Writings of Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet

At a recent meeting of Public Affairs people in Orange County, participants were given the assignment to read Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg’s book “How Wide the Divide?” and Robert Millet’s book “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints”. This post is excerpts from an e-mail that I sent to them letting them know what insights they might receive from the reading.

Thanks much,
Steve St. Clair

A Different Jesus? on Amazon.com

How Wide the Divide? on Amazon.com

=====================

Hello, Orange County LDS Public Affairs Directors and Interfaith Relations Directors,

Our reading assignment before the next meeting, — to read or familiarize ourselves with Robert Millet’s “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints”, and Steve Robinson’s “How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation”, —rightfully deserves some thoughts and comments. Why should we use our precious time to become acquainted with these works? There are a number of answers.

We could read these books to learn about LDS doctrines and beliefs – the “Theological” approach – and they would do a superb job, because they are part of the Church’s emphasis on Jesus Christ and on letting our scriptural sources have priority in determining our doctrines over teachings from a hundred and fifty years ago, when the people’s circumstances and the Lords needs were different. But if that is all we found there, we would have missed everything.

We could read them to look for great defenses for problems that other Christians have about our history or beliefs – the “Apologetic” approach – and find them better at providing these answers than other books. We would be right, but again, missing the most important points.

We could read them to look for amazing examples of how many of our so-called unique doctrines are taught by other Christian thinkers, including major protestant reformers and many evangelical thinkers today – the “Are Christians Becoming Mormon?” approach of Truman Madsen – and we would be amazed at the evidence. Our teaching of there being multiple levels of rewards in heaven (three degrees of glory) was insisted upon by John Wesley (who actually used the term “degrees of Glory”) and also famous evangelical author Dr. Bruce Wilkenson in his book “A Life God Rewards.” Our teaching of baptism for the dead – our answer to the question of the “fate of the un-evangelized” – fits in perfectly with a number of Christian thinkers, including a best known evangelical biblical commentator a hundred years ago. But if this was our purpose for reading them, we would have missed the most important point.

These books show these things beautifully. Most importantly, they do it in ways that make them least offensive to our other Christian neighbors, and in ways that encourage them to look for ways to include us rather than exclude us.

Read the chapter in Millet’s book on “The need for a Restoration” as perhaps a perfect example. He describes very appropriately the apostasy and the restoration, and explains in depth what we mean by “the only true and living church.” And then he does the thing that I’ve not heard before, and certainly other Christians haven’t heard clearly from us. He talks about what we DO NOT MEAN by “the only true and living church.”

We do not mean that men and women of other Christian faiths are not sincere believers in truth and genuine followers of Christ.

We do not mean that they are worshipping a different Jesus than we are.

We do not mean that we believe that most of the doctrines in the Catholic and Protestant churches are false, or that the leaders of the various branches of Christianity have improper motives.

We do not mean that the bible has been so corrupted that it cannot be relied upon to teach us sound doctrine and provide us with an example of how to live.

We do not mean that God-fearing Christians who are not Latter-day Saints will not go to heaven.

We do not mean that Latter-day Saints desire to do their own thing, or face social challenges alone. We strive earnestly to work together with men and women of other faiths to stand up and speak out against the rising tide of immorality and ethical relativism that are spreading in our world.

This section of my copy of the book is worn out from use in discussions with other Christians, and nothing opens doors with Evangelicals like using this.

Millet and Robinson also describe the apostasy in terms that do not unnecessarily over-emphasize its depth and breadth, but show an amazing number of quotations by LDS prophets and apostles that show great appreciation for the reformers and the work they did. Many have described them as an almost necessary preparatory part of the restoration, doing in their time exactly what the Lord wanted them to do. This is also a frequent theme in general conference talks today.

Brothers Millet’s and Robinson’s descriptions of the words that the Lord told Joseph smith at the time of the first vision (which are of course offensive to other Christians) can be seen in different ways, and they make a strong (in my opinion, convincing) case that the “abominable creeds” the Lord was talking about are not the creeds of the various Christian churches in Joseph’s day, but the creeds set up during the third through seventh centuries that got the definition of the Godhead all wrong. They describe the “professors” who were all corrupt not as all the leaders of all the Christian churches then and now, but as the ministers of the churches in Palmyra at the time who did not accept Joseph’s story of a restoration.

I have had conversations with some people who have begun this reading assignment, and who tell me that Steve Robinson’s book is difficult reading. It is. He’s one of the smartest people in the church, and in a dialog with one of the smartest Evangelical scholars on earth, and talking about hard subjects. I would suggest a selective reading. Read each of their introductions to the entire book; then find the one or two page “joint conclusion” at the end of each chapter; and then read their joint conclusion to the whole dialog, beginning on page 189. You will have everything important, and will recognize the remarkable agreements that have been found. Another approach would be to read Steve’s book for Latter-day Saints, “Believing Christ”, which teaches us how to approach our religion in the same way, and from our perspective.

Brother Thorkelson, if there are any of either of these books left unsold by our November meeting, please let me know and I’ll buy them from you. I will have them in the hands of Evangelicals in our area within a few weeks. I have found that knowledge that these books exist, and some familiarity with their teachings and concepts, opens more doors and breaks down more walls than ANYTHING ELSE with Evangelical and conservative Christians at colleges and universities, at mega-churches throughout the county, and at every one of the hundreds of small and medium Christian churches that are found everywhere in every stake in the county.

Love & Best Wishes,
Steve St.Clair
LDS Interfaith Relations Co-Director, Orange County

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;
urchinTracker();

Lesson to Walter Martin / Dr. Richard Mouw

Richard Mouw on Walter Martin.
Thanks much,
Steve St. Clair
=============================

Shoot-First Apologetics
What a dead bluebird taught Walter Martin about defending the faith

Richard J. Mouw
President, Fuller Theological Seminary
posted 11/10/2006 07:59AM
Christianity Today Website

I was chided recently by someone who was upset with me because of my extensive dialogues with Mormon scholars. “How can you engage in friendly conversations with people who believe such terrible things?” he asked me. I tried to explain that if we are going to criticize Mormonism, it should be on matters that they actually believe, not on what we think they believe. I said the best way to know Mormon beliefs is to actually engage in dialogue with Mormons.

“You don’t need to have dialogue with Mormons to know what Mormonism is all about,” the person retorted. “All you have to do is read Walter Martin! He had those folks figured out!”

As a high school student in the 1950s in New Jersey, I was a Walter Martin fan. He was not as well known in those days as he would be after 1965, when he published his much-reprinted Kingdom of the Cults. But he was already a dynamic speaker who could stir up an evangelical audience with his engaging, sharp-witted critiques of Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists (this last group he would later remove from his list of dangerous cults).

I wanted to explain to my critic that I had been exposed to Walter Martin’s views on Mormonism long before he had discovered Martin’s writings, but my critic made it clear that the conversation was over. Even more than touting my credentials as a Martin reader, I would like to have said that in my dialogue approach, I was following good counsel that I learned from Walter Martin himself.

‘It Looked Like a Grackle’

The advice came while I was a college student, in a tribute that Walter Martin wrote to Donald Grey Barnhouse. In addition to serving for 33 years as pastor of the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Barnhouse was a national radio teacher (the Bible Study Hour) and the editor of Eternity magazine. Several months after Barnhouse died in 1960, Eternity devoted an entire issue to his life and ministry, with several evangelical leaders testifying to Dr. Barnhouse’s influence. One of the leaders who wrote was Walter Martin, whose tribute left a permanent impression on me.

Martin told of a time when he had been asked to lead a theological discussion on apologetics at a staff retreat held at Barnhouse’s farm in rural Pennsylvania. During a lengthy break, Barnhouse and Martin strolled the grounds. Barnhouse carried a shotgun on the walk, which he used to shoot at scavenger birds, like crows and grackles, who bothered his favorites, the bluebirds.

At one point, Barnhouse interrupted the conversation to fell a bird in the distance. When he saw that he had hit his target, he exclaimed, “That’s one grackle less to bother my bluebirds.”

When the two of them got closer to the fallen bird, however, Barnhouse saw that he had actually killed a bluebird. He was obviously distraught, but after a few minutes he observed to Martin that there was a spiritual lesson in what had just happened. He had been searching for a way, Barnhouse said, of warning Martin about jumping too quickly to the conclusion that someone is an enemy of the gospel.

“You are right in defending the faith against its enemies, but you are too inclined to ‘shoot from the hip,’ even as I was when I fired at this bird. In the excitement of the moment, it looked like a grackle, but a closer examination would have saved its life and my feelings. It is not wrong to contend for the gospel, but it is wrong to shoot first and ask questions later. What you think might be a grackle, an apostate, or an Antichrist might well be a bluebird you looked at in a hurry.”

Then Barnhouse placed his hand on Martin’s shoulder and added: “Never forget this. Better to pass up an occasional grackle in theology and leave him with the Lord than to shoot a bluebird and have to answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.”

Not long ago, I came across a comment by G. K. Chesterton—another sharp-witted defender of the faith who was concerned that we sometimes shoot from the hip in identifying enemies of the faith. “Idolatry is committed,” Chesterton warned, “not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils.” A nice way of putting it, I thought to myself. But not as memorable as Walter Martin’s story of bluebirds and grackles.

Richard J. Mouw is president of Fuller Seminary and author of Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today’s World (Zondervan).

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;
urchinTracker();

How Jesus was Conceived / Current LDS Thought

This post is in response to Frank Pastore’s comments about being willing to vote for a Latter-day Saint Presidential candidate and still wanting more clarity on distinctive LDS beliefs. I listen to Frank’s radio program frequently and appreciate his willingnes to support Mitt Romney. As someone quite famliar with LDS doctrine and practice, I hope to provide clarity on LDS distinctives which are no longer as distinctive as Frank may think.For this example, I am providing with this (VERY LONG) post everything that I can find in LDS literature on the subject of how Jesus Christ was conceived in the flesh since 1960. It is arranged from OLDEST to MOST RECENT, so to see what we believe now, you need to read the sections at the end of the post. My summary would be to tell you that, in the 60 years I have been a Latter-day Saint, I have never read or heard a CURRENT LIVING Latter-day Saint leader or scholar say that we believe that Jesus was conceived by physical relations between God the Father and Mary. Nor have I read anything to this effect in the CURRENT DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH … the four Standard Works, official pronouncements by the first Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, the current handbooks and curriculum of the Church, or the General Conference talks by current living LDS leaders.I think that the most recent statements by LDS scholars Robert Millet and Steve Robinson on the subject, included here, probably summariez best what our current position would be.

Thanks much,
Steve St. Clair

===========================

The Only-Begotten Son in the Flesh
God as the Literal Father of Jesus Christ in Latter-day Saint Sources since 1960

Hugh B. Brown (1960)
Elder Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1960, Third Day—Morning Meeting, p.93
Yes, we testify of the First Begotten of the Father in the spirit, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, a member of the Holy Trinity, the Creator of the world. To prove he was the Creator we quote the words of John, the Apostle: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3.) That the Word referred to was none other than the Christ becomes evident when one reads the fourteenth verse: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Ibid., 1:14.)

Steve’s Notes:
Elder Brown uses the term “Holy Trinity” in defining the godhead (the traditional Christian term), and uses scriptures in the book of John that are typically used by other Christians in defining how the birth took place.

Craig Ostler & Joseph Fielding McConkie (1964)
Revelations of the Restoration, D&C 19:13-24
Christ was uniquely qualified to offer grace through the atoning sacrifice because as a member of the Godhead he condescended to become the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. His divine sonship as the Only Begotten Son of God enabled him to suffer “more than man can suffer, except it be unto death” (Mosiah 3:7).

Revelations of the Restoration, D&C 20:21
The Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son. Though the Almighty God is the Father of the spirits of all humankind, Christ alone was begotten of him in the flesh and is known as the Only Begotten Son.

Revelations of the Restoration, D&C 38:3
All things came by me: In the pre-mortal realm Christ was the firstborn of all the spirit children of our eternal Father. In mortality he is the Only Begotten of the Father, meaning the only Son begotten of God in the flesh, or with blood.

Revelations of the Restoration
The Son because I . . . made flesh my tabernacle: When He took upon him a mortal body, he was spoken of as “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning” (Mosiah 3:8). He did not cease to be the Father, but because he came into mortality, he became the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. Christ was referred to as the Only Begotten before his mortal birth because of his foreordained mission as the Savior of the world (Moses 1:6, 5:7; Alma 5:48).

Sterling W. Sill (1965)
Elder Sterling W. Sill, Conference Report, Oct 1965, Second Day—Morning Meeting, p.56 – 57
Nothing is more clearly written in the scripture than the fact that the life of Christ did not begin at Bethlehem; neither did it end on Calvary. Jesus said, “I came forth from the Father and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:28.) In his prayer in Gethsemane he said, “And now, O Father glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) Jesus was the first-begotten Son of God in the spirit and the only-begotten Son of God in the flesh. (See Heb. 1:6 and John 1:14.) But God is also our eternal Heavenly Father, and it is just as certain that our lives did not begin when we were born; neither will they end when we die. Like our Elder Brother, in the spirit we were also begotten in God’s image. We were also endowed with a set of his attributes and made heirs to his glory. And the greatest idea that I know of in the world is God’s promise that through our faithfulness we may become even as he is.

Elder Thomas S. Monson (1966)
Elder Thomas S. Monson, Conference Report, April 1966, Second Day—Morning Meeting, p.63
With all my heart and the fervency of my soul, I lift up my voice in testimony today as a special witness and declare that God does live. Jesus is his Son the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. He is our Redeemer; he is our Mediator with the Father. He it was who died on the cross to atone for our sins. He became the first fruit of the resurrection. Oh, sweet the joy this sentence gives, “I know that my Redeemer lives!” and may the whole world know it and live by that knowledge, I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior. Amen.

Bruce R. McConkie (1966)
Elder Bruce R. Mcconkie, Conference Report, April 1966, Afternoon Meeting, p.80
In this holy writ, in these gospel accounts, in these testimonies of the life of our Lord-
“We see Jesus-the Almighty, the Creator of all things from the beginning-receiving a tabernacle of clay in the womb of Mary.
And now what shall we say more of Christ? Whose Son is he? What works hath he wrought? Who today can testify of these things?
Let it now be written once again-and it is the testimony of all the prophets of all the ages-that he is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, the promised Messiah, the Lord God of Israel, our Redeemer and Savior, that he carne into the world to manifest the Father, to reveal anew the gospel, to be the great Exemplar, to work out the infinite and eternal atonement, and that not many days hence he shall come again to reign personally upon the earth and to save and redeem those who love and serve him.

Bruce R. McConkie (1966)
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.546
Only Begotten Son
See BELOVED SON, CHRIST, SON, SON OF GOD. Christ is the Only Begotten (Moses 1:6, 17, 21, 33; 2:1, 26-27; 3:18; 4:1), the Only Begotten Son (Jac. 4:5, 11; Alma 12:33-34; 13:5; D. & C. 20:21; 29:42; 49:5; 76:13, 25; John 1:18; 3:16), the Only Begotten of the Father. (Moses 5:9.) These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

Harold B. Lee Letter (1968)
(Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 1996, edited by Clyde J. Williams, p.14)
Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ’s birth.
We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary’s] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)

Excerpt of Letter from Church Member (NOT a General Authority) on http://www.shield-research.com
The doctrine that God the Father had sex with His daughter to produce the body of Jesus is a false doctrine, and was refuted by President Harold B. Lee in a letter to Bruce Bracken in 1968 (most of this letter is reproduced in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee) which was given to me only several years ago. While Jesus is ‘literally’ the Son of God, Mary was ‘literally’ a Virgin (her hymen was intact before she bore Jesus). It is unfortunate that this false doctrine is still being taught in Seminaries, Institutes, and especially in the lectures and published works of (one religion professor at BYU).

Steve’s Notes:
This Letter by Harold B. Lee appears to be the direction the brethren want to take. It is not widely distributed or published until some years later.

Eldred G. Smith (1968)
Elder Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1968, Afternoon Meeting, p.43
In that great council in heaven when the creation of this earth was planned, it was he who answered to the call of the Father: “Whom shall I send? . . .” (Abr. 3:27.)

It was he then who came to this earth, in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary. He was the literal Son of God the Father, “the Only Begotten Son.”

President Marion G. Romney (1974)
President Marion G. Romney, Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, Ensign (CR), January 1974, p.11
I know that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit child of God the Father; that he is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh; that, as the scriptures teach, in the spirit world before this earth was created he sponsored the Father’s plan for the mortality, the death, the resurrection, and the eternal life of men; that, commissioned of the Father, he was the creator of this earth; the Jehovah of the Old Testament, “the God of Adam and of Noah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God at whose instance the prophets of the ages have spoken, the God of all nations, and [that] He shall yet reign on earth as King of kings and Lord of lords.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 4.)
He came to earth as the Babe of Bethlehem, begotten of the Father, born of Mary; the gospel he taught is the one and only means by which men can fulfill the full measure of their creation. “His immaculate life in the flesh” and “his voluntary death as a consecrated sacrifice for the sins of mankind,” with his victory over death, secured for all men resurrection and immortality and, upon the conditions specified by him, eternal life.

Elder Delbert L. Stapley (1976)
Elder Delbert L. Stapley, Easter Thoughts, Ensign (CR), May 1976, p.76
Paul declared to the Corinthian saints that Christ is “the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and to the Hebrews that Christ is “the express image of [God’s] person.” (Heb. 1:3.) It is logical for the Only Begotten Son of the Eternal God to be in “the express image of his [Father’s] person.” Like produces like, and any earthly son we know—and the earthly is typical of the heavenly—is in the image of his father. It is true in mortal life that some sons are in the express image of their father’s person.

Eldred G. Smith (1976)
Elder Eldred G. Smith, Who Is Jesus?, Ensign (CR), May 1976, p.67
It was he, then, who came to this earth in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary—the literal Son of God the Father, “the Only Begotten Son.”

Ezra Taft Benson (1979)
President Ezra Taft Benson: Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, from fireside address given at University of Utah Special Events Center on 9 Dec 1979, published in New Era in 1980
The Savior’s birth, ministry, atoning sacrifice, Resurrection, and promised coming all bear witness to His divinity.

The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the mysteries of godliness. It may only be comprehended by the spiritually minded. The Apostle Matthew recorded, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18). Luke renders a more plain meaning to the divine conception. He quotes the angel Gabriel saying to Mary: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing [being] which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35; emphasis added). Alma’s testimony, given fourscore years before the Savior’s birth, beautifully reconciles the testimonies of Matthew and Luke: “He shall be born of Mary, … 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” (Alma 7:10; emphasis added).
Some 600 years before Jesus was born, Nephi had a vision. He saw Mary and described her as “a virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.” He then saw her “carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time.” When she returned, she was “bearing a child in her arms, … even the Son of the Eternal Father” (1 Ne. 11:15, 19–21).

Thus the testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserves the title “the Only Begotten Son of God.”

From the time of His heaven-heralded birth there have crept into the Church heresies which are intended to dilute or undermine the pure doctrines of the gospel. These heresies are, by and large, sponsored by the philosophies of man and in many instances are advocated by so-called Christian scholars. The attempt is to make Christianity more palatable, more reasonable, and so they attempt to humanize Jesus and give natural explanations to those things which are divine. An example is Jesus’ birth. There are those who would seek to convince us that the divine birth of Christ as proclaimed in the New Testament was not a divine birth at all—nor was Mary, the virgin girl, a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception. They would have you believe that Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, was His physical father, and that Jesus was therefore human in all His attributes and characteristics. They appear generous in their praise of Him when they say that He was a great moral philosopher, perhaps even the greatest. But the intent of their effort is to repudiate the divine sonship of Jesus, for on that doctrine rest all other claims of Christianity.

I am bold to say to you, Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. He was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!

Steve’s Notes:
President Benson uses no previous statements by Latter-day Saint thinkers, but only the Biblical and Book of Mormon scriptures to describe the process. He uses the term “Son of God in the most literal sense” to describe our unique Latter-day Saint view of the events.

The main purpose of President Benson’s comments was NOT to emphasize our differences with traditional Christianity, which also accepted Jesus as a divine Son of God with a divine birth. He was demonstrating our differences with the modern study of Christianity by modern scholars who were writing that the virgin birth was impossible, and Jesus must have been physically the son of Joseph, but Son of God only in some spiritual sense.

The talk was published in the New Era in 1980, shortly after it’s presentation, and was re-published in the New Era in 2005 under the term “Gospel Classics”.

