I recently encountered an article entitled, "Is Mormonism Christian? The Mormon Connection" by Cheryl Schatz. Here is a refutation of the opening alleged disproves of the claim “Mormonism” is truly Christian. Her comments will appear in red and my response will appear in black.
1. Mormonism teaches that there is more than one God.
True or False?
True. This is an direct conflict with what God Himself says on this subject in the Bible (Isaiah 44:6 and 8, 45:5, 6, 18, 21, 22). This also mysteriously contradicts the Book of Mormon (Alma 11:22, 26-31, and 35). Who is right: God, or the president of the Mormon Church?
The Isaiah texts are a screed directed against the popular Israelite and Canaanite theologies of the time showing that Yahweh is superior to Ba'al, and that there is no female co-mediatrix figure with Yahweh (Asherah). For a full exegesis, see here. Indeed, if Cheryl Schatz is serious about using such texts, she will have to embrace Unitarianism--the verbs and pronouns in the Hebrew text and the LXX are singulars, showing that a singular person is in view, not three persons in one "being" (a concept utterly alien to the conceptual worldview of Isaiah). Furthermore, Isa 6 shows that Isaiah believed in a heavenly court, a theme found in other texts such as Psa 82.
That the Bible affirms a plurality of (true) Gods is based on exegesis, not wishful thinking (unlike Trinitarianism).
Firstly, do not that in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
That there is a "plurality of Gods" can be seen in a variety of texts, such as Deut 32:7-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which places Yawheh as one of the Gods to whom jurisdiction of a nation is given and even in the book of Genesis (20:13), where elohim is coupled with a verb in the plural, meaning plural gods (elohim is irregular in Hebrew; it has a plural ending, but when coupled with a verb in the single person, it means "One G/god"; however, when coupled with a verb in the plural [as in Psa 82:6] means [plural] G/gods).
The Hebrew of this verse uses plural verb structures and plural persons when discussing the (true) Gods who caused Abraham to wander. It is rendered (I will transliterate the Hebrew for convenience) –
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ... (English: "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..."). Another way to put it: "And it came to pass when they, (the) Gods, caused me to wander from the house of my father..." Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether unitarian or creedal triniarian) out of the water.
With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
With respect to the Book of Mormon, let us examine the verses in question:
And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered No. (Alma 11:26-29)
One should note from the get-go that the person of the Father is in view here. Later, there is a differentiation between “the one true God” and the Son of God, Jesus Christ:
And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he [Amulek] said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he saith there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. (Alma 11:32-35)
The idea that the Father is the “one true God” is not inconsistent with either Latter-day Saint theology on the plurality of gods and/or any high Christology. Indeed, such comments are part-and-parcel of the New Testament itself, where the Father is said to be the only true God, and the Son is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father, but God (Greek: θεος. Note the following example (many more could be offered)--
In John 17:3, we read:
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).
The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”) is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God.” However, as noted, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities.
I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it into logical language:
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the triune "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.
As we have seen, the author is using “arguments” that would refute their own theology. So much for consistency and fairness . . . (not that anti-Mormons are known for such).
Further, Alma 11 is consistent with LDS belief that there is only One God (the Father). However, it only shows theological and biblical illiteracy to claim that this refutes multiple gods being in the midst of the true God (cf. Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran as discussed above). In the Hebrew Bible, "gods" are found in reference to heavenly beings that are not supreme, but have true/ontological existence. For example, there are divinities that are inferior or subordinate to, or are divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation/permission from the higher God. In the Old Testament, such would include member of the court of El alongside angels and possibly gods of foreign nations. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as the דבר or the divine word of Wisdom would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word" and "the Mediator" are also used in this sense in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered a divine and meriting some form of worship which, ultimately, goes back to the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11).
One possible criticism is that modalism is in view in Alma 11, as Jesus is called “the very Eternal Father” in v.39. However, as we have seen previously, there is a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son in this chapter. Furthermore, “[eternal/everlasting] Father” is a title of Christ in the Book of Mormon, denoting his role as the creator. Note, for instance, the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8:
And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
Only by confusing the title of “Father” with the person of God the Father can one claim such, but such would reflect pretty poor exegesis skills (cf. Isa 9:6 where the title אביעד ["Eternal Father"] is used of a Messianic figure).
2. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is the spirit-brother of Lucifer.
True or False?
True. See Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, page 282. This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the teaching that Christ is a created being and not eternal God, the Creator (John 1:3, 10; Nehemiah 9:6) This, too, contradicts the Book of Mormon (Helaman 14:12, Mosiah 3: 8 and 5:15).
