A Response to Dr. R. A. Mohler on Mormonism

 

In June of 2007 a debate was initiated by Beliefnet between Dr R Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and also Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary (and a vocal critic of the LDS Church); and Orson Scot Card, a freelance writer and a Latter-day Saint. During this discussion each posted three essays in response to the other arguing their case, which may be seen on Beliefnet’s website. The first article by Mohler was posted on 28 June 2007, and the last by Card on 26 July 2007. Each post attracted many comments from readers. As I studied these exchanges, I felt that Orson Card had not tackled the challenges to LDS beliefs and doctrines presented to him by Dr Mohler head on, and Mohler was to some extent justified in claiming that his main objections had not been addressed. In this post I will attempt to address his objections more directly. Mohler begins his first article, which he titles: Mormonism is not Christianity, with these words (emphasis added):

Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.

The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.

We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

Notice that the criterion that is used here to determine the “Christianity” of the LDS Church is what is termed “Christian orthodoxy”. That in itself raises some important questions, before we can even attempt to discuss the beliefs and teachings Latter-day Saints: What is “Christian orthodoxy,” and who gets to define it? For example, is the infallibility of the Pope part of Christian orthodoxy? If not, why not? What about the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary, the seven sacraments, or Transubstantiation? Are these part of “Christian orthodoxy”? and if not, why not? How about the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, or the Pope is the Anti-Christ? Those were the core beliefs of the Protestant Reformers and the Protestant Religion to which Dr Mohler belongs. Is that part of “Christian orthodoxy”? If not, why not? What has changed? What determines “Christian orthodoxy”?

The trouble with using “Christian orthodoxy” as a yardstick is that there is no generally accepted definition of it across mainstream Christianity that one can adopt. I have searched the Internet for such a definition, and found none. It is a yardstick that Dr Mohler can determine the size and length of it himself—very convenient!

Asking whether the LDS Church is “Christian” or not according to the arbitrary criterion of “Christian orthodoxy,” as determined by Dr Mohler, is like determining whether the Earth is flat according to the criteria laid down by the Flat Earth Society! Well, according to that criteria it probably is! But those are hardly objective criteria by which to determine whether the earth is flat or not. Card’s biggest mistake was to agree to debate LDS beliefs and doctrines on the basis of this narrow, limited, biased, one sided, sectarian definition of what constitutes true Christianity. LDS doctrine teaches that traditional Christianity is in fact Apostate. So what Mohler identifies as “orthodox Christianity” is in fact “Apostate Christianity”. The question posed therefore amounts to: “Is Mormonism Christian according to the standard of Apostate Christianity?” Well, I should hope not! Card made a serious error to agree to debate LDS beliefs on the basis of such a flawed criterion. If a criterion is to be used, it should be one that is acceptable to both sides; not one that Mohler and Beliefnet have cooked up between them to corner Mormonism.

Dr Mohler has also been a shade dishonest in his use of this criterion. When Card raised an objection to it, in his second article Mohler responds with these words:

The first matter of concern is to clarify the question. When I asked, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?,” I was stating the question exactly as it was put to me [by Beliefnet]. The words “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy” were part of my assignment, not my imposition.

Well and good—but there is a catch. The catch is that Dr Mohler does not limit himself strictly to that conditional definition. He portrays that criterion as being the soul, legitimate, valid, and objective criterion by which the Christianity of Mormonism (or any other Christian tradition) can be determined. For example, the title of his first article reads: “Mormonism Is Not Christianity”. No sign of the limited conditionality based on a flawed criterion. The title of his third article reads: “Mormonism Is a Sincerely False Gospel”. Again, no sign of the limited conditionality based on a flawed criterion. He follows that subtle deception throughout his articles. Here are a couple of typical quotes from his first and second articles:

Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.

Of course, the only way we know this is because we do have an objective standard by which to judge what is and is not Christianity, and that is the very “traditional Christian orthodoxy” that Mr. Card and Mormonism reject.

The answer to that is, Who says? Was that decided by Beliefnet too? By what right? Who gave Beliefnet the right to lay down the criterion by which the Christianity of any religion should be determined? Dr Mohler wants to have his cake and eat it. When the arbitrary and flawed nature of his criterion is pointed out to him, he backs off and says, “That wasn’t me, that was Beliefnet!” But when nobody is looking, he portrays it as the soul objective criterion by which the Christianity of a religion can be determined—not a very honest way to debate religion.

