HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE BIBLE STORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON
A Mormon Explanation About What They Believe
 
The Mormon Challenge
Sunday, February 27

Dear On Doctrine,

I stumbled across your wer[b] site and was surprised on the number of grave incorrections contained at the following link: http://www.ondoctrine.com/1mormo17.htm

Please allow me try to clarify, respectfully, though I am not an official representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I would like to share my thoughts with you. I think you might find this to be interesting reading with concepts perhaps never before pondered, however, I hope that it would not be used to further misconstrue our doctrine into incorrect beliefs of our church. I hope you would read this in its entirety so that you may catch its full meaning and spirit.

We worship God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost is also part of the godhead, and we give him the same reverance. They are separate and distinct eternal beings all with single purpose - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ have glorified physical immortal bodies, and the Holy Ghost having a spirit body, not tangible. The Holy Ghosts mission is to witness to bear truth to the human heart, or in otherwords, to helps us to feel the spirit when we are hearing truth, so we can know how to recognize when we are hearing truth. As a side question, God the Father knows everything, so how does he progress, or what purpose does a god have after achieving godhood? (I know what you're thinking - how can God be an eternal god, when He had to achieve godhood, which would lead one to presume he wasn't a god forever, right? - well He did exist forever - as I'll explain the eternal nature of all spirits in the next paragraph and the definition of eter[nal.]

When we say that man is eternal in nature, it has been described that God created us out of light (possibly along with Heavenly Mother's help - we do not know), which (light) is an eternal element and has a certain amount of intelligence on its own, due to the fact that simple light unveils darkness and revealeth on its own merits, and is simple intelligence. Our spirit (light) elements are eternal in every essence of the meaning of eternal. I can only imagine that Heavenly Father nurtured our light into conscienceness (individual "lights" that eventually become individual spirits), only He understands how it is done, and is not mentioned in our church meeting houses anywhere, this is just my opinion, but I know of other members who believe this as well, but is not official doctrine of our church. We don't speak of Heavenly Mother very often due to respect to Her and that we believe it's Heavenly Father wish not to speak of Her, His eternal companion, in irreverant terms. We don't fully understand how we we attained godhood before he came to earth) was chosen to pay for the sins of man, but only if sinners would repent and humble themselves before God. However, we know that if a particular man is the most righteous man on the earth, this still does not gain him salvation. Only through the merits of the Savior can a man return to Heavenly Father. Another side note, we try not to say "Jesus" as often as we say "the Savior" just to show repect to His name.

We believe that we were created as literal spirit children in the family of God in Heaven, and lived with Him before we were sent here on earth. We belong to a providential family (the human race on earth are literal sons and daughters of God). If we do what God asks of us, and we keep his commandments, then His (meaning the Savior) mercy can bring us back to His (meaning God the Father) presence. We will be given our immortal bodies (the resurrection) and live forever. We will have the ability (only those to attain the highest degree in the Celestial Kindom) to enjoy the powers of godhood. All people on earth will resurrect and gain an immortal physical body, but only those who attain the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom will continue to have the powers of procreation.

I think that some confusion lies in the fact that On Doctrine misrepresents the teaching of the progression of a man to the potentialality of a god-like status. Keep in mind that the term "eternal progression" doesn't always mean eternal but means "a very long time" instead. However, sometimes "eternal" means "eternal." Please allow me to clarify so that there is clear meaning. We do believe that Heavenly Father was once a man, eons ago (we could say an "eternity" ago but in reality it was only eons ago. But in mortal man's thinking, God has been God for an "eternity" since it seems like an eternity to us, in our limited mortal minds. So this would be an example of where we say "eternal" but in reality, it means eons ago. I would even go as far as saying so long ago that we couldn't even comprehend how long ago when He was a man. When you see the "infinitness" and expansion of galaxies and worlds "without number", spanning billions of years in the making, our Heavenly Father has amassed so much knowledge and [. . .]

Now comes the deeper concept to understand. Please read this in its entirety. Since Heavenly Father was once a mortal man eons ago on a mortal planet much like our earth is (to clarify, not this planet, but one like it eons ago - and I would venture to say not even a planet in this universe but a universe that was organized before this one perhaps), then that means that our Heavenly Father had a god that he worshipped when Heavenly Father was a man. And that god had a god that he worshipped, and so on and so on, going backwards in time if you will. What I'm trying to illustrate is, that it goes back for eternity, real eternity this time. Life has always been creating life (meaning gods creating spirits in their own likeness, and hoping that these spirits would eventually attain godhood). If you were to do God's geneology, you would find that in real terms, you would be studying pre-god-geneology from infinity to infinity. This is something you will find has no beginning. It geneology goes in the past without universes (this is what is meant that matter cannot either be created or destroyed in our doctrine). But I submitt to you that matter is infinite when you think in terms that there is infinite amount of universes. So even though Gods are creating spirit children for the eternities, there will never be a shortage of matter to populate worlds in the future eons. God knows what He is doing. And there is an analogy in our church that helps us understand the conscience level between a man and a god. Man is described as having the conscience level of an embryo compare to the conscience level of God. If you can imagine the self-awareness a simple embryo (almost non-existant but yet still alive), this would be the conscience of man compared to a god. We mortal men would like to believe that we are very conscience of ourselves, but we are like embryos compared to the level of the conscience of a god, only I think it goes far beyond that, but it has been describe in this manner to help us understand how far advanced.

