Sharing Christ

[ 5 ] Comments

by RI Editors

Please welcome Ardis E. Parshall (Keepapitchinin) who is guest posting with us. 

This is a kind of post I seldom write. Actually, I think I have never written a post like this, but I’m entering my dotage and may have forgotten something.

I believe in preaching – teaching – shouting from the housetops (or the computer screens) the truths of Mormonism. Once in a while, teaching truth requires spotlighting and correcting error – I’ve done that a few times here, when I’ve outlined some colorful bit of mistaken history in order to set the record straight. But I’ve always tried to set out the mistaken history in terms its supporters would recognize; I’ve never stacked the deck by painting the mistaken history in exaggerated and distorted terms in order to make it easier to knock down.

I write a monthly column of Utah history for the Salt Lake Tribune. Because that column was designed as Utah history, not Mormon history, I have made a deliberate effort to tell stories about all kinds of Utahns. I’ve written about Mormons, yes, but also about Catholics, and Salvationists, and Jews; about Welshmen, and Polynesians, and Chinese, and Hispanics; about actresses, and pilots, and businessmen, and prostitutes, and playwrights, and Boy Scouts, and heroes of all kinds. The stories of these people are not my own, and I do not claim an infallible ability to represent others exactly as they would present themselves. Because of that, I have consciously chosen to tell only positive stories about groups that do not include me – if I err, I’d rather it be on the side of generosity than meanness.

That thing I seldom do, that I’m doing here? That’s directly addressing someone who doesn’t share my philosophy of fairly representing a group of which he is not a part.

Baptist Press

Yesterday Jeff Brawner, a Baptist seminary professor, posted an article on the Baptist Press website, “How to share Christ with your Mormon friends,” as part of a series on witnessing to “friends of another faith.”

I’m not going to argue with his religious views – they’re his, and he’s the best one to outline exactly what they are. But I am going to contradict his version of Mormon beliefs. Whether his false witness of Mormonism is due to (probable) ignorance, or (unlikely) malice, or some unfortunate idea that his own beliefs will appear in a better light when placed side by side with a cartoon version of Mormonism, he is wrong on almost every count. He is wrong, and I am right, when it comes to delineating Mormon teachings.

He says:

Mormons believe that God is the ruler of our planet. He is the ruler of only this particular planet. He acquired that status over the earth over a progression of time. He has a physical body and flesh.

I say:

Mormon scripture states explicitly that God has created and peopled many worlds: “Worlds without number have I created … There are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them” (Moses 1:33, 35). Is there anything in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that is as explicit as that? Limiting God to “ruler” over this single world, magnificent though this world is, is a limitation imagined by Prof. Brawner and is no part of Mormonism, which recognizes no end to the power, the majesty, the expansiveness of an eternally creative God.

Revelation is silent on the details of God’s origins. Many Mormons have extrapolated ideas from the few clues available, but I have seldom seen anything as cut-and-dried in responsible Mormon thought as Prof. Brawner’s bald assertion of God’s becoming God.

And yes, God does have “a physical body and flesh”: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). That much is stated explicitly by revelation, and requires none of the imagination sometimes displayed by Mormons who want to discern more than is plainly stated by scripture, and none of the philosophical negotiation by which creedal Christians arrived at their conception of God.

He says:

Mormons teach that Jesus is God’s firstborn spirit son. Jesus, like God, was a human being but attained his godhead status by living an upright life. His death provides for the physical resurrection of all people. This doesn’t mean that on death everyone will go to heaven, but everyone at some point will have an opportunity to be resurrected.

I say:

Mormons teach that Jesus is God’s only begotten son, relying on all the same Biblical verses cited by Prof. Brawner, with the advantage of many additional statements, at least as plain as those in the Bible, revealed by God in this dispensation. Jesus was human in the sense of having been born into mortality through a human mother – but we also understand that he retained his divinity as the begotten son of God.

Far from teaching that Jesus attained godhood by the merits of his mortal life, we join Prof. Brawner’s Baptists in teaching that Jesus has always existed and is “one with” God (meaning that Jesus shares the righteousness, glory, powers, purposes, goals, methods, mission, and attributes, if not the physical substance, with God the Father). But we go much further than Prof. Brawner can go in attesting to the eternal, ante-mortal divinity of Jesus: We declare that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament; and while Christians limited to the Bible can state that “all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3), we have the advantage of the specificity of modern revelation: “the world was made by him … the worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:9-10). There is no people on this earth who can claim a better understanding, a greater recognition, of the eternal divinity and the preeminent position of the Lord Jesus Christ, than we Mormons declare.

