"A day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens"

Short History Lesson

In 1620, 102 settlers set sail on the Mayflower from England. The "Saints", as they called themselves, had secured a charter to Virginia. After a long, stormy journey across the ocean, the settlers were blown off course and decided to settle near present-day Cape Cod, Massachusetts. They arrived in December 1620 and did not have time to build shelters. Most lived in sod houses. Some lived in holes in the ground covered by tents. Nearly half of the settlers died during the first winter.

In the Spring, the 53 surviving Pilgrims were surprised when an Indian named Samoset walked into their village and greeted them in English (learned from explorers along New England Coast). Samoset introduced the Pilgrims to Massasoit, the sachem of the Wampanoag Indians. They made a peace treaty and even agreed to defend each other against enemies. But the Indian who helped the Pilgrims the most was a Patuxet tribe member named Tisquantum (Squanto).

Squanto had lost his family to disease, so he decided to live with the Pilgrims and teach them how to survive. He also spoke more English than probably any other Native American alive. (He had been captured and taken to England where he learned English before eventually returning to America). Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to plant seeds for corn, beans, and pumpkins, how to fish for eels, how to use manure as fertilizer, different cooking methods, and he also acted as a guide and interpreter. The settlers believed that God had sent Squanto to them. If not for Squanto, it is likely that most of the Pilgrims would not have survived another year.

First Thanksgiving

With the help of Squanto, the Pilgrims had a great harvest in 1621 and invited Massasoit and his immediate family to a Thanksgiving Dinner. Massasoit brought 90 braves with him. The Pilgrims were not prepared for such a large group. Massasoit sent some of his braves back and they returned with five deer and many other wild game. The feast lasted for 3 straight days.

Americans Celebrate Thanksgiving

The first Thanksgiving Proclamation was issued by President George Washington, months after his inauguration as president in 1789. It stated in part,

“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"


But It was not until 1863, that Thanksgiving became an official holiday.

Abraham Lincoln signed an Executive Order after the Battle of Gettysburg making Thanksgiving a national holiday to be celebrated annually on the last Thursday of November. (Franklin Roosevelt later changed it to the 4th Thursday of each year.) Lincoln's Executive Order stated in part,

“I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.”

On Her Soapbox: Twilight and True Love

My wife gets on her soapbox about Twilight here. Regardless of your feelings (or lack thereof) concerning the series, this is a commentary from a deeply charitable and intelligent Young Women's president that's worth the read...

An excerpt:
"Some women have said that the hidden (yet stimulating) sexual innuendos came as a welcomed surprise for their husbands. That they had an extra little spark (if you know what I mean) in their marriage. A positive outcome for such a reader. But what happens for our young people who may get such a spark of provoked (even as slightly as it may be) sexual feelings? To what degree do we allow ourselves the entertainment of sexual thought? Although sexual abstinence before marriage is heavenly commanded and to be highly commended, isn't our virtue more than just refrainment? Is not our virtue the very measure of our thoughts and desires of our heart?"

...Believe me, I am not embarrassed to speak about the joys of sexual intimacy within marriage. I want all the youth to know how awesome it is and that it should be appropriately anticipated. Sometimes there is an unhealthy silence about this subject than can lead to curious premarital exploration or guilty conscience complex in a marriage. While sexual intimacy is exciting and an important part in supporting love in a marriage, I hope they know that it is not the greatest, strongest, or most needed part of a lasting marriage. (Oh' how I hate the world for trying to tell them differently.) An eternal relationship is so different and so much more than that of Edward and Bellas'. Real love is formed on trust, honesty, mutual respect, understanding, communication, service, self worth, and sacrifice. And-Yes, there is exhilarating chemistry! Yes, there is exciting attraction! Yes, there is crucial longing for each other! Heavenly Father made us to be together, to need each other...But not in a desperate, uncontrollable, I'm nothing without you kind of way. But rather in a bridled, eternal, charitable, kind, strengthening, selfless, rest of forever, pure joy way.

Now why can't there be a book about that."

The Mormon Trinity

In contemplating the theology of the Restoration, I've enjoyed learning more about our similarities and differences with historical Christianity's concept of the Trinity. It's been an enlightening religious education! Suffice it to say, I think LDS Christians would greatly benefit from a concerted effort in thinking and teaching about the nature of God in terms that would be more understandable to non-Mormon Christians.