This is nothing short of eisegesis and yellow-journalism.
With respect to Christ being a "brother" to Satan, consider Job 1:6:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).
Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).
Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, left on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”
In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):
And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)
I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)
In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh (cf. Deut 32:7-9, etc).
On John 1:3, consider the following comments from LDS scholar Blake Ostler:
John 1:3.Copan and Craig also argue that John 1:3 supports the idea of creation out of nothing (here given in KJV): "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν). Copan and Craig assert of this verse: "The implication is that all things (which would include preexistent matter, if that were applicable to the creative process) exist through God's agent, who is the originator of everything" (pp. 117-18). But this verse says nothing about the creation of "preexistent matter." One must assume beforehand that the word create must mean to create ex nihilo in order to arrive at this conclusion, for this verse says only that if something was made, then it was made through the Word. It does not address anything that may not have been made. More important, it does not address how those things were made, its point being through whom the creation was made. Anything that was made was made by Christ. Since the translation one reviews is so critical to interpretation, I will provide another translation: "All things came about through him and without him not one thing came about, which came about."[27] The question in this case is whether the final phrase which came about is part of this verse or the beginning of the next verse. Hubler explains:
The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo (contra Bultmann) as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter.[28]
Of course, the reality of this text is that it does not consciously address the issue of creation ex nihilo at all. It states who accomplished the creation, not how it was done.[29] A person who accepts creation from chaos can easily say that no "thing" came about that is not a result of the Word's bringing it about but agree that there is a chaos in which no "things" exist prior to their creation as such. Copan and Craig hang their hat on the connotations of the word πάντα, meaning "all" in an inclusive sense. They argue that because "all" things that come about are brought about by the Word, there is no possibility of an uncreated reality that has not been brought about by God. However, the final phrase, ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν, translated "nothing made that was made," limits the scope of the creative power to the order of the created and implies that whatever is not made was not made by him. If it is created, he created it; if it is not, then it is not within the scope of "what is made."
Notes for the Above
[27] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.
[28] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.
[29] There is a major punctuation problem here: Should the relative clause "that was made" go with verse 3 or verse 4? The earliest manuscripts have no punctuation (P 66, 75* A B D and others). Many of the later manuscripts that do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with verse 4 (P 75c C D L Ws 050* and a few others). Nestlé-Aland placed the phrase in verse 3 and moved the words to the beginning of verse 4. In a detailed article, K. Aland defended the change. K. Aland, "Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4: ?ber die Bedeutung eines Punktes," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968): 174-209. He sought to prove that the attribution of ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν to verse 3 began to be carried out in the fourth century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to verse 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church. It was only after the Arians began to use the phrase that it became attached to verse 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from verse 4 to verse 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of verse 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in verse 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 gives a complicated expression. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 157, says that both ways of understanding verse 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included "are almost impossibly clumsy": "That which came into being—in it the Word was life; That which came into being—in the Word was its life." The following points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν as verse 4 begins; (2) he repeats frequently ("nothing was created that has been created"); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to verse 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with verse 3.
3. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ was born after sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary (thereby denying the virgin birth)
True or False?
True. See Journal of discourses, Volume 4, page 218, for an example. Many Mormons are unfamiliar with this doctrine of their church, but this is nonetheless a cardinal teaching. This contradicts both the Bible (Matthew 1:23) and the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10). Beginning to see a pattern?
Utterly false. Barry Bickmore destroyed this "argument" a number of years ago in response to Isaiah Bennet:
Virgin Birth
When nonauthoritative statements of LDS leaders do not deliver the desired "punch," anti-Mormon authors will often expand the authoritative to include their own dubious interpretations of LDS doctrine. This is especially true with regard to the LDS doctrine of the virgin birth. Bennett quotes a number of nonauthoritative statements by LDS leaders saying that Jesus is the "only begotten after the flesh," that Jesus was begotten "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," that Mary "must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father," and the like (IM, pp. 292, 293; WMC, p. 93). He takes these statements to mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ "do not believe that [Mary] was a virgin when [Jesus] was conceived or afterward because they believe conception occurred in the ordinary, natural way" (IM, p. 292) and that "God the Father begot Jesus in the flesh through copulation with the Virgin Mary" (WMC, p. 92). Since the LDS have an anthropomorphic concept of deity, it is certainly possible to interpret these statements in the way Bennett indicates. However, this is not the only interpretation possible, and Bennett leaves out important statements from our prophets and scriptures that lead to much more modest conclusions.
