The Truth: ALL Families Deserve To Be Strengthened

The thirteenth Article of Faith states "we believe in doing good to all [mankind]." I've wondered lately how many Mormons really believe that. I can speak only for my own beliefs, but I believe in doing good to all--men, women, children, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. I believe Mormons should likewise believe in doing good to families--all families.

As a matter of fact, four years ago on this blog I posted "ALL Families Are Valuable" to spread the hope that the "value of the traditional family" would be replaced with "the value of all families." Yet four years later we continue to idolize the "traditional" family while causing great pain and unnecessary harm to many other families and individuals. The Church that prides itself on families still has not collectively recognized the value of all families. And it makes me sick. Latter-day Saints continue to teach fear-based philosophies of men/women mingled with scripture as "truth", but here's the real truth: ALL families deserve to be strengthened.

The truth is that families come in all shapes and sizes. Some families consist of a mom and a dad, two dads, two moms, single parents, and some families have no children at all. I believe in strengthening them all, especially because I believe it's true that "we are all likely working towards the same goals--namely an environment where those we care for, including ourselves, can grow and learn in love, happiness and safety." I believe the truth is that the Lord is most pleased when we all work to love and uplift each other and help each other to stay dedicated to our familial commitments, whatever those may look like.

As Jana Riess wrote yesterday, "every time my church does something that appears to diminish the humanity of LGBT persons, our reputation as a religion takes a hit. And when we act with greater love and less condemnation, people respond in kind." However, as she went on to say, "when we point to some families as 'counterfeit' and claim there is only one right way to love – and, gee, it happens to be ours! — we’re preaching fear, not truth. And when we ally ourselves with a group that stands accused of denying basic rights to gay people when we have recently helped to pass legislation that gives them those rights, we are sending a very mixed message."

It also sends mixed messages anytime the ridiculous and (mostly negative) phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is perpetuated. PLEASE let us stop using this worthless phrase. 

I think Jesus made it pretty clear we're to love, period. To condemn sin in others was a sin "in and of itself." In fact, "the only time we should openly condemn sin is when we find it within ourselves." In other words, we're to focus on loving others, not worrying about their personal life. If we make it our business to judge others business we're simply not able to love them well at all. And then where is the greater sin?

In my open letter to Elder Christofferson, I wrote: "Today, in this new Civil Rights era for the LGBT community, I'm afraid that my conscience and the position of officials currently leading the church might also be at odds. So I'm in a bit of a precarious position. I wait patiently, though not passively, and encourage progress in areas that I can, while trying to be anxiously engaged in good causes and follow my conscience without causing harm to the church." The harder question for me, however, is what should I do when it's my church that's causing harm to others?

It's amazing how much harm we can cause in the name of "defending the family". To "defend" means to "resist an attack, to protect from harm or danger." It doesn't mean to go on offense. Let me be clear, I'll defend my traditional marriage if ever someone tried to strip me of that right, but so far so good--no attacks. I do see marriage equality under attack, so I'm gonna defend that too, cause marriage for all is better than marriage for some, and same-sex marriage doesn't undermine my traditional marriage in the least. My marriage is respected and I respect everyone else's freedom to marry whoever they choose. It's the golden rule. Does our church still believe in that?

The wise Roni Jo Draper once said: "I'm pretty sure the purpose of the gospel is to improve myself and love others. Not to love myself and improve others." Whenever we use religion as a means to control others, we're doing it wrong. "The purpose of religion," said the Dalai Lama, "is to control yourself, not to criticize others." Scripture provides plenty of examples of people using religion to harm others. Scripture also has plenty of examples of using religion to be a blessing to others. We should learn from the past to be more wise than those who used religion as a weapon. We ought to do more to actively be a blessing to others. I agree with Vicky Beeching: "No one should have to choose between their religious faith and their gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation. We are all God's children, created to love and be loved."

The conversation lately about the Family Proclamation has to do with the fact that its origins had to do with political/legal reasons rather than doctrinal/revelatory reasons. But there is still much of good there that can be expanded and repurposed with an enlarged vision. One example: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

All families deserve to be strengthened. ALL families. Not just the modern Mormon monogamous ideal. Attacking gay marriage/marriage equality does nothing to strengthen families. Only the opposite, ironically. An expansion to the definition of marriage does not hurt/harm/weaken ones existing "traditional" marriage. We do that to ourselves by the way we act in our own marriages.  If we really want to prevent further disintegration of families, if we truly wish to strengthen families, the FMH community have come up with some very practical ways: "Strengthening the Family: a response from the fMh community".

Do you want to know my plan for strengthening families? Teach love and respect and inclusiveness of all, regardless of whether ones family has a mother and a father, two fathers, two mothers, only one parent, and regardless of whether they are able to raise children or not. Teach the Gospel and Faith in Jesus Christ, not the traditional Mormon culture that so many mistake for the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ would not be throwing stones at people's families. He'd be putting his arms around all good and sincere human beings, regardless of culture, gender, or orientation, and telling us to "go and do thou likewise".

In 1947 the First Presidency was completely wrong about racism and ethnocentrism in the 1900's--projecting those views onto God, while brother Lowry Nelson--a liberal--was right. History has vindicated brother Nelson. If they could be that wrong then, they could very well be wrong now in filing amicus briefs against marriage equality. I personally think God is much bigger and more loving and more inclusive than most Latter-day Saints currently give Him credit for.

If I'm wrong, I would far rather err on the side of charity and inclusiveness than to be a stumbling block in the path of my neighbor--including my LGBT neighbor. I want to be a blessing to all of God's children, including my LGBT neighbors. As the hymn says, doing good [to ALL] is a "pleasure", a "joy beyond measure, a blessing of duty and love."

I believe our true duty is to help strengthen ALL families without diminishing any particular family in the least. But even more importantly, I think the only family I need to really worry about is not my neighbor's, but the one living within the walls of my own home. 

True Christians

As I sat in church yesterday I started looking around at all the people who by their own doing have given so much and blessed our family, especially at this time of the birth of our new little boy and girl.

The older gospel singer sister who showed up at our door and proceeded to vacuum before holding the babies and generally just being a joy to visit with.  The young couple who serves in the nursery and gave us their beautiful but used crib--even drilling holes so that we could raise the mattress higher to make it easier to reach newborn babies.  The primary pianist and ward chorister whose generosity and friendship has meant so much to us.  The sister who lives just up the hill across the street who stopped at a yard sale when she saw two matching rocking chairs for newborns, bought them, and gave them to us as a surprise gift.  The family--particularly the dad who personifies "service"--who have become such good friends--whose service has blessed not only our family in meaningful and lasting ways but the lives of so many others.  Those who have brought us dinner in recent days, or given so many other helpful items (ie: diapers and baby clothes).  So many thoughtful acts of love.

I was overcome.  And I had an epiphany as I sat there among ward "family".  If Christ said that the first and greatest commandment was to love God and the second was to love our neighbor, then I really was surrounded by true disciples of Jesus Christ.  I also better understood grace, because I feel so undeserving of all that love, and yet it is so generously and freely offered.  "I stand all amazed" in more ways than one at such love.  These angels are Saints to me.

"Let them worship how, where, or what they may"

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

According to the 11th Article of Faith, it seems to me that Latter-day Saints are typically quite generous (or at least ought to be) in our allowance (or tolerance) of the religious beliefs of those not of our faith. But must letting "them worship" differently only refer to people in other faiths? Or can "them" also refer to fellow Mormons in terms of how they worship? My question isn't original (see "Should we apply the 11th article of faith internally?"), but it's nonetheless a question I've had on my mind lately.

There may have been a time when I read this particular article of faith only in the direction of "us" and "them"--Mormon and non-Mormon. Now I read it and apply it in all directions, including within Mormonism. How tolerant are we with "allowing" variances within our own faith as opposed to simply being tolerant with "others"? How generous are we with each other in recognizing that we must each individually follow "the dictates of our own conscience"? What should be said (if at all) about the limits to divergence of our personal choices of worship (or lack thereof) inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The Chief End of God

John Piper seems to be one of the most highly respected Calvinist thinkers today. I say this only to set up the fact that his book, Desiring God, is highly respected by Calvinists. Now, I can personally find much to admire in the devotion of many Calvinists. But by reading one little excerpt from Pipers' book, I found that the Latter-day Saint and Calvinist view on the chief end of God could hardly be any starker:

"The ultimate ground of Christian Hedonism is the fact that God is uppermost in His own affections:

The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever

The reason this may sound strange is that we are more accustomed to think about our duty than God's design. And when we do ask about God's design, we are too prone to describe it with ourselves at the center of God's affections. We may say, for example, that His design is to redeem the world. Or to save sinners. Or to restore creation. Or the like.

But God's saving designs are penultimate, not ultimate. Redemption, salvation, and restoration are not God's ultimate goal. These He performs for the sake of something greater: namely, the enjoyment He has in glorifying Himself. The bedrock foundation of Christian Hedonism is not God's allegiance to us, but to Himself.

If God were not infinitely devoted to the preservation, display, and enjoyment of His own glory, we could have no hope of finding happiness in Him. But if He does in fact employ all His sovereign power and infinite wisdom to maximise the enjoyment of His own glory, then we have a foundation on which to stand and rejoice."

Turns out, according to Calvinists, that God is quite narcissistic. I'm almost stunned by the acceptance that God would create such a breath-taking universe and set up such a marvelous plan of redemption, ultimately merely for Himself. No. There's more to it than that. God maximizes His enjoyment and glory in seeing His children become more than we are now--more than we could ever become without Him. In short, God's work and glory is us! "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39).

He takes joy in helping His children advance and become like Him, one with Him. Now that is true love and grace. That is certainly a reason to be filled with ultimate gratitude, love, and praise. Yes, God is superlatively great, but He's not selfish. Similarly to how I take the most satisfaction from seeing my own children learn and grow, I deeply believe He receives His chief pleasure by watching and helping his own children grow and become like Him. Through the enabling power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become exalted through His grace, sharing in His quality of life. That, to me, is the chief end of God--not egotistically taking pleasure in Himself.

How Do You Define A "Christian"?

My last post spotlighted the very articulate Latter-day Saint, Rachel Esplin. This post spotlights another video from that very same presentation--the one of Liz Cook (a Presbyterian) speaking about her faith as a Christian. The awkward opening minutes demonstrate the fact that the debate over whether Latter-day Saints are "Christians" is alive and well.

Moreover, "the debate of the definitions" (as I'll call it) continues even among media who specialize in issues of faith. Before introducing Liz Cook (the final one to speak), Sally Quinn (journalist for the Washington Post and founder of "On Faith") speaks of how important it was for her to get someone like Liz because she wanted to make sure that there was at least one Christian on the panel. Rachel Esplin pipes in saying "I'm a Christian". At that point, Ms. Quinn doesn't seem sure how to respond, and fumbles into mentioning how much time is left for the (apparently one and only) Christian on the panel.

I know that many Christians are adamant that Mormons are not "Christian", but what they should really say is that Mormons are heretical Christians. We don't fit the traditional, orthodox mold. And I can agree with not being a part of Traditional Christianity, since Mormonism teaches some aspect of apostasy or "falling away" from and then a restoration of some form of Christianity. But to say that Mormons are not Christian in any sense doesn't recognize our deeply held Christology.

Based on the definition used by Liz Cook (the identified Christian on the panel), I'm pleased to say that Latter-day Saints can certainly fit the label of "Christian". She said that being a Christian "literally means just becoming like Christ...I believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son that He sent to us to save us from our sin...Being a Christian just means being a follower of Christ and trying to develop a relationship with him and with God".

I like her definition. I think a vast majority of Mormons would fit that description. I'd be curious to know what definition Sally Quinn uses. What definition do the majority of Christians use?

On this point of how to define a Christian, it seems that modern Christians need to get their ducks in a row. On the one hand, some want to exclusively define a Christian as only those who conceive of God in Trinitarian terms, despite the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't hammered out until hundreds of years after the first Christians became Christians (also referred to in the New Testament as "saints"). On the other hand, many (like the Presbyterian in this clip) give a more appropriate definition of a Christian.

If being a Christian "literally means just becoming like Christ...[believing] that Jesus Christ is God's Son that He sent to us to save us from our sin...being a follower of Christ and trying to develop a relationship with him and with God", then I as a Latter-day Saint certainly can't be excluded from the term "Christian". I believe this definition would certainly fit the original "Saints", and I believe it fits well with Latter-day Saints too.

Liz Cook goes on to state: "My most important thing is my identity with Jesus Christ". Amen to that!


Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 6. Liz Cook from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.

"The Name of the Church" as it evolved; through the eyes of other "Saints"

I recently took a peak at a blog (Saints' Herald) from some of our "cousins" at the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church). There was one post that I found particularly interesting: The Name of The Church. It was well researched and well written. It speaks to both the name of the early Church we all share in common, as well as the changes over time as they branch off from there. I'm sure Latter-day Saints will find it interesting and worthwhile.

David McCullough: Why History?

My favorite historian just made a visit to the new Church History Library in downtown Salt Lake City. (See David McCullough, Award-Winning Historian and Author, Visits Church History Library).

In his speech there, McCullough expressed his appreciation for what he called the “epic” story of the Latter-day Saints. “You are caring for a national treasure here. The story of the Latter-day Saints, of Joseph Smith, of Brigham Young, and that incredible migration here is a great American story.”

I, of course, completely agree with him. It also seems to me to be a very nice gesture a la President Kennedy's Tabernacle speech. I have been a big fan of McCullough's for quite some time now. As a story-teller and advocate of history, he's just been phenomenal. His books John Adams and 1776 are among my all-time favorites. He gave a phenomenal speech at BYU in 2005 entitled "The Glorious Cause of America". I highly recommend it.

I also recommend the following as absolutely required reading:

Why History?
By David McCullough
Source: Reader's Digest December 2002

"The best way to know where the country is going is to know where we've been."

On a winter morning on the campus of one of our finest colleges, in a lovely Ivy League setting with snow falling outside, I sat with a seminar of 25 students, all seniors majoring in history, all honors students-supposedly the best of the best. "How many of you knew who George Marshall was?" I asked. No one knew. Not one. At a large university in the Midwest, a young undergraduate told me how glad she was to have attended my lectures, because until then, she said, she never realized that the original 13 Colonies were all on the Eastern Seaboard. This was said, in all seriousness, by a university student.

Who are we, we Americans? How did we get where we are? What is our story and what can it teach us? Our story is our history, and if ever we should be taking steps to see that we have the best prepared, most aware citizens ever, that time is now. Yet the truth is that we are raising a generation that is to an alarming degree historically illiterate. The problem has been coming on for a long time, like a disease, eating away at the national memory. While the popular cultures races loudly on, the American past is slipping away. We are losing our story, forgetting who we are and what it's taken to come this far.

Warnings of this development have been sounded again and again. In 1995, the Department of Education reported that more than half of all high school seniors hadn't even the most basic understanding of American history. Two years ago, a study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni showed that four out of five seniors from leading colleges and universities were unable to pass basic high school history test. To the question "Who was the American general at York town?" more of these students answered Ulysses S. Grant than George Washington. And there's been no improvement.

This year the American Council of Trustees and Alumni reported that none of the nation's top 50 colleges and universities now require American history as part of the curriculum. In fact, one can go forth into the world today as the proud product of all but a handful of our 50 top institutions of higher learning without ever having taken a single course in history of any kind.

But why bother about history anyway? "That's history"-that's done with, junk for the trash heap. Why history? Because it shows up how to behave. History teaches and reinforces what we believe in, what we stand for, stand up for. History is about life-human nature and the human condition and all its trails and fallings and noblest achievements. History is about cause and effect, about the simplest of everyday things-and the mysteries of chance and genius.

History shows us what choices there are. History teaches with specific examples the evils of injustice, ignorance or demagoguery, just as it shows how potent is plain courage, or one simple illuminating idea. History is-or should be-the bedrock of patriotism, not the chest-pounding kind of patriotism but the real thing, love of country.

At their core, the lessons of history are lessons of appreciation. Everything we have, all our great institutions, our laws, our music, art and poetry, our freedoms, everything is because somebody went before us and did the hard work, provided the creative energy, faced the storms, made the sacrifices, kept the faith.

Indifference to history isn't just ignorant; it's a form of ingratitude. And the scale of our ignorance seems especially shameful in the face of our unprecedented good fortune. What's so worrisome about the college student who doesn't know that George Washington was the commanding American general at York town is that he also, therefore, has no idea that it was Washington who commanded the Continental Army through eight long years in the struggle for independence. I'm convinced that history encourages, as nothing else does, a sense of proportion about life, gives us a sense of how brief is our time on earth and thus how valuable that time is.

We live in an era of momentous change, creating great pressures and tensions. But history shows that times of tumult are the times when we are most likely to learn. This nation was founded on change. We should embrace the possibilities inherent in such times and hold to a steady course, because we have a sense of what we've been through and who we are.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, history can be a source of strength and of renewed commitment to the ideals upon which the nation was founded. As unsettling as events may be, others before us have known worse. Think of what our predecessors endured and accomplished. Think of the dangerous times they knew! Churchill, in the darkest hours of World War II, reminded us that "we have not journeyed all this way because we are made of sugar candy."

I passionately believe that history isn't just good enough for you in a civic way. History, really, is an extension of life. It enlarges and intensifies the experience of being alive, like poetry and art or music. And there's no great secret to making history come alive. Historian Barbara Tuchman said it perfectly in two words, "Tell stories." Part of what that means is that history is ours to enjoy. If we deny our children that enjoyment, that adventure in the larger time among the greater part of the human experience, then we're cheating them out of a full life.

Bruce R. McConkie and "Our Relationship With The Lord"/Do Mormons Worship Jesus?

In 1982, Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk at BYU entitled Our Relationship with the Lord. I was not there in person (I was not quite two), but apparently, it has spawned a lot of confusion, both inside and outside of the Church. I have read it, and I just re-read it, to make sure my understanding was correct. My understanding is that in this particular speech Elder McConkie was warning against emphasizing having a special relationship with one particular member of the Godhead while neglecting the other two. It seems to me he was trying to teach about balance and proper perspective, but in doing so I think he ultimately ended up throwing things out of balance.

Rightly he taught that “there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons--God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator. These three are one--one God if you will--in purposes, in powers, and in perfections. But each has his own severable work to perform, and mankind has a defined and known and specific relationship to each one of them”.

The end goal of the gospel then isn’t to have a “special relationship” with one of the members of the Godhead (ie: Jesus), but to be brought back to the presence of the Father. I suppose you could say this is done by having a "proper" relationship with each of them. I don’t think Elder McConkie meant to de-emphasize the covenant relationship with Christ that gets us home to our Father in Heaven, but merely say “hey, don’t mistake the means for the end”.

I don’t get the feeling that Elder McConkie had a lot of patience with those who did not believe in the gospel just like he did, whether within or without the Church. I also doubt that he was ever accused of having the most tact. :) He was, however, definitely bold (harsh?); especially when he felt that truth was being challenged. Apparently there was a book out which persuaded some BYU students that they could or should emphasize a special or advanced relationship with Jesus while neglecting the other two persons of the Godhead, and he came down hard on that, to call out "heresy".

Naturally, we believe that the end goal of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to reconcile us with the Father—Christ is our Mediator. Thus, McConkie seems to emphasize here that it’s not proper to single out one member of the Godhead for some special attention. One could argue that he’s making a mountain out of a mole-hill, since when we worship the Son we worship the Father, and visa-versa. Truly, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost constitute the One God we worship.

Even McConkie admits here "that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance." It’s just obvious in this talk that McConkie decides to focus on their distinct and separate roles, rather than their practically infinite unity. I can see how that can and has caused some confusion (inside and outside the Church), and that’s unfortunate.

One particular statement, however, may have done more harm than good. In my opinion he distracted from the heart of what he was trying to get at in this talk when he chose to use the words “we do not worship the Son”. Shocking right? Well, apparently he’s reserving a different definition of worship than even he has used on other occasions and that he admits, directly after saying it, that the scriptures even use. Perhaps he could or should have said that we do not worship the Son in the same role as the Father. Clearly, he's trying to differentiate degrees of worship and the different relationships we have with each person in the Godhead, but as he admits, it is a "fine line".