Dr Mohler’s arguments against LDS beliefs and doctrines are rather primitive and limited, and contain very little that is of any substance. He says that the question was put to him “theologically;” but there is very little of “theological” substance that he puts forward as an argument. Most of his criticisms consist of generalized comments that one cannot respond to except with another generalized comment. Here is a typical example from his second article:

Mormonism uses the language of Christian theology and makes many references to Christ. Mr. Card wants to define Christianity in a most minimal way, theologically speaking. If I were arguing the other side of this question, I would attempt the same. But Christianity has never been defined in terms of merely thinking well of Jesus. Mormonism claims to affirm the New Testament teachings about Jesus, but actually presents a very different Jesus from the onset. A reading of Mormonism’s authoritative documents makes this clear.

Well, it is impossible to argue against that (in the same amount of space at least), except by making another generalized statement of the same length to the contrary, which would not be very enlightening to anybody.

The paucity of any solid arguments that he brings against the beliefs and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, also makes it an easy subject for rebuttal. His entire arguments in the three articles that he has put forward can be summarized in just a couple of short sentences, as follows:

1. Mormonism is not Christian because it does not conform to the standard of “historical Christian orthodoxy” (as he chooses to define it himself).

2. For a theological justification he merely cites LDS rejection of the historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, without offering anything by way of detailed theological analysis or discussion.

That is easy to answer. In response to the first objection my answer is, What he calls “Christian orthodoxy” I call Apostate Christianity; and Apostate Christianity cannot provide the standard by which to measure true Christianity. The LDS Church teaches that historical Christianity is Apostate. It went into Apostasy in the first century; and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Restoration (by revelation and ministration of angels), of the original and true form of Christianity. Apostate Christianity cannot by any stretch of the imagination provide the yardstick with which to measure true Christianity. Some other criterion would have to be used that could be acceptable to both sides.

As for his criticism of the LDS rejection of traditional Trinitarianism, that has already been addressed and discussed hundreds of times. The most recent example I can think of is the address given by LDS Apostle Elder Jeffrey R Holland in the October 2007 General Conference entitled: “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”. In this sermon Elder Holland makes a convincing case for the separate identity of the members of the Trinity or the Godhead, which is the LDS theological position. If Dr Mohler is a serious theologian, let him rebut that, instead of making generalized attacks on LDS beliefs which cannot be pinned down to anything.

For the remainder of this post I am going to quote selected passages from Mohler’s three articles which require special comments, and briefly comment on them:

From his first article.

Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself—that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

What does he mean by “the structure of Christian orthodoxy”? There is no such thing. There are a thousand and one Christian churches in the world, each of whom have their own “structure”—and each claims to be the right one. There is no such thing even as a “Christian orthodoxy,” never mind its “structure”.

Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

Not true. That is not the theological position of restored Church of Jesus Christ. We believe that historical Christianity has been able to generate genuine faith in Christ; and all such as have believed and lived by the commandments of God will be saved. We believe that historical Christianity contains many gospel truths, but also errors. We believe that as the result of the Apostasy the priesthood authority of it was lost, but not its ability to generate saving faith in Christ (see 3 Nephi 16:6–7; D&C 10:53–56).

Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.

That is an utter falsehood and a blatant lie. Mohler claims that he has read the Book of Mormon, and I believe him. Anybody who has read the Book of Mormon will know that that is not true. Here is a link to search results for the word “Christ” in the Book of Mormon. The reader can judge for himself the truth of Mohler’s assertion.

Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus.

The LDS Church would not have any problems with the Apostles’ Creed. It is with the councilor creeds that the theological problems begin to arrise. The Apostles’ Creed was not written by the church councils. It dates back to the obscure history of early Christianity, and its teachings are acceptable to Latter-day Saints.

From his second article.

At the same time, I was glad the question was asked in this manner, for it is the only way I can provide an answer that matters. The question could surely be asked in other ways and we could attempt to define Christianity in terms of sociology, phenomenology, the history of religions, or any number of other disciplines. In any of these cases, someone with specific training in these fields should provide the argument.

The question could simply refer to common opinion—do people on the street believe that Mormonism is Christianity? But then the matter would be in better hands among the pollsters.

In any event, the question was framed theologically, and it was framed by Beliefnet in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” With the question structured that way, the answer is clear and unassailable—Mormonism is not Christianity. When the question is framed this way, Mr. Card and I actually agree, as his essay makes clear.