Certainly the prophets have clarified that the virgin birth was a case of sexual reproduction.[97] That is, Jesus had both a father and a mother in the flesh,and his flesh obtained its genetic blueprint from both. Similarly, they have made clear that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35). To us this indicates that Mary had to be transfigured by the power of the Holy Spirit to withstand the presence of God (see Moses 1:11). On the other hand, it is equally clear that our scriptures and prophets have affirmed that "His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)"[98] That is, whatever the particular mode of conception, Mary came out of the experience still a virgin. Consider the following statement by President Harold B. Lee:
You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.[99]
Bennett even resorts to a highly interpretive paraphrase of a statement by Bruce R. McConkie to obscure this point. "McConkie resorted to redefining the term: A virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. The Heavenly Father is a resurrected, immortal man. Therefore, Mary did not lose her virginity" (IM, p. 294; cf. WMC, p. 93; citing The Mortal Messiah 1:314). Nothing of the kind is on the page or even in the book Bennett cites. (I will discuss below his tendency to lift quotations from other anti-Mormon authors without attribution and without checking sources.) However, his paraphrase is vaguely similar to the wording in McConkie's article, "Virgin Birth," in Mormon Doctrine. McConkie writes, "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." But how did the conception take place? He goes on to say that "Mary, his mother, 'was carried away in the Spirit' (1 Ne.11:13-21), was 'overshadowed' by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place 'by the power of the Holy Ghost' resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father." Finally, McConkie claims, "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false."[100] All this seems quite a bit more vague than Bennett would have us believe.
Regarding McConkie's supposed statement, Bennett opines, "Of course, this is ridiculous. Sex is sex, whether it is with an immortal manor a mortal man" (WMC, p. 93). Is it really so obvious? We do not know what the mechanics of reproduction are when celestial beings are involved. As James E. Talmage explains, Jesus was begotten "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof."[101] That is, it was a miracle.[102] What is the "higher manifestation" of natural law that occurred here? Talmage never says.
Indeed, one of Bennett's prime witnesses is Orson Pratt, who said that the Father and Mary "must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife" (IM, p. 294), but if Bennett had read just a few more lines, he would have found that Pratt also said the Father "overshadow[ed] the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband." Surely, Pratt meant that God acted in the capacity of a husband by begetting a child with Mary; but as for the mechanics of conception, Pratt only ventured to apply the scriptural language that God "overshadowed" her.
Consider this analogy. Jesus has a resurrected, celestial body. At one point he transported this undeniably physical body right through a solid wall, and the wall remained intact (see Luke 24:36-40). Christians of all stripes affirm that this event really occurred. It did not happen spiritually or figuratively—a solid body was literally transported through a solid wall and nothing happened to the wall! How did Jesus do it? Here, most Christians will stop short and look puzzled. It was a miracle, after all, and it seems a little silly to ask how Jesus did it. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out why many Latter-day Saints stop short and look puzzled when anti-Mormons tell us how we must believe the miracle of Jesus' conception and the virgin birth were accomplished. No matter what they may have personally speculated,the modern prophets have never explicitly, and certainly never authoritatively, stated what Isaiah Bennett says they have.
Endnotes for the Above
[97] I thank Russell McGregor for this exceptionally clear explanation.
[98] The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 7.
[99] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996),14.
[100] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822. I find it significant that Bennett uses quotations rather than paraphrases in every other instance in this section of Inside Mormonism. Did he know that McConkie's words did not quite go as far as he would have liked?
[101] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 77.
[102] Talmage defined miracles in these words: "Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. . . . The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one." James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 200. See Paul C. Hedengren, "Miracles," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:908: Miracles are "a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate."
With respect to the Father being the “father” of Jesus (not the Holy Spirit), this is biblical, although much of Evangelicalism debates this issue, and that of the humanity of Jesus vis-à-vis his conception and the annunciation.
Consider the following from Wayne Grudem:
[W]e should not say we say that Jess got his “male humanity” from Mary. If Jesus’s human nature had been derived solely from Mary’s physical body, he would have been her clone, and therefore he would have been a woman. The doctrine of the virgin birth must be understood in a way consistent with Matt. 1:20, which says, “That which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirt.” What was conceived in Mary’s womb was a human baby, and it was “from the Holy Spirit,” which suggests that half of the genetic material that Jesus received was miraculously created by the Holy Spirit, and half was from Mary. (Wayne Grudem, “Doctrinal Derivations from Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Person, Implications for Life, eds. Bruce A. Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Illin.: Crossway, 2015], pp.17-45, here, p. 26 n. 18; emphasis in original).
