The following is a transcript of Hank Hanegraaff’s interview with Sandra Tanner, co-founder of Utah Lighthouse Ministry aired on 10/10/2011. Sandra is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young and a leading expert on the Mormon religion.

HANK HANEGRAAFF: On the line, the great-great granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church; her name’s Sandra Tanner, co-founder of Utah Lighthouse Ministry. We’re talking about Mormonism, it’s in the news, particularly animated today about an article that I read in the Charlotte Observer, in which you had a pastor, a Baptist pastor, come right out and say Mormonism was a cult, and Romney was not a Christian. Then you had Bill Bennett denouncing the pastor for bigotry against Mormons, which of course begs the question, how do we deal with the whole issue of Mormonism in a way that reaches as opposed to repels, and how do we communicate the truth in love to the very people we want to reach? Mormonism is gaining worldwide credibility. I’ve seen that even in my trips to China, where I was asked by officials of the Communist Party—personally asked—about Mormonism, whether Mormonism was in fact an acceptable form of religion that would not disrupt China. Particularly in their case, they were concerned from a sociological perspective. How should we think about Mormonism? Because Mormonism is making inroads in China, just like it is in a lot of places throughout the world.

One of the things we discussed last week on this broadcast, Sandra, was this notion that not only do Mormons communicate that Christ did not exist from all eternity, but they contend that our Lord was conceived in heaven by Heavenly Mother and then came in flesh as the result of Heavenly Father having sex with the Virgin Mary. Now in evidence of that, I quoted quite a few different Mormon authorities, and yet, Mormon callers and communicators in all kinds of venues contacted our ministry and said, “We do not teach that.” Your response—

SANDRA TANNER: Well, the Mormon has usually heard the phrase: Jesus is the literal Son of the Father in the flesh. That’s a common phrase used in Mormonism: literal Son of the Father in the flesh. The question—the problem—is the Mormon doesn’t think through the implications of the statement. Because they believe Heavenly Father once lived on another earth, died and was resurrected, and achieved godhood, that makes God have a physical body. And when they speak of Jesus being the literal Son of the Father in the flesh, their church leaders have said at various times over many years that this was in a natural course of things. That Jesus was begotten and born of Mary in the same way that every mortal man has been fathered and brought forth into mortality. So it has to mean that God had sex with Mary. I don’t understand how the Mormons can understand it any other way. Bruce McConkie, one of their apostles, just within the last twenty years, he said, “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” [1].

HANK: I might add that Mormon apostle Orson Pratt, who incidentally was an original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, once explained that “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” [2]. So what we are communicating here is simply what Mormons communicate, but, Sandra, as we talked before, their revelations are ever-changing; it could be that a current revelator in the church changes this doctrine.

SANDRA: Well, there’s no official statement changing it. They just want to skirt around the wording. But they still always say Jesus is the literal Son of the Father in the flesh, and making a distinction between we are all God’s literal children in heaven, we were born to God in this life, in a pre-earth life, and so when they say that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father in the flesh, they mean here in mortality, God was His father, not just God was His father in this pre-earth life, but He was His father here on earth. Their leaders have made it very specific at times that this was a natural act. Now the average Mormon may not have connected the dots on what that all means, but it would be the logical conclusion from all their statements about Jesus being the literal son of a physical resurrected man.

HANK: But what I’m actually alluding to here, Sandra, is something else; what I’m trying to underscore here and get your comment on is that—well, lets use this example: Back in 1978, the President and Prophet Spencer Kimble, he changed official doctrine when it came to men of African descent holding the priesthood. So what I’m suggesting is, if Mormons really don’t like this notion of the Father literally having sex with the Virgin Mary, as a glorified man, if they don’t like that, their current president could, as the revelator in the church currently, he could change that doctrine. So if they don’t like it, change it.

