An Examination of the Christology of the Latter-Day Saints Travis Kerns

Who Is This Jesus? An Examination of the Christology of the Latter-day Saints Travis Kerns

INTRODUCTION times identified, but nothing could be further lthough Latter-day Saints1 are found in all from the truth. In fact, the LDS Church often finds A fifty states and in most countries around herself answering questions about multiple wives, the world, most people, including Christians, secret rites inside temples, and racism. Indeed, a know very little about them.2 However, given the poll released in January, 2012 by The Pew Forum worldwide influence of the Latter-day Saints and on Religion & Public Life indicates “62% of Mor- their strong missionary endeavors, a better under- mons say the American people know little or noth- standing of Latter-day Saint history and doctrine ing about Mormonism and about two out of three is becoming increasingly necessary. As Christians Mormons say the American people as a whole we need to know more about the theological con- do not see Mormonism as a part of mainstream 3 victions of those we are called to minister to, and American society.” as such, the purpose of this article is to introduce Mainstream Americans, though, are not the evangelicals to the basic theology of the Latter-day only persons who misunderstand Latter-day Saints and especially their Christology. Saints. Some in the academy have misunder- As noted, even though Latter-day Saints have standings as well. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, been a part of the American and Paul Owen concluded in their landmark Travis Kerns is Assistant landscape since the LDS Church work, The New Mormon Challenge, “The tradi- Professor of Christian Worldview was first founded in 1830, the tional LDS theology described in many books and Apologetics and Department on Mormonism is, on many points, increasingly Coordinator for Worldview and Saints may be some of the most Apologetics at Boyce College in misunderstood persons in con- unrepresentative of what Latter-day Saints actu- 4 Louisville, Kentucky. He received temporary life. Indeed, for some ally believe.” One scholar at Brigham Young the Ph.D. from The Southern Baptist University, Daniel Peterson, agrees. Writing Theological Seminary. in our society, Mormonism and Christian theology are some- about works concerning other religious groups,

72 SBJT 16.2 (2012):72-83. Peterson argued, It is not so easy to determine what is “traditional” or “orthodox” Mormonism. Orthodoxy Now, this leads to another rule. It seems to me has to do with a straight and proper walk, with that one of the rules of doing comparative reli- appropriate beliefs and practices. In our case, it gion stuff is that when you restate someone else’s may or may not be a course charted by Joseph beliefs, that restatement ought to be recognizable Smith or Brigham Young or some Church leader to the person whose beliefs you are restating. of the past. Some who claim to be orthodox on You ought to be able to go to that person and say, the basis of following the teachings of Brother “Now is this what you believe?” and the person Joseph—for example, members of polygamous say, “Yes.” The person might say, “That is not cults—are not in harmony with the Church’s exactly how I would phrase it, but yeah, OK, given constituted authorities and are therefore not the change in language, that is what I believe.” But orthodox. “When the Prophet Joseph Smith was if your intended target is always screaming, “But martyred,” President Harold B. Lee said in 1964, I don’t believe that!” then the proper response is “there were many saints who died spiritually with not, “Oh, yes you do!” This strikes me as a really, Joseph. So it was when Brigham Young died; so it really illegitimate tool of comparative religion.5 was when John Taylor died. We have some today willing to believe someone who is dead and gone It is clear from both a mainstream and an aca- and to accept his words as having more author- demic perspective, that misunderstanding is a ity than the words of a living authority today.”8 significant problem in the study of the Latter-day Saints. Richard Mouw, in his recent work, Talk- Millet added further, “The Church is to be gov- ing with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals, erned by current, daily revelation.”9 In attempting offered a poignant reminder. He observed, “Yes, to determine how one might utilize the words of a we must contend for the truth against all those past leader, Millet commented, “To fix ourselves who oppose the gospel. But that means we must too tightly to the words of a past prophet-leader— be rigorous in making sure that we’ve discerned even Joseph Smith—is to approximate the mind- the truth about those against whom we contend.”6 set of certain fundamentalist Protestant groups Further, and better, understanding is needed. who reject modern divine communication in the name of allegiance to the final, infallible, and com- THE PROBLEM OF SOURCE plete word of God found between the covers of the AUTHORITY Bible.”10 Similarly, James Faulconer wrote, “the When seeking to understand any subject, church neither has an official theology nor encour- primary source material (when available) is the ages theological conjecture.”11 He continued, best place to turn. The subject of Latter-day Saint Christology is no different. However, when As individuals, we may find a theology helpful approaching Latter-day Saint theological issues, to our understanding, but no explanation or a considerable problem comes quickly to the system of ideas will be sufficient to tell us what it forefront: Can one discern official LDS Church means to be a Latter-day Saint. For a Latter-day doctrine and build an LDS systematic theology? Saint, a theology is always in danger of becoming For example, Brigham Young University profes- meaningless because it can always be undone by sor Robert L. Millet proclaimed, “One meets with new revelation. Except for scripture and what the great difficult in categorizing or rubricizing Joseph prophet reveals, there is no authoritative logos of Smith the Mormon Prophet, or for that matter the theos for Latter-day Saints, and given that the Mormonism as a whole.”7 He continued, prophet can and does continue to reveal things,