That is a bit disingenuous. There is another criterion that can be used to determine the Christianity of Mormonism, acceptable to both sides, that Mohler knows about but chooses to ignore—that is the Bible. That is the criterion that the Protestant Reformers used during the Reformation to challenge Catholicism. “Christian orthodoxy” was not the criterion that was used—for a good reason. At that time the Catholic Church owned “Christian orthodoxy,” whichever way you wanted to define it! The Protestant Reformers would not have stood a chance if they wanted to use that as their criterion; therefore Sola Scriptura became the order of the day. Now with the restored Church of Jesus Christ, Sola Scriptura seems to have gone out of fashion, or conveniently forgotten about; and “Christian orthodoxy” become suddenly fashionable! Very convenient! If Beliefnet is willing to extend to me the invitation, I am willing to challenge Dr Mohler to a debate on LDS beliefs and doctrines based on the Bible as the criterion. Let’s see if they will accept!

Nevertheless, if I were a Mormon arguing that Mormonism is Christianity, I would be very reluctant to suggest that those I am seeking to persuade should read the Book of Mormon. Nothing will more quickly reveal the distance between Mormon theology and historic Christianity.

For his information, the Book of Mormon is the greatest conversion tool of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with the possible exception of the Joseph Smith Testimony.

Mormons want their religion to be seen as another form of Christianity. In other words, they want to identify with what from their inception they sought to deny.

Wrong! Latter-day Saints want their religion to be seen as a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity; not as another form of Apostate Christianity.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” as Mormonism is officially known, claims to be the only true church. As stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30], Mormonism is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”

Dr Mohler does say some true things about LDS beliefs on rare occasions (not intentionally I am sure!) and this is one of them.

According to Mormon teaching, the church was corrupted after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.”

False! That is not the position of the LDS Church, as explained above. There is such a thing as the church of the devil; but that is not how it is defined in LDS theology. It is defined as follows:

2 Nephi 10:

16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

“Whore of all the earth” is euphemism for the church of the devil. Thus “church of the devil” consists of those only who fight against Zion (meaning the true Church of God), not just to anybody who is a Christian of some other denomination.

Mormonism then claims that the true church was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the 1820s. This restored church was, Mormon theology claims, given the keys to the kingdom and the authority of the only true priesthood.

True!

Why would Mormonism now want to be identified as a form of Christianity, when its central historical claim is that the churches commonly understood to be Christian are part of the Church of the Devil?

Too many falsehoods stuck together. Fact 1: The LDS Church sees itself as the Restoration of the original and true from of Christianity; and therefore does not need to seek to identify itself with Apostate Christianity. Fact 2: The LDS Church does not see historical Christianity as the church of the devil.

From his third article.

Indeed, the subtitle printed on The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” A “testament,” that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian churches.

That is a misstatement of the LDS position. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Restoration is identified as the “new and everlasting covenant”. “Everlasting” means that it is not a “new covenant”. It is the same covenant that was made in ancient times; but it is renewed in our time because of the Apostasy. The Apostasy means that the old covenant was broken. The Restoration means that that old covenant was renewed to us by means of a new dispensation of the gospel. But it is the same old covenant that was renewed. It is not “another covenant”.

Here is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian—a Christian who holds to the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” of the Church—I do not believe that Mormonism leads to salvation. To the contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life.

Misstated. What that means is that as a representative of an apostate Christianity, he has rejected the new dispensation of the gospel in the latter days which is a Restoration of the only and true form of Christianity. There is nothing new about that of course. Apostate religions have always rejected and opposed new dispensations of true religion. The bad news is that it is this rejection of the new dispensation that leads to death and damnation.

And thus I must end where I began. Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity—it is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

The bottom line is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not another form of Apostate Christianity. It is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity. And it certainly is incompatible with Apostate Christianity.

On the subject of the Apostasy, it is worth noting that Latter-day Saints were not the first to come up with that idea. The Protestants recognized it first. They also describe it in more or less the same terms. There are two major differences however: (1) In Protestantism the Apostasy takes on a virulent anti-Catholic form, which in the LDS Church it doesn’t. (2) We define the Apostasy mainly in terms of the loss of the priesthood of the Church, which places Protestantism firmly in the same Apostate camp as Catholicism!

What Do Mormons Think of Evolution?