SANDRA: Yes, they could change—they could any of their doctrines. They started out condemning polygamy, then Joseph went into polygamy and they for fifty years or so they preached it was the only way you got exaltation in the celestial kingdom, and then in 1890 they said nope, we’re doing away with that; we’re not going to practice polygamy anymore. That has been another issue that’s changed. Just like on the Blacks, before ‘78 a Black couldn’t hold priesthood, then in ‘78 God evidently told the prophet that now they can. We see many changes through all of Mormon history of an evolution of thought. Through Joseph Smith’s lifetime, I can show they’ve changed over a fourteen-year period. He changed his view of God. He changed his view of marriage. He changed his view of polygamy. He changed his view on Masonry. He introduced new temple rituals that weren’t part of Mormonism in the beginning. There is this constant flux of change, but to the Mormon, they say, “Well, he’s God’s prophet, so yes, we can have change. That’s not a problem.” But then, how can you say that Mormonism is supposedly a restoration of New Testament Christianity? You can’t say something is a restoration and also keep changing it.

HANK: And we’re talking about the difference between the Mormon authority and the Christian authority. When we look at our authority, we say that the Bible is the infallible authority of redemptive revelation, and, therefore, it becomes the final court of arbitration. There are no new revelations; all revelations in the present must be ultimately judged by the revelation that God has already given us.

In the remaining moments, Sandra, I want to deal with the most salient issue, and that is what Mormons look forward to in eternity. You’ve touched on this, but I want to unpack this a little more, because Mormons contend that they will appear before Heavenly Father dressed in fig-leaf aprons, holding good works in their hands, and according to the Latter-day Saints virtually everyone qualifies for heaven. Talk about their plan of salvation, and their concept of eternity, and the distinction with that given through orthodox Christianity.

SANDRA: Well, in Christianity, we look to Jesus’ words, that in the end times, the sheep will be separated from the goats, and there’s a narrow way and a broad way, and the Christian understanding was that the narrow way led to heaven and the broad way led to hell. Mormons have reversed this, so that the broad way leads to heaven, almost everyone’s going to go there, and just a few people go to hell. In their theology, it’s almost a universalism. Everybody, practically everybody, is going to go to some level of heaven. But the Mormon hopes for more than heaven. He hopes for the highest level of the Mormon heavens. They have it three tiered: telestial for bad people of the world, they’ll still go to heaven and be saved. Then the terrestrial where the good people of the world like you and all nice Muslims, Baptists, Hindus, doesn’t matter what your religion is, if you’re a good moral person, then you can go to the terrestrial, the middle kingdom. But the Mormon’s aim is celestial kingdom. In order to have the Mormon concept of the eternal life—which to them is different than being saved—to have eternal life means you can progress to be a god over your world someday. So all this temple ritual they go through, this work for the dead, it’s all with the hope that this will add up to enough to qualify them to have the reward of eternal life, whereas the Christian looks to Christ for eternal life through the grace of Christ that’s given to us—not because of any merit of our own, but because of the merit of Christ. Mormonism says, “Well, yes, Christ’s atonement was necessary to get us into heaven, but in order to go to that top level and become a god, we have to achieve that. That is a reward for our faithfulness as a Mormon.” And only Mormons receive eternal life; the rest of us get some sort of sub-heaven and are not in the presence of Heavenly Father.

HANK: Talking to Sandra Tanner. Sandra is co-founder of Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and we appreciate your ministry and certainly appreciate your contribution to the Bible Answer Man broadcast today.

SANDRA: Thank you.

HANK: God bless you, Sandra Tanner. Again, Sandra Tanner is the great-great granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president to the Mormon Church. She is an authority on Mormonism, and we’ll call upon her from time to time as the war for the rhetoric for words continues to heat up. Again, some strong words in the paper today, chronicled from a conference, and once again underscores the fact that we need to be ready always to give an answer, a reason for the hope that lies within us with gentleness and respect.

Notes:

1. cf. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), 742.

2. Orson Pratt, The Seer (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1853–54), 158–59.

The following is a transcript of Hank Hanegraaff’s interview with Sandra Tanner, co-founder of Utah Lighthouse Ministry aired on 10/10/2011. Sandra is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young and a leading expert on the Mormon religion.

