Recently, Unitarian apologist, Sir. Anthony F. Buzzard posted the following on Twitter:
You may want to consider assisting your Mormon friends to abandon their convictions that 1) God was a man before becoming God; 2) Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married; and 3) God currently has several wives. Can such beliefs be healthy? They also think that Yahweh is Jesus and Elohim is God!
This is just representative of how ignorant Buzzard and his associates are about "Mormonism" as well (see here and here; for a LDS refutation of his 2007 Jesus Was not a Trinitarian, see here) as what constitutes official Latter-day Saint doctrine.
God [the Father] was a man before becoming God
Before addressing this issue, as most of my readers will either be Latter-day Saints, and some will be Trinitarians (based on those who follow me on twitter), one has to understand that Buzzard holds to a “Humanitarian” or “Socinian” Christology, where Jesus did not personally pre-exist his conception; instead, Jesus pre-existed in the plan of God (“notional” or “ideal pre-existence”). Furthermore, he would hold to a strict Unitarian position about the “number” of God, namely, God is a single person, the Father of Jesus (the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit is also rejected). A lot of theological presuppositions that distinguish Latter-day Saint Christology and the “Biblical Unitarian” Christology Buzzard holds to are answered by this review of his 2007 book. Furthermore, as I documented, the Socinian interpretation of John 17:5 is eisegesis, even when an appeal to Jewish conceptions of notional pre-existence are made (see my response to Buzzard here; my response to Dave Burke here; also see this post on the issue of notional vs. personal pre-existence of the Messiah in Jewish sources).
I discussed the King Follett Discourse, which speaks of the Father emptying Himself and becoming mortal, in the same way as Jesus, here, showing that Heb 1:3 and other texts are consistent with LDS theology on many points, Buzzard's simplistic understanding and treatment of LDS issues (not just here but elsewhere on youtube) notwithstanding.
Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married
A few early Latter-day Saints postulated that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; Orson Hyde, for instance, believed that John 2 was the wedding of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (something that is exegetically untenable):
In a sermon from 6 October 1854, he states at:
Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. (Journal of Discourses [JOD] 2:82)
Later in a sermon from 18 Marc 1855, Hyde would associate this as being the marriage between Jesus and Mary (JOD 2:210). However, such statements and sentiments were never accepted or ratified as official doctrine of the Church, so they are not binding on Latter-day Saints; for Buzzard to claim that this represents “Mormon” belief reflects a poor understanding of the scope and formation of Latter-day Saint doctrine.
While many Latter-day Saints (myself included) are at least open to Jesus being married in his lifetime (on this debate, see Phipps, Was Jesus Married and the response to Phipps by J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol 1: Rethinking the Historical Jesus). However, the Bible is silent on the issue, and the debate would ultimately go down to historical speculation. However, there are some valid reasons for being open to Jesus being married:
(1) The earliest sources explicitly claiming that Jesus was single date to the end of the second century, at which point his marital status is denied because it is suggested that this would be inconsistent with his mission (on theological grounds). Prior to that part of the 2nd century, there is no discussion of his marital status.
(2) In general, marriages in Jewish society at the time (at least in the case of first marriages) were generally contracted by the parents of the child (something we see in the Protoevangelium of James with Mary, the mother of Jesus). That Jesus was not married or had not been arranged to be married would suggest that his parents had been derelict in this obligation. This arranged marriage would have occurred quite early (perhaps before he became a teenager).
(3) Jesus is called, "rabbi," a title which generally (not always) required being married under Jewish tradition.
(4) Various sects within the broad Christian spectrum (Gnostic and so forth) taught that Jesus was married (usually to Mary Magdalene). Of course, one has to be careful in using such literature, as a lot of it is ahistorical.
(5) In John 11, Mary may be engaged in shiva.
(6) The anointing of Jesus' feet by a woman is not so shocking if the woman is his wife per Jewish custom (Luke 7:38, 44).
For more on the history of the concept of Jesus being married, see Anthony Le Donne, The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals.
