Letter 12 — The Truth About Jesus Christ
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White
Thursday, July 19
Dear Steve,
So you liked my daughter’s guest appearance on the answering machine. Actually, it wasn’t planned. My wife has never figured those things out and keeps pressing buttons she shouldn’t, and well, you ended up listening to a discourse on something that was obviously important to an 18-month-old little angel — and no, being a parent doesn’t help you figure out exactly what she is saying. You will find that I have repaired the phone message so you needn’t be concerned about calling the next time! Kids are so much fun — my wife and I really enjoy them.
Yes, I would love to share with you my belief in Jesus Christ — nothing is more pleasurable than that! And yes, I will be careful to compare and contrast my belief with the Mormon perspective just as you requested. To do so, however, I will have to define the LDS position so that I can then present the biblical teaching of Christ in response. Even that will not be easy, for I will still have to ask your indulgence to hold off some aspects of the discussion of Christ for a later letter. Here is my proposal as to how to handle this topic:
First, I will deal with the person of Jesus Christ. I will contrast LDS teaching about Christ being the literal spiritual and physical offspring of God the Father (Elohim), as well as those concepts connected with His being the Creator of all things and His “premortal relationship” as our spirit brother. I will compare these LDS teachings with the biblical presentation of Christ.
Second, I will deal with the Mormon doctrine of the atoning work of Christ on Calvary. I will in that letter deal with the concept of “blood atonement” as well, again presenting the biblical view of this issue I think you will be a little surprised about some of the things I have to say there. I will also deal with the subject of Christ’s role as our only High Priest, and will probably need to deal with the LDS concept of the priesthood at the same time. So, with that, let’s move into the LDS teaching about Christ. First, let me say something about the importance of this topic. I can’t tell you how many times when sharing with a Mormon person this kind of conversation has taken place:
“It sounds like you are saying we are not Christians, right”
“Yes, that is what I am saying.”
“But that’s absurd! Not only is the name of Christ in the name of our church, but we believe in Jesus Christ!”
“Which one?”
“What do you mean, ‘which one’ There is only one Jesus.”
“Right, there is only one Jesus but there are many false Christs being taught today. The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Are they wrong in that belief?”
“Of course Jesus isn’t Michael the Archangel.”
“I agree and neither is He the spirit brother of Lucifer as you believe. A Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, or a Jesus who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, is a false Christ. Since we are saved by Jesus Christ, it is obvious then that we cannot be saved by a Christ who does not exist, can we? Therefore, if one believes in a false Christ, one will not be saved, and any system of religion that would teach falsehood about Christ is not a Christian faith.”
We cannot be saved by a Christ who does not exist, Steve. What we believe about Christ is absolutely vital because I think it is self-evident that Christ defines Christianity! Jesus certainly thought so. When disputing with the Jews in John chapter 8, He said to men who were standing right in front of Him,
Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said, therefore, unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (vss. 23-24)
The Jews who were coming against the Lord Jesus certainly believed certain things about Him they believed, for example, that He was a man. But, obviously, believing that Jesus was simply a man is not enough. If Jesus had only claimed to be a prophet they probably would have accepted Him as such but accepting Christ as a prophet is not enough. If Jesus had only claimed to be the Messiah they might have even accepted that but He didn’t stop there, and accepting Jesus simply as the Messiah is not enough, either. No, Jesus did not leave them with too many options. He claimed to be God himself! At the end of this chapter He will make it clear by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am!” The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for this statement (8:58-59), for it was all too clear what He meant by “I am.” He was claiming to be their God, Jehovah! That, to their ears, was pure blasphemy.
But back in John 8:24, Jesus had said to them, “Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (New American Standard). Did you note that “He” is in italics (as it is also in the KJV) The term is not in the Greek original — in fact, Jesus says the same thing here that He says in 8:58, “I am”! Unless one believes that Jesus is the “I am,” that person will die in his/her sins. Those are not my words, those are the Lord Jesus’ words, and strong ones they are indeed! You might say, “But I do believe that Jesus is Jehovah.” But you do not believe what the Bible says about Jehovah. Aside from Jehovah there is no God (Isaiah 45:5). To accept LDS teaching about the “plurality of Gods” is to undercut all that the Bible teaches about God, and, as a result, about Christ. A Christ who is just one god among many is still a false Christ, Steve.
With that understood, let’s get to the topic at hand. As we discussed earlier, in current Mormon theology the Father is identified as Elohim and the Son, Jesus Christ, is Jehovah. We have already seen that this distinction is anti-biblical in that it is directly contradictory to what the Bible reveals about God. But it is important to keep this distinction in mind to understand the LDS concept of Christ. (I keep saying “current Mormon theology,” Steve, because originally Joseph Smith taught a different concept, and Brigham Young yet another — the current belief about Elohim and Jehovah did not develop until early in this century.)
The Mormon Jesus is Elohim’s firstborn spirit child in the preexistence. I have here the pamphlet you gave me when we first met entitled What the Mormons Think of Christ. On pages 6 and 7 we read:
In this conversation our Lord boldly directed the Pharisees to consider the very heart and core of Christianity. Is he really the Son of God, as we are the sons of mortal fathers Or was he just another religious teacher, of whom there were many among the Jews in that day Or was he the greatest moral and spiritual teacher of all ages, though not the literal, personal offspring in the flesh of that exalted, personal being who is God our Father .
Their state of blind rejection of revealed truth was not of a different variety than that found among equally sincere, religious people today. Many reliable surveys have been made among present-day ministers and laymen, inquiring relative to a belief in Christ as the literal Son of God. Few have knowledge that he is such, literally, personally, actually, as other men are the sons of mortal parents.
The pamphlet is clear in saying that Christ is the literal offspring of God the Father. We will note later the fact that this is to be taken both with reference to his premortal existence as well as his physical existence. But specifically in reference to his supposed “spiritual begetal,” the pamphlet goes on to say,
Christ is the Firstborn. Obviously, he did not have this distinction as pertaining to his birth into mortality, for many millions preceded him in birth upon this earth.
But it must not be forgotten, however little the doctrine is known and believed in the Christian world, that all men lived in a premortal estate before they were born into this world; all were born in the premortal existence as the spirit children of the Father. Christ as the firstborn spirit child; and from that day forward he has had preeminence in all things. (p. 22)
The writer goes on to cite Colossians 1:15 as evidence of this, not understanding that the term translated “firstborn” in the Greek language is not referring here to the idea of birth at all, but to the concept of rulership, preeminence, having the first place in all things. He who “created all things” (Colossians 1:16-17) is not himself a created, or begotten, being. Bruce R. McConkie wrote in his book Mormon Doctrine,
Christ is the Firstborn, meaning that he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in pre-existence. (p. 281)
And Joseph Fielding Smith added,
THE FIRSTBORN. Our Father in heaven is the Father of Jesus Christ, both in the spirit and in the flesh. Our Savior is the Firstborn in the spirit, the Only Begotten in the flesh. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18.)
Doctrine and Covenants 93:21 teaches the same thing:
And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn.
God the Father, Elohim, begot a son with one of his celestial wives the spirit child’s name was Jehovah, or Jesus. You and I, supposedly, were also begotten by God the Father and one of his celestial wives. (Indeed, does not the LDS hymn entitled “O My Father” say in the third stanza, “In the heavens are parents single No; the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I’ve a mother there.” So we see that according to LDS teaching, Jesus Christ entered into spiritual existence as a spirit child of God the Father. To make the contrast between LDS teaching and biblical doctrine more complete, I might express it this way: Elohim, an exalted man, as a father begot a spirit son, Jehovah, by one of his celestial wives. That son was Jesus.
