39 comments

1. Todd,

   Thanks for posting this stuff. I usually just sit back and read what everyone has to say, (and seethe with anger at some of it) but today I felt lead to say something. I came out of mormonism and everything being said about my JESUS having been married and making him look like just a man, makes me very angry. Especially since I never knew him while in mormonism. The JESUS of the Bible was NOT married to anybody. THe Mormon Jesus might have been. But not mine.

   Thank You very much.

   Susan

2. Todd,

   I am confused. Are you seeking discussion on these quotes based on what the Bible states, or what LDS church authorities state?

3. Tate, first and foremost, I am highly interested if LDS friends think any of these quotes are contra scripture or completely out of the realm of LDS orthodoxy.

   And of course, in the back of my mind, I am wondering where LDS living apostles would position themselves. I am just assuming they would not feel the need to correct absolutely in the negative any of these particular quotes by Swanson. But maybe I am dead wrong.

4. Dear Brother Wood,

   Please let me note that the next to the last quote you take from my book is incorrect. Yes you quoted me correctly. But I made a mistake and the point of my quote was incorrect about the “seven” annointings, et al. I stand corrected by many intelligent emails from LDS scholars. Many of the ideas from this book were my own and the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS should not be held accountable for how I cobble them together. Of course many of the quotes come from Church authorities. Please don’t blame them for the context I sometimes place them in.

   In my youth I fellowshiped with the Pilgrim Holiness church and there gave my soul in faith to Jesus and was saved. This I truly believe today, even though I converted to the LDS Church. Do Baptists believe that “once saved always saved?” Can the devil pluck the Christian from God’s hand? Do you believe that I will go to hell for eternity because of this conversion? Please let me know what the So. Baptist Convention officially says about this.

   Your brother in Christ, Vern

5. First, let me mention to Susan, I think that under the umbrella of the LDS church, there are a lot of conceptions of who Jesus is . . . the Jesus according to biblical canon, the Jesus according to catholic church canon, the Jesus according to the gnostic gospels, the Jesus of Marcus Borg, the Jesus according to homosexuals, the Jesus according to feminists, and the Jesus that is distinctively, traditionally LDS, etc. and etc.

   Susan, I think you identify with these quotes by Swanson because it appears to be directly in line with what you were taught in previous bygonne days. Vern is a new, strong, contemporary LDS voice for the traditional LDS Jesus of the not too distant past.

   Your anger is justified. It is hard for anyone to ignore that there are sundry interpretations of Jesus and that these projections of Jesus can stand in stark contrast to one another.

   I just read an article this morning in Christianity Today (June 2007) entitled “Who Do Your Books Say That I Am? New volumes tell us much about our Lord–and our cultural moment” by Eric Miller.

   He aptly states, “If our understanding of Jesus is our most important measure, then much hangs on the quality of that understanding.”

   Vern, now I really appreciate you popping in here. Thanks for the corrections on the seven devils and Mary Magdalene. What would be your thoughts now after the scholarly conversation with others?

   I am just an outsider but I do tend to think that you are interpreting some of these older Church authorities in a most straight forward fashion. In a culture jelled by postmodernism, your interpretation of the past speeches and sermons is kind of nice. Is this rare, today? It appears that some could care less about the sayings or convictions of early 19th century Church fathers. But for LDS orthodoxy, I don’t think these men of the 19th century are irrelevant.

   In your second paragraph, you mention that you gave your “soul in faith to Jesus”. I don’t doubt your sincerity. But before I can answer your questions, I need to kindly gather a little more knowledge about who is the Jesus of your faith. For it is not prayers, or walking aisles, or the strength of our own faith that saves us . . . it is the great Object of our faith.

   Do you see what I am saying?

6. Todd and Susan,
   You seem to have the tendency to think that your “version” of Jesus is infallibly correct. I’m not trying to be offensive, but there is a bit of pride in this, methinks. In the days of the apostles, Christ’s disciples were around him constantly, they had day to day contact with our Lord. Yet they constantly seemed to misunderstand Him, misinterpret Him– He’s beyond them in understanding, knowledge, power, faith and virtue. If the Apostles and earliest Christians misunderstood Him, how do we pretend that we completely understand Him? Before you condemn other people’s views on Christ, I would hope that you consider the idea that when it comes to knowing God and his Son, there is no one on the earth who has 20/20 vision. When that fateful day of judgment and Grace comes, we shall see Him as He is, but until then we are commanded not to judge, not to form unbreakable opinions. Once we do that, we cut ourselves off from the further revelations of God. If we do even not understand ourselves, then how do we expect to understand the mysteries of God?
   Christ is not “my” Christ, nor “your” Christ. Christ is Christ, despite what we believe about Him. He is His own, belonging only to His Father. We have no claim on Him, He has claim on us. What our personal worldviews are, our politics are, or our distorted lenses are, it doesn’t effect who Christ really is. We all see through a glass darkly. He will surprise all of us, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Jew or atheist. There will be aspects of His Glory and Nature that will astonish us, things that we never considered.
   There is no “doctrine” about Christ being married in Mormonism. There are teachings, beliefs, traditions and strong, supported opinions. But there in no catechism, no ordinance, no ritual, no requirement put upon any Latter-day Saint to believe or disbelieve either way. There have always been differing opinions on theology in the Church– quoting Orson Hyde, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith or whoever doesn’t prove a thing about “Mormon orthodoxy,” for Mormons, despite popular opinion, have a great deal more freedom of private inquiry than anyone has given them credit for. Mormons have an “open cannon” of revelation and the scriptures are the chief guide for orthodoxy, and anything beyond that, you’re going beyond the trunk of the tree.
   Do many Mormons entertain the idea that Christ may have been married? Yes, absolutely. I certainly do. I find much to support it in the Gospels. Is that evidence conclusive? No, I don’t think so. I think Swanson’s work and ideas have relevance and look forward to the day when I’m finally able to read his text. However, I keep an open mind until the day comes when He is Revealed.
   “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” 1 John 3:2-3
   Your Mormon Brother In Christ,
   Mahonri Stewart

7. 1. You seem to have the tendency to think that your “version” of Jesus is infallibly correct.

   Actually, Mahonri, I believe the scriptures present an infallible presentation of Jesus. I do not consider myself or any other modern-day religious spokesman inspired. Vern, mentioned the Southern Baptist Convention. None of those religious leaders are inspired.

   2. I’m not trying to be offensive, but there is a bit of pride in this, methinks.

   I continually struggle with inward pride. My daily freedom is when I fix my spiritual eyes solely on the Christ alone and believe what His evangel work has done and continually needs to do in my life. But Mahonri, I don’t know how it could be labeled sinful pride when individuals seek to help others see a clearer picture of the Christ as shared in the scriptures. Pointing people to Jesus is not prideful. Holding back on the Lord Jesus Christ leads to prideful focus on self. May the Spirit of God engender within me bold humility.

   3. In the days of the apostles, Christ’s disciples were around him constantly, they had day to day contact with our Lord. Yet they constantly seemed to misunderstand Him, misinterpret Him– He’s beyond them in understanding, knowledge, power, faith and virtue. If the Apostles and earliest Christians misunderstood Him, how do we pretend that we completely understand Him?

   It is interesting that you bring this up. Usually, I am the one asserting to friends that Christ is incomprehensible, beyond our understanding in essence, incarnation, omniscience, omnipotence, and creative ability (ex nihilo). Frankly, I think the numbers of LDS are growing in America, who will not believe these very ideas. I believe the more conservative strands of the LDS religion will abide internationally outside of American Zion. There is a cloud of unbelief that is growing ever so slowly in America.

   4. When that fateful day of judgment and Grace comes, we shall see Him as He is, but until then we are commanded not to judge, not to form unbreakable opinions.

   Jesus says that scripture can’t be broken. My promises sometimes sinfully fall flat (I hate this about myself; thankfully, some day this will change), but God’s promises never do. God gives special revelation. God is love. God is light. God is spirit. And God is true about all this.

   5. Christ is not “my” Christ, nor “your” Christ. Christ is Christ, despite what we believe about Him. He is His own, belonging only to His Father. We have no claim on Him, He has claim on us. What our personal worldviews are, our politics are, or our distorted lenses are, it doesn’t effect who Christ really is. We all see through a glass darkly. He will surprise all of us, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Jew or atheist. There will be aspects of His Glory and Nature that will astonish us, things that we never considered.

   Verily! Verily! Thanks!

   6. There is no “doctrine” about Christ being married in Mormonism. There are teachings, beliefs, traditions and strong, supported opinions. But there in no catechism, no ordinance, no ritual, no requirement put upon any Latter-day Saint to believe or disbelieve either way. There have always been differing opinions on theology in the Church– quoting Orson Hyde, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith or whoever doesn’t prove a thing about “Mormon orthodoxy,” for Mormons, despite popular opinion, have a great deal more freedom of private inquiry than anyone has given them credit for.

   I am listening. So in a broader sense, is physical marriage required to enter the highest of celestial light in Christ? Does “Mormon orthodoxy” allow any “sister” or “brother in Christ” to experience complete celestial glory—not being married? I don’t know how much “freedom of private inquiry” can be given on this in the LDS Church. But I am willing to listen to the contemporary proof that substantiates a negative answer to these questions. You see, I believe scripture does share what is exclusively needed to enter into the celestial light of Christ, and it is not a physical marriage to someone else.

   7. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” 1 John 3:2-3

   You have quoted a fantastic verse. But I am still left wondering about whether the eternal marriage of the LDS Jesus is not fundamentally important for “Mormon orthodoxy.” How can my LDS friends in their particular sense say they will be “like him”, if the LDS Jesus stays single while they remain married for eternity? With the latest book that has come out by the pope, I don’t think LDS GA’s will accept the Pope’s Jesus as orthodox.

   I have a whole different way of looking at I John 3:2-3, especially as I make my way through John’s Gospel. But my bias is that the words of the apostle John in their entirety in the original autographs are inerrant, which I don’t know if my LDS friends or Catholic friends desire fully to affirm. Scriptural inerrancy is crucial for me, so is a comprehensive look at the whole of the apostle John’s writings, line upon line, precept upon precept.

   Last of all, both Vern and Mahonri would consider me a “brother in Christ”. But what kind of brother would this be? Qualify this, please. Because I have Christ, am I ranked as a brother living in celestial light? Being and living in the celestial light of Christ is the only thing that fundamentally matters. Every thing else is hell. And if you don’t consider me a celestial brother in Christ right now, would that be pride on your part?

   I really would like to explore these issues of the heart that deal with our pride.

8. Sorry, Todd, it’s been a while since I’ve checked your site. I wasn’t intentionally ignoring your questions:

   Todd: Last of all, both Vern and Mahonri would consider me a ‘brother in Christ.’ But what kind of brother would this be? Qualify this, please. Because I have Christ, am I ranked as a brother living in celestial light? Being and living in the celestial light of Christ is the only thing that fundamentally matters. Every thing else is hell. And if you don’t consider me a celestial brother in Christ right now, would that be pride on your part?

   Mahonri: I certainly consider you a brother in Christ. And I am to my neighbor, love my enemy, love my brother, love my sister, love my wife– love everybody. So of course I consider you a brother in Christ. Your strong testimony in the Savior and his atoning Grace is obvious. I don’t pretend to know how the Lord will judge us at the bar of God– I don’t think that believing in Christ is enough to merit celestial exaltation from what the Lord says, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” (Luke 6:46). “Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23). I think these scriptures make it clear that just because one proclaims Christ and tells the world that they know Him, it does not mean that the Lord will claim them in return. Does the Lord’s condemnation apply to you? I doubt it. You seem a fervent disciple of Christ, relying upon His Grace, proclaiming His name and doing the will of our Father in Heaven. But I do believe that salvation and exaltation requires more than mere lip service. To paraphrase Isaiah, we must be more than those whose draw near unto Christ with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. Christ does not want us to be workers of iniquity, but close to him in our hearts and in our deeds. He wants His sheep to heed the Shepherd’s voice. Us pretending to know the intricacies of Christ’s nature has no relevence, especially if we think we think we know what the fate of our neighbor will be in the eternal world. Now I don’t want what I just wrote to be misinterpreted, for the Word of God tells us, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). One can only be saved once one knows God. However, it’s a process. Like you said, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, grace by grace. It is hubris to think that we understand God’s nature at this point in our eternal progression. If we can’t see into the true hearts of each other, how do we expect to see into the heart of God at this point? But the scripture says that, if we receive life eternal, we will know him. We shall “see him as he is.” I very much look forward to that beautiful day.
   Do I believe that only people who were Mormons will reach the highest kingdom of heaven? Certainly not. But I guess one of my main points of my last post, was to echo, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” So I don’t make a judgement on your soul, either way. I don’t know you, Todd, and even if I did in some deeper way, I would not even pretend that I knew what the Lord had in store for you. His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts. But I certainly do hope to see you on the other side of the veil in the arms and love of Jesus.

   Todd: So in a broader sense, is physical marriage required to enter the highest of celestial light in Christ? Does “Mormon orthodoxy” allow any “sister” or “brother in Christ” to experience complete celestial glory—not being married? I don’t know how much “freedom of private inquiry” can be given on this in the LDS Church. But I am willing to listen to the contemporary proof that substantiates a negative answer to these questions. You see, I believe scripture does share what is exclusively needed to enter into the celestial light of Christ, and it is not a physical marriage to someone else.

   Mahonri: In a Mormon context, our modern scriptures tell us in the Doctrine and Covenants section 132:
   ” 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
   7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
   8 Behold, mine house is a house of aorder, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
   9 Will I aaccept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
   10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
   11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?
   12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall acome unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.
   13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.
   14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.
   15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
   16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
   17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
   18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
   19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
   20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
   21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
   22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
   23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
   24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. ”
   I consider all of these to be important concepts, but I would like to point out a couple of things: this scripture refers to a person having the ability to be saved without being married– they just do not receive the highest degree of exaltation. However, I am sure they are completely happy in the Grace and Love of God. A Mormon concept of the highest exaltation includes marriage, that’s certainly correct. For the Mormon concept of exaltation is the idea of gaining the nature of our Heavenly “Father”– of becoming eternal parents. And one cannot join in such a union without being married. So those who are single, still can enjoy the the rapturous company of Christ and God in the Celestial Kingdom. However, without an eternal spouse, they are exluded from being “co-heirs with Christ,” they are excluded from doing the work of being an eternal parent.
   I think it is interesting that many argue against Christ advocating an eternal marriage by quoting Matthew 22:30, but that this revelation has that scripture clearly in mind and alludes to it, interpreting it to mean that secular marriages have no effect, but the sealing power, the priesthood given to Peter to bind and unbind, must be used to bind marriages, otherwise they are of no effect. For God only recognizes His own authority in such matters.
   Of course, not being a Mormon, I do not expect you to believe our modern revelations. So after that clarification, I’ll turn to the Bible, a revelation from God that we both accept. Christ says in Matthew 19: 4-6, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
   This scripture is vital to my understanding of the doctrine of eternal marriage. Christ says, “what God hath joined together,” which I interpret as meaning the sealing power of the priesthood. Secular marriages are not recognized in the after life, for they pertain to this earth, “till death do us part.” But here Christ is teaching something new, something very few of those around him, if any, understood. Christ says they are “no more twain.” I interpret that to mean that this joining by God is an eternal joining. Not a man-made marriage, but one joined by the power of Christ and he explicitly commands, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Whoever says that the doctrine of eternal marriage is not in the Testaments, has not inspected this stunning scripture closely enough. Matthew 19: 4-6 gives context to Matthew 22:30– yet in his rebuttal to the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he failed to elucidate them on that context, speaking for those who had ears to hear. D&C 132 and modern revelation, however, has united the two seeming disparate scriptures together into one cohesive doctrine, never neglecting what is being taught in either of them.
   So, yes, I believe that marriage is a necessary part of the doctrine of exaltation. It is not necessary to escape Hell, or to enter into the presence of the Lord. However, it is necessary to become a Father like our Heavenly Father.

9. Todd: Actually, Mahonri, I believe the scriptures present an infallible presentation of Jesus. I do not consider myself or any other modern-day religious spokesman inspired. Vern, mentioned the Southern Baptist Convention. None of those religious leaders are inspired.

   Mahonri: I must say, Todd, this statement falls very disonantly upon a Mormon’s ears. For Evangelical Christians, or Baptists, or any one who has a testimony of Christ to deny the ability and capacity for revelation and inspiration, to “quench the Spirit,” as Paul calls it, is to point them to the fact of that an apostasy certainly did occur. To not have “inspired” leaders, who rely upon the learning and philosophies of men and seminaries, instead of upon the Holy Ghost– for us this is the core of the apostasy.
   This boggles my mind for you to do this, for the scriptures seem to be abundantly clear on the purpose of the Holy Ghost in our lives.

   JOHN 14:
   25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
   26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my cname, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
   27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

   1 THESSALONIANS 5:
   19 Quench not the Spirit.
   20 Despise not prophesyings.

   JUDE 1:
   17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
   18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
   19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
   JAMES 1:
   5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

   LUKE 11:
   9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
   10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
   11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
   12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
   13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

   LUKE 12:
   12 For the Holy Ghost shall beach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

   ROMANS 8:
   9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

   Todd, Christ made it abundantly clear that his “voice” was what was to be followed. This voice does not only constitute the Holy scriptures, but the Holy Ghost– or as you referred to it, inspiration (I am correct in equating the two in your mind, aren’t I?). The Lord’s sheep know His voice. As Paul says, if we don’t have the Spirit of Christ, we are “none of his.” The tradition of denying the spiritual, the miraculous and the inner voice, and instead relying wholly upon men’s interpretation and learning voice stems from the Enlightenment. Responding from a more scientific world view, Christians accomodated their beliefs in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to make themselves sound more reasonable and less superstitious to their Deist, agnostic and atheistic colleagues (for some great analysis of this period, and the impact of the Enlightenment upon Christian thought and teachings see Richard Bushman’s book of essays “Believing History”). Much of Christianity today have inherited this faulty attitude, not based upon the teachings of Christ and the scriptures, but in an effort to become more scientific and save face in front of Enlightenment unbelievers. This, I believe, is a great error upon the part of those who perpetuated this belief.
   And this is one of the things that Mormons believe God told Joseph Smith, that these Christian ministers of the day had fallen away from the Spirit and instead were relying upon their own learning. We believe Christ told Joseph Smith that, “that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’ ” (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

10. Todd:
    You have quoted a fantastic verse. But I am still left wondering about whether the eternal marriage of the LDS Jesus is not fundamentally important for “Mormon orthodoxy.” How can my LDS friends in their particular sense say they will be “like him”, if the LDS Jesus stays single while they remain married for eternity? With the latest book that has come out by the pope, I don’t think LDS GA’s will accept the Pope’s Jesus as orthodox.

    Mahonri: And this is exactly the reason many (if not most) Mormons believe that Jesus was married. That’s the reason I believe it. But it is not part of the cannon, it is not a required belief for membership.

11. Mahonri, reading all this . . . I would first like to discuss with you about the Father and sexuality.

    I will be back.

12. But I do believe that salvation and exaltation requires more than mere lip service. To paraphrase Isaiah, we must be more than those whose draw near unto Christ with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.

    That is right!

    One can only be saved once one knows God. However, it’s a process.

    Progressive sanctification is a process but justification? To be born again (John 3), is this a process?

    I consider all of these to be important concepts, but I would like to point out a couple of things: this scripture refers to a person having the ability to be saved without being married– they just do not receive the highest degree of exaltation. However, I am sure they are completely happy in the Grace and Love of God.

    I don’t see many of them inwardly happy in this life because of the LDS pressure.

    A Mormon concept of the highest exaltation includes marriage, that’s certainly correct. For the Mormon concept of exaltation is the idea of gaining the nature of our Heavenly “Father”– of becoming eternal parents.

    However, without an eternal spouse, they are exluded from being “co-heirs with Christ,” they are excluded from doing the work of being an eternal parent.

    This is contra New Testament theology. Christ did not stress this. Neither did any of the apostles, the beloved John, Paul, etc.

    However, it is necessary to become a Father like our Heavenly Father.

    Mahonri, I think you are attempting to make the Heavenly Father like us creatures who have sex. Think about these words by Robert Letham:

    “Indeed, the name Father usually refers to the covenantal relationship of Yahweh to Israel (Ex. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1) and points to God’s free choice, not to sexual activity and physical generation. The various god and goddesses of the ancient world were usually connected with procreation. Israel was hereby taught to avoid thinking of God in physical terms, especially in any terms drawn from human reproduction. Instead, as Father, Yahweh had freely chosen them in the history of salvation. His unconditional promise put him in an entirely different context, that of a loving father, and thus we find ‘intimate closeness’ expressed in, for example, Hosea 11:3-4: Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.”

    And concerning comment #9, there must be reliance upon the Holy Spirit. Only the words carried along by the Holy Spirit are inspired, completely without any error.

13. Which is true: The 3rd Article of Faith , “We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel,” composed by Joseph Smith, or Ephsians 2:8-10 “For by grace are ye saved through faith: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast, For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” written by Paul the Apostle? Are we saved by obedience or by faith in Gods’ gift of His only begotten son?

    Yes, we were created for good works, but do those good works save us? If so how much? And if I “did the best I could” does that save me? And who says if I have done enough? And when Jesus told the thief on the cross, “today thou shalt be with me in paradise, “what works did the thief do? Even if the thief was baptised by proxy, ordained by proxy, recieves his endowments by proxy, is married in the temple by proxy, sealed for time and all eternity by proxy, how was he obedient to all the laws and ordinances to save him?

    P.S. If you believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, then please read John 1:1-3 and the Genesis creation account. Lucifer was a created being, an angel. Jesus was never a created being.
    He is and always has been God the Son, the living Word.
    Salvation is by Grace alone, thru faith alone, in Christ alone.
    Amazingly, God even gives the gift of faith. Enough faith to believe in the risen Savior.

14. Ruthie and Todd:

    Regarding “salvation” and works: your reading of the LDS belief is not only incomplete but incorrrect. LDS discourse is not theologically exact –as you assume it must be. Thus, we might say that a person is “saved” when we really mean the totality of our relationship with God including our final glory, even after the technical event(s) that you regard as constituting “salvation.” However, Paul didn’t consistently use the word “saved” in the same way either, so we’re in good company. For that matter, he didn’t always use “justified” to mean that we are saved either.

    You may want to check out the issues related to interpretation of Paul raised by pre-eminent Pauline scholars. Some of the literature can be found here: http://www.thepaulpage.com/ There has been a very important re-assessment of Paul’s writings (known as the “New Perspective on Paul”) by scholars that concludes that for Paul we are saved or justified by grace (i.e., we are accepted into a relationship of reconciliation and into the body of the covenant faithful by grace); however, to maintain that status we must abide by the covenant conditions. In addition, reward and judgment are always according to works. What we do matters and our final reward depends on our works. That necessity of works as a way of demonstrating our true faith, of remaining faithful to the covenant conditions, of receiving reward, are almost always missed by grace-alone teachings.

    Many evangelicals have seen that this reading of Paul makes a very big difference — including for instance Frank Beckwith, the Pres. of the Evangelical Theological Society, who recently converted to Catholicism from a position much more like yours.

    Second, LDS don’t teach that we are saved by works. LDS believe that we are saved by faith in Christ and Christ’s atonement. We are saved by grace. However, this grace is not merely something foisted onto us; we must assent to it by accepting the free offer of love from Christ — otherwise a rather pernicious doctrine of pre-destination follows. LDS certainly reject predestination — where do you stand? The LDS view is thus quite like the Arminian view of grace and free will and contrary to the Calvinist view of free will that you seem to assume (probably without being aware of it).

    LDS believe that works of love demonstrate our faithfulness and that our remaining in the covenent of baptism with Christ requires works of love and that the reward we receive are based on works of love. Where do you stand on that issue?

    Finally, you might want to read Job 1 where Satan is one of the sons of God — one of the elohim or gods — and is present before the creation of the world. He is no mere angel in that discourse. I would ask, however, if you believe that God created Satan from nothing with perfect foreknowledge of the all of the evil that he would bring about? If so, then you believe in a very different God thant he God of love revealed by Christ it seems to me because that entails that God is an accomplice in Satan’s evils.

15. Blake, I am headed out the door . . . taking some kids to Red Cliff Bible camp in Wyoming.

    Please allow some time for me personally to get back with you on this comment.

16. Blake, to just quickly touch base this morning. I know there is much that I could flesh out, but can’t at the moment for the lack of time.

    I firmly hold to God’s positive predestination of the redeemed. To God be the glory.

    I firmly hold to God’s grace alone in soteriology. To God alone be the glory.

    I firmly hold to God having perfect foreknowledge of evil and also creating Satan. God is completely sovereign over this angelic jerk in whatever evil might come my way. I am thankful to Yahweh. To Him be the glory.

    Now here is a question, Blake.

    Derek G. Rowley in his book, By Man Least Understood(Sringville: CFI, 2007) writes:

    “Our understanding of Christ’s sacrifice tells us that being ‘saved’ is a lifelong process – rather than a single event – that involves continual obedience to covenants, ordinances, and commandments” (xv).

    Do you think Rowley succinctly expresses here for LDS what it means to be “saved by grace”? (And what do you think of the books coming out of Springville? Does Springville publish traditional, conservative Mormon thought?)

17. Todd: I have pondered about the spirit in which to reply to your statements here. I choose to be simply honest.

    It does not glorify God to attribute to him non-sense and evil. Your view that God predestines some to hell for eternity is a crime against God’s love. I suggest that you read chapter 10 of the 2nd vol. of Exploring Mormon Thought where I discuss the best Pauline scholarship on this issue. Paul didn’t teach individual predestination to hell or heaven; rather, his teachings focused on the corporate election of Israel to be God’s people and the corporate body of the church in Christ to be the new Israel. Your view that God predestines is both non-biblical and also attributes a heinous evil to God. He could save all, but for some reason (which could only be evil) he either affirmatively elects or leaves others to hell and eternal torment. No loving being would do that. Can’t you see that you attribute to God capriciousness and sheer evil when he could save all to receive his love?

    Second, it is easy to show that the notion that God created Satan is non-biblical and contrary to God’s goodness. The Bible never speaks of the creation of Satan or the devil — ever. However, it does specifically show that Satan was present with God before the creation in Job 1 and 38. Satan (the Accuser) is expressly called a “son of God” (bene elohim) in these passages. I often see folks who denigrate the LDS view of Satan as a son of God — yet it is that view which is biblical and their own view is not.

    Moreover, the view that God created Satan with foreknowledge of everything he would do means that God specifically concurred in everything that Satan, that devil, would bring about. That makes God also a cause of the devil’s evils. It places God in the same moral category as Satan. You may want to glorify God for this — but in my ears giving glory to God for bringing about such evils is like a Muslim who cries that “Allah is great!” just before a suicide attack in a marketplace. Your doctrine of “grace alone” logically entails that God is a being of evil alone. The slogan “grace alone” was condemned by James and Paul also required works of love as the expression of saving faith.