I don't know if this helps, but hope that it clarifies somewhat.

On Doctrine Reply
Welcome to On Doctrine —,
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read the article in question.

I don't see any substantive difference in what I presented in relation to your explanation. I see your comments to be a variation on themes that have been part of church teaching since its inception..

I understand that you worship God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as divine beings who are separate entities: the Father, and then Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are spiritual sons of the Father and His wives through procreation (although Jesus Christ is also a literal temporal son, through an incestuous procreation by God with Mary His daughter), and their spirits were born on the Father's planet, which is located somewhere in this or another universe and orbits a large star called Kolob. However, that is current Mormon theology and does not represent what is taught in the Book of Mormon, which is either Trinitarian or modalistic in its definition of the godhead, and also represents the change that Joseph Smith went through in his definitions of the godhead [See: The God Of The Bible Is Not The Same As The God Of The Book Of Mormon ]. There has always been a disagreement in the church regarding the Holy Spirit, since it was not always believed that He is a person:

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made, ...they are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father a personage of tabernacle. . . called the Son because of the flesh . . . possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit . . .
Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.
Q. How do you prove that there are two personages in the Godhead?
A. By the Scriptures. . . .
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do. . . .
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit. . . .
Q. Do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?
A. They do. . . .
Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?
A. It does.
-- "Doctrine and Covenants," 'Lectures On Faith,' 1835 ed., pp. 52, 53, 55, 57, 58 (removed from current editions)

The church now concludes that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit rather than attributing his work as a power or emanation from God. In another article, I note that I find it difficult to understand that the Father and Jesus Christ had to go through the various elements of the Eternal Progression in order to obtain their status as gods, but the Holy Spirit has not done so, yet, is considered to be a God even though he does not have a body, which is necessary for exaltation to occur.

"The punishment of Satan and the third of the hosts of heaven who followed him, was that they were denied the privilege of being born into this world and receiving mortal bodies. They did not keep their first estate and were denied the opportunity of eternal progression,"
-- Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1, p. 65.

Additionally, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ was ever married and certainly was not polygamous (both being a necessity for exaltation), although, because marriage and polygamy are necessary for the highest exaltation, it is speculated by many Mormons that He was married. There is also not only no evidence that the Holy Spirit was ever married, it cannot even be speculated that he was married, since it is never stated that He lived on this earth, and since He does not have a temporal body, he could not have been married, so, His method of exaltation does not conform to Mormon doctrine.

The "crowning Gospel ordinance requisite for Godhood is celestial marriage . . . obedience to this law is absolutely necessary in order to obtain the highest exaltation in the Kingdom of God,"
-- Milton R. Hunter, "The Gospel Through The Ages," pp. 118-119.

"The opposite of eternal lives is eternal deaths. Those who come up separately and singly in the resurrection and who therefore do not have spirit children eternally are said to inherit 'the deaths.' -- Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," 1958, p. 220.

I understand the reasoning behind the explanation regarding the eternal nature of God as being resolved by stating that he existed eternally by means of an origin or union with light, which would also apply to every other individual as well. But that eternal existence involves the components that compose the spirit and not the spirit itself. That is like saying that a house existed prior to its construction, because it was built out of trees, metal, stone and other materials that existed prior to its assembly; not quite accurate in relation to claiming an actual prior existence of the final product. So, that represents the adoption of a dual pre-existence doctrine consisting of a spirit being procreated by God and his wife on another planet and a pre-pre-existence in which the nature of that spirit existed eternally within the intelligence of light, waiting to be infused into the procreated spirit or else created after the birth and infused. So, what you actually have are spirits, not eternal in their nature as they are found now, but composed of the eternal substance of light that existed prior to the existence of any other entity. However, there is no teaching in historic Mormon doctrine that God creates His spiritual children. Mormon theology is based on the idea that God literally procreates his spiritual children and that they are born from their mother in the their final pre-existent spiritual state.

The Book of Mormon and the Bible both state that God created by His word and not by the use of, or means of light, which is a concept that is foreign to both accounts of creation. If God created spirits using the components of light, then it must be assumed that light predated any created being or spirit, whether it be God or man, because if there was a first God, then He would have had a spirit which was also created out of light, but by whom was that creation accomplished? That idea simply substitutes light, as the fundamentally existing substance of the spirit, in the place of apostle Orson Pratt's claim (currently rejected by the Mormon church) that the fundamentally existing substance constituting everything that exists, either temporal or spiritual, is composed of tiny, individual intelligences which come together in a mutual agreement as the substance of being, and have existed eternally (as real eternity, not just for a long time). So, they also existed prior to the existence of any human being, God or spirit. In fact, their power is so great, that they can disassociate themselves from one another, by mutual agreement, thereby removing from existence any entity or spirit being, including those who are Gods and those who are not. This belief, along with the explanation about light, is part of the discussion within the Mormon church regarding the nature of hell. Is hell eternal or not? There are those who claim that hell is an eternal place, but that people do not actually spend eternity there (as a real and eternal infinite existence), because at some point, they are disassociated back into the original elements that compose the spirit and body (either apostle Orson Pratt's little intelligences, or the intelligence of light).

