|
One of the key
developments of late that has caused many to question the
validity of at least some of the evangelicals who spoke in
the LDS Tabernacle in Salt Lake City has to do with the fact
that some, such as Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, have
chosen, whether out of ignorance or hubris, to attack all of
those who have ministered in proclaiming the gospel to
Mormons for years and indeed decades. His comments in the
Tabernacle were not only an implicit endorsement of the
defensive posture of FARMS and others (can you hear them
rejoicing?), but a blanket condemnation of anyone who would
approach Mormonism as a false religion that condemns its
followers with a false God, a false Christ, and a false
gospel.
For the sake of context and for those who have not been
following the discussion, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller
Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (yes, I
graduated from Fuller in 1989 with an M.A. in Theology) was
one of those who spoke in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake
City recently. His comments were brief, but have set
off a firestorm of response simply because he chose to
follow the path laid out by Mosser and Owen: make friends
with the Mormon leadership by shooting in the head all those
who have ministered to Mormons for years before you.
It is evidently a successful strategy. Here is the key
section of his comments:
On a personal level, over the past
half-dozen years I have been a member of a small group
of evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy
closed-door discussions about spiritual and theological
matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. We
have not been afraid to argue strenuously with each
other, but our arguments have been conducted in a
sincere desire genuinely to understand each other-and in
the process we have formed some deep bonds of
friendship. I know that I have learned much in this
continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we
evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the
beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed,
let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this
evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the
Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to
bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have
been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we
have said about you. We have told you what you believe
without making a sincere effort first of all to ask
you what you believe. We have made much of the need to
provide you with a strong defense of traditional
Christian convictions, regularly quoting the Apostle
Peter's mandate that we present to people like you a
reasoned account of the hope that lies with in us-but we
have not been careful to follow the same Apostle's
counsel that immediately follows that mandate, when he
tells us that we must always make our case with
"gentleness and reverence" toward those with whom we are
speaking. Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized
you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS
community is "really" trying to accomplish in the world.
And even at our best, we have-and this is true of both
of our communities-we have talked past each other,
setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of
what the other group believes.
Now, of course,
the question is, who is the "we" for whom Mouw assumes to
speak? It surely is not me, nor fine folks like Jerald
and Sandra Tanner, or Bill McKeever. So who is it?
Well, there surely have been those who have weaved
conspiracy theories into their books. I have been
openly and consistently critical of the excesses found in
such books as God Makers II. I have criticized the
sensationalism of many works produced on the subject of
Mormonism, and have refused to engage in such behavior in
the writing and publishing of two books on the subject, and
in public debates with LDS apologists. But it seems
clear that Mouw has fallen into the same trap that ensnared
Dr. Blomberg not so long ago: that of thinking that LDS
scholars at BYU define Mormonism. And because of this
very narrow exposure to a very narrow spectrum of LDS
belief, Mouw has denounced many who have a thousand times
his experience and knowledge of Mormonism as having
dishonestly misrepresented the Mormon people. Excuse
us, please, if we point out that it is Dr. Mouw who owes the
apologies here.
Nowhere does this come out more
clearly than in a response Mouw
has written in his own defense given the furor over his
comments in the Tabernacle. Here we find a situation where,
if LDS apologists are honest and open and above board, they
will have to confess that it is Mouw who is ignorant of LDS
theology and who is, in fact, operating on a very narrow,
non-mainline foundation. Here we see, clearly, the result
of ignoring the prophets and apostles and going on the basis
of BYU professors as the definitive voice of Mormonism (a
mistake being made by a number involved in the
Johnson/Millet group). [N.B.: there is no question that the
views of BYU and other scholars are important in looking
ahead to developments in LDS theology: but BYU professors
are not General Authorities, and it is simply ridiculous to
ignore Salt Lake's own assertions regarding what is, and
what is not, authoritative so as to pick and choose what you
will and will not allow to be "orthodox" Mormonism]. In
trying to give examples of how evangelicals have "lied"
about Mormons, he cites over-simplification in Walter
Martin's writings, and then specifically names Dave Hunt as
well. And then he writes,
On a more
technical point, I have received emails in the past few
days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches
that God was once a human being like us, and we can
become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have
specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated
by past leaders, is something they don't understand and
has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.