    With respect to Rowley’s book, no he doesn’t speak for anyone but himself and his doctrine about “being saved” as a process confuses justification and salvation. Justification generally occurs when we are reconciled and accepted into relationship with Christ. Sanctification is a process which takes a lifetime and more. It is easy to see that Rowley is using “saved” in a more colloquial sense as that which in its entirety defines our relationship with God. Paul sometimes uses justification in this same sense, though generally he speaks of the transfer from the old Law to the Lordship of Christ and the new law as justification.

    I would add, however, that LDS don’t get hung up on these semantic issues. We can see that such terms as “saved” “justification” and “sanctification” are not used with definitional precision in the Old or New Testaments and I cannot see any reason why someone would conclude that a Mormon who uses them in a similar way is somehow “wrong” even if not semantically careful.

    While it is proper to glorify God, it is not proper to do so by attributing evil and non-biblical non-sense to him.

18. I choose to be simply honest.

    I appreciate that. I am desiring that both you and me be honest with the scriptural data.

    Your view that God predestines some to hell for eternity is a crime against God’s love.

    Where did I say this? Blake, you need to ask more questions before you bring out the big guns on me. I personally don’t believe in double predestination. And because of the Greek verb tense in Romans 9, I do not believe that God is the subject in fitting individuals as vessels of destruction. And in addition, I find the doctrine of reprobation to be a sketchy logical extension of positive (individual and collective) predestination.

    I suggest that you read chapter 10 of the 2nd vol. of Exploring Mormon Thought where I discuss the best Pauline scholarship on this issue. Paul didn’t teach individual predestination to hell or heaven; rather, his teachings focused on the corporate election of Israel to be God’s people and the corporate body of the church in Christ to be the new Israel.

    This sounds more like Dave Hunt from the Berean Call than “the best Pauline scholarship.” I am not convinced about the lack of God entering into a covenantal loving relationship (foreknowing) of individuals.

    Can’t you see that you attribute to God capriciousness and sheer evil when he could save all to receive his love?

    Ok, I am going to cheat here by answering your question with a question. Is it unfair of God to show loving favor? Another question – Blake, the more you get to know me, will you love me equally alongside of the love you have for your family members?

    Second, it is easy to show that the notion that God created Satan is non-biblical and contrary to God’s goodness. The Bible never speaks of the creation of Satan or the devil — ever.

    Angelic beings are outside the parameters of God’s creation (John 1, etc.)? I am confused. Is Satan a rogue, outside or beyond God’s power and authority?

    However, it does specifically show that Satan was present with God before the creation in Job 1 and 38. Satan (the Accuser) is expressly called a “son of God” (bene elohim) in these passages. I often see folks who denigrate the LDS view of Satan as a son of God — yet it is that view which is biblical and their own view is not.

    I denigrate the LDS view of Satan as a son of God because of the sexual, literal interpretation forcefully hoisted into the biblical phrase.

    Blake, the book of Job is a mighty theodicy. There is a triad that is a mystery to me. 1. God is all-powerful and all knowing. 2. God is perfect love. 3. There is horrendous evil in this world.

    Job doubted #2. You doubt #1. But God calls you and I to trust when we don’t understand.

    The slogan “grace alone” was condemned by James and Paul also required works of love as the expression of saving faith.

    No, James and Paul teach the supreme sufficiency of Christ’s work of grace and works of love as the expression of saving faith. I agree with you that there is a lot of observable abuse in evangelicalism. But regarding the former truth, I suppose you categorically reject the idea of Christ’s atonement being substitutionary.

    Blake, I just have two final questions.
    1. Are you adverse to this phrase, a fundamental commitment underlying my faith? It is proper to glorify God alone.

    2. How do you align yourself with Roger Olson’s article in the book, Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views (BYU: 2005)? I can probably assume what you think of Laura Smit’s Calvinistic perspective.

    Blake, thanks for this interaction.

19. Todd:

    You are of course quite astute enough to know that I addressed and rejected both double and single predestination. So I am confused at your response that you reject double predestination and ignore the fact that single predestination has the very same problems. God could save all; but doesn’t. There is no good reason based on individual differences to justify the decision. That makes God arbitrary and capricious and leaving some to hell when he could save them is just as contrary to divine love as affirmatively sending them to hell. So I’m genuinely confused at your failure to address this issue and the attempt to evade it by referring to double predestination. Were you evading?

    I am also confused by what you mean by a covenantal relation as somehow requiring foreknowledge. Maybe you could explain what you have in mind. My point was quite different — Paul is speaking about a corporate election; not individual predestination (single or double) that refers to individual election. In this sense, the Reformers fundamentally misunderstood Paul regarding election as the New Perspective on Paul has emphasized.

    With respect to your view that God loves some more than others, or perhaps some not at all, I believe this “doctrine” is especially pernicious. Do you for one moment suppose that God loves you more than me because I am Mormon? Do you suppose that God loves you more than a Jewish woman? If you hold such beliefs, then I believe that you are re-creating the very Jewish doctrine of election that both Paul and Jesus found especially pernicious. I guess I’m looking for some explanation because it just seems to me that you just can’t mean what you appear to say.

    You are correct that I reject the substitutionary theories of atonement — and I have given several reasons scriptural and otherwise to support that view. For starters, it makes the Father the angry and unloving one who has to be appeased.

    I am also confused when you say: “I denigrate the LDS view of Satan as a son of God because of the sexual, literal interpretation forcefully hoisted into the biblical phrase.” What sexual, literal view are you referring to? I am sure that I am at a loss to understand what you think this “LDS” doctrine is supposed to be. FYI, LDS believe that Satan is a son of God as the scriptures say, but there is no notion that Satan is birthed. I am sure that I don’t harbor any “literal, sexual” view that you attempt to foist onto LDS. Perhaps you could explain what you mean. It appear to me to be a caricature of actual LDS beliefs. Moreover, you ignore the fact that Satan is never referred to as created scripture.

    So let me say it again — if God created Satan out of nothing — as you believe — and if God had foreknowledge of everything that Satan would do– as you also believe — then in creating Satan God is an accessory before the fact who concurs in everything that Satan brings about. Thus, God is morally on par with Satan. You ignored this simple observation.

    Further, I would reject your characterization of my view as rejection of the view that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. I maintain that God is precisely the all-powerful and all-knowing. However, I maintain that the traditional view involves massive incoherence unless the realm of what it is possible to bring about and what it is possible to know is carefully discussed.

    Finally — I am unclear just what phrase you are asking me about in 1. I don’t know what you mean by “glorify God alone,” but if you mean that God alone is worthy of worship, then I accept that. However, we will have to be careful about what we mean by “God.” Do you mean: (1) the Father; (2) the Son; (3) the Holy Ghost; (4) the Godhead; (5) Jesus as a resurrected being? I believe that all are worthy of worship and that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct beings — so there are three distinct, divine personages who are worthy of worship.

    I haven’t read Roger Olsen’s book so I cannot comment on that.

20. Blake, the more you get to know me, the quicker you might desire to riddle my faith with the following descriptives of rationality–such as Todd’s theology displays inconsistency, absurdity, unintelligibility, irrationality, or “massive incoherence”.

    But I tend to gravitate to the unfathomable, incomprehensible, incomparable, and inscrutable. I am dazzled by the triune God.

    And may I be frank? I have read through the Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, and Pearl of Great Price, and I plan on reading through them many times more. In my reading, I sense that Joseph Smith was not comfortable with some of the mystery intertwined within the “scripture to the old world” (a descriptor just given to me earlier this week by an elderly LDS missionary at Brigham’s winter home in St. George). Joseph wanted understandable certainty rather than inscrutable paradox concerning the nature and work of God. And his writings reflect this. And through his ingenious copying, redacting, and editing of the “scripture to the old world” and the penning of scripture for the “new world”, he has wrongfully sheered off powerful, scriptural truths that would be at the other end of the spectrum to his Latter-day Saint theology.

    Now, I am not trying to evade you at all, Blake. I struggle with time factors (we have Vacation Bible School next week in Ammon, Idaho), and I also struggle with how to express clearly. But I am passionately committed to the interaction on this thread. The topics are vital. Give me a little time. And I will try to compose a more fully developed paragraph for where I stand on each one of these themes:

    *Double predestination
    *Election and reprobation
    *Foreknowledge
    *God’s universal love (but there are variances, maybe I need a better word, in the unfolding of God’s love)
    *Relationship of God & the creature, Satan

    Three closing comments/questions

    1. How do you align yourself with Pelagius on his doctrine concerning human sinfulness and salvation?

    2. Concerning Vern’s book. He discusses the sexuality of the Father. I am not a big city fellow. I just live and hear the stories and rumors in Southeastern Idaho. Vern’s theology jives a lot with the conservative, rural LDS ideas where I live. Have you read Vern’s book? Do you thing that Vern’s book is a “caricature of actual LDS belief”? I can’t remember if Vern said that Jesus and Satan are both literal spirit children of the Father through a sexual union; I will need to recheck. But this legend is strong in some rural parts.

    3. Thanks for the clarification on my comment about glorifying God alone. Yes, I am thinking of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But in unity – the triune God.

21. Sorry, it has taken me so long to reply to your comments about our discussion– I’ve spent the week with my family in the mountains at a family reunion, so haven’t had a good deal of time on my hands. You and Blake are having a wonderfully interesting conversation, but I’m much less equipped than he is to enter into those questions, so I’ll focus on what you were asking me. I might risk entering into yours and Blake’s conversation later, if I’m feeling Brave.

    Todd: Progressive sanctification is a process but justification? To be born again (John 3), is this a process?

    Mahonri: I am not a theology student, Todd, nor am I always familiar with the evnagelical phrases you throw out. I try to study the Bible regularly– even more so than the Book of Mormon the last few years– (although I venture more into the Gospels than the epistles, I must admit, although I’ve read the epistles in the past and have been diving into Paul pretty heavily with my wife lately). I am a playwright, a young one at that, so you must be patient with me and explain to me what you personally mean by “progressive sanctification” and “justification” and how justification, salvation, exaltation, etc. differ in your mind. However, I think I catch your drift, so I’ll venture into an answer anyway.
    I believe in a single series of saving acts– Gethsemene, Calvary, and the Garden Tomb– Christ’s atonement and resurrection. His Grace is derived from those three all encompassing events. So in that way, salvation is not progressive in Christ, for His saving work is done and it is now for us to access it.
    However, as you quoted to me before in Isaiah, “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” we all progress. It seems that Luke implies that it was even so with Christ, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him… And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2: 40, 52). That even Christ had to “increase,” though without sin, seems to imply to me even more that we must increase. Does salvation come upon us in one powerful moment– possible, I suppose, but I’m not entirely convinced. Paul seems to compare our salvation, our “prize,” to a race, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain” (1 Corinthians 9:24). That to me, implies an endurance, a perseverence, towards slavation and exaltation. That exertion and sweat and aching muscles are required on our part, instead of prizes randomly bestowed. And as Christ explicitly states, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock” (Matthew 7: 21-24). Now I don’t know if anything in Paul contradicts this statement– I very much doubt that anything of his writing does. Yet even if it did, I would ascribe to Paul the understandable weakness of understanding that men, even apostles, possess and instead trust the unbreakable words of Christ. As Paul says, there are times when he is simply speaking his opinion. I believe these are rare times, but I believe him when he says that there are indeed times when he is speaking his opinion in the scriptures, not the Word of God, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” (1 Corinthians 7:12), but Christ never makes any such statement in the scriptures, so I consider His words to be the infallible rock I build on. And in doing so, I reject the idea that salvation comes upon a person in a single instant, but instead cling to the word of Christ which says, “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10: 22).
    I’ve got to go, so I’ll answer the rest of your comments later today.

22. Todd: I don’t see many of them [LDS Singles] inwardly happy in this life because of the LDS pressure.

    Mahonri: My single sister would take offense at this comment. She is one of the happiest, intelligent, spiritual, most generous, Christ-like people I know. You do not understand LDS single culture well enough if you think this kind of blanket statement applies to all LDS people. My sister’s current singlehood doesn’t bring her one iota down in the estimation of God. I believe, whether in this life or by proxy in the Millineum, she will get that chance at marriage. That’s one of the things about Mormonism that really rings most true to me– that God is ultimately fair, that if a person hasn’t had the chance to receive the Gospel, or a Gospel ordinance, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, God won’t blindly condemn them for that. God’s Justice and Mercy have found ways around those discrepencies and have provided a way for ALL people to have an opportunity for salvation.

23. Hi Mahonri, yes please continue your discussion.

    But for the moment, I want to share a few thoughts with Blake.

    In God’s Salvation: Predestination, Election, Foreknowledge

    In simplest terms, I understand that glorification is based on justification, which is based on calling, which is based on predestination, which is based on foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29-30). [Some would teach reciprocity between foreknowledge and foreordination.] This all speaks of the active work of God, highlighting the Father’s supreme sovereignty, demonstrating his absolute, unchanging purpose, magnifying his unfathomable love by the sparing not of his Son, and all around blowing every circuit in my mind. My final salvation (glorification) is based on God’s foreknowledge and not my personal work. Hence, my exaltation (glorification) is definite.

    On the theme of predestination, this foreordaining (proorisen)—not violating my personal choices or free decisions but ultimately, wonderfully marking out all of my boundaries for the purpose of being conformed to His Son—I am in awe. Words can not even express my thanks. I think immediately of Ephesians 1:4-5 as well. Verse 4 speaks of the choosing, the election. From the flowing, cascading phrases of these verses, I clearly receive an answer that predestination and election are not a consequence of men’s merit but “according to the good pleasure of his will.” God’s eudokia and thelema rule all. In fact the triune hymn in the chapter erupts three times in inspired chorus, “to the praise of his glory”. Everything is to the praise of his glory.

    But even as I seriously meditate on Proverbs 16:4, John 12:39-40, John 13:18, John 17:12, I Peter 2:7-8, and Jude 4, I do tend to question Calvin’s words: “Predestination, therefore, implies a twofold decree—a decree of election unto holiness and salvation, and a decree of reprobation on account of sin and guilt.” I do not clearly see that the direct choice of Jacob by God implies the direct reprobation of Esau by God. For me, the dark side of election is fraught with difficulties in light of the biblical data on God’s love. Of course, most reformed evangelical brothers, today, would not consider themselves “supralapsarian” and disciples of Calvin’s successor, Thomas Beza. They would not see election and reprobation as parallel acts (Augustus H. Strong). A few even reject the term, double predestination (Barnhouse, Wayne Grudem, etc.)

    I use to believe that foreknowledge is based on God seeing into the future those men and women who would be wise enough to accept the Son as Savior. But my previous study in Romans on Sunday mornings and Ephesians on Sunday evenings changed all my traditional theological conceptions. In the past, as long as I didn’t think too hard on the man-centeredness of my theology, I would be ok. But as soon as I pondered more deeply during quiet nights, I would be riddled with doubts, terrified by my insufficiency in mustering 100% genuine sincerity in my will, thought, and emotion—extremely conscious of the fact that I was not doing 100% all I could do. All those years—from private Christian education as a youngster growing up in Mormon country to formal graduate seminary training as a young adult—none of it had the impact on my soul compared to my personal, expositional biblical studies now as a pastor. Systematic theology did not save me from my misery. No, it was the living Spirit’s message through the tool of careful, biblical theology (the divine logic unfolding verse by verse, chapter by chapter in individual books) that delivered me. I simply could not find my man-centered initial conceptions of foreknowledge fleshed out in any of the biblical books. But I did see a lot of where God would freely of his own accord choose to enter into loving relationships with individuals, not because the humans had the capacity to be super-sonic saints with disposition to strong faith. In contrast, God foreknows (the idea here not of God’s general prescience or perfect knowledge of the future like in reference to Satan but of his knowledgeable purposes before the creation of the world to lovingly save) stinking sinners like Todd Wood. Thank God! The Spirit of God through Romans, not preeminent Pauline scholars, flooded my thirsty soul with assurance. It is hard to excise individual foreknowledge/predestination (see Arndt and Gingrich)—God’s commitment to personal relationship—from the sojourners in I Peter 1:1-2, among other texts. What about Acts 13:48, I Thess. 1:4-5, II Thess. 2:13, I Tim. 5:21, II Tim. 1:9? The proper teaching of God’s sovereign grace (seen within the economic Trinity) will cause the human heart to naturally think that God is responsible for the sinful actions of reprobates whom God does not regenerate. That is why we have the questions in verses 14,19, 20, 21, and 22 of Romans 9 to keep our minds from logically crossing the boundaries in improper posturing towards God. In regards to God’s sovereign choosing, don’t accuse God of evil (Ps. 5:4, Hab. 1:13, James 1:13-14). In an aside, Isaiah 45:7 is not in the category of sinful evil.

    Verily, I can sleep at night because of God’s prothesis, God’s proorismos, and God’s prognosis.

    In God’s Omniscience: General Foreknowledge of the Affairs of Men and Angels

    I do believe that God shows absolute foreknowledge (in keeping with Blake’s use of the word) over the affairs of earthly beings and angelic beings. The predictive prophecy of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, etc. over and over again confirms God’s knowledge of the future for kings, nations, judgment, and deliverance. Even my current study in John’s Gospel, Jesus knows all about the future of the betrayer, Judas, and all about the future of the chief of the apostles, Peter. And in Revelation, God declares to us the future of Satan. Open theism’s truncation of God’s foreknowledge has created a splash in the push for man’s libertarian freedom as restless people crave something new. As of yet, I have not read any of your books, Blake, but it seems you have embraced Socinian theology. Is this true?

    I have arrived at Isaiah 21 in my current studies of the book with my church family. Yet I am finding out that Yahweh being the one sovereign, true God over false elohim is directly tied to absolute foreordination and foreknowledge. Again biblical theology over systematic theology is driving my heart onward and upward in worship of the Lord of hosts. The heavenly council (Job 1:6, Ps. 29:1, Ps. 89:7) is not even in the same category as the exalted One. There is no one in the King’s powerful court who possesses these attributes. And they never will. Sons of God (human beings and angelic beings – both good and evil) come forth from God and are accountable to God. But Blake, what makes the Son of God (Ps. 2:7, Dan. 3:25) unique from other sons of God?

    Blake, I need to still get back with you on the topic of love and the idea of God creating Satan from nothing. So feel free to withhold comment until my further comment. Lorainne Boettner once wrote, “They do but deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all.” I disagree. I am content currently to be held within the tension of antinomy.

24. Blake, on the topic of God’s universal love . . .

    I have been thinking a lot about this the past few days.

    God is love. God loves the world. John 3:16. Titus 3:4. I can even think of God’s compassionate love for the pagans, Israel’s enemies in Isaiah 16. But in acknowledging the universal love of God, I don’t accept the error of Universalism.

    But God’s love for the world is evident. We are even commanded to love everyone – Mk. 12:31; cf. Lev. 19:18. Lk. 10:29.

    But I am ready to also admit the differences in God’s love for the world, God’s love for the redeemed, and most of all the love abiding for one another within the ontological Trinity.

    I will try to comment tomorrow on the creation of Satan from nothing.

    Here is a sidenote on individual predestination:

    “[Romans 9:12] Quoting Genesis 25:23, Paul writes, ‘The elder shall serve the younger’ (v. 12). Clearly this has nothing to do with either Jacob or Esau as individuals (Esau never served Jacob during their lifetimes), much less with their predestination to heaven or hell” (Dave Hunt in Debating Calvinism [2004], p. 105).

    Hmmm. No individual predestination for Jacob? I am having a hard time believing this as I peer into the scriptural text.

25. Creation ex nihilo

    Strong announcements proclaim that God existed before matter. “In the beginning God . . . ” (Gen. 1). “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting, thou art God” (Ps. 90:2). And the implications are real about matter being created from nothing. Blake, what do you see in the declaration of Hebrews 11:3? “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The words, me ek phainomenon, are intriguing. Blake, would you follow the RSV translation or the the KJV, NASB, NIV translation interp? I am also thinking of the implications in Romans 4:17, I Corinthians 1:28, and 2 Corinthians 4:6.

    The Triune God is comprehensive in the work of creation (Gen. 1) John’s Gospel opens with the living Word. “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Matter is not independent of God. God created all matter (everything was good at one point). God is sovereign over all matter in the world.

    And to just briefly answer your question from earlier, I do believe that God is not just Creator over the earth, but Creator of all things, all the invisible things in heaven (Col. 1:16) and all the spirits in the heavens. “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6). Paul and Barnabas testified to this (Acts 14:15).

    And Blake, God’s dazzling work of creation is far from over. It goes on and on in perpetual, ceaseless wonder for us creatures to behold.

    And as far as God and Satan–Satan is just a little blip on the screen in the book of Job–nothing more than a small, wicked, contained spec in the vastness of God’s ever expanding cosmos. Satan’s most wicked crime is located in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15). But God knew the crime before it happened. And now, the scriptures confirm that the devil is already a defeated foe. So what the serpent had thought to be his greatest victory, turned out to be his utter rout. In all his terrifying evil, Satan is nothing more than a rebellious vassal/squatter in God’s all-seeing domain. My current belief and response to God’s sovereignty over evil, not authorship of evil, is a position of continued trust. In the mystery, I trust that God will be glorified in all the evil and that the evil scourging my life will ultimately be for my good.

    Hopefully, all this helps.

    Mahonri, I will be back.

26. In the matter of ex nihlo, Joseph Smith said in the Follet Discourse, “The word create came from the word baurau; it does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize, the same as a man would organize materials to build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos–chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles that can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed.”
    Is Joseph’s translation of the Hebrew word baurau in Genesis wrong in your view? I’m curious. Also when Adam is created, he is created from the dust of the earth, Eve is created from Adam’s rib, and Adam soul is created from the pre-existing breath of life. If God uses ex nihol, then why in the creation chapters of Genesis, does he use so much pre-existing matter to create mankind and womankind?

27. Todd: This (God being a literal parent and us, in turn, becoming heavenly parents) is contra New Testament theology. Christ did not stress this. Neither did any of the apostles, the beloved John, Paul, etc.

    Mahonri: I’ll beg to differ that this is not scriptural, at least in inference. And much of scripture must be taught through inference, you do that as much as anybody. That’s how the Savior taught: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Christ said that, “Ye can not bear all things now.” There were many things that Christ taught and did that didn’t make it into the canon. John tells us that much, “And there were also many things that Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). Thus the Mormon belief of continuing revelation– that not all things have been revealed, but yet can and eventually will be revealed, once we’re ready to “bear” them.
    As to my belief of eternal marriage, I’ve already stated most of my scriptural position which is best summed up in Matthew 19: 4-6, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Again, I empasize the phrases “what God hath put together” “they are one flesh” and “they are no more twain.” These I believe are the key phrases to understanding the scripture and the Mormon concept of eternal marriage and, yes, even perhaps sexuality in the next world (albeit, it may be different than the sexuality of this world– I don’t have a firm opinion on that as of yet).
    Which brings me to another question. Todd, do you believe that sexuality– pure sexuality between lawful husband and wife, not lust– do you believe pure sexuality is depraved? Do you believe that when Christ tells men and women to be “one flesh” in marriage, that he is enjoining them to sin? That when Adam and Eve are told to “multiply and replenish the earth,” that this is by some means other than sexuality? Do you believe that the sexuality stamped upon our anatomy, biology and physiology, was somehow created within us and upon us was some kind of evil God created for us to fight against? For, if sexuality is not depraved, if when it is used in the proper means which the Lord has set, then why is it such a sacrilege to you to have mankind inherit that sexuality from a higher source? To have truly and literally been made in the image of God and after their likeness (“their” likeness because Genesis says “our image” and “our “likeness” in this context), male and female?

28. Todd: I think you are attempting to make the Heavenly Father like us creatures who have sex.

    Mahonri: Actually, Todd, quite the opposite. I am saying most emphatically that God is not like us, but instead that we are, like the scriptures tell us in the very first chapter of Genesis, like God. I do not in any way or sense reverse the order of that emulation.
    And this is the point where Mormonism sticks most painfully in the craw of Evangelicalism and where the accusations of heresy become most thick against us. That Mormons truly believe that Christ not only bought us salvation from sin, but that he bought us a greater weight of Glory– he bought us exaltation, literal godhood, if we choose to accept the terms to achieve it.
    And despite the accusations against us, this is not a doctrine that is contra New or Old Testament.
    “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3: 2-3).

    “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17).

    Then, of course, I believe this doctrine is most explicitly taught by the Savior, when the Pharisees were accusing Christ of blasphemy (just as others often accuse us of blasphemy for believing Christ’s words) when Christ, “being a man, makest thyself God.” Christ does not repudiate that he taught he was the Son of God, but instead illucidates upon the potential of all men as a rejoinder, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If he called them gods, unto whomm the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10: 33-38).
    This scriptures is so convincing that even the Great Christian defender C.S. Lewis uses it to teach a doctrine that sounds nearly exactly like the Mormon one:
    “The command “Be ye perfect” is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him– for we can prevent Him, if we choose– He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or a goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but it is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said” (Mere Christianity, “Counting the Cost,” p.176).
    So if Mormons are heretics for believing this doctrine, I believe that the same accusation must be leveled against this great defender of the faith.
    I do believe that this “hope” of becoming like our Father is not a sin, for to become like Christ is not vain glory, but instead a desire to reflect His attributes and His love. “The Greatest among you shall be a servant.” God and Christ, the Greatest among us, are servants. Those who rightly understand this doctrine can clearly see that it is not a way to satisfy the pride of man, but instead a call to serve. That Christ will not deny those who trust in Him any good thing– not even His attributes, not even His creative ability, not even His capacity to love. As John said, when we are able to truly see Him, we then will be like Him.

29. A lot that I want to share with you . . . But first I need to locate the words to an LDS hymn on eternal marriage that I had read the other day. I would like to comment on this.

30. “O My Father,” perhaps? It’s the only Hymn I think we have on Eternal Marriage except the primary hymn “Families Can Be Together Forever.”

31. Is this the hymn you were looking for?

    O my Father, thou that dwellest
    In the high and glorious place,
    When shall I regain thy presence
    And again behold thy face
    In thy holy habitation,
    Did my spirit once reside?
    In my first primeval childhood,
    Was I nutured near thy side?

    For a wise and glorious purpose
    Thou has placed me here on earth
    And withheld the recollection
    Of my former friends and birth;
    Yet oft-times a secret something
    Whispered, “You’re a stranger here,”
    And I felt that I had wandered
    From a more exalted sphere.

    I had learned to call thee Father,
    Thru thy Spirit from on high,
    But until the key of knowledge
    Was restored, I knew not why.
    In the heav’ns are parents single?
    No, the thought makes reason stare!
    Truth is reason; truth eternal
    Tells me I’ve a mother there.

    When I leave this frail existence,
    When I lay this mortal by,
    Father, Mother, may I meet you
    In your royal courts on high?
    Then, at length, when I’ve completed
    All you sent me forth to do,
    With your mutual approbation
    Let me come and dwell with you.

    Lyrics: Eliza R. Snow, 1804 – 1887.

32. re: #21 – I can see we need to explore more the topic of instant justification in comparison to greater salvation and rewards.

    #22 – How do evangelicals teach from biblical scripture you can be “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and be “blindly condemned” by God?

    #26 – Is Joseph’s translation of the Hebrew word baurau in Genesis wrong in your view?
    Yes. God did not create from eternally existing material. Certainly, God can use materials that He already created for fashioning, but in the beginning, there were no pre-existing materials from what I gather. And God can create today with nothing but just His spoken Word. I’m spell-bound. No other god can do this. I noticed in #28, your big G for God in John 10:33-38. Not good.

    #27 – People have believed that their gods engage in sex before and during the time of writing biblical scripture. I don’t see this doctrine of sex among the gods as something new in revelation for those that are “ready to bear” them.

    And I do think sexuality is good and wonderful. God created it. Just ask my wife, how much I love my physical relationship with her. Wowzzer! 🙂 God is an awesome Creator.

    #28 – None of us can be like God absolutely, because God was never feeble and filthy like us. The Triune God is self-existent. And God exists not to glorify us. We are in the opposite state – completely dependent in ourselves and created solely to glorify God.

    #29-30 – I found the hymn, or more accurate as you mentioned the primary children’s song, “Families Can Be Together Forever”

    Verse 1 – I have a fam’ly here on earth. They are so good to me. I want to share my life with them through all eternity.

    Chorus – Fam’lies can be together forever through Heav’nly Father’s plan. I always want to be with my own family, and the Lord has shown me how I can. The Lord has shown me how I can.

    Verse 2 – While I am in early years, I’ll prepare most carefully, so I can marry in God’s temple for eternity.

    This song teaches children to be eternally marriage-centered rather than God-centered. Heaven is about God not our earthly husbands or wives. One of the brothers in my church family last night told me, “For the first two hundred years in heaven, I am just going to be kneeling at the Savior’s feet.” No other relationships even compare to my relationship to the God-Man. I will be forever insufficient to my wife, Kristie Ann Wood, in this life and the next. Jesus must be everything to her in heaven, not me. Yet where is this communicated in the children’s song?

33. Dear Bro. Blake: You are probably correct in saying that my reading of the 3rd Article of Faith is incomplete and incorrect. But I copied it directly from my copy of the 13 Articles of Faith glued inside the back cover of my Revised version (church printing) of the New Testament in 1959. If it is incomplete, and the church is open to new revelation replacing and expanding them, then memorizing them is a waste.
    Eccelesiastes : There is nothing new under the sun. God sent His son here to earth for His mission to tell us what we needed to know and to be the “propitiation” for our sins. Once and for all. Oh, Who is going to die for the sins of those on your planet when you are exalted? And how are you going to fulfill Brig. Youngs prophesy that you will need 900,000.00 spirit children to enhabit your world? (Journal of Discourses)
    And if procreation is the way this is accomplished, I would say God is a very busy boy. No wonder he doesn’t have time to answer prayers. Which is why self-sufficiency is so important. On the other hand, if as Gen. says God said…then He spoke us into exsistance, out of the nothing, by His power. Yawheh!
    Also, Paul said to be celebut was to be closer to God, but if we must, then marry so we do not sin. Marraige is another gift God gives us, but without it we are closer to Him. Free will- choice. Relationship with the Father.
    The story I was taught as a child was that Satans’ plan to bring Gods’ children home was to require and force them all. Satan thought God would like that. But, God did not. He sent Jesus because Jesus’ plan allowed for free will. So God sent Jesus with a plan to return us home to God by free will. So God, even though a loving God, allowed evil into this world, so He would not force His children to love Him and return to Him. Then Satan got mad and came after us. Being Jesus brother gave him as much power as Jesus, our brother, so we had to stay close to the church to be safe. But, no one taught that Jesus was God in the flesh. Ruler of Heaven and Earth. The great I AM.
    I apologize for my lack of theological basis and understanding.

34. Todd,
    Give me your justification for Joseph Smith’s erronous Hebrew translation. Are you a Hebrew scholar yourself? Or is it because the translation doesn’t fit into the framework of your worldview and religious traditions? I personally believe that God works within the framework of the laws of the universe, not outside of them. The fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but manipulated is not only a scientific fact, but within the framework of Mormon scripture, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes: We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that all is matter” (D&C 131:6-8). “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element insperably connected, receive a fulness of joy. And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy” (D&C 93:29-34)
    The big “G” in John was inadvertant on my part, I assure you. If you notice I did not make the same mistake in the next instance of the word. And in this instance you reveal something which I’ve noticed about you– you have the tendency to “strain your eyes at gnats and swallow camels.” You try to repuidate my point through a mere triviality, while missing the bigger picture. You haven’t debunked the scriptures I’ve quoted in any instance, indeed, as Christ says, you can’t for they “cannot be broken.” You’re right about one thing, however. The thing about Christ is that we will ALWAYS have been dependent upon Him. No matter what ways he exalts us or transforms us, it is HIS power (the power He gained from His Father, upon whom He is dependent upon), that we gain our salvation and exaltation through Him and only Him. He has those keys, He has that power. All Mormons believe this, and yet Evangelicals always try to make us out to think that we somehow earn our way to heaven. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. God did that work. Christ did that work. All we do is obey the small things, the nearly inconsequential things, which he commands, which he requires. They are in now way enough to earn our salvation– that was bought at a much dearer price. But if we can’t at least try to obey Christ, if we can’t at least make some small effort, then we will be like the unwise virgins who were not prepared, believers in Christ all– and he shall say to us, “I know ye not.”
    As to the children’s hymn, again you seem intent to make a man an “offender for a word.” You take this song out of the context of the other primary songs which emphasize Christ again and again, and out of the context of the primary curriculum, which emphasized Christ again and again. It seems to be a favorite treatment of Mormons by Evangelicals– to take statements, songs, scriptures, doctrines or beliefs out of the larger context and give them undue emphasis. For when people bring them into context, the Truth is revealed– that we are a Christ loving and Christ proclaiming people, “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophesies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25: 26). Our children are taught to rely on Christ– they are taught Jesus before any other religious principle.
    If you looked in your own culture, I think you would see perhaps that you are taught too much to rely upon a book, as holy and true as that book is. But it is not through the book, the Word, that you gain your salvation. It is through the Blood. It is through the Atonement. It is through the Cross. It is through the Resurrection. The Book, all the Great Books, all the Scriptures, are but maps, not the destination itself. And I think you will find that Mormon children are taught as well, if not better, than any other children to rely upon Jesus. They are taught to pray, to seek guidance, to find Jesus, to hear His Voice, as the scriptures teach. They are taught to receive revelation– that the Word of God is not only a written Word, but a spoken one. Spoken and etched like holy fire upon the hearts of mankind. Without that voice, we will not understand the language of the Book, we will not be able to translate. The multiple, contradictory interpretations of scripture testify to that. The divisions and contentions within Christianity testify to that. Without prophecy, without personal revelation, we are like sheep who know not the voice of our Shepherd.
    This Pharisee-like feeding on the small, inconsequential twist of words of your neighbor is unholy, Todd– even if those neighbors happen to be such supposedly heretical Mormons. In fact, I feel that way about this whole web site. You are a strong believer in Christ, one of his disciples. You have devoted your life to him. You should know better. But I guess the “hireling,” as we all are, is imperfect, and it will be only Christ that understands us completely. Thus I am relieved that the judment of my soul is in His hands, not yours.
    Proclaim Christ’s Word in your way, but, please, this constant belittling of other Christians just because they believe differently than you is much like how many of the New Testament Jews treated the Samaritans. The Samaritans, too, were considered to have corrupted the “true” Jewish way. They, too, were reviled by the larger religious community in which they lived, as we are. It was the Samaritans who were seen as a hybrid of truth and heresy, as you see us. However, it was the Samaritans whom Christ sided with over the pharisees and it was the Samaritans to which Christ likened himself in the parable. So be careful who you condemn, lest you become like the Pharisees, who knew the scriptures, but were deaf to the Voice of the Son of God.

35. Mahonri, do you believe any God existed before the God of Genesis 1:1? Or is the God of Genesis 1:1 the first God of all?

    Secondly, I have lived here in Southeastern Idaho pretty much all my life. I do realize that the name “Jesus Christ” is on all the religious buildings. And not living under a rock, I don’t think that Jesus Christ or the doctrine of Christology is the major theme talked about Monday through Saturday in the religious culture. Am I wrong on this?

    At BYU-Idaho, do you think I could go to the bookstore and find more academic, college textbooks devoted to Christology than the themes of eternal marriage and family?

    Please don’t take my discussion as harsh. I just become very earnest about truth that I see in scripture.

36. Todd: Mahonri, do you believe any God existed before the God of Genesis 1:1? Or is the God of Genesis 1:1 the first God of all?