73 there is no logos of what he reveals except the and the Pearl of Great Price], the inspired words record of those revelations. For LDS, the logos is of our living prophets become scripture to us. both in principle and in practice always changing, Their words come to us through conferences, the as reflected in the open canon of LDS scripture. Liahona and Ensign magazine, and instructions to In principle continuing revelation precludes an local priesthood leaders.”15 Similarly, Coke Newell account of revelation as a whole. Thus, finally wrote, “Revelations ‘pertaining to the Kingdom of our only recourse is to the revelations of the God’ are recorded in the Scriptures—in the Bible, prophet since, speaking for God, he can revoke the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, any particular belief or practice at any moment, the Pearl of Great Price, in the General Confer- or he can institute a new one, and he can do those ence talks given by general Authorities every six things with no concern for how to make his pro- months; and in various other documents and offi- nouncement rationally coherent with previous cial records of the church.”16 pronouncements or practices.12 Therefore, in assessing official Church doctrine, the works attributed as officially bind- As Millet and Faulconer have explained, deter- ing and declarative, as the Church, its leaders, mining a specific set of orthodox LDS beliefs is and scholars, have defined them, will be used.17 incredibly difficult. From which sources, then, can Also, when various LDS scholars or writers are LDS beliefs be deduced? surveyed, the opinions of those authors will be In answering the question, “How do you decide referenced as the opinions of those authors. For what is your doctrine and what is not?” Millet example, the works of Robert Millet will not be offered one formulation helpful to answer our referred to as, and should not be thought to be, original question concerning source authority. official statements of LDS Church doctrine. This Millet wrote, “In determining whether something line of thinking is even shown in the front mat- is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ter of many books published by Latter-day Saint ask: Is it found within the four standard works? authors: “This work is not an official publication Within official declarations or proclamations? Is of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. it taught or discussed in general conference or The views expressed herein are the responsibility other official gatherings by general Church lead- of the author and do not necessarily represent the ers today? Is it found in the general handbooks position of the Church.”18 Let us turn, then, to the or approved curriculum of the Church today? If question at hand: For a Latter-day Saint, who is it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel this Jesus and is the Mormon Jesus the same as the secure and appropriate about teaching it.”13 Jesus of the Bible? Gospel Principles, a work published by the LDS Church, parallels Millet’s assessment. In the chap- WHY THE FOCUS ON ter dealing with Scripture, Gospel Principles states, CHRISTOLOGY? “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints When studying various religions around the accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book world, Christians are always interested to hear of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the what others think about the claims of Jesus. Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the Even more: how one views and thinks about standard works of the Church. The inspired words Jesus Christ is a life and death matter and it dis- of our living prophets are also accepted as scrip- tinguishes Christianity from all other religious ture.”14 Discussing living prophets further, Gospel views in the marketplace of ideas. Importantly, Principles explains, “In addition to [the Bible, the Jesus himself was interested in how humans Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, answer this question when he asked the disciples,