God currently has several wives
Again, no source is provided to support this claim. While some Fundamentalist groups hold to such a belief as a doctrine, Latter-day Saints do not. Now, it is true that there is a muted belief in a Mother in Heaven; however, all Church documents discussing this always speak of a single Mother in Heaven, not plural Mothers in heaven—for instance see this recent paper released by the Church under the authority of the First Presidency itself that speaks of a single Mother in Heaven, not a plural; notice the opening paragraph:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.1 The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.2
Notes for the Above:
1. Genesis 1:26–27; Moses 3:4–7; Romans 8:16–17; Psalm 82:6; Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20.
2. See “Becoming Like God”; see also Elaine Anderson Cannon, “Mother in Heaven,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:961. For an extensive survey of these teachings, see David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
For further information, see Kevin L. Barney’s essay, “How to Worship Our Mother in Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated).”
[LDS] think that Yahweh is Jesus and Elohim is God!
Firstly, it should be noted that many Old Testament scholars believed that El and Yahweh were distinct deities, and only later were coupled together, based on texts such as Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran and other evidences (e.g., see the discussion in Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism [Oxford, 2001]; also see Daniel McClellan’s work on this issue here).
As for the LDS association of Yahweh (Jehovah) with Jesus and Elohim with God, Buzzard’s treatment is, to put it lightly, simplistic.
It is true that in modern LDS discourse, “Jehovah” is interchangeable with Jesus, while “Elohim” is used of the Father. However, this has not always been the case. From the time of Joseph Smith onwards, there was a great level of fluidity in the use of these terms. For instance, in D&C 109:34, 68, the Father is called “Jehovah” (cf. v. 29, 47), but in D&C 110:3-4, “Jehovah” is predicated upon Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the name of the Father, as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not Elohim, a Hebrew generic noun (D&C 78:20; 95:17).
In his diary for 23 August, 1842, Joseph Smith used Elohim ("Eloheem" [based on Sephardic transliteration he learnt from Joshua Seixas]):
O, thou who seeeth, and knoweth the hearts of all men, thou eternal omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God, thou Eloheem, that sitteth, as saith the psalmist, enthroned in heaven, look down upon thy servant Joseph, at this time, and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah. And let the Lamp of eternal life, be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away, and the words of eternal life, be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. As the dews upon Mount Hermon, may the distillations of thy divine grace, glory and honor in the plenitude of thy mercy, and power and goodness be poured down upon the head of thy servant.
Among other early LDS, there was a practice of predicating Lord/Jehovah on the person of the Father, such as the following:
The Lord (Jehovah,) hath spoken through Isa. (42, 1) saying. behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen or elected by the Father, (1 Peter i, 20, who verily was fore ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God,) to serve him in the redemption of the world, to be a covenant of the people, (Isa, xlii, 6) for a light of the Gentiles, and glory of his people Israel; having ordaineim forgiveness of sins might be preached (Acts xiii, 38) unto all who would be obedient unto his gospel (Mark xvi, 16, 17) (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 21, p. 524).
It is not the purpose of this response to delve into this issue, so readers wishing to delve further into this, see the following link and its corresponding bibliography:
The “Jehovah = Jesus; Elohim = the Father” approach in LDS terminology is a modern convention, often to avoid confusion, especially as there are some “Yahweh” texts where only the person of the Father is in view (e.g., Psa 110:1; Isa 52:13), though in some cases, they are predicated upon Jesus (for a full discussion, see, as one example, David B Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology [Mohr Siebeck, 1992]). I should note that, in Buzzard’s “Biblical Unitarian” view, and from reading his books (Jesus was not a Trinitarian; The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, this is to be understood as Jesus being an agent/Shaliach who bears the name).
One should note the following paragraph from the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”):
4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority
A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.
We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).
The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.
I am sure Buzzard is well-intentioned, and having read his books, I am sure he is sincere—however, on both the topics of Christology and “Mormonism,” Buzzard is sincerely wrong.