God the Father is our Father—we are his children. So when we pray, we pray directly to our Father in the name of Christ--just as Jesus taught; not directly to Jesus. (Even though a song of the heart is considered to be a prayer, and many of our hymns are in essence prayers to Jesus.) McConkie is, for better or worse, emphasizing the Father’s preeminence. But in that same talk he makes clear that while our relationship with the Son is "one of brother or sister in the premortal life", it is now "one of being led to the Father by him while in this mortal sphere". In the talk he elaborates on Jesus the Christ:

He is the Lord Jehovah who championed our cause before the foundations of the earth were laid. He is the God of Israel, the promised Messiah, and the Redeemer of the world. By faith we are adopted into his family and become his children. We take upon ourselves his name, keep his commandments, and rejoice in the cleansing power of his blood. Salvation comes by him. From Creation's dawn, as long as eternity endures, there neither has been nor will be another act of such transcendent power and import as his atoning sacrifice. We do not have a fraction of the power we need to properly praise his holy name and ascribe unto him the honor and power and might and glory and dominion that is his. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.

Even in his (infamous?) book Mormon Doctrine, under the heading “worship”, McConkie writes that:

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8; Ex. 34:14; Mosiah 18:25; D&C 20:17-19.) No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. “All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23.) It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son. “Believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.” (2 Ne. 25:16, 29.)

So, of course, it would be disturbing to any Christian, LDS or not, if somehow they stopped reading at one point in the talk and determined that McConkie was saying that Latter-day Saints don’t worship Jesus—but that is just false. It’s also false to say that Latter-day Saints don’t believe we should have a relationship with Christ—he was just saying we shouldn’t have one at the exclusion of the other persons of the Godhead; let’s keep things in perspective.

In my opinion, now and after all is said and done, the proper relationship we have with Christ is pretty special. That covenant relationship we have with Christ is our only hope--without Him we would be lost. Furthermore, He is the father of our spiritual rebirth. We become born again as His sons and daughters. And we need to be very clear on this point. Elder M. Russell Ballard, in a talk entitled "Building Bridges of Understanding", cautioned members of the Church:

We occasionally hear some members refer to Jesus as our Elder Brother, which is a true concept based on our understanding of the pre-mortal life with our Father in Heaven. But like many points of gospel doctrine, that simple truth doesn't go far enough in terms of describing the Savior's role in our present lives and His great position as a member of the Godhead. Thus, some non-LDS Christians are uncomfortable with what they perceive as a secondary role for Christ in our theology. They feel that we view Jesus as a spiritual peer. They believe that we view Christ as an implementor for God, if you will, but that we don't view Him as God to us and to all mankind, which, of course, is counter to biblical testimony about Christ's divinity…

Now we can understand why some Latter-day Saints have tended to focus on Christ's Sonship as opposed to His Godhood. As members of earthly families, we can relate to Him as a child, as a Son, and as a Brother because we know how that feels. We can personalize that relationship because we ourselves are children, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. For some it may be more difficult to relate to Him as a God. And so in an attempt to draw closer to Christ and to cultivate warm and personal feelings toward Him, some tend to humanize Him, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging His Divinity. So let us be very clear on this point: it is true that Jesus was our Elder Brother in the premortal life, but we believe that in this life it is crucial that we become "born again" as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant.

One of the great ways to learn about real Mormon doctrine is to actually learn the doctrine in the Book of Mormon. 2 Nephi 25:29 states:

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

Ideally, informed Latter-day Saints will correct the caricatures of this talk which have been spawned both inside and outside of the Church. Besides a Mormon Matters post, Offenders for a Word, Part 2 - Do Mormons Worship Jesus?, S. Faux at Mormon Insights has written a relevant essay entitled: Do Mormons Worship Jesus?. Even with a full understanding of the differences between traditional and restored doctrine, the correct and obvious answer is a resounding "yes".

Glorying "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Of all people, Latter-day Saints should be striving more to "talk of Christ", "rejoice in Christ", and "preach of Christ" (2nd Nephi 25:26). Thus, it was with great satisfaction that I listened to Elder Holland's "instant classic" conference address this past Sunday--"None Were With Him".

Two days later, there was an interesting write-up of the conference talk at another blog in which some of the ensuing comments brought to light that there are Latter-day Saints who don't understand the integral role of the cross in the Atonement. Some are under the impression that the Atonement of Jesus Christ took place ONLY in Gethsemane, but not ALSO on the cross. That some don't realize that the Atonement was worked out BOTH places made me wonder if there was any connection to the absence of the cross as a visual symbol of our faith.

I don't know exactly how, when, or even why we began to separate ourselves from the Traditional Christian world in terms of how we use (or don't use) the cross, but I do think there may have been an over-reaction in our attempt to be "different". I suspect we have a lot of LDS who have less than desirable feelings towards the image of the cross simply because they don't want to be mistakenly grouped with other churches, or perhaps because it just hasn't traditionally been a part of their worship experience. I understand those who have valid reasons why they wouldn't want to emphasize the cross. If I had a relative die in a car accident, I probably wouldn't want to wear a symbol of a car around my neck, either. But for me, the cross is different.

There is a statement on LDS.org which says that

the cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior's death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

We may not use it as a symbol of our faith institutionally, but I've become much more open to it as a symbol of my personal faith in Christ. Paul says we are to glory "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14).

When I think of the cross, I "glory" in it not because it makes me focus on his death, but because it boldly proclaims that Christ has overcome death. It is a symbol of His magnificent Atonement--the greatest act of love ever shown. Like the sacrament, the cross is also an emblem of Christ's suffering, and "contact with the emblems of Christ’s suffering should shock us, humble us, and evoke in us a deep sense of gratitude" as well as our submission to Him (see "The Root of Christian Doctrine").

Jesus suffered for all of our sins, pains, and infirmities. Gethsemane literally means "olive press", and in that garden, appropriately, the Savior was crushed by the weight of all the world's sins (and everything else effected by the Fall), as an olive on the wine press. But then all of that was repeated AGAIN while on the cross, while suffering a most painful death so that we too could overcome spiritual and physical death. What began in Gethsemane reached its climax on Golgotha.

While I personally do not wear a cross, I would hope any stigma associated with it might be diminished. I personally have no problem whatsoever with those in or out of the Church who choose to wear a cross, not for show, but as a deeply personal demonstration of faith. Our next-door neighbors gave me and my wife a gift last year of a cross with a scripture engraved in it. I felt that was such a heart felt gift and I deeply appreciate it. It's small, but I have it sitting on my book shelf because of what it represents to me.
It has been said that our lives are to be the symbol of our faith, and I couldn't agree more. We are to "receive His image in [our] countenances" when we are "born of God" (Alma 5:14), not merely surround ourselves with symbols of our religion. Thus, perhaps institutionally we won't change much on this, and we probably shouldn't. The world would only view it as an attempt to be recognized as part of "mainstream" Christianity, anyway. For me, it's not about that at all--it's personal. Between me and my Savior, I deeply appreciate that symbol of salvation--and I glory in it.

God is Three. God is One. And We Can Be One With God.

