Since
publishing that article I have been willingly, and at times unwillingly, engaged in lengthy discussions by every conceivable means:
texting, e-mail, social media, and, my old favorite, verbal
discussions. I have been amazed, encouraged, disappointed, and
sometimes downright disillusioned at much of what I have heard.
Mostly I have experienced the latter two.
Let
me first say that I, as a supporter of religious liberty, have no
problem with someone running for office who doesn't agree with my
faith or worships a different god. I also understand that in American
politics someone's religious belief will not generally be part of the
public debate. I actually thrill at the diversity of my country, and
shall pray for God's grace to be upon us and our leaders no matter
who is in office. I love my country.
But I am also Christian and a Bible believer. I cannot separate my
citizen self from my Christian self, so my faith will influence the
level of my support for any candidate. What a candidate believes
about God is primary to me. It is the first commandment, the first
table of the law, and the ground upon which God judges the people of
the earth. This was the premise for my first article.
When
it comes to Governor Romney, discovering the detail of his personal
religious beliefs has been very difficult. I respect, in some ways,
his reticence to discuss his faith while running for office. But he
has stated publicly that he knows and believes the major teachings of
his church. The most basic teaching of any church is their definition
of God.
I
don't want to rewrite my previous article, but I must expand my
statement about the god of Mormonism. In my article I said that
Mormon theology “is a confusing sort of humanistic polytheism (a
man-like god and deified men and women)”. Recently I
have been reading Mormon theology almost to the point of blindness. I
have deliberately avoided non-Mormon writers because I didn't want to
be influenced or slanted in my assessment.
I have been surprised to find Mormon theologians who are openly struggling with their theology and who seem to be aware that there are deep problems. I appreciate and encourage their struggle. But with that being said there are still some hurdles that will probably never be overcome no matter how much struggle takes place. The intractable problem is with the teachings of their early prophets and church hierarchy about their god.
I have been surprised to find Mormon theologians who are openly struggling with their theology and who seem to be aware that there are deep problems. I appreciate and encourage their struggle. But with that being said there are still some hurdles that will probably never be overcome no matter how much struggle takes place. The intractable problem is with the teachings of their early prophets and church hierarchy about their god.
I
will state it as simply as I can: the Mormon belief that God the
Father and God the Son have eternal, necessary "bodies"
is a seemingly impossible theological roadblock to any consideration
that Mormons believe in the same God as mainline Christians. Many
Mormon theologians seem to agree. This is not a mean-spirited
statement, it is clear to me that theologians on both sides of this
divide politely agree with that general statement.
Here
are a few quotes from James E. Faulconer, professor of philosophy at
Brigham Young University, he has a PHD in philosophy from
Pennsylvania State University. I don't think anyone can reasonably
question his credentials to speak about Mormon theology. I came
across his writings while searching a list of Mormon scholars. The
article I quote is Divine Embodiment and Transcendence:
Propaedeutic Thoughts and Questions as published in the Mormon
periodical Element; Spring 2005. The word “propaedeutic” simply
means a preliminary or preparatory instruction. Dr. Faulconer
struggles in this article with the subject of the body of the Mormon
god. I do not use the small g in god as an insult, but to highlight
the fact that we disagree on the definition of God. Dr. Faulconer
also uses this device. He wrote:
“Latter-day
Saint doctrine is that the Father and the Son have bodies: "The
Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son
also" (D&C 130:22). At first glance this seems
straightforward: the Father and the Son are embodied. However, it
requires very little reflection to begin to wonder what that means.
Joseph Smith's first vision tells us that their bodies are able to
hover in the air and that they are bright beyond description (Joseph
Smith History 1:17). Brigham Young and others taught that, though
their bodies are bodies of flesh and bone, they do not have blood
(cf. Journal of Discourses 7:163, Joseph Fielding Smith, Church
History 5)”
“Joseph
Smith's most clear statement of God's embodiment comes as part of a
denial of Nicean trinitarianism: "That which is without body,
parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but
that God who has flesh and bones" (Teachings 181).”
