.
Other points of Mormon theology/Christology (I’m thinking of things like the Book of Mormon’s accounts of Christ’s visits to the American continent) don’t seem to contradict the fact that Mormons view Christ as the Son of God and the cornerstone of redemption.
In summary: the big difference between “Mormon Jesus” and “Non-Mormon Jesus” was that Mormon Jesus was more well-traveled.
And yes, Bill, your immediately below comment about Lucifer’s “rebelling” is accurate; Christ’s suggested plan was to allow us to have agency, while Lucifer’s plan took agency away. When God allowed for us to have agency (not “free agency,” as “free” implies a lack of cost, and Jesus’ sacrifice is that cost), Lucifer rebelled against the plan, thus the War in Heaven, etc.
Sorry, I would have been more accurate had I written that Lucifer became Satan because he REBELLED (not fell). Official church teaching is that the Father accepted the plan of the eldest son to redeem the world, and rejected the plan of the second son, who was “Lucifer, son of the morning”, and so the eldest son became Jesus while the second son, Lucifer, after rebelling, became Satan.
If you read the six study guides the missionairies give you, the LDS believe that they are the true church. The others are apostate. God restored the truth to Joseph Smith.’Only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can we find all the truths that will help us return to our Father in Heaven.’. They may be telling us that they’re ‘just another church’, but their own materials prove otherwise.
Millett deals with this in his book Modern Mormons. He claims the LDS church finds good in many traditional Christian churches while holding that only the LDS church possesses the fullness of truth for the present.
Oh please, please, please write about Christianly viewing the death of Osama?
Here you go.
I’m reminded of a reply from a while back: The Jesus truth is only the Jesus life if it is accompanied by the Jesus way (or words to that effect).
My greatest experience of LDS was in the Kingdom of Tonga (islands in the South Pacific). Tonga has been a country with an explicitly Christian constitution since the late 19th century. Everybody knows which denomination they (their family) belong to – even if they don’t attend!
The LDS has a temple complex and secondary school in the village of Liahona. They make schooling freely available to anybody who wants to sign up. They will build housing for people who have no housing. They import container loads of medical equipment. A friend of mine was told, by an LDS coach driver, that “They will pay for you to go to the ‘Promised Land.” (aka USA). Tonga is a relatively poor country and all these material benefits are extremely attractive to the locals.
The problem is that, if you are a non-fee paying secondary school student, a couple of months before the state exams you will be told that unless you agree to be baptised a Mormon you will have to leave the school. A friend of ours, an Anglican priest from New Zealand, was principal of an Anglican secondary school. Every year he was dealing with young people who did not want to be baptised Mormon and so, at the last minute, were looking for another school so they didn’t miss out on the state exams.
You will only have a house built for you if you are a member of the LDS. However if, for any reason, you should transfer to another denomination (by which I do not mean to imply that LDS is another denomination of the true Church) they will come along and remove the roof from your house. In one case I know of, this was prevented only by the pastor of the new church visiting the LDS elders to publicly shame them for such unconscionable behaviour.
I have no doubt that there are good and upright Mormons who would also decry such behaviour. However, as this seems to be official LDS policy, at least in Tonga (and as you know there is always a strong expatriate presence so it can’t be put down to local ignorance), such an absence of the Jesus way speaks very strongly to me of an absence of the Jesus life in the LDS.
When an organisation is doctrinally suspect and so blatantly fails to live the Jesus way, I believe we are justified in maintaining the view that this group, as a group, is not to be counted as part of the true Church.
Again, I am not saying that nobody within the LDS is saved. God only knows the heart of each indivdual and God, in his grace and mercy, knows who are truly his.
Another perspective from a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to throw into the mix:
I do not know exactly what Bob Millet meant when he said “Jesus was always God,” but I don’t find the statements in his book contradictory of that claim. His statement that it is “immaterial” how Jesus “became” God merely allows for Latter-day Saints with different perspectives on the matter to be included in the umbrella of Christianity. In other words, while he believes that “Jesus was always God,” other Latter-day Saints may have different views, but it’s immaterial what those views are as long as they presently worship Jesus Christ as God.
As a child my next door neighbor and best friend was one of three kids in a Catholic family. The oldest, a daughter, grew up and converted to the LDS faith. My buddy became a JW. In each of them I see aspects and character that I usually associate with Christ-followers. I say to them, and I say to the folks who knock on my doors, that I believe that people are saved by grace alone through faith alone – faith in Jesus – NOT faith plus affiliation with the correct human association of religious people – NOT faith plus doing the correct works that may or may not be encouraged by that human organization – NOT faith plus the correct sexual orientation. Faith alone. Now, in their cases I do not believe that the human organization is teaching 100% accurate doctrine – but I also believe that of many mainline and even many evangelical bodies. But church bodies are not “saved” – only individuals are – even if that smacks of nominalism. And they might have faith in Christ – perhaps as a remnant of their childhood – even if their chosen grouop teaches them some wrong things.
Again, I make a distinction between “saved” and “Christian.” The latter designates a belief, a way of life and an affiliation. The former designates a right relationship with God. I am no judge of who is and who isn’t saved, but, as a professional theologian, part of my job is to decide, however tentatively, what churches deserve to be called “Christian.”
An LDS believer recently told me that official LDS teaching says that Jesus was not always God and that the Father of Jesus was not always God. Also, I read Brigham Young say that there could have been an infinite number of past generations of Gods while implying that none of them have always been God. On the other hand, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is now called the “Community of Christ,” believes in both the book of Mormon and the catholic version of the Christian Trinity.
Right. But the Community of Christ has never considered itself “Mormon” in spite of its belief that the Book of Mormon is accurate history.
Does the book mention the doctrine of creation ex-nihlo? I have a good friend who is LDS, and (at least according to him), that is something Mormons do not hold to.
I like the distinction you make between being saved (right relationship with God) and being Christian (a set of defined orthodox beliefs). Wesley said it like this:
I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. Without holiness, I own, “no man shall see the Lord;” but I dare not add, “or clear ideas.” (sermon 125, On Living without God)
What a great quote from one of my heroes. But think of the reaction Wesley would receive from the neo-fundamentalist evangelicals among us were he to say that among them today. He would be declared (as I have been recently) a “postevangelical!” What irony.
Well said. But I think either your friend is confused or has somewhat misrepresented himself to you (not in the book). I spent over a year in the LDS church exploring their conception of God. I came across similar issues. It took a while, but it all finally made sense. Jesus Christ is the God of the old testament, along with the father (who go by different names). Jesus was born divine, much like us–though he is exalted now as opposed to later for the faithful. He is a creature–NOT the infinite, unbegining, one and only, Trinidadian God. Father God was born and became a god just as we too may one day as well. Now, I am not sure if that determines them NOT to be saved. How much bad theology makes one’s confess null and void anyway?
My only point is that we need to recognize the possible difference between what MOST people in a group believe and what is allowable belief within the group. Are there LDSers who disagree with all that? I think so. I wouldn’t want to be held accountable for what MOST Baptists believe!
I always thought Jesus was a Jew by nationality, not Trinidadian. I guess those who argue that he was black are right after all.
I believe it says in Pearl of Great Price that “Adam is our father, and the only one with whom we have to do” and also “when Adam left the Celestial City to come into the Garden of Eden, he brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.” I may not have the quote exactly right, and it may even be from something other than Pearl, but it shocked me at the time and shocks me still that Adam is considered to be God the Father by LDS folk [and Lucifer the half-brother of Jesus, morning stars together. singing for joy]….
Re Johnathandkeck and John I. above, I believe the word you’re looking for is Trinitarian….
I also believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,….
Somebody is taking you for a ride. I have several copies of the Pearl of Great Price and would be happy to send one to you. Brigham yound did once suggest Adam could have been God. However it’s not in the Pearl of Great Price. LDS leaders have said that is not something they beleive or teach. The pearl of great price does say Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden- But then so does the Bible
The statements many Christians find objectionable theologically are in the LDS Presidents’ sermons.
Where you aware the (less than helpful) discussion of this issue on Dan McClellans’ blog?
No, but thanks for the reference. I’ll look into that.