Bob Millet has made the same point to many of us, and
Stephen Robinson insisted, in the book he co-authored
with Craig Blomberg, that this is not an official Mormon
teaching, even though it can be found in non-canonical
Mormon writings. The Ostlings, in their book on
Mormonism, reported that Mormon leaders insist that the
idea that God is omnipotent, omniscience-and much unlike
what we are or could ever be-is more accurate than the
simple notion that we are all becoming gods like God the
Father is. A number of LDS writers have been formulating
the "becoming God" theme in terms that are common in
Eastern Orthodoxy: that "we shall be like Him" in the
sense of I John, but that we will never be Him.
Are there Mormons
who today are embarrassed by the unified, consistent
teaching of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the LDS
leadership all the way through Bruce R. McConkie on the
topic of God's status as an exalted man? Yes, there are.
Is there the slightest question that it is official LDS
theology that God was once a human being like us, and that
we can become gods just like God now is? Most assuredly
not. Mouw seems to believe Stephen Robinson and Bob Millet
are the new Academic Prophets of Mormonism. I am sure
Richard Mouw has been far too busy over the years to talk to
literally thousands of believing LDS all over the
Southwestern United States. But if he had done so, he would
be in a far better position to speak to these issues. His
very limited exposure has led him into clear and easily
documented error.
I provided 76 pages of original source documentation on
the LDS doctrine of God in my 1997 work, Is the Mormon My
Brother? Unlike Dr. Mouw, I took the time to order the
material in light of the official teachings of the LDS
Church regarding their own view of authority, Scripture, and
revelation (for some reason, BYU did not appear as an organ
of revelation in their own writings). It is one of the most
amazing displays of ignorance of primary sources I've seen
for Dr. Mouw to make the claim that the "eternal law of
progression," the concept that man is the same species as
God (those are the words of Stephen Robinson in the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:548-550), the idea of
progression and advancement, "has no functioning place in
present day Mormon doctrine." Such a statement should, if
they would be willing to speak the truth, elicit a torrent
of counter-documentation from LDS themselves, for their
writings are filled with the centrality of this belief, not
just historically, but today as well. Mouw does not
understand the Temple, its rituals and its purpose. His
knowledge is based solely upon his interaction with
individual Mormons who represent the bleeding edge of
Mormonism's scholarship, a group of people intent upon
seeing Mormonism accepted in the "mainstream," and as such,
not currently representative of the vast majority of
believing, practicing, temple-going Latter-day Saints. Some
believe that they represent the future of Mormonism. Maybe
so. We, like the god of the Open Theists, cannot say. But
that is hardly relevant to Mouw's denunciation of the many
ministries and ministers who have given so much over the
years to present the gospel to the LDS people, for we cannot
be held accountable for representing a Mormonism that does
not yet exist! Mouw claimed that "we" have lied about the
Mormons, and the example he provides in reality demonstrates
that it is he, not "we," who is misrepresenting the official
teachings of the LDS Church, and that based upon his
conclusion that BYU professors, not the General Authorities
of the LDS Church past and present, define Mormonism.
From 1992 to 2001 the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints printed and published under the copyright
of the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints a Student Manual titled Achieving a
Celestial Marriage. This manual was used to introduce
LDS to the concept of celestial marriage, its importance,
and indeed, its centrality, to the LDS concept of a godly
and proper life. It is beyond the realm of possibility that
either Robinson or Millet could be ignorant of its
existence. Surely, a student manual produced by the LDS
leadership for the teachings of its own members regarding
the central act of celestial marriage qualifies as having a
"functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine" (even if
some at BYU don't think so). And what do we read in this
manual? The beginning of the work says it all:
God was
once a man who, by obedience, advanced to his present
state of perfection; through obedience and celestial
marriage we may progress to the point where we become
like God.
Proclaiming
the divine potential within man, John Taylor once wrote,
“Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck
from the fire of His eternal blaze, and brought forth in
the midst of everlasting burnings.” (The Mormon,
29 Aug. 1857). Elder B.H. Roberts stated, “Man has
descended from God; in fact, he is the same race as the
Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of
life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words,
man is, in the most literal sense, a Child of God. This
is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body
also.” (Course of Study for Priests, 1910, p.
35). Can you see the implications of these two
statements as they relate to you and to your eternal
destiny? Elder James E. Talmage did. He declared, “…in
his mortal condition man is God in embryo. However….any
individual now a mortal being may attain the rank and
sanctity of godship….” (Articles of Faith, p.