HANK HANEGRAAFF: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) was birthed in 1820 by an alleged vision in which two celestial personages appeared to Joseph Smith, claiming all existing churches were wrong, all their creeds were an abomination, and all their professors were corrupt. According to these personages, Smith had been chosen to restore (not reform, but restore) a church that had disappeared from the face of the earth. The Mormon doctrines that have evolved from that vision compromise, confuse, or contradict the nature of God, the authority of Scripture, and the way of salvation. Talking about that with me on this broadcast: Sandra Tanner, she founded, along with her husband Jerald, Utah Lighthouse Ministry. It’s a Christian nonprofit organization, an important nonprofit organization reaching Mormons with the truth and love that only the Jesus Christ of Christianity can bring to the human heart—not the Christ of Mormonism. These are two different Jesuses. This broadcast prompted in part by an article I read today in the Charlotte Observer, in which a pastor, not just a pastor but lead pastor, at First Baptist Church in Dallas called Mormonism a cult and said Mitt Romney was not a Christian and latter was denounced by Bill Bennett for bigotry against Mormons, and then Mitt Romney himself talked about this “poisonous language which doesn’t advance our cause” and that we need to remember that “decency and civility are values,” values that should be adhered to. I want to contextualize this, Sandra, in that it is true that we are called to communicate the gospel with gentleness and with respect. The question now becomes: Is it right to call Mormonism a cult from a theological perspective?

SANDRA TANNER: Well, certainly, it represents a great heresy. If we’re going to say we’re Christian, we’ve got to adhere to some sort of standard; otherwise Buddhists could say they’re Christians. If the test of Christianity is morality and good living and being a nice neighbor, I’m sure people in all kinds of religions would qualify under that kind of a definition. But Christianity has always embodied a certain set of doctrines, and one of those doctrines is the absoluteness of the one eternal God, and that Jesus has eternally been God. Mormonism rejects both those concepts. Christianity has traditionally said God has spoken through the Bible, and that the New Testament is the standard for Christian beliefs. Mormonism rejects that and takes additional books of scripture that they believe supersede the Bible. The Bible is only secondary in their chain of authority; their other scriptures are paramount. So they get to redefine all the terms. But we also have to keep in mind that Joseph Smith himself was claiming that Christianity was in a total state of apostasy when he started Mormonism in 1830, and that what he established was the “only true church.” So when people become excited because we want to say Mormonism doesn’t fit under the Christian umbrella, you have to understand that Joseph Smith didn’t claim to fit under the Christian umbrella. He said he was doing something totally different than the Christian churches. 

HANK: I want you to address an issue that comes up from time to time. That is: a lot of people feel that it is dangerous for me right now to be talking about Mormonism because it could hurt Mitt Romney’s chances to be President of the United States, and therefore, we should hold back, because they are suggesting that right now that is the only solution for our country. He’s likely to be the GOP [Grand Old Party/Republican] candidate running against Barack Obama. Therefore, we should probably temper our criticism of Mormonism. How would you respond to that?

SANDRA: Well, what happens in the political arena is I believe in God’s hand. I don’t think that discussing Mitt’s religion is a matter of attacking him on a political agenda. It’s simply stated: Mormonism does not fall under the umbrella of standard Christianity. And then the Mormons and the media want to make this some sort of Mormon bashing. Is it Mormon bashing—I mean is it bashing for the Mormon to say they aren’t part of standard Christianity? When they say there’re the “only true church,” that’s attacking my belief. So it’s sort of a funny game they get into here on what’s acceptable. We aren’t out putting out slanderous statements about Mitt Romney; we’re simply talking about what his Church advocates. This is their theological position. I think anyone, in evaluating the candidate or thinking about Mormonism, needs to look at the core doctrines of Mormonism. Regardless of how they vote, they need to be informed on what Mitt Romney stands for, just like you would want to consider if the candidate was Jehovah’s Witness. It would have certain implications about medicine and all sorts of issues with them. If a person were opposed to going to war—was a pacifist or something—that would have an impact on how you viewed them for running the country. If a person was a Muslim, it would make a difference on how you view them in terms of international affairs in the military. Everyone’s belief systems do rely to some degree on how they would perform in the office of President. This is just one aspect of Romney—it’s one—but it’s an aspect of everyone that runs for office, we want to know what their core values are, what they really believe in, what they hold sacred and special in their own thoughts, how would this affect how they would run the country. I think those are fair questions.

