16AR21-42

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 21:42 - Just how heretical is the Mormon view of Jesus?

In this issue:

MORMONISM - a dubious claim that "Mormons and evangelicals have far more common ground than most typically realize"

ORIGINS - has "ignoring or disparaging the diversity of evolution-religion history" given an unintended foothold to creationists?

Apologia Report 21:42 (1,315)

November 23, 2016

MORMONISM

The Mormon Jesus, by John G. Turner [1] -- Thomas Kidd (Professor of History, Baylor University) interviews Turner on Patheos with interesting results: "I am talking with Anxious Bench <www.goo.gl/ufWRku> blogger and George Mason professor John Turner about his new book, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography. John has written previous books on Brigham Young [2], and on Campus Crusade for Christ [3].

"TK: Your book is called The Mormon Jesus. What do Mormons actually believe about Jesus? Has that view changed over time, and have Mormons argued among themselves about this question?

"JT: ... The church's first seven decades (following its 1830 founding) were an especially fertile and creative era of reflection. Brigham Young identified Adam as humanity's God, and he taught that the exalted Adam had returned to earth to impregnate Mary. Jesus was thus Adam's son. In the early 1900s, the church definitively rejected this idea. Partly through the writings of LDS apostle James E. Talmage, the church achieved a rough consensus on the person and work of Jesus Christ in the early twentieth century. ...

"A second key difference pertains to the role of Jesus Christ for human salvation. The LDS Church teaches that Christ's atoning sacrifice enables the resurrection of all human beings and provides an opportunity for individuals to progress toward exaltation, meaning a higher level of glory within the celestial kingdom. Only those individuals who make and keep covenants with God on earth — beginning with baptism but also including additional ordinances — will be exalted into the presence of God and their savior for eternity.

"That being said, Mormons and evangelicals have far more common ground than most typically realize. Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as God's divine son, the divine agent of the world's creation, the resurrected savior and redeemer of the world, and the earth's coming king.

"Finally, one more small difference. Evangelicals talk about 'Jesus' in a very familiar manner and with informal language. Mormons object to such familiarity and instead refer to 'Jesus Christ' and 'the Savior.' ...

"TK: I was surprised to learn that some Mormons once taught that Jesus was married. How common was that belief, and how was it connected to the Mormons' view of marriage?

"JT: It's hard to know how many rank-and-file nineteenth-century church members accepted the idea that Jesus was married (to multiple women) and fathered children, but the idea received support from many high-ranking leaders, including Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith (the founding prophet's nephew). I could not trace the idea of a married Jesus to Joseph Smith, but many Latter-day Saints articulated it in the 1850s, roughly at the same time that the church began its not very successful public defense of polygamy. Some church members concluded that they were the very descendants of Jesus Christ.

"Evangelicals writing critiques of Mormonism have frequently used nineteenth-century quotes about a married Jesus as evidence that the Latter-day Saints follow a radically different and heretical savior. It's important to note that LDS leaders publicly backed away from the idea more than a hundred years ago. Also, while I do not think there is any persuasive biblical evidence for a married Jesus, I don't think Christians need to hyperventilate at the notion." <www.goo.gl/h3EncH>

Also see: “The Mormon Jesus: Just how different is he than the traditional Christ?” by Peggy Fletcher Stack, which refers to the above exchange as it sells the idea that “Mormons and evangelicals have far more common ground than most typically realize.” <www.goo.gl/aHMRUy>

Sure. We’re just not referring to the same Jesus. That’s all. (For more on this from back issues of AR, see <www.goo.gl/DHW6qW> and <www.goo.gl/VN9aAQ>)

Library Journal (Apr '16 #1) adds: "In his conclusion, Turner argues that the church's emphasis on Jesus in the past few decades, such as referring to the Book of Mormon as 'Another Testament of Christ,' are to an extent cosmetic; there is a difference between Mormonism now and that of 50 years ago."

---

ORIGINS

"Did Richard Dawkins Hand Creationists Their Next School Strategy?" by Adam Shapiro -- discusses a "law review article <www.goo.gl/mFLWzC> by legal scholar Casey Luskin [which] outlines a new position that might help bring intelligent design into the classroom - or at least back into the courts. Luskin's strategy capitalizes on one of the thornier claims in the Kitzmiller <www.goo.gl/uJhJy7> decision, and it demonstrates how rhetoric used by New Atheists can sometimes backfire, actually making it easier to challenge evolution-only curricula in courts."

Shapiro explains: "In the creation science trials of the 1980s, the courts drew upon the expert testimony of philosophers to try to draw a demarcation between science and religion, which met with some criticism among philosophers of science. In Kitzmiller, too, there were some philosophical arguments about whether [Intelligent Design] could really count as a science given its appeal to causes outside natural law. Drawing on the history did not so much sidestep the philosophical debates as much as link ID to antievolutionary theories previously ruled religious by the courts.

"But invoking history opens up new debates, which is where Luskin comes in.

"It's not just ID and antievolution that has historically found itself entangled with religious advocacy. According to Luskin, evolution's history is also rife with supporters making religious or irreligious claims. When a New Atheist figurehead like Richard Dawkins claims that Darwin made it possible to be 'an intellectually fulfilled atheist,' he substantiates the claim that evolution itself is not neutral when it comes to promoting or inhibiting religion. As Luskin argues, 'If the public is aware of the close historical association between the advocacy of evolution and anti-religious activism, then the teaching of evolution may make religious Americans feel like political outsiders.' ...

"Luskin is right that there is a history of anti-religious invocation of evolution, but there's also a long history of attempts to reconcile evolution and traditional religion, going back to Darwin himself. There are even examples of theologians who go beyond reconciliation, arguing that evolution is a stronger basis for believing in God than special creation. Luskin's article neglects this history and suggests that atheism is as intrinsic to evolution as belief in a supernatural creator is built into ID.

"The idea that Darwinism leads one to atheism informs much of the so-called 'conflict' of science and religion. The conflict view of this history is popular, but the facts are simply not on its side. Nonetheless it serves as a point of consensus used by both extremes to attack a range of interpretations.

"In ignoring or disparaging the diversity of evolution-religion history, the so-called New Atheists are enabling precisely the argument that Luskin is making. In buying into this framework, some of ID's most vocal critics make it easier for Luskin to make the case that an outside observer would think that teaching evolution promotes atheism. By analogy to Kitzmiller's logic, for Luskin this would mean that it violates the Establishment Clause." Religion Dispatches, Jun 15 '16. <www.goo.gl/Dt3LyS>

--------

SOURCES: Periodicals

1 - The Mormon Jesus, by John G. Turner (Belknap, 2016, hardcover, 368 pages) <www.goo.gl/rw6OzJ>

2 - Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, by John G. Turner (Belknap Prs, 2012, hardcover, 512 pages) <www.ow.ly/g89sX>

3 - Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America, by John G. Turner (Univ N Carolina Prs, 2008, paperback: 304 pages) <www.goo.gl/CwnPMi>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )