Revision as of 19:05, 31 October 2009

Index of Claims in Chapter 2: "Jesus"

The Mythical Jesus

40

Claim

• The authors repeat the anti-Mormon chestnut that, because Latter-day Saints differ in understanding the traits of the Lord Jesus Christ, they worship "a different Jesus." The authors quote Elder Bruce McConkie to lend an authoritative air to their interpretation of what the LDS position is on the matter:

And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ.

Author's source(s)

• Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 269.

Response

• Simply put, just because one group has differing opinions about the traits of a Person than another group, it does not follow that those groups are describing different people.
• Leaving aside the fact that it is not the anti-Mormons who determine what official LDS theology is, several problems remain with this appeal to authority:

1. The President of the Church, not any one Apostle, determines official LDS theology.
2. Newly formed official LDS doctrine is put forth by the President of the Church in an official statement countersigned either by his counselors or all members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, or both. No one man posits new doctrine alone.
3. Although Elder McConkie is much respected as an Apostle of the Lord by the Latter-day Saints, he did not become an Apostle until 1972, ^[1] fourteen years after the first edition of his book, Mormon Doctrine was published.
4. Elder McConkie made it clear that he was not speaking ex officio. ^[2]

• For a detailed response, see: Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders

41

Claim

• The authors' rationale for declaring that Latter-day Saints follow another Christ is bizarre:

"We cannot imagine, for instance, a Baptist telling a Lutheran, 'Our Jesus is basically the one Lutherans worship.' A Presbyterian would not tell a Methodist that he does not believe in the traditional Christ. Nor can we imagine a member from the Assemblies of God telling a Wesleyan that the Christ of the Wesleyan Church is mythical."

Response

• Yet Evangelical anti-Mormons apparently have no problems telling Latter-day Saints that since they do not believe in Christ as defined in the Nicene and other creeds, they are not Christian.
• For a detailed response, see: Jesus Christ/Worship different Jesus

Claim

• The authors correctly state that "[p]roper belief in the person of Jesus Christ has always been considered essential to Christian fellowship."

• Unfortunately, the authors leave unsaid who is the one to determine what is "proper," and how much deviation is permissible. After all, Latter-day Saints fully believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and God in the flesh, just as much as Evangelical Christians do. ^[3] One must question, though, what the authors think about all the Christians who lived prior to the Council of Nicea. Are the authors willing to dismiss them as non-Christian? Or are they somehow "excused" under an ex post facto rule? They do not say.
• If pre-Nicene Christians are somehow "excused," these question remains unanswered: "By what authority do the members of the Council of Nicea impose their "private interpretation" (See Peter 1꞉20) as official Christian doctrine? And by what authority do they excuse pre-Nicene Christians?

42

Claim
The authors endeavor to interpret what Latter-day Saints say to other Latter-day Saints, quoting Bruce McConkie, then telling us what he "really" means:

He [Jesus] is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state… Inasmuch, however, as Christ attained Godhood while yet in pre-existence, he too stood as a God to the Other Spirits.

In essence, the Mormon Jesus, by becoming a god without having to live a human life on a previous planet, did something that his own "father" could not accomplish.10

Response

• The authors superimpose their assumptions onto LDS doctrine and commentary. There is no statement by any LDS authority stating that God the Father could not have been God without having lived in mortality.
• Ignoring the fact that their "interpretation" of Elder McConkie's "essence" has nothing to do with what Elder McConkie actually said, by so inferring that Latter-day Saints are too stupid to know what they believe (or what other Latter-day Saints are saying), the authors grossly insult the intelligence of Latter-day Saints. Further, they, like other anti-Mormons, claim that only they can properly interpret and explain what Latter-day Saints believe.

Claim

• The authors continue their false "interpretation" of LDS beliefs by asking:

"How could Jesus obtain godhood in the preexistence when the whole purpose of the mortal probation is supposedly to test the individual's worthiness to become a god?"