74 as recorded in Matthew 16, “Who do people say apostles, performed miracles, and offered specific the Son of Man is?” Furthermore, as noted, due religious and moral teachings. Both sides agree to the exclusive nature of the teachings of Jesus that Jesus Christ was tried by government offi- and the focus of the entire Bible on Jesus, one’s cials, sentenced to death, actually died on a cross, Christology is vitally important. Passages like and was literally raised from the dead on the third Acts 4:12 and John 14:6 make it abundantly clear day. Both Latter-day Saints and traditional Chris- that one’s knowledge and acceptance of Jesus, as tians share significant agreement on the historical presented in the New Testament, are of utmost nature of Jesus Christ. Is there, then, disagree- significance. Kevin Giles noted, “If we do not ment? If disagreement is found, over what issue(s) meet and know God in Christ, then we are with- does the disagreement center? The disagreement out hope.”19 Gregg Allison wrote, “The church found between Latter-day Saints and traditional has historically believed that ‘Jesus Christ was Christians does not reside primarily over the his- fully God and fully man in one person, and will torical person of Jesus—the disagreement resides be so forever.’ His deity is demonstrated by his primarily over the nature of Jesus. own claims supported by his divine attributes Because the LDS Church is so often misunder- and miraculous activities. His humanity is dem- stood and misrepresented and because Christol- onstrated by the virgin birth and his human ogy is so vitally important, the remainder of the attributes, activities, relationships, trials, and present study will focus on the Christology of the temptations. One peculiarity of his humanity LDS Church as it is presented by LDS Church was sinlessness, but this did not make him some- leaders, by LDS Church approved curriculum, and thing other than human. Along with affirming by LDS scholars.22 the two natures of Jesus Christ, the church has also insisted that it was necessary for him to be LATTER-DAY SAINT CHURCH fully God and fully man if he was to accomplish LEADERS ON CHRISTOLOGY salvation for all of humanity.”20 John Anthony As noted earlier, a Latter-day Saint systematic McGuckin argued, “The essence of the Good theology is nowhere to be found. The nature of News that is the Christian gospel is that freedom the LDS faith resists synthesis. However, numer- brought to the world in the community of Christ, ous statements, proclamations, and talks have by the Lord’s life-giving incarnation, ministry, been given by LDS Church leaders since the LDS death and resurrection, and the capacity this Church was founded in 1830, and a number of saving mystery (for it is a unified whole) confers those statements, proclamations, and talks deal on the redeemed for the true knowledge of God with the nature of Jesus Christ. that illuminates, transfigures and vivifies the The first major statement by LDS Church lead- believer.”21 Put simply, Christians show ultimate ership dealing with the nature of Jesus Christ was interest in a person’s Christology because one’s released on June 30, 1916, and is entitled, “The Christology has eternal implications. Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve LATTER-DAY SAINT CHRISTOLOGY Apostles.”23 The editors of Ensign magazine noted We must first ask whether Latter-day Saints some issues had erupted during the early twen- and traditional Christians agree or disagree over tieth century as to how Latter-day Saints should Christological matters. Where, if any, is there understand various scriptural passages in which agreement? Both sides agree that Jesus Christ was God the Father and Christ the Son are discussed indeed an historical figure who lived two thousand as one and this confusion prompted LDS Church years ago. Both sides agree that Jesus Christ called leadership to issue a statement. The editors wrote,

75 “In the early 1900s, some discussion arose among ter the scriptures are explicit and cannot be gain- Church members about the roles of God the Father said nor denied—it is consistently proper to speak and Jesus Christ. The First Presidency and Quo- of Jesus Christ as the Father of the righteous, they rum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following having become His children and He having been in 1916 to clarify the meaning of certain scriptures made their Father through the second birth— where Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, is designated as the the baptismal regeneration.”30 The fourth way in Father.”24 The statement lists four different mean- which Christ is referred to as Father is by “divine ings when the term “Father” is applied to God or investiture of authority.” Here, the members of to Jesus Christ: “Father as a literal parent,” “Father the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as creator,” “Jesus Christ the Father of those who Apostles noted, abide in his gospel,” and “Jesus Christ the Father by divine investiture of authority.”25 As a literal A fourth reason for applying the title ‘Father’ to parent, the term “Father” is applied to God the Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all his deal- Father in the sense that he “is the literal Parent of ings with the human family Jesus the Son has rep- our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits resented and yet represents Elohim His Father in of the human race.”26 As creator, the term “Father” power and authority. This is true of Christ in His is attributed to both God and Christ in varying preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in ways. The leaders noted, which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors God is not the Father of the earth as one of the as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in and since that period in His resurrected state.31 whole or in part, not of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, In an extremely telling concluding paragraph, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the leaders