529). How is this possible? What course of action will
bring this potential to fruition? As you study this
lesson, look for the answers to these questions.
POINTS TO
PONDER
God Became
God by Obedience to Law
It was late
afternoon as we sat in my office, but I felt the time
had been well spent. He sat silently now, obviously
contemplating the ramifications of the things we had
been discussing. We had talked of God, of how he had
become God, and of what that meant in terms of our own
exaltation. Finally he spoke.
"What is this
law of exaltation of which you keep speaking?"
"Well, it
involves the whole of the gospel law. Everything
required of us by God is associated with this law, but
the major crowning point of the law which man must obey
is eternal marriage. Therein lies the keys of eternal
life, or, as the Doctrine and Covenants puts it,
'eternal lives.' In other words, an eternal increase of
posterity."
"Then what
you're saying is that God became God by obedience to the
gospel program, which culminates in eternal marriage."
Through
Obedience to Law We Can Become Like Our Father in Heaven
"Yes. Do you
realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you
are concerned?"
"I think so.
If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law
with the crowning point being the celestial law of
marriage, then that's the only way I can become a god."
"Right. And
it is the law that assists us in reaching that
potential. It tells us what we must do to gain the
ultimate freedom. In fact, it is by obedience to law
that we have progressed to our present position."
"You mean we
have always been governed by law?"
"Always. You
are an eternal being. You were never created and you
cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, progress, and
develop by obedience.
"Then
Hamlet's question 'to be or not to be?' is not the
question?”
"Right, not
in the ultimate sense, at least. Order means law, and
that law is the law of the celestial kingdom. Any who
come unto that kingdom must obey that law. (See D&C
88:24-29.)"
"But I
thought godhood meant freedom. If I have to do things
to become God, am I really free?"
"You have got
it wrong. It was the Savior who said, 'If ye continue
in my word,' that is, obey the law, 'ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John
8:31,32.) So by obedience to law, we learn truths by
which we become free -- but not free from the law. Can
you see that?"
"I think so.
I can be a god only if I act like God."
"Exactly
right. Can you imagine the state of the universe if
imperfect gods were allowed to spawn their imperfections
throughout space, if beings who did not have law under
their subjection were free to create worlds?"
"I guess that
would be pretty disastrous. But I'm not sure I see why
celestial marriage becomes the crowning apex of this
progression. Marriage doesn't seem directly related to
the creation of the universes."
"Oh, but
don't be limited by your mortal perspective. God
himself has declared his own reasons for existing.
Remember, he said, 'For this is my work and my
glory....' "
"I see his
purpose is 'to bring to pass the immortality and eternal
life of man.' " (Moses 1:39).
"Which
involves giving birth to spirit children and setting
them on the road to exaltation. And if that is to be
done, you must have an exalted man and..."
"An exalted
woman."
"Exactly, an
exalted man and woman who have been joined together in
an eternal marriage. If this man and woman were
obedient to all gospel laws except celestial marriage,
what would be the result?"
"They still
could not be gods. Now I understand. Celestial
marriage is the crowning ordinance of the gospel."
"Right," I
said with a smile. "And with that comment I think we
can end the discussion."
One hardly need
expand upon such statements, but some others in the work
include:
The gospel of
Jesus Christ teaches that man is an eternal being, made
in the image and likeness of God. It also holds that man
is a literal child of God and has the potential, if
faithful to divine laws and ordinances, of becoming like
his heavenly parent. These truths are generally well
understood by Latter-day Saints....Less well understood,
however, is the fact that God is an exalted man who once
lived on an earth and underwent experiences of
mortality. The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as
“the great secret.” (Times and Seasons 5:613 [15
Aug. 1844]. See also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345.) The progression of
our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was
strictly in accordance with eternal principles, “for he
who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom
cannot abide a celestial glory.” (D&C 88:22.)...By
definition, exaltation includes the ability to procreate
the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in
heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our
mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to
them in the bonds of celestial marriage.
The Lord would have all his children attain exaltation,
but men must have their agency. Only those who subscribe
by ordinance and by faithful adherence to covenant are
worthy of “a continuation of the seeds forever and
ever.” (D&C 132:19.)
