Meridian Magazine :: Editorial: Senator Conrad Burns

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.

Editor's Note: Please read the companion piece to this article: Constantine and the Great Council, Part 2.

This past Monday (January 5, 2009) we published a piece entitled: Focus on the Family Explains Decision to Pull Mormon Interview. The article really just noted that the Glenn Beck interview conducted by Karla Dial had been pulled from the Focus on the Family Action website and gave little explanation except for a brief statement from ministry spokesman Gary Schneeberger: “We intended no insult. [We] merely miscalculated on how best to feature Glenn [Beck] whom we greatly appreciate.”

One other comment was quoted from Pastor Dustin S. Seger of Shepherd's Fellowship in Greensboro, North Carolina: “They use Mr. Beck's story as a way to show that hope can be found in God, which is true enough; the problem is that Mr. Beck's god is not the Triune God of the Bible nor is his Jesus the Jesus of the Bible.”

This last comment made me sad. I have so many wonderful friends of other faiths and it never enters my mind, not once, that they don't think that I worship the same Jesus Christ that they worship and that this very distinction in their minds is what so pointedly separates us doctrinally.

I decided that I wanted to contact Focus on the Family and get a more detailed explanation of why the Glenn Beck interview was really pulled. In the very midst of that thought we received a note from one of our loyal readers, Mary Wilson, who had already contacted Focus and shared with us the entire response.

The response is troubling, but also very educational and helps me understand more about the context from whence many of my Christian associates come. We publish with permission the string in full so that the context is clear, then I will make some comments afterwards.

Dear Brother and Sister Proctor,

I just read your article Focus on the Family Explains Decision to Pull Mormon Interview . We wrote a note to Focus on the Family in support of Glenn Beck. This was Focus on the Family's response to us. We were pretty appalled that they do not believe that the LDS people are Christians and explained why. Since we had given support to this group in the past we decided not to continue to use them but will find other avenues to support the family.

Sincerely,

Mary Wilson

Here was the official response from Ron Hall of Focus on the Family Action Citizen Link [please read the response slowly and carefully so that you can truly come to understand the view that is presented]:

[This part was auto-generated] Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

[This is the personal response] Thank you for your recent e-mail. It was good of you to contact us with your thoughts concerning our decision to pull Karla Dial's “Friday Five” interview with conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck from Focus on the Family Action's CitizenLink Web site. Honest feedback like yours is always welcome here at Focus Action headquarters. Permit me to respond to the concerns you've expressed.

We hope you will understand that we consider Glenn Beck a good friend of our ministry. We have only feelings of deep appreciation for his valuable contributions to the cause of family values and conservative social principles. The same thing can be said with reference to our many supporters within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Time and time again staunch members of the LDS church have contacted us with warm expressions of their enthusiasm for our work, and on every occasion we have tried to make it clear that we welcome their friendship and appreciate their exemplary commitment to moral values. It is impossible to overestimate the value of such allies in the ongoing battle against secularism, “multiculturalism,” and amoral “political correctness.”

Why, then, have we come to regard our initial decision to feature this particular discussion with Glenn Beck on the CitizenLink Web site as an unfortunate miscalculation? For the simple reason that Mr. Beck's book “The Christmas Sweater”, which was the focal point of the interview, moves beyond the range of conservative social concerns and touches upon overtly theological themes. Herein lies the crux of our concern. Much as we respect and appreciate our friends in the LDS Church , it would be dishonest of us to conceal our firm conviction that at its heart, Mormon doctrine is incompatible with Christianity. While there are many forms of worship, modes of religious expression, and even a number of beliefs that Latter-day Saints hold in common with the various Christian denominations, the fact remains that the distinctions that make it unique are of an entirely different order from those that divide these other groups. At its deepest level, Mormon teaching about the nature of God and His Son Jesus Christ sets it apart, in a radical way, from orthodox Christendom.

To cite a specific and extremely important example, the Mormon church does not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the early Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon . In fact, it's our understanding that LDS believe in three *beings* as the godhead – three *separate beings* that are physically separate and distinct individuals who together constitute the presiding council of the heavens. But this is most definitely *not* the Christian view. Christians down through the ages have always believed that the Scriptures bear witness to *one* God who exists in *three* persons subsisting within a *single* essence.

Similarly, orthodox Christians have always maintained the doctrine of the “two natures in Christ” – the teaching that Jesus Himself is *vere homo et vere Deus*, “truly God and truly man.” This, of course, is *logically* inconceivable. And so, through the centuries, theological mavericks of various kinds have tried to “make sense” of the scriptural witness in a number of different ways. The Docetists, for example, said that Jesus only *seemed* to be a man -- that, as God, he could not really have a body of flesh and bones. The Mormons have taken the exact opposite tack: i.e., if Jesus is God, and if Jesus was truly incarnate, then God the Father must *also* have a physical body. Thus the Mormon apostle James E. Talmage writes, “We know that both the Father and the Son are in form and nature perfect men” (_A Study of the Articles of Faith_, pp. 41-42). Here again, the LDS teaching stands in direct contradiction to historic, orthodox Christian doctrine.