wrote, the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who heavens and the earth are to be understood as have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as the Creator of the heavens and the earth.27 they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment As creator, the term “Father” is attributed to have been made known through divine revela- Jesus in the sense that, in creation, “Jesus Christ, tion, we are to understand that only resurrected whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive and glorified beings can become parents of spirit of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation.”28 offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached Further, the leaders asserted, “Jesus Christ, being maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; the Creator, is consistently called the Father of and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds heaven and earth in the sense explained above; will pass in due sequence through the several and since His creations are of eternal quality He is stages or estates by which the glorified parents very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven have attained exaltation.32 and earth.”29 The third use of the title “Father” is applied to Christ specifically with reference to sal- What can be gleaned concerning the nature of vation. The leaders wrote, “If it be proper to speak Christ from this early statement of LDS Church of those who accept and abide in the gospel as leadership? First, Christ cannot be determined Christ’s sons and daughters—and upon this mat- to be a literal parent as the first of the four uses

76 denotes. When Christ applies the title “Father” to In summarizing LDS Church leader statements himself, it must mean something different than concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, a few com- that of a literal parent because only God (Elohim) ments can be made. First, these two statements carries that designation. Second, when Christ is make Jesus Christ and God the Father two sepa- referred to as Father in the context of creation, he rate and distinct beings. Second, Jesus Christ and is being referred to as the executive of the creation God the Father are not united in essence but only having been given the power, by God, to perform united in purpose. Third, Jesus Christ is subservi- the act of creating/organizing the world. Third, ent to (and less than) God the Father, not in terms when “Father” is applied to Christ, it is sometimes of traditional intra-Trinitarian functional subor- applied in terms of his being the saving father of dination, or, better, taxis (personal relations and those who follow him. Fourth, and the most tell- ordering between the persons of the Godhead) but ing for the present study, is the investiture of the in terms of actual essence or nature. Because God title “Father” to Jesus Christ. From this fourth way the Father has existed longer than Jesus Christ the term “Father” is used, one must conclude that and because God the Father had undergone res- these Latter-day Saint leaders believed Jesus to be urrection and exaltation when Jesus Christ was a being who was not, in the beginning, equivalent born, God the Father is a greater being than Jesus with God the Father. This is plain in the concluding in terms of his very nature. paragraph (quoted above) to the entire exposition. God the Father is, in essence, greater than Jesus LATTER-DAY SAINT CHURCH Christ because God has already undergone a resur- APPROVED CURRICULUM ON rection and glorification, something Jesus had yet to CHRISTOLOGY undergo in his premortal existence. For the purpose of this study, the LDS Church The second major statement released by Lat- approved and printed curriculum Gospel Principles ter-day Saint Church leadership came in the year will be examined.35 This manual is used for the pur- 2000 and is entitled, “The Living Christ: The Tes- poses of adult Sunday school courses and is a stan- timony of the Apostles.”33 Though shorter and dardized text throughout the entire LDS Church. much less nuanced than the 1916 statement, this Gospel Principles qualifies as an official statement proclamation has been distributed throughout the of LDS Church doctrine because it is published by LDS Church and is cherished by its members. One the LDS Church and is used in every local meeting of the first phrases in the statement is declarative house for teaching and instruction. It is not meant of who Jesus Christ is and is helpful to the pres- to be a statement of nuanced, systematic theology, ent study. The proclamation states, “He was the but is meant to function as an adult Sunday school Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah manual. Therefore, the statements found inGospel of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He Principles are purposefully succinct. was the creator of the earth.”34 Though concise The discussion of Jesus Christ inGospel Prin- and seemingly straightforward, this sentence is ciples is set within the context of the premortal telling, especially when combined with the teach- spirit world, a place Latter-day Saints believe all ings from the 1916 statement. When paired with humans, including Jesus Christ, lived prior to the statement released nearly a century earlier, the being born on the earth.36 Within this context, 2000 proclamation declares Jesus and God the the manual reads, “When the plan for our salva- Father to be separate beings, united in purpose, tion was presented to us in the premortal spirit but not in essence, which is another point of clear world, we were so happy that we shouted for departure from historic Christianity’s affirmation joy.”37 This plan of salvation, however, accounted of the Trinity. for sin and the need for payment for that sin: “We

77 needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us From Gospel Principles, then, a limited (but how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father important) set of beliefs may be drawn concern- said, ‘Whom shall I send?’ (Abraham 3:27). Jesus ing Jesus. First, there was a time in history when Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, ‘Here am I, Jesus was not the Messiah. Or, said slightly dif- send me’ (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1-4).”38 ferently, there was a time in history when Jesus After Jesus Christ proclaimed his willingness to was not the Christ. Second, there was a time in be the Savior, Lucifer stepped forward and made history when Jesus and Lucifer competed for the the same proclamation. Gospel Principles declares, title “Messiah.” Latter-day Saints may argue that “Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, Lucifer would have never been chosen to be Mes- ‘Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I siah, so the competition was not completely open, will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be however, the fact remains: Jesus and Lucifer both lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine made requests of God the Father to be the Mes- honor’ (Moses 4:1).”39 Continuing the storyline, siah. Third, God chose Jesus to be the Messiah at the manual states, “After hearing both sons speak, a specific point in the past because Jesus agreed to Heavenly Father said, ‘I will send the first’ (Abra- complete the plan for salvation according to God’s ham 3:27). Jesus Christ was chosen and foreor- determined means. Thus, Jesus is not the Savior dained to be our Savior…. Heavenly Father chose by essence or nature but by but by God’s choosing Jesus Christ to be our Savior.”40 Similarly, a few and, to use a phrase from the 1916 LDS Church chapters later, Gospel Principles devotes another leadership statement, by divine investiture. section to its teaching on Jesus Christ. The manual notes, “Jesus is the only person on earth to be LATTER-DAY SAINT SCHOLARS ON born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. CHRISTOLOGY That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. The number of Latter-day Saint scholars has He inherited divine powers from His Father.”41 increased exponentially over the recent past, with Further, Gospel Principles teaches, the vast majority of contemporary professors and scholars receiving degrees from well-known and [O]ur wise Heavenly Father prepared a wonder- well-respected major universities. Non-members ful, merciful plan to save us from physical and studying the LDS Church can be overwhelmed spiritual death. He planned for a Savior to come by the sheer amount of writing being produced to earth to ransom (redeem) us from our sins and by LDS scholars. Thus, choosing which scholars from death. Because of our sins and the weakness to survey is difficult. However, two scholars stand of our mortal bodies, we could not ransom our- out in Latter-day Saint life as both well-known and selves (see Alma 34:10-12). The one who would well-respected: James E. Talmage and Robert L. be our Savior would need to be sinless and to have Millet. Talmage served as a member of the Quo- power over death. There are several reasons why rum of the Twelve Apostles from 1911 until his Jesus Christ was the only person who could be death in 1933 and is most well-known in Latter- our Savior. One reason is that Heavenly Father day Saint circles for his works Jesus the Christ and chose Him to be the Savior. He was the Only The Articles of Faith. Robert Millet is a professor Begotten Son of God and thus had power over at Brigham Young University, currently serving death…. Jesus also qualified to be our Savior as Abraham Smoot University Professor and has because He is the only person who has ever lived previously served as dean of the School of Reli- on the earth who did not sin. This made Him a gious Education and as Richard L. Evans Chair of worthy sacrifice to pay for the sins of others.42 Religious Understanding. Millet has written over fifty books and hundreds of articles. Most Latter-

78 day Saints know of his work and likely have at least here surrounds the Latter-day Saint use of the word one of his works in their personal libraries. Millet’s “eternal” to describe Jesus as the Christ. Plainly, influence on contemporary Latter-day Saints can- according to Latter-day Saint thought, Jesus has not be overstated. not always been the Christ, therefore how can he be described as eternal? Talmage answered, “As to James E. Talmage time, the term being used in the sense of all dura- In the introduction to his work Jesus the Christ, tion past, this is our earliest record of the Firstborn Talmage wrote, “Instead of beginning our study among the sons of God; to us who read, it makes the with the earthly birth of the Holy Babe of Beth- beginning.”45 Similarly, in an interesting comment lehem, we shall consider the part taken by the concerning John 1, Talmage argued, Firstborn Son of God in the primeval councils of heaven, at the time when He was chosen and The passage is simple, precise and unambiguous. ordained to be the Savior of the unborn race of