This section is
followed by one titled “God was once a mortal man,” and
again, we find the LDS Church falling back, not upon her
Scriptures to teach her people, but the King Follett Funeral
Discourse. Subtitles include “He Lived on an Earth Like Our
Own” and “He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and
Advanced Step by Step.” This is followed by another
section, “God is Now an Exalted Man with Powers of Eternal
Increase,” with a subtitle, “Our Father in Heaven Lives in
an Exalted Marriage Relationship.” Under this section
Melvin J. Ballard is quoted:
No matter to
what heights God has attained or may attain, he does not
stand alone: for side by side with him, in all her
glory, a glory like unto his, stands a companion, the
Mother of his children. For as we have a Father in
heaven, so also we have a Mother there, a glorified,
exalted, ennobled Mother." (Melvin J. Ballard, as quoted
in Bryant S. Hinckley, Sermons and Missionary
Services of Melvin J. Ballard, pp. 205-6.)
Now, again, it is
not necessary, for those who have studied the writings of
the LDS leadership, to belabor the point. Those who know
Mormonism know how vitally central to LDS theology the
entire concept of progression and exaltation is. Just one
other quote, this time from one of the sources Mouw relied
upon, Stephen Robinson, from the above cited article in the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
The Father,
Elohim, is called the Father because he is the literal
father of the spirits of mortals (Heb. 12:9). This
paternity is not allegorical. All individual human
spirits were begotten (not created from nothing or made)
by the Father in a premortal state, where they lived and
were nurtured by Heavenly Parents. These spirit children
of the Father come to earth to receive mortal bodies;
there is a literal family relationship among humankind.
Joseph Smith taught, “If men do not comprehend the
character of God, they do not comprehend themselves” (TPJS,
p. 343). Gods and humans represent a single divine
lineage, the same species of being, although they and he
are at different stages of progress. This doctrine is
stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President
Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: as God now
is, man may be” (see Godhood). . . . The
important points of the doctrine for Latter-day Saints
are that Gods and humans are the same species of being,
but at different stages of development in a divine
continuum, and that the heavenly Father and Mother are
the heavenly pattern, model, and example of what mortals
can become through obedience to the gospel (see
Mother in Heaven).
Finally, Mouw notes the use of terms like "omniscient" and
"omnipresent" in the writings of LDS scholars today.
Once again, even a few meetings with the faithful of
Mormonism would have helped him to understand that Mormons
use our terminology without adopting our meaning. When
a Mormon speaks of "eternal lives" they are speaking of
God's power of procreation---a far cry from what an
evangelical means when we speak of "eternal life." And
the careful reader of the above citation from Achieving a
Celestial Marriage will note the presence of the term
"universes," rather than our normal "universe." When
it comes to omniscience, possibly Stephen Robinson could
have explained to Mouw his use of the term in The
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, where, after stating that
"Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in
the most literal, anthropomorphic terms" (2:548) he wrote,
"Latter-day Saints also attribute omnipotence and
omniscience to the Father. He knows all things
relative to the universe in which mortals live and is
himself the source and possessor of all true power manifest
in it. This is part of what it means to be exalted,
and this is why human beings may safely put their faith and
trust in God the Father, an exalted being" (2:549).
Does Mouw really wish to suggest that omniscience of a
limited category (this particular universe over which Elohim
rules, but not all universes where the multitude of
previously exalted LDS gods rule) is parallel to Christian
belief in omniscience?
Mouw's statements
are unscholarly because, ironically, they represent the view
of so much of the "academy" today. The irony is that many
in academia today consider apologetics beneath them. They
view it as an unscholarly arena that anyone can master in a
brief period of time. What is there really to know about
Mormonism anyway? Who needs to read all those dusty books?
The BoM is hardly worth the time of a true scholar to
study! Read the Ensign? Stand upon a street corner
and dialogue with LDS missionaries? There are ETS papers to
prepare and inter-faith dialogues to promote! All one must
do is have lunch with some colleagues (please note the
term!) from BYU and you will be up to speed in no time! So, a
methodology that would be dismissed instantly in any other
field (personal anecdotes as a foundation for determining
the theology of a religion rather than the published
statements of the official leadership) is utilized here
because, as all true academics know, apologetics does not
require work and study over time. It is not like being a
New Testament scholar or something really challenging like
that!