I have received a number of responses, questioning why I think that it is important that God can create from nothing, rather than being able to simply organize from pre-existing material as do the Mormon Gods. The issue of pre-existing intelligent light or little intelligences, reveals the reason. In the Bible, light is an element created by God instead of light being a substance that is used in the creation by God. If a certain explanation is adopted, then it must be taken to its logical end, and in this case, the logical end of your explanation is that light existed prior to anything else, either temporal or spiritual, which places the intelligence within light itself in the position of the God-maker. The same difficulty is found in apostle Orson Pratt's little intelligences, who also existed prior to any man or any God. The secondary problem is the difficulty inherent in the concept of the Eternal Progression itself. It is a theology that begins with human beings as the initial entities, because it requires that an individual experience the progression from the lesser to the greater; from the spirit to the temporal human existence and then exaltation to godhood, and not the other way around. Additionally, to start with man and not with God, creates additional problems: (1) If God did not first exist, then how were the spirits procreated, and (2) From what mind-source did Mormon teaching arise, and (3) If God existed first, then how did he become a God, not having passed through the Eternal Progression? I suppose that number 3 might be answered by using the Holy Spirit as the example, but that simply begs the question and does not answer the how? of the equation.

Joseph Smith himself removed any idea that God has the ability or power to be a creator of the human spirit as a personal act, and complicates the equation if it is assumed that God creates spirits out of light:

". . . god never had the power to create the spirit of man at all."
-- prophet, president and seer, Joseph Smith, "Journal of discourses," Vol. 6, p. 7, 1844

In Mormon theology, God is not a creator in the same manner as found in the Bible. The God in Mormon theology is a user, an organizer or an arranger of existing material, which he did not create, into other forms and structures. In Mormon theology, matter pre-existed God, but in orthodox biblical theology, God pre-existed matter, which He created from nothing by His word. That is a very big difference and changes the very nature of the universe. In the biblical view, the universe is inanimate, but in the Mormon view, the universe is animate, composed of intelligent light or little intelligences, depending on your choice, and associates and moves of its own volition, even in the absence of man or God.

I am not quite sure that I understand your explanation of how you believe that I have misrepresented the term "eternal progression." I am not confused by the use of the term "eternal" in relation to Mormon doctrine. I understand that a person might use the term "eternal" in relation to long periods of time, rather than infinite time, however I use the term and apply the definition in the literal meaning. The Eternal Progression is eternal from the standpoint of the fact that Mormon theology maintains that it has been going on, or in existence, in an infinite number of worlds and universes for eternity (defined as infinity of time past), not just a very long period of time. It is the infinite existence of the process that is the eternal aspect and not the progression itself. The Eternal Progression does not apply to an individual in the manner that the person must eternally (as a future event of infinite time) be in a state of continual progression to godhood. However, that may not exactly be the case, since a Mormon prophet has also stated that God is continually in a state of learning, so, as a God, he may not be perfectly progressed in knowledge and not a God in a final state of perfection and, perhaps, never will reach that state of perfection. Current Mormon theology would reject that view, however it was taught by a president and prophet, so it must be denied by a living prophet who has authority over the pronouncements of any dead prophet.

"God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." -- president, prophet and seer Wilford Woodruff, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 6, p. 120, 1857

Wilford Woodruff was also the president and prophet who declared that the practice of polygamy was abolished and unnecessary, in the Manifesto of 1890. If he was incorrect in his claim that God is not perfect in knowledge, then perhaps the Manifesto may have been an incorrect teaching also. The difficulty is compounded.

I believe your comments regarding the genealogy of God going back to infinity was an attempt to say that there is no beginning for God. That is true in orthodox biblical theology (although God does not have a genealogy in that respect), because the starting point is with God, who is self-existing, and from whom comes all tangible material, spiritual reality and entities of spirit and person, but it is not the same in Mormon theology, because the starting point is material and intelligence that exists prior to the spirit, prior to the temporal, prior to man, prior to the existence of any God and is the self-existing component in that theology. In Mormon theology, God must have a beginning and matter does not, but in orthodox theology, it is God who has no beginning and matter that does, as a creative act of God.

"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed Before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state... they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their heaven forever and ever.

We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, he was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first Father was begotten. But why does man seek for a first.. why then, do you seek for a first personal Father in an endless genealogy?"
-- apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," January 1853, pp. 23, 132

Mormon theology begins with material that already exists (without an explanation for its origin), and a God that is not, but is to be by means of procreation and progression. That presents the difficulty, because, as I have noted, Mormon theology is left without an explanation of how the spirit can be procreated by a God who does not yet exist.