We may reasonably give to the phrase ‘In the mortals, the Redeemer of a world then in its for- beginning’ the same meaning as attaches thereto mative stages of development.”43 This reinforces in the first line of Genesis; and such signification the ideas presented earlier, namely, that Latter-day must indicate a time antecedent to the earliest Saints believe there was a time in the past when stages of human existence upon the earth. That Jesus was not the Christ and that there was a time the Word is Jesus Christ, who was with the Father in the past when he was named the Christ. Con- in that beginning and who was Himself invested cerning the entire event, Talmage argued, with the powers and rank of Godship, and that He came into the world and dwelt among men, Satan’s plan of compulsion, whereby all would be are definitely affirmed.46 safely conducted through the career of mortality, bereft of freedom to act and agency to choose, so Thus, it may be concluded that Talmage believed circumscribed that they would be compelled to Jesus to be a being who existed “in the beginning do right—that one soul would not be lost—was with the Father,” but understood in such a way that rejected; and the humble offer of Jesus the First- Jesus existed “at the beginning of the plans for the born—to assume mortality and live among men earth with the Father.” Similarly, like the previously as their Exemplar and Teacher, observing the examined proclamations and Gospel Principles, Tal- sanctity of man’s agency but teaching men to use mage is in agreement that, at some point in the past, aright that divine heritage—was accepted. The Jesus was not the Messiah and then was made the decision brought war, which resulted in the van- Messiah because he showed a willingness to follow quishment of Satan and his angels, who were cast God the Father’s plan. out and deprived of the boundless privileges inci- dent to the mortal or second estate. In that august Robert L. Millet council of the angels and the Gods, the Being who Millet’s writings are well-researched, nuanced, later was born in flesh as Mary’s Son, Jesus, took and heavily theological. Much of his writing prominent part, and there was He ordained of the focuses on explaining Latter-day Saint thought Father to be the Savior of mankind.44 to both members and non-members. Of greatest interest to the present study is his work on the doc- Here, then, Talmage defines for readers his trine of the Trinity. understanding that, at one point in the past, Jesus In his article, “God and Man,” Millet noted, was not the Messiah and then at some later point, “[Latter-day Saints] believe the doctrine of the Jesus was made the Messiah. The natural question Trinity represents a superimposition of Hellenis-

79 tic philosophy on the Bible and that the simplest A question naturally arises here: is this cov- and closest reading of the four Gospels sets forth a enant between the three persons an everlasting, Godhead of three distinct beings and three Gods— or eternal, covenant? In another work, Millet not three coequal persons in one substance or responded to such questions. He wrote, “My col- essence.”47 He added, “If the Nicene theologians league Stephen Robinson has pointed out further meant to convey that the Father and Son are pos- that ‘in both Hebrew and Greek the words for sessed of the ‘same substance’ or ‘same essence’ in ‘eternity’ denote neither an endless linear time the sense that they are both possessed of divinity, of nor a state outside of time, but rather ‘an age,’ an an equal divinity, of a divine nature, then Latter-day ‘epoch,’ ‘a long time,’ ‘world,’ or some other such Saints would agree. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. term – even a ‘lifetime,’ or ‘a generation’—always Jesus Christ is God the Son. He was fully human a measureable period of time rather than endless and fully divine.”48 Similarly, he wrote, time or timelessness.’”51 In summarizing Millet’s view, a few points may [Latter-day Saints] believe the Father, Son, and be made. First, Latter-day Saints do not believe Holy Spirit are one in that they constitute one in the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trin- Godhead. We believe they are one in that they ity. Second, Latter-day Saints believe the three possess all of the attributes of godliness in per- members of the Godhead to be united in various fection. We believe they have the same mind, ways, but not in terms of union of being or a shar- the same objective for humanity, the same pur- ing of a common, simple, identical nature. Third, pose. We believe they are one in the sense that Latter-day Saints believe the three members of the theirs is a covenantal relationship, a relationship Godhead are united through a covenant relation- established before the world was. Joseph Smith ship, making them long-lasting promise keepers explained that this “everlasting covenant was with each other, hence of union in purpose and made between three personages before the aim but not a union in nature. Fourth, Latter-day organization of this earth, and relates to their Saints believe the Godhead to be eternally cove- dispensation of things to men on the earth; these nanted together, but not outside of time. The three personages … are called God the first, the Cre- members of the Godhead, and their relationship ator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the with each other, exist within time and the length third, the witness or Testator.” Finally, they are of their