“By
not defining God as "wholly Other," existing in a realm
absolutely transcendent of this world and being the being on which
this world absolutely depends, even for its existence, LDS thought
makes a radical break with traditional thought.”
Next Dr. Faulconer says the same thing I have said:
“The
consequences of rejecting onto-theology, in other words, the
consequences of believing that God is embodied run deep in our
cultural and intellectual heritage, to their very roots. As a result,
some of our theological discussions may simply be wrong-headed,
trying to speak of God with concepts that do not apply or at least
implicitly trying to make our understanding of him fit inappropriate
concepts and conceptual structures. Even if we somehow manage to
escape those problems, our discussions are likely to be shot through
with deep equivocation. These
sorts of problems make it easier to be sympathetic to those who
accuse Latter-day Saints of not worshiping the God of Christianity.
If by "God of Christianity" they mean "God of
traditional Christian philosophical theology," then they are
right: we do not believe in or worship that god.” (Emphasis mine)
I politely, but firmly, agree with Dr. Faulconer, we do not worship the
same God. In his conclusion he wrote:
“The
scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith allow us to say little
more about divine embodiment than that God has a body with the same
form as ours. From that I think we can also infer that the
ontological gulf between ourselves and God cannot be as wide as the
tradition assumes, whether the tradition takes God to being itself or
to be the Good (and, so, beyond being). Though it is difficult to go
confidently beyond that negative conclusion, two things seem to
follow: First, the Latter-day Saint understanding of what it means to
be in the world is, implicitly, radically different than is the
understanding of any other Christian group, though it is not at clear
what additionally follows from that difference. Second, our
experience of the body, the only standard we have for understanding
embodiment, suggests that to say that God has a body is to say that
his omniscience and omnipotence must be understood in ways quite
different from traditional Christianity because embodiment implies
situated openness to a world. In other words, divine embodiment also
implies that God is affected by the world and by persons in his
world. This means that the belief that God is embodied implies that
he encounters the world and that he is, in some ways, passive with
respect to that which he encounters, and his passivity may include
some notion of unconsciousness.”
Let
me be clear. The God of the Bible does not have a body as part of or
a necessary extension of His being. Anyone who claims that their god
does have an essential body worships a different god than the God who
is revealed in the Bible. Furthermore anyone or any church which teaches that
their god's body appears to be, is like, or is a human body is clearly included
in the list of corrupt theology given in Romans 1:23-25, this passage clearly states that such a belief contributes to the wrath of God falling on a nation and the removal
of God's preventative grace as I argued in my earlier article.
Some
will argue that the Son Of God in orthodox Christianity has a body.
This is a clear misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ and
orthodox Christianity's teaching concerning Him. The eternal Son
existed before the body of Jesus came into existence. Read John
chapter 1. In orthodox Christianity the body of Jesus is not a
necessary attribute of the being of the eternal Son. The body of
Jesus is not God, it is human. God is manifest in it, but is not it.
The
truth about the differences between Mormonism, one of the fastest
growing religions in the world, and orthodox Christianity has been
taught and preached from fundamental and evangelical pulpits
throughout this land for years. I have been a witness to this over
the last 40 years in ministry. I have sat in conferences where
Theology has been declared to the be the highest standard by which we
humans are judged by our creator. But, sadly, for some it seems this
truth was only valid when it didn't indict a favored political
candidate. For that reason more than one commentator has labeled the
Christian right as hypocrites.
No
matter who is elected today that label will still stick and I
think it does not bode well for our country. I have feared the mixing
of politics and Christianity that began decades ago would lead to a
corruption that might bring us into a direct confrontation with God
and I have lived to see it happen... I think. It is my opinion that
only God's grace will save us from the fruits of this defection. If
you don't understand this then please read my first article.
To
my more theologically trained readers please know that I am aware that
the use of non-technical words opens me up to extensive clarification
and disagreement. The more reasonable among you will understand that
I wrote this post for a broad audience. With that said I will not now
technically defend my choice of words to those who will take
advantage of this non-technical post. I will, most likely, delete
comments that attempt to do this. Thanks for reading.