Mormon Gods are not self-existing, but are the result of, not the start or cause of the Eternal Progression, and are the conclusion, or the end product, of a series of real and actual progressive events. Pushing God back into timeless infinity (as Orson Pratt did in his quote) does not solve the difficulty, because the Eternal Progression requires a beginning step at some point, since it is not self-existing. At one point in the "infinity of time" there was no first Mormon God, because He is the result of a process. It is convenient to propose that He existed within the timeless nature of light, although not yet formed in spirit, but the reality is that intelligent light or tiny intelligences, at one time, had not been incorporated into the first spirit, the first spirit had not been incorporated into the first temporal existence and the first temporal man had not been exalted to godhood. Progressions defined within the Eternal Progression require that those progressions occur in a specific sequence, and if there is an end product, there must be a beginning; the point at which it occurs, Mormon theology does not define.

However, the Book of Mormon states a very different definition of the origin of God and the concept of the Eternal Progression:

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity,"
Moroni 8:8. cf. Mosiah 3:5,

All of this reveals a very real problem that goes back to the fundamental claims that Joseph Smith made in relation to the Book of Mormon, by which he stated that the book was the restoration of the gospel that had been lost, because there is no historical evidence that the teachings of the Mormon church were ever known prior to his introduction of the Book of Mormon or were a part of the teachings of the biblical New Testament era church. If the Book of Mormon represents the true gospel message, which was sufficient for humanity to be reconciled to God, and because of that was necessarily restored, by what means can it be claimed that there are numerous major Mormon doctrines today, necessary for understanding and appropriating the gospel, that are not part of the Book of Mormon? Many of those doctrines were never known or practiced by those individuals found in the Book of Mormon. Are they still a "lost and fallen people" because they never heard of the Eternal Progression? There is no Eternal Progression to godhood found in the Book of Mormon and no indication that the people mentioned there even considered a possibility that they could become Gods, yet that is the message of the gospel found in the Mormon church today. The reality is, that Mormon doctrine today is not based on the Book of Mormon, but on the pronouncements of the prophets. So, as a restoration of the gospel message, the Book of Mormon has been left far behind for another gospel message from the living prophets, just as the Bible was left even farther behind and considered to be a corrupt, unreliable and nonauthoritative book.

Sincerely,

Gary A. Hand

The Mormon Challenge
Hey, no problem. I'm glad we can talk about our similarities and differences on faith, peacefully in this country.

I'm up late working on my website and received your message. I will respond briefly, and thank you for the time you are taking with me.

Well, here it goes:

The first thing I'd like to mention is I've never heard that the Holy Ghost is a spiritual son of Heavenly Father in our church. I personally think He wasn't a spiritual creation from Heavenly Father, but it is taught in our church that the Son was the first spiritual creation of our Heavenly Parents (but never the Holy Ghost!). I believe the Holy Ghost was given a divine calling to be a testifier of truth and to mainly bare witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and God the Father. We wonder in our church if the Holy Ghost will ever receive a body or not. But it is something we don't dwell on. I don't think I could really explain the Holy Ghost's actually relationship to God the Father, since it has never been revealed, but in our church, the feeling I get is that He might of achieved godhood during the time when Heavenly Father achieved godhood. The Savior attained godhood after He was created by our Heavenly Parents. I hope this is not confusing. : ) So God the Father and the Holy Ghost attained godhood before the Son did. This is the feeling I get, but never has anyone formally taught this, neither has it been informally taught. One of our main articles of faith is that "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." So since we believe this particular article of faith, mormons understand that we all have the basic beliefs and testimony of the church, but that we are free to ponder the eternities without having to worry that it may differ from, say, another mormon. We know that we are unified in the basic beliefs. There are many beliefs we believe in, even though they may not have been mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That is because we believe that our church is based on revelation, and we have, from time to time, received teachings from prophets. Also, we believe in a book called the "Pearl of Great Price" which was pupyrus found in the Dead Sea, know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Joseph Smith had translated. In this book, we find conversations that the prophet Abraham had with God. In this book, Kolob is mentioned. One day on Kolob is a thousand years on earth. I don't know if Kolob is where God the Father resides. In the "Pearl of Great Price" it mentions that Kolob is "nearst" to Him, and that Kolob's time reckoning is in sync with Heavenly Father's, and all other planets are governed under this reckoning.

Secondly, I've never heard that Heavenly Father had a physical relationship with the mortal Mary in our church in order for the Son to be born in mortality, nor have I ever heard of anyone ever mentioning that in either a formal capacity or informal capacity to me in all my years in the church (22 years). We believe, however, that since the Savior, while on the earth, was half mortal and half immortal, meaning that He had both characteristics of mortality (from Mary) and immortality (from God the Father) He had the power to live forever in mortality if he wanted to. But when His work was finished (after suffering on the cross) He said "Father, unto thee I commend my spirit." So He was the one that decided that His spirit could leave his mortal body. So even though He was greatly wounded on the cross, He could of decided to continue living if He chose to. Of course that would be absurd to do so. No one on earth had the power to kill him is what I'm trying to say.

