Are Mormons Christians? Witherington Says No.

[ERayR]

Grimace,

You asked:

That Jesus Christ rose from the grave with an immortal, glorious, perfect body of flesh and bones is the traditional Christian position, taught in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. The biblical and historic Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is now permanently God incarnate; he will have a physical body for the rest of time. Admittedly, many of the theologically illiterate in many churches do not understand this, but it is the traditional Christian position.

At what historical point was this doctrine developed in traditional Christianity?

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

Thanks for your response. I don't know why any Mormon would wish to improve upon Joseph Smith's explicit and emphatic language that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods (the Sermon at the Grove, shortly before his death). The Book of Abraham states repeatedly throughout chapters 4 and 5 that a plurality of "Gods" organized the earth. That the three are three Gods appears to me to have the status for the LDS religion of revealed doctrine.

That the three became Gods in different ways according to LDS doctrine is easily shown again from Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse, in which he taught that the Father was first a man and then became a God, whereas Jesus Christ was first a God and then became a man. The Holy Ghost is also a God but he still has not yet passed through mortality and does not have a body of flesh and bones. I realize that some Mormons today dispute this understanding of the KFD, but it has been the standard understanding articulated by LDS leaders and presented in LDS curricula. Those who wish to do so may qualify my comment on this point to say that the usual Mormon doctrine has been that the three became Gods in different ways.

Finally, no, there is no understanding of the Trinity in which the Son became a God at some point in time. It is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity that the three divine persons are co-eternal.

I accept all of this, as stated. I suppose that if we delved further, you might disagree with my understanding of "eternity" and you might disagree with my understanding that "the Son" was not always "God". But everything you wrote I actually agree with (except, perhaps, your implicit claim to a single "traditional Christian view of God as being unchangeably God").

Yes and no. Three Gods, using a different definition of "God" than the one used above. More precisely, it states that there are three persons who bear the title "God". (So, three only in the sense of social trinity.)

Different times, yes.

Different ways, not necessarily. That is not clearly revealed doctrine.

I suppose that this fundamentally rests on the supposition that the persons in God were God from all eternity to all eternity. Is there no understanding of the trinity where the Son was part of God later?

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You asked, regarding the doctrine that Christ rose in a physical body and remains so forever:

At what historical point was this doctrine developed in traditional Christianity?

I would date the origin of this doctrine in traditional Christianity to the year AD 33 (see Acts 2).

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I wouldn't. I would say we are biblical Trinitarians. The reason why the Mormons here are not able to hold their own against Rob is because they are arguing out of context. The context in which we want to argue is scripture, not some clever idea found somewhere else. He claims the Bible to be his authority, and that is his Achilles heel. If you can show that your doctrine is biblical, you have him beat, otherwise you lose.

I heartily agree with your last sentence.

[Bart Burk]

Zeta-Flux,

Thanks for your response. I don't know why any Mormon would wish to improve upon Joseph Smith's explicit and emphatic language that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods (the Sermon at the Grove, shortly before his death). The Book of Abraham states repeatedly throughout chapters 4 and 5 that a plurality of "Gods" organized the earth. That the three are three Gods appears to me to have the status for the LDS religion of revealed doctrine.

The Sermon in the Grove is a report of a sermon. The interpretation Joseph's sermon supposedly gives of Revelations 1:6 is at odds with the Joseph Smith transpired translation. The sermon apparently wasn't published until the 20th century and comes from Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation of Thomas Bullock's notes. It's not a part of the canon for good reason -- Joseph Smith never was able to review the current published text. So I think a 21st century Latter-day Saint would be perfectly justified to ignore it as a source of doctrine.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

What you just said above is not what I believe, not what I have been taught, and not what I teach. It is not LDS doctrine.

Correction: It is not LDS doctrine according to your understanding. There are plenty of Mormons who think it is LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

Further, humans don't make themselves God. God makes us gods. Why is this so hard to understand, repeat, portray about our teachings?

I never suggested that LDS doctrine claims that humans make themselves gods. I simply said that in LDS doctrine they become gods.

