I wasn't planning to deal with some of the more esoteric corners of Mormon doctrine today, but the blogs are humming about the Jesus-Lucifer connection. It's the same question Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is said to ask in an upcoming Dec. 16 New York Times magazine interview, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
Associated Press leaked part of the magazine story late Tuesday.
Mr. Huckabee, who is running neck-in-neck with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, knows there are places in Mormonism where Mr. Romney's campaign does not want to go.
Most of you may think Americans can't discuss theology, but a copy of the AP article posted on breitbart.com had 220 comments by mid-afternoon Wednesday, many of which dissected Mormon doctrine.
Breitbart had also posted a debate Mr. Romney had about his faith with a radio talk show host in Des Moines, Iowa; however, by mid-afternoon Wednesday, the link was not operating. Hmmmm.
"It's interesting we're having this teachable moment," Gary Cass, chairman of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission told me. "If Romney becomes president, you will get a knock on your door and a nice-looking missionary saying, "Would you like to hear about the faith of our president?"
Adding that he grew up among Mormons in Las Vegas, "Mormons have redefined all our terms but most Christians don't know that," he said. "And most people in the media are theologically illiterate."
He's got that last part right. This morning, I was in a meeting with two of apostles from the church's Quorum of Twelve. They were making the rounds of newspaper editorial boards this week to better explain their religion to media who don't get it.
They gave a group of us at the Times some impressive statistics of a 12.8-million-member religion with 53,000 roving missionaries in 178 countries. Since 1985, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given out $705 million in humanitarian assistance.
But when I asked M. Russell Ballard and Quentin R. Cook about the spirit brother question, they dodged it.
All they would say is that Jesus was the son of God and Lucifer was a fallen angel.
Yes, but what about a pre-historic time before Lucifer fell?
So I began trolling about. First I looked at a document, dated Janury 2000, that the two men left me. Also posted on the front page of LDS.org, it is called "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles."
It says "(Jesus) was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament."
Then I learned that several LDS apostles and luminaries, including Spencer W. Kimball, president of the church from 1973 to 1985, had referred to God having two spirit sons known as Lucifer and Jehovah.
Here is another Mormon-related site that explains the "spirit brother" connection. Basically, there was an incident before the dawn of time when God knew he would have to send down a savior. Two of his spirit sons, Jesus and Lucifer, volunteered. This is explained in Abraham 3:27 and Moses 4, both chapters in the "Pearl of Great Price," one of the LDS scriptures. When God chose Jesus, Lucifer rebelled.
The rest, as they say, is pre-history.
Apostles of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints M. Russel Ballard, left, and Quentin L. Cook answered questions about the Mormon religion but refused to discuss the church's political views during a meeting with Washington Times reporters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Dec. 12. (Photo by J.M. Eddins Jr./The Washington Times)
— Julia Duin, assistant national editor/religion, The Washington Times
Comments (9)
My knowledge of Mormon doctrine and practice are decidedly superficial, especially compared to Ms. Duin, who continues a fine tradition at the Washington Times for insightful and informed religion reporting and commentary.
Differences in belief, even among Christians all loosely identified as "fundamentalist," have been the subject of fierce debates for two centuries and more. The question is whether these differences, however significant, would or should disqualify a person for civic service to the republic. Would you vote for a Catholic? a Jew? a Pentecostal? an atheist? (Probably not a Muslim with a platform calling for imposition of Shariah law; but otherwise....)
The only appropriate question for the candidate is, "Can you swear without reservation to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States?" How do these unusual (to most of us) Mormon beliefs relate to that question?
If we are to heed the advice, "By their fruits shall ye know them," then to the extent religious affiliation guides the vote, perhaps a Mormon would be a great choice for President.
Posted by Milton Herring | December 13, 2007 3:06 AM
Thank you sooo much! Not too many papers are dealing with this aspect of the discussion which we can only scratch the surface of here. Much Appreciated WT.
Being a conservative Evangelical, I am wrestling with this theology almost like the first time I encountered it nearly twenty years ago. After studying Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons for nearly that long, it was old-hat, so-to-speak. Now, however, it is washed in a newness that has infected even the counter-cult websites. Now Mormon eschatology is being rooted around for, since many believe these are the "end-times," trying to fit every President in some manner to the New World Order and other intricate beliefs of our depraved minds… this time is no different than the six letters of Reagan's name, the "secret society" Bush Sr. belonged to, the supposed executive orders granting Clinton -- via FEMA -- control over our lives, and little Bush… now thought to be Satan himself by some holding posters in anti-war "marches" (e.g., really, anti-Bush, anti-capitalism, pro-veganism marches). The possibility of a rational discussion about theology -- given the wildness in thought from the Left, and the almost cavalier belief about core-truths in regards to religious beliefs -- is not in the cards. The McLaughlin Group proved that.
All that being said, the question that ultimately needs answering is this: would I vote for Romney if the Republican nominee. That answer is always a resounding "yes."
So the deeper philosophical questions about the impossibility of an infinite regress of gods being born to other gods (See: The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis Beckwith & Stephen Parish) is an exercise in futility – politically speaking.
In regards to (as a footnote here) that interview of Romney via that radio show, I have isolated a portion of that "debate/interview" that will make the brow of the eschatological fans rise. In the portion I isolated, which I will repost at my site, Mitt Romney mentions a Mormon author, Cleon Skousen. While Mitt wasn't referring in his mentioning him all the authors' works, I would be curious as to which of the authors books Mitt has read. Cleon Skousen wrote a couple of classics in conspiratorial thought (which I use to swallow "whole clothe") which are entitled for the investigative mind:
The Naked Communist; and, The Naked Capitalist.