Bruce R. McConkie (1979)
Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols., 1:, p.314
But how can a God be born into mortality? How can the Eternal One take upon himself flesh and blood, and let himself be fashioned as a Man? A child-any child, including the Child-must have progenitors; he must have parents, both a father and a mother. Gabriel will soon tell the Virgin of Galilee that she shall be the mother. As to the father-he is Elohim. The Son of God shall have God as his Father; it is just that simple, and it could not be otherwise. The doctrine of the divine Sonship lies at the foundation of true religion; without it, Christ becomes just another man, a great moral teacher, or what have you, without power to ransom, to redeem, and to save.

Without overstepping the bounds of propriety by saying more than is appropriate, let us say this: God the Almighty; the Maker and Preserver and Upholder of all things; the Omnipotent One; he by whom the sidereal heavens came into being, who made the universe and all that therein is; he by whose word we are, who is the Author of that life which has been going on in this system for nigh unto 2,555,000,000 years; God the Almighty, who once dwelt on an earth of his own and has now ascended the throne of eternal power to reign in everlasting glory; who has a glorified and exalted body, a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; who reigns in equity and justice over the endless billions of his spirit children who inhabit the worlds without number that roll into being at his word-God the Almighty, who is infinite and eternal, elects, in his fathomless wisdom, to beget a Son, an Only Son, the Only Begotten in the flesh.

God, who is infinite and immortal, condescends to step down from his throne, to join with one who is finite and mortal in bringing forth, “after the manner of the flesh,” the Mortal Messiah.

If God, who is eternal, steps down from his high and holy place to beget an Only Begotten Son “after the manner of the flesh,” who can know it? How can such wondrous knowledge be given to carnal men? It may be easy to find someone who would claim to be the mother, but how can her selection for such an exalted position of motherhood be known for sure? Who shall declare Messiah’s generation?

Steve’s Notes: Elder McConkie still uses the term “after the manner of the flesh”, but is less specific than he was in “Mormon Doctrine”. Some leaders think that he is “overstepping the bounds of propriety by saying more than is appropriate,” and writers and teachers who feel it needs to be described physically have something to encourage them.

Gospel Principles Manual (First Published 1980, last revised 1997)
He Was the Only Begotten of the Father

The story of the birth and life of the Savior is found in the New Testament in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. From their accounts we learn that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to marry Joseph when an angel of the Lord appeared to her. The angel told her that she was to be the mother of the Son of God. She asked him how this was possible (see Luke 1:34). He told her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son. From his mother he inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death. He inherited divine powers from his Father. No one could take the Savior’s life from him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up his body again after dying. (See John 10:17–18.)

Steve’s Notes:
This manual takes the approach of using specifically Biblical scriptures to define the birth of the Savior. It adds our emphasis as Latter-day Saints with the words “literal father”, but that does not mean they had sexual relations.
This manual, intended for new and young members of the Church, is still available through Latter-day Saint Distribution Centers and Bookstores.

Ezra Taft Benson (1983)
President Ezra Taft Benson, Jesus Christ: Our Savior & Redeemer, Ensign (CR), Nov 1983, p.6
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He came to this earth at a fore-appointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and powers of His Eternal Father.
His unique heredity made Him heir to the honored title—The Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. As the Son of God, He inherited powers and intelligence which no human ever had before or since. He was literally Immanuel, which means “God with us.” (See Matt. 1:23.)

President Gordon B. Hinckley (1986)
President Gordon B. Hinckley, Come and Partake, Ensign (CR), May 1986, p.46
Such knowledge is the very foundation of spiritual strength. This is the great basic purpose of the restoration of the gospel in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times—to declare the living reality of God the Eternal Father and of His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. To know them, to love them, to obey them is to have life eternal. It is our mission to declare with words of soberness and truth that God is our Eternal Father, the God of the universe, the Almighty One; and that Jesus Christ is his firstborn, the Only Begotten in the flesh, who condescended to come to earth; who was born in a stable in Bethlehem of Judea, lived the perfect life, and taught the way of salvation; who offered Himself a sacrifice for all, enduring pain and death on the cross; and who then came forth in a glorious resurrection, the firstfruits of them that slept. (See 1 Cor. 15:20.) Through Him, and by Him, and of Him, all are assured salvation from death and are offered the opportunity of eternal life.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Ensign (CR), Nov 1986, p.49
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal, living God. I believe in Him as the Firstborn of the Father and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. I believe in Him as an individual, separate and distinct from His Father. I believe in the declaration of John, who opened his gospel with this majestic utterance: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-2, 14).

I believe that He was born of Mary of the lineage of David as the promised Messiah, that He was in very deed begotten of the Father, and that in His birth was the fulfillment of the great prophetic declaration of Isaiah: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Institute Student Manual (1986) (includes Heber J. Grant quotations from 1924)
Doctrines of the Gospel: Institute Student Manual, p. xxx
Jesus Christ is literally the son of God the Eternal Father.

“Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 70).
“That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 81).

“We believe absolutely that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of God, the first-born in the spirit and the only begotten in the flesh; that He is the Son of God just as much as you and I are the sons of our fathers” (Heber J. Grant, “Analysis of the Articles of Faith,” Millennial Star, 5 Jan. 1922, 2).

“There cannot be any doubt in the heart of a Latter-day Saint regarding Jesus Christ’s being the Son of the living God, because God Himself introduced Him to Joseph Smith . . . . Any individual who does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, has no business to be associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, 23–24).

Robert L. Millet & Joseph F. McConkie (1986)
The Life Beyond, p.33
Thus, the one chosen to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall must have God as his father-from whom he could inherit the capacity to live endlessly-and a mortal mother, from whom he could inherit blood or the corruptible element of the body, so that he might die. As the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, he would then be able to lay down his life in an atoning sacrifice and take it up again, thus breaking the bands of death.

Robert L. Millet (1986)
Studies in Scripture, Vol. 5: The Gospels, p.142
A wealth of information is contained in the four short verses in Matthew (1:18-21) dealing with the preparation of Mary and Joseph for the conception and birth of Jesus. We simply cannot praise too highly the one chosen to bear the Son of God. “There was only one Christ,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written, “and there is only one Mary. Each was noble and great in preexistence, and each was foreordained to the ministry he or she performed. We cannot but think that the Father would choose the greatest female spirit to be the mother of his Son, even as he chose the male spirit like unto him to be the Savior.” Luke preserved the details concerning the visit of Gabriel to Mary and the subsequent Annunciation (the announcement), but Matthew wrote simply that Mary, engaged to Joseph, was “found with child of the Holy Ghost” (1:18). It was Nephi who was instructed by the Spirit of the Lord concerning the condescension of God the Father-that the Almighty Elohim would step down from his divine throne, join with one who was finite and mortal, and beget a son, an Only Begotten Son in the flesh. (1 Ne. 11:16-25.) In the words of Alma, Jesus Christ “shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, . . . 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.” (Alma 7:10.)

Steve’s Notes:
Brother Millet’s approach here gives scriptural evidence, doesn’t hide the Latter-day Saint uniqueness of position, and does not speculate on or cause speculation on the method of conception.

Clyde J. Williams (1987)
Robert L. Millet, ed., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 6: Acts to Revelation, p.138
Paul refers to Christ as the firstborn in two different passages in chapter one of Colossians. A review of the scriptures reveals that Jesus is the firstborn in three very significant ways. (1) He is the firstborn spirit son of God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col. 1:15.) “His is the eternal birthright and the everlasting right of presidency,” wrote Elder McConkie. As the firstborn, it was Jehovah’s right to be chosen and foreordained as the Savior. It would also be his right, under the direction of the Father, to create worlds without number. (Col. 1:16; see also Moses 1:33.) (2) Jesus Christ is the literal son of God the Father. (1:3.) He is the Only Begotten or firstborn of the Father in the flesh. (See John 1:14.) Because of his divine birth, both in the spirit and in the flesh, it is particularly appropriate to refer to him as being in the image of his Father, whom we have not seen. (Col. 1:15; see also Heb. 1:3.) (3) The Savior is the firstborn from the dead. (1:18.) Because of his unique birth, he had power over death and was able to rise from the dead.

Rodney Turner (1987)
Kent P. Jackson, ed., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 7: 1 Nephi to Alma 29, p.245
Abinadi, like Isaiah, was concerned with the redemptive mission of “God himself”-that individual deity who embodied the natures of both the Father and the Son-Jesus Christ. Just as a child has a legal right to the surname of its parent, so did the Only Begotten-who was “conceived by the power of God” in spirit and in flesh-have a legal right to the divine name Father. (See Mosiah 15:3; Ether 3:14; John 10:36.) Literally possessing his Father’s name and powers, the Son was worthy and able to act as the Father’s divine surrogate. To this end, he became the Only Begotten Son in the flesh when he was conceived by Mary, a mortal woman.

Begotten of an immortal Father and a mortal mother, Jesus possessed two natures (one divine, one human) and, therefore, two wills (that of the Father, and that of the Son). He could manifest either nature “at will.” The Son, by definition, is one who does not possess the fulness of the power and glory of the Father. (See D&C 93:14-17.) As Son, Jesus was less than, and subject to, his Father. (See John 14:28.) As his flesh was to be subject to his spirit, so was the Son to be subject to the Father. The atonement required the subjection and sacrifice of the fleshly will of the “Son” to the spiritual will of the “Father”. This same sacrifice is required of us all; humanity must yield to divinity. The Son willed to let the cup pass; the Father willed that it should be drunk to its dregs. Abinadi described Jesus’ submission as “the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.” (Mosiah 15:7; see also Luke 22:42; 3 Ne. 11:11.) In a sense, it was not the Son as Son, but the Father in the Son who atoned. That is, Jesus not only did the will of his Father in heaven, but the will of the Father in himself. The Father and the Son-being “one God”-came to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. “God himself”-in perfect unity-atoned for the sins of the world.

Daniel H. Ludlow, Ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1990)
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992)
Vol.2, Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh, p. 729, by Gerald Hansen, Jr.
Ancient and modern scriptures use the title Only Begotten to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints recognize Jesus as literally the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh (John 3:16; D&C 93:11; Moses 6:52). This title signifies that Jesus’ physical body was the offspring of a mortal mother and of the eternal Father (Luke 1:35, 1 Ne. 11:18). It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of mary and God the Father, “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof” (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 81).

The fact of Jesus’ being the literal Son of God in the flesh is crucial to the Atonement, which could not have been accomplished by an ordinary man. Because of the Fall of Adam, all mankind are subject to physical death and are shut out from the presence of God. The human family is unable to save itself. Divine law required the sacrifice of a sinless, infinite, and eternal being-a God-someone not dominated by the Fall, to redeem mankind from their lost and fallen condition (Alma 34:9-14; cf. 42:15). This price of redemption was more than any mortal person could pay, and included the spiritual sufferings and physical agony in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7; D&C 19:18). To complete the Atonement by physical death and resurrection, it was necessary that Jesus be able to lay down his physical body and also be able to take it up again. He could do this only because he had life in himself, which he inherited from God his Father (John 5:26; 10:17-18). Christ inherited the ability to die from his mortal mother and the power to resurrect himself from his immortal Father. Dying was for him a voluntary, deliberate act for mankind, made possible only because he was the Only Begotten of the Father (D&C 20:18-26).

Bibliography
McConkie, Bruce R. The Promised Messiah, pp. 467-73. Salt Lake City, 1978
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992)

Vol.2, Jesus Christ: Birth of Jesus Christ, p. 729, by Andrew Skinner
Latter-day Saint scripture affirms unequivocally that the birth of Jesus Christ was the mortal advent on earth of an actual God, a second and distinct member of the Godhead. Adam was assured redemption through the Only Begotten of the Father, and every true prophet had a hope of Christ’s glory (Moses 5:6-10; Jacob 4:4).

The time of Jesus’ birth, along with the purposes of his mortal ministry, were established in the pre-mortal life (see Council in Heaven; Moses 4:1-4; 1 Ne. 10:2-4; Mosiah 3:5-10). A detailed vision of the anticipated Savior’s birth was recorded by Nephi 1, a Book of Mormon prophet, shortly after 600 B.C. (1 Ne. 11:7-24). He foresaw a virgin in the city of Nazareth who was carried away in the spirit, and then saw the virgin again with a child in her arms, whom an angel identified as the Son of God. Nephi described Christ’s coming as the condescension of God, which may be understood in two respects: first, in that God the Father, a perfected and glorified personage of flesh and bones, condescended to become the father of a mortal offspring, born of Mary; and second, in that Jesus (Jehovah), the God who created worlds without number (Moses 1:32-33; John 1:1-4, 14; Heb. 1:1-2), willingly submitted himself to all the trials and pains of mortality (Mosiah 3:5-8; MD, p. 155).

For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title “the Only Begotten Son of God” (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; 1 Ne. 11:19).

Bibliography
Benson, Ezra Taft. Come Unto Christ. Salt Lake City, 1983.
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y., 1977.
McConkie, Bruce R. The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, pp. 313-66. Salt Lake City, 1981.
President Gordon B. Hinckley (1992)

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Son of God,” Ensign, Dec. 1992, 2
How beautiful is the language of Nephi’s vision of the birth of the child of Bethlehem:

“And an angel … said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children. … And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!” (1 Ne. 11:14–21.)

Of all the children born into this world, none other has come with so rich a birthright as Jesus, for He was the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh.

Victor L. Ludlow (1992)
Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel, p.52
He is the Firstborn Son of God in the spirit, and thus is the Elder Brother of us all. He is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh-actually, literally, physically, and biologically-and from his immortal Father he received power to conquer physical death. He is the Beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased because he speaks and does the will of the Father, submitting his desire to that of his Divine Parent. He is separate from God the Father in both spirit body and physical body, but is one with the Father in witness, testimony, truth, ideals, and goals; the work and glory of the Father is also the work and glory of the Son, “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39.)

Robert L. Millet (1994)
Robert L. Millet, The Power of the Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon, p.11
The “condescension of God” described in 1 Nephi 11 seems to be twofold: the condescension of God the Father (verses 16-23) and the condescension of God the Son (verses 24-36). “Without overstepping the bounds of propriety by saying more than is appropriate,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote, “let us say this: God the Almighty; the Maker and Preserver and Upholder of all things; the Omnipotent One . . . elects, in his fathomless wisdom, to beget a Son, an Only Son, the Only Begotten in the flesh. God, who is infinite and immortal, condescends to step down from his throne, to join with one who is finite and mortal in bringing forth, ‘after the manner of the flesh,’ the Mortal Messiah.” In the words of President Ezra Taft Benson: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!”

Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995)
Joseph Fielding McConkie, Here We Stand, p.166 – 167
Our revelations … affirm that Christ was the first of his children born in our spirit or pre-mortal state (D&C 93:21). In the pure and undefiled language of Adam, God was known as Man of Holiness and Jesus Christ, his Only Begotten Son (meaning his only son begotten of a mortal woman), is known as Son of Man or Son of Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57). We believe that Mary was the literal mother of Jesus Christ in the flesh and that God was his father. In testifying of Christ, we do not use language in a deceptive or metaphorical sense. Our scripture declares Christ to be the Son of God “after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18). President Ezra Taft Benson explained: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!” We claim ourselves competent witnesses of the reality of his resurrection and of his divine Sonship. In bearing such a testimony we stand alone, for historical Christianity has branded us heretical.

Robert L. Millet & Joseph F. McConkie (1996, 2002)
Joseph Smith: The Choice Seer, p. xxx
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN IN THE FLESH:
Modern revelation certifies that Jesus of Nazareth is literally the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. He is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor is he the Son of the Father in some mystical, metaphorical sense; he is the Son of Almighty God. Indeed, he is the “Son of Man,” meaning the Son of the “Man of Holiness” (Moses 6:57). From Mary, his mother, a mortal woman, he inherited mortality, the capacity to die. From Elohim, his exalted Sire, he inherited the powers of immortality, the power to atone for the sins of mankind, to rise from the dead, and to initiate the rise from the grave of all other mortals. That dual inheritance qualified and equipped him to work out the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice. Truly, as Helaman taught, “He hath power given unto him from the Father to redeem them from their sins because of repentance” (Hel. 5:11). John the Baptist testified: “And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us” (D&C 93:11).

Elder Richard G. Scott (1997)
Elder Richard G. Scott, Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, Ensign (CR), May 1997, p.53
Jesus Christ possessed merits that no other child of Heavenly Father could possibly have. He was a God, Jehovah, before His birth in Bethlehem. His Father not only gave Him His spirit body, but Jesus was His Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Our Master lived a perfect, sinless life and therefore was free from the demands of justice. He was and is perfect in every attribute, including love, compassion, patience, obedience, forgiveness, and humility. His mercy pays our debt to justice when we repent and obey Him. Even with our best efforts to obey His teachings we will still fall short, yet because of His grace we will be saved “after all we can do.”

Stephen Robinson (1997)
How Wide the Divide? P. 135
In regard to the virgin birth, Latter-day Saints believe everything that the Bible has to say on the subject. However, the Bible has less to say on this subject than many seem to wish it did. Certainly the gynecological expositions of the medieval church are as extra-biblical as they are tasteless and indelicate. Unfortunately, popular speculations on the LDS side have sometimes also been tasteless and indelicate. Still, on this subject official Mormonism makes four assertions:

Mary was a pure virgin (Alma 7:10; 1 Nephi 11:13-20).

Mary was in some unspecified manner made pregnant by God the Father, through the power of the Holy Ghost (Lk. 1:32-25), “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with the higher manifestation thereof” [Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 1915, p. 81]. Hence Jesus is not a metaphorical Son, but a begotten Son.
Jesus of Nazareth, divine father, God. Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father through the Holy Ghost. Jesus’ divine the offspring of the divine conception, is in his biological being the son of a mortal mother, Mary, and a paternity was necessary in order for him to have power over death and therefore to accomplish his saving mission (Jn. :26; 10:17-18) and perform his atoning sacrifice. Only one with the power to live could truly die voluntarily.
The exact details of how Jesus’ conception was accomplished have not been revealed, either in the Bible or in modern revelation.

While it is true that certain LDS leaders (mostly in the nineteenth century) have offered their opinions on the conception of Jesus, those opinions were never included among the official doctrines of the church and have, during my lifetime at least, not appeared in official church publications – lest they be taken as the view of the church. Yet those who would misrepresent the LDS Church (and also a vocal minority of its own eccentrics) continue to insist on the unofficial speculations of nineteenth-century members rather than on the official views of the church then or now.

How Wide the Divide? p. 139
If Jesus was truly a human being, then he had forty-six chromosomes, a double strand of twenty-three. If he was truly human, he got one strand of twenty-three chromosomes from his mother. Where did the other strand come from, if not from his Father? I am not talking about a sexual conception (see n.13), only a divine conception and a divine sonship. I would be shocked to learn that Evangelicals believe Joseph or somebody else to have been Jesus’ father – that the Father was not the Father of the Son.

There can be no doubt that Mary was pregnant and that God caused her pregnancy (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34-35). Latter-day Saints believe that this makes the mortal Jesus the “begotten” Son of God. For me it means God was the immediate cause of the conception of Jesus in the flesh, that is, as a physical, mortal, and biological being. Exactly how God caused Mary to become pregnant is unknown (perhaps that is what Blomberg is getting at), but that God did indeed cause her to become pregnant is in my view a fundamental belief of historic Christianity. If Evangelicals do not believe that God was the Father of the mortal Jesus, the cause of his coming into biological existence, then Latter-day Saints would have misgivings about Evangelicals being truly Christian!

Note 13: Prof. Blomberg’s language (pp. 122-23 with notes) makes me suspect he has this bit of LDS speculation in mind, but the institutional church does NOT teach that the conception of Jesus was accomplished by a sexual act. See, e.g., Clyde Williams ed., The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), pp. 13-14.

President Gordon B. Hinckley (1998)
Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” Ensign, Mar. 1998, 2
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal, living God. I believe in Him as the Firstborn of the Father and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. I believe in Him as an individual, separate and distinct from His Father. I believe in the declaration of John, who opened his gospel with this majestic utterance:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1–2, 14).

I believe that He was born of Mary of the lineage of David as the promised Messiah; that He was in very deed begotten of the Father, and that in His birth was the fulfillment of the great prophetic declaration of Isaiah:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Stephen Robinson (1998)
Are Mormons Christians? P. 113
In common with other Bible-oriented Christians, the Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is the pre-existent Word of the Father who became the literal, physical, genetic Son of God. As the pre-existent Word he was the agent of in the creation of all things. As the glorified Son he is the agent of the Father in the salvation of all humanity. We believe the Father he was conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Daniel Peterson & Stephen Ricks, FARMS (1998)
Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word, 129-131
We will ignore the fact that these scattered nineteenth-century speculations were never canonized by the Mormon Church, and that no comparable statements occur in Latter-day Saint scripture. . . . While certain early Mormon leaders may occasionally have interpreted the concept of “virgin birth,” they never for a moment suggested that Jesus was begotten by a mortal man, nor that his father was any other personage than God. . . . And for a denial, it cannot be repeated too often, that the Latter-day Saints have never accepted as official doctrine.

Joseph Fielding McConkie (1998)
Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions , p.24
Why a Book of Mormon? Because it gives us an independent witness that Jesus is the Christ, the literal Son of God, conceived by Mary “after the manner of the flesh” (1 Ne. 11:18). It is a powerful witness that Christ labored among men, was judged by them, and was slain upon a cross “for the sins of the world” (1 Ne. 11:33).

President James E. Faust (2001)
President James E. Faust, The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope, Ensign (CR), Nov 2001, p.18
What He did could only be done by Deity. As the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh, Jesus inherited divine attributes. He was the only person ever born into mortality who could perform this most significant and supernal act. As the only sinless Man who ever lived on this earth, He was not subject to spiritual death. Because of His godhood, He also possessed power over physical death. Thus He did for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He broke the cold grasp of death. He also made it possible for us to have the supreme and serene comfort of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

President Gordon B. Hinckley (2002)
President Gordon B. Hinckley, We Look to Christ, Ensign (CR), May 2002, p.90
He is the central focus of our worship. He is the Son of the living God, the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh, who left the royal courts on high to be born as a mortal in the most humble of circumstances. Of the loneliness of His living He said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20). He “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38).

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (2003)
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, The Grandeur of God, Ensign (CR), November 2003, p.70
I bear personal witness this day of a personal, living God, who knows our names, hears and answers prayers, and cherishes us eternally as children of His spirit. I testify that amidst the wondrously complex tasks inherent in the universe, He seeks our individual happiness and safety above all other godly concerns. We are created in His very image and likeness,16 and Jesus of Nazareth, His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, came to earth as the perfect mortal manifestation of His grandeur. In addition to the witness of the ancients we also have the modern miracle of Palmyra, the appearance of God the Father and His Beloved Son, the Savior of the world, to the boy prophet Joseph Smith.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (2005 November Conference)
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “To Young Women,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 28
Be a woman of Christ. Cherish your esteemed place in the sight of God. He needs you. This Church needs you. The world needs you.

May I conclude. Much has been said lately in entertainment media about the current craze for “reality shows.” I am not sure what those are, but from the bottom of my heart I share this gospel reality with the beautiful generation of young women growing up in this Church.

To my granddaughter and to every other young person in this Church I bear my personal witness that God is in reality our Father and Jesus Christ is in reality His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. I testify that this really is the Church and kingdom of God on earth, that true prophets have led this people in the past and a true prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, leads it now. May you know the unending love the leaders of the Church have for you and may you let the eternal realities of the gospel of Jesus Christ lift you above temporal concerns and teenage anxieties I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Elder Merrill J. Bateman (2005)
A Pattern for All, Conference Report October 2005
One of the titles given to the Savior is that of Only Begotten Son of the Father. For example, the Apostle John in his Gospel states that he beheld the majesty and glory of the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration and that His glory was that of the “only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14; see also v. 18). The Book of Mormon likewise uses this title many times.

Unlike mortals who inherit the seeds of death from both parents, Jesus was born of a mortal mother but an immortal Father. The seeds of death received from Mary meant that He could die, but the inheritance from His Father gave Him infinite life, which meant death was a voluntary act. Thus, Jesus told the Jewish people, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26).

On another occasion He stated: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:17-18).

The infinite nature received from His Father gave Jesus power to perform the Atonement, to suffer for the sins of all. The prophet Alma in the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus not only took upon Himself our sins but also our pains, afflictions, and temptations. Alma also explains that Jesus took upon Himself our sicknesses, death, and our infirmities. (See Alma 7:11-13.) This He did, Alma said, so that His “bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know . . . how to succor his people” (Alma 7:12).

Robert L. Millet (2005)
Getting at the Truth, p. 57
After the meeting an LDS woman came up to me and said: “you didn’t tell the truth about what we believe!”

Startled, I asked, “What do you mean?”

She responded, “You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well we don’t believe that.”

“Yes, we do,” I retorted.

She then said with a great deal of emotion, “I want to believe you, but people have told me for years that we believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary and thereby Jesus was conceived.”

I looked her in the eye and said, ”I’m aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church – that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in general conference? Is it in the standard works, the curricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?”

A five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders. Tears welled up in her eyes, and she said simply, “Thank you, Brother Millet.”

Getting at the Truth, p. 126
Don’t the Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is literally the Son of God, though a physical relationship between God and Mary? Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is in reality the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. How that was accomplished we really do not know. Any efforts to go beyond the plain and straightforward statement that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God the Father is speculative and thus not a part of the doctrine of our Church.

A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 74
The Only-begotten in the Flesh: Jesus of Nazareth is literally the Son of God, the Only-begotten of the Father in the Flesh. He is not the son of the Holy Ghost, or the Son of the Father in some mystical, metaphorical sense; he is the Son of Almighty God. Truly, “He hath power given unto him from the Father to redeem them from their sins, because of repentance “ (Helaman 5:10). One prophet “beheld His glory, as the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us” (D&C 73:11).

Footnote 7: See Ezra Taft Benson, Come Unto Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983, 4). While Latter-day Saints clearly believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, there is no authoritative doctrinal statement within Mormonism that explains how the conception of Jesus was accomplished. One Book of Mormon prophet spoke of Mary as “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” (Alma 7:10).

www.fairlds.com (April 2006)
Paper on FAIR Website, written by Gary Bowler in 2002
Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Teach That God had SEX with Mary?

It’s a good bet that the headline got your attention, isn’t it? That is exactly what it was meant to do. That is why critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often use this, or similar statements: They have great shock value, get your attention, and pique your curiosity. It is true that sex sells. However, as is often the case, after the critics ask a good question, they run away with their ears covered when there is an attempt to give a response. This response is for the honest truth seekers, members who would sincerely like to have this question answered, and even the critics.

So do the LDS teach as doctrine, that God had a sexual relationship with Mary? The short answer is, no. But that answer is probably unsatisfactory to those who want a more complete answer.

The place members should always look for official doctrine is in the canonized scriptures of the Church. The clearest statement of doctrine about this topic is found in the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 1 Nephi 11:18-21 states:

Behold the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me again saying: Look: and I looked and beheld a virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the Son of the Eternal Father!

As can be seen, official LDS doctrine clearly teaches that Mary was a virgin, and that as a virgin she gave birth to Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. If this is so, where do critics get the idea that LDS believe God had a physical relationship with Mary? It certainly isn’t in any doctrinal statements found in scripture.

Typically, critics either take statements from non-authoritative books or take an innocent phrase and make it sound like it says something it doesn’t. An example is a statement from the 1972 Family Home Evening Manual, p. 125-126, that recently appeared in an anti-Mormon brochure passed out at Temple Square in Salt Lake City:

How are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father … We must come down to the simple fact that God almighty was the father of his son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot His son Jesus Christ.

While this sounds like damning evidence, a “smoking gun,” upon reflection it doesn’t say anything other than Jesus is really the only begotten Son of God and his Sonship isn’t figurative. What the statement doesn’t do is specify the mechanics of His conception.

Church leaders have placed emphasis on Jesus Christ being the literal Son of God. Christ alone is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh (Jon 1:14). It is critical to understand this concept, as those who are not unified in the faith and the Son of God (Ephesians 4:13) and those who deny the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ will not overcome (1 John 5:5). In this light, in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7, President Benson is quoted as follows:

The LDS Church proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.

Further, the manual Gospel Principles, 1997 edition, p. 64, is quoted as follows:
Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father.

Despite how anti-Mormons try to use these quotes, it can be seen that the LDS do indeed believe that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. But, once again, the quotes say nothing about the method of His conception, only about His lineage.
For the next quote, let’s try a little exercise. Read this assertion, which is similar to those often made by critics of the Church: “The Mormon Church teaches that God had sexual intercourse with Mary.” Now read this statement by BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson in the video The Mormon Puzzle, which critics have used to support the assertion:

The official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is the literal offspring of God. He’s got 46 chromosomes; 23 came from Mary, 23 came from God the eternal father.

Did your jaw drop to the floor? Did you say to yourself, “It’s true, then?” Before you get too riled up, let’s go to part two of the exercise.

The Church certainly does teach that Jesus Christ was a mortal, born of an immortal father and a mortal mother. Or, as the critics put it: Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Now read Professor Robinson’s quote again, and it becomes a no-brainer. If Jesus Christ was mortal (incarnate, if you will), then of course He had 46 chromosomes, just like the rest of us, and also like the rest of us, 23 did come from His Father and 23 from His mother. There is nothing shocking about that, is there? If this is the most damning evidence on the subject, the critics need to rethink their position.

In this day and age of artificial insemination, test-tube babies, and cloning, it should be evident that there are other methods to consider regarding how Jesus Christ may have been conceived. While each of these provides ample fuel for speculation, the LDS Church simply has no official position concerning the mechanics of how the Son was begotten of the Father and conceived in Mary’s womb.

Steve’s Notes: In the time of Orson Pratt, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, prevailing views of science led them to conjecture that the only way of being a literal father was having sexual relations.

In our time, someone may just as honestly try to build a case for it having been accomplished by some variation of cloning or artificial insemination, since those are the most advanced forms of reproduction we understand.

A thousand years from now, people may be speculating about how it must have taken place by spore-pod explosion (I take the term from a Science Fiction novel about the distant future).

Since the Father is so much higher than us, it may have been by some mechanism that we would be hard-pressed to understand with our mortal minds.

www.absalom.com (April 2006)
Some people believe that, based on these writings, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others taught that God had sex with Mary. I and most Latter-day Saints do not believe this. We believe, based on these writings, that the conception of Jesus was a natural event, as natural as the conception of any other child. Please note that ‘natural’ does not mean ‘intercourse’. Mary was impregnated by God the Father, but NOT by physical intercourse. Mary was impregnated just like any other woman is impregnated, that is, by an egg somehow being fertilized, NOT necessarily by intercourse. Today, we have the technology to impregnate a virgin woman. She may become pregnant and bear a child, and still be a virgin. Certainly God can do no less!!

We do not know exactly how this impregnation happened. No one has ever written specifics as to exactly what happened. There are many writings about the event, and some of these writings allude to it being a natural event, etc., but these writings do NOT say God has sex with Mary. This is the interpretation of those who oppose the LDS church and make such claims for their sensationalistic value, not for their truthfulness and accuracy.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml#religion (April 2006)
I read that Mormons think God the Father had intimate relations with Mary. Is that true?

The Church makes no official statement on the biophysics of the miraculous conception, except to affirm what the scriptures clearly indicate: that Mary was a virgin, that God the Father was the Father, and that Christ was begotten of the Father. He was the literal Father of Christ: Christ had a fleshly body that inherited divine attributes from the Father and mortal attributes from His mother. With our pathetic mortal technology, we already know it is possible for someone to be a literal father of someone without having sex, thanks to processes such as in-vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. If mortals can do such things, surely it’s possible for God to be the literal Father of Christ and for a virgin to be the literal mother. NOTHING in official LDS doctrine says God had sex with Mary. That is a deceptive charge of anti-Mormons trying their best to take our literal acceptance of Biblical doctrine and distort it into something offensive.
Anti-Mormons often string together a series of quotes from various Church leaders in various unofficial sources about how God is the literal Father of Christ, etc., which anti-Mormons use to imply that there were sexual relations. But that’s not what LDS doctrine requires.

One such quote comes from Bruce R. McConkie’s unofficial source rather poorly entitled, Mormon Doctrine:

And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.(p. 742)

This statement is supposed to be shocking, but it says nothing about sex – just that Christ is truly the son of God and that he was physically born as a result of conception. And that’s exactly what the Bible teaches! Please review the first few pages of Luke, for example. Yes, we DO believe that the birth of Christ was natural, meaning that Mary had labor pains, and that a child was delivered from the womb. Those wishing to turn these physical realities into offensive distortions are free to do so, but they are misguided.

Several groups of allegedly conservative Christians often attack us for our beliefs in this area. What is the alternative that they believe? That God the Father was NOT the Father? That Christ was NOT born from a female womb? That Christ was not in a human body with the mortal power to suffer and die, yet with divine power as well? I can see that such non-Biblical doctrines might be attractive to those who reject the Biblical idea that the resurrected Christ has a body, as does the Father, in whose physical image we are created (see Gen. 1:26,27; James 3:9; many others). The post-Biblical Nicene Creed and other creeds introduced the pagan Greek doctrine that matter is bad and pure idea is good, so that God must be without body, parts, or passions – but the living, resurrected, tangible Christ said “handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:36-43; Phil. 3:21). Christ, born as a real baby boy, is now spirit AND immortal flesh together. These tangible, physical aspects of Christ were troubling to the minds of philosophers in the fourth and fifth centuries and beyond, who redefined Him according to their own imaginings. They mocked those early Christians who accepted the traditional view of God that looks like man, our Father in Heaven with a literal Son in the flesh who was Christ. Some of their successors now mock us for literally accepting the Biblical record about God being the Father and Christ the Son, but again, they are misguided.

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;
urchinTracker();

2001: LDS Rankings in BARNA Evangelical Survey / Barna Research

People may be interested in this survey taken by the Evangelical Research organization the Barna Group, which finds some interesting trends in Evaluating how people of different denominations position themselves based on questions that relate to how close they are to “Evangelical” or “Born-Again” categories. They included the answers from Latter-day Saint respondents and tabulated them in their tallies, and were surprised to find how closely the attitudes of Latter-day Saints compare with other Conservative Christians.

Love & Thanks
Steve St. Clair

===========================

Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination

See the Original report at this link to see the surprizing breakdowns of beliefs in tabular form

June 25, 2001
(Ventura, CA)

In the land of tolerance and diversity, it turns out that there is very considerable diversity within the Christian community regarding core beliefs. A study of more than 6000 randomly-sampled adults by the Barna Research Group provides some surprising – and, in some ways, shocking – insights into the views of laity in various denominations.

Nationally, in terms of religious classification, about four out of every ten U.S. adults are born again Christians and 8% are evangelicals (which is a subset of the born again segment). In terms of denominational affiliation, one-quarter of Americans are Catholic and a majority (three out of every five) are aligned with a Protestant church. Within that general framework, though, lies some fascinating distinctions.

The Born Again Constituency
Among the 12 largest denominational groupings in the country, the number of individuals who can be classified as born again – not based upon self-report but upon their beliefs about life after death – ranges from a high of 81% among the Assemblies of God to a low of 25% among Catholics. There was a clear-cut pattern within the data: adults who attend charismatic and non-denominational (Protestant) churches emerged at the top of the continuum, while those attending Catholic or mainline churches ranked at the bottom. The types of churches that have the highest percentages of born again believers, after the Assemblies of God, were other Pentecostal churches (80%), non-denominational Protestant churches (76%), and Baptist churches (67%).

One of the most startling revelations is that the percentage of Mormons who have born again beliefs is higher than the percentage of born again believers within either the Episcopal or Catholic churches. In total, 34% of the adults who attend a Mormon church say they have made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life today and also say that when they die they know they will go to Heaven solely because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. In contrast, the same perspective is held by just 30% in the Episcopal church and 25% within Catholic parishes.

George Barna, president of the research firm that conducted the research, noted,
“It is important to remember that we are not reporting the official teachings of these churches. The data reflect what the people within those churches believe. If nothing else, this outcome highlights the substantial theological shift that has been altering the nature of the Episcopal church, in particular, as well as other Christian churches, in recent years.”

Within the two largest mainline churches, slightly less than half of their adherents were born again. Forty nine percent of those who attend Methodist churches fit the born again classification, as did 48% of those aligned with a Lutheran church.

The study also showed that during the last five years there has been substantial growth in the percentage of born again adults in four of the twelve groups examined: Mormons (a 26% increase), Presbyterians (+26%), Protestant non-denominationals (+12%) and Methodists (+11%). The percentage of born again adults remained relatively unchanged in the other eight denominations.

Belief by Belief
Besides people’s views about their own ultimate eternal destiny the study also evaluated people’s opinions related to eight faith-related perspectives. A similar pattern emerged, showing that individuals associated with charismatic or non-denominational congregations were more likely than adults from other types of churches to possess biblical views on each item.

Given the statement “the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches,” strong agreement with that view ranged from four out of five among those who attend a charismatic or Pentecostal church down to just one out of five Episcopalians. Nationally, less than half of all adults (41%) believe the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches.

Most Americans do not accept evangelism as a personal responsibility: only one-third (32%) claim they have an obligation to share their religious faith with those who believe differently. Acceptance of that responsibility was most widely adopted by those who attend Pentecostal churches (73%) and least widely accepted among Episcopalians (12%) and Catholics (17%).

The notion that Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can influence people’s lives is regarded as hogwash by most Americans. Only one-quarter (27%) strongly believes that Satan is real while a majority argues that he is merely a symbol of evil. Mormons are the group most likely to accept the reality of Satan’s existence (59%) while Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists are the least likely (just one-fifth).

There is a huge gap across denominations in relation to what their adherents believe about eternal salvation. Just three out of every ten Americans embrace the traditional Protestant perspective that good works cannot earn a person salvation, but that salvation is a gift of God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. People attending Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and Protestant non-denominational churches are most likely to share this view (about six out of ten do so) while Catholics are least likely (9%).

One of the most remarkable insights into America’s faith is the fact that less than half of all adults (40%) are convinced that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life during His three decades on earth. Following the established pattern, the people most likely to describe Jesus’ life as sinless were those who attend Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches, as well as Mormons, while those least likely to view Jesus as sinless attend Episcopal, Catholic and Lutheran churches.

Seven out of ten Americans perceive God to be “the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who still rules the world today.” This view received near universal adoption among Assemblies attenders (96%), but was accepted by a much smaller majority of Episcopalians (59%).

When individuals were asked to estimate their level of commitment to Christianity, those who were most likely to say they are “absolutely committed” were associated with Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and Protestant non-denominational churches, representing about two-thirds of the participants of those churches. The lowest levels of commitment were shown among those affiliated with Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches.

People’s Beliefs Vary by Denomination
When seven theological perspectives are combined to determine the overall purity of people’s biblical perspectives, the ranking of the twelve denominations shows three groups far outpacing the rest of the pack, with two far below all others. At the top of the list were people who attend Pentecostal churches (who had a firm biblical view on the seven items 72% of the time), Assemblies of God (72%), and non-denominational Protestant (65%) churches. The next echelon included people who attend Baptist (57% accuracy) and Church of Christ (54%) churches (followed by) Mormon (49%) Adventist (48%), Presbyterian (43%), Methodist (38%), and Lutheran (37%) churches. Lowest on the continuum were people affiliated with Catholic (28%) and Episcopal (28%) churches.

Evangelicals Are Scarce
All Barna Research studies define “evangelicals” as individuals who meet the born again criteria; say their faith is very important in their life today; believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; acknowledge the existence of Satan; contend that eternal salvation is possible only through God’s grace, not through good deeds; believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. In this approach, being classified as an evangelical has no relationship to church affiliation or attendance, nor does it rely upon people describing themselves as “evangelical.”

This classification model indicates that only 8% of adults are evangelicals. Barna Research data show that 12% of adults were evangelicals a decade ago, but the number has dropped by a third as Americans continue to reshape their theological views.

Not surprisingly, there were only three denominations that had at least one-quarter of their adherents qualify as evangelicals: the Assemblies of God (33%), non-denominational Protestant (29%), and Pentecostal (27%) churches. One out of every seven Baptists (14%) met the evangelical classification. An unexpectedly high proportion of people associated with the Churches of Christ – 12% – fit this standard. (Barna explained that this was because a majority of the category was comprised of individuals associated with congregations not part of the United Church of Christ cluster, which tends to have very liberal interpretations of Scripture.) Churches that have the lowest proportion of adherents meeting the evangelical criteria were the Catholic, Episcopal, and Mormon churches, each of which has just 1% of its people in this category.

The Protestant-Catholic Gap
The theological differences between Protestant and Catholic laity are pronounced on many issues, but the gap appears to be closing in some areas. Looking at the seven core theological perspectives tested in the research, the difference between Catholics and those attending the largest of the mainline churches (i.e., Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal) is negligible on most of the seven views. The gaps that are the most noteworthy pertain to views on salvation. Catholics remain much more likely to see good deeds as necessary to attain eternal salvation, but even so, a majority of mainline adherents do not rely solely upon God’s grace for their salvation.