HANK: Just in fairness, let me add that I have over the years been very critical about the statements made by Barack Obama with respect to the Bible. When he says that the Bible teaches slavery and that eating shellfish is an abomination, or he says that the Bible teaches you to stone your child if he strays from the faith, I’ve been very critical about those statements and pointed out in no uncertain terms that this belies the fact that he has not learned to mine the Bible for all its wealth or certainly not to read the Bible for all it’s worth. In fact, it sounds at times that he got his cues from the once-famous West Wing series.

I want to ask you a question, Sandra, with respect to eschatology. In fairness, this is something that Mitt Romney himself has been rather candid about. He felt compelled to underscore the Mormon notion that during the Millennium that Jesus will reign from “two places—Missouri and Jerusalem,” then added, “Throughout the Bible, Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that’s coming in to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that. That’s when the coming of Christ in glory occurs. We also believe that over the thousand years that follows, the Millennium, He will reign from two places, that the law will come forth from one place in Missouri, and the other will be in Jerusalem” [1] And I might add, and this is something I think in terms of going back to the history of Mormonism, millennial madness so gripped Joseph Smith that he laid a cornerstone in Jackson County, Missouri, at the exact location he supposed the millennial temple would be constructed. And not only did Joseph Smith believe that Christ would setup the millennial reign in Independence, Missouri, but he supposed Western Missouri, not Southern Mesopotamia, to be the location of the Garden of Eden, and therefore, believed that the first man Adam would return to the state of Missouri to prepare the way for the thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ upon the earth. Of course, in Christian theology the coming of Christ forever rendered the notion of an earthly temple, whether in Jerusalem or in Missouri, obsolete. But I find interesting, Sandra, that Mormon has—I mean Mitt Romney—has been pretty forthcoming with respect to his Mormon eschatological beliefs.

SANDRA: Yes, but when he says that most people don’t understand that when he speaks of Christ reigning out of Missouri, that is through the Mormon Church, that the Mormon Church will be set up as the kingdom of God when Christ returns. So, yes, he admits to the Missouri part, but people don’t understand the implications of that statement. This will mean Mormonism will be God’s church on earth and be the ecclesiastical authority ruling the world at that time.

HANK: Beyond that, how significant do you think, if at all, the prophecy by Joseph Smith was that one day the U.S. Constitution would be hanging by a thread only to be saved by the elders of the LDS Church. Does that comport with what you just said?

SANDRA: Yes, now there are Mormons, who will always point out to me that is not a doctrine set in their scriptures; however, it is commonly understood and known within the Mormon community of this prophecy, and I have since this whole thing with Romney got going, I had one guy write and tell me, Well, we see it coming true, the Constitution’s hanging by a thread, and we now have a Mormon to step in and save the day. So Mormons are certainly thinking that this is about to be fulfilled through a Mormon president.  

HANK: Talking to Sandra Tanner, she is the founder, along with her husband Jerald, of Utah Lighthouse Ministry. It’s a Christian nonprofit organization providing humanitarian outreach to the community and printing critical resource and making that resource, research, and documentation on Mormonism available. Again, that ministry, an important ministry, Utah Lighthouse Ministry and Sandra Tanner, my guest today, as we talk about Mormonism. When we get back from the break, I want to broach a very significant subject that has been previously dealt with on the Bible Answer Man broadcast. Some of you will remember last week there were some very strong statements made by Mormons on this broadcast about my contention that they teach Jesus Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse between God and the Virgin Mary. So I want to talk to Sandra Tanner about preexistence as a concept with respect to Mormonism, and then talk about how in Mormon theology Jesus Christ is conceived and how that differs dramatically from Christian orthodoxy. We’ll be right talking more with Sandra Tanner in just a few moments.