These are usually found in any John Birch book store right next to Tragedy and Hope, by Carol Quigley, and None Dare Call it Conspiracy, by Gary Allen. This conspiratorial view that is now working its way into the back streets of the Leftist mind first came from us Conservatives (unfortunately). So the fact that Joseph Smith was a Freemason and many of the Temple ordinances are from Masonic rituals will not help in keeping this discussion grounded in rational thinking.
OoHh! … the pains of having read 1,800 [+] books cover-to-cover are now hitting home in my mind!
Posted by Papa Giorgio | December 13, 2007 5:49 PM
Just a quick and friendly response to Milton Herring. While you are partially correct in regards to civic duty, the main issue is that a Catholic, a Jew, a Pentecostal, or an atheist do not think they can become -- literally -- gods, and hence, a savior of an entire planet. This is the issue us "fundamentalists" are struggling with... even if it is in our own minds or sub-culture.
Posted by Papa Giorgio | December 13, 2007 5:55 PM
My general fund of knowledge probably parallels Mr. Herring's. I have the advantage of having roomed with an LDS couple many years ago and in that time engaging in a number of spirited debates with the missionary teams that they fed at least once a week. None of that is particularly apropos a discussion of elected office in this country.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I am a conservative and evangelical Christian. To put a fine point on it, I am also a serving Minister of Word and Sacrament in a mainline protestant denomination. Even so, my perspectibve on this is that Mr. Romney's practice of his Mormon faith is simply no more relevant to his candidacy for President than was JFK's Roman Catholicism or Joe Lieberman's Judaism.
The President who may well have been the most visible and sincere practitioner of his Christian faith was also probably the most inept President of the 20th century.
If I don't vote for Mr. Romney -- or any other particular candidate -- it will be because he, or she, has failed to show me a compelling reason why I should. It will be because he, or she, comes across as a dissembler, an opportunist, or a person with "a lean and hungry look." I will vote for the man or woman who understands and takes seriously the ultimate responsibility of the office -- to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Posted by James C. Yearsley | December 13, 2007 9:04 PM
Mormonism does not believe in the Christology of the Nicean Creed, a defining mark of historic Christian faith. The Creed carefully defines Jesus as God, uncreated and eternal. From this the Truine nature of God is understood. So, in the two defining marks of historic Christianity, the deity of Christ and the Truine nature of God, Mormonism disagrees and embraces the Arian heresy of Jesus as a created being. Mormonism,of course, is free to believe whatever it wishes, and to seek to persuade others. But when Mormons say they believe that Jesus is God's Son and died for our salvation, it does not mean the same thing. And so,it is the subtle Mormon tactic of using the words of orthodox Christianty but giving them different meanings--without clarifying that fact--that gives me pause about Romney's speech on his faith.
Posted by Michael Pickard | December 13, 2007 9:17 PM
The "issues" involved here are not only typical of, but makes a notable contribution to, the massive amount of confusion that exist the world regarding RELIGION...
IF you are going to BELIEVE the BIBLE "then you should KNOW what it says"
sharehopeinpromise-ministry.org/blog and you will be able to understand the basis of this, or any other "article."
Posted by Share Hope In Promise | December 17, 2007 2:21 PM
The problem I have with people saying "religious beliefs have nothing to do with politics...." is this: It's just not true. A person's core beliefs govern his everyday decisions. He either goes with them or he fights against them within his heart. But if his core beliefs are based on what the Bible says is not true, then his decisions regarding our country and our people will truly be affected by that. It is true that no president is perfect. It is true that godly men make some horrific mistakes...King David murdered his lover's husband so as not to be exposed when she turned up pregnant with his child. Still, God himself called David, at a later date, a "man after His own heart" and He put it in a book for every generation to read and know from then on. People can repent and change, but not if God in Heaven isn't in charge of your life. Scripture clearly says you are either God's or your not. It's throughout the Word of God. If you're not God's, to whom will you be thinking your accountability is owed to? I personally believe your core beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with who you will be under pressure and who you will turn to. I'd rather have a man in any office that realizes he isn't the answer to our problems and also knows he needs to turn to Someone who HAS all the answers and IS the answer to all problems.
Posted by Texas Believer | January 9, 2008 3:05 PM
Thank you Mr. Pickard. I could not of clarified my faith any better than by separating it from the "voted" upon Nicean Creed. Truly this was a historic, defining mark in Christian belief. I think you would very much like knowing you agree with a talk given by one of the leaders of the LDS church. Enjoy!
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html
Posted by Utah M...(you got it) | February 29, 2008 5:47 PM
When someone says "historic Christianity" he implies that that means the Christianity that Christ taught and the Apostles continued to uphold. However, the Nicene Creed (the creed that is the "defining mark of historic Christianity")was adopted in A.D. 325, well after the Apostles were dead and gone.
Well before Constantine, the dilution of doctrine was well under way. The early Christian writers wrote voluminously trying to explain their varied opinions on the nature of Jesus, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and whether there was one God or multiple gods. The Nicene Creed merely codified the ambiguity that already existed.
Posted by Arthur Rangel | March 2, 2008 7:55 AM