I have not come across an official statement from the LDS Church that attempts to directly answer that question. The nearest thing that I have found is this statement from the First Presidency, which does not tackle the question head on: Is Evolution true or false? But I think it is fair to say that officially the LDS Church does not accept Evolution. I think it is equally fair to say that the vast majority of LDS do not accept Evolution. Those who might would be a very small minority. Modern LDS scripture also affirms that Adam and Eve were real individuals who were created by God in the Garden of Eden. The only part of the story that may be considered figurative is the teaching that God made Eve out of Adam’s rib.

Of course the theory of Evolution has several aspects some of which may be true. For example, “natural selection” is something that can be observed in nature. It enables various species to adapt to changes in their environment. If you spray a population of mosquitoes with a given pesticide, for example, a small percentage of them that have a natural resistance to it will survive, and will then reproduce to create a genre that is resistant to that pesticide. But observable natural selection will always take place within a given species. There are no known instances, as far as I know, that through natural selection one species has “jumped” to become a different species. If anybody knows of such examples, I would be interested to hear it.

But Evolution, meaning the development of one species into another, and the development of higher life forms from lower ones, is a false theory that has no support either in science or in scripture. I believe that the LDS Church rejects that theory. This is in contrast with the Catholic position which appears to be conciliatory towards Evolution. Here is a quote from the Pope:

The Pope . . . also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

* * *

In his talk with the priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the United States and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Source: newsmax.com

I believe that the LDS Church would reject that teaching. There is in fact no scientific proof for the theory of Evolution. There may be proof for natural selection, as explained above; but that is not the same thing as Evolution. There are also many fossilized remains around which scientists can build a theory. But that remains only a theory. That is not the same thing as scientific proof.

The question of how you define a species also becomes relevant here. Interestingly, the scientific definition of species is identical scriptural one! In science, a species is defined as a class of living organisms with identifiable characteristics that can interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. That is the key requirement. For example, a Bulldog and an Alsatian look quite different in appearance; but they are identified as belonging to the same species because they can mate and produce a fertile offspring. On the other hand, there are certain types of woodlice that look identical in appearance, but classed as belonging to different species, because the two cannot interbreed. Some animals of different species can interbreed, but produce an infertile offspring. A horse and a donkey, and a lion and a tiger are two examples. The following are some scientific definitions of species that I found on the Internet:

(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

A classification of related organisms that can freely interbreed

A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms.

A group of organisms that can reproduce with each other.

the taxonomic division of freely interbreeding population of wild or naturally occurring individuals below genus.

a group of interbreeding individuals in a population that is reproductively isolated from other groups of organisms

a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring.

In the scriptures a species is defined in the same terms:

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

* * *

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Thus both science and scripture define a species on the same terms; and there are no known examples in nature, as far as I know, that one species has jumped to become a different species (mutation of viruses perhaps excluded). God has determined the boundaries, and they are impassable. Scientific “theories” are not sufficient to overturn the decrees of God.

The Theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church

The main passages of scripture (apart from the Bible) expounding the LDS doctrine of the Sacrament are in the Book of Mormon, with smaller passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. I will quote the passages, with the most significant verses highlighted, and briefly comment on them afterwards. Jesus instituted the Sacrament among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon when He visited them after His resurrection. Here is the account:

3 Nephi 18:

1 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his Disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.

2 And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.

3 And when the Disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat.

4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.

9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.

10 And when the Disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.

11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

12 And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.

The first theologically significant clause occurs in verse 5, where it says, “there shall one be ordained among you, …” This suggests that the Eucharist is a true sacrament. It requires priesthood authority to be administered. The next significant clause occurs in verse 7, where we are taught that it is done “in remembrance of my body, …”. The first part of that clause, “in remembrance of my body …” also occurs in the Bible:

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The significant bits that the Book of Mormon passage adds, that is not found in the Bible, is “And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you”. This adds clarification. It informs us that the Sacrament is indeed a memorial of the sufferings of Christ; not that we will eat or drink His flesh or blood literally. It also informs us how we are blessed spiritually when we partake of the Sacrament worthily. That happens when we are promised that we should have His Spirit to be with us.

The next significant passage occurs in verse 10: “for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you”. Participation in the Sacrament, like baptism, is not a difficult or demanding requirement; nevertheless, like baptism, it is a token of our willingness to obey God’s commandments.

The next theologically significant passage is verse 11, which is a repeat of what was said in verse 7, except that this time it is in relation to the wine rather than the bread. And the last significant verse is 13, which states, “But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.” This is a warning to those who add or remove unauthorized material to the Sacrament, either doctrinally or procedurally. They are building their house on sand; and when the winds blow and rains descend, it shall fall, and “great shall be the fall of it”.