I agree with Grudem to claim that there was no genetic contribution from another person other than Mary results in a perverted understanding of the humanity of Jesus; the New Testament, after all, emphasises the true, full humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemns those who reject such (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Of course, in LDS theology, it is the person of the Father, not the Holy Spirit, that is the “father” of Jesus vis-à-vis His humanity. With respect to Matt 1:20, such has to be read in light of the parallel text in Luke 1:35:
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (NRSV)
The term translated as “Most High” is ὕψιστος which corresponds to the Hebrew עֶלְיוֹן which is a title of God (the Father) in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. This is further strengthened by the fact that Luke is borrowing language from the LXX that speaks of God's glorious presence at work:
Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on each stage of their journey. (Exo 40:35-36 NRSV)
The term translated as "settled upon [the tent]" is επισκιαζω, the same verb translated as “overshadow” in the Lucan text.
The same holds true of Psa 91:4 (90:4, LXX):
He will cover (επισκιαζω) you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. (NRSV)
Some, such as James Dunn (Christology in the Making) and Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah), among others, have argued that the person of the Holy Spirit is to in view in Luke 1:35, but it is to be understood as a form of parallelism, with “holy Spirit” and “Most High” being synonymous with one another, and the locution, “holy Spirit” to be interpreted as the operational presence of God, not the person of the Holy Spirit. In light of the Bible’s penchant of synonymous parallelism, as well as other types of parallelism, such is more than plausible an exegesis of the text.
The person of God the Father is presented as being the one who “overshadows” Mary, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirt, no doubt, in part, to allow Mary to withstand the presence of deity (cf. D&C 67:11); in that respect, it is plausible to also understand God the Father as being the “father” of Jesus, vis-à-vis His humanity, with the same “genetic contribution” from the Father as Mary, Jesus’ biological mother (without going into “how” such genetic material was created [ex nihilo or some other means]).
For more on LDS Christology, see my article, “Latter-day Saints Have Chosen the True Biblical Jesus.”
4. Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.
True or False?
True. See Doctrine and Covenants, Section 130. The Bible, as usual, disagrees with both Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church (John 4:24, Luke 24:39, Jeremiah 23:24).
It is true that LDS theology teaches that the Father is embodied. However, (1) none of the texts Cheryl references are contrary to such and (2) there is strong biblical support for this doctrine.
On the topic of John 4:24, perhaps the most popular “proof-text” against LDS theology on this point, such can only be used against “Mormonism” by engaging in eisegesis.
One must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.
Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν
The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.
Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 or 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).
A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possess a body and a spirit.
Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g.,Heb 1:3, discussed below), His glory, influence, and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).
Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).
Another related verse is Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.
Additionally, in unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:
For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
Finally, consider the following comments from three exegetes on the Gospel of John:
Commenting John 4:24, New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:
It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)
On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:
Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).
This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:
[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)
On Hebrews 1:3, a text clearly teaching divine embodiment, a careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
5. Mormonism teaches that God the Father was once a man.
True or False?
True. Joseph Smith, prophet and founder of the Mormon Church, taught this in the "King Follett Discourse," his last major address, and the Mormon Church teaches it to this very day (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 5 and 6). This is a violent contradiction with not only the bible, but with the Book of Mormon as well ( Moroni 8:18, Mormon 9:9).
It can only be a violent contradiction if one engages in eisegesis of biblical and uniquely Latter-day Saint texts.
Christologically, if one follows the New Testament, one is in the same "problem." We know from Phil 2:5-11, for instance, that Jesus emptied Himself of divine attributes (kenosis) to become truly human; that this is the case can be seen in Mark 12:32 (cf. Matt 24:36; see also Luke 2:52) where Jesus did not know when the parousia (his coming in glory/"second coming") would be. I know some Trinitarians (e.g. James White; Sam Shamoun) argue that this was the "human will/nature" of Jesus speaking or that Jesus "veiled," for a mysterious reason, his own omnipotence this one moment, but to claim such, and divorce such from the person of Jesus is actually counter to Trinitarian understandings of the hypostatic union and/or to make Jesus deceptive; furthermore, it results in Nestorianism, where the humanity and divinity of Jesus are, for all intents and purposes, two people, not one, again, antithetical to Trinitarian (as well as Latter-day Saint) Christologies. The temptation scenes in the gospels (esp. Matt 4:1-11, the fuller version of this scene in Jesus' life) portrays Jesus as truly suffering and being truly tempted by the tempter; if one holds to traditional Christologies, Jesus was not truly tempted, as there was no real chance of him sinning, which, however way one cuts it, is docetic (i.e., Christ appearing to be human; but in reality [at least with respect to being tempted] was not)--again, such runs in the claims of Heb 2:17-18, which necessitates Jesus' temptations to be real, but ones that he overcame sinlessly. Interestingly, in Phil 2:5-11 [cf. D&C 93:1-20 in the LDS canon], after the ascension, Jesus is exalted and given a name above all other names (Yahweh [Phil 2:9]). However, if Trinitarian Christology is true, this is nonsensical, as Jesus was "fully divine" a la the Trinitarian understanding of this concept, merely "veiled" his divine attributes during mortality while still retaining them, and "unveiled" them post-ascension.