The study noted that Catholics comprise about one out of every seven born again Christians in the nation (13%). In contrast, Baptists represent twice as many of the born again believers living in the U.S. (28%) while attenders of mainline congregations constitute about one out of every five born again adults. Ironically, the denominations that contribute the greatest number of born again adults are the Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist churches, noted for their mutual theological antagonism.

Insights Into Belief Patterns
Barna commented that the survey challenges some widely held assumptions. “Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are often characterized as attracting people who respond on the basis of emotions but who lack strong biblical training. This survey did not go deeply into people’s theological knowledge, but even in examining some very basic biblical concepts the study shows that the common wisdom about the Bible knowledge and convictions of charismatics is inaccurate. In fact, there is interesting correlation between the educational achievement and theological interpretation. Overall, charismatics have lower levels of education but higher levels of biblical accuracy, while individuals attending mainline churches are generally better educated but are more likely to have theological perspectives that conflict with the Bible.”

The researcher also expressed concerns about the overall pattern in beliefs. “The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy. How else can you describe matters when most church-going adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive their sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm? The Episcopal church certainly stands out as one that is struggling to find its theological identity and equilibrium, but millions of individuals who attend other Protestant churches are going through similar substantive redefinition.”

Barna also predicted that many church leaders would take exception with the data about the biblical beliefs and born again nature of Mormons. “Keep in mind that this research is neither a commendation nor a condemnation of any given church, but merely a reflection of what the people attending various churches believe. Millions of Mormons attended Protestant and Catholic churches for years, and appear to have taken their prior theological training along with them. Likewise, recent theological battles over scriptural interpretations regarding homosexuality, women in leadership, divorce, and euthanasia have encouraged more people to ignore the teachings of their church in favor of customized theological views. In many ways, we are living in an age of theological anarchy.”

Survey Methodology
The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 6038 adults conducted from January 2000 through June 2001. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.

“Born again Christians” were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again.”

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;
urchinTracker();

LDS love for Bible and Reformers / Apostle Russell Ballard

For people who are interested in “The Changing World of Mormonism” (which we Latter-day Saints would more correctly describe as a change of emphasis or focus, or a re-focus on the content of our scriptures), I wanted you to know about the content of Apostle M. Russell Ballard’s talk in the April 2007 General Conference.. He talks about what the Bible means to us, and the place it takes among our scriptures as a whole. Suffice it to say that it places great emphasis on our depending on the Bible, and our gratefulness to the Reformers and Bible translators as being in crucial part of the preservation of the Bible and a necessary prelude to the restoration. See the talk on www.lds.org at this link:

This only formalizes the interest which Elder Ballard has placed on this subject. In 2001, he spoke to the faculty and student body at BYU Hawaii. He felt inspired to throw out the text for the address he had prepared, and to speak to them extemporaneously for several hours about his love for the Bible and his profound appreciation of and familiarity with the reformers and preservers of the Bible. He told them to “never forget these things because they were the most important things they would hear from him.” The organizers of the Sidney Sperry Symposium on the Scriptures at BYU in 2004 determined that they would use that as the theme of their symposium that year. Many outstanding LDS scholars contributed, and published their work in the book called “Prelude to the Restoration: From Apostasy to the Restored Church” (see it at Amazon at this link). Any time I talk with anyone about the apostasy and the reformers, this is my text of choice now. So I was thrilled that Elder Ballard, by making its main points in a general conference talk, made it something of a current belief in the Church.
Love & Thanks,
Steve St. Clair

====================================

Apostle M. Russell Ballard
The Bible

Address at General ConferenceChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsApril 1, 2007 (transcript by Steve St.Clair)

My brothers and sisters,
The Holy Bible is a miracle. It is a miracle that the Bible, with its 4000 years of sacred and secular history, was preserved by apostles, prophets, and inspired churchmen. It is a miracle that we have the Bible’s powerful doctrine, principles, poetry, and stories. But most of all, it’s a wonderful miracle that we have this account of the life, ministry, and words of Jesus, which were protected through the dark ages and conflicts of those countless generations so that we may have it today. It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing, spirit of Christ, which has turned men’s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.
The Holy Bible is well-named. It is holy because it teaches truth; holy because it warms us with its spirit; holy because it teaches us to know God and understand His dealings with men; and holy because it testifies, throughout its pages, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Abraham Lincoln said of the Bible, “This great book is the best gift God has given man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through that book. But for it, we would not know right from wrong.”

It is not by chance or coincidence that we have the Bible today. Righteous individuals were prompted by the spirit to record both the sacred things they saw, and the inspired words they heard and spoke. Other devoted people were prompted to protect and preserve these records. Men like John Wycliff and the courageous William Tyndale and Johannes Gutenberg were prompted, against much opposition, to translate the Bible into language people could understand, and publish it in books people could read. I believe that even the scholars of King James had spiritual promptings in their translation work.

The dark ages were dark because the light of the Gospel was hidden from the people. They did not have the Apostles or Prophets, nor did they have access to the Bible. The clergy kept the scriptures secret and unavailable to the people. We owe much to the many brave martyrs and reformers, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Huss, who demanded the freedom to worship, and common access to the Holy Books. William Tyndale gave his life because he believed so deeply in the power of the Bible. He said, “The nature of God’s word is that whosoever readeth or heareth it reasoned and disputed before him, beginneth immediately to make him every day better and better, til he be grown into a perfect man.”

Honest, diligent study of the Bible does make us better and better, and we must ever remember the countless martyrs who knew of its power and who gave their lives that we may be able to find within its words the path to eternal happiness and the peace of our Heavenly Father’s kingdom.

Although these early Christian reformers agreed on many things, they ultimately disagreed on many points of doctrine. This resulted in the organization of numerous Christian denominations. Rodger Williams, an early champion of religious liberty, wrote, “There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances. Nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the church, for whose coming I am seeking.”

Tens of millions of individuals have come to a faith in God and in Jesus Christ through seeking truth through the Holy Bible. Countless numbers of them had nothing but the Bible to feed and guide their faith.

Because of the efforts of the Reformers, the Bible became a household possession. The word of God was read around the family fireside of the lowly, as well as in the parlors of the great. Millions of families have come together seeking to find the Church of Jesus Christ through the study of the Bible.
One of those families, in the early 1800’s in upstate New York, was the family of Joseph Smith, Sr. One of his sons was Joseph Smith, Jr, who SEARCHED THE BIBLE seeking to know which of the many denominations was the same as the Church that Jesus Christ had organized. He was prompted by the BY THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE to pray for further spiritual light and knowledge from God. Determined to seek the wisdom promised in the Holy Scriptures, Joseph knelt in humble prayer early in the spring of 1820.

O, what marvelous truth and light were shed upon him that day, as he beheld the glorious manifestation of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. And once again, God called a prophet, as he did in the days of Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
How grateful we should be for the Holy Bible!!! In it, we learn not only of the life and teachings and doctrines of Christ. We learn of His church, and of His priesthood, and of the organization that He established, and named “The Church of Jesus Christ” in those former days. We believe in that Church; and we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that same church, restored to earth complete with the same organization and the same priesthood.

Without the Bible, we would not know of His church then, nor would we have the fullness of His Gospel now.

I love the Bible, its teachings, its lessons, and its spirit. I love the Old Testament’s compelling, profound stories, and its great prophets testifying of the coming of Christ. I love the New Testament, with its apostolic travels and miracles, and the letters of Paul. Most of all, I love its eyewitness accounts of the words, example, and atonement of our Savior Jesus Christ. I love the perspective and the peace that comes from reading the Bible.

Brothers and Sisters, I’m sure that many of you have had the experience of hearing people say, “Mormons are not Christians, because they have their own “Bible, the Book of Mormon.” To anyone harboring this misconception, we say that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and the author of our salvation; and that we believe, revere, and love the Holy Bible. We do have additional sacred scriptures, including the Book of Mormon. But it supports the Bible, never substituting for it. Jesus taught that we should “search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.” These words provide insight and inspiration to all who sincerely seek to know and understand the truth about Jesus Christ.

The scriptures are rich in history, doctrine, stories, sermons, and testimonies, all of which ultimately focus on the eternal Christ, and his physical and spiritual mission to Heavenly Father’s children. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” We love the Bible and other scriptures. That may be surprising to some who may not be aware of our belief in the Bible as the revealed word of God. It is one of the pillars of our faith, and a powerful witness of the Savior’s ongoing influence in the lives of those who worship and follow Him. The more we read and study the Bible and its teachings, the more clearly we see that it is the doctrinal underpinnings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

We tend to love the scriptures that we spend time with. We made need to balance our study, and love ALL and understand ALL scripture. You young people, especially: DO NOT DISCOUNT OR DE-VALUE the Holy Bible. It is the sacred, holy record of the Lord’s life, The Bible contains hundreds of pages more than all of our other scriptures combined. It is the bedrock of all Christianity.

Now, we do not criticize or belittle anyone’s beliefs. Our great responsibility, as Christians, is to share all that God has revealed with all of His sons and daughters. Those who join this church do not give up their faith in the Bible; they strengthen it. The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the Contrary! It expands, extends, and exalts it! The Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible, and BOTH TESTIFY OF CHRIST. The first testament of the Bible is the Old Testament, which predicted and prophesied of the coming of the Savior, His transcendent life, and liberating atonement. The second Bible testament of Christ is the New Testament, which records His birth, his life, his ministry, His gospel, his Church, his atonement, and His resurrection, as well as the testimonies of His apostles. The third testament of Christ is the Book of Mormon, which also foretells Christ’s coming, CONFIRMS the Bible’s account of his saving atonement, and THEN reveals the resurrected Lord’s visit to the earth’s other hemisphere.

The sub-title of the Book of Mormon, the clarifying purpose statement printed on the cover of every copy, is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Each of these three testaments is part of the great indivisible whole of the Lord’s revealed word to His children. They contain the words of Christ, which we have been admonished to “feast upon” in order to qualify for eternal life. Those who think that one part is more important or true than another part are missing some of the beauty of the canon of ancient scripture. And those who think that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ or in the Bible should take time to understand the Church and the significance of its name, and the power of its message.

I am puzzled by any who would question the Church’s belief in the Bible, and in our position as Christians. The name of the church is the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” In our last general conference, here in this building, our church leaders quoted from the Bible nearly 200 times. The Church is organized and functions like the Church that Christ and his apostles established in the New Testament. And seated on the stand today are the Prophet and the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. I bear solemn witness that we are true and full believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his revealed word, the Holy Bible. We not only believe the Bible, we strive to follow its precepts and to teach its message. The message of our missionaries is Christ and His gospel, and His atonement, and the scriptures are the text of that message.

We say to all people: We extend our love to you, and invite you to come and let us share all that God has revealed.

My brothers and sisters, we must help all people, INCLUDING OUR OWN MEMBERS, understand the power and importance of the Holy Bible. The Bible is scripture that leads us all, and ALL MANKIND, to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. May God grant us the desire and capacity to accept and live His teachings, is my humble prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;

urchinTracker();

2006: Exploring Mormon thought Vol.2 Chapter 12: God the ETERNAL Father / Dr. Blake Ostler

In case you have not already seen it, I’m posting information about Blake Ostler’s new interpretation of Joseph Smith’s teachings in the King Follett Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove toward the end of his life. Re-evaluating the several historical sources that provided eye-witness accounts of the experiences, and combining it with studies of the LDS scriptures, Blake arrives at a much more consistent outline of Joseph’s understanding of the Godhead/Trinity, his belief in the realilty God’s and Christ’s eternal divinity, and no infinite regress of Gods.

Blake is the philosopher who came for the workshop of BYU and Talbot Philosophy students at Biola last year, and is one of the three LDS thinkers (along with Steve Robinson and Robert Millet) that the editors of “New Mormon Challenge” suggested are emphasizing the right things at this point in time.

To my knowledge, the first time Dr. Ostler published these very compelling ideas was in his review of Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson’s groundbreaking book “How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation“. It was an article in the FARMS Review of Books, Volume 11 Number 2 in 1999. He also included it as part of his paper “Re-visioning the Mormon Concept of Diety” in the journal “Element” in 2005.

To provide some sense of Blake’s final formulation of the idea, I’m posting excepts from chapter 12 of Blake Ostler’s just-published second volume of “Exploring Mormon Thought”, on “God the Eternal Father”. Anyone who does not read this book in it’s entirety is missing an important paradigm shift.

This idea is under discussion among philosophers in the Church, especially in numerous blog discussions on the issue. An invaluable summary and evaluation is available on the FAIR Wiki website, in an article titled “Infinite Regress of Gods?”

Blake contributes frequently to the blog called New Cool Thang . In a post containing many of the arguments and discussions, a scholar defending the previous usual interpretation of the discourses used these words:

I believe that a different analogy would be more appropriate though. I would compare the KFD to something like the twist at the end of the movie The Sixth Sense. In other words, the KFD reveals startling new information that shifts the lens through which we view everything that came before it. It gives Christian theology a major paradigm shift and an entirely new set of lenses through which to see reality. Rather than forcing the new revelation to fit in with the former views of reality, I think we must rethink our interpretation of all previous revelations based on the KFD. (Sort of like what you had to do with the entire movie when we had our paradigms shifted with the revelation about the Bruce Willis character.)

So when I think of the life of Joseph being lived in crescendo, I think of it concluding with his providing us a massive theological paradigm shift – one that further proved that he was a prophet in the same class as the great prophets of old.

Blake Ostler uses these words to express his increased appreciation of Joseph Smith’s teachings after re-formulating his understanding of the King Follett Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove:

The reading that I give the King Follett Discourse is the view that is consistent with the idea of Joseph Smith’s life as a crescendo. It seems to me that you all (those disagreeing with his new understanding) see Joseph simply playing a different tune altogether and with a different musical era rather than a symphony that crescendos. Indeed, what we get if you all are correct is a dissonance on which Joseph Smith ends his life instead of a beautiful symphonic masterpiece that crescendos into the King Follett Discourse as the exclamation point of his life. What you give us is a sour note at the end of a beautiful multi-media presentation that ruins the whole thing and says that what went before must just be seen as so much fluff and dressing for the real refrain that starts a new piece. It is kind of like a heavy metal refrain at the end of the moonlight sonata!

I (Steve St. Clair) have discussed this information with a very learned participant at Mariners Church in Irvine, whom I met at a recent excellent meeting there to discuss doctrinal differences between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. The gentleman at Mariners stayed afterwords for an hour discussing this, and expressed at the end that he thought that the Latter-day Saints moving in this direction would be the resolution of the largest issue between us. His words were to this effect: “Keep the Book of Mormon, keep the Three Degrees of Glory, and keep Baptism for the Dead, if you come to this understanding of the King Follet Discourse.”

Thanks for letting me know what you think.

Love & Thanks,
Steve St. Clair

=====================================
Blake T. Ostler
Excerpts from EXPLORING MORMON THOUGHT VOLUME 2 (click on link to Order from Amazon.com)
The Problems of Theism and the Love of God

Greg Kofford Books
Salt Lake City: 2006
Excepts from CHAPTER 12: GOD THE ETERNAL FATHER

Psalm 90:2 declares: “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” On February 5, 1840, Joseph Smith observed: “I believe that God is eternal. That he had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end.” However, just a few years later, Joseph Smith reportedly stated: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea.” How can these both be true? What is affirmed in the first statement is refuted in the sec­ond. Now I am open to the possibility that Joseph Smith asserted contra­dictory statements. He was, after all, a prophet and not a systematic the­ologian. Perhaps we should see such statements as a paradox that can be resolved by seeing them as asserting that God is “God” in different senses. Perhaps we should see such statements as a koan that challenges us to tran­scend our limited perspective to achieve enlightenment. Yet there is some­thing deep in me that holds that contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Thus, the approach I want to explore here is whether these statements can be explained within the context of Joseph Smith’s beliefs about the one God and the plurality of gods. To do so, I adopt the scholastic dictum, “whenever a contradiction arises, make a distinction.”

For purposes of this discussion, I need to clarify a few terms as I will use them. While I believe that the way I use these terms is well within the family of meanings commonly used in Latter-day Saint discourse, I don’t pretend that Latter-day Saints speak this way in Sunday School.

The word “God” can refer to both the individual divine persons of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, and it can refer to them as a united Godhead. To avoid this type of equivocation, I will refer to the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost when referring to the divine persons individually. I will refer to the “Godhead” when speaking of these three as a unity. I will use “God” as an equivocal term that does not distinguish between these uses. To be “divine” is minimally to possess all of the essential attributes of Godhood.

A “divine person” is a “person” who possesses all the essential properties of divinity. The word “person” in LDS thought is much more univocal with what we mean by human “persons” than in the tradition. A person is minimally a being embodied in some sense having distinct cognitive and conative capacities, although a fully divine person also transcends embodied presence by being the locus and source of omnipresent spiritual power, knowledge, and glory.

I also want to clear away an assumption that could derail this discussion before it gets started. It is common among Latter-day Saints to assert that it is necessary to have a glorified body of flesh and bones to be divine. However, that view is surely mistaken, for the LDS scriptures uniformly identify the Son as the God revealed in the Old Testament. It follows that the Son was fully divine before he became mortal. However, Christ was not a resurrected being until after his incarnation and resurrection. Therefore, the Son was fully divine even though he did not yet possess a glorified (or resurrected) body of flesh and bone. In addition, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit though a fully divine person (D&C 130:22). So it is clear in LDS thought that to have divine status, a divine person need not possess a glorified, resurrected body as both the Father and the Son now do.

In LDS thought, it is also clear that God the Father is an eternally self-existent being. The notion of God’s self existence was made clear by Joseph Smith in his April 1844 King Follett discourse: “We say that God is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads?”

However, there is a fundamental question which is unsettled in LDS thought regarding the eternal existence of the Father: Has the Father always existed as a divine person from all eternity without beginning? This question makes a distinction between at least the following two possibili­ties:

(1) There was an interval of time from T2 through T3 during which the Father was mortal and not fully divine, but the Father was fully divine eternally prior to T2 and forever after T3.

(2) There was a time T2 at which the Father first became fully divine, but he was not fully divine prior to T2; however, the Father has always existed without beginning and will always exist without end.

The difference in these two views is that according to (1), the Father was divine from all eternity before experiencing a mortality. According to (2), the Father was not divine until after his mortality, and thus became a divine person at some time. I first want to note that both (1) and (2) are consistent with Lorenzo Snow’s aphorism: “As man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become:’ In either view, there was a time when the Father was once mortal as we are now and also a time during which he is divine-as this aphorism affirms. What is at issue is whether the Father was divine only after his mortality and less than divine before his mortality. In what follows I defend (1).

The Scriptural Argument
There is strong scriptural motivation for Latter-day Saints to adopt (1), the view that God the Father has been divine from all eternity. Before beginning, I want to make two further distinctions. I will argue for the view that: (a1) “God the Father is eternally, without beginning, a divine person,” although: (a2) “he condescended for a time to become a mortal in the same manner as Christ.”

There is a third question that I will not dis­cuss here but which I have discussed elsewhere, i.e., whether in his mortal state the Father was divine though not fully divine. It is my view that the Father was at one time a mortal, though not a mere mortal, and that during his mortality the Father was divine, though not fully divine. It may seem that the careful position to take is that (a1) (the view that God has eter­nally been divine) alone is supported by both biblical and LDS scripture and (a2) (the belief that the Father at one time condescended to become mortal) is a non-scriptural view that has come to dominate LDS thought
Joseph Smith delivered the King Follett discourse. However, Joseph Smith himself claims scriptural support for (a2) and the scriptures he cites also support (a1).

LDS scriptures repeatedly assert that “God” is eternally “God.” Consider the various ways in which the eternity of God is affirmed in LDS scripture:

Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. (D&C 20:27; cf., Mosiah 15:2-5; Alma II:44; Eth. 12:41)

Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and
Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? (Moses 1:3-5)

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite
and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth. (D&C 20: I 7)

For we know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moro. 8:18) Taken together, the most obvious reading of these scriptural state­ments is that God the Father has been a divine person from all eternity without beginning. I add a caution: the assertion that God is “unchange­able” surely does not mean that God is unchangeable in all respects. Yet it seems fairly transparent that God is unchangeable in at least one crucial respect. The fact that God is divine does not change. As the Lectures on Faith stated, God “does not change, neither does he vary; but he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday, today, and forever; and his course is one eternal round:’

There is of course a question about how broadly we should take the scope of the word “eternal” in Mormon scripture in general and in Hebrew and Greek scriptures in particular. The word “eternal” could mean something like the Hebrew elohim or the Greek aionios, both of which are translated as “eternal” but which can mean an unmeasured span of time like the English “eon.” However, Joseph Smith himself stated fairly clearly that, when he spoke of God as eternal, he meant that God had no beginning, and he made these statements during the Nauvoo period (1839-44). In a January 1841 sermon, Joseph Smith gave a key to understanding the scriptures: “A key, every principle proceeding from God is eternal, and any principle which is not eternal is of the DeviI.” On February, 1840, Joseph Smith stated: “I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end.” On another occasion in 1840, Joseph Smith stated: “The priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither begin­ning of days nor end of life.” Joseph Smith’s statements also show that the view that God is eternally divine is not an early view that he later superseded, although, as we shall see, he did develop a nuanced view of God’s eternity.

