For LDS, who is Jesus in his incarnation?
As many of you know, I like getting out into the streets to sample the LDS perspectives on doctrine. I enjoy talking with all levels of people in neighborhoods. General Authorities can add one perspective. LDS scholars can supplement another. And LDS friends via internet provide even a third thread. But there is no substitute for taking the pulse of what is on the streets (isn’t this true, young elders?), where the heart of LDS religion abides.
This survey is rooted in John 6.
Here were my two questions: 1) Do you think the claims by Jesus in John 6, “I came down from heaven,” imply that Jesus is God? 2) Do you think others preexisted and came down from heaven like Jesus?
I knocked on 85 doors this week, leaving John’s Gospel and my HI4LDS business card at every door; and I listened to almost 50 responses by neighbors. Six of these neighbors immediately expressed they were not interested in the conversation after I introduced myself, but the rest were very friendly. One young husband, who recently served his two year mission in Anaheim, California, offered sympathy to me in my “proselytizing” in the middle of winter. He was a nice guy, soon relocating his family to Provo for employment at BYU.
The first question: Eight people said this teaching in John 6 implied Jesus is God (Deity). Six people said they didn’t know. But the majority (28 people) proclaimed this Christmas an emphatic, “No.” You may call him the Son, literally the Son of God, half-god, godly, on the way to becoming god, sort of like God, but not God. One LDS neighbor said, “God created him [Jesus] to teach us the commandments.”
The second question: Only five people said “No” out of almost the fifty whom I spoke with this week. Four said they were unsure. Thirty-three individuals said, “Yes, of course, we all preexisted.”
One particular response: One active, fervent LDS neighbor told me that Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of the Father who died for our sins on this earth. He explained to me that we, too, can become like the Father, where we may produce our own spirit children on a world we create. He said that in all likelihood, his firstborn would probably do something similar to what Jesus did on this earth.
Whoaaaa! Are there any LDS scriptures or modern prophetical utterances that prevent the blasphemy of this logic?
Conclusion: Let me finish with some popular LDS reading on the topic of Jesus. This is taken from Brother Paul’s Mormon Bathroom Reader (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Inc., Nov. 2005) by Paul B. Skousen.
In seeking to expose the myth that Jesus was half god and half man, Paul writes,
Christians for centuries have defined Jesus as being part god and having godly powers born into him because of who His father was. A few Latter-day Saints embrace the same idea to explain how Jesus could atone for the sins of the world, something they believe that no mortal could otherwise do. . .
This myth is tough to expunge from some people’s understanding because it appears to offer simple answers and solutions to the difficult task laid before Jesus. Atoning for the sins of the world is at a minimum fantastically daunting and it’s impossible to imagine that a mere mortal could execute the assignment with any degree of adequacy.
Facts:
Jesus never taught He was endowed with godly powers, nor did He exercise any miraculous power on any other basis than what He said all people have access to—humble faith and obedience to Heavenly Father’s wishes and commands from which comes priesthood authorization to do Father’s work in the earth.
Jesus never claimed He was more than a mortal while in the flesh, though He openly declared his lineage. To link special powers to lineage is like saying the son born to a bishop arrives on Earth as part bishop. There’s a lineage of father to son, but no inherited power, responsibility or keys. The same is true of Jesus, although He came with an important assignment.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never taught that Jesus skirted this mortal existence with a body gifted with supernatural powers. His was the same priesthood power given all worthy men; He had no supernatural advantage for the atonement.
Brigham Young dedicated the largest portion of a lecture on christiandom’s notion of a half-god/half-man, and dismissed it with the analogy of the mule, it being half horse and half ass, a non-specie that was, he opined, “The most hateful creature that was ever made.” Said he, “The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.” (J of D, vol. 4, pg. 216-218)
Jesus came to conquer death and conquer the flesh. He lived a sinless life. His eternal token of honor is that He did what no other person could do—make it through the second estate unscathed by sin and corruption.
Jesus took on His tabernacle of clay, just as we did, and conquered it, something He says we can all do if we’ll but try. Bottom line: Jesus couldn’t conquer the flesh unless He was flesh (183-184).
Could these answers by Paul be accurately used to help Fox News with their questions this Christmas? They are interesting answers, but they contradict the gospel accounts.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd, interesting survey. In interpreting your responses it might be beneficial to consider a few points. I will respond to question two first. Since LDS believe that all men and women have a pre-mortal existence and they existed with God then a natural response to your question is that all men and women come from heaven. In a sense, the LDS salvation narrative has a focus on “returning” to God which in my view is a unique perspective, but one which LDS would find articulated in Eccl 12:7 for example: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” I’m not arguing that this proves the pre-existence but I am simply illustrating one reason why this doesn’t seem odd from a Latter-day Saint perspective and why you received such responses. Some of the responses are thus based on this salvation narrative or what John Bracht calls the “Mormon meta-narrative.” Thus, to ask “do you think others pre-existed?” of Latter-day Saints should elicit a yes response. However, adding the phrase “and came down from heaven like Jesus?” should require more explanation. If by “like Jesus” you mean born in a miraculous manner with the mother overshadowed by the Holy Spirit as in the case of Jesus, then the answer should be no, since I am not aware of any other individual who was conceived in this manner. In addition, Christ was sent to atone for the sins of the world, no one else was sent for this purpose, so in that respect the answer should be no. In the specific context of John 6, it is clear that the audience of Jesus did not understand him to be saying something which applies universally due to their reaction in verse 42. The phrase “down from heaven” is a specific phrase in the scriptures (including LDS scriptures) which is used reserved exclusively for God and angels.