(As I explain, I understand that this is only to help you understand how Mormons believe, I'm not trying to preach, as that's how it may come across, but I do appreciate you taking the time to understand so that if these beliefs are published, that they are being presented from a Mormon's perspective - and I thank you for it) : )

As far as the Godhead, all I can say is that we believe They are three separate persons. The Father and the Son having perfect immortal tangible bodies, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage. They are all separate individuals with the same purpose, and that is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. When the Savior mentions in scripture that He and the Father and the Holy Ghost's minds are "one," we believe that it means they are unified in purpose, and not to mean that they share the Holy Ghost's mind, as you mention. But I understand you believe that they do and I respect that of course. When you speak of Joseph Smith writing about seeing the Lord (meaing the Savior) in the First Vision's 1st version, this doesn't mean that the Father wasn't there. He was only 14 when he saw the First Vision. He did see the Lord. He later found out that he needed to clarify that there were two personages in the vision. Why are things taken to the extreme, and made to contradict? Is it ok that he mentioned he saw the Lord, even though two personages were before him, and clarified it later? : ) As I read further at www.ondoctrine.com/1mormo05.htm I'm finding that so many things are being taken out of context. For instance, when it is mentioned that mormons believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, but that one of the stories in the Book of Mormon talks about the "Great Spirit." The prophet in the Book of Mormon was only trying to help the leader relate to God in his own terminology. Isn't it ok to try to talk in terms that people will understand in? Why, is it, again, that this is taken out of context? God the Father has a spirit. He in fact has a "Great Spirit." It goes on and on on this "www.ondoctrine.com/1mormo05.htm page, that I'm realizing that it's never going to end. I hope you would read the Book of Mormon from end to end, so that you will be able to see for yourself, how crazy things are being taken out of context. I mean no disrespect Sir/Maam. I think if you read the Book of Mormon with real reverence for what it might be, you would not attack it and the church the way you do, seemingly so aggressively. Well, I've said enough here. I really do appreciate your correspondence. Maybe we'll meet in heaven someday, as equals my friend. God bless...

On Doctrine Reply
Welcome back to On Doctrine —.
Thank you for your reply.

Yes, it is nice that we can exchange ideas regarding the differences between our beliefs. Unfortunately, the differences far outweigh the similarities. My neighbor of 40 years, who is a Mormon bishop, has often said, "We are so close in what we believe," hoping that I would concede to the Mormon position, but the reality is that we are at opposite ends of the universe in relation to Orthodox doctrine and Mormon doctrine. In both belief systems, many of the words and names are the same, but the meanings of the words and natures of the individuals are radically different and that is the point of the articles on the website. God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are defined differently in Orthodox doctrine in relation to Mormon doctrine, and, as a consequence, the deities worshipped in both systems are different. This is not just a difference in emphasis, but represents a real and irreconcilable difference of basic definition, and is realized by president Hinkley,

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.

He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"
-- Deseret News, Church News section, Salt Lake City, Utah, week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7

Orthodox Christian theology looks to the Bible for its definition of the godhead, which is much closer to that found in the Book of Mormon than found in current Mormon doctrine. Mormon theology looks to the second version of Joseph Smith's First Vision and his subsequent revelations for its definition of the godhead, which is much different than that found in the Book of Mormon.

I will comment on your reply, basically (sort of) in the order in which you presented your ideas.

THE HOLY GHOST
The proposal that the Holy Ghost received his exaltation at the same time as the Father only pushes the difficulty back one level. The same Gospel would have to have been followed by the Father and the Holy Ghost, however, if the Holy Ghost would have attained to godhood in the time of the Father, then He should have a body. I believe that current thinking is that the Holy Ghost would have received His exaltation in the pre-existence while the Father would have received His exaltation after following the precepts of the Eternal Progression in a temporal life and then being exalted after a resurrection, which would have been prior to the birth of the Holy Ghost, unless it is assumed that the Holy Ghost is a holdover from a previous generation, possibly the brother of the Father. Regardless of the relationship, it is understood that the Holy Ghost attained to godhood without a body.

Mormon doctrine states that a body and a wife (actually wives) must be possessed in order to attain the highest exaltation, which also includes temple marriage. I am not aware that Mormon doctrine indicates that there is a temple in the pre-existent world. This same difficulty would be found in any of the infinite worlds and universes in which a Heavenly Father presides, because the Eternal Progression is a continual repetition of the exact same principles and actions that have gone on before. So, each world also has a Holy Ghost who has attained godhood outside the precepts of Mormon doctrine as expressed in the Eternal Progression.

Whether or not the Holy Ghost will, at some time in the future, receive a body, only pushes the problem into a future state, however, He is already said to be a God without a body, without spouses and without children.

Mormon presidents have not addressed the issue as to inquiring for a revelation on the subject, because they do not believe the issue has any relation to their own resurrection, so, it is considered to be a non-issue as noted by Joseph Fielding Smith:

"I have never troubled myself about the Holy Ghost whether he will sometime have a body or not because it is not in any way essential to my salvation,"
-- "Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1, p. 39.

There is a very real issue involved in relation to exaltation, because the means by which Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost have been exalted and the means by which every other person receives exaltation, reveals a dual gospel message; a message that the highest exaltation can also be achieved in the pre-existence outside the precepts of Mormon Doctrine and the Eternal Progression for one group, and the highest exaltation that can only be attained by following the precepts of Mormon Doctrine and passing through the elements of the Eternal Progression on an earth for another group. But, perhaps Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were not exalted in the same manner, so, instead of there being two ways to exaltation, there might be three.

Since the Holy Ghost is considered to be a God, He must have attained that godhood in the pre-existence since He has not passed through the Eternal Progression by means of a temporal life. So, His position must have been attained in the same or similar manner as Jesus Christ, who also attained godhood prior to passing through the Eternal progression, although it is not possible to marry in the temple in the pre-existent state or have children, since procreation is a result of having been in the temporal state.

"He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked Him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent while yet in His pre-existent state,"
-- Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," p. 129.

Heber C. Kimball has spoken on the subject, but he is one of the few:

". . . the Holy Ghost is a man; one of the sons of our Father and our God . . ,"
-- member of the First Presidency Heber C. Kimball, "Journal of Discourses," vol. 5, p. 179.

Bruce R. McConkie identifies the Holy Ghost as "a Spirit Man," although he never progressed from the spiritual state of the pre-existence to the temporal state which defines the nature of a man, and did not move through the Eternal Progression which requires a temporal existence through which it must be passed in order to progress onward toward godhood. In the redefinition of the godhood from a Trinitarian or modalistic viewpoint found in the Book of Mormon, and the adoption of a tritheistic/polytheistic godhead, in which two members have bodies of flesh and bone and the other does not, the Holy Ghost somehow was left hanging, with no particular attention being paid to the logical end regarding His definition. The adoption of a definition of God the Father and Jesus Christ as having bodies of flesh and bone, precludes the idea that they are beings who operate in the spiritual realm, and thus required that the Holy Ghost be considered the God of a spiritual nature, in order that He might indwell the individual, which God the Father and Jesus Christ are incapable of doing because of their literal physical bodies. If, at sometime in the future, the Holy Ghost will receive a body, it must occur after the death of the last human being, since it is His ability to indwell an individual that is the defining nature of His existence and He must do so until the last human being passes from the temporal scene.

Bruce R. McConkie states where Mormon theology stands in regards to the Holy Ghost in the following:

"In this dispensation, at least, nothing has been revealed as to his origin or destiny; expressions on these matters are both speculative and fruitless,"
-- "Mormon Doctrine," p 320.

According to Bruce R. McConkie, the exaltation of Jesus Christ was apart from the precepts of the Eternal Progression and this must also be the case for the Holy Ghost. It is believed that Jesus Christ was married and even polygamous, and had children while on this earth, and so it is assumed that He fulfilled the marriage requirements of the church, so, possibly that provides authority for His prior exaltation, but He was not married in the temple, since marriages were not performed in the Jewish temple and that temple was not an expression of Mormon theology, the marriage at Cana was in a home and not a Mormon temple and there were no Mormon temples in existence until the first was built in Kirtland. The Scripture is clear that Jesus attended that marriage as an invited guest and not the groom, so lack of a temple marriage invalidates an exaltation to godhood based on Mormon doctrine.

TEMPORAL BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST
The teaching regarding the Father having literal sexual relations with Mary, in order for the Son to be born, is a doctrine taught very early in the church. It is a teaching that has not been kept secret, so I am surprised that you have never encountered it before. According to current Mormon doctrine, it is absolutely necessary that God the Father be the literal temporal father of Jesus Christ, because Mormon doctrine states that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals. If the Holy Ghost is considered to have been the father, then Jesus Christ would be the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Son of God the Father, so, Mormon theology must deny what the Book of Mormon states, Alma 7:10, and also what the Bible states, Matthew 1:18, 20, Luke 1:35 The Book of Mormon reveals a Father God who is either Trinitarian or modalistic in His nature, so current Mormon doctrine is a radical and fundamental departure from that found in the Book of Mormon and not just a progressive refinement of revelation.

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,"
-- Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., "Religious Truths Defined," p. 44.

"Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of man, and that Man was God!"
-- president Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1, p. 18.

"These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers,"
-- apostle Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," 1966, pp. 546-547.

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, . . . Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man,"
-- apostle Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," p. 742.

"There are two basic elements in the Gospel view of sexuality as I interpret it from the scriptures. The first is that sex is good - that sexuality, far from being the antithesis of spirituality, is actually an attribute of God. . . .

In light of their understanding that God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone, latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus. . . . The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone, and was literally what Nephi said he was, "Son of the Eternal Father,"
-- Carlfred B. Broderick, "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," Autumn, 1967, pp. 100-101

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not in tended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity,"
-- apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," 1853-1854, p. 158.