Notes:

1. Mitt Romney, interview on WHO radio, Covington, Kentucky, n.d., video online at http://www.youtube.come/watch?v=i0rcAByKUFM, accessed December 21, 2007.

The following is a transcript of Hank Hanegraaff’s interview with Sandra Tanner, co-founder of Utah Lighthouse Ministry aired on 10/10/2011. Sandra is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young and a leading expert on the Mormon religion.

HANK HANEGRAAFF: We want to do a special edition of the Bible Answer Man broadcast today as a direct result of Mormonism being increasingly in the news. As well, we have a particular offer that we want to put into your hands. It’s more important now than ever before: Memorable Keys to the M-O-R-M-O-N Mirage flipchart. I say “more important now than ever before” in that it is incumbent upon Christians to understand not only what they believe and why they believe what they believe, as well as who they believe, because virtually every single theological heresy begins with a misconception of the nature of God. But it is important for us to be able to use the deviations of Mormonism as opportunities to share the truth and life and grace and love that only the Jesus of Christianity can bring to the human heart. I’ve asked Sandra Tanner to join me on the broadcast today. The ministry they founded has had a transcendent impact in terms of reaching Mormons with the gospel.

Now today some might say that is a divisive thing to do, because Mormons are already Christians. And that is the topic for today’s discussion: Are Mormons really Christians?

Jerald and Sandra Tanner founded Utah Light House Ministry. It is a Christian nonprofit organization providing humanitarian outreach to the community and printing critical research and documentation on the Mormon Church. A particular note is that Sandra Tanner is not only an authority when it comes to Mormonism, but she is the great-great granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church. The Tanners have authored over forty books on the subject of Mormonism; therefore, you will not hear a greater authority on Mormonism anywhere at anytime. I think her voice is desperately needed at this particular juncture in American history, in world history, in Christian history, because we unfortunately are falling for “political correctness,” popularity, and all that goes with it in the Christian church. At stake are the lives of people from a spiritual perspective.

This is about whether you inherit eternal life. This is about what it takes to be reconciled to the One who spoke and the universe leaped into existence, the One who knit us together in our mother’s womb. This is about more than jobs. This is about more than the economy. This is about a kingdom that will never end. So the issues of today’s broadcast are transcendently important. They’re not spoken out of any divisiveness—certainly not out of bigotry—but motivated by love. If you are a believer today, listening to this broadcast, I underscore the reality that you need to know what it is that you have given your life to. This is important in that we now stand in the shadow of the Bible, rather than standing in the pages of the Bible.

Before I bring Sandra Tanner on, I do want to bring your attention to an article in the newspaper this morning, and this has to do with a headline entitled “Romney” who is saying that we have to “Be Civil about Faith.” Here I’m talking about Mitt Romney now running for the Presidency of the United States. Before I read just a portion of this article, let me underscore again that this is not about politics; this is about spirituality. This is about making an eternal decision to reconcile your self to the real Jesus, the real gospel, and therefore we have to know the distinction between that which is false and that which is true. As we make comments on today’s broadcast, remember when people say we’re not to judge, that’s dead wrong. Jesus never taught us not to judge; He taught us not to judge self-righteously or hypocritically. Indeed, Jesus taught us to judge and when we judge, we are to judge by a right standard.

The article says this: “Questions about his faith plagued Romney’s 2008 presidential run, but he had been able to keep them at bay so far this time….That changed when Robert Jeffress, the lead pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas who introduced [Rick] Perry to cultural conservatives, called Mormonism a cult and said Romney is ‘not a Christian’” [1]. That prompted Bill Bennett at the same conference to denounce Jeffress for bigotry against Mormons. Mitt Romney echoed that sentiment, he said, “We should remember that decency and civility are values, too….Poisonous language doesn’t advance our cause. It’s never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind” [2].