You wrote:

Jesus said that we may be joint-heirs with him. Jesus said we would be gods. Do you believe Jesus or not? If so, state it clearly that you may be a joint-heir with Jesus. Now explain what Jesus will inherit? Will you inherit this will Jeus or was he not really telling the truth? LDS actually believe Jesus' teachings; LDS actually believe that Jesus was telling the truth and that we could be joint-heirs with him. It is just too easy to believe the Bible rather than create a system of belief that excludes so much of what the Bible says.

Jesus did not say these things. The apostle Paul did say that believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). As I have explained elsewhere, Romans 8:17 in context does not support LDS doctrine. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever says that people would become gods. Before you cite a text in support of this claim, read it carefully; I think you will see that the Bible never actually makes this statement.

[Rob Bowman]

Bart,

What about Book of Abraham 4-5?

The Sermon in the Grove is a report of a sermon. The interpretation Joseph's sermon supposedly gives of Revelations 1:6 is at odds with the Joseph Smith transpired translation. The sermon apparently wasn't published until the 20th century and comes from Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation of Thomas Bullock's notes. It's not a part of the canon for good reason -- Joseph Smith never was able to review the current published text. So I think a 21st century Latter-day Saint would be perfectly justified to ignore it as a source of doctrine.

[Bart Burk]

Bart,

What about Book of Abraham 4-5?

I think that is problematic, but a clear interpretation of "Gods" is never really given in those chapters. If you go back to Abraham 3 it clearly talks of the Father as God. It also has Jesus being "like unto God" and talking to others who were with him and asking them to go down to help create the earth. When chapter four and five talk of "Gods" it seems they might be talking about more than just the three members of the Godhead which I think could be a significant point -- perhaps the "Gods" would have included those who accepted Jesus' plan, but in any event we don't have a clear understanding just from the Book of Abraham of who the "Gods" were. As a former Mormon I would say there are hints about this in the temple, but they are so likely symbolic that they are subject to a number of interpretations.

[Zeta-Flux]

I very much care how I am labelled. I care that the enemies of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ do not misrepresent faith by declaring that I am not a Christian.

If you look again at my sentence, you may find that we are in agreement. We only care because labels cause a misrepresentation of our beliefs. The label itself is not the main issue (hence my "per se") but rather the misrepresentation.

Mormonism teaches that the Son was God from all eternity to all eternity.

What do you mean by "eternity"? And I'm with Robert F. Smith on this one, I don't think Mormonism necessarily teaches that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What do you mean by "eternity"? And I'm with Robert F. Smith on this one, I don't think Mormonism necessarily teaches that.

Yup.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bart,

What about Book of Abraham 4-5?

It is doctrine.

[Zeta-Flux]

Thanks for your response. I don't know why any Mormon would wish to improve upon Joseph Smith's explicit and emphatic language that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods (the Sermon at the Grove, shortly before his death). The Book of Abraham states repeatedly throughout chapters 4 and 5 that a plurality of "Gods" organized the earth. That the three are three Gods appears to me to have the status for the LDS religion of revealed doctrine.

Mormons always want to improve. :-)

But my point was, when we use "Gods" we are just using a different terminology than that used by Evangelicals. We are not afraid to call different persons Gods, but when talking to Evangelicals this only clouds the issue.

Or, in other words, when we use the term "Gods" we are simply speaking of the persons in God. You might not like that terminology, and it certainly causes confusion with the way you might understand the term, but it represents no difference in doctrine (in and of itself). For differences, we have to get to deification, creation ex nihilo, etc...

That the three became Gods in different ways according to LDS doctrine is easily shown again from Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse, in which he taught that the Father was first a man and then became a God, whereas Jesus Christ was first a God and then became a man. The Holy Ghost is also a God but he still has not yet passed through mortality and does not have a body of flesh and bones. I realize that some Mormons today dispute this understanding of the KFD, but it has been the standard understanding articulated by LDS leaders and presented in LDS curricula. Those who wish to do so may qualify my comment on this point to say that the usual Mormon doctrine has been that the three became Gods in different ways.

I don't understand the KFD the same way you do. In fact, I read it in light of the scriptural proof-text that Christ did all that he saw his Father do, to say that they followed the exact same process. At any rate, I think you need to accept that Mormonism is not clear on the subject, and leaves the question open.

Finally, no, there is no understanding of the Trinity in which the Son became a God at some point in time. It is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity that the three divine persons are co-eternal.

