The following is a clip from Dave Anders, a former Presbyterian who converted to Roman Catholicism in November 2003 wherein he interacts with a Latter-day Saint on the nature of God:
Before I begin, Anders is not the careful scholar and theologian he tries to present himself to be. For instance, he often appeals to the early Christian identification of Mary as the New/Second Eve in the writings of Irenaeus and others as evidence of the Immaculate Conception. What he doesn't tell you is that Irenaeus et al., did not believe in the personal sinless, let alone Immaculate Conception of Mary, among other things. For more see my article:
Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception
Onto his arguments against LDS theology:
Interestingly, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and others within the Latin/Creedal Trinitarian Camp are now coming to the realisation that their position does injustice to the biblical texts, such as the long-refuted claim that the elohim ("gods") in Pa 82:6 are human judges, not actual (plural) gods. Note the following from three Evangelicals in a conservative Protestant commentary series on the Old Testament:
On Heb 13:8, we read the following from a conservative Evangelical commentator:
Finally, with respect to Lorenzo Snow's couplet which Anders messed up, as well as the King Follett Discourse--is important to note that Joseph Smith likened the mortality of the Father to that of Jesus, not simply to any other mortal; note the following:
Why is this important? In LDS (and NT) Christology, Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation when He emptied Himself to become a man, and yet, as a result of mortality, gained experiential knowledge (experiential knowledge, by definition, can only be gained by experience), as seen in Heb 2:10 (cf. vv.17-18); 5:8-9, and Luke 13:32; in the King Follett Discourse (which Lorenzo Snow based his couplet on), such can be said of the Father and his mortality (though the Church has never made any statement on it beyond that, as nothing has been revealed on such at present [viz. the Father, like the Son, emptied Himself to become human to gain a body and experience what it is to be mortal]. We also know that those who presevere are promised the same blessings Jesus has (Rev 3:21, which includes sitting on the throne of God, which in Jewish literature contemporary with the New Testament [e.g. The Testament of Job] was a divine prerogative; also see how worship [Gk: προσκυνεω] is given to the saints in Rev 3:9).
Anders, while lambasting the LDS concept we will become divine in the same way Christ and God are, is way out in left field, biblically and theologically speaking. Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
While much more could be said, it is clear that Anders has no knowledge, let alone any right to discuss, "Mormon" theology; furthermore, his arguments have no real merit.
Sadly, this is not the first nor, alas, will be the last time, a Catholic apologist has embarrassed himself on the topic of the LDS Church. To see a thorough review of Trent Horn's 20 Answers: Mormonism (Catholic Answers), see
Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism"
Before I begin, Anders is not the careful scholar and theologian he tries to present himself to be. For instance, he often appeals to the early Christian identification of Mary as the New/Second Eve in the writings of Irenaeus and others as evidence of the Immaculate Conception. What he doesn't tell you is that Irenaeus et al., did not believe in the personal sinless, let alone Immaculate Conception of Mary, among other things. For more see my article:
Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception
Onto his arguments against LDS theology:
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.
Speaking of Hebrews, you might want to read Heb 1:8-9
But unto the So he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed three with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
Why is this interesting? This is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος theos) predicated upon him (others would incude 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 [there is an internal debate to this day within Trinitarian circles with respect to "person" and its definition for the members of the Trinity, as I am sure you know]), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος ho theos]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. Furthermore, this can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text presented to 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 (i.e. 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)].
The Christology of Hebrews poses many problems for the more "traditional" views of Jesus, as the author clearly held to a post-ascension subordination of the Son and what one would label "divine embodiment" (flying in the face of the doctrine of "divine simplicity" [God is without parts], an important building block for the Trinity). In Heb 1:3, we read:
Who being in the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.
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" (btw--this would be a good paper to read up on the "human" side of the Lorenzo Snow couplet you quoted from, i.e., the LDS doctrine of "eternal progression")
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 wn on indicates being
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek apaugasma apaugasma (
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.
With respect to LDS belief in a "plurality of the Gods," consider Gen 20:13.Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
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 Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.
With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:
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).
Interestingly, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and others within the Latin/Creedal Trinitarian Camp are now coming to the realisation that their position does injustice to the biblical texts, such as the long-refuted claim that the elohim ("gods") in Pa 82:6 are human judges, not actual (plural) gods. Note the following from three Evangelicals in a conservative Protestant commentary series on the Old Testament:
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.[1] 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.[2] This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] 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[4]. 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. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] 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. (Nanacy 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 God being "unchanging," 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.
On Heb 13:8, we read the following from a conservative Evangelical commentator:
v 8 is not to be interpreted as an acclamation of Jesus' timeless ontological immutability, corresponding to the assertion that the Son remains ὁ αὐτός, "the same," in 1:10–12 (as asserted by H. Montefiore, 242; P. R. Jones, RevExp 82 [1985] 400; cf. Grässer, Glaube, 23; Buchanan, 233). The reference is rather to the immutability of the gospel message proclaimed by the deceased leaders in the recent past (see Michel, 490 and n. 2; P. E. Hughes, 570–71). Although the preachers change, the preaching must remain the same. The unchangeableness of the revelation is a consequence of the transcendent dignity of Jesus Christ, the originator of the preaching (2:3) (so Thurén, Lobopfer, 183). (William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 [Word Biblical Commentary 47B])
Finally, with respect to Lorenzo Snow's couplet which Anders messed up, as well as the King Follett Discourse--is important to note that Joseph Smith likened the mortality of the Father to that of Jesus, not simply to any other mortal; note the following:
These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible . . . he scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again
Why is this important? In LDS (and NT) Christology, Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation when He emptied Himself to become a man, and yet, as a result of mortality, gained experiential knowledge (experiential knowledge, by definition, can only be gained by experience), as seen in Heb 2:10 (cf. vv.17-18); 5:8-9, and Luke 13:32; in the King Follett Discourse (which Lorenzo Snow based his couplet on), such can be said of the Father and his mortality (though the Church has never made any statement on it beyond that, as nothing has been revealed on such at present [viz. the Father, like the Son, emptied Himself to become human to gain a body and experience what it is to be mortal]. We also know that those who presevere are promised the same blessings Jesus has (Rev 3:21, which includes sitting on the throne of God, which in Jewish literature contemporary with the New Testament [e.g. The Testament of Job] was a divine prerogative; also see how worship [Gk: προσκυνεω] is given to the saints in Rev 3:9).
Anders, while lambasting the LDS concept we will become divine in the same way Christ and God are, is way out in left field, biblically and theologically speaking. Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
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 feet, 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 also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, 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. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, 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 promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (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.
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
While much more could be said, it is clear that Anders has no knowledge, let alone any right to discuss, "Mormon" theology; furthermore, his arguments have no real merit.
Sadly, this is not the first nor, alas, will be the last time, a Catholic apologist has embarrassed himself on the topic of the LDS Church. To see a thorough review of Trent Horn's 20 Answers: Mormonism (Catholic Answers), see
Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism"
