LDS Q & A - part 1

For the past week or so, my friend Marcus McElhaney and I have been engaged in a dialogue about several sticking points he has with my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (often referred to as the Mormon, or LDS church). I usually don't address my faith quite so directly on this blog, but I felt that this was a good opportunity for open discussion of why I believe, as do so many of my fellow Mormons, the things that I believe. Marcus recently posted on his Christian apologetics blog a list of questions about certain points of difference between the LDS theology and that of mainstream, creedal Christianity, asking for my thoughts on these. I thank him for opening this dialogue; it shows me that he has a more open mind than many who profess to do so.

The format for Marcus's questions comes from a story on FoxNews.com from last year, in which a spokesman for the LDS church responded to several commonly-asked questions about Mitt Romney's faith. He took this list of questions and the church's answers, and posed his own follow-up questions. For the remainder of this post, and probably the next several, I'll address Marcus's questions directly, using the following format: 1, the original doctrinal question and the LDS Church's response to the media in black; 2, Marcus's follow-up questions in red; and 3, my answers in green. In some cases I have conflated multiple questions into a single block due to their similar content.

---

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like 'cult.' Famed scholar of religion Martin Marty has said a cult means a church you don't personally happen to like. We don't believe any organization should be subjected to a label that has come to be as pejorative as that one.

While I have to agree that no one wants to be labeled a "cult", the word does not historically mean "a religion that I don't like." It has been watered down culturally because no one cares about truth much anymore. I would define "cult" in this context:

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Basically, leaving aside the question of if Mormomism matches this definition for minute I'm sure most people would agree that The "Charles Mansion Family", "Jim Jones' People Temple", and "David Koresh's Branch Davidians" all fit the definition I'm using. These were all false, living outside of conventional society under a charismatic leader. I'd rather not get into if Mormonism if false in the writing, but I'd like to use this definition to answer the question because the Church didn't answer the question in this article. I invite anyone to tell me where I can find a a better answer to this question.

This is being rather disingenuous, I think. First, I see the definition you site comes from dictionary.com, which contains several other definitions for the term, some of which apply equally to evangelical Christianity (e.g. "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies."). The point isn't if we meet such a definition; I would argue that you and I both belong to cults in the "historical" meaning of the term, as you put it. Rather, the point is that the term itself has come to be used as a perjorative epithet, particularly since the definition you cite is a relative one, subject to the belief system of the person employing it (that is, what is "unorthodox" to you, may not be to someone else). The question was why some call us a cult, and the answer, I think, adequately addresses that.

Going a little further, perhaps a more complete answer would be that evangelical Christians believe us to be a cult because we have a different conception of who God the Father and Jesus Christ are, a conception that is outside the typical parameters of modern Christian sects, but is quite in harmony with what many primitive Christian churches believed (for a discussion of this, see chapter 3 of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church:
Joseph Smith and Early Christianity).

---

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?
Q: Does the Church believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Q: Does the Church believe that God is a physical being?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

The problem I have is with the words "literally" and "God, the Father, also has an immortal body." Does this mean that Mormons believe in Jesus' virgin birth, as Christians have preached for 2000 years? Or do they believe that Jesus was conceived in a sex-act between God, the Father, and Mary? If so, where do they have proof for that? Where is the proof that God, the Father, has an immortal body? Can you show that from the Bible? John 4 :24 says:

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Is Jesus God made flesh or not? Is it true that Mormons believe that Jesus is Lucifer's older spirit brother? If so where do find that in the Bible?

I've already answered the question about the physical nature of God and the divinity of Christ by pointing to Bickmore's book (the topic is much longer than I can tackle in this setting). Your question about Lucifer is interesting to me, because I never realized anyone had a problem with this doctrine... from my childhood I have always accepted the idea that we lived with God the Father before being born into mortality, but in researching mainstream Christian thought, I see that this belief (common among early Christians; see Bickmore's book again, the section titled "The Pre-Existence in Early Christianity") was abolished several centuries after Christ's ascension, and would therefore not be found among Protestant teachings.

Perhaps a simpler statement of LDS belief is this: if God created all things, then it follows that He also created Lucifer, yes? We believe that all spirits are creations (and therefore children) of our Heavenly Father:

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12:9)

In that sense, then, Lucifer and Jesus are siblings... just as Christ is our Elder Brother as well (He being the Firstborn). Notwithstanding this shared spiritual heritage, however, Lucifer elected to rebel against the Father, was cast out of Heaven, and became Satan:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.(Revelation 12:7-12)

As to where in the Bible we find support for this doctrine of a pre-mortal existence, look no further than Jeremiah (I believe this scripture is commonly cited by those who oppose abortion):

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)

What is your understanding of this verse, if not that God knew us before our entrance into mortality?

---

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

Funny Apostle Bruce R. McConkie seemed to think he knew how Jesus was conceived. Doe this mean that Mormons no longer believe this?

Just because Elder McConkie's book was titled "Mormon Doctrine" doesn't mean that everything he wrote is, in fact, revealed doctrine. We believe that man is flawed and fallible, and even when holding prophetic office is subject to error (see, for example, Jonah's refusal to understand God's plan for the people of Nineveh). I can tell you that we do not have a definitive answer as to how Christ was conceived, only speculation from McConkie and others, but ultimately it doesn't matter. The scriptural account tells us only that Mary was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost (see Luke 1:35), and that's enough -- as you said yourself, there are some things (such as the knowledge of how God enacted the virgin birth) that simply are not pertinent to our salvation.

---

I hope this helps clarify some things. I think it's important to state that all of this comes not of intellectual discourse or scholarly research, but from thoughtful, prayerful communication with the Lord through the Holy Spirit. My testimony of the Lord's reality and my understanding of these principles comes not from scientific proof (Douglas Adams once famously said that any such proof would cause God to vanish in a "puff of logic"), but from the revelation and confirming power of His Holy Spirit. I have felt it powerfully move my life in countless, undeniable ways. I know He lives.

More questions and answers soon.