Response

• The authors get the purpose of mortality wrong (the purpose of mortality is to test whether we would obey God. See Abraham 3꞉25), so their question is moot. Jesus is God and Satan is His adversary precisely because Jesus passed the obedience test from before His mortality, (See Hebrews 5꞉8 and Moses 4꞉2) while Satan rebelled. (See Moses 4꞉3)
• It is noteworthy that the authors prove the LDS point:

Paul certainly admonished the Corinthians for accepting a false version of Christ when he said in 2 Corinthians 11:4, "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." He added:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.15

• The authors ignore the fact that most of Christianity accepts the extra-biblical Nicene and other creeds to describe Jesus Christ. This substitution of "tradition" for Biblical revelation has been the criticism made by LDS leaders since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ^[4] Yet, Joseph Smith and other Prophets accept the Christianity of other denominations:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." ^[5]

• From Brigham Young:

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion. ^[6]

Jesus and the Virgin Birth

43-45

Claim

• The authors falsely claim that it is official LDS doctrine that Jesus was born because God had sexual intercourse with Mary.

• It is significant that while the authors quote several LDS Apostles and Prophets to the extent that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God (and Latter-day Saints do believe this), not once do they cite an official source that proclaims that Jesus was not virgin-born. Elder McConkie's assertion that disbelief in Christ's virgin birth is apostate ^[7] is strangely missing, even though McConkie's statement that Jesus is literally God's Son is quoted. Also missing are Book of Mormon statements to that effect. ^[8]
• For a detailed response, see: Jesus Christ/Conception

The Diminishing of Jesus

45

Claim

• The authors further insult the intelligence of Latter-day Saints by claiming that Elder Milton Hunter's biblical assertion (Hebrews 5꞉8) that Jesus Christ is God because of His "continued obedience to gospel laws" is in fact, a "diminishing of Jesus."

• The Book of Mormon quite clearly asserts that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God. (See Book of Mormon, Title Page)

Lucifer and Jesus as Brothers

46-48

Claim

• The authors claim that the LDS believe Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers in the sense that both are in evil cahoots with each other.

• This ignores the LDS belief that all beings of spirit (not just Jesus and Lucifer) are children of God, Who is the "Father of Spirits." (Hebrews 12꞉9)
• It is to understand just how the LDS view can be "unchristian" when early Christian saints such as Lactantius held similar views? ^[9]
• The authors ignore the citation of Hebrews 12:9, which is given by Elder James Talmage and others? ^[10]

Many Worlds, Many Saviors

48

Claim

• The authors claim that the "Jesus of Mormonism is but one of many saviors."

• Brigham Young n33, n44

The Marriages of Jesus

48-49

Claim

• The authors take issue with the belief that some Latter-day Saints have that Jesus Christ was married.

• What is it about Jesus being married that would make Him less of our Lord and Saviour? And why does the fact that some LDS believe that He was married condemn them all? The authors simply do not state.
• William Phipps, Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Davis and Elkins College in West Virginia, wrote an article and a book declaring his belief that the Lord Jesus Christ was married. ^[11] Are all Presbyterians not Christians on account of Reverend Phipps' beliefs, or do different standards exist for Evangelicals than for those "Satanic cultists," the "Mormons?" Perhaps the authors would counter that it is just Phipps who is not a Christian, on account of his belief that Jesus Christ was married. But again, why would they damn all Latter-day Saints because some Latter-day Saints believe something that is not official LDS doctrine?
• For a detailed response, see: Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married

Endnotes

1. [note] Church History in the Fulness of Times (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 623.
2. [note] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 5.
3. [note] Really not all that different; the LDS have more to work with than just the Bible and "tradition." In fact, the LDS do not believe many traditions that have cropped up, like the Catholic belief that Jesus was an Only Child [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 2, Subsection II. Web address: http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/].
4. [note] Compare 2 Nephi 25:19 and the title page of the Book of Mormon with Hebrews 4:14 and John 1:1, 3.
5. [note] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 327.
6. [note] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 316.
7. [note] Brigham Young, "Intelligence, Etc.," (9 October 1859) Journal of Discourses 7:283..
8. [note] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822.
9. [note] For example, see 1 Nephi 11:13-24 and Alma 7:10. I find it curious that the authors do not bring up the latter reference, which states that Jesus would be born "at Jerusalem … the land of our fathers." This claim, however, is quite answerable. Anybody who has lived in the Chicago area or who regularly watches WGN-TV would be quite familiar with the term, "Chicagoland," which is used to describe metropolitan Chicago.
10. [note] Lactantius, On the Workmanship of God. Chapter 19. Web address: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0704.htm
11. [note] James Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1986), 401; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 323.
12. [note] William Phipps, "The Case for a Married Jesus," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 7, Number 4 (1972), 44-49, and William Phipps, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1970).

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles