Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 2

Chapter 1: God the Father

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 3: The Trinity

Index of Claims in Chapter 2: "Jesus"

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 1972,2 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.3

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

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

Perhaps Latter-day Saints tell their anti-Mormon acquaintances that they do follow Christ but have a different understanding of some of His traits5 because they often hear from anti-Mormons that they do not follow Christ at all. Quite often, Latter-day Saints exhibit more patience with their critics than those critics afford Latter-day Saints. For example, Latter-day Saints are frequently accused of worshipping Satan,6 but no LDS literature claims this of non-LDS Christians.

While McKeever and Johnson correctly state that "[p]roper belief in the person of Jesus Christ has always been considered essential to Christian fellowship,"7 they 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.8

One must question, though, what the authors think about all the Christians who lived prior to the Council of Nicea. Are McKeever and Johnson 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"9 as official Christian doctrine? And by what authority do they excuse pre-Nicene Christians?

McKeever and Johnson annoyingly 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

McKeever and Johnson 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), McKeever and Johnson grossly insult the intelligence of Latter-day Saints. Further, they, like other anti-Mormons, arrogantly claim that only they can properly interpret and explain what Latter-day Saints believe.

McKeever and Johnson continue their arrogantly 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?"11 They get the purpose of mortality wrong (the purpose of mortality is to test whether we would obey God12), so their question is moot. Jesus is God and Satan is His adversary precisely because Jesus passed the obedience test from before His mortality,13 while Satan rebelled.14

This reviewer finds it noteworthy that McKeever and Johnson 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

They 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.16 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."17

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.18 JUst who is oversexed, anyway?

Like other anti-Mormons,19 McKeever and Johnson falsely claim that it is official LDS doctrine that Jesus was born because God had sexual intercourse with Mary. Is this a requirement among anti-Mormons?

It is significant that while McKeever and Johnson quote several LDS Apostles and Prophets to the extent that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God20 (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 apostate21 is strangely missing, even though McConkie's statement that Jesus is literally God's Son is quoted.22 Also missing are Book of Mormon statements to that effect.23

McKeever and Johnson further insult the intelligence of Latter-day Saints by claiming that Elder Milton Hunter's biblical assertion24 that Jesus Christ is God because of His "continued obedience to gospel laws" is in fact, a "diminishing of Jesus."25 The Book of Mormon quite clearly asserts that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God.26 jesus' "brother"

Of course, no attack on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its members would be complete without claiming that the LDS believe Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers in the sense that both are in evil cahoots with each other,27 ignoring the LDS belief that all beings of spirit (not just Jesus and Lucifer) are children of God, Who is the "Father of Spirits."28 I also find it difficult to understand just how the LDS view can be "unchristian" when early Christian saints such as Lactantius held similar views?29

While the authors are certainly free to not be convinced by reasons that Latter-day Saints posit for their own beliefs, why is it that they ignore the citation of Hebrews 12:9, which is given by Elder James Talmage and others?30 nitpicking on marriage

Finally, McKeever and Johnson take issue with the belief that some Latter-day Saints have that Jesus Christ was married.31 Why is that? 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.32 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? Conclusion

Why are there no ministries dedicated to winning lost souls of various liberal Christian denominations, where leaders deny the deity of the Saviour?33 Could it be that it is easier to attack small minority groups that are just a little different than it is to critique politically powerful liberal denominations?

It would seem logical that, if a person really wants to find out what people believe, that they would ask the people they want to understand. There are plenty of books by Latter-day Saints, both "lay" and General Authorities,34 that give an excellent introduction to the faith of Latter-day Saints. Yet, McKeever and Johnson seem to attempt to "have their cake, and eat it, too," by their carefully selected and doctored quotes of obscure LDS documents, and their implication that they are better able to judge what Latter-day Saints really believe than the LDS themselves. Why must McKeever and Johnson omit quotes that either qualify or contradict their accusations against the Latter-day Saints? By doing this, they seem more intent on polarizing the LDS from other Christians than in providing an easy to understand primer on the basics of LDS doctrine. Is it that another group that militantly proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is competition for the dollars that are donated to pay the salaries of the various ministers, and are thus a threat that must be destroyed?

Endnotes

2 Church History in the Fulness of Times (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 623.

3 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 5.

4 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 41.

5 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/].

6 See for example, Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, The God Makers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984).

7 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 41.

8 Compare 2 Nephi 25:19 and the title page of the Book of Mormon with Hebrews 4:14 and John 1:1, 3.

9 See 2 Peter 1:20.

10 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 42

11 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 42.

12 Abraham 3:25.

13 Hebrews 5:8; see also Moses 4:2.

14 Moses 4:3.

15 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 42.

16 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 327.

17 Ibid., 316.

18 Brigham Young, "Intelligence, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 9 October 1859, Vol. 7 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1860), 283.

19 For example, Decker and Hunt, The God Makers, 26, 199-200.

20 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 43-45.

21 McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822.

22 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 43-45.

23 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.

24 See Hebrews 5:8.

25 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 45.

26 Book of Mormon, Title Page.

27 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 46-48.

28 See Hebrews 12:9.

29 Lactantius, On the Workmanship of God. Chapter 19. Web address: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0704.htm

30 James Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1986), 401; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 323.

31 I share in this belief, as well. If Jesus is the "high priest of our profession" (Hebrews 3:1), Who broke none of the Law (Matthew 5:17), is it not logical that He would obey the Law requiring high priests to marry virgins (Leviticus 21:14)? However, this is not an official position of the LDS Church.

32 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).

33 Examples are John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991); Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996); John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of Women by a Male-Dominated Church (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992); John Shelby Spong, Here I Stand (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000); and John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992). All were members of the "Jesus Seminar," and are still clergy in their denominations.

34 Two examples (one of each) are Coke Newell, Latter-Days: A Guided Tour Through Six Thousand Years of Mormonism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000) and Gordon B. Hinckley, Truth Restored: A Short History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979).