relationship could, if such an instrument one in the scriptural sense that the love and unity existed, be measured. among the three distinct personages is of such a magnitude that they are occasionally referred to CONCLUSION simply as “God.”49 To say that Latter-day Saint Christology is complex would be an understatement. Latter- He concluded, in agreement with James Tal- day Saints and traditional Christians can agree mage, “The one-ness of the Godhead, to which on the actual existence of an historical figure the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no named Jesus of Nazareth and that this histori- mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural cal person lived, breathed, traveled, taught, was and therefore impossible blending of personality. crucified, and was raised to life after death. About Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their these issues there is no question. However, when persons and individualities as are any three per- it comes to the actual identity and nature of Jesus sonages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose Christ, there is significant disagreement. Tradi- and operation is such as to make their edicts one, tional Christianity understands Jesus Christ to and their will the will of God.”50 be eternally one with the Father and the Spirit,

80 both in purpose and in being. Latter-day Saints day Saints being studied in this article is the largest understand that oneness to be in purpose. Tradi- of the Latter-day Saint groups and is headquartered tional Christians believe Jesus to have always been in Salt Lake City, Utah. Other Latter-day Saint the Messiah, in a timeless sense. Latter-day Saints groups include the Reorganized Church of Jesus believe Jesus was at one point in time past not the Christ of Latter-day Saints (now renamed the Com- Messiah, and thus, likewise, Latter-day Saints munity of Christ) headquartered in Independence, believe Jesus was, at one point in the past, made Missouri; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day the Messiah. Traditional Christians believe Jesus Saints, Strangite headquartered in Burlington, Wis- to be the second person within a Triune Godhead, consin; the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of a relationship characterized by more than mere Latter-day Saints headquartered in Independence, covenant between the three persons. Latter-day Missouri; and the Church of Christ with Elijah Mes- Saints believe Jesus to be a member of the God- sage headquartered in Blue Springs, Missouri. For head, a relationship, started at a point in the past, a short discussion of some of the various Latter-day by covenant. Saint groups, see Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, and Thus, though there are points of agreement, Craig D. Atwood, Handbook of Denominations in the there are significant points of disagreement. We United States (12th ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), disagree over the interpretation of scriptural pas- 346-53. For a more extended discussion see Newell sages, we disagree over what the early Christians G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer, eds., Scattering of believed, and we disagree over theological points. the Saints: Schism within Mormonism (Independence, Of those disagreements, however, the disagree- MO: John Whitmer, 2007). ment over the nature of the central figure of the 3Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Infographic: Christian faith is the most significant. Both Latter- Mormons in America” [cited 25 June 2012]. Online: day Saints and traditional Christians claim to fol- http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/ low Jesus. Both claim Jesus as their own. One has mormons-in-america-infographic.aspx. “Jesus Christ” in its church title. The other calls 4Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, eds., The itself “the Christian church.” But, in the end, who New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, is this Jesus? One’s answer to this question has 2002), 22. eternal ramifications. Jesus is the second person 5Daniel C. Peterson, “Easier than Research, More of an ontologically united Trinity. Jesus is fully Inflammatory than Truth” [cited 7 October human and fully divine. Jesus is the lion and the 2004]. Online: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/ lamb, the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus is, as Peter conf/2000PetD.html. answered, the Christ, the son of the living God. 6Richard J. Mouw, Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 24. ENDNOTES 7Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith and Modern Mor- 1Variously referred to as, The Church of Jesus Christ of monism,” BYU Studies 29 (1989): 65. Latter-day Saints; the Mormons; and,the Latter-day 8Ibid. Saints, in this article the abbreviation “LDS Church” 9Ibid. will be used in general reference to The Church of 10Ibid. Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For members of the 11James Faulconer, “Why a Mormon Won’t Drink Cof- LDS Church, the terms “Latter-day Saints,” “Saints,” fee but Might Have a Coke: The Atheological Charac- or “LDS” will be employed. The term “Mormon” will ter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” be used only when found in direct quotations from (lecture, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 19 source material. March 2003). 2The branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 12Ibid.