Flowing from this, then, is the concept that the Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of you and me, since we both would have the same father in heaven Elohim. Not only this, but since the Mormon Church teaches that Lucifer was also one of the premortal offspring of God the Father, then Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. This is certainly a teaching that (1) is highly offensive to most Christians, and (2) is not understood or known by many LDS. I can’t tell you how often some Mormon person has said to me, “Well, that shows how little you know about what we believe!” So that we have no misunderstandings, I give you the following citations:
Thus it is shown that prior to the placing of man upon the earth, how long before we do not know, Christ and Satan, together with the hosts of the spirit-children of God, existed as intelligent individuals, possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue and the leaders whom they would follow and obey. (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 8)
The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desparately [sic] tried to become the Savior of mankind (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. l5this book was “written and published under the direction of the General Priesthood Committee of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”)
Comparing the following quotations from McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine brings out the same teaching:
The devil . . . is a spirit son of God who was born in the morning of pre-existence. (p. 192)
Christ is the Firstborn, meaning that he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in pre-existence. (p. 281)
Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father. (p. 590)
And if all of that wasn’t enough (and I’ve met a few LDS for whom it wasn’t), the Ensign magazine, an official publication of the LDS Church, ran a “Questions from Readers” in the June 1986 edition. While this section always has a statement that reads, “Questions of a general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy,” it is clear that when it comes to doctrinal issues, the Church would not publish something out of line with its own views. In this issue the following question is asked:
How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?
Part of the response is as follows:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some — especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. . . . But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (p. 25)
So far we have the teaching that Jesus is (1) the firstborn spirit offspring of an exalted man, Elohim, God the Father, and (2) that he is the spirit brother of not only all mankind but of Lucifer as well. Two more items are necessary for this particular letter. Next, I need to address the rather sensitive issue of the LDS concept of the means by which the physical body of Jesus Christ was begotten.
When I first began to study LDS theology, I was somewhat confused by a particular question. How could Mormons handle the fact that Jesus Christ is called the “only-begotten Son” I noted that Mormon missionaries, when using the phrase, would almost always add something to it by saying, “the only-begotten of the Father in the flesh.“ I never thought to stop them and ask just what they meant by that. Fortunately, the answer was to be found in LDS writings. Again, since I don’t know your particular position on this (I’ve met Mormons who have vehemently denied the doctrine I am about to lay out for you), I am going to take the time to really nail down the position through a number of citations. Please be patient — this is important. Let’s start with some of the older LDS leaders from last century.
When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . . .
Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea”if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, and be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51)
Aside from the incredible blasphemy that anyone can see in Young’s remarks, the point is that it was the Father who begot Christ.
When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:218)
This matter was a little changed in the case of the Savior of the world, the Son of the living God. The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom He was begotten by God our heavenly father. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)
But it was the personage of the Father who begot the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called “the Only Begotten of the Father;” that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters whom He begot before the foundation of the world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father — the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.
The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would he blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begot the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure; He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give Mary to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158)
You should really read all of pages 158-59 of The Seer. There is much more on the subject that could be presented. We see, then, that the early LDS leadership was quite open and frank in their teaching that God the Father was the literal parent of the body of Jesus Christ. Modern LDS writers are not much less open:
CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST. I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He did not teach them that He was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. . . . Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , 1:18)
Under the topic “Only Begotten Son” in Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie wrote,
These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. (pp. 546-47)
McConkie also taught this in a later book entitled The Promised Messiah:
Some words scarcely need definition. They are on every tongue and are spoken by every voice. The very existence of intelligent beings presupposes and requires their constant use. Two such words are father and son. Their meaning is known to all, and to define them is but to repeat them. Thus: A son is a son is a son, and a father is a father is a father. I am the son of my father and the father of my sons. They are my sons because they were begotten by me, were conceived by their mother, and came forth from her womb to breathe the breath of mortal life, to dwell for a time and a season among other mortal men.
And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacles in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God — the Only Begotten of the Father. (pp. 468-69)
In The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, we read,
A fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. This doctrine is not generally comprehended by the world. The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the ‘mysteries of godliness’ comprehended only by the spiritually minded. . . . Thus the testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of Jesus’ mortal tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserved the title “the Only Begotten Son of God.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which he performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the son of the Eternal Father. (pp. 6-7)
Robert A. Rees served as bishop of the Los Angeles First Ward. He gave a sacrament meeting talk on April 29, 1990, and provided an article to Dialogue that is found in the Winter 1991 issue. It is entitled, “Bearing Our Crosses Gracefully: Sex and the Single Mormon.” In it, we find the following:
Mormons differ from other Christians in our literal belief that we are begotten of God spiritually and that Christ was begotten of him physically. Paul says in Acts that we are God’s offspring (17:28-29). We believe that our spiritual conception was sexual just as we believe that Christ’s mortal conception was. Elucidating the latter, James E. Talmage says, “That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof.” (1986, 81)
Finally, we turn to the new Encyclopedia of Mormonism for these words:
It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of MARY and GOD THE FATHER, “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof” (Jesus the Christ, p. 81). (Vol. 2, p. 729)
For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman. . . . Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title “the Only Begotten Son of God” (John 3:16, Benson p. 3). He was not the son of the HOLY GHOST; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary.
