Mormon Christology: View Of A Non-Mormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Found here in First Things. Hat tip to Dan P.

Evangelicals should read it.

[LeSellers]

With a couple of jarring, but rare, exceptions, he gets it to the point, at least, of knowing what we teach, and explains it admirably.

Those exceptions, like IRR's misrepresentations, gloss over what we really understand, and give a glaringly ugly version of our beliefs.

Two of these notable exceptions are the "Jesus born in Jerusalem" and "they also deny the virgin birth" herrings. Neither is true (in fact, as Webb must have read, the Book of Mormon explicitly affirms the virgin birth, and it is not "in Jerusalem" but "at Jerusalem, which is the land ...") but he asserts them both as if they were.

Still, a good step forward. One wonders how other Evangelical will react to him. We recall how calling on his peers to repenting of misrepresenting us affected another of their stripe. 'Twarn't pretty.

Lehi

Edited January 19, 2012 by LeSellers

[Pahoran]

Found here in First Things. Hat tip to Dan P.

Evangelicals should read it.

Wow.

He makes a couple of mistakes, but I won't cavil about them; they are trivial in the scheme of things. This is an insightful article that should be required reading for any wannabe "critic of Mormonism."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

Great article! Thanks for sharing. It’s nice to see an acknowledgement of Mormonism’s reverence for Christ. All too often, this is what gets lost in discussions about polygamy or becoming a god in the afterlife or you name it.

I like the analogy about the family at their grandfather’s funeral.

Also, this was the most non-slanderous and accurate reason of why Mormons wear temple garments that I have read in a while:

“Our bodies are literally temples of the divine, which is why Mormons wear sacred garments underneath regular clothing.”

[Vance]

I could only find one small flaw.

But I liked the rest of it.

[zerinus]

Found here in First Things. Hat tip to Dan P.

Evangelicals should read it.

Thank you, that was an interesting article. Found no references to Dan P. though. Not sure how you connect the two.

[LeSellers]

Thank you, that was an interesting article. Found no references to Dan P. though. Not sure how you connect the two.

"Hat tip to Xxxx" (H/T) means, essentially, "thanks to Xxxx for alerting me to this".

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2012 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

Fantastic article. Thanks for posting this!

[zerinus]

"Hat tip" means, essentially, "thanks to Xxxx for alerting me to this".

Lehi

Than you, my brain not working at full capacity at the moment.

Edited January 18, 2012 by zerinus

[Stargazer]

... it is not "in Jerusalem" but "at Jerusalem, the land ..."

Actually, I was doing some searching of the BoM text and the phrasing "at Jerusalem" does not occur anywhere the book discusses Jesus's birthplace. Unless I really missed something badly.

edited to add: I'm doing badly today. It's Alma 7:10.

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Stargazer

[Storm Rider]

Found here in First Things. Hat tip to Dan P.

Evangelicals should read it.

What a refreshing article. I will take this good Christians review over the usual tripe that is written every day of the week. Thank you.

[Nevo]

Those of you with deep pockets may be interested in Webb's latest book, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter. He treats LDS views in Chapter 9 ("Godbodied: The Matter of the Latter-day Saints"). It can be previewed online here.

[Stargazer]

I sent an email to Prof. Webb wherein I complimented his article, yet gently took him to task about the virgin birth and Jerusalem thing. He responded (a bit of a form letter, since he had received several comments from LDS regarding the article), and here is his response to my email:

Thanks for your letter. I received over a dozen letters from LDS folk who were very encouraging and helpful and also pointed out that Mormons do not reject the virgin birth and that the reference to Jerusalem as the birth of Jesus should be taken more regionally, not narrowly. On the latter point I agree! I should have been more clear about that in my essay: my point was that fundamentalists turn this into a cheap debating point with Mormons, when in reality it is a non-issue (precisely because Jerusalem can be so intrpretted). On the former point, the good editors at First Things are going to print a letter or two and let me respond in the next issue, and in that response I will clarify my remarks about the virgin birth. It is a difficult topic, but I think I have an interesting take on where creedal and LDS Christians diverge, and I will also hint at my own position, which lies closer to the LDS one. On the virgin birth and related issues, you might find my new book helpful. It is called Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2012), now available on amazon.com. (Sorry for this brazen self-promotion!) I have a whole chapter on Mormonism in this book, but also, in a chapter on Aquinas, I develop what I think are the first clear arguments as to why Christians of all kinds can legitimately affirm the virgin birth while also believing that in some way (some mysterious way, obviously!) God the Father created the body of Christ before his birth in human form (so that the matter of Jesus Christ’s body did not come exclusively from Mother). So please forgive this impersonal email; instead of responding to each of the dozen or so emails individually, I decided to save time (I am teaching a full load of courses and have four kids at home, etc!) and write this standard response to all of you, and I hope you read the next issue of First Things!

Stephen H. Webb

Professor of Religion and Philosophy

Wabash College

Crawfordsville IN 47933

[orion88]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

[JDave]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

I'm pretty sure it's Jesus of Nazareth.

[volgadon]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

Yes.

[Rinaldo]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

Both?

[Storm Rider]

Both?

Yes, why would there be a difference?

[altersteve]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

Okay, seriously?

I can't help but wonder how the Lord feels when His children make such unnecessary and derogatory comments like this.