This view is in direct opposition to orthodox doctrine, which does not include the necessity that God be a physical procreating God or that Jesus Christ had to have been fathered in a sexual manner. Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible state that Jesus Christ was fathered by the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is the Son of God in orthodox theology, because of the Trinitarian nature of the godhead, which is defined as follows:

"Within the one being of God there exists eternally three persons."

In orthodox theology, the godhead is not a triumvirate, presidency or association, but a single being of God within which eternally exist three person as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In orthodox theology, the birth of Jesus Christ was a creative act, and not sexual in any manner, simply because the Holy Spirit is a spiritual being without the necessity of physical procreative ability. The same is applied to God, who is also a spiritual being.

Originally, Joseph Smith considered God to be a spiritual being, and Jesus Christ to be a person of flesh and bone:

". . . the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle . . ,"
-- "Lectures on Faith," "Doctrine and Covenants," 1835 ed., lect. 5, p. 53 - removed from Doctrine and Covenants in 1921

In Mormon theology, when God the Father was later redefined as a personage of tabernacle and a sexual being, and a separate being from the Holy Ghost, then the difficulty regarding the paternity of Jesus Christ presented itself.

The difficulty in relation to the Book of Mormon and the statement that God the Father is that "Great Spirit," is, the statement says God is a spirit, not just that He possesses a spirit. Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was literally a personage of spirit and not just in possession of a spirit, because he specifically differentiated between God and Jesus Christ as to their nature:

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space - They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle . . ."
-- prophet Joseph Smith, "Doctrine and Covenants," Lectures on Faith, p. 53, 1835 [removed from the D.&C. in 1921]

At first, confirming what he claimed to have translated in the Book of Mormon, it was only later that he changed his teaching and stated that God the Father and Jesus Christ were personages of tabernacle. In the King Follett Discourse, given three months prior to his death, Joseph Smith finalized his journey from a belief in a God who is a spirit, to a God who is a personage of tabernacle and was once just a man:

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. . . . I am going to tell you how god came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. . . . God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . . You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves. . . . No man can learn you more that what I have told you,"
-- prophet Joseph Smith, "Times and Seasons," vol. 5, pp. 613-614.

However, within these changing belief positions in relation to the nature of God, the Book of Mormon must again speak for itself, because it does not reveal a polytheistic God, but a modalistic God, who is a single God who appears in different forms:

"And now Abinadi said unto them: 'I would that we should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son - The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people,"
Mosiah 15:1-5

It was, first, Joseph Smith who made the charges against Catholic and orthodox Christians and provided the foundational reasons for the existence of what became the Mormon church. His charges were of such an outrageous nature, that they required a response. Even today, those same charges are repeated again, so, they continually require a response. In his time, a period in which anti-Catholic sentiment was high, it might be understood why his claims were so readily accepted in relation to the Catholic church, but he included as being a part of the false teaching of the Catholic church, the biblical message that had been advocated by the Reformers, many of whom had been martyred by the very church which they had disavowed, but of which he claimed they were actually still a part.

". . . I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, . . . I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in the his sight; that those professors were all corrupt. . . . He again forbade me to join with any of them . . ,"
-- Joseph Smith, 'First Vision,' "Times and Seasons," 1842, vol. 3, pp. 728, 748 (also the "Pearl of Great Price version).

Nephi "saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible. . . . Nephi beheld further that this church was the 'mother of abominations,' and 'the whore of all the earth'. . . ,"
-- apostle Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," p. 130.

With a single statement, Joseph Smith swept away 1400 years of the Christian church as being apostate and declared, that in all of that time, it was then only he who had ever been given the message of the true gospel. All Christian churches, whether they were Catholic, Protestant or neither, were declared to be corrupt and an abomination to God. Why God had chosen to keep the gospel secret for all of that time and was unable to keep even a small part of the church from becoming apostate was not explained, cf. Matthew 16:23. Joseph Smith made the declaration by stating that God had directly spoken to him the truth of the matter, and by his own authority, declared that he alone was in possession of the true gospel from which the church had apostatized. Within the Book of Mormon, which he claimed to have translated from the golden plates and was said to be the restoration of the true gospel, he used 1 Nephi 13:34; 14::15-17 as his foundation for the claims that he made, as did Bruce R. McConkie quoted above.

Joseph Smith made his statements in relation to the First Vision (actually the second version of the First Vision), and Bruce R. McConkie used the Book of Mormon as his foundation for his claims. So, at issue are the two major defining documents of the Mormon church: the First Vision of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The questions are many in relation to the statements made by the two men, but two questions in relation to the statements stand out foremost, and if the answer to either of the questions is in the negative, then either the First Vision or the Book of Mormon or both documents are found to be without foundational authority and are fabrications by Joseph Smith.

Question # 1
Was the Bible ever changed by corrupt Catholic priests who removed "plain and precious parts" from its pages?