In part, I would agree with that. Poisonous language doesn’t advance any cause. But we have to remember that tolerance when it comes to personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance when it comes to truth is a travesty. The question ultimately is: What is a cult? At the Christian Research Institute, we make a very clear distinction with respect to terminology when we talk about those who are involved in cults, because the moment you say the word cult, the media-driven definition surfaces. Cults can be defined from a sociological perspective. We think of Heaven’s Gate or Jonestown or Waco where people are controlled in virtually every dimension of their lives by a charismatic leader, someone who controls them from a sociological perspective. But when we’re using the term cult today, we are not talking about sociology per se, but theology, which is to say, we’re talking about what essential Christian doctrine teaches and by contrast what Mormonism teaches. So we need to be very careful that we define the word cult.

What did Joseph Smith say? In founding the Mormon Church, he said the existing churches were wrong. Their doctrines were an abomination. He took on essential Christian doctrine head-on. Is it bigotry really to suggest that Mormonism is not Christian? Mormons today are seeking to convert Christians all the time. They’re showing up on their doorsteps trying to convert people from Christianity to Mormonism. There is a difference, the difference is substantial, and no one better to discuss that with than Sandra Tanner who joins me now. Sandra, good to have you on the broadcast.

SANDRA TANNER: Thank you!

HANK: When we talk about Mormonism, you have overtly said that when someone takes Mormonism and makes it sound the same as evangelical Christianity, they’re making a big mistake because the distinction is as big as the distinction between a dog and a cat.

SANDRA: Absolutely! Mormonism uses the verbiage of standard Christianity, but they’ve redefined all the words. And just like, I have a dog, but if I told you, “I have a cat,” and then you saw my dog, you would say, “That’s not a cat.” “Well, I have four legs, I have a tail, I have pointed ears…” You know, so, Mormons can list a lot of similarities, but it does not make them part of the Christian community. Historically, Christianity has always been known for being monotheistic: one God, absolute, eternal, never changing. That’s the Jewish view as well: One God eternally existing. But in the Mormon Church, they’re saying that the god they pray to was once a human on some other world system where some other god was in charge. This man went through a human experience, married, died, was resurrected on this other world, went to heaven, and we don’t know how long it takes, but after millions of years he progressed to becoming a god over his own world. So the god that the Mormon prays to is not the God that Christians are talking about. My God’s eternally existent; their god has not eternally existed as God.

HANK: I think one of the things that we have to get to the bottom line of on this broadcast is what the Mormons teach with respect to revelation, because their doctrine is continuously in a state of flux, because their revelations are ongoing. Therefore they have present day revelations that negate previous revelations. Touch that issue, because from a Christian perspective, we say that the Bible is the repository of redemptive revelation, that it has been demonstrated to be true through history and evidence, that you can build a cumulative case that the Bible is divine as opposed to merely human in origin, whereas the Book of Mormon has been utterly discredited by both anthropology and archeology.

SANDRA: Absolutely! The Book of Mormon just has Joseph Smith to attest to it and his followers. It has no prior history from him. He’s the one who brings forth supposedly a manuscript that he says he got from plates that no one ever saw. So that his new book of scripture relies completely on Joseph Smith’s word, there’s no archeology, no artifacts, nothing to establish this people mentioned in the Book of Mormon ever existed. But that’s not their only book of scripture; that’s the one they take to the public because it sounds the closest to the Bible. But they have two other books of scripture besides the Book of Mormon. They have the Doctrine and Covenants, which is Joseph Smith’s revelations to the Church. And then they have The Pearl of Great Price, which is supposedly the hidden record of Moses and Abraham. These other books of scripture, these three books of scripture, all take precedent over the Bible. So that when a Christian talks to a Mormon and brings up a Bible verse, in a Mormon’s mind the Bible is an unreliable source. They believe it’s been changed and corrupted and their scriptures become paramount. So Mormon doctrine is always defined through Mormon revelation; truth is defined through the president of the church. A Mormon today listens to conference to their church leaders every year and what those leaders say could take precedent over anything that was written before even in their own scriptures. Their prophet is seen as like Moses, who could at any time change any doctrine in the church, and they would accept it because he’s God’s mouthpiece.