As to your first question, to explain in Evangelical terms, LDS often think of the term ‘God’ as referring to the first person of the Trinity, or God the Father. Thus, if you ask “Is Jesus God?” some LDS might interpret that to mean, “Is the Father the Son?” or in Evangelical terms, it would be like asking, “Is the second person of the Trinity the first person of the Trinity?” The natural response to this would be to clarify that Jesus is not the first person of the Trinity but the second person of the Trinity, that is to say, Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. However, you should not take this statement to mean that LDS deny the divinity of Christ, but only a concern for the proper identification among the divine persons. If you ask Latter-day Saints whether Jesus is the Son of God, then you will get an affirmative answer. So, again, here it depends on how you phrase the question. Specifically regarding John 6, it is clear Jesus is claiming to be divine, the bread of life from heaven, but here too he isn’t claiming to be the Father since he says he is sent from the Father. Thus, it is possible that those who said they “didn’t know” meant they didn’t know whether Jesus in John 6 is claiming to be God the Father, not whether he was divine at all.
My view is that clearly Jesus is God, he is divine and he is not “becoming” God but was God from before the incarnation. The reason LDS sometimes focus on “becoming” can be found in passages such as Luke 2:52 “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” In this verse, we see Jesus increasing in wisdom. However, even in the LDS salvation narrative, no one else was the Savior of mankind, only the Son of God, who was already God before he was incarnated. The Christology of the Book of Mormon is clear that Jesus Christ is God before the incarnation; the Nephite prophet Abinadi is quite clear on this point.
As to Paul B. Skousen’s book, which I have not read and I am relying only on your quotation, I would say his words stems from a misunderstanding of how Christians defined Jesus for centuries. I see very little evidence that Jesus was defined as “half-god half-man.” Christianity has articulated that Christ is both “fully God and fully man,” not half of each. So I don’t know which Christian dogma Skousen is trying to contrast since I am not aware of any which teaches Christ is half-god and half-man. It is most likely based upon a misunderstanding of the hypostatic union or dual nature of Christ doctrine.
However, what Skousen could be trying to refute is the notion that because Christ was divine his sufferings were not real. Since he was divine he could overcome pain and sickness and thus his mortal experience was utterly different from ours. He didn’t feel pain as we feel pain because he was God. Here too, I am not sure of any group of Christians who teach this view, but I do feel Skousen could be attempting to refute such a view. Thus, Skousen appears to be refuting the view that mortality wasn’t really a challenge, trial or struggle for Christ, and since he was divine it was rather easy for him and he didn’t really have to put forth any effort and never had to worry about struggling or pain. Therefore, I think these words of Skousen should be understood in the context of trying to counter such a view and affirm that Christ’s mortal experience was real.
The humanity of Christ is just as important as the divinity of Christ. The Gospel of Luke for example, goes through great pains to emphasize the humanity of Jesus. Luke includes a birth narrative (John does not). Jesus sweats as it were drops of blood. Jesus even eats after the resurrection. All of these things highlight that Christ came in the flesh. Skousen’s view, I believe, should best be understood as trying to value the humanity of Christ and his mortal experience. A more charitable reading of this quote from Skousen is to understand this as speaking out against a Docetic Christology.
That being said, I would not choose to explain things in the same manner as Skousen. I would highlight that Christ is God and while we all possess a tabernacle of flesh, we didn’t do so just as Christ did since he is the only begotten and I am not. In addition, Christ is God incarnate and I am not. Christ is the Savior and I am not. Christ had the power to lay down his life and to take it up again, and I do not.
Aquinas, again your comment is well-informed. Thanks.
And as I hope to be kind, I think you and Skousen differ from each other on the nature of Jesus’ divinity as he lived on this earth.
Last night, I read a quote by Talmadge on Jesus’ Deity. It is sitting at home.
Let me find it for I am curious as to your response.
Here it is:
Christ: “He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New.”
– James E. Talmage, IE, 36:39 (one of the leading expositors for LDS scriptures)
I am thinking of what Blake just told me recently about Yahweh. Aquinas, would you so boldly say Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament?
Aquinas said: The phrase “down from heaven” is a specific phrase in the scriptures (including LDS scriptures) which is used reserved exclusively for God and angels.
Interesting. Have LDS prophets made this distinction?
On comment 3, I am wondering who you would say in the O.T. is Yahweh? In other words, is Jesus Yahweh or just a lesser representation of Yahweh?