This is a foundational issue presented by Joseph Smith and provides the reason why the Book of Mormon was necessary. His claim was that the Bible was unreliable, because it had been changed from the original by the Catholic church, many parts were removed and other parts were added (redacted), therefore it no longer contained the true gospel message.

It would be assumed, that in the JST translation of the King James version of the Bible, that Joseph Smith would have restored all of the missing parts and removed all of the parts that were added. However, that was not done at all, since the only book that he removed was the Song of Solomon, an Old Testament writing, and he did not restore any substantial parts that made any real difference. In fact, he left in place, portions of the Bible that are known to have been additions after the original, such as 1 John 5:7-8 and Mark 16:9-20.

But the question remains, has the Bible, represented in the King James translation, been changed by corrupt Catholic priests, as stated by Joseph Smith? Mormon scholars do not make that charge today, because it cannot be supported because of the manuscript evidence that is available.

". . . no new manuscript discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story. This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament. . . . It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess. . . Joseph Smith said that 'many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.' (Documentary History of the Church, I, 245, 1832.) Major losses might occur by elimination of whole books rather than alterations of those admitted as canonical. Nor do subsequent changes have to be based on open changes of the writings. The forces of evil are more effective at changing the meaning of true terms and concepts than removing them."
Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, Brigham Young University, 1963, pp. 52-59.

Question # 2
Is there any evidence that the gospel found in the Mormon church was ever part of the Bible or taught in the early church?

This is the greatest difficulty faced by the church in relation to the Bible. If it was changed and is now corrupt, then the original version should have faithfully included the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon and there should be evidence that the Mormon gospel was taught in the early church. But this is not so. There is no manuscript evidence that supports the teachings in the Book of Mormon and no mention of the gospel message found there in the teaching of the earliest church fathers. There is no historical record of Mormon doctrine prior to that found in the Book of Mormon as published in 1830.

The reality is, that the Bible as found in the King James version, which Joseph Smith said was corrupt, represents a virtually identical translation from manuscript evidence that predates the establishment of the Catholic church.

I understand that the Mormon church has, basically, three repositories that are considered to be scripture:
1. The Book of Mormon
The translation from the golden plates that is the restored gospel.
2. Doctrine and Covenants
Originally printed as "The Book of Commandments," and contains the revelations received by Joseph Smith, in addition to some other items such as the two Declarations.
3. Pearl of Great Price
Which contains the following:
a) The Articles of Faith
b) Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith
c) JST - Matthew 23:39; 24
d) The Book of Moses
e) The Book of Abraham - "A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt."

Very little current Mormon doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon, the majority coming out of the Doctrine and Covenants and some very serious error coming out of the Pearl of Great Price through the Book of Abraham which has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate translation done by Joseph Smith.

Virtually all of the major doctrines found in the church today are the product of the prophets and cannot be found in the Book of Mormon in any manner. The difficulty is great, because the teachings of the church today are said to be the substance of the gospel which is necessary to believe and practice in order to obtain exaltation, yet those same doctrines were not part of the belief system of the ancients described in the Book of Mormon.

The major doctrine missing from the Book of Mormon is that of the Eternal Progression, which did not become established in the church until Joseph Smith's "King Follett Discourse" given in 1844, which was 14 years after the founding of the church and an unknown number of years in relation to the events in the Book of Mormon and the statements of Moses and Abraham, which equate to thousands of years. It cannot be claimed that the Eternal Progression was something new that God had established, because it is claimed that it has been in effect as an infinite eternal process. However, it was unknown in the Book of Mormon, in the Old Testament and not a part of the New Testament teaching of Jesus Christ or the apostles.

God waited 1400 years to restore a gospel through the Book of Mormon, that was said to have been lost, and then, within a few decades, that gospel was replaced by another gospel not taught in that restoration, but taught through the messages of the prophets.

There are other major exclusions from the Book of Mormon, represented by the following major Mormon doctrines not found in that foundational, restorative document: there is no pre-existence, no exaltation to godhood, no temple, no temple marriage, no marriage for time or for eternity, no temple endowments, no priesthood either the Aaronic or that of Melchizedek, no plural marriage (forbidden in the Book of Mormon), no baptism for the dead, no genealogical work, no second presentation of the gospel after death, no escape from hell, and no three levels of the kingdom.

There are issues or differences that are not confined to those between Orthodox and Mormon doctrine, but those within historic Mormon theology which are differences between the restored gospel as advocated in the Book of Mormon and the gospel as it is found in the Mormon church today. I don't think that the majority of Mormons are aware of those differences, but they should be and they should be making decisions on whether those differences are important in relation to what they believe. Whatever decisions are made in relation to the issues, are the responsibility of the individual Mormon, but at least those issues should be up front and on the table for review.

Sincerely,

Gary A. Hand

END OF "CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON"
A Mormon Attempts To Explain What They Believe
 
TOP OF PAGE GO TO HOME PAGE GO TO ORGANIZATIONS MASTER LIST GO TO WRITINGS MASTER PAGE
   COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE Bible STORE