What difference does it make what they believe? I’ve been reading about the new controversial book Love Wins, and I think Mormons have earned a spot in heaven like Gandhi and others who work for peace, justice and mercy. Mormons are good people, probably better than the average evangelical. They may have a skewed vision of Jesus (according to our interpretation), but at least they believe in Him, and they believe he is God in the flesh. The same cannot be said of Muslims or Jews, yet emerging theology is accepting them as our brothers, bound for heaven just as we are, as long as they work for peace, justice and mercy. We need to quit worrying about whether Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans or even atheists are going to heaven or hell; they’re all going to heaven because Jesus died for all of them. It’s in the book. Maybe not The Book itself, but the book, Love Wins, which I hear is the most important book about Christianity written in the last thousand or so years.
I have this quirky notion that God cares what we think about him!
We would love to have you and your readers join our Christian forums here: http://www.TheologyForums.org
I did not read all the comments following the post. I did
Read the first 3-4. I apologize if someone already covered this subject.
I don’t see how Brother Millet can be confused. It seems to me Mormons (and I am one) do believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is our savior. As far as Godhood is concerned there is
no mistake that Christ is the God of this earth and I’m sure other worlds too.
The Mormon book of Scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, even reads, that Jesus is our God, he is God of all beings on the earth and in the earth. I don’t believe he became God. I believe he followed the instructions of his father. meaning there is more than one individual in the Godhead. I think that is pretty evident in Genesis. God instructs other members of the Godhead to create the earth, to place animals on the earth, plants and fishes, etc. However he does say “Now let us make man” Who was helping him make man?
A few weeks ago I was reading an article in a scientific magazine while waiting for the dentist.
There was a short article about Quantum physics. It was very simplified, I suppose it could have
been titled “Quantum physics for dummies”. It explained what entanglement meant. When two atoms
Organisms or other energies become entangled, with one another ,they create twice the mass and twice
The vibrations etc. They can do more work together than independently because the vibrations
are stronger. I immediately thought of Christ and God. They work together to save souls and bring joy
to men. That doesn’t dismiss Christ from being God- he is my God and savior.
The issue is whether we humans are capable of becoming gods in the same sense that God is God. Some Mormons apparently believe so. Whether that is required Mormon belief, however, is exactly what is under debate here. My question to you would be, if Mormons are Christians, why are they so aggressive in proselytizing other Christians away from their churches to the LDS church?
Because they believe that God has commanded them to do so.
When Mormons claim to be Christians, they are not claiming to represent mainstream modern Christianity, but rather they believe themselves to be as the ancient church during the time of Christ, with Apostles and Prophets equal to Peter and Moses.
I’m a Mormon.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons, as all you good folks prefer to label us) does not claim to represent “mainstream” Christianity. We ARE mainstream Christianity. I know that is a pretty difficult concept for most of you to get your mind wrapped around, but it’s true. From our perspective, when we hear you talk about belonging to a “church”, the concept is laughably pitiful… You don’t belong to a “church” at all. You are all simply part of a shattered, fragmented, conglomeration of floundering cults descended from Jesus Christ’s original group, and you have been since the decades after the Savior’s death, and that of the Apostles. The clearest way to visualize your condition as “Christians” is to say that your mass of “believers” is as fragmented as a shattered windshield after a violent automobile accident…! Sorry, but that’s the way it is…!
I can’t help but suspect you’re a rabid anti-Mormon trying to smear Mormonism by pretending to be one. I know too many high level Mormons (e.g., teachers at BYU) who would never say such things.
Roger:
You said, “…unique incarnation…upon which everything about being a Christian depends.” I disagree! Ask most professing “Christians” to define “unique incarnation” and be prepared for a blank stare. Yes, average Mormons (non-theologians) are quite ignorant of the fine points of their religion, but so, too, is the average evangelical church-goer. I know this to be a fact after almost 60 years of pastoral and other ministerial leadership positions in the evangelical movement. So, what determines whether one is a Christian or not? MY ANSWER: The “finished” work of Jesus Christ for all humanity on the Cross. Jesus made provision for those whose orthodoxy is in question, saying, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34).
I distinguish between “Christian” and “saved.” A person may very well be saved and not yet be fully Christian. I don’t question the salvation of someone who denies a doctrine (even the incarnation!), but I do question the Christianity of someone mature enough to understand who denies that Jesus is God incarnate.
Dear R.E. Olson, what are we to think of questions that are answered immediately and be minimal in the set conditions? To ask questions, I think, may well represent guidelines.
In addition: Every Mormon can answer that question positively, although he was “eternal God” or “God” is interpreted differently than a Christian.
sdg
Andreas