Let's make sure we are very clear on what has taken
place here. A rather liberal evangelical scholar, president
of a rather liberal evangelical seminary, has become
acquainted with some rather liberal (in the LDS spectrum of
things) LDS scholars. As a result of this interaction, he
has joined other evangelicals in speaking in the LDS
tabernacle (a truly unusual opportunity, to be sure).
Despite having little or no first hand knowledge of LDS
theology proper, let alone knowledge gained from the
practical interaction that comes with doing apologetics on a
regular basis over time, Dr. Mouw has chosen to denigrate,
based upon his own ignorance of the issue, all of those who
have sacrificed and ministered in the preceding years and
decades to seek to bring the gospel to that very same city
and to the very audience to whom he was speaking. In doing
so, he did inestimable damage, but primarily to those
Mormons who will not hear a clarion call to believe because
those who would have been used to deliver it are so
discouraged they do not make the effort any longer, or,
because those LDS involved in seeking to hinder the
proclamation of the gospel to the Mormons use his comments
(as they have used so many evangelicals over the past few
years, either willingly or deceptively) to create another
barrier to the truth.
Now, I need to mention at this point that many
of the evangelicals who have aided the Mormons in blunting
the call to repentance and faith insist that the beliefs of
the bleeding edge of liberal Mormon scholarship are, in
fact, the future of Mormonism, and that given the changes we
have seen in emphasis and approach in the past three decades
or so, we should no longer see the General Authorities as
defining Mormonism, but the left wing of BYU. We surely
have seen major changes in Mormonism's marketing of itself
over the past decades. Its growth has slowed, and many see
some real weakness in a closer look at the numbers. The
missionary approach has changed as well. Mormonism's core
is extremely susceptible to post-modernism and we may well
be seeing the result. We do not know where Mormonism is
going to end up in thirty or forty years. All of these
things are quite true, but they also have precious little to
do with the current situation in regard to Mouw's
statements. He "apologized" for what has taken place in the
past. He gave as an example the accurate, proper
presentation of the past and current LDS doctrine of God,
derived from LDS sources. If Mormonism someday adopts a
different view of God (to its epistemological destruction),
then it will be necessary to accurately represent that new
view. But this has not yet happened. So, in the past, it
has not been Richard Mouw who has accurately represented LDS
beliefs, but myself and the Tanners and Bill McKeever and
everyone else who has labored for decades to bring the
message of Christ to the Mormons. We cannot be held
accountable to represent a Mormonism that does not yet
exist: we can only speak to what is officially taught now,
and that by those who are the representatives of their
religion (not by our choosing, but by the choice of the LDS
Church itself). I will thank Dr. Mouw to apologize to the
LDS people for himself, not for those of us who have taken
the time to actually study the writings of the leaders of
the LDS faith, understand their beliefs, and accurately
represent them. We have done so because you cannot proclaim
the true God and the true Christ and the true gospel over
against Mormonism's falsehoods while lacking truth in your
understanding and representation of their beliefs.
The past number of years have been very hard on the LDS
people. Radical, wild-eyed KJV Only "street preachers"
have spewed hatred at them, ending all meaningful witness at
the Conference. Reputation seeking evangelicals have
handed their souls to FARMS and done inestimable damage as a
result. And now, even as the reports of Ravi Zacharias'
comments have been mainly positive, he has to be preceded
and followed by this kind of outlandish commentary. I
truly pray God will place upon the hearts of His people to
share the life-giving message of the true God with the LDS
people in the regular pathways of life, for it seems that He
has closed many of the former means of reaching them in our
day.
More on Mouw
Unless you have been monitoring a wide
variety of sources, you might think my response to, and
refutation of, Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw’s
comments in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City were harsh. In
comparison to the rhetoric of some, I’m a cupcake. But,
thankfully, by avoiding the extraneous arm-waving and calls
for jihads I hope that I have touched upon the real issue
with far more focus and force than those who have chosen the
“nuclear” alternative.
Mouw continues to defend his
statements. Today another e-mail began circulating. I cite
three numbered points:
(1) I have talked to enough Mormon missionaries at
my front door to know that there is a significant gap
between what most of them say--and have been taught--and
what we are hearing from our LDS scholar friends. But there
is still a discernible change. Many of them watch Christian
television and have a kind of mix of views--some very far
removed from biblical teaching and others fairly close.