Then on that Mormon doctrine differs (unless you are zerinus). In particular, it appears that the "social" aspect of the trinity causes no real problem. It is the "co-eternal" nature of the persons in God that we (or at least many of us) would not agree to.

To sum up, I would say that you can clearly delete us from the trinitarian tradition. But not for "multiple gods"; we only speak in the plural to emphasize the persons. Rather, you can exclude us as we don't believe in the co-eternal nature of the persons. [Deification is just a special case of this issue: more persons enter the relationship of "God".]

Edited August 30, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Bart Burk]

Mormons always want to improve. :-)

Then on that Mormon doctrine differs (unless you are zerinus). In particular, it appears that the "social" aspect of the trinity causes no real problem. It is the "co-eternal" nature of the persons in God that we (or at least many of us) would not agree to.

What would be your basis for disagreeing with the co-eternal nature of the three persons in the Godhead? Mormons believe everyone who ever lived was co-eternal with God because persons have always existed from all eternity. Why would it be impossible to believe that before Jesus existed as a pre-mortal spirit that he could have been co-eternal with God as God? Remember that Mormons believe that Jesus had to go through an additional stage to enter into humanity. It seems that he was already God when he received his spirit body to prepare for entrance into mortality. Why couldn't he have been God even before then? We obviously weren't, but there is no reason in Mormon understanding to claim Jesus hasn't always been God.

[Zakuska]

Jesus did not say these things. The apostle Paul did say that believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). As I have explained elsewhere, Romans 8:17 in context does not support LDS doctrine. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever says that people would become gods. Before you cite a text in support of this claim, read it carefully; I think you will see that the Bible never actually makes this statement.

Correction: The Bible does say exactly that.

1 John 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Christ himself claims God calls children of God, "gods".

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Yet Evangelicals will fight tooth and nail to deny it and break scripture.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[Bart Burk]

Correction: The Bible does say exactly that.

1 John 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Christ himself claims God calls children of God, "gods".

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Yet Evangelicals will fight tooth and nail to deny it and break scripture.

Not all evangelicals. C.S. Lewis seemed to be a fan of deification. And the Orthodox and Catholic definitely have a form of deification in their theology though it probably isn't the same as the LDS understanding.

[Zakuska]

Not all evangelicals. C.S. Lewis seemed to be a fan of deification. And the Orthodox and Catholic definitely have a form of deification in their theology though it probably isn't the same as the LDS understanding.

"All" being the opperative, and something I never claimed. The fact still remains, Many will and do.

John right there claims the title of "god" for the "children of God", the "joint-heirs with Christ". The WHOLE of the Bible teaching is man becoming "gods children" (ie gods) and as like god as can be.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[Bart Burk]

"All" being the opperative, and something I never claimed. The fact still remains, Many will and do.

John right there claims the title of "god" for the "children of God", the "joint-heirs with Christ". The WHOLE of the Bible teaching is man becoming "gods children" (ie gods) and as like god as can be.

I agree. The arguments for the LDS view are stronger than the run of the mill evangelical view.

[Zakuska]

I agree. The arguments for the LDS view are stronger than the run of the mill evangelical view.

The great lie of Satan is that men "CAN'T" become gods and joint-heirs with Christ, and he does everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen. He's like the crab in the bucket continually pulling the other stars of heaven back down to earth in the mud and the mire.

Revelations tells us he drew 1/3 of the stars of God with his great tale and cast them to the earth.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

I don't understand the question - are you insinuating I said Christ died twice? If I did, it was by accident.

ETA: Ah, I get it...you are using the Mormon concept of Jesus, stating he has a resurrected, perfect body. Which other Christian denominations believe in a Christ that currently has a body of flesh and bone?

I'm pretty sure there are some, but the Bible clearly states that after his Resurrection Jesus had a body of flesh and bone. There is no evidence from the Bible that Jesus ever gave up his body again. From the Gnostic movement to when the Neoplatonists took over the church until the Restoration it was taught that Jesus did not have a currently have a body of flesh and bone.

[Zeta-Flux]

What would be your basis for disagreeing with the co-eternal nature of the three persons in the Godhead? Mormons believe everyone who ever lived was co-eternal with God because persons have always existed from all eternity.

Bart, this gets a little tricky.