[Storm Rider]

Which Jesus is he referring to?

The Jesus who has always been God or the Jesus who is the first spirit child born to Heavenly

Mother and Father?

Orion, you may not have deep grasp of LDS beliefs or theology. There was never a time when Jesus was not a member fo the Godhead; as such there never was a time when he was not considered not God. He was as much God before his birth as he was after.

Understanding this makes your question nonsensical to a LDS. There is no difference between the two. Instead of trying to think of ways that LDS theology is wrong, you will find more success if you begin by trying to understand how it can be correct. Almost all of the "unusual" teachings of the Church are found in scripture from Theosis/Deification/Exaltation to temple worship practices to church structure.

[orion88]

Orion, you may not have deep grasp of LDS beliefs or theology. There was never a time when Jesus was not a member fo the Godhead; as such there never was a time when he was not considered not God. He was as much God before his birth as he was after.

According to this teaching in Religions 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Jesus was

not always considered a God.

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked

him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (chapter 4 - section C, bullet

point #3) http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-4.asp

He was not God until he had attained this so-called pinnacle according to the LDS Church.

Then ... Heavenly Father: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend

step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin

with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you

have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in

this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. This is

the way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty

the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an

earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–346,

348; Gospel Principles, chapter 47, p. 305).

[Storm Rider]

Orion, to me that is not doctrine nor are the resources you have cited the doctrinal position of the LDS Church. The scriptures tell me that God was first and last. God was always God and there was never a time when he was not God.

I have never seen this student manual that you have cited, you have taken a text, but there is not context to it. I assume you have it; what does describe as the situation he went through to learn "obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence". I assume that it also describes at what point he was not a member of the Godhead, could you elaborate?

Context is vital for me to grasp what is really being said. I hope you are not going to tell me that you got this little tidbit off of IRR.org; that would make me think you are not really serious or knowledgeable and have ulterior motives. Tell me it ain't so.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Storm Rider

[altersteve]

Non-Mormons seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of God having been God forever yet also "becoming God" in some sense.

[JDave]

According to this teaching in Religions 430-431 ...

The point of the article is that we focus heavily on Jesus Christ, the same Jesus Christ who is preached in the Bible. Differences in our doctrine do not in ANY way belittle the emphasis that we give to the Savior of all mankind. Your attempt to drive a wedge by pointing out differences is sad and completely discordant with the tone of the linked article. I enjoyed the article a lot more. Edited January 30, 2012 by JDave

[orion88]

Orion, to me that is not doctrine nor are the resources you have cited the doctrinal position of the LDS Church. The scriptures tell me that God was first and last. God was always God and there was never a time when he was not God.

Back in November I spoke with 2 senior missionaries from Utah. They are now stationed

at a ward in Toronto.

On the topic of eternal progression, they did acknowledge their belief that Heavenly Father

progressed into becoming a God based on the teachings of their church. They were not

able to answer when I asked them about the God who never progressed into becoming a

God. They believe that teaching of Mr. Smith - "... this is how Heavenly Father became

God" that I mentioned before. The teaching that God is an exalted man is also taught in

chapters 3 and 7 of the manual I mentioned in my last post.

Here is the quote from chapter 7 - "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,basing

its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal

offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme."

I have never seen this student manual that you have cited, you have taken a text, but there is not context to it. I assume you have it; what does describe as the situation he went through to learn "obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence". I assume that it also describes at what point he was not a member of the Godhead, could you elaborate?

See http://institute.lds...anual/index.asp

I'm not sure about what context you mention but the chapter is about Jesus.

"As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He 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. As such he

became, under the Father, the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number; and he

was then chosen to work out the infinite and eternal atonement, to come to this particular

earth as the literal Son of the Father, and to put the whole plan of redemption, salvation,

and exaltation in operation" (chapter 4).

The fact that he attained a certain pinnacle that ranked him as a God means he was not a

God before then.

It does not describe at what point he was not a member of the Godhead. I would say that it

was at the time when Heavenly Father himself was not part of the Godhead - when he was

a pre-mortal human and pre-spirit intelligence on his way to progress into becoming a God.

In regards to Jesus also not being part of the Godhead, I refer you to volume 1 of "Articles of

Salvation".

"He [Jesus] is our Elder Brother and was honored by the Father with the fulness of authority

and power as a member of the grand Presidency, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Jesus at one time did not have this fulness of authority and power ... most likely the time

when he was just an eternal intelligence like Adam. Somehow he was able to progress faster

than Adam and attained a higher level of intelligence than him (Abraham 3:18-24). This was

before the time that Adam and Eve were supposedly born as spirit children to Heavenly Parents

and "reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth

in a temporal [physical] body" as Gospel Principles mentions.

This particular Godhead, as you understand it, did not exist before Jesus and Heavenly Father

became Gods. I'm assuming that since the Holy Ghost is considered a spirit person, he too had

some progression into becoming a God. Maybe he's also the spirit brother of Lucifer like Latter-

day Saints believe of Jesus.

I hope you are not going to tell me that you got this little tidbit off of IRR.org; that would make me think you are not really serious or knowledgeable and have ulterior motives. Tell me it ain't so.

I am familiar with IRR but I did not quote from their web site.