After all, Elder Bruce D. Porter in this recent interview made it clear that the only part of the Nicene Creed that Mormons would not agree with would be the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of "one substance".

So with that in mind, I'd like to recommend reading a recent post at Mormon Matters entitled The Mormon Trinity.

Jewish family makes peace with LDS baptism/Baptism for the Dead

I was a little surprised to read on CNN.com this morning a headline that says: "Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews". I wonder how many people are going to get the wrong impression of the doctrine of baptism for the dead because of this. Certainly their curiosity about what Mormons believe will be piqued--but will they understand it the way we understand it? Elder Lance B. Wickman was properly quoted in the article explaining that "if our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."

Since this is bound to become a topic of conversation across America today, I thought I'd provide the link to a wonderful article:

Jewish family makes peace with LDS baptism

As well as an interesting blog post:

Why Your Ancestors May Want You to Be Pro-Choice

Living History & Proud To Be An American

I went to vote early last week still not really sold on either of the two major candidates. I still felt undecided even after I had voted. After watching the historic moment last night, I was surprised by how happy and proud I felt for my country. Historically speaking, this is truly an amazing and great moment in our American story. To think how far we have come since slaves worked to build the White House, through the Civil War, through the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr.'s inspirational "I Have A Dream" speech, to Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights legislation and the Voting Rights Act, and now to electing Barack Obama as President of the United States--it's quite a story to proud of, no matter who you voted for in this election.

I'm pleasantly surprised at my renewed sense of optimism in the last 24 hours. And I'm so pleased by my satisfaction for so many millions of Americans who perhaps have felt disenfranchised and who now feel such happiness and hope because of this. I sincerely hope that President-elect Obama can capitalize on this newly generated worldwide goodwill and do great things for our country. I sincerely hope he turns out to be a truly great President. We certainly need one. There's no doubt that he has some incredible attributes; I hope he's up to the task for some incredibly hard challenges ahead. He'll need our prayers. I wish my new President the best. I don't know how long it will be before Americans get back to bickering like they so often do, but at this historic moment in our nations history I just want to publicly state that I am so proud to be an American.

Thinking for Yourself and/or Following the Bretheren--A Dichotomy?

Recent events bring up the apparent dichotomy of thinking for oneself versus following the Bretheren--an issue worthy of discussion. Obviously this tension has been highlighted by the recent political events in California, but the issue isn't new, and it's always nice to learn from other people's perspectives. Anti-Mormons love to bring up the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" quote, but usually fail to include George Albert Smith's clarification to that statement.

In response to a letter of concern, President Smith said that "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be,
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven."

I suppose Steve Young, along with Joseph Smith, would also say: ""I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." After all, it is very stereotypical to suggest that all Mormons think alike. Steve Young's great, great, great grandfather, Brigham Young once said: "There is too much of a sameness in this community. . . . I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint and do not believe in the doctrine . . . away with stereotyped 'Mormons'!" (JD 13:153, 55, as quoted by Hugh Nibley).

I’ve found that I personally resist being categorized as one type of person or another. I’m really hesitant to apply labels to myself and to others. I’m not sure if I can articulate all the reasons why. I suppose sometimes they’re actually helpful, but I hate feeling that I’m being pigeon-holed or cornered into being or thinking a certain way along with a certain group. It’s more liberating to be open minded to the wisdom of all, no matter where it is found, and to apply it. In other words, I’m open to good ideas no matter who presents them or where they come from. I might disagree with what one person thinks is a good idea, but I’ll hesitate to label that person out of respect for the fact that people can change.

Likewise, it bugs me when some people treat politics as if our faithfulness is contingent on which party we belong to, how we vote, or act as if the "other side" is evil. I seek out a more reasonable, moderate, middle ground. Our own eleventh Article of Faith has so many implications: "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."

My hope here is to get people to think, and ideally to respectfully share their thoughts, so that I can benefit from a more enlightened and diverse conversation than that which would take place between me and myself. My open question for any visitor here is how do you understand/reconcile the issue of "thinking for yourself" and being "obedient" by "following the Prophet"?