Joseph taught that spirit cannot be destroyed. But Brigham Young taught that personality/organization can be destroyed, and that the sons of perdition would be reduced to their native element. Some believe that we were intelligences which were organized into spirits by God. Others believe that we were self-intelligent spirits from all eternity. (And some, like me, are uncertain whether time behaves quite like we think it does. So, for example, we may move to a newly created universe, and thus have existed forever in *that* universe, but not in the one someone else came from, etc...)

So, as it seems to me, Mormonism has not completely revealed whether "persons" (whatever that may mean) have always existed and will continue to always exist. Moreover, it isn't clear to me that "co-eternal" as the trinitarians use it simply means "have always existed from all eternity" but tends to also contain "in the exact same way God has always existed". And it isn't clear to me that God didn't come from another universe, where we didn't exist. etc...

To sum up: I tend to shy away from asserting that Mormonism says anything about philosophical things, because our doctrine is more down-to-earth, how do I live a good life (most of the time).

Why would it be impossible to believe that before Jesus existed as a pre-mortal spirit that he could have been co-eternal with God as God? Remember that Mormons believe that Jesus had to go through an additional stage to enter into humanity. It seems that he was already God when he received his spirit body to prepare for entrance into mortality. Why couldn't he have been God even before then? We obviously weren't, but there is no reason in Mormon understanding to claim Jesus hasn't always been God.

I think the common Mormon view is that Jesus progressed grace to grace. So, in the sense of having the brightness of the perfect day break forth upon him, I'd guess that most people think that happened at some specific time.

But in the sense of being at one with God, even in a child-like state, I don't see anything that would say that is impossible.

[Bart Burk]

Bart, this gets a little tricky.

Joseph taught that spirit cannot be destroyed. But Brigham Young taught that personality/organization can be destroyed, and that the sons of perdition would be reduced to their native element. Some believe that we were intelligences which were organized into spirits by God. Others believe that we were self-intelligent spirits from all eternity. (And some, like me, are uncertain whether time behaves quite like we think it does. So, for example, we may move to a newly created universe, and thus have existed forever in *that* universe, but not in the one someone else came from, etc...)

So, as it seems to me, Mormonism has not completely revealed whether "persons" (whatever that may mean) have always existed and will continue to always exist. Moreover, it isn't clear to me that "co-eternal" as the trinitarians use it simply means "have always existed from all eternity" but tends to also contain "in the exact same way God has always existed". And it isn't clear to me that God didn't come from another universe, where we didn't exist. etc...

To sum up: I tend to shy away from asserting that Mormonism says anything about philosophical things, because our doctrine is more down-to-earth, how do I live a good life (most of the time).

I think the common Mormon view is that Jesus progressed grace to grace. So, in the sense of having the brightness of the perfect day break forth upon him, I'd guess that most people think that happened at some specific time.

But in the sense of being at one with God, even in a child-like state, I don't see anything that would say that is impossible.

I think Mormons are smart being careful not to try to explain more than they know. I think they can take their scriptures about Father, Son and Holy Ghost being One Eternal God at face value and leave it there. When Mormons get into the weeds trying to explain how God became God or Jesus became God, they are really going beyond anything they really can talk about intelligently. I look at King Follett and the Sermon on the Grove as hyperbole to some extent. The couplet, "As man is God once was. As God is man may become," could well be true, but there is a tendency on both the Mormon and the non-Mormon side to make it more than it is. There is no doubt that Jesus was (and continues to be) God and man, and that we strive to become perfected in him so that we can attain the status of god. I suspect if the Father needed a body of flesh and bones he could take care of that without the need for him to have parents. I don't see any necessary conflict between the Mormon understanding of God and the Trinity. Sometimes I think the conflicts are created to advance a missionary advantage on one side or the other. The attempts to exclude Mormonism from the Christian club based on speculation regarding God's nature is particularly unfortunate, but Mormon speculation about these issues have made them an easy target.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You had written:

Jesus said that we may be joint-heirs with him. Jesus said we would be gods. Do you believe Jesus or not? If so, state it clearly that you may be a joint-heir with Jesus. Now explain what Jesus will inherit? Will you inherit this will Jeus or was he not really telling the truth? LDS actually believe Jesus' teachings; LDS actually believe that Jesus was telling the truth and that we could be joint-heirs with him. It is just too easy to believe the Bible rather than create a system of belief that excludes so much of what the Bible says.

