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 “tradi- tional” 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 doc- trine, 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.