I've learned a lot from my blogging interactions with people not of our faith, as well as from my recent reading of "How Wide The Divide?" by Craig Blomberg (an Evangelical scholar) and Stephen Robinson (a Mormon scholar). One of the biggest things I realized, and it's simply huge, is that the Latter-day Saints are unique in their understanding that we are of the same essence or species of God. Evangelical Christians believe we are a different species from God, who "chose at some point to make creatures distinct from himself--human beings--with the capacity to have a personal realationship with him" (Blomberg).

Thus, Stephen Robinson writes: "The real sticking point is not what the LDS think of Christ and his gospel, but rather the different ontological frame or view of the nature of the universe into which Mormons fit the gospel. For Latter-day Saints also believe in the literal fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity. We believe that God and humans are the same species of being and that all men and women were his spiritual offspring in a premortal existence. The main purpose of the gospel of Christ is therefore not so much to get us to heaven as it is to get us home."

If people don't understand this, then no wonder why we don't understand each other or we talk past each other. No wonder why other Christians would be confused that we believe we can become like God. For us, we are literally His children and therefore want to grow up to be like Him. We have the seeds of divinity in us. But for them, we'll always be different than God. Because Plato and Greek philosophy said that the "created" must always be separate from the "Creator", or the divine separate from the non-divine, the common thought that went into the councils and creeds was how to reconcile the fact that Christ was divine but also became a created man on earth.

We may believe in the same New Testament teachings of Jesus, but we definitely believe differently about the nature of God. I happen to like our understanding of God much more. :) I would find it hard to have faith in a mysterious and undefinable God that created "human beings" and put them on earth as if we're some kind of pet in a zoo or fish in a fish bowl, yet capable of having some kind of "relationship" with God--our owner or creator. I have faith in God and relate to Him and love Him as my Father in Heaven, who I lived with before I came to earth and wants me to return back to Him, but having grown from my experience here. So this is a fundamental difference, and I believe it's key to mutual understanding.

Incidentally, isn't it interesting that both "sides" can read the same bible and yet come away with such a different concept of God? Yet we each feel adamant that our interpretation is fully biblical. To quote Robinson again: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in God's Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We accept the biblical doctrine that God is three and that God is also one, but we reject the post-New Testament attempts to explain how these two truths are to be reconciled."

It has been helpful for me to think of the "Trinity" (three persons in one being) as a solution to this "problem", that people saw that the scriptures talk of "one eternal God", and yet also that not only the Father was God, but Christ was God and fully divine, as well as the Holy Spirit. It seems that the Trinity was simply a solution for people who were afraid that worshipping three Gods, when the scriptures also clearly say that they are, or there is, "one God", would be polytheism. But Latter-day Saints also recognize the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one "God"--or the Godhead--without feeling there is a polytheism problem. Since all three of them are united as one in practically every way (except physically), we have no problem in thinking of them as "one eternal God" in three persons.

We even take it one step further and really believe that the Bible means what is says when Christ prays to His Father for his disciples, that "they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21). What mercy and blessed grace indeed! Through the atonement of Christ, He will make us divine and change our natures so that we can be at one again with God, just as Christ is one with God. Yes, the word gospel means good news, and this is most definitely "good news"! What a testament to the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ!

A Different Jesus?

I made a post about this stinging question some time ago (Worshiping Jesus differently does not equal "a different Jesus") but I like the way Stephen Robinson puts it much better:

"Evangelicals often accuse Latter-day Saints of worshipping a 'different Jesus' because we believe some things about Jesus that cannot be proven from the Bible. However, I would point out that John thought Jesus was crucified the afternoon before Passover (John 19:14; 18:28), so that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, while Matthew, Mark and Luke say Jesus ate the Passover with the disciples and was crucified the morning after (Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17-19; Luke 22:13-15). Is John (or the Synoptics) writing about a 'different Jesus,' or do they simply disagree on the details concerning one Jesus?

If some Christians think Jesus had siblings and other Christians think that he did not, or if some think he stayed in Egypt for years while others think it was merely for weeks or months, do they worship different beings? If I think Jesus liked his veggies and you think he didn't, are we therefore talking about two different people? Some Evangelicals, like the Mormons, do not accept the Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions, I am told, but limit their Christology to the New Testament data. Do these people also worship 'a different Jesus' than other more creedal Evangelicals, and are they therefore not Christian?

This charge, that people worship 'a different Jesus' if they disagree over any detail of his character or history, is simply a rhetorical device, a trick of language. All I can say to it is that Latter-day Saints worship that divine Son of God of whom the apostles and prophets of the Old and New Testaments bear record, and we believe all that they have to say about him. There is no biblical information about the Son of God that the Latter-day Saints do not affirm. If Evangelicals truly worship 'a different Jesus' than this, I shall be greatly disappointed." (Stephen E. Robinson, "How Wide The Divide?")

Witnessing to Mormons

I came across an evangelical blog that had a list of suggestions up for witnessing to Mormons. I think it was a pretty good list, but I would like to add one more thing for Orthodox Christians who want to witness to Non-Traditional Christians such as the Mormons--make sure you understand Mormon doctrine as Mormons understand it.

Mormon doctrine holds that there is only one eternal God, or Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and that there are many gods, but they are gods by grace, made so by God himself. But we hold that there is only one source of worship and power and knowledge in the universe-–God (or the Godhead). No matter what exalted beings are called, we will always be subject to the one true God who made us what we are.

And that "shocking" quote about God once being a man isn’t such a stretch when you realize how we believe the scriptures which say that we are His offspring, created in His image, and that He is our Father. That means that we believe we are the same species or essence of God. So thinking of God as an exalted human being isn't such a stretch. Just as Jesus was once on the earth as a man, but was still fully divine and fully God and is now resurrected and glorified and exalted, we hold that God the Father also could have had a mortal experience, but there is no doubt that he is glorified and exalted. Remember also that Jesus was still fully God while he dwelt on earth as a man. We are "fallen" man, although we have hope of overcoming the effects of the Fall through the atonement of Christ, who intends to make us divine like He is. Now, if you've only asked the LDS missionaries about this and you felt like you didn't get a sufficient answer, just know that 19 year old missionaries aren’t the most informed in Mormon theology. They are sent to bear witness of the restoration, but they're not necessarily trained in theology. Actually none of us are, but some are more informed than others.

Last thing--about becoming gods ourselves. We literally believe the Bible when it says that by God’s grace we receive His glory (John 17:22-23), or as Peter said, we become partakers of His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). We do not believe that it is only figurative. We believe the Bible is literal when Paul says that we are made joint-heirs with Christ to all that the Father has (Romans 8:15-17; Revelation 21:7; 1 Corinthians 3:22). God, by His grace, makes us divine through the atonement of Christ, which breaks down all barriers between the Creator and the created--making us “at one” with God through the at-one-ment. We believe, as Christ prayed in His intercessory prayer in John 17, that through his grace we can become “one” with God, as Christ and the Father are one. We will share in their relationship and, again, to quote Peter, fully partake of their "divine nature"-–thus becoming divine ourselves.

The Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology (not a Mormon publication) says: "Deification is for Orthodoxy the goal for every Christian". Almost stating LDS belief exactly on the doctrine of deification is the great Christian defender C.S. Lewis, who wrote: "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 goddess, 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 that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said” (Mere Christianity.)

Thus, we believe we can be made into much more than we currently are through the atonement of Jesus Christ. He changes our nature. Nevertheless, we will still always be subject to, and worship only the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost through all eternity. Plain and simple.

Are Mormons Christian?

"Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace. By the simple dictionary definition of a Christian as one who believes in or worships Jesus Christ, the case is compelling. To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue" (Bruce D Porter, "Is Mormonism Christian?".)

Explaining What Mormons Believe

Excellent post up at Summa Theologica--Explaining What Mormons Believe--reviewing an article in FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life entitled "Is Mormonism Christian?". The article includes a section written by Bruce D. Porter, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Gerald R. McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. This same McDermott wrote a book with Robert Millet (BYU) but seems to exclude some important Mormon interpretations both in his book as well as in the article. Aquinas, from Summa Theologica hits the nail on the head in so many places with two excellent reviews. The reviews are eloquent, thorough, and a very important read for Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints alike.

"Let Us Be Very Clear On This Point"

I've decided that much of the frustration and confusion in conversations between Latter-day Saints and those not of our faith is caused by ourselves. One of my pet peeves, and pet peeves of many Evangelical Christians, is when Latter-day Saints say "We're Christians just like you", which of course isn't true, and means one of two things: The Mormon is ignorant, or the Mormon is purposely being misleading. Semantics matter, after all. Mormons certainly are Christians, but we're Non-Traditional Christians. Although I tend to enjoy exploring our commonalities more than our differences, I'll never pretend that we don't have significant differences with Traditional Christianity. We need to be careful about the intended and unintended messages our words give off. I'm sure we all could do a better job not only of understanding the gospel, but of communicating it more effectively both within the Church and without.

One example. Elder M. Russell Ballard cautioned members of the Church:

"We occasionally hear some members refer to Jesus as our Elder Brother, which is a true concept based on our understanding of the pre-mortal life with our Father in Heaven. But like many points of gospel doctrine, that simple truth doesn't go far enough in terms of describing the Savior's role in our present lives and His great position as a member of the Godhead. Thus, some non-LDS Christians are uncomfortable with what they perceive as a secondary role for Christ in our theology. They feel that we view Jesus as a spiritual peer. They believe that we view Christ as an implementor for God, if you will, but that we don't view Him as God to us and to all mankind, which, of course, is counter to biblical testimony about Christ's divinity…

"Now we can understand why some Latter-day Saints have tended to focus on Christ's Sonship as opposed to His Godhood. As members of earthly families, we can relate to Him as a child, as a Son, and as a Brother because we know how that feels. We can personalize that relationship because we ourselves are children, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. For some it may be more difficult to relate to Him as a God. And so in an attempt to draw closer to Christ and to cultivate warm and personal feelings toward Him, some tend to humanize Him, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging His Divinity. So let us be very clear on this point: it is true that Jesus was our Elder Brother in the premortal life, but we believe that in this life it is crucial that we become "born again" as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant." ("Building Bridges of Understanding", by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

Church is like a Potluck

I had an epiphany in Fast and Testimony Meeting today; Church is like a potluck. It's an especially appropriate analogy on Fast Sunday, not just because food isn't far from our minds, but because we come to church hoping to be spiritually fed, and in our church all kinds of people contribute. You're never quite sure what you're going to get, but you know you can get the opportunity/blessing to be able to contribute something. And by the end of the Sunday potluck we almost always end up being spiritually fed--especially when we bring our own testimonies to the feast. I really enjoyed the potluck today. Not just the fellowship, but the spiritual feast. That potluck also extends into Sunday School. "Potluck" Sunday School is the best. Especially when it's clear, like today, that fellow Saints don't just wait until Sunday to prepare and feast upon the word, but they're continually feasting on the word and therefore know the Word. Talk about a enriching and nourishing experience!

The Restoration

The primary message of the gospel, the "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has atoned for our sins and prepared a way for us to come back into the presence of the Father. The Restoration brings about a fullness of that gospel, with a fulness of truth and of the priesthood, with all the authority, keys, and ordinances to accomplish that task. It also restored further light, truth, and knowledge of God and His plan for a fulness of salvation--to bring about the immortality and eternal life of His children.

But of course for something to be restored, it must have first been broken or essential pieces lost. So to better understand the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, foretold by prophets of old, one must first understand the great apostasy, in which the gospel was not on the earth in its fulness, either in doctrine or in ordinance--also foretold by prophets of old.

The next two sections are from Preach My Gospel:

The Great Apostasy:

"After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and the presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures and the principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. False ideas were taught as truth. Much of the knowledge of the true character and nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. The doctrines of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted or forgotten. The priesthood authority given to Christ’s Apostles was no longer present on the earth. This apostasy eventually led to the emergence of many churches.

"After centuries of spiritual darkness, truth-seeking men and women protested against current religious practices. They recognized that many of the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel had been changed or lost. They sought for greater spiritual light, and many spoke of the need for a restoration of truth. They did not claim, however, that God had called them to be a prophet. Instead, they tried to reform teachings and practices that they believed had been changed or corrupted. Their efforts led to the organization of many Protestant churches. This Reformation resulted in an increased emphasis on religious freedom, which opened the way for the final Restoration."

The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith:

"When the circumstances were right, Heavenly Father once again reached out to His children in love. He called a young man named Joseph Smith as a prophet. Through him the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth. Joseph Smith lived in the United States, which was perhaps the only country to enjoy religious freedom at the time. It was at a time of great religious excitement in the eastern United States. His family members were deeply religious and constantly sought for truth. But many ministers claimed to have the true gospel. Joseph desired “to know which of all the sects was right,” (Joseph Smith—History 1:18). The Bible taught there was “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Joseph attended different churches, but he remained confused about which church he should join. He later wrote:

“So great were the confusions and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was . . . to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. . . . In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (Joseph Smith—History 1:8, 10).

As Joseph sought truth among the different faiths, he turned to the Bible for guidance. He read, “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” (James 1:5). Because of this passage, Joseph decided to ask God what he should do. In the spring of 1820 he went to a nearby grove of trees and knelt in prayer. He described his experience:

“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17).

In this vision God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith. The Savior told Joseph not to join any of the churches, for they “were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination.” He stated, “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). Even though many good people believed in Christ and tried to understand and teach His gospel, they did not have the fulness of truth or the priesthood authority to baptize and perform other saving ordinances. They had inherited a state of apostasy as each generation was influenced by what the previous one passed on, including changes in the doctrines and in ordinances such as baptism. As God had done with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other prophets, He called Joseph Smith to be a prophet through whom the fulness of the gospel was restored to the earth.