It seems to me that the scriptural record uniformly supports the view that God the Father has been divine, without beginning. Further, it seems to me that the scriptural record should be given priority to deter­mine LDS beliefs. The very notion of a scripture accepted by common consent of the Saints suggests that Latter-day Saints take these scriptures as foundational. In the event of any conflict between scriptural and non-­scriptural statements, it seems that scriptural statements should be accorded greater weight. In addition, these statements are strongly sup­ported by Joseph Smith’s own statements that “God” is without a beginning.

Now when these statements say that “God is without beginning,” it may mean only that the Father, as an uncreated intelligence, was never created, but that the Father became divine only after a mortal experience. However, it seems to me that such an interpretation cannot be reconciled with the assertion that it is “the Almighty God” who is without beginning of days as the Book of Moses asserts. The “Almighty God” is the Father of Christ (D&C 20:21). Further, such an assertion seems inconsistent with the affirmation that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are eternally united as one God. Thus, while this may be one fruitful way of looking at such texts, I will not pursue it here. I believe that the view that the Father has always been a divine person is more faithful to scripture. However, there are two sermons given by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo that may appear to chal­lenge this uniform scriptural teaching: the King Follett discourse given April 7, 1844, and the Sermon in the Grove, given June 16, 1844.

The King Follett Discourse
Some have taken statements made by Joseph Smith in this dis­course to support (2)-the view that the Father was not divine before his mortality. However, it seems to me that a closer reading of the King Follett discourse supports (1) and precludes (2). It may be instructive to look at a few of these statements:

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himse!f did; and I will show it from the Bible …. The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power–to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvi­ous–in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again.

This statement has been taken by some to support (2), but I believe that it better supports reading (1). First, Joseph Smith looks to Jesus Christ as God the Son to reveal the nature of God the Father. Only (1) preserves the scriptural base text in John 5:19 to which Joseph Smith refers to support this doctrine that the Son did exactly what the Father had done, because it is uniformly taught in Mormon scripture and by Joseph Smith that Christ was a fully divine person prior to mortality. John 5:19 reads: “The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [ the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise:’ However, if this scriptural interpretation is followed to its con­clusion, then the Father’s mortal experience was like Christ’s, and thus it is more consistent to interpret Joseph Smith to assert that the Father, like Christ, was divine before his mortal sojourn but emptied himself of his divinity and became mortal for a time.

Further, this assertion is positively inconsistent with the view that the Father was not divine until after his mortality, for the Prophet declares that, as a mortal, the Father had a power that only a divine being can have­ the power to lay down his body and take it up again. This interpretation is reinforced by another statement from the King Follett discourse:

What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exal­tation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.

This statement continues the same line of reasoning as before. Christ does what he saw his Father do. They work out their exaltation in the same way. Thus, this passage also reinforces (1) because Christ was divine before his mortality. However, this statement adds that divine persons, as divine, progress. Joseph Smith did not see perfection as an upper absolute limit, but as a dynamic activity of growth and progression. This notion of divine perfection is important to keep in mind to accurately interpret Joseph Smith’s statements in the King Follett discourse. The Son, as a divine person, progresses to the Father’s station and then the Father takes a higher station. Thus, the mere statement that the Father is progressing does not indicate that the Father is not already divine.

However, other statements in the King Follett discourse are more difficult to align with (1) and, at first blush at least, seem to support (2). For example, Joseph Smith stated:

Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrec­tion of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

This statement has been interpreted to require (2). Because it speaks of “Gods” learning how to be gods and of their progressing from one capacity to another, it is often assumed that those engaged in the process of learning to be gods cannot already be gods. However, there are at least two interpretations of this passage:

(A) Persons learn how to become Gods by becoming a “god” at some first time TI by advancing from one capacity to another until they reach the status of gods.

(B) God the Father has been in a process of eternal progression from one exaltation to another for all eternity, and humans can commence to progress toward godhood by engaging in the same activity of progression.

For Joseph Smith, divine persons are engaged in the process of going from one capacity to another. Thus, it seems to me that Joseph Smith is asserting (B) and not (A). Interpretation (A) assumes that, if a being is engaged in learning how to be a god or progressing from one capacity to another, then that being is not yet divine or “a god.” However, this assumption is not well taken. According to Joseph Smith, the Father, as a divine person, is engaged in the process of progressing from one exaltation to another by being glorified by his creations.

Interpretation (A) assumes the classical notion of perfection as an absolute upper limit beyond which it is impossible to progress. Joseph Smith rejected that view. He did not see learning and progression as antithetical to divine status.

In fact, Doctrine & Covenants 93:13-14 asserts that God the Son, Jesus Christ, “continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness, and thus he was called the Son of God because he received not the fulness at first.” Again, we see that the type of progression predicated of the Father in the King Follett discourse is already predicated of the Son in Joseph Smith’s revelations. The Son laid aside the divine glory that he once had with the Father before the world was and took it up again when he was glo­rified by the Father through the resurrection. Joseph Smith taught that the Father had done the same before him in the sense that the Father pro­gressed from one capacity to another by laying aside his prior divine glory, becoming “enfleshed” or incarnated for a time on another world and then was resurrected just as Christ was. Thus, the concept that the Father was once incarnated is an extension of Joseph Smith’s Christology.

However, there is one final passage from the King Follett discourse that may seem difficult to square with (1). In the official report of the King Follett discourse which B. H. Roberts redacted and edited for the official seven-volume history of the Church, Joseph Smith is reported as stating:

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.

Joseph Smith thus reportedly “refuted” the idea that God (the Father) has always been God or always had divine status. However, this last statement, contained in the official text of the King Follett discourse and supported by the diaries of Willard Richards and Wilford Woodruff, is an incomplete report of what Joseph Smith actually said, according to two other sources with a very different reading. The most complete report is by Joseph Smith’s scribe, Thomas Bullock, who made what appears to be the closest to a word-for-word rendition of the discourse. His records states:

I am going to tell you what sort of a being of God. for he was God from the begin [sic] of all Eternity & if I do not refute it-truth is the touchstone.

This version states that God was God (a divine person) from the beginning and that Joseph Smith does not intend to refute that view. William Clayton omits the statement about a refutation altogether:

Going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eter­nity-These are incomprehensible to some but are [ sic] the first principles of the gospel.

Although it is clear that Joseph Smith claimed that God the Father was at one time a mortal, the text of the King Follett discourse is not clear enough to determine what Joseph Smith originally said about refuting the notion that God has always been God-if that is, in fact, what he said. However, the weight of the evidence suggests that, even in the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith taught that the Son’s experience of mortality was like the Father’s and, thus, that the Father was divine before he conde­scended to become mortal.

Moreover, even if Joseph Smith did state that he intended to refute the idea that God had been God from all eternity, it does not follow that reading (1) must be rejected. The assertion that the Father is not divine from all eternity entails only that there was a period of time during which he was not divine-it does not require that he was not divine forever before that period of time. According to (1), there was a period of time during which the Father was mortal and not divine, and thus He has not been divine from all eternity. Thus, Joseph Smith’s statement is neutral between (I) and (2). Both are consistent with the assertion that there was a period of time during which the Father was not divine and therefore has not been divine at all times.

A final consideration of the King Follett discourse makes it almost certain that Joseph Smith adopted a form of monarchical monotheism rather than simple henotheism or polytheism. Joseph’s interpretation of Genesis 1:1 entailed that there is a single God who is the head of all other gods. Joseph stated:

[I will] make a comment on the first sentence of the history of creation. Berosheit want to annalize the word- -Be-in by through & everything e1se-rosh [indecipherable ]-the head. sheit-where do [sic] it come from-when they inspired man wrote he did not put it there. It reads in the first-the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods-is true meaning-rosheet signifies to bring forth the Eloheim [sic]. Learned men cannot learn any more that what I have told you hence the head God brought forth the head God in the grand council.

Joseph Smith believed that the text of Genesis 1:1 had been cor­rupted and that it originally indicated that the head God brought forth the other gods in a council of gods. It follows that there is a head God (the monarch) and other gods who are subordinate to him in the council of gods. It is the same doctrine that he taught just over two months later in the Sermon in the Grove which further clarifies his belief in a head God to whom all other gods are subordinate.

The Sermon in the Grove
In the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith gave an interpretive dis­course on Revelation 1:3: “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.” What interests Joseph Smith in this verse is the reference to both God and his Father, because he reads it to support a plurality of gods. In addition, this scriptural verse supports the view that “God” has a Father. The sermon has four topics to support this interpretation.

In the first topic of the Sermon in the Grove, the Prophet argues that because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are “three distinct personages and three Gods … we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural.” To the extent that each of the divine persons is a distinct person and because each person is properly called a God, his point that there is a plurality of Gods is simply one of logic. In fact, the very same argument was made by Richard Cartwright in an important article critiquing the doctrine of the Trinity. Cartwright argued:

(1) Every divine person is a god.
(2) There are at least three divine persons.
(3) If every A is a B then there cannot be fewer B’s than A’s.
(4) Therefore, there are at least three gods.

Later in the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph argues that these three divine personages are one God in the sense that they are “agreed in one.” Joseph’s point is that the unity of the divine persons is not a matter of sub­stance but of choice and mutual agreement. Such a view is consistent with the concept that the divine persons are divine by virtue of their indwelling love one for another, for love by its very nature is a choice. However, it is clear that Joseph equivocates in his use of the word “God,” for in the first argument he uses the word “God” as a designator for each of the three divine persons individually and in the second he uses “God” as a designa­tor for the three as one Godhead-as a collective by agreement.

The second topic is a discussion of the doctrine of “the head God. Joseph Smith interpreted Genesis 1:1 to refer to “the head of the Gods [who] called the other Gods together.”23 In the King Follett dis­course two months earlier, he had taught that “the only true God” spoken of in John 17:3 is “the head, the Father of the Gods …. In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”

Joseph Smith saw the council of the gods in Psalm 82 and the statement “let us make man .. .” in Genesis 1:26-27 as references to a council of Gods presided over by a head God-the Father. In addition to these two biblical statements, this doc­trine is found in two LDS scriptures. An 1839 revelation (D&C 121:32) referred to “that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before the world was.” The same doctrine appears in the Book of Abraham (chaps. 3-4) to which the Prophet alludes in the Sermon in the Grove. In particular, Joseph refers to Abraham 3:19: ” … there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than them all’ (emphasis mine).26 The Book of Abraham views the head God as the Most High God, the most intelligent of all intelligences.

It bears noting that, if the Father is the “head God,” the “Lord thy God … more intelligent than they all,” it then follows that the Father is the God of all other gods. He is the most intelligent, the highest and most supreme of all gods.

Further, he is an “Eternal God of all other gods.” The very concept of a head God of all other gods surely precludes the assump­tion that there could be a god “higher” or “above” this Most High God. The fact that God is an “Eternal God of all other gods” suggests that God has possessed that status from eternity. However, the view that there must be an eternal chain of gods, of which the Father is only one, seems to be supported by the next statement that Joseph Smith makes:

If Abraham reasoned thus-If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? … Hence, if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?

It may seem that Joseph is saying that the Father had a father and that there is another “Father above” the Father of Christ. Some have understood Joseph to teach that if the Father had a father, then that father also had a father and so on ad infinitum. If so, then his view that there is an “Eternal God of all other gods” seems to be in tension with the view that there was at one time a higher “god.” However, there are at least two ways to understand the statement that the Father of Christ had a father:

(X) When the Father condescended from a fulness of his divine state to become mortal, he was born into a world and had a father as a mortal.

(Y) Before he was a mortal, the Father was spiritually begotten by another Father above him.

It seems to me fairly clear that Joseph Smith had (X) in mind and not (Y). First, immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, he states:

I want you to pay particular atten­tion to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before.

Thus, Joseph returns to the same explanatory principle that he had in the King Follett discourse. The Son as a mortal does “precisely” what the Father did before him.

Both the Father and the Son were fully divine before they emptied themselves of this fulness to become mortal. The Father, like the Son, exercised a power that only a divine being has: to lay down his life and take up again after death. Yet in becoming mortal, the Son left his exalted state to become mortal and to be begotten on this earth by the Father. When he refers to a father of God the Father, Joseph Smith seems to be asserting that the Father also left his divine state to become begotten of a father at the time he became mortal. Joseph is supporting (X) by asserting that the Father must have had a father when he became a mortal son.

Joseph does not give any information as to who this father of the Father’s earthly body might be. However, if the Father’s generation was like the Son’s, then His earthly mother was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost in a similar way and his generation was also by divine means. That can cer­tainly be true without positing that the father of God the Father’s earthly body was a god above the Father, for there is no such god.

It is of extreme importance to note that in the George Laub’s jour­nal notes of the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith stated that: “the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take upon himself a body, as the Savior did or as God did.” Thus, Joseph Smith taught that already divine persons, including the Son and the Holy Ghost, take upon them­selves bodies. Moreover, it is the same logic used in the King Follett Discourse. The Holy Ghost will take upon himself a body just as the Son took upon himself a body, and the Son took upon himself a body just as the Father did-and it is clear that both the Son and Holy Ghost are divine before their mortal incarnation. We now see a familiar (or family) pattern:

The Son was divine as the God of the Old Testament, yet left his exalted station and took upon himself a mortal body. The Holy Ghost is a divine person who shall leave his exalted station to take upon himself a mortal body. In the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph says that “God” (refer­ring to the Father) also did the same thing. Thus, it seems to be explicitly taught that the Father was divine before he took upon himself a mortal body. We have overlooked Joseph Smith’s explicit statement that it is divine persons who condescend to become mortal, including the Father and eventually the Holy Ghost, because we have relied solely on the Thomas Bullock report of the Sermon in the Grove rather than incorporating George Laub’s journal entry on the sermon as well.

In addition, I believe that the reading of these statements which assumes the “Father of God the Father” refers to a more supreme deity, or one who spiritually begets the Father from intelligence to a spirit body, is likely anachronistic. Such a reading makes assumptions about spiritual birth and intelligences being begotten into spirit bodies that were absent from Joseph Smith’s views.

The fourth and final topic clinches the argument. The Prophet notes that Moses was made a “god” over Aaron and Israel. He then observes:

I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, ‘Abba Father!’ Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

Now it becomes clear that the other gods that Joseph Smith refers to in the Sermon in the Grove are not gods “above” the Father, but sons of the Most High God. They are all sons of God the Father. They are all engaged in the same process of leaving behind an immortal state to become mortal, die, and then be resurrected, just as both the Father and the Son have done. Thus, the eternal God of all other gods is the Father. As a con­clusion to the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith shouts in praise:

He hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Oh Thou God of gods and King of kings and Lord of lords.

Joseph gives praise to the God of all other gods, who is the Father of God (the Son). Thus, Joseph Smith adopts the Old Testament teaching of a Most High God who maintains sovereignty over a council of gods. This Old Testament view was well expressed by Hans-Joachim Kraus:

Israel borrowed from the Canaanite-Syrian world the well- attested con­cept of a pantheon of gods and godlike beings who surround the supreme God, the ruler and monarch …. Yahweh alone is the highest God (‘Elyon) and king …. In Psalm 82 we have a clear example of the idea of a ‘council of gods: … ‘God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: The ‘highest god’ is the judge. The gods (elohim) are his attendants. They are witnesses in the forum which Yahweh rules alone, and in which he possesses
judicial authority. We might term the cheduth-el ‘Yahweh’s heavenly court: All of the gods and powers of the people are in his service.

As I will discuss in the next volume treating the Hebrew view of God and gods, the notion of monotheism that does not permit any others who are genuinely and properly called gods is an anachronistic reading of the text. In fact, the incomparable greatness of the God of Israel was not seen as incompatible with an entire council of gods and divine beings. In this sense, Joseph Smith’s doctrine of a plurality of Gods is authentically biblical. His view that God the Son is a distinct being who is properly called “God” in his own right is also biblical.

Why Would a Divine Person Become Mortal?
From the traditional perspective, it is logically possible for the Father (and Holy Ghost) to become embodied, for Scholastic theologians commonly recognized that if the Son could become incarnate, then so could the Father and the Holy Ghost. As Thomas Aquinas said: “Whatever the Son can do, so can the Father and Holy Ghost. But the Son was able to become incarnate. Therefore, the Father and the Holy Ghost were able to become incarnate.” Similarly, Peter Lombard stated: “As the Son was made man, so the Father or the Holy Spirit could have been and could be now.” However, they suggested that the divine persons would have no further reason to become incarnate once the Son accomplished the redemption of humankind. However, LDS scriptures suggest a compelling reason why each of the divine persons may choose to become incarnated.

There are some things that a divine person as one Godhead cannot know. The relationship of the divine persons in the Godhead is, by its very nature, the most intimate and loving experience possible. They live their lives in each as an indwelling spiritual presence. They are transparent to each other. While they are distinct persons, they are not isolated, alienated, or separated persons like we are. To know what it is to experience the exis­tential vicissitudes of mortal life, to participate in the blood and mud of humanity, they must leave the unity of the Godhead to become not merely distinct, but separated, even experiencing abandonment by the other two members of the Godhead.

Joseph Smith received a revelation in 1830 which stated that Adam and Eve could gain experiential knowledge only through experience: “if they did not know the bitter they could not know the sweet” (D&C 29:39). This view that experiential knowledge can be known only through experience is echoed in the words of the prophet Lehi in the Book of Mormon. He states that, if Adam and Eve had not entered mortality, “they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery, doing no good, for they knew no sin … and because they have been redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil” (2 Ne. 2:23, 26). This last statement is also a reminder that Adam and Eve became “as God” by knowing both good and evil. While many focus on the serpent’s lie to Eve, they forget that the Lord God confirmed:

Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22) As the Book of Mormon prophet Alma observed: “Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil (Alma 42:3).

Joseph Smith saw in this primordial story the truth that God con­fronts good and evil through direct experience. He interpreted these often overlooked scriptures to mean that God continues to learn from experi­ences forever and has always been engaged in this experiential learning process. Thus, even a person who is already divine has a reason to become mortal: to continue the process of learning through experience. The idea that a divine person may learn through mortal experience something that cannot be learned in any other way also has biblical sup­port: Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. (Heb. 2: I 7- I 8; emphasis mine)

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him. (Heb. 4:8-9)

These scriptures find an echo in Alma 7:12:

And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know how to succor his people accord­ing to their infirmities.

There is a type of perfection that is possible only through first-hand experience. Experiential knowledge is, by its very nature, gained only through experience itself. Though Christ was very God, yet he learned from the things that he suffered and was made perfect thereby. Elsewhere I have argued that Joseph Smith taught that there is an aspect of divine knowledge, experiential knowledge, that is inexhaustible and to which there is no end or intrinsic maxima. Thus, there is an infinite possibility of experiential knowledge open even to God. Because there is a type of knowl­edge available only through first-hand, mortal experience, each of the divine persons has a reason to experience a mortal sojourn. Indeed, Joseph Smith taught that the Holy Ghost, though presently a divine per­sonage of spirit, will one day take upon himself flesh as both the Father and the Son have done. In addition, no matter how advanced God is, when he is glorified by his creations, something is added to God’s glory. Divine persons eternally progress in some respects, including experiential knowledge and glory. It is those who are damned, or stopped in their fur­ther progression, who are not gods in LDS thought.

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;

urchinTracker();

What Happened to the Cross? / Robert Millet

Dr. Robert Millet just published a book on Latter-day Saints and the Cross, entitled “What Happened to the Cross? Distinctive LDS Teachings”. I will add a link when it becomes available at Amazon.com. It is an expansion of his address on the subject of the cross to the BYU Religion Faculty in 2005. Here are excerpts from that talk for your enjoyment.

Love & Thanks,
Steve St. Clair

======================

Where Did the Cross Go?
Robert L. Millet

BYU Religious Education Faculty
September 16, 2005

“Now the Atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie testified at his last general conference of the Church, “and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.

“Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

“But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

“May I invite you to join with me,” he beckoned to the Saints, “in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

“We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given us to guide us into all truth.

“We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.”

In a similar manner, Elder Boyd K. Packer reminded us almost thirty years ago that the message of mediation through Jesus Christ, the deliverance from sin and death made possible by his substitutionary offering, “is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.” These statements say something about the need for us to be clear and direct and consistent in how we teach the doctrine of Christ, how we declare the gospel.

I do not suppose that Elder McConkie is suggesting that we will ever in this mortal life understand completely the mystery of mysteries—how Jesus of Nazareth could take upon himself the sins of all humanity and how it is that he could rise from the dead and have that literal bodily resurrection pass upon every person who enters mortality. Rather, it seems to me that his plea and yearning invitation is for us to search the scriptures, ponder the revelations, and attune ourselves to the Infinite in order to better understand what we are meant to understand—namely, how salvation centers in and comes only through Christ; how our Lord’s suffering in Gethsemane and on Golgotha work together perfectly to satisfy the demands of divine justice; and how you and I are to remember, focus upon, and appropriate into our personal beings the precious gift made available by an omni-loving Deity. To borrow Elder Packer’s thought, for you and me to spend the majority of our time in the classroom or in our homes discussing only related but peripheral teachings (as true and important as they might be) without erecting the vital bridge to the Central Doctrine is to rob our students and ourselves of the transcendent outpouring that attends a Christ-centered and a Christ-directed presentation.

Whole books have been written on the Atonement, as you know. My intent today is to focus our perspective on one specific dimension of the Atonement—the divine link between the Garden and the Cross. I want to look back at our past, examine where we are now, and look to the future relative to how we teach the Savior’s suffering and how we come across to those within the Church as well as those interested (and sometimes critical) persons of other faiths who may question our commitment to Jesus.

The Bible and the Cross
We walk a fine line when it comes to expressing our views on the merit and value of the Holy Bible. Because of Nephi’s description of the malicious work of the great and abominable church in regard to the Bible (1 Nephi 13:20-40; compare Moses 1:40-41), the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith about the great value but incompleteness of the Bible, and the eighth article of faith, we and our students are too often prone to look askance at the holy book and question its merit, especially since we have additional scripture and modern revelation. It really is not the case that the Bible has been so corrupted that it cannot be relied upon to teach us sound doctrine and provide an example of how to live. “When I lived in England a few years ago,” said Elder Mark E. Petersen, “I went to the British Museum in London and studied the history of the King James Version of the Bible. I learned that its translators fasted and prayed for inspiration in their work. I am convinced that they received it.” While we do not subscribe to a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, we do believe that the hand of God has been over the preservation of the biblical materials such that what we have now is what the Almighty would have us possess. In the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “we cannot avoid the conclusion that a divine providence is directing all things as they should be. This means that the Bible, as it now is, contains that portion of the Lord’s word” that the present world is prepared to receive.

The Bible is a remarkable book of scripture, one that inspires, motivates, reproves, corrects, and instructs (2 Timothy 3:16). It is the word of God. Our task, according to President George Q. Cannon, is to engender faith in the Bible. “As our duty is to create faith in the word of God in the mind of the young student, we scarcely think that object is best attained by making the mistakes of translators [or transmitters] the more prominent part of our teachings. Even children have their doubts, but it is not our business to encourage those doubts. Doubts never convert; negations seldom convince. . . . The clause in the Articles of Faith regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never inserted to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found.”

In a revelation received in February 1831 that embraces “the law of the Church,” the early Saints were instructed: “And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel” (D&C 42:12, emphasis added). In 1982 Elder Bruce R McConkie explained to Church leaders that “Before we can write the gospel in our own book of life we must learn the gospel as it is written in the books of scripture.

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price—each of them individually and all of them collectively—contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”While Latter-day Saints do not believe that one can derive divine authority to perform the saving ordinances from the scriptures, we do say that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel in the sense that (1) it teaches of groups of people in the past who enjoyed the full blessings of the everlasting gospel; and (2) it teaches (especially the New Testament) the good news or glad tidings of redemption in Christ through the Atonement (see 3 Nephi 27:13-21; D&C 76:40-42).

For example, while the Old Testament is not as Christ-centered and gospel-centered as the brass plates (see 1 Nephi 13:23; 19:10-13; Alma 33:11, 16), the Christian world is able to read the Old Testament through the lenses of the New Testament and recognize many of the messianic prophecies, types, and shadows for what they are. In addition, of course, Latter-day Saints have available as hermeneutical tools the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, all of which provide additional perspective on salvation history, teach of the Eternal Gospel, and testify that Christian prophets have taught Christian doctrine and administered Christian ordinances since the days of Adam.

A close study of the four Gospels reveals that each of the Gospel writers was intent on affirming that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, setting forth what he taught, describing how he ministered, and providing detail concerning when and under what circumstances he performed miracles.

More important, each Gospel moves rapidly through the Master’s three-year ministry toward the climactic passion week—his Last Supper, the institution of the Sacrament, the Intercessory Prayer, his sufferings and ordeal in the Garden, his Jewish and Roman trials, his crucifixion and death on Calvary, and his glorious rise on the third day to resurrected immortality.

As we make our way through the Gospels and then move through the next section—what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has re-named “The Acts of the Resurrected Christ Working through the Holy Spirit in the Lives and Ministries of His Ordained Apostles”—we then proceed into what is for me the most stimulating, perceptive, provocative, profound, and inspiring section of all biblical teachings, the epistles of the Apostle Paul. These in fact contain treasure houses of doctrinal data, specifically insight into such matters as the nature of fallen humanity and the desperate plight of unregenerate man; a variety of approaches to understanding the Atonement (satisfaction, substitution, ransom); the transforming power of the blood of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in renewing and resuscitating the spiritually stillborn; the doctrine of justification by faith and salvation by grace; and the abundant life enjoyed by those who have become new creatures, have been conformed to the image of the Savior and granted the mind of Christ.

Paul tends to use certain key words to denote a greater and grander and broader concept. For example, the word circumcision comes to convey much more than the rite performed on eight-day-old male children, a token of the covenant given to Father Abraham. It comes to denote Jewishness, Judaism, life under the Law of Moses with the harsh and onerous expectations of obedience to the 613 commandments of Torah. Similarly, the word cross in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus comes to mean more than simply the mode of torture and execution invented by the Persians and perfected by the Romans. It was a sign, a token of the Atonement. To say that one believed in and taught the cross was to say that one accepted the reality of the lowly Nazarene’s suffering and death as having divine redemptive power. But this was no easy sell, no message that tickled the ears of those to whom Paul bore witness. Indeed, it was scandalous.

For example, Paul reminds the Corinthian Saints that the risen Lord had sent him “to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. . . . For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:17-18, 22-23). Why so? Why would the Jews and the Greeks have been so put off by the idea of a crucified savior? Well, for one thing, Moses had decreed that any person who is hanged on a tree is cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23). What, then, do we make of the outlandish Christian claim that God had cursed the One who claimed to be God? That is, God had cursed himself! Ridiculous. Irony of ironies: the One who had come into the world as the Tree of Life, the Tree of Blessing, hung and bled and suffered and died on the tree of cursing, the tree of death.

“From both the Greek and Roman points of view, the stigma of crucifixion made the whole notion of the gospel claiming Jesus as the Messiah an absolute absurdity,” John MacArthur has written. “A glance at the history of crucifixion in first-century Rome reveals what Paul’s contemporaries thought about it. It was a horrific form of capital punishment, originating, most likely, in the Persian Empire, but other barbarians used it as well. The condemned died and agonizingly slow death by suffocation, gradually becoming too exhausted and traumatized to pull himself up on the nails in his hands, or push himself up on the nail through his feet, enough to take a deep breath of air. King Darius crucified three thousand Babylonians. Alexander the Great crucified two thousand from the city of Tyre. Alexander Janius crucified eight hundred Pharisees, while they watched soldiers slaughter their wives and children at their feet.

“This sealed the horror of the crucifixion in the Jewish mind. Romans came to power in Israel in 63 B.C. and used crucifixion extensively. Some writers say authorities crucified as many as thirty thousand people around that time. Titus Vespasian crucified so many Jews in A.D. 70 that the soldiers had no room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies. It wasn’t until 337, when Constantine abolished crucifixion, that it disappeared after a millennium of cruelty in the world.”

Martin Hengel pointed out that “To believe that . . . the mediator at creation and the redeemer of the world, had appeared in very recent times in out-of-the-way Galilee as a member of the obscure people of the Jews, and even worse, had died the death of a common criminal on the cross, could only be regarded as a sign of madness. The real gods of Greece and Rome could be distinguished from mortal men by the very fact that they were immortal—they had absolutely nothing in common with the cross as a sign of shame. . . and thus of the one who was ‘bound in the most ignominious fashion’ and executed in a shameful way.’” Nevertheless, when Paul came to the Corinthians he “came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you,” he wrote, “save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:1-2).

Note Paul’s use of the words cross and crucify in some of his epistles:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized [literally immersed, changed identity] into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death [that is, united with him in a death like his], we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed [that is, rendered powerless], that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Romans 6:3-6).

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

“For he is our peace, who hath made both [Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; . . . and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross” (Ephesians 2:14-16).

“Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ. . . .)” (Philippians 3:17-18).

“And [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Colossians 1:18-20).

“And ye are complete in [Christ], which is the head of all principality and power. . . . And you, being dead in your sins. . . hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us”—that is, the Law pointed out the myriad of ways one could sin— “and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:10, 13-14).

Finally, let me point up one of my favorite New Testament passages, one that is part of a verse in the beautiful hymn, “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”:

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 6:14, emphasis added).

Clearly, the doctrine of the cross, meaning the doctrine of the Atonement, was right where it needed to be—at the heart and core of Paul’s teachings. Neither the scandal of the cross—a word that was not even acceptable in polite Roman company—nor the absurdity of a dying Messiah could hinder the Apostle to the Gentiles from delivering his witness of the Christ to the ends of the known world. He was not ashamed of the gospel, which included Christ’s sufferings and death on the cross (Romans 1:16).

Historically we should note that in the first few Christian centuries the cross was not considered a virtuous or admirable symbol but rather a terrifying reminder of what Jesus and many thousands of others had ignominiously suffered. In fact, some scholars report that the cross did not appear in churches as a symbol of veneration until A.D. 431. Crosses on steeples did not appear until 586, and it was not until that sixth century that crucifixes were sanctioned by the Roman church.

Latter-day Saint Scripture and the Cross
The Bible does not stand alone in testifying of the significance of the cross. Very often I am asked why the Latter-day Saints do not believe in the saving efficacy of the cross. Obviously we do. We proclaim, just as the Apostle Paul did, “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). As many of you know, our belief in the power of the cross is not well known among traditional Christians. One woman in Canada asked my friend, Pastor Greg Johnson, how he could stand to have close association with me and other Latter-day Saints.

“Why do you ask that?” he inquired. She responded: “Mormons don’t even believe that Jesus died on the cross.” Greg shook his head and came back with a question: “Where do you suppose the Latter-day Saints think Jesus died?” “Oh, I don’t mean that,” she said. “They don’t believe he died for our sins on the cross.”

Not true. Nephi foresaw the time, some six hundred years ahead, when Jesus would be “lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33, emphasis added). Much like Paul, Jacob called upon the followers of the Redeemer to experience for themselves the power of the cross: “Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world” (Jacob 1:8, emphasis added; compare Moroni 9:25). Notice the language of the risen Lord to the people of the Book of Mormon: “Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” (3 Nephi 27:13-14, emphasis added).

The testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants is that “Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart” (D&C 21:9, emphasis added). “I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the [children] of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one” (D&C 35:2). In beginning a brief passage on various spiritual gifts, a revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants affirms: “To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (D&C 46:13-14, emphasis added.) Elsewhere: “Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world” (D&C 53:2). President Joseph F. Smith was taught in his Vision of the Redemption of the Dead that salvation has been “wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross” (D&C 138:35).

I have not even begun to take the time to list or read the scores of passages in the Book of Mormon and modern scripture that speak of the vital need for Christ’s suffering and death. That is to say, it was not just his suffering but also his death—on the cruel cross of Calvary—that was an indispensable element of the atoning sacrifice. As Mormon explained: “Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood” (Alma 21:9; compare 22:14). In short, “he surely must die that salvation may come” (Helaman 14:15). This doctrine was taught from the very beginning. Some three millennia before the coming of Jesus to earth, Enoch saw in vision “the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world.” Enoch looked “and beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross, after the manner of men” (Moses 7:47, 55).

We have no quarrel with those who speak reverently of the cross, for so did those whose writings compose a significant portion of the New Testament and those who spoke or wrote what is contained in our own scriptural records. The cross is a symbol. We are not opposed to symbols, for our people erect statues of the angel Moroni atop our most sacred edifices and wear CTR rings on their hand. On a number of occasions when I have been asked why the Latter-day Saints do not believe in the saving efficacy of the cross, and when I have corrected the false impression by referring to passages like those cited above, a follow-up question comes: “Well then, if you people really do claim to be Christian, why do you not have crosses on your buildings, your vestments, or your literature?” After consulting with a few LDS cultural historians, it appears that crosses were seldom if ever placed on our meetinghouses. Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, including the non-use of crosses. For that matter, early Baptists did not have crosses on their churches for a long time, at least until they began to move into mainstream Protestantism.

In short, the key is not to become obsessed with the symbol, but to allow the symbol to point beyond itself toward that which is of deepest significance.

Thus we do not worship Moroni; we look upon those statues and are reminded that through the instrumentality of Moroni and a whole host of divine messengers the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). When we see a CTR ring, we are reminded that the followers of the Good Shepherd must do more than talk the talk; they must walk the walk, must conform their lives to the pattern He has shown and live a life befitting a true disciple.

In that spirit, President Joseph F. Smith reminded us that “having been born anew, which is the putting away of the old man sin, and putting on of the man Christ Jesus, we have become soldiers of the Cross, having enlisted under the banner of Jehovah for time and for eternity.” As one writer has explained powerfully, although Jesus was “Crushed by the ruthless power of Rome, he was himself crushing the serpent’s head (as was predicted in Genesis 3:15). The victim was the victor, and the cross is still the throne from which he rules the world.”

The Garden of Gethsemane and the Cross
“We, the Latter-day Saints, take the liberty of believing more than our Christian brethren: We not only believe . . . the Bible, but . . . the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more.” These words, uttered by President Brigham Young, have come to mean more and more to me as I have worked closely with noble men and women of other Christian faiths. I have come to perceive that while there are, to be sure, major doctrinal differences between us, there are a striking number of similarities once those involved in discussion are able to put away arrogance and pettiness and defensiveness, once the participants are more concerned with coming to a deeper understanding of the truth than they are with proving the other to be wrongheaded.

Professor Douglas Davies of Durham University in England has written: “Christians have paid relatively little attention to what befell Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane compared to what happened to him at the Last Supper and on Calvary. This is as true for artists as it is for theologians. There are innumerable paintings of the Crucifixion but relatively few dealing with Christ’s Passion in the garden. So, too, with theology: there is much written about the Eucharist and Christ’s death but much less on his personal trial in the garden.” Davies goes on to describe the master’s anguish in Gethsemane as a betrayal of sorts, one instance among many during the long hours of atonement, in which Jesus was left alone, this time by the Father himself.

In fact, one of the distinctive teachings of Mormonism is the central role of Gethsemane—that our Lord’s suffering there was not simply an awful anticipation of Calvary, that it was redemptive in nature. Luke is the only Gospel writer who mentions that the Savior’s agony in the Garden was of such magnitude that it caused him to sweat blood. And, as many of you know, this passage is disputed by some biblical scholars who identify it as of later origin and one that could have been utilized or omitted by those involved in the centuries-long controversy over the humanity/divinity of Jesus. We know from King Benjamin (Mosiah 3:7) as well as from a revelation to Joseph Smith (D&C 19:18) that the sobering incident of the bloody sweat was historical, real, and meaningful. We know further from President Brigham Young that the withdrawal of the Father’s Spirit from his Son—a direct result of Jesus becoming, in Paul’s language, “sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21; compare Galatians 3:13) and thereby assuming the burden and effects of our temptations, sins, pains, afflictions, infirmities, and sicknesses—is what caused the only perfect being to bleed from every pore.

It is inevitable that over time individuals and whole faith communities begin to define themselves, at least to some extent, over against what others believe and thus to emphasize most strongly those doctrinal distinctives that make them who they are. And so it was with the hours of atonement. Because we had come to know, through the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, concerning the purposes for the Master’s pains in the Garden, we seem to have begun to place a greater stress upon Gethsemane than upon the cross. It is difficult to define exactly when this began to occur, although President Joseph Fielding Smith seems to have formalized this emphasis more than anyone.

That it did occur is obvious to most of us who were raised in the Church; we were taught that Gethsemane, not the cross, was where Jesus suffered for our sins and that as horrendous as would have been the pain of Golgotha, yet the suffering in Gethsemane was greater and more far-reaching. As time has passed, however, the leaders of the Church have begun to speak of the importance of both Gethsemane and the cross and to emphasize that what began in Gethsemane was completed on Golgotha. Note, for example, some of the following teachings of Church leaders:

From John Taylor: “The plan, the arrangement, the agreement, the covenant was made, entered into, and accepted before the foundation of the world; it was prefigured by sacrifices, and was carried out and consummated on the cross.”

In June 1888 the General Superintendency of the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association (Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and Moses Thatcher) wrote: “Alone, while treading the wine-press of the wrath of devils and men, gained [Christ] the keys of death, hell and the grave. They were forged in the crucible of intense hate, not in the lap of luxurious ease.

Ingratitude heaped upon Him the sins of the world, and heavy-eyed watchmen slept while He prayed and sweat great gouts of blood. Malice spat in His face; jealousy and mockery crowned Him with thorns; envy mantled Him with a cast-off robe; cruelty nailed Him to the cross, then cried: ‘Come down, save thyself.’ Son of God, Prince of Power, commander of heavenly legions though He was, the anguish of accumulated woes, caused Him, as death’s agony bathed his brow, to exclaim: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

From President George Q. Cannon in 1899: “So effectually and permanently does the Lord wish to impress the remembrance of that great sacrifice at Calvary on our memories that He permits us all to partake of the emblems—the bread and wine.”

President Rudger Clawson declared that “the atonement made upon Mount Calvary was the supreme sacrifice ever made in all the world.”

Elder George F. Richards stated in 1914: “We read in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:7), a prediction of the coming of the Lord in the meridian of time, and how he would suffer for the sins of the people: ‘For behold blood cometh from every pore so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people.’ It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that this prophecy was fulfilled. Our Father in heaven and His Son, the Savior, sorrow for the sins we commit and rejoice in our righteousness. To obey the Lord is a pleasing way of serving Him.”

From a Christmas epistle of the First Presidency on 17 December 1921: “We rejoice both in the occasion and in the opportunity; for we do know and do testify that He whose mortal birth in the Manger of Bethlehem the world celebrates at this festive season, is indeed the Son of God and the Savior of mankind through the atonement wrought out on the Cross of Calvary.”

President B. H. Roberts: “If it be true, and it is, that men value things in proportion to what they cost, then how dear to them must be the Atonement, since it cost the Christ so much in suffering that he may be said to have been baptized by blood-sweat in Gethsemane, before he reached the climax of his passion, on Calvary.”

Bishop Joseph Wirthlin in 1952: “To take upon one the name of Jesus Christ, to me, means that we will accept the Son of God as the Redeemer of the world, that we will accept his plan of salvation and live it as he has commanded us, and then to remember the great sacrifice that he made upon Calvary’s hill.”

Elder Bruce R. McConkie: Jesus “carried his cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.

Finally, on a hill called Calvary—it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross. With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon. Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours. . . . There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony. And truly he was, for
while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of the Father in all things—then he said, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

President Ezra Taft Benson: “In Gethsemane and on Calvary, He [Christ] worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. It was the greatest single act of love in recorded history. Thus He became our Redeemer.”

At a First Presidency Christmas devotional, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that

We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting.

More recently, President Hinckley observed that the way we live our lives—patterned after the only sinless being to walk the earth—is the great symbol of our Christianity. He went on to add that

No member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer, who gave His life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane, the bitter mockery of His trial, the vicious crown of thorns tearing at His flesh, the blood cry of the mob before Pilate, the lonely burden of His heavy walk along the way to Calvary, the terrifying pain as great nails pierced His hands and feet. . . .

We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave Himself, a vicarious sacrifice
for each of us.