As for passages such as Moroni 8:18 and Psa 90:2 that speak of the eternality of God, consider the following:
- The attributes of deity have always existed, having no beginning and will have no end, regardless of who holds or shares these attributes.
- The ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins did not understand such terms in the same way as we do today. Our ideas on the meaning of "eternal" and its cognate terms are wholly modern ideas which were not believed as they are before the fourth century; indeed, the term we often translate as eternity (Hebrew: עוֹלָם Greek: αιων/αιωνιος) and related terms, alongside having a qualitative meaning, meant an undetermined and unspecified period of time to the ancients. They were forced to use such words in repetitive phrases to come near the concept, but even then the meaning still had inherent time constraints. If we understand such phrases in the Book of Mormon as ancients understood them, the conflict vanishes. Our concepts of eternity and time are wholly modern concepts which ancient Semites and others did not hold to; they are later, post-biblical constructions. [1]
- The Book of Mormon (and biblical) authors cannot be speaking of metaphysical natures not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18 and Phil 2:5-11 where Jesus experiences a kenosis), notwithstanding Heb 13:8 stating that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
- In Latter-day Saint theology, intelligences, and all the attributes inherent within intelligence (e.g., personality) have existed throughout all eternity (e.g., D&C 93:29); God the Father has existed in like-manner, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith[2]
- Note the language of D&C 132:20: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting . . .”
As for Psa 90:2, the Hebrew reads:
בטרם הרים ילדו ותחולל ארץ ותבל ומעולם עד עולם אתה אל
The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse thusly:
Before the mountains came into being, before You brought forth the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity You are God.
The Hebrew phrase אתה אל (“you are” and “[a] god”) appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:
And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God [NRSV: You are El [god] Roi] seesth me . . .(Gen 16:13)
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. (Isa 45:15)
And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshiah: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. (Jonah 4:2)
The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "you are a god." Latter-day Saints can reconcile this biblical passage with our theology of God the Father having experiencing a mortality of his own under the premise that, once he was perfected/exalted (similar to how Jesus was--Phil 2:5-11; Luke 13:32; Heb 1:4; 5:9, etc) to being "[a] God," he remained "[a] God" "from everlasting to everlasting" (cf. D&C 132:20, quoted above and the discussion regarding the ancient understanding of "eternity").
Notes for the Above
[1] For a thorough study of the meaning of the αιων/αιωνιος and their ancient meanings, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). For the difference between Semitic and post-biblical Greek concepts of "time" and "eternity," see Thorleif Bornan, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: Norton, 1970).
[2] As representative examples, taken from The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1980), ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook; spelling errors in original text retained: "God was a self exhisting being, man exhists upon the same principle. God made a tabernacle & put a spirit in it and it became a Human soul, man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself . . . Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting" (p. 346); "Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle" (p. 360); "I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end” (p. 33)
6. Mormonism teaches that we can become gods, and rule over our own planets.
True or False?
True. This is what the Mormon temples are for (see reference cited in answer 5 above; see also Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 in order to understand the direct connection between Mormon godhead and the practice of polygamy in the LDS Church prior to 1890.)
Firstly, I would recommend one read the recent essay, endorsed by the First Presidency, on the doctrine of exaltation here.
Secondly, there is much biblical evidence for the doctrine of theosis and us, not just being glorified, but being exalted in the same way the Father exalted Jesus. Due to the length of this article, I will keep the discussion brief.
Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy eet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I am also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one (cf. Testament of Job 32:3, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).
One could go on, but I think the following is enough evidence that this critic, as with many other critics of the LDS Church, that they are grossly ignorant, not just of Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture, but the Bible which they claim to respect and reverence as the ultimate authority. In reality, Cheryl Schatz is unable to engage in any meaningful exegesis of the Bible let alone scholarly research into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