HANK: Talking to Sandra Tanner. She is probably, I would say conservatively, the foremost expert on Mormonism alive today. We rely on her research. It’s carefully researched. But we also rely not just on facts that she presents but the method in which she presents those facts, because her passion—her love—is to reach, not repel. This is not about bigotry against Mormons; this is about reaching Mormons trapped in a web of false teaching. When we get back from the break, I want to ask Sandra Tanner direct-on: Is it true that to say Mormonism is a cult from a theological perspective is, somehow or another, bigotry against Mormonism? How should we refer to Mormons? What’s the best way in the battle to reach as opposed to repel? We’ll also talk about Mitt Romney again—not about his politics, but about the significance of possibly having a Mormon in the White House. We’ll be talking about all of that and more as soon as the broadcast resumes right after this break.

Notes:

1. Kasie Hunt and Charles Babington, “Romney: Be Civil about Faith,” Charlotte Observer, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/09/v-print/2676273/romney-be-civil-about-faith.html.

2. Ibid.

Dave Lose, author of Making Sense of Scripture, and Director of the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary, recently contributed to the Huffington Post an article entitled “4 Good Reasons Not to Read the Bible Literally.” I took an interest in reading the article, as the biblical writers utilized figures of speech (e.g. hyperbole; metonymy; synecdoche), and that there are instances when “Literal Interpretations Don’t Hold Water.”

A positive point made by Lose is that the Bible does not idealize humanity, but includes all of our warts and wrinkles. Abraham passed on of his wife twice, Moses murdered, David committed adultery, and Peter denied the Lord. “Whatever their accomplishments,” writes Lose, “most of the ‘heroes of the faith’ are complicated persons with feet of clay. And that’s the point: the God of the Bible regularly uses ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things.” Problems also abound with Lose’ article, as the bulk of it is a disappointing criticism Bible inerrancy.

According to Lose, “There is no hint that the authors of the Bible imagined that what they were writing was somehow supernaturally guaranteed to be factually accurate.” Elsewhere in the article he asserts, “Earlier Christians—along with almost everyone else who lived prior to the advent of modernity—simply didn’t imagine that for something to be true it had to be factually accurate, a concern only advanced after the Enlightenment.” Yet, this makes no sense. If God has spoken to us through Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament and Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament, then it can be deduced that the information communicated would be without error. Common to each of the Gospel is teaching on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; yet, if this teaching is not factually accurate, then the theology is also good for nothing but to be trampled underfoot. Paul gets it when in stating: “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Inerrancy does matter!

What are the so-called “errors” of Lose? One is Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, which the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke record towards the end of Christ’s ministry in contrast to John who places it at the beginning of Christ’s ministry. It is true that the wooden literalist, whether liberal or conservative, stumbles when coming to grips with the chronology of the Gospel writers, the issue is not the four Gospels contain factual errors; rather, the Bible student is to be sensitive to the literary structures inherent within the biblical text noting the unique ways the Gospel writers under the inspiration of the Spirit constructed their account. There is no contradiction with “Christ’s Cleansing of the Temple.” Lose also makes a fuss about the crucifixion occurring on the Passover in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but on “the Day of Preparation” in John. This is simply making a mountain out of a molehill, and John’s “Day of Preparation” is simply a reference to the Passover week. D. A. Carson writes, “ ‘Passover’ can refer to the Passover meal, the day of the Passover meal, or (as in this case) the entire Passover week (i.e. Passover day plus the immediately ensuing Feast of Unleavened Bread” [1].

Lose’s assertion that “Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally” is correct in so far as it means the wooden literalist interpretation of fundamentalist on the left and on the right only came about in the last hundred and fifty years; however, the allegorical interpretation associated with Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine and other early church fathers can likewise be considered problematic. It is really through the historical grammatical interpretive method that we can come to grips with the intended message communicated through the text.

God has spoken and, while fallible human agents were used to compose the message, these prophets and apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that what was produced was the infallible Word of God. The task of the Bible student is to read God’s Word and using sound principles of hermeneutics, which is the art and science of biblical interpretation, draw out its intended message. For further study on this subject, Has God Spoken by Hank Hanegraaff is highly recommended.

— Warren Nozaki 

Notes:

 1. D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 604.