And yes, we do teach that resurrection is a free gift of Jesus to all mankind. We also understand that while salvation, like resurrection, is universal, exaltation is not – a distinction that cannot be comfortably squeezed into Prof. Brawner’s wording about “going to heaven.”

He says:

Mormons believe the Holy Spirit does not have, as God and Jesus have, personhood in the Trinity. Instead, he is nothing more than a spirit manifestation that is from the Father.

I say:

We understand that the Holy Spirit differs from God the Father and God the Son in that he “has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). But he is a personage, not a mere “spirit manifestation,” and he is a member of the Godhead: “We believe in God the Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (1st Article of Faith). The Mormon conception of the personhood of the Holy Ghost may be even stronger than the conception of creedal Christianity, in that we recognize the Holy Ghost as not only a member of the Godhead/Trinity, but also that he is a distinct, separate, independent person within that holy council.

Mormonism makes a distinction between the person of the Holy Spirit, and the influence exerted by the Holy Spirit. Prof. Brawner sets aside that distinction, and mistakes one part (the influence) for the other part (the personage).

–oooOooo–

And as long as I am stating Mormon belief, I will include the Mormon position on one last point.

Prof. Brawner says:

Jesus is defined by how he is portrayed in the Bible alone, not by any other book.

I say:

Jesus is defined by who he really is, what he has really done, how he has really revealed himself. Mormonism cannot accept a definition that rules out of hand the revelation of Jesus in this dispensation, as well as the revelation of Jesus in the Biblical dispensations. Jesus is who he is – Savior, Lord, Creator, Redeemer, Advocate, Judge, King, Messiah – regardless of where the testimony is recorded, and he has revealed himself through the Bible, through other scripture ancient and modern, through personal appearance, through introduction by the Father, through testimony borne in our hearts through the influence of the Holy Spirit. I count it one of the great blessings of God to this generation that we have these additional witnesses of Jesus.

That is all. Carry on.

This article was originally published at Keepapitchinin on October 26, 2012.

5 Responses to Sharing Christ

  1. Bonnie says:

    There’s a place for correcting the misapprehensions of our good brothers and sisters in (and out of) the faith on matters of doctrine and principle. I like how Ardis frames this at the beginning to clarify our discourse. We often have trouble navigating the tension between correction and tolerance, but I think this works nicely in the vein of “You Never Check Your Religion At The Door” power.

  2. Paul says:

    I’m impressed with several aspects of Ardis’ approach:
    1. “I’m not going to argue with his religious views – they’re his, and he’s the best one to outline exactly what they are. But I am going to contradict his version of Mormon beliefs.” Proporting to tell others what they believe is risky, at best, and Ardis’ approach avoids that whole kettle of fish. Three cheers!
    2. “Whether his false witness of Mormonism is due to (probable) ignorance, or (unlikely) malice…” Assuming the best about our friends outside our faith is a valuable perspective. It allows us to speak truth without malice or indignation (righteous or otherwise).
    3. “He is wrong, and I am right, when it comes to delineating Mormon teachings.” In the light of #2, it’s ok to be completely clear about our position and our belief. Civility does not require that we not tell truth; it simply requires that we do so directly, but kindly.
    Good show, Ardis! It’s great to see you here.

  3. MSKeller says:

    Very well done Ardis. I was involved in apologetics for many years in the very inset of ‘online’s’ existence. I spent hours upon hours researching, understanding and speaking with folks who were insistent that they knew more about what I believed than they did.

    Sometimes we made headway. Sometimes someone was actually baptized as a result. More often than not, detractors, ‘questioners’ merely moved on to another ‘question’ when they were shown the error of their argument and could no longer continue along that line.

    I found two things, “A man convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still.” – and, those who really do want answers, respond QUITE differently than those who merely want to disrupt and get their own voice heard.

    Your approach is excellent. 1. Your beliefs are yours, and I’ll not argue them. 2. I am the authority on my beliefs, no one else. 3. I will be respectful, but truthful and candid about sharing inaccuracies.

    Well done.

  4. Dr. Cornett says:

    “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compllied by Joseph F. Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1884, page 345.
    “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where he now is” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discources, 1:123).
    “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God–an exalted being–through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given the opportunity today to obey” Milton Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages (Melchizedik Priesthood Course of Study, 1946), 104.
    “As man is, God once was) Ibid., 105. Hunter is citing Prophrt Lorenzo Snow.

    • Paul says:

      Interesting string of quotations. What conclusion do you draw from them? Do you see that they refute or support what Ardis has written?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>