I don’t think you could get any plainer than that! I have met a few Mormons that [like to call “minimalists.” That is, if you can’t show them a direct text out of Mormon scripture, they won’t even attempt to defend it, even though they might believe it. Some of them have tried to deny that the LDS Church teaches that God the Father is literally and physically the parent of the child Jesus. The above quotes, all taken from apostles and prophets of the LDS Church, teach otherwise. It is certainly understandable why some Mormons are embarrassed by the doctrine, for, in bold and frank terms, they are teaching that Elohim, God the Father, had sexual intercourse with Mary, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of Jesus Christ. There are many problems with such a teaching, two of the most obvious being (1) Mary, according to LDS teaching, would be the spirit child of Elohim in the first place, resulting in an incestuous union, and (2) the miracle of the virgin birth was that Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth. In Mormonism, all you can say is that she was a virgin at the time of conception, which in and of itself is hardly a miracle.
Other LDS, however, are much more open about this teaching. I was caught utterly flat-footed one day outside of the west gate of the LDS temple in Salt Lake during the General Conference. A tall man, about fifty years of age, came striding across West Temple Drive. I could tell he was in a hurry, but in my best tracting style I offered him a gospel tract. You could tell he thought for a moment and then came to a halt. “Do you know what is wrong with you guys?” he said to me and the other volunteers standing with me. I’ve heard just about every answer to that question but wasn’t prepared for what he had to say.
“Sir?” I replied.
“You think sex is dirty!” Those who know me, Steve, will tell you that I am rarely left speechless, but this time I just stood there, staring. “You don’t believe that God the Father could have had sex with Mary and that it could be a holy, righteous thing?” he continued. I managed to say something about not thinking that sex was dirty, and trying to go into a discussion of the nature of God, but he wasn’t about to be reasoned with. “That really is your problem. This church (he said pointing to the tabernacle) is the true one, and you are just too blind to admit it.” With that, he turned and strode through the gate. I looked at the other volunteers and said, “Well, at least he was honest about it — more than you can say for most!”
And so I come to the last LDS belief about Christ (for this letter anyway). It has really been covered before — back when I discussed with you the doctrine of God and the Bible’s absolute monotheism. Jesus Christ, as a resurrected being today, is a god in LDS thought. But, it must be honestly recognized that he is simply one god among many, many gods. He is one god among three gods for this planet — and there was a god ruling the planet that the god of this planet lived on ages ago, and there was a god before him, and yet another god before him, so that there are, literally, a nearly unlimited number of gods out there — what sets Jesus Christ apart from the rest His dominion, in comparison with one of these gods that has been a god for a far longer time, would be minuscule and hardly remarkable. Is this the “Alpha and Omega” of the Bible, the Almighty ruler of creation Hardly. The polytheism of the LDS Church robs the Lord Jesus Christ (not to mention the Father and the Spirit) of His rightful honor. My Jesus holds everything that exists ANYWHERE together — without Him, it would all come flying apart. Is that the same Christ you proclaim?
So here we have the LDS doctrine of the person of Christ. Let’s turn to the Bible and find out what that inspired book teaches about Christ and how this compares with what we have just reviewed.
The first truth of Scripture about Jesus Christ is that He has eternally existed as God. Jesus is no created being; the eternal Son did not enter into existence at a particular point in time. Christ was not born as a “spirit child” and then had to undergo growth and development until attaining some level of exaltation or power. The Lord of glory has always been — He is eternal. Let’s look at just a few of the passages that teach this.
When Micah prophesied of the coming of the Messiah, he wrote,
But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2, emphasis mine)
The Apostle John taught the same truth:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
Note, Steve, that the Word (who is identified as the Lord Jesus Christ in verse 14) “was in the beginning with God.” The Greek text underlying this translation is very expressive, in that the verb used does not refer to a point in time at which the Word began or came into existence, but instead it refers to continuous action in the past — no matter how far into the past you wish to push this “beginning” the Word was already in existence. The Word is eternal. The description given here is certainly not in harmony with the LDS concept mentioned above. When passages like these are presented to Mormons, my experience is that the all-encompassing context of these passages is automatically limited to “just this planet.” The beginning spoken of by John is limited to the beginning of this planet — not to the beginning in the absolute sense obviously meant by John. That John is not limiting his meaning to just this planet is clear by the fact that he goes on to teach that “all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Nothing exists outside of Christ’s creative action — nothing! I will look more at the fact that Christ is the Creator of all things, but for now, the point is clear that if Christ is the Creator, He must be eternal and exist prior to all other things.
Jesus identified himself as Jehovah God in John 8:58 when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Jehovah, as we have already seen, is the “eternal God” (Isaiah 40:28). How then can LDS teachers say that Jesus is the spiritual offspring of Elohim when the Bible says that Jehovah is the eternal Elohim — Jesus Christ is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Revelation 22:13). Even though Mormon Scriptures also make this identification of Christ (D&C; 19:1), modern LDS belief forces a drastic redefinition of the clear meaning of this phrase. A god who is the spiritual offspring of another god who is also the spiritual offspring of yet another god from ages past is not the Alpha and Omega! Such a god could not possibly be called “the beginning” nor “the end,” let alone the “first and the last.” The true Jesus Christ of Scripture is the eternal Jehovah, not the spirit child of an exalted man.
One of the clearest means the Holy Spirit used in Scripture to reveal the eternal nature of the Lord Jesus was through the Bible’s teaching that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things. Mormons confess that this is true. Even What the Mormons Think of Christ makes this clear on pages 12-14. But when Mormons are pressed, they have to severely limit the meaning of “all things.” Note what Paul says in Colossians 1:16-17 with reference to Christ:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powersall things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Paul is extremely specific and exhaustive in defining the sphere of Christ’s creatorship. He just about exhausts the limits of the language to speak of that which Christ created. Christ created all things. What does this mean It means all things in heaven and in earth (that’s everything), whether those things are visible or invisible (that’s everything), thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers (that includes all spiritual beings and powers in existence anywhere. All things were created by Christ. All things were created for Christ. Christ is before all things (again showing His absolute eternal nature), and by Him, all things “consist” or “hold together.” Without the Lord Jesus, nothing would exist. Without the Lord Jesus, nothing would have a purpose. Without the Lord Jesus, everything would cease to exist. He is holding all things together by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). Is this not exactly what the Bible teaches about Jehovah God It is. Jehovah God created all things alone (Isaiah 44:24) yet the Bible teaches that Jesus created all things (John 1:3).
When Mormons are faced with the expansiveness of Christ’s creative activity, they are quick to limit His work to simply that which is “relevant to this earth.” Where does the Bible limit Christ’s work? Nowhere. So why are LDS people so quick to say “Christ created all things relevant to this earth” rather than simply confessing, with Paul and John and the writer of Hebrews, that Christ is the Creator Because the truth of Christ’s being the Creator of all things causes insurmountable problems for LDS theology. For example, if Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things, this would mean that He created all worlds wherever they might be — look to the sky and see all the stars and realize that Christ created them all and upholds them by His power. But, Mormonism teaches that Jesus’ spiritual parent, Elohim, was once a man who lived on a planet, and all this prior to Elohim’s exaltation to godhood and the “birth” of the spirit child Jehovah! How could Jesus Christ create the planet upon which His father lived as a man before Jesus was even begotten as a spirit child? And we can go backward from there — what about Christ’s “grandparent,” the god who gave birth to Elohim before Elohim was a man? Did that god not also live upon a planet And who created that planet According to the Bible, it was Jesus Christ. But how could this be? So you can see why the work of Christ as Creator has to be severely limited by LDS theology, for if Christ were the Creator of all things, then He would be the only true and eternal God. That is what the Bible teaches, but it is not what the LDS Church teaches.