“Do you have a testimony of the Savior of the world?” President Hinckley has asked. “Do you know that He was the first Begotten of the Father? Do you know that actually He was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh? Do you know that He left His royal courts on high and came to earth, born under the humblest of circumstances? He walked the dusty roads of Palestine, and gave His life on the cross of Calvary for you and me.”

We Sing What We Believe
For those who may still wonder what we believe relative to Gethsemane and Golgotha, I would invite you to undertake a fascinating journey—a study and search of the 1985 edition of the LDS hymnal. There are some 341 hymns and anthems within this volume. In the “First Presidency Preface” are found these words: “Inspirational music is an essential part of our church meetings. The hymns invite the Spirit of the Lord, create a feeling of reverence, unify us as members, and provide a way for us to offer praises to the Lord.” Now note these words: “Some of the greatest sermons are preached by the singing of hymns. Hymns move us to repentance and good works, build testimony and faith, comfort the weary, console the mourning, and inspire us to endure to the end.” Later in the Preface the Brethren add: “We hope the hymnbook will take a prominent place among the scriptures and other religious books in our homes.”

Many of the hymns are written by devoted Protestant or Catholic Christians, and a surprising number are written by Latter-day Saints. All of them have been approved by the leadership of the Church, the Church Music department, and the Correlation department. There are literally scores of hymns that give voice to our desire to submit and surrender to the Almighty, praise him for his goodness and grace, and petition for forgiveness, renewal, comfort, peace, strength, and eternal life. Of especial importance are those hymns to be sung prior to the administration of the Sacrament, for they focus specifically on our Lord’s suffering and death. For example, consider these inspiring words:

As now we take the sacrament, our thoughts are turned to thee,
Thou Son of God, who lived for us, then died on Calvary.
We contemplate thy lasting grace, thy boundless charity;
To us the gift of life was giv’n for all eternity.

Help me remember, I implore,
Thou gav’st thy life on Calvary,
That I might live forever more
And grow, dear Lord, to be like thee.

In humility, our Savior, grant thy Spirit here, we pray,
As we bless the bread and water in thy name this holy day.
Let me not forget, O Savior, thou didst bleed and die for me
When thy heart was stilled and broken on the cross at Calvary.

For us the blood of Christ was shed;
For us on Calvary’s cross he bled,
And thus dispelled the awful gloom
That else were this creation’s doom.

‘Tis sweet to sing the matchless love
Of Him who left His home above
And came to earth—oh, wondrous plan—
To suffer, bleed, and die for man.

For Jesus died on Calvary,
That all through him might ransomed be.
Then sing hosannas to his name;
Let heav’n and earth his love proclaim.

While of this broken bread humbly we eat,
Our thoughts to thee are led in rev’rence sweet.
Bruised, broken, torn for us on Calvary’s hill—
Thy suffering borne for us lives with us still.

Rev’rently and meekly now,
Let thy head most humbly bow.
Think of me, thou ransomed one,
Think what I for thee have done.
With my blood that dripped like rain,
Sweat in agony of pain,
With my body on the tree
I have ransomed even thee.

Our Savior, in Gethsemane,
Shrank not to drink the bitter cup,
And then, for us, on Calvary,
Upon the cross was lifted up.

Come, Saints, and drop a tear or two
For him who groaned beneath your load;
He shed a thousand drops for you,
A thousand drops of precious blood.

I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me,
Confused at the grace that so fully he proffers me.
I tremble to know that for me he was crucified,
That for me, a sinner, he suffered, he bled and died.

How great the wisdom and the love
That filled the courts on high
And sent the savior from above
To suffer, bleed, and die.

How great, how glorious, how complete,
Redemption’s grand design,
Where justice, love, and mercy meet
In harmony divine!

Most of the above hymns were written by Latter-day Saints. Please notice the repeated reference in our sacred musical literature to the Savior’s suffering on the cross, as well as an occasional reference to his agony in the Garden. This helps to highlight what we have said again and again—that we must tell the whole story, the rest of the story of “redemption’s grand design,” to quote Eliza R. Snow. The hours of atonement—the hours wherein He who had come to earth in the name and by the authority of the Father to ransom fallen men and women and to open the gate to glorified immortality—were spent in incomprehensible agony, in awful alienation, in a struggle against the forces of death and hell, first among the olive trees and then on an accursed tree between two thieves. We cannot understate the price Jesus paid. We must not forget what the Messiah went through.

Conclusion
You know and I know that no doctrine is more important than the doctrine of Christ—the good news or glad tidings that He came into the world to teach, testify, inspire, lift, heal, suffer, bleed, die, and rise from the tomb (see 3 Nephi 27:13-14; D&C 76:40-42). We must strive to teach these truths with passion, with plainness, with simplicity, and with consistency, knowing that only in this way will those who hear the word come to know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins (2 Nephi 25:26). In addition, those outside the faith will come to appreciate more fully who we are and Whom we represent. They may not choose to join our Church, but at least they will know that Latter-day Saint Christians have their souls stirred by the same message that fanned the flame in the bosoms of the Former-day Saint Christians, even the message of mediation, the herald of hope, the declaration of deliverance. “As I grow in age and experience,” Elder Boyd K. Packer stated, “I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us.”

Yes, we do know something, something consummately precious, about what went on in the Garden, something few people on earth comprehend, relatively speaking, and we are under a mandate to declare it as a part of the restored gospel. At the same time, scripture and the prophetic word affirm the following from President Brigham Young: “I would say to my young friends. . . that if you go on a mission to preach the gospel with lightness and frivolity in your hearts . . . , and not having your minds riveted—yes, I may say riveted—on the cross of Christ, you will go and return in vain. . . . Let your minds be centered on your missions, and labor earnestly to bring souls to Christ.” Our Heavenly Father “foreordained the fall of man,” the Prophet Joseph declared; “but all merciful as He is, He foreordained at the same time, a plan of redemption for all mankind. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He died for the sins of all men, who in Adam had fallen.” Such is the message of Mormonism, the foundation of saving faith, the fundamental principles of our religion.

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;

urchinTracker();

The Christology of Joseph Smith After 200 Years / Robert Millet

Below are excerpts from a presentation by Dr. Robert L. Millet explaining the causes of the Latter-day Saints focus on Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the Importance of grace.

The presentation was a session of the Joseph Smith Symposium in Washington, DC in 2005, and is published in the book “The Worlds of Joseph Smith” in 2006. It has also been presented in in varying forms at BYU and BYU-Hawaii, and this text is one of them.

Thanks much,
Steve St. Clair
—————–
Brigham Young University-Hawaii
Joseph Smith Lecture Series
November 2005

During the last decade, a recurring question has been posed to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS): Is the church “changing?” Is there some effort on the part of church leadership to have the church and its teachings, particularly those concerning Jesus Christ, become more acceptable to and thus more accepted by other Christians? The natural LDS inclination is to react sharply that the church’s doctrines concerning Jesus Christ and his atonement are intact and even eternal, that the doctrines of Joseph Smith’s day and the doctrines of our own day are one and the same, that little of consequence has been altered.

To be sure, church leaders since the days of Joseph Smith have made significant doctrinal pronouncements about Jesus Christ, such as those in “The Origin of Man” in 1909, “The Father and the Son” in 1916, the two revelations (one of which was given to Joseph Smith) that were added to the canon of scripture in 1976 (now Doctrine & Covenants 137 and 138), the “Statement of the First Presidency on God’s Love for All Mankind” in 1978, and “The Living Christ” in 2000.

However, the basic doctrines found in Joseph Smith’s own words, in the revelations given to and through him, and in his translations of ancient records remain unaltered. Jesus’s suffering and death on the cross and the grace of God have been taught consistently by church leaders and can readily be traced back to Joseph Smith. What has changed in the last few decades is the emphasis placed upon these subjects and upon the church’s belief in Christ. This shift has been particularly evident as the general church membership has increased in scriptural understanding and as members and leaders have responded to their beliefs being misunderstood and misrepresented.

Joseph Smith on the Doctrine of Christ
“God is my friend,” Joseph wrote to his wife Emma at a difficult time. “In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me, only to do his will.” As much as Joseph Smith believed in, loved, and centered his life and teachings in the Savior—and he certainly did—only a few of his sermons deal principally with Jesus Christ and the Atonement. Why would this be the case? For one thing, scriptures given to the church through Joseph Smith—the Book of Mormon, which is his translation of engraved plates, and the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of many of Joseph’s revelations—are literally filled with passages having to do with the nature of fallen humanity, the character and power of Jesus, the doctrine of spiritual rebirth, and the myriads of blessings that flow from the infinite Atonement.

As I have reflected on this for years, it appears to me that for Joseph Smith, “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” was a given, a fundamental and foundational truth, the message of messages, the doctrine of doctrines. Everything else, though supplementary, was secondary. He did not feel the need to preach endless sermons on that subject because that subject underlies everything else he taught. Faith, repentance, baptism, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, resurrection, judgment, and a myriad of other theological issues have meaning only because of the Atonement. I suppose it would be somewhat like hearing a preacher stand before a large congregation and say, “Good morning. I am a Baptist pastor. And I am also a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.” The second sentence, though informative, is generally not necessary. Clearly if the man is a Baptist he is a Christian. Likewise, Joseph Smith was convinced that the central role of a prophet of God was to bear testimony of Jesus, since, as the Revelator explained, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10).

Past Emphasis upon Differences
When the Saints moved from Illinois to the Great Basin, that move was, I believe, as much ideological as it was geographical. LDS people had been insulted, accosted, attacked, robbed, persecuted, and martyred, and their desire was to get away, to find a place where they could think and act and worship without hindrance or interference. One can fully appreciate why the Latter-day Saints would develop an attitude toward all others of “us versus them,”why they would begin to erect a doctrinal fortress to protect themselves from any invading theological forces. Indeed, it seems that Mormons began to focus more and more upon their distinctions, those doctrinal matters that were either slightly or greatly different from Protestant and Catholic teachings.

This kind of doctrinal dialectic continued through the decades. Let me illustrate with a personal example. Just before leaving for a mission, I found myself reading and thinking about the gospel with a bit of trepidation. After spending several days browsing through some of the great doctrinal chapters in the Book of Mormon, I approached my father with a question. (I need to add at this point that Dad had grown up in Louisiana as a member of the church, served for many years as an early morning seminary teacher, and knew the principles and doctrines of the gospel well.) I asked, “Dad, what does it mean to be saved by grace?” He stared at me for a moment and then said firmly, “We don’t believe in that!” I responded with, “We don’t believe in it? Why not?” He promptly added, “Because the Baptists do!”

Dad’s statement speaks volumes. We had grown up in the Bible Belt, were surrounded by many noble and dedicated Christians who loved the Lord and had given their hearts to him. Over the years, we had watched scores of revivals on television and spent hours listening to radio broadcasts in which the pastor had affirmed that salvation comes “by grace alone.” Knowing as he did that Latter-day Saints believed in the necessity of good works, Dad had simply put the matter to rest by stating that we believed something very different.

One does not travel very far in his or her study of the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, however, without recognizing the central and saving need to trust in and rely upon the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah. That is not a teaching that is found in a few obscure passages; it is throughout holy writ, one of the burdens of scripture.

Same Doctrines, Greater Emphasis
Several of the doctrines concerning Christ that are found in the revelations and translations of Joseph Smith seem to have received increased emphasis in recent decades. Two that have been particularly commented on by Christian observers are the saving efficacy of the cross and the magnificent grace of God.

The Cross
One of my Christian friends asked me about what he called our “changing views on the role of the cross.” He suggested that if a group of one hundred Latter-day Saints had been asked the question, “Where did the Atonement of Jesus Christ take place?” probably eighty to ninety persons would have answered “in the Garden of Gethsemane.” I think his assessment is probably accurate; most Mormons were brought up on the idea that while the Protestants and Catholics taught that the Atonement took place on the cross of Calvary, Latter-day Saints believe the greater suffering took place in Gethsemane. My friend suggested that if that same query were posed to a hundred Mormons today, sixty to seventy would answer that the Atonement took place in Gethsemane and on the cross, that what began in the Garden was culminated, climaxed on Golgotha. My experience teaching hundreds of students at Brigham Young University corroborates this trend.

Nonetheless, a brief survey of statements by church leaders demonstrates that from the days of Joseph Smith the cross of Christ has held a prominent place in the faith. I will represent Joseph by passages from the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Nephi, a Book of Mormon prophet, foresaw some six hundred years before the birth of the Savior that Jesus would be “lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33; emphasis added). Much like Paul, Jacob in the Book of Mormon called upon the followers of the Redeemer to experience for themselves the power of the cross: “Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world” (Jacob 1:8; emphasis added; compare Moroni 9:25). Notice the language of the risen Lord to the people of the Book of Mormon:

Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (3 Nephi 27:13–14; emphasis added)

The testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants is that “Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart” (Doctrine & Covenants 21:9; emphasis added). “I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” another passage begins, “who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the [children] of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one” (35:2). At the start of a brief passage on various spiritual gifts, a revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants affirms, “To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.” (46:13–14; emphasis added). Additionally, it is written, “Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world” (53:2).

I have not even begun to list the scores of passages in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that speak of the vital need for Christ’s suffering and death. That is to say, it was not just his suffering but also his death—on the cruel cross of Calvary—that was an indispensable element of the atoning sacrifice. As Mormon explained in the Book of Mormon, “Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood” (Alma 21:9; compare 22:14). In short, “he surely must die that salvation may come” (Helaman 14:15).

Now notice how both Gethsemane and the cross are mentioned, sometimes separately and sometimes together, by church leaders from Joseph Smith’s day to the present. Added to all the statements about the cross is this about Gethsemane, as dictated by Joseph Smith: “For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:16-19). John Taylor, the third president of the church, stated, “The plan, the arrangement, the agreement, the covenant was made, entered into, and accepted before the foundation of the world; it was prefigured by sacrifices, and was carried out and consummated on the cross.”

In June 1888, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and Moses Thatcher (the General Superintendency of the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association) wrote, “Alone, while treading the wine-press of the wrath of devils and men, gained [Christ] the keys of death, hell and the grave.” These keys “were forged,” they added, while Christ prayed in Gethsemane, endured the acts of malice that followed, and suffered the agony of the cross.

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency of the church, stressed in 1899 that “so effectually and permanently does the Lord wish to impress the remembrance of that great sacrifice at Calvary on our memories that He permits us all to partake of the emblems—the bread and wine.”

Joseph F. Smith, president of the church from 1901 to 1918, reminded us that “having been born anew, which is the putting away of the old man sin, and putting on of the man Christ Jesus, we have become soldiers of the Cross, having enlisted under the banner of Jehovah for time and for eternity.”

President Smith was taught in his 1918 vision of the redemption of the dead that salvation has been “wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross” (Doctrine & Covenants 138:35).

Apostle George F. Richards stated in 1914, “We read in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:7), a prediction of the coming of the Lord in the meridian of time, and how he would suffer for the sins of the people: ‘For behold blood cometh from every pore so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people.’ It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that this prophecy was fulfilled.”

In 1921, Rudger Clawson, counselor to President Heber J. Grant, declared that “the atonement made upon Mount Calvary was the supreme sacrifice ever made in all the world.” In their 1921 Christmas epistle, he and the other members of the First Presidency again testified to the efficacy of Christ’s suffering on the cross: “He whose mortal birth in the Manger of Bethlehem the world celebrates at this festive season, is indeed the Son of God and the Savior of mankind through the atonement wrought out on the Cross of Calvary.”

Church leader B. H. Roberts explained: “If it be true, and it is, that men value things in proportion to what they cost, then how dear to them must be the Atonement, since it cost the Christ so much in suffering that he may be said to have been baptized by blood-sweat in Gethsemane, before he reached the climax of his passion, on Calvary.”

In a 1952 general conference sermon, Bishop Joseph Wirthlin discussed what it means “to take upon one the name of Jesus Christ.” One requirement was that a person must “remember the great sacrifice that [Christ] made upon Calvary’s hill.”

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie movingly articulated in 1985 the relationship between Gethsemane and Calvary: “The cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. . . . There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony. And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

Ezra Taft Benson, president of the church from 1985 to 1994, lauded the redeeming love manifest in both sites: “In Gethsemane and on Calvary, He [Christ] worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. It was the greatest single act of love in recorded history.”

At the 1996 First Presidency Christmas devotional, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting.”

“Do you have a testimony of the Savior of the world? Do you know that He was the first Begotten of the Father? Do you know that actually He was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh? Do you know that He left His royal courts on high and came to earth, born under the humblest of circumstances? He walked the dusty roads of Palestine, and gave His life on the cross of Calvary for you and me.”

The above statements evidence that Latter-day Saints from the time of Joseph Smith have taught that Christ’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and his suffering and death on the Cross of Calvary were both necessary in accomplishing his overarching mission—to make a substitutionary offering in behalf of all those who would accept him and his gospel.

The Grace of God
Most observers would agree that the Latter-day Saints seem to be focusing more and more as a church upon those scriptural passages that highlight the reality of man’s weakness, his mortal limitations, and at the same time attending to God’s infinite and ever-available power to lift, to liberate, to lighten our burdens, and to change our nature. As church leader Bruce C. Hafen pointed out, “In recent years, we Latter-day Saints have been teaching, singing, and testifying much more about the Savior Jesus Christ. I rejoice that we are rejoicing more. As we ‘talk [more] of Christ’ (2 Nephi 25:26), the gospel’s doctrinal fullness will come out of obscurity.”

Although we are “rejoicing more,” in a strict sense nothing in the Latter-day Saint doctrine of Christ has changed in the last 175 years. The following are examples of words that came through or from Joseph Smith:

The Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free. (2 Nephi 2:4)

Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah. (2 Nephi 2:8)

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. (2 Nephi 10:24)

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. (2 Nephi 31:19; see also Alma 24:10, Helaman 14:13, Moroni 6:4, and Doctrine & Covenants 3:20)

And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God. (D&C 14:7; see also 6:13).

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

One hundred and thirty-nine years after Joseph Smith elaborated on the centrality of Jesus Christ, one of his apostolic successors, Boyd K. Packer, put it this way: “Through Him [Christ] mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice. This truth,” Elder Packer continued, “is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.”

In addition, notice the following representative statements by other church leaders through the years on the vital matter of the grace of God.

Joseph Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, declared in typical forceful fashion:

It requires all the atonement of Christ, the mercy of the Father, the pity of angels and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to be with us always, and then to do the very best we possibly can, to get rid of this sin within us, so that we may escape from this world into the celestial kingdom.

There are no persons without evil passions to embitter their lives. Mankind are revengeful, passionate, hateful, and devilish in their dispositions. This we inherit through the fall, and the grace of God is designed to enable us to overcome it.

In and of ourselves we have no power to control our own minds and passions; but the grace of God is sufficient to give us perfect victory.

All will have to come to the Lord and be sanctified through the grace of Christ by faith in his name; without this, I am happy to say, that none can be purified, sanctified and prepared to inherit eternal glory.

President Joseph F. Smith discoursed on the relationship between grace and revelation: “Notwithstanding our many weaknesses, imperfections and follies the Lord still continues His mercy, manifests His grace and imparts unto us His Holy Spirit, that our minds may be illuminated by the light of revelation.”

Wishing all to partake of the grace of God, Heber J. Grant (president of the church, 1918–1945) entreated, “We call upon all men to come unto him [Christ], that through his grace they may attain to eternal life and an inheritance with him in the kingdom of his Father.”

“I am not unmindful,” acknowledged David O. McKay (president of the church, 1951–1970), “of the scripture that declares, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.’ (Eph. 2:8.) That is absolutely true, for man in his taking upon himself mortality was impotent to save himself.”

Joseph Fielding Smith, among others, noted the differences between mortal beings and Jesus Christ that require us to rely upon grace. He gave this explanation while an apostle:

There is a difference between the Lord Jesus Christ and the rest of mankind. We have no life in ourselves, for no power has been given unto us, to lay down our lives and take them again. That is beyond our power, and so, being subject to death, and being sinners—for we are all transgressors of the law to some extent, no matter how good we have tried to be—we are therefore unable in and of ourselves to receive redemption from our sins by any act of our own.

This is the grace that Paul was teaching. Therefore, it is by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved. And had he not come into the world, and laid down his life that he might take it again, or as he said in another place, to give us life that we may have it more abundantly—we would still be subject to death and be in our sins. . . . So we are saved by grace and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God.

Then in contemporary times, Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle, remarked on the insufficiency of works to save even the best of us:

Men and women unquestionably have impressive powers and can bring to pass great things. But after all our obedience and good works, we cannot be saved from death or the effects of our individual sins without the grace extended by the atonement of Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, salvation does not come simply by keeping the commandments. . . . Even those who try to obey and serve God with all their heart, might, mind, and strength are unprofitable servants (Mosiah 2:21). Man cannot earn his own salvation.