These are just a couple of the theological reasons we have for believing that it is important to maintain a clear distinction between the LDS church and orthodox Christian churches. It was our concern to hold this crucial doctrinal line that led us to pull the Glenn Beck interview from our Web site -- nothing more, nothing less.

We noted your request that your name be removed from our mailing list. We would ask that you call us toll-free at 1/800/232-6459 to effect this change.

We hope this reply has clarified our perspective for you. Although Dr. Dobson has been out of the office on a writing trip and only recently became aware of this situation well after the fact, he asked us to pass along his appreciation for caring enough to contact us. Your interest in the work of Focus on the Family Action means a great deal to us. Grace, peace, and God's richest blessings to you.

Ron Hall
Focus on the Family Action 01/02/2009 12:54 PM

I do not publish this letter from Focus to be inflammatory, only explanatory. Meridian reader Mary Wilson's decision to withdraw her support from Focus on the Family is her own choice. We work with people from Focus on the Family through our Foundation, Family Leader, regularly and have come to honor, respect and regard them very highly.

I am truly trying to understand why leaders of other Christian faiths do not consider me as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christian. I can truly say I have no neighbors or friends of other faiths who do not consider me to be a Christian in practice (of whom I am aware). It is this doctrinal issue of the concept and view of Deity that separates us in theory.

This week we have published two articles (including today's piece) which are excerpts from Elder Alexander B. Morrison's book Turning from Truth, A New Look at the Great Apostasy (see Part 1 here, see Part 2 here). These were published to give further context to this issue and schism that occurred in the fourth century A.D. at the Council of Nicaea. We will publish a piece this next week from popular Meridian author Paul Bishop called “Living Christians.” This will give further on-the-street context to this issue.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gives clear explanation to the doctrine of Deity that we embrace in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ:

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God's alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) ¹ as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” ² How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus's prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? ³

It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? ⁴

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior's great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four. ⁵

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that in order for us to “exercise faith in God unto life and salvation” we needed to have “a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.” ⁶

Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander taught in this month's Ensign that the Prophet Joseph gave us that very correct idea from The First Vision:

Joseph Smith's apostolic instruction began in 1820. Pondering the questions of religion, he soon found that there was no way to reason or argue one's opinion to an authoritative conclusion concerning the correctness of the various churches or their doctrines. Short of a divine manifestation, young Joseph could add only one more opinion to the already existing “war of words and tumult of opinions” (Joseph Smith History 1:10). But Joseph's questions on religion were answered by the personal and physical manifestation of God the Father and His divine and living Son, Jesus Christ—an experience referred to as the First Vision.

Like that of the original Apostles, Joseph's experience with Deity was direct and personal. There was no need for the opinion of others or the deliberations of a council to define what he saw or what it came to mean to him. Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.

Joseph himself talked about the aftermath of The First Vision, this “founding revelation of the Restoration,” as he attempted to share his experience with others:

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase…However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision…. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. ⁷

I can understand from knocking on thousands of doors in Germany how long-standing traditions of belief can weigh heavily upon people. This doctrine of Deity, passed down for centuries from the Council of Nicaea and other councils does press heavily upon our Christian friends of other faiths. When I talk in depth to my close friends of Christian faith, however, the Jesus Christ that they talk about and worship is described to me (in practice) just like the Jesus that I know and love. I don't know of very many people who truly worship a God (in practice) who is “ abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions.” It reminds me of so many who told me in the mission field that they were born a certain religion, they would stay with that religion and they would die with that religion. When I asked them what their religion believed or taught them about their God, they would often say that they really didn't know, but they were staying with their church because it was a tradition in their family—for generations.

As to Glenn Beck's conversion and experience with this same Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith saw in the Sacred Grove that spring day in 1820, I know personally of what Glenn is talking about. I have experienced His love, His grace, His power and the blessings of His atoning sacrifice in my own life. He is indeed my personal Savior and Redeemer and I adore Him and love Him with all my heart.

I end with one final statement from Elder Holland that fits so perfectly what has been said here:

A related reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as did the ancient prophets and apostles, in an embodied—but certainly glorified—God. ⁸ To those who criticize this scripturally based belief, I ask at least rhetorically: If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity? ⁹Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that.

Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace ¹⁰ can we gain eternal life.

Notes

1 Constantinople, A.D. 381; Ephesus , A.D. 431; Chalcedon , A.D. 451.

2 Quoted in Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism (1958), 235.

3 John 17:3; emphasis added.

4 For a thorough discussion of this issue, see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? 71–89; see also Robert Millet, Getting at the Truth (2004), 106–22.

5 See Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign, Nov 2007, pp. 40-42 for his entire talk.

6 See Lectures on Faith 3: 2-5.

7 See Joseph Smith History 1: 21-25.

8 See David L. Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 83, no. 2 (1990): 105–16; David L. Paulsen, “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives,” BYU Studies, vol. 35, no. 4 (1996): 7–94; James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–6, 134–35; Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (2001), 33–34.

9 See Romans 6:9; Alma 11:45.

10 See 1 Nephi 10:6; 2 Nephi 2:8; 31:19; Moroni 6:4; Joseph Smith Translation, Romans 3:24.