Indeed one young missionary told me that the person whose
message he most admires is Billy Graham. On the level of
LDS scholarship, we have talked at length with people we
have come to know very well and we are all convinced--and
not just me but folks with impeccable evangelical
credentials--that our Mormon friends are aware of the
popular teachings and are determined to influence things in
the direction of salvation by grace alone.
Dr. Mouw, what you hear from a few LDS
missionaries reflects what they have been taught by the
official leadership of the LDS Church. Is anyone else
as amazed as I am at the attitude of this scholar who looks
at the chosen, ordained leadership of an entire religion as
being utterly irrelevant to the definition of the beliefs of
that religion? Would Mouw accept someone defining his own
Reformed heritage on the basis of a liberal professor at a
university somewhere without any reference to such things as
the Heidelberg Confession? Maybe he would, but I
would surely hope not. Has the range of beliefs expressed
within the pale of Mormonism expanded over the past number
of decades? It surely has, from top to bottom. But upon
what principle are we to ignore the very leadership of the
church and by some academic divine fiat proclaim progressive
BYU scholars the new leaders of Mormonism? I do recall
getting in trouble years ago on a particular apologetics
discussion list for tangling with one of the Mosser/Owen duo
who made it quite clear that they viewed the General
Authorities of the LDS Church as dinosaurs and that BYU
scholars spoke for Mormonism. As I have said often, that
day may come: but Mouw faulted those of us who preceded him
in the field of LDS evangelism for misrepresenting
Mormonism, and upon what basis? We dared to accurately
represent the official views of the church rather
than peer into our crystal balls and respond to a
not-yet-existent Mormonism.
Now, Mouw mentions a Mormon missionary
that admires Billy Graham. That is indeed a new thing, in
many ways. But again, upon what logical basis do we grant
to a 19 year old missionary the definitional authority of
theological teaching that is clearly claimed by the General
Authorities of the Mormon Church and yet denied them by Mouw
and his colleagues?
We are hearing
much about salvation by grace here. I wish I could become
greatly excited, but I cannot. The reason? I’ve spent
untold hours of time in conversation with LDS people (far
more than Richard Mouw, that is for certain), and I know one
thing that has been (as far as I can see) completely lost in
the current discussions I am observing: you cannot
meaningfully believe in salvation by grace through faith
alone in Jesus Christ when you believe in a plurality of
gods, that Jesus is your spirit brother, and that the
ultimate goal of salvation is exaltation to godhood.
And once again we see the importance of believing all that
God has said, including those divine revelations that are so
exceedingly unpopular today regarding God’s sovereignty and
man’s deadness in sin: sola gratia and sola fide
have specific content historically and biblically. How can
you try to “add” sola gratia to the completely flawed
foundation of Mormonism? Can an exalted man from another
planet who lives on a planet circling a star named Kolob be
the proper object of saving faith? Can a Hindu believe in
sola gratia? Those seeking to expand upon the
Robinson-inspired recognition that Paul’s gospel is light
years removed from Joseph Smith’s have missed this vital
point: sola gratia is defined by the source of grace,
the singular, unique, eternal, unchanging Creator of all
things. And Mormonism has no such unique Creator upon which
to found grace. It is like they are trying to build the
attic before laying the foundation. It just doesn’t work.
(2) What no one seems to want to pay attention to is
that I did say in my remarks that we continue to have
serious differences, including matters that have "eternal
consequences." I do believe that. But I am also convinced
that things are moving--on the leadership level--in a
direction in which we can hope that in the not too distant
future Mormons will regularly hear from their own leaders
that salvation cannot be earned--not even in part--by good
works, but only by accepting the gift of sovereign grace
that has been made possible through the shed blood of Christ
on Calvary. I am more concerned that this core Gospel
message be proclaimed within the LDS than that there be a
wholesale repudiation of all Mormon distinctives. I praise
the Lord for those individuals who have met the Jesus that
we evangelicals proclaim and have left Mormonism. But I also
deeply desire that those who continue in the LDS will hear
the basic claims of the Gospel proclaimed within that
community.
I surely did not miss Mouw’s statement that
we continue to have serious differences. I simply don’t
think that observing that the sun rises in the East is worth
noting. It is the fact that the observation is self-evident
that renders it rather irrelevant. I would love to hear LDS
leaders teaching that salvation is by grace alone in Christ
alone, but I also realize that this would entail the
identification of the central teachings of every single LDS
leader for the first one hundred and fifty years of LDS
history as a false prophet and false teacher. It would
involve the complete renunciation of the authority of every
prophet down to Benson, and the denunciation of every
General Authority through McConkie. It would involve the
rejection of the LDS Scriptures (has Mouw ever pondered
Moroni 10:32?) as a whole as well. It would require, in
essence, the end of Mormonism and the creation of an
entirely new faith in its place. And since I have, in fact,
driven through southern and central Utah, I can say without
fear of contradiction that just a few of those folks would
not take kindly to such a suggested overhaul of the entirety
of their religion.
Mouw states, “I am more concerned that
this core Gospel message be proclaimed within the LDS than
that there be a wholesale repudiation of all Mormon
distinctives.” Can you have a “core Gospel message” inside
a polytheistic religion? Can you have a stripped down, just
barely recognizable “core” when you have a God other than
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Can the spirit
brother of Lucifer’s blood atone for sin? When Mouw speaks
of “Mormon distinctives” what is he talking about? The
priesthood structure? Temple ceremonies? Is he aware of
the relationship of such “distinctives” to the entire
concept of godhood and exaltation? I do not know, but I
honestly do not get the feeling that he does. Does Mouw
believe it better to have “slightly less heretical Mormons”
as if you can move them far enough down the spectrum to get
them “saved” while leaving them in abject error? Where is
the line to be drawn?
The muddled nature of this kind of
approach comes out clearly in these sentences: “I praise the
Lord for those individuals who have met the Jesus that we
evangelicals proclaim and have left Mormonism. But I also
deeply desire that those who continue in the LDS will hear
the basic claims of the Gospel proclaimed within that
community.” Is the “Jesus that we evangelicals proclaim”
the real and only Christ? If so, don’t the Mormons
who remain LDS need to meet the same one? Does Mouw think a
Christ who has not eternally been God is still “enough” to
save? How can you hear the “basic claims of the Gospel
proclaimed” when you have the wrong God, the wrong Christ,
and the wrong goal (exaltation)? Would it not require the
radical transformation noted above for that “basic core” to
be proclaimed in Mormonism?
(3) I think the King Follett Discourse is horrible.
It is another Gospel. But it is simply a fact that it--along
with the "What man once was..." saying--are not canonical,
and this means that these teachings are much easier for
Mormons to eventually repudiate. I am committed to working
toward that goal.
I encourage Mormons to repudiate that all the
time. But the problem is, you cease to be Mormon when
you do so. Those statements may not be in the strict
canon of Mormonism, but statements that have been taught
from the pulpit in the Tabernacle, repeatedly quoted in the
teaching literature of the LDS Church, and that are clearly
part and parcel of the endowment ceremony and the central
core of theology of the LDS Church, cannot be removed
without changing the religion itself anymore than you can
remove the Nicene Symbol and say, “Voila, Christianity!”
Perhaps Dr. Mouw should consult Stephen Robinson, who, even
while presenting a viewpoint on authoritative statements
very different than many old-style LDS, said this:
Again, don’t misunderstand me; there can be
no doubt that the doctrine of deification is firmly and
officially asserted by the LDS Church. I am only trying to
sort out what is canonical from what is homiletical for the
benefit of non-LDS readers, and also to show that most of
the bizarre claims made on this topic by anticultists
misrepresent speculation and homily as official
pronouncements.
To the scriptural passages above I would
add Lorenzo Snow’s epigram and Joseph Smith’s statement in
the funeral address for King Follett that God is an exalted
man. Neither statement is scriptural or canonized in the
technical sense, and neither has been explained or
elucidated to the church in any official manner, but they
are so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this
technical point has become moot. Each of these
quasi-official statements asserts flatly that there was once
a time before the beginning of our creation when God was
human, just as there will be a time after the final
resurrection and judgment when exalted humans will be gods (How
Wide the Divide? pp. 85-86).
I disagree with Robinson that Smith’s
statement has not been explained or elucidated in an
official manner: it surely has in numerous works published
under the copyright of the Corporation of the First
Presidency, and with more than sufficient regularity to
establish a clear interpretation that is represented in the
LDS endowment ceremonies. But in any case, even Robinson is
forced to admit the official status of the KF discourse on a
doctrinal level.
So, once again, the question comes back
to Dr. Mouw: why did you apologize in behalf of those of us
who have accurately represented Mormonism for years before
you became involved in the field? |