I replied:

"Jesus did not say these things. The apostle Paul did say that believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). As I have explained elsewhere, Romans 8:17 in context does not support LDS doctrine. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever says that people would become gods. Before you cite a text in support of this claim, read it carefully; I think you will see that the Bible never actually makes this statement."

You then responded:

Correction: The Bible does say exactly that.

1 John 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

As anyone can see, 1 John 3:2 does not refer to exalted human beings as gods. But 1 John 3:2 is just your warm-up act for the real proof text, the one that was obviously where you were headed in your previous post. You wrote:

Christ himself claims God calls children of God, "gods".

Stop right there. That isn't what you claimed previously. I quoted above what you had claimed: "Jesus said we would be gods." Your claim there was that we are not gods now but we can become gods sometime in the future, specifically, if and when we become exalted in the celestial kingdom. But your proof text doesn't speak about people becoming gods in the future; it refers to some group of beings as "gods" in the present. Here is your own quotation of the passage:

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

"I said, ye are gods." Note the present tense. This verse simply cannot mean that human beings may become gods after death when they attain exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Whoever and whatever these "gods" are in this text, they are beings referred to in the present as "gods." There are other equally glaring problems with your interpretation of John 10:34-35, but this is enough to refute it decisively.

You wrote:

Yet Evangelicals will fight tooth and nail to deny it and break scripture.

Absolutely not. We will, however, fight tooth and nail to deny clear distortions of Scripture that fail to pay adequate attention to what the Scripture actually says.

[Rob Bowman]

Bart,

You wrote:

Not all evangelicals. C.S. Lewis seemed to be a fan of deification. And the Orthodox and Catholic definitely have a form of deification in their theology though it probably isn't the same as the LDS understanding.

That's an understatement. It is totally unlike the LDS understanding. The same is true for Lewis's doctrine -- it was radically different from the LDS view.

[Bart Burk]

Bart,

You wrote:

That's an understatement. It is totally unlike the LDS understanding. The same is true for Lewis's doctrine -- it was radically different from the LDS view.

But could it be that when I used the word "understanding" I used the wrong word? Where does speculation end and understanding begin? As a Catholic I guess I think "understanding" may be the wrong term to use whenever we speak of God because we "see through a glass, darkly" at this point. We trust in the atonement and resurrection of Christ, but our theology about God is at best an aproximation of reality. We accept God's eternal nature as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but trying to describe what that nature is goes beyond our "understanding". Some things are just a matter of faith.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You had written:

I replied:

"Jesus did not say these things. The apostle Paul did say that believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). As I have explained elsewhere, Romans 8:17 in context does not support LDS doctrine. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever says that people would become gods. Before you cite a text in support of this claim, read it carefully; I think you will see that the Bible never actually makes this statement."

Technically, this wasn't me. I jumped into the conversation at this point.

You then responded:

As anyone can see, 1 John 3:2 does not refer to exalted human beings as gods.

Ah but you miss the fact that it refers to saved human beings as "children of God" who will become exactly "like him".

But 1 John 3:2 is just your warm-up act for the real proof text, the one that was obviously where you were headed in your previous post. You wrote:

Stop right there. That isn't what you claimed previously. I quoted above what you had claimed: "Jesus said we would be gods." Your claim there was that we are not gods now but we can become gods sometime in the future, specifically, if and when we become exalted in the celestial kingdom. But your proof text doesn't speak about people becoming gods in the future; it refers to some group of beings as "gods" in the present. Here is your own quotation of the passage:

"I said, ye are gods." Note the present tense. This verse simply cannot mean that human beings may become gods after death when they attain exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Whoever and whatever these "gods" are in this text, they are beings referred to in the present as "gods." There are other equally glaring problems with your interpretation of John 10:34-35, but this is enough to refute it decisively.

Either way, present tense, "gods" causes HUGE problems for Evangelical doctrine.

I quoted the verse because it shows that "children of God" are refered to as "gods". Wether, present past or future.

You wrote:

Absolutely not. We will, however, fight tooth and nail to deny clear distortions of Scripture that fail to pay adequate attention to what the Scripture actually says.

Again... these verses cause HUGE problems for Evangelical understanding of scripture.