It is so easy to allow the theological pendulum to swing from one end to the other, to swing from religious legalism on the one hand to profligate libertarianism on the other. In the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants are found a more balanced approach to grace and works. The gospel of Jesus Christ is in fact a gospel covenant, a two-way agreement between God and man. On his part, God agrees to do for us what we could never do for ourselves—forgive our sins, cleanse our nature, purify our hearts, raise us from the dead, and glorify us hereafter. We agree, on the other hand, to do that which we can do, namely, to exercise faith in Jesus Christ—to have total trust, complete confidence, and a ready reliance upon him. Further, true faith always results in faithfulness, in obedience, in good works. It may be true that we are saved by grace alone, but grace is never alone.

Reasons for the Increased Emphasis
What has happened? What changes or developments have taken place that would lead the Latter-day Saints to see things with new eyes and appreciate some sacred matters that the general membership hardly noticed fifty years ago?

Greater Scriptural Literacy
In the 1970s the church began what has come to be known as a correlated scripture study program. In their Sunday School classes, all members of the church became involved in a sequential scripture study of one of the books within the Latter-day Saint canon: the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants (including the history of the church). Whereas before this time much of the emphasis was upon the study of lesson manuals, now the text of study became the scriptures. This has added immeasurably to the scriptural literacy of the Latter-day Saints. The doctrinal depth, familiarity, and personal application of scriptural truths is greater now among the LDS people than at any time in the history of the church.

When Ezra Taft Benson became the thirteenth president of the church in 1985, he placed a strong emphasis upon the use of the Book of Mormon, stressing that the doctrines and teachings of the Book of Mormon should be studied and discussed and applied more regularly by the Latter-day Saints. Whether one accepts the divine origins of the Book of Mormon or not, it does not take long in reading or perusing the text to discover that the Book of Mormon is grounded in redemptive theology. The stress by church leaders of its teachings over twenty years would inevitably result in a more Christ-centered emphasis in the whole church. For example, studies show that references to the Book of Mormon from 1942 to 1970 constituted about 12 percent of the total scriptures cited and then “jumped to 40 percent” after President Benson challenged the church to become more involved in the study of the Book of Mormon.

Refinement
Further, as I have suggested elsewhere, Mormons have changed in another way: there has been an important refinement over the years in regard to what they believe and teach. Few Latter-day Saints who are seeking to stay in the mainstream of the church and to remain orthodox in their teaching would feel free to just “grab anything by the tail” that was taught in our past and put it forward as the doctrine of the church today. Just because something was once said or written, even by someone in authority, does not make it fair game to teach as doctrine. Certain parameters allow us to discern what is deserving of our attention and our study: (1) Is it taught in the standard works? (2) Is it found in official proclamations or declarations? (3) Is it discussed in general conference today by apostles and prophets? and (4) Is it found in the general handbooks or the approved curriculum? Through their adherence to these parameters, their understanding, grasp, focus, and emphasis upon Christian doctrine have been shaped.

Desire to be Understood
In one sense, Latter-day Saints have been the target of anti-Mormon propaganda since 1830. This is nothing new. But in the last few decades, the amount of polemical material has increased dramatically, some of it not only uncomplimentary but even blatantly false. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has begun to emphasize its heartfelt acceptance of Jesus as the Christ so that people in society may not misunderstand its fundamental and core beliefs. Mormons believe what is in the New Testament and believe what God has revealed in the latter days concerning Christ. As indicated earlier, such teachings did not spring into existence within the last few years; they have been in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and teachings of Joseph Smith and other church leaders from the beginning.

Specific Areas of Misunderstanding
The question that persons raise repeatedly is, Do the Latter-day Saints worship a “different Jesus”? Latter-day Saints accept and endorse the testimony of the New Testament writers and have done so since the days of Joseph Smith. His sermons were filled with biblical quotations and paraphrases. In short, the Latter-day Saints believe in the Jesus of history. They believe that the Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith.

From Joseph Smith’s time on, Latter-day Saints claim to possess the glorious glad tidings of the Bible and also valuable insight into the work and wisdom of the Master through modern revelation and additional scripture. To put this into perspective, consider the following question: Did early Christians who accepted the Gospel of John “worship a different Jesus” than those who had for decades relied exclusively upon, say, the Gospel of Mark? The fourth Gospel certainly offered more and deeper insight into the power, premortality, and divinity of Jesus, but is the Savior John writes about a different Savior than Mark’s? Supplementation is hardly the same as contradiction.

“As a Church we have critics, many of them,” President Gordon B. Hinckley has stated. “They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the [post-New Testament] creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. . . . It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of [a Book of Mormon prophet named] Nephi, “talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of our sins (2 Ne. 25:26).”

The founder of the faith, Joseph Smith, said it this way: “Did I build on any other man’s foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant.”

Another time, Joseph said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”

Along these lines, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canturbury, has written the following touching and appropriate prayer about gaining “something fresh” of Jesus Christ:

Jesus,
help us not to hide in our churchy words;
when we worship, let us know and feel that there is
always something new,
something fresh to see of you.
Do not let us forget that you will always have
more to give us, more than we could ever guess.
Amen.

Then there is the matter of those who claim Mormons are not Christians. “Are we Christians?” President Hinckley asked on another occasion. “Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life.” Latter-day Saints simply do not want to be misunderstood or misrepresented.

The Amsterdam Declaration (2000) includes an explanation that could resolve the debate:

A Christian is a believer in God who is enabled by the Holy Spirit to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in a personal relationship of disciple to master and to live the life of God’s kingdom. The word Christian should not be equated with any particular cultural, ethnic, political, or ideological tradition or group. Those who know and love Jesus are also called Christ-followers, believers and disciples.

By that definition, I believe that Joseph Smith and most thinking Latter-day Saints would consider themselves to be Christian and their friends of other faiths would agree.

Less than a year before his death, Joseph Smith shared his perception of the differences between Mormons and other Christians: “The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love.”

Conclusion

Frankly, to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to enter a religious society that is anything but static; it is not, as Apostle Neal A. Maxwell has observed, a “fossilized faith” but instead a “kinetic kingdom.” So while Latter-day Saints hold tenaciously to the foundational doctrines and principles of revealed religion laid down by Joseph Smith and as they enter into and contribute to the religious discussions in the world, it will appear to many that the Latter-day Saints are changing. In fact, they just may be coming of age, taking their rightful place at the table, offering distinctive Christological insights to a world that may in time come to appreciate them.

“Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion,” President Gordon B. Hinckley observed. Then he declared: We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine. We have the same organization. We labor to perform the same good works. But the old hatred is disappearing, the old persecution is dying. People are better informed. They are coming to realize what we stand for and what we do.

Almost twenty years ago, O. Kendall White published a book entitled Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology. White drew a comparison between Protestant Neo-Orthodoxy—the effort during the twentieth century to return to the fundamentals of the faith stressed so solidly by the leaders of the Reformation—and a like effort by some Latter-day Saint writers who seemed to be leaning more and more heavily upon the Book of Mormon and such doctrines as the nature of fallen man, the need for spiritual rebirth, and salvation by grace. In my review essay of this work, I concluded with the following:

Kendall White is correct in detecting a movement afloat in Mormonism in the latter part of the twentieth century. It is a movement toward a more thoroughly redemptive base to our theology, but a movement that is in harmony with the teachings of the Book of Mormon and one that may be long overdue. These recent developments may represent more of a retrenchment and a refinement than a reversion. I believe that [quoting White] ‘few things portend a more ominous future’ for us than to fail to take seriously the Book of Mormon and the redemptive theology set forth therein; the only real “’crisis’ to fear would be attempts to build Mormonism upon any other foundation.

Fortunately, after two hundred years, Joseph Smith’s Christology, is, if anything, apprehended more clearly than ever by the Latter-day Saints and expounded upon in public statements more frequently by their leaders. In other words, the doctrine of Christ has become, as Joseph Smith said it should be, the fundamental principle of our religion.

_uacct = “UA-2396761-1”;

urchinTracker();

Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle / News Release about April 2007 Conference

During the April 2007 General Conference, many speakers focused on the the clear Christianity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I posted blog entries and sent e-mails to numerous LDS and broader Christianity friends and acquaintances. A few days after the conference, the church posted on its newsroom this news release noting the same thing.

See the original on the church website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

====================================

SALT LAKE CITY 18 April 2007

Among several questions being asked with increasing frequency in the public square about “Mormon” beliefs is whether those who embrace the religion are really Christian.

The topic has also received attention from a number of leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was addressed as recently as the annual world conference of the Church, broadcast from Salt Lake City earlier this month.

Elder Gary J. Coleman of the Seventy, a general level of Church leadership, asked, “What could be more Christian than seeking to take His name upon ourselves and following His counsel to become like Him?” Elder Coleman said that members of the Church subscribe to basic doctrines that define and emphasize the role of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Elaborating later, Elder Coleman said that Latter-day Saints did not hesitate to acknowledge genuine differences of opinion with other Christians. While respecting the divergent views of other people of faith, Church leaders want to be clear about the beliefs that help define Latter-day Saints, he said.

“Embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ is often the thing that most clearly defines how Latter-day Saints see themselves,” Elder Coleman said. “Adopting gospel principles means that religious faith becomes a lifestyle. Deeply rooted values of honesty, kindness and service are the Christ-like values that Latter-day Saints seek to reflect in their lives.”

Gordon B. Hinckley, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the proper name for the Mormon faith — told reporters in a national gathering of religion writers: “No one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father. All of our doctrine, all of our religious practice stems from that one basic doctrinal position.”

Latter-day Saints believe that divine apostolic authority was lost from the earth following the death of Jesus Christ and His ancient apostles, resulting in a need for a restoration of that authority. Members believe it was divinely restored to the earth in the 19th century, in what the Church terms “the latter days” — hence the term “Latter-day Saints” for members of the Church today.

This belief in the restoration of the gospel and priesthood authority distinguishes the Church from Protestant faiths and their origins.

From the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ in 1830, the Church’s doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, founder and first prophet, wrote in 1842 to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of Faith, stated, “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

Joseph Smith also translated an ancient volume of scripture called the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, a volume which is a complementary testament to the Holy Bible.

Elder M. Russell Ballard, one of the apostles of the Church, acknowledged in a recent address that some people balk at using the term “Christian” to define Mormons because Church members use the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.

“To anyone harboring this misconception, we say that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and the author of our salvation and that we believe, revere and love the Holy Bible,” Elder Ballard said. “We do have additional sacred scripture, including the Book of Mormon, but it supports the Bible, never substituting for it.”

“Jesus Christ dominates the Book of Mormon page by page,” explained Boyd K. Packer, acting president of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “The Savior is referred to in 3,935 verses, more than half of the 6,607 verses in the book, beginning with the title page, where the purpose of the book is given as the ‘convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.’ ”

According to Church president Gordon B. Hinckley, dedicated Latter-day Saints apply Christian beliefs in daily living.

“Members, as a people, are bound by a common love of our Master, who is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world,” he said. “We are a covenant people who have taken upon ourselves His holy name.”

The primary worship service in the Mormon faith is the sacrament service — the equivalent of communion. There, each Sunday, Church members take emblems of bread and water to represent the body and blood of Christ.

Most active members also demonstrate their commitment to the Savior by serving in the lay ministry and other responsibilities of Church administration, by offering time and resources to community and humanitarian causes and by sharing the message of the restoration through missionary efforts worldwide.

Christians in Belief and Action / Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin 1996

Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin was an early propronent of reducing the differences between the Latter-Day Saints and other Christians.

See the original on the LDS Website at this link.

Thanks much,
Steve St.Clair
===============
My beloved brethren and sisters, it is a privilege for me to speak to you this afternoon, and I pray for that same Spirit that we’ve enjoyed so much during this conference.

Some people erroneously believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are not Christian. We have difficulty understanding why anyone could accept and promote an idea that is so far from the truth. President Gordon B. Hinckley has described Church members as a people “bound [together] by a common love for our Master, who is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world. We are a covenant people who have taken upon ourselves His holy name.” 1

Our beliefs and actions may differ from those of others, but we, as good Christians, do not criticize other religions or their adherents. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” 2

A dictionary defines a Christian as “one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ or follows the religion based on [the life and teachings of Jesus],” and “one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.” 3 Thus two characteristics identify Christians: (1) they profess belief in a Savior, and (2) they act in harmony with the Savior’s teachings. Faithful members of the Church, called Saints or Latter-day Saints, qualify clearly in both characteristics. In our belief and our action, we demonstrate that “Jesus Christ himself [is] the chief corner stone” of our faith. 4

Our Profession of Belief
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bears His name. He stands at its head and directs it through His chosen prophets.

We believe the first principle of the gospel is “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” 5 “No [one] cometh unto the Father, but by [Him].” 6 As His disciples, we echo boldly the words of Peter’s resounding testimony to our Master: “Thou art the Christ.” 7 The burning witness of the Holy Spirit that we feel deep within our hearts prompts us to make this declaration humbly and gratefully. When we explain our regard for Jesus, we lovingly and plainly testify that He is “that Christ, the Son of the living God.” 8

We rejoice in our sure knowledge that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” 9 With obedient hearts and eyes of faith, “we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.” 10

We declare that Jesus is the Firstborn Son of our Heavenly Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten Son of God in mortality. He is a God, one of the three in the Godhead. He is the Savior and Redeemer of the human race. In a premortal council at which we were all present, He accepted our Father’s great plan of happiness for His children and was chosen by the Father to give effect to that plan. He led the forces of good against those of Satan and his followers in a battle for the souls of men that began before this world was formed. That conflict continues today. We were all on the side of Jesus then. We are on the side of Jesus today.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ, an act of pure love, overcame the effects of the Fall and provided the way for all mankind to return to the presence of God. As part of the Atonement, the Savior overcame physical death and provided immortality for every one of God’s children through the Resurrection. He also overcame spiritual death and provided the possibility of eternal life, the life that God lives and the greatest of all the gifts of God. This He did by taking upon Himself the suffering for the sins of all humankind.

Under the direction of His Father, He created this world and many others. He came to this earth as the Son of God, the Eternal Father, and the mortal virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life. He had a greater effect upon the people of this world than any other who has ever lived or will live upon it. He “stands first, foremost, and alone, as a directing personality in the world’s progression.” 11 He was crucified, resurrected, and ascended to His Father in Heaven.

After His Resurrection, He ministered to people who lived in the Western Hemisphere.

After the great Apostasy, He initiated the Restoration of the gospel on a spring day in 1820 when He and His Father visited young Joseph Smith. The Lord directed the organization of His restored Church on 6 April 1830.

He will return in glory to reign in righteousness for 1,000 years, after which He will deliver the kingdom to His Father. 12

We base our belief and conviction of the divine nature and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ on the holy scriptures and on continuing revelation to latter-day prophets.

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God.” 13 We delight in the knowledge of the Lord that we find recorded in the Old and New Testaments. We know that Jehovah of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament are one and the same. We are grateful that this sacred record of God’s dealings with the people of ancient Israel and of His mortal ministry has been preserved and passed to us to enlighten our minds and strengthen our spirits. The fragmentary nature of the biblical record and the errors in it, resulting from multiple transcriptions, translations, and interpretations, do not diminish our belief in it as the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly.” 14 We read and study the Bible, we teach and preach from it, and we strive to live according to the eternal truths it contains. We love this collection of holy writ.

“We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” 15 It is another testament of Jesus Christ, written “by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation … to the convincing of [all people] that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” 16 God brought forth the Book of Mormon as a second witness that corroborates and strengthens the Bible’s testimony of the Savior. The Book of Mormon does not supplant the Bible. It expands, extends, clarifies, and amplifies our knowledge of the Savior. Surely, this second witness should be cause for great rejoicing by all Christians.

We invite our friends who are not of our faith to read the Book of Mormon and ponder its content prayerfully. To them we offer this scriptural promise: “And now, my beloved brethren, … and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.” 17

Latter-day Saints “believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” We feel blessed to know that God speaks to His children, as He has throughout the ages, through living prophets.

God called, prepared, and sustained Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration. Prophets have no other purpose, no other mission except to serve God. Of his own sacred responsibility and holy calling, our living prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, has said: “I have no desire other than to do that which the Lord would have done. I am His servant, called to serve His people. This is His Church. We are only custodians of that which belongs to Him.”

The Doctrine and Covenants also contains revelations in which “one hears the tender but firm voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking anew in the dispensation of the fulness of times … in fulfillment of and in concert with the words of all the holy prophets since the world began.”

This book of revelations is “of great value to the human family and of more worth than the riches of the whole earth” because of “the testimony that is given of Jesus Christ—his divinity, his majesty, his perfection, his love, and his redeeming power.”

The Pearl of Great Price provides the knowledge that Jesus Christ is the central figure in every dispensation from Adam to Joseph Smith and including President Gordon B. Hinckley.

How We Live Our Lives
To repeat, by definition a Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. He taught, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father.” Jesus also said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” He commanded us to pattern our lives after His. True disciples of the Lord must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only.”

Our faith in the Lord moves us to the second principle of the gospel: repentance. We develop a desire to purify and sanctify ourselves so that we might be worthy to return to God’s presence. We learn of the great plan of happiness that our Father has designed for His children, and we seek the blessings of peace and joy that are linked irrevocably to obedience to the laws of God. Through the marvelous power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, a power activated by our obedience to His commandments, we can be washed clean of our sins. His infinite “mercy can satisfy the demands of justice” for everyone who will repent. One of the great truths restored to the earth through modern revelation is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is universal! The saving power of the gospel spans all generations of time and extends to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples. Through humble repentance, we offer the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit that the Lord requires of us before we can enter the waters of baptism.

Our faith in the Lord moves us to the third principle of the gospel, which is “baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” by one who has priesthood authority. The Savior commanded that we all must be born again: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Latter-day Saints accept baptism as an essential saving ordinance that is required of all people. Through baptism we covenant to take upon us the Lord’s name and honor it by keeping His commandments. He, in turn, promises us the guiding and enlightening presence of His Spirit. The fourth principle of the gospel is the “laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

As we take His name upon us, we most certainly are Christians, for we bear the name of Christ. Each week as we partake of the emblems of bread and water, we do it in remembrance of Him. We renew our covenant that we “are willing to take upon [us] the name of [the] Son [of God], and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given [us].”

Through faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, we are born anew. We experience “a mighty change … in our hearts” and become “quickened in the inner man.” If we are faithful and obedient, this mighty change will cause that “we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.”

By obeying God’s commands, we deny ourselves of all ungodliness. Through obedience motivated by a wholehearted love of God, we come fully unto Christ and allow His grace, through the Atonement, to lead us into perfection.

Latter-day Saints covenant to keep the Lord’s commandments. Though we may fall short, our hearts are committed to striving earnestly to be obedient. We follow the teachings of the Savior. We try always to go the extra mile, to fast, to pray for our enemies, to care for the poor, and to do our acts of charity in private. We try to follow the example He gave in the parable of the good Samaritan. We avoid profanity. We avoid finding fault, we keep the Sabbath day holy and strive to be reconciled to our brother. With patience and forgiveness, we try to turn the other cheek, knowing that we will be judged as we judge others. We are aware of the dangers of materialism and debt. We seek to put the kingdom of God and His righteousness first in our lives because we know that our hearts will follow what we treasure. We know that the gate is strait and the way is narrow, so we labor to develop self-discipline to follow in His footsteps.

We love our neighbors. We strive to treat others with courtesy and respect, to treat them as we would want to be treated, both in public settings and in our homes. We strive to show concern for others and courtesy in all that we do—even as we drive in a traffic jam. We know that “out of small things proceedeth that which is great.” Because we find joy in what we know and in how we live, we like to share the gospel with others.

Can anyone doubt that Latter-day Saints profess a profound belief in Jesus Christ or doubt that we follow a religion based on the life and teachings of the Savior? He is, without question, “the author and finisher of our faith.” President Hinckley gave this powerful testimony of our Redeemer: “Towering above all mankind stands Jesus the Christ, the King of glory, the unblemished Messiah, the Lord Emmanuel. … He is our King, our Lord, our Master, the living Christ, who stands on the right hand of His Father. He lives! He lives, resplendent and wonderful, the living Son of the living God.”

I add my personal testimony to others you have heard. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind, our Mediator with the Father, and our perfect example. I love Him and serve Him and seek only to do His will. God lives, and He loves His children. The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. President Gordon B. Hinckley is the Lord’s chosen prophet today. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.