    Mahonri: I believe as John tells us, that before Genesis 1:1 that Jesus existed with the Father, at least. The Hebrew word for God– Elohim– in the Genesis account also denotes a plurality, so there are at least two. In verse 26 of Genesis chapter one there is also the word “our” which Elohim refers to himself, themselves, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” So just from the Bible, there is this sense that God is not the only being in creation before Genesis (not to mention the fact that the earth is a much younger creation than a great deal of the universe). But beyond that, I also believe in the modern revelations of Christ to his prophets, such as this, “God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; Which our forefathers have waited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one god or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to dry land, or to sun, moon or stars– All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times– According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before the world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest” (D&C 121:26-32).
    So, again, I have no problem believing that there were gods, under God, before the account of Genesis. Most of what you find Mormons believing considering this subject, I have no problem with, for I fully expect such to be the case when I find myself in the arms of Jesus.

37. Todd: Secondly, I have lived here in Southeastern Idaho pretty much all my life. I do realize that the name “Jesus Christ” is on all the religious buildings. And not living under a rock, I don’t think that Jesus Christ or the doctrine of Christology is the major theme talked about Monday through Saturday in the religious culture. Am I wrong on this?

    Todd: Yes, you are wrong on that. As far as religious principles and culture, Christ is the center– any Mormon will tell you that. However, like any other culture– Evangelical, Methodist, Jewish, or Atheist– religion isn’t the only thing upon our lips. I’d be lying if I said otherwise. Mormons talk about politics, movies, music, business, art, literature, ideas, the weather and American Idol, like everybody else. Do you believe that your Evangelical culture does otherwise, that every word from their lips connects directly to Christ? For you’re straining credibility, if you’re claiming that. For one thing I know you talk about, a certain fixation of your culture which does not directly bear upon the atonement of our Savior, is that you talk about “cults.” You have an ugly strain of anti-Mormon, anti-Seventh Day Adventist, anti-Jehovah’s Witness talk that I find unholy and offensive. I had to endure such talk all throughout my mission, and when it was brought up by members of your culture, it was not brought up in the Spirit of love, I assure you.
    When Mormons talk religiously, Christ certainly does infiltrate the body of the conversation, whether the direct subject or the implied one. You see, whether the subject is the Atonement, the Book of Mormon, eternal families, charity, the resurrection, personal revelation, the Bible– those are all principles we believe we received from Christ, so I find no problem in discussing any of them, for then we are dwelling upon the Words of Christ. And I would find the same to be said of Evangelicals– whether they are discussing abortion, homosexuality, Old Testament prophets, their individual salvation, Paul, the creation, Grace vs. works, whether they can vote for a Mormon for president or not– it all ties back to their belief in Christ, whether Christ is the direct subject or not. And if you’ve attended a good number of Mormon testimony meetings or Church services, you’ll find that many things are referenced– the Atonement, mercy, forgiveness, scriptures, church history, families, a myriad of other Gospel principles– but the underlining source and inspiration and love comes from Christ, and it is His name I hear the most invoked, it his image found in most Mormon artwork hanging up in their homes, it is His name they have written upon their hearts as the Author of their salvation.
    But if you’re looking for the Christology of Mormonism directly, I suggest you look towards the Book of Mormon. An exercise that I have found helpful in the past is to read the Book of Mormon with a pen or a red pencil and to circle the name of Christ (or his various other names, such a Messiah, God, Jehovah, etc.) every time it occurs. If the massive amount of times our Savior is referenced in “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ” does not convince you of Christ’s central place in our religion, then I don’t know what will convince you (oh, by the way, you’ll be hard placed to find a reference to eternal families in The Book of Mormon).

    Todd: At BYU-Idaho, do you think I could go to the bookstore and find more academic, college textbooks devoted to Christology than the themes of eternal marriage and family?

    Mahonri: Well, first of all, BYU-Idaho doesn’t have a divinity school (since the LDS Church doesn’t have a paid clergy), while they do have a program in family and human development, so this isn’t exactly a fair comparison. And since it IS a University, I’m actually pretty sure you’ll find more books on math, science, Literature and other secular subjects like that, than on either or the aforementioned subjects. Perhaps a Deseret Book would be a more apt example, which I know has plenty of devotional material bearing directly upon or stemming from the doctrine and reality of our living Savior (one of my favorites being “Believing Christ”)– much more than focusing solely on eternal families. Oh, by the way, walking into one of your bookstores, how many books will I find under the heading of “cults?” You’ll certainly be hard pressed to find an anti-Evangelical or an anti-Catholic book at Deseret Book or Seagull, I assure you (although you’ll find plenty of copies of works like “Mere Christianity,” Lord of the Rings, Fox Faith films, and the Chronicles of Narnia).

    Todd: Please don’t take my discussion as harsh. I just become very earnest about truth that I see in scripture.

    Mahonri: While being very disrespectful of anybody else’s faith that doesn’t match up with your personal brand of Christianity. You don’t seem to realize that the majority of Mormon doctrine has at least glancing references in the Bible– be it baptisms for the dead, “celestial and terrestial” ressurection, eternal marriage, pre-existence, “ye are gods,” the Godhead being separate beings, the value of works in conjunction with Grace as found in James and the words of Chirst, etc. You may not agree with our interpretation of scripture, as we often don’t agree with yours, but IT’S THERE. So in no way do our beliefs derive from a disrespect or unbelief in the “Word,” as you always seem to imply.
    But again, you’ll find the same problem of different interpretation with the Catholics, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans. But somehow you don’t seem to target them like you do us.
    However, I’m beginning to realize the pointlessness of my discussions here with you. The whole point of this website is to tear down Mormonism. The whole point is to try to tear apart my faith. Instead of establishing a website that simply proclaims Christ and his Gospel, inviting people to partake of His Love, which I think would be a much more productive use of this space, you’ve created a digital Crusade focused on destroying people’s faith instead of building it up. You’ve made yourself a modern Knight Templar, out to put down the heathens. That sort of attitude creates hate, not love, within your followers.
    I think that modern Christians would do well to remember the words of the Jewish Gamaliel about the ancient Christians, when Christ’s new work arose in that age, “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5: 38-39). If we are false, as you say, we’ll come to nought. If we are true, then God is on our side and this website will accomplish nothing in His wake.
    There have been many negative and horrible things done when people exalt themselves of judges over another people and when they become “very earnest about truth that [they] see in scripture.” Anti-semitism, racism, and the whole organization of the Ku Klux Klan have risen with very similar justifications.
    Which brings me to my own involvement in this discussion. I believe I’ve wasted my time here, since you seem bent on accomplishing your agenda, not in engaging in a give and take search for truth. My wife have been studying the epistles of Paul and then the Teachings of Joseph Smith every night and I stumbled upon this quote by Joseph Smith, “I made the following remarks: that the time that we were required to tarry in Kirtland to be endowed, would be fulfilled in a few days, and then the Elders would go forth, and each must stand for himself, as it was not necessary for them to be sent out, two by two, as in former times, but to go in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 108). Thus this will be one of my last replies here. I may reply once or twice more, if you wish to make some final points, but this is near the end of the road for me.
    Todd, although I don’t admire your subtle hate speech, I admire your devotion to Christ. I hope that the latter will bear out in the end.

38. I just pulled back into town. No internet for the last several days. Just been hanging out with family. Here are some quick thoughts before I pop on next week again.

    First, Mahonri, I hope you had a nice time with your family over the fourth.

    I assure you that this website is called “Heart Issues for LDS” because of my living and breathing in Ammon, Idaho. LDS are my community. Who else is in Ammon? And yes, there are a lot of things that I want to talk about . . . difficult, core tenents to our faiths.

    If I lived elsewhere, it would probably be different. Concerning traditional Christianity, I have been writing “Issues of the Heart” posts to Christians for over five years. So please don’t take offense over my selectiveness. I could just as easy write “Heart Issues for _______” and pop in any religion or denomination (including Baptists 🙂 ). And no, the contemporary evangelical movement is not “Christ-centered”. May God in his mercy restore the corrupt evangelicalism in America. But I don’t know if God will.

    And may God help me in the daily battle with my own sinful desires. My own self-centeredness is my worst enemy, by far.

    Now, this is a new one for me. It has never been verbalized before on HI4LDS . . . respect for my love to Christ . . . and yet adversion to my “subtle hate speech”. This is an interesting combination.

    Four questions before I check out . . .

    1. Mahonri, what do I hate? Have you ever been labelled with “hate speech”?

    2. What should I hate?

    3. Actually, can hate and love go together?

    Thanks,
    et

39. I am an LDS person first off. I have studied the doctrine of other religions, though, and could find nothing close to what I had experienced on a spiritual level while in an LDS meeting.
    There are a couple of of points I would like ot make, though.
    1. While reading one of the discusions I happened to stumble on the Baptisms for the Dead section. I would like to explain what that is. First if you will look in 1 Corinthians CH 15 somewhere in the middle it says that “Why are the dead baptised if they rise not at all.” What Paul was saying there is that if the dead are going to live again then they must be baptized to come to the earth. The reason that the ordinance was not performed earlier is that Christ had not opened the gates into Spirit prision or Hell so there was no need.
    2. Also in 1 Corithians 15 it explians the Terestrail and Celestial. That should kind of clear it up. If you would like to learn more President Joseph Fielding Smith, an LDS prophet put out a book called “Answers to Gospel Questions” it answers questions about Christianity and Mormon doctrine. It might help you out.