"After the appearance of the Father and the Son, other heavenly messengers, or angels, were sent to Joseph Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery. John the Baptist appeared and conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to perform the ordinance of baptism. Peter, James, and John (three of Christ’s original Apostles) appeared and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, restoring the same authority given to Christ’s Apostles anciently. With this priesthood authority, Joseph Smith was directed to organize the Church of Jesus Christ again on the earth. Through him, Jesus Christ called twelve Apostles.

"The time in which we live is referred to by Bible prophets as the last days, the latter days, or the dispensation of the fulness of times. It is the period of time just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It is the final dispensation. This is why the Church is named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A living prophet directs the Church today. This prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the authorized successor to Joseph Smith. He and the present Apostles trace their authority to Jesus Christ in an unbroken chain of ordinations through Joseph Smith."


It's quite a story, and quite miraculous to behold.

I love the following quote by the late Neal A. Maxwell, from "The Richness of the Restoration":

"The Restoration, to mix metaphors, is like a harvest basket, which is a “good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over” (Luke 6:38). This abundant harvest spares us from hungering because of doctrinal deprivation. Without this fulness, however, some who are malnourished struggle with adversity while trying to believe in a God of loving purpose. Each of the Restoration’s key doctrines, by itself, would help us greatly. However, when “shaken together,” these doctrines can produce much stronger faith through their vital nourishment. The harvest is not only abundant and “running over,” but it also brings back the most vital “plain and precious things” (1 Ne. 13:40)—the balanced essentials...

"Restoration correctives provide emancipating perspectives! The revelations, when “pressed down, and shaken together,” emphasize that man is, at once, an intelligence or spirit coeternal—but certainly not coequal—with God (see Abr. 3:18). Thus, doctrinally, we are positioned very differently, because “God is neither the source nor the cause of either moral or natural evil.” God is thus the organizer of eternal intelligences, which can neither be created nor destroyed (see D&C 93:29). Furthermore, God will not coerce men since all intelligence is free to act for itself “in that sphere in which God has placed it. … Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man” (D&C 93:30–31).

"In the Restoration, we further learn that, built into the existing structure of mortal life, there is “an opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11). This doctrine is more than just a minor clue to life. It is a major divine disclosure! As Brigham Young University professor David Paulsen has thoughtfully written: “Without moral righteousness, there is no happiness; without significant moral freedom, there is no moral righteousness; without an opposition (opposing possibilities to choose between), there is no significant moral freedom. Thus, happiness and opposition are essentially related.”

When Restoration truths are thus “shaken together,” powerful understandings vital to daily life emerge. It is my opinion, not Church doctrine, that one distant day it will even become more apparent than it now is that our loving Father is doing all even He possibly can do to help us! The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is evidence of His help. As beneficiaries of Restoration blessings, we are recipients of “so much light and so much knowledge” (Alma 9:19) about the meaning and purpose of life, the character of the Father and the Son, and the work and glory of the plan of salvation (see Moses 1:39). May God bless us with a willingness to share the harvest basket of the Restoration, that as we have been spiritually nourished so may we nourish our neighbor."

We have so much to share! Please feel free to leave a comment and share your thoughts and testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Relevant Links:

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: Priesthood, the Word of God, and the Temple

Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration)

My View Of God

I feel that my response to a recent question on my blog deserves it's own post, since it deals with a very important topic to me--my view of God. The question was: "Do Mormon's worship Jesus the same as God? Or do they merely just thank him for his sacrifice?"

I worship Jesus as God AND I thank Him for His sacrifice. I’m unfamiliar with any educated Latter-day Saint who would ever minimize or diminish Jesus in anyway. On the contrary, we worship Him. We love Him. He is our Lord and Master. He has a whole ton of other applicable names, which I could rightfully list and appropriately believe in/on. He is the Shepherd of our Souls. Since He really means everything to us, it should come as no surprise that “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ…that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:20). The Book of Mormon really has an unparalleled focus on the messianic message of the Savior of the world.

I personally feel that what I do know about the Father, I know because I've come to know the Son. After all, he said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." I tend to think that means that they are so alike, so one, that I can know the Father better by knowing Christ. I don't think that scripture means that by seeing Jesus, you're also looking physically at our Father in Heaven, as Trinitarians would tend to believe. I just think it means that you can know a lot about a persons dad by looking at their children. Many people could say the same thing about me and my dad. But I'll comment about how I can also believe in Christ as Father in just a minute.

I readily admit that I feel like I know more about Jesus than I do of the Father. We have several paintings hanging up in our house of Jesus, and the scriptures too are a constant reminder of the preeminence that Christ has in my life. There are less physical reminders of my Heavenly Father. But remembering the forgoing statement, that to see Him is to see the Father brings peace to my soul, for to worship one is to worship the other. To glorify Christ brings glory to the Father.

I pray to the Father (my Father in Heaven) in the name of Christ, since Christ taught that we should do so. But I depend on Christ to be reconciled to the Father. So it should also come as no surprise if I tell you that it is Jesus who occupies the majority of my thoughts, as well as my adoration.

The second question was:
"How does Mormonism view the Atonement in light of belief that Jesus is not eternal but created?

"

That's kind of a leading question. I'll start with the beginning, and most important part of it--how we Mormons view the Atonement.

Latter-day Saints view the Atonement as the central act of all history—“the central fact, the crucial foundation, and the chief doctrine of the great and eternal plan of salvation”, as one apostle has put it. This is the source of our doctrine and everything else is secondary. There may be many important things, but none is more important than the infinite and eternal Atonement of Jesus Christ. Everything else pails in comparison. If you don't believe me, just read the The Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants.

As for the comment about “eternal” and “created”—I really don’t think many Latter-day Saints are going to say they know much about that. Time is measured only by men. For God, eternity is one eternal “now”. So Latter-day Saints really don’t think of Christ in terms like “created” versus “eternal”. Who is to say when “eternity begins” or who can comprehend how far back it stretches? Kind of mind boggling. Like my wedding ring, I can’t perceive a beginning or an end.

We have no narrative about Jesus being "created". This word only comes up when I'm in conversation with critics of the Church. "Created" is a word that never seems to come up with Latter-day Saints themselves. We have a narrative that states that He was with the Father from the beginning—and that’s about the extent of our thoughts. Our focus is more on making and keeping covenants than on theology.

Whether I’m thinking of God as an “office” of some sort, like the Godhead, or whether I’m thinking of each member of the Godhead individually yet fully God, it really matters not, as I believe that they are infinitely more one than they are separate. I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in almost every conceivable way—except physically. Whether I can explain it or not--they are “one eternal God”. So when I read “God” in the scriptures, or think of making covenants “with God”—I tend to explore all aspects of what that means; I think of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and how interrelated they are. And I reverence and respect and deeply appreciate all three of them in their unified purpose and eternal plan of salvation, as well as their unique roles.