The fact of Christ’s position as the maker of heaven and earth also causes severe problems for the Mormon doctrine of the “pre-existence” as well as the teaching that Jesus is the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. As the quotes above demonstrate, the Mormon concept is that Jesus is the first of the many millions of spiritual offspring of Elohim, making Jesus one of the “spirits of men.” Yet, the Bible teaches that Jehovah is the Creator of all things, including the spirits of men! Notice Zechariah 12:1:
The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
If Jehovah is one of the spirits of men, how can He be the one that forms the spirits of men? Clearly, the Jehovah of the Bible is vastly different than the LDS concept! And since we do agree that Jesus is Jehovah, then it is utterly impossible that Jesus is a “spirit child” of Elohim in some premortal existence.
We also see that it is impossible to teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer if indeed Christ is the Creator of all things. In Colossians 1:16 we saw that all things, including the spiritual realm (thrones, principalities, dominions, powers), were created by Christ. Lucifer (Satan) would be included in that realm, and would therefore be the creation of Christ rather than His “spirit brother.” Anything that exists that is not God was created by God, and Lucifer is included in that. Indeed, it seems that Satan is being addressed under the title of the “king of Tyre” (“Tyrus” in the KJV) in Ezekiel 28:13-15 (compare Isaiah 14:12-17), and Jehovah says,
Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
If Satan is indeed in view here (and we would have to ask how the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden or was an anointed “cherub” if Satan is not the one being addressed), then it is clear that he is a created being, for this fact is repeated twice. Therefore, if he is a created being, then Jesus Christ created him. How, then, could Jesus Christ be the spirit brother of His own creation?
So we have seen that the Lord Jesus of the Bible is (1) eternal, not created or “begotten” at some point in time in the past, and (2) is the Creator of all things, including Lucifer and the very spirits of men. The next concept raised by the Mormon doctrine of Christ is His virgin birth. The classic texts are to be found in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When, as his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The means of Mary’s pregnancy is not in doubt — the Holy Ghost began the pregnancy by supernatural means. The Holy Ghost did not have to use sexual means to begin the process of growth — God created us, and He knows full well how we function. Mary was still a virgin, having known no man, including an “exalted man,” at the time of the birth of Christ. This is the miracle of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. No human agency brought about His birth — Mary was the passive recipient of the eternal Word who “became flesh” within her.
The main problem with the LDS concept is tied in with the Mormon doctrine of God. Bruce R. McConkie made this clear when he spoke of the terms father and son being literally applied to the Father and the Son. The fact that God is utterly unique and that such an application of human terms to the eternal God must result in error is missed by LDS leaders. The relationship of the Father and the Son must be defined by God’s revelation, not by our understanding of human relationships. For example, since the Son is clearly eternal in His existence, then how can we understand father and son as literal descriptions My son Joshua is not as old as I am, obviously. I begot him at a point in time. But the Son has eternally existed and therefore was not “begotten” by a “father” at a point in time. The terms Father and Son are meant to communicate something else — something about the intimate, close, and personal relationship that exists between the Father and Jesus Christ. But to force human and, therefore, creaturely functions and forms upon the nature of God is a grave error. While Mormons are quick to recognize the symbolic descriptions of God elsewhere (such as God’s “wings” or His “feathers,” (Psalm 91:4), when it comes to these terms they insist upon literality, even when the Bible clearly makes such an interpretation an impossibility. Since we have already seen how the Bible denies that God is an exalted man, the entire concept of the physical begetting of Jesus Christ by the Father is seen to be a false teaching based upon a grave misunderstanding.
The true Jesus Christ, Steve, is not one god among many, many gods. He is not your “spirit brother“ but He is your Creator. Your spirit brother cannot save you. Your Creator can. Jesus Christ is worthy of your worship for He has eternally existed as God, He created all things, and upholds all things by His power. This is the true and living Jesus Christ. Would you like to know Him?
Next time I will address the atoning work of Christ and His priesthood, along with any questions you might have. I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
In Him,
James
Return to Table of Contents –––> Next Chapter
Letters To A Mormon Elder is available on Amazon.