A Challenge For Today--Prophetic words from Elder Maxwell

This speech was given 30 years ago, this month of October, by Elder Maxwell:

"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years
ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he
will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to
halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many
years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the
Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or
political life.'

"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society
which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being
ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the
prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when
such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious
imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions
grow out of religious convictions.

"Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the
institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes
will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the
choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic
counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems
probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by
what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a
slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was,
till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put
forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us,
let us not then complain of the heat."

- Elder Neal A. Maxwell, "Meeting the Challenges of Today" Oct. 10, 1978.

YES on Proposition 8 does not equate to "hate"

Update on April 10th, 2014:

Wow, I can't believe how much time has passed since originally writing this blog post.  There's truth to Thomas Paine's quote: "Time makes converts more than reason".

In the years that have passed since posting this I have undergone a mighty change of heart.  I still recognize that people who oppose marriage equality should not automatically be labeled "haters" and that many of them are good and sincere people.

However, I now personally identify as an "ally" and feel strongly in favor of marriage equality (and this isn't even speaking as a religious issue, but as a public policy issue).  While I know many fellow members of my faith have become discouraged by the recent state rulings in favor of marriage equality, I have been heartened by them.  I feel in my heart it is the right thing.

I believe that religious beliefs of a majority should not dictate public policy for the minority.  There is wisdom in separation of church and state.

The interior walls of the Jefferson Memorial are engraved with passages from Jefferson's writings. Most prominent are the words inscribed in a frieze below the dome:

 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

This sentence is taken from a September 23, 1800, letter by Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush wherein he defends the constitutional refusal to recognize a state religion.

My personal opposition to  "tyranny" or any other imposition of human will over my liberty/rights makes me sympathetic to our gay brothers and sisters.  And my understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ makes me more compassionate.  I love my gay brothers and sisters and desire the best for them.  I'm sorry that my church has been an impediment to this.  I see hope that this has and is changing, although the pace of change is painfully slow.

A friend of mine who lives in California and who is heavily involved in Proposition 8 recently pointed out that the entire controversy is really only about 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." That's the entire constitutional amendment.

I've since taken the time to educate myself on the Proposition 8 controversy. I've let it stir in my mind as objectively as possible, and I've thought about things that have been said by both opponents and proponents of the proposition.

I finally found an opinion piece which expressed almost exactly what I have been thinking of saying, especially after seeing Ellen say on Jay Leno that YES on 8 is "hate". As much as I like Ellen (and I really do), I find that very disturbing. Can not decent people disagree without be labeled as haters?

The article I read is by Dennis Prager entitled "Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love". Just in case something happens to the link, I want to now include it here in its entirety:
__________________________________________________________________________________

Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.

First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

College Football Nation: Meet BYU

I felt this excellent article in the USA Today did a very fair job at capturing the essence of BYU's football program right now. It's interesting that BYU's football success seems to legitimize BYU as my alma-mater to those I live near and work with here in Texas who otherwise wouldn't be talking about Brigham Young University. Link for yourself: Mendenhall's Cougars are on a mission at Brigham Young.

PS: We're excited to be attending the game up at TCU this Thursday and see the Cougs in person for a change. Big, big game. Go Cougars!

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!

"How Wide the Divide?"

I can't say enough great things about the book "How Wide The Divide?", and how I think it should be an absolute required read for any Evangelical and for every Latter-day Saint. For me, it has been a watershed experience in terms of interfaith understanding and dialogue. Things that I've recently learned about Evangelicals have been made more clear, and parts of past conversations that I've participated in which perplexed me now make much more sense. The book has been out for ten years, but the time was ripe for me to read it now that I've taken up an interest in interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding. It's been a fascinating read, and one of my favorite books I've read in a long time.

LDS Christians should read it so that we're all on the same page, and Evangelical Christians should read it to better understand the facts of what we do and do not believe. Both "sides" should read it to better understand each other and to recognize where we actually, and perhaps surprisingly, agree, and where we indeed have disagreements. Sometimes what is understood by what we say isn't exactly what we mean, since we use different theological vocabularies. This is a step toward becoming theologically "bilingual". I highly recommend, if you haven't done so already, that you get this book! If you have already read it, what are your thoughts? What has been your experience since reading it?

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.