In the continuation to the same chapter, the Lord then proceeds to give the warning to those who partake of the Sacrament unworthily:

3 Nephi 18:

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

The interesting thing about this passage is that it uses the same language that Catholics like to associate with Real Presence. Well, since every church seems to have its own definition of Real Presence, I am willing to accept that term provided that I can define the conditions of it myself—although I would rather not use those theological terms at all, because they carry connotations and nuances that do not sit well with the theology of the Restoration. LDS is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is not dependent on those archaic terminologies developed in historical Christianity. It uses its own. Nevertheless, I will accept Real Presence if I can define the terms of it myself. My definition of it (if I have to use that term) is that the administration of the Sacrament makes Jesus “Present” with us when the promise is fulfilled that we will “always have His Spirit to be with us”. That is how Jesus promised His disciples that He would always be present with them:

John 14:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Ephesians 3:

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love.

That is how Jesus has promised that He will always be “Present” with His disciples—by giving them of His Spirit to always be with them, and dwell in them by faith. The idea that we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood is not scriptural. That is not what the scriptures really mean.

Chapter 18 of 3 Nephi gives a description of how Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper among the Nephites. The day after that event, Jesus visits them again, and administers the Sacrament to them the second time. This is a shorter passage, but still contains theologically significant verses that are worth discussing:

3 Nephi 20:

1 And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.

2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.

Verse 8 again uses a language that the Catholics would tend to identify with their understanding of Real Presence; although it uses it to suggest a kind of “spiritual feeding”. Verse 9 describes how that “feeding” takes place: it is done, again, by being filled with His Spirit. The idea of physically eating Jesus Christ is not a theologically valid doctrine. The scriptures that are cited to support that are not correctly understood.

The theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church is even more completely and comprehensively, but in a highly condensed form, taught in the actual Sacramental prayers themselves, which were given by revelation. Here are the two Sacramental prayers for bread and wine:

D&C 20:

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

There are many theologically significant phrases in these prayers. First, note that the emblems are “blessed and sanctified”. To “sanctify” means to consecrate or make holy. This does not mean that actual emblems in themselves are made holy; rather, they are sanctified “to the souls of all those who partake of it”. The sanctification rebounds on those who partake of it by faith and in worthiness. In the early Christian church, all church members were called “saints”. That did not mean that they were sinless. It means that they had undergone the sanctifying experience of receiving the ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism and confirmation, but most importantly, of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. That is what makes us holy, or turns us into saints. If we wanted to express that in Catholic terminology, I suppose it would translate into “receiving grace”. But I don’t like using those old terms, because they tend to be ambiguous. “Becoming sanctified” is a more meaningful expression for me than “receiving grace,” which seems to defy a clear definition. This process of sanctification as we participate in the life of the Church is referred to in several places in the modern LDS scripture:

D&C 43:

9 And thus ye shall become instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me.

D&C 59:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

D&C 60:

7 And in this place let them lift up their voice and declare my word with loud voices, without wrath or doubting, lifting up holy hands upon them. For I am able to make you holy, and your sins are forgiven you.

The Bible also teaches that it is required of us to become holy:

Exodus 19:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

Leviticus 11:

44 For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: …

45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

1 Peter 1:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

1 Peter 2:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

We achieve this holiness primarily through regular participation in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, while observing to fulfil all the conditions laid down therein.

Returning to the sacramental prayers, there are other significant phrases that need to be discussed. Note first that the words “remember” and “remembrance” occur frequently in both prayers. That is the key word. “Always remember him” means what it says: always! It means remembering Him in every waking moment of our lives. Some may think that is impossible. I don’t think so. God has commanded it. It is through this constant, ceaseless, incessant remembering that we are guaranteed to have His Spirit to always be with us.

Other covenants we make are to declare our willingness to “take upon us His name,” and also to “keep His commandments which He has given us”. To “take upon us His name” means to be willing to be identified by His name, in other words, to become true Christians.

Latter-day Saints often describe the Sacrament as a “renewal of our baptismal covenant”. That is because there is a striking resemblance between the covenants we make at baptism (Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37); and those we make as we partake of the Sacrament.

The only other thing that needs to be added to this brief summary is that we currently do not use wine for the administration of the Sacrament, but water. This is because of a commandment we received from the Lord owing to the circumstances that prevailed at that time, as recorded in the following revelation:

D&C 27:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

Verse 2 in this passage contains more doctrinal insights into the theology of the Sacrament. It teaches that we partake of the Sacrament correctly when we do so “with an eye single to the glory of God;” and it reemphasizes once again the centrality of “remembering” Jesus Christ as the most important element in the Sacrament.

Such is the simplicity and beauty of the theology of the Sacrament in LDS scripture. Everything is plain, clear, meaningful, and dovetails perfectly with what is taught in the Bible. There are no dark shadows and mysterious ideas to fathom. That is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Transubstantiation vs. Real Presence

My previous post on Transubstantiation led to a lively and interesting discussion on the Catholic Answers Forums. The argument was made in that thread that although Transubstantiation is not biblical, the doctrine of Real Presence is; and Transubstantiation is only an attempt to explain how Real Presence takes place when the Sacrament is consecrated. The implication of that statement is that the real doctrine is in fact Real Presence, not Transubstantiation; and therefore it is not necessary for Transubstantiation to be true for Real Presence to be true. Transubstantiation could be false; but Real Presence would be true!

There are two answers to that: Firstly, Real Presence is understood differently in different churches; but as defined in Catholicism, Real Presence is no more biblical than is Transubstantiation. The way in which Real Presence is understood in the Catholic Church is far from being scripturally provable. Secondly, in Catholic theology Real Presence and Transubstantiation are so intricately intertwined that it is not possible to separate them. Real Presence takes place by means of Transubstantiation, so that to all intents and purposes one could say they are the same. Here are some interesting Quotes:

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present [i.e. through Transubstantiation]—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Source: Catholic Answers

The Catholic Church teaches that when a priest repeats the words of Christ at the Last Supper over bread and wine that these become [i.e. through Transubstantiation] truly the Body and Blood of the Lord, even though the appearance of the bread and wine remain. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that the celebration of the Eucharist renews in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, forming a unity with it. Source: Apologetics Toolkit

The next lengthy quote comes from the definitions of the Council of Trent, Session xiii, the whole of which is devoted to the Sacrament of the Eucharist; so they are as authoritative as you can get:

CHAPTER I.

On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things [i.e. bread and wine]. . . .

CHAPTER III.

On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.

. . . And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; . . .

CHAPTER IV.

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

CANON I.–If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood—the species Only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema. Source: The Council of Trent Session XIII

On Real Presence the passage clearly states that the whole body, blood, and divinity of Christ is contained in the substance of the Sacrament (i.e. in the bread and wine); and it goes on to categorically state that that substance undergoes a change, or a transmutation, so as to make that Presence within it possible—that change being dubbed Transubstantiation. It defines Transubstantiation as an integral part of Real Presence.

The purpose of the paragraphs on Transubstantiation are not to explain how the change takes place; but to assert that a change does take place—and coins the name “Transubstantiation” for it. Transubstantiation becomes the integral part of Real Presence. There is no Real Presence without Transubstantiation; and there is no Transubstantiation without Real Presence. The two are inseparably intertwined—one cannot exist without the other.

The passage raises other puzzling questions. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (i.e. Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how does one actually eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? How do Catholics go about exactly doing that? And how is that doctrine in any way biblical?

The next quote is from the Wikipedia article on Real Presence. It takes a broader look at the subject, and tries to explain how Real Presence is understood in other Christian churches, not just Catholic. The Catholic version is plain Transubstantiation; but other churches seem to understand it differently.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians see the Real Presence in terms not of a physical or “carnal” presence, but of transubstantiation/metousiosis [metousiosis is Greek derived, and means the same thing as Transubstantiation which is Latin derived]. Anglicans argue for contentment with the mode of objective presence to remain a mystery. Lutherans expound a presence “in, with and under the forms” of bread and wine. Methodists postulate the par excellence presence as being a “Holy Mystery.” Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a “spiritual” real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a “spiritual feeding.” Certain other Protestant traditions (for instance, Baptists and contemporary evangelicals) simply reject outright the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Source: Wikipedia

The Methodists appear to have been the wisest of them all. They have covered their backs by calling it a “Holy Mystery”! I agree. It is a mystery to me! Well, since every church seems to have its own definition of Real Presence, I am willing to accept Real Presence in LDS theology provided that I can define the terms of it myself—but defined in terms of Transubstantiation, I am afraid it is not a scripturally valid doctrine.