Some confusion might understandably come from not understanding how The Book of Mormon properly teaches of Christ as "the Father", and that “God himself” condescended to come into the world to bring salvation to the world. Trinitarians might be surprised to know that Latter-day Saints also consider Christ as “the Father” in certain regards, just as I can be both a father to my daughters and a son to my dad—but it’s still just me.

Jesus is the Father of our spiritual rebirth, as we are born again and take His name upon us. He is also the Father of this earth, since He created this earth under the direction of His Father. A case could appropriately be made that I have three dads! My earthly father, my Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ as Father. Likewise a case can be made about Christ being “eternal”, as part of the eternal Godhead, as well as “created” because he was a Son, and the Firstborn. Most Latter-day Saints don’t tend to get caught up in the semantics, which is probably a cause of frustration to many critics of the Church.

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct beings, and yes, they have their distinct roles. But as I said earlier, they are infinitely more one than they are separate. They are so one in almost every way, that I tend to focus more on their oneness and togetherness than I do on their distinctness and physical separateness.

Hebrews chapter 1, verses 1-10, seem to appropriately explain what I feel in my heart.

"Upon Further Review": Faith and Works BOTH play a part

After getting the chance to clarify that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by grace and not that our own works save us, several people (one LDS and one from another faith) have questioned whether I'm giving the full story. Something that I originally felt was pretty clear cut can come across to others as more complex, and some actually accuse us of dishonesty as if we're holding something back.

In making the case that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by grace I never said we don't have to do any works--that's obviously false. My whole premise was who's works should we rely on for salvation? That's obviously Christ. It's His merits (works), mercy, and grace that we rely on--not our own. However much we bring to the table, whether a dollar, fifty cents, a quarter, dime, or penny--it falls far short of the perfection required to enter the kingdom. God can't tolerate even a tiny bit of sin. Thus, we rejoice in the message of Redemption that comes only through Christ and his infinite atonement.

A la Stephen Robinson, I sometimes think of it as a mathematical equation in which I am a negative number and Christ is a positive infinite number. What is a negative number plus a positive infinity sign? A positive infinity, of course. (-x + infinity=a positive infinity). So we teach of coming unto Christ and forming a covenant relationship with him through baptism (by Priesthood authority, of course) so that when we are judged, we are not judged individually, but judged as one with Christ. In other words, we are made perfect in Christ. Our faith in Him leads us unto repentance.

A "works based gospel" that our critics accuse us of seems to denote that we can practically save ourselves once we've finished checking off all the "boxes" of obedience. Again--blatantly false.

Granted, he has still made it very clear that we must enter into covenants and ordinances with Him--that covenant relationship with the Savior is fundamental. The ordinances allow us to access Christ's full grace; to actually form the covenant relationship. I've already been promised the Celestial Kingdom because of my covenant relationship with Christ--on the conditions that I continue to keep, or stay in, the covenant--being willing to follow Him as best I can.

When Latter-day Saints take the Sacrament each Sunday to renew our baptismal covenant with Christ, we promise that we are "willing" to keep His commandments, not that we actually keep all His commandments. I would be a hypocrite if I promised that I always keep His commandments. ("If ye love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15). But I can in good faith say that I am definitely willing to do so! My heart is in the right place. I truly hunger and thirst after righteousness. I strive to love Christ more than anyone or anything else.

So He expects much more than belief in Him--He expects faithfulness to Him. Both Paul and James made that clear, though with alternate definitions of "faith". (Paul's definition of "faith" includes "works", ie: "faithfulness", where James' definition of faith was closer to "belief", hence the need to add that "faith (or belief) without works is dead".

We do works BECAUSE of our faith in Christ and BECAUSE of our love for Him--he has already blessed us with grace beyond measure. We DO NOT do works in order to merit his grace and to ultimately be "saved". Nobody merits or deserves his grace--that's what is so marvelous about the gospel, or good news, of Christ.

Then there's the whole perspective that only Latter-day Saints understand, that being "saved" is not the ultimate goal. Exaltation--the kind of life God lives--is the ultimate goal. But even that wouldn't be possible except through Christ.

It seems to be enough for some Christians to just get on the train--to be "saved"--but we want to ride the train all the way to the end of the tracks. As the "offspring" of God, we want to be "joint heirs" and become like Him. He wants us to become like Him too--we are his work and glory! (Moses 1:39). Now that is grace indeed!

So we also do works in order to become like Him--to close the gap--and to posses the same attributes of goodness and godliness and love. Again, that too is only possible through the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ. Our critics seem to want to jump to false conclusions and read into that far more than is even taught in Church. Mostly, I feel people rush to judgment based on their own limited understanding instead of setting aside judgement in order to reach a more full understanding.

In the interest of full disclosure, the question that a fellow LDS blogger asked me was:

"So when you say that nobody deserve's his grace, does that mean that his grace is universal - regardless of our behavior or choices? Thus all will be saved? I guess my point is to say that things are really not so simple sometimes. When we Mormons are asked:

Are we saved by grace?
Are we saved by works?

Simple yes or no answers do not give the whole story. The plan of salvation as we understand it is a lot more complex than how others understand it."

My response was:

"I understand what you're saying about not having simple yes or no answers. Of course, to be able to answer the question you have to first understand if we're talking about universal salvation from physical death (the Resurrection), which would be "yes", or universal salvation from spiritual death, which would be conditional. (Of course, that's another discussion unto itself, ie: faith, repentance, baptism--the first principles and ordinances of the gospel).

I would imagine that this isn't a clearly understood point by a majority of Christians today--and perhaps even among many of our own."

As for the salvation by grace or works--that's not even a question. It's not one against the other, because "both" have a role--they're two sides of the same coin. If anyone believes that they can be saved without any effort, obedience, commitment, or response on our part, then we would disagree. And a life of good works will naturally follow being consumed by the grace of Christ. In other words, not every one that says "Lord, Lord" will get into the kingdom, but he that "doeth" the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21)--or at least do our best while relying on Christ. That's "all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). The good news is that whatever we manage to "do", it's done while we're already safe in the gospel harness.

The Bible is very clear on faith and works. In fact it seems so obvious to me that I can't understand how there can be so many different interpretations. (FYI: The phrase that we are saved "by grace alone" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible). Both faith and works play a role. When Paul says that by "faith alone" we are saved--he's right, but its also clear that his definition of faith is not "belief alone" but "faithfulness". Both Paul and James were right. Both were apostles.

Just as a marriage covenant requires faithfulness to each other, so the gospel covenant requires faithfulness. Sure, I might not make the bed all the time (or at all), and I might forget to put the toilet seat down--I might even say a curse word once in awhile. But that doesn't end the marriage covenant. In other words, I don't have to be perfect alone, I just have to be faithful to my covenant relationship with Christ--"perfect in Christ" (Moroni 10:33-34)--loving him more than anyone or anything else.

Mercifully, there's always the blessing of repentance.