81 13Robert L. Millet, What Happened to the Cross? Dis- 22The standard works, in a direct fashion, are being tinctive LDS Teachings (Salt Lake City: Deseret, purposefully left out of this study. Statements by LDS 2007), 56. Millet also argued for the same sources of leaders, LDS Church publications, and LDS schol- authority in another work co-authored with Gerald R. ars are replete with references to the standard works, McDermott. Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDer- therefore, the standard works will be consulted indi- mott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate rectly rather than directly. (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007), 31-32. 23This statement was originally printed in the Improve- 14The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,Gos - ment Era newspaper in August, 1916, but has been pel Principles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus reprinted in a number of different publications. The Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2009), 45. most recent publication to reprint the doctrinal expo- 15Ibid., 48. sition was the April 2002 edition of Ensign magazine. 16Coke Newell, Latter Days: An Insider’s Guide to Mor- See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, monism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “The Father and the Son”, Ensign (April 2002): 13-18. (New York: St. Martins, 2000), 259. 24Ibid., 13. 17The use of Millet’s system for the classification of 25Ibid., 14, 17. material as authoritative does not lend authority 26Ibid., 14. to Millet. His system is being referenced due to his 27Ibid. agreement with Gospel Principles, an official publica- 28Ibid. tion of the LDS Church. In a private discussion with 29Ibid. a former LDS Mission President, two former LDS 30Ibid., 17. bishops, and three former LDS Stake Presidents, all 31Ibid. six men agreed that the explanation of Gospel Prin- 32Ibid., 18. ciples and Millet concerning LDS source author- 33See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ity was also their personal understanding of the “The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles” sources from which official beliefs may be gleaned. [cited 28 June 2012]. Online: http://www.lds.org/ The names and geographical locations of service of study/living-christ. the six men will be kept private per their request. 34Ibid. Unless official church material is used for scriptural 35The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gos- commentary, any commentaries referenced dealing pel Principles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus with the four standard works should be understood Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2009). to be the opinion of only the author(s) of the com- 36Ibid., 9-12. mentary and not official LDS Church statements. 37Ibid., 13. Although they are not official statements of belief, 38Ibid. they nonetheless, at the very least, represent a popular 39Ibid. understanding of official beliefs. 40Ibid., 15. 18Millet, What Happened to the Cross?, iv. 41Ibid., 53. 19Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son (Down- 42Ibid., 59-61. Another manual used by Latter-day ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 15. Saints, though in their homes instead of the local 20Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduc- meeting house, is entitled Gospel Fundamentals. tion to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, This manual contains the same teachings as Gos- 2011), 365. pel Principles. See The Church of Jesus Christ of 21John Anthony McGuckin, ed., We Believe in One Latter-day Saints, Gospel Fundamentals (Salt Lake Lord Jesus Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 2009), xvii. Saints, 2002), 5-20.

82 43James Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1915), 3. 44Ibid., 8. 45Ibid. 46Ibid., 9. 47Robert L. Millet, “God and Man,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper (ed. Robert L. Millet; Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2011), 352. 48Ibid., 353. 49Ibid., 354-55. 50Ibid., 356. 51Robert L. Millet, Getting at the Truth [cited 29 June 2012]. Online: http://gospelink.com/library/ document/131982.