A member of the Tanner team has passed away. Jerald Tanner, great-great-grandson of John Tanner (a financial supporter of Joseph Smith, Jr.), died Sunday evening from the effects of Alzheimer’s disease.

Jerald was husband to Sandra Tanner, a fifth-generation descendent of Brigham Young. They were both raised in the LDS Church, but early in their lives (independently) they each found reasons to seriously question their beliefs. Eventually they met, converted to Christianity, and were married. The result has been, among other things, 40 years of dedicated research critiquing the historicity and theology of the LDS Church.

The legacy of Jerald and Sandra Tanner cannot be understated. Through their work countless lives have been impacted, both within Mormonism and without. While they’re often the target of “anti-Mormon” rejections by Mormons, the Tanners have marked their work with a high dose of honesty and integrity. This is reflected in their early criticisms of the Hofmann forgeries and their response to fellow-Christian Ed Decker’s misrepresentations of Mormonism in The Godmakers.

No doubt, God will continue to effectively use their ministry, The Utah Lighthouse Ministry, for His glory long after Jerald’s passing.

Our friend Rob Sivulka is maintaining a list of links related to Jerald’s passing:
MormonInfo.org: Jerald Tanner

Here is a thoughtful obituary written by Mormon David King Landrith (some of the comments are not so thoughtful).

A few of the Tanner's many titles:

Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (their most popular book)
Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar
Major Problems of Mormonism
Mormon Scriptures and the Bible
Mormonism, Magic, and Masonry
3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon

Last night I had a dream that involved Mormons. I’m sure it’s further proof of my nerdiness, but we were talking about doctrine and discussing each others’ faiths. For some reason, the Mormons kept emphasizing “CTR”. Even when they were singing it came up over and over again.

What is “CTR”? It’s a popular Mormon acronym (in real life, not just my dream) for Choose the Right. One way of looking at it is that “CTR” is for Mormons as “WWJD” is for Christians. When faced with a difficult decision, the popular evangelical line is to ask ourselves, what would Jesus do? For Mormons, they are taught to choose to do the right thing.

I’ll be the first to admit to not always being a big fan of “WWJD.” It’s kind of an odd question to ask in some situations seeing as I’m not God and therefore lack the knowledge and power to make the best decisions. But I have owned at least one of those bracelets in my days and I’ve decided now to defend it.

Why? Because "WWJD” is better than “CTR.” What’s the focus of “WWJD”? Jesus. What’s the focus of “CTR”? Whatever I can do. These popular little acronyms symbolize a deeper issue that divides Christians from Mormons. The Christian is drawn back to our great Lord and Savior so that we can model ourselves after Him. The Mormon is drawn to look at his or her good works. On its own, “CTR” is innocent enough. But within the Mormon worldview, it is the summation of salvation by our their works. If they do enough of them, then they pass God’s test for this life and go on to the highest of Mormon glories.

I’ve lived enough to know that I can’t do enough good works to come close to the perfection that God requires. Say what you will about “WWJD,” at least the cheesy slogan draws me back to Jesus. You can have this world and whatever good works you can accomplish in it, but give me Jesus.

One of the more controversial beliefs in the history of Mormonism is that of Exaltation- that man has the potential to be like God in every way. LDS President Lorenzo Snow famously put it this way (on September, 18 1898): “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” Despite public belittling of this doctrine, it is still very much part of the official teaching of the Church.

Current President Gordon B. Hinckley has downplayed the doctrine: “I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.” (Time, 1997)

However, in the most recent issue of the Church’s magazine Ensign, President Hinckley seems to a bit more about it than he’s let on in the past (HT: Reformed Baptist Thinker):

In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).

Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God.

President Hinckley clarifies his idea of Imago Dei by relating our bodies to God’s physical body:

I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"

I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."

Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. All know of the reality of death when the body dies, and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body. Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.

I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth." I look to Him as my strength. I pray to Him for wisdom beyond my own. I seek to love Him with all my heart, might, mind, and strength. His wisdom is greater than the wisdom of all men. His power is greater than the power of nature, for He is the Creator Omnipotent. His love is greater than the love of any other, for His love encompasses all of His children, and it is His work and His glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His sons and daughters of all generations (see Moses 1:39).

Now that I'm coming out of my daze (see my previous post), I have something to say, and it relates to more than just polygamy.  In our society, we define "freedom" as the ability to do whatever we wish in our quest for happiness, and bold innovation is exalted; but does this lead to true freedom?  There is a God-given human desire to seek freedom and fulfillment; but there's a terrible price to pay when we don't seek these things from God in the way He created us to receive them.  Having not seen and believed that God's way is the way of joy, we rebel and grab at pleasures we think will make us happy and then suddenly find ourselves trapped in an empty world where nothing seems to make us happy and from which none of our efforts can quite free us.  Though this tendency of the human heart extends beyond the subject matter of Big Love, a true story of polygamy illustrates the point well.

There's a book called Wife No. 19, written in 1875 by Ann-Eliza Young, Brigham Young's 19th wife...   more »

Russell D. Moore, dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the school I currently attend), has posted an interesting commentary on his web site, "From the Salt Lake to the Jordan River." (This post was originally printed in the Summer 2005 issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, pp. 70-72)  In it, he says:

To understand the draw of Mormonism, evangelicals should read the works of Latter-day Saints who explain why they love their religion. Some LDS intellectuals who have concluded, to their regret, that Joseph Smith constructed from his own mind the narrative of the Book of Mormon and the "translation" of the Book of Abraham are instructive here. Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, for instance, warns that his conclusions are not for children or new converts. Demonstrating the roots of the Book of Mormon in the nineteenth-century world of King James Bible, freemasonry, occultism, and frontier Americanism; Palmer nonetheless remains a committed Mormon--because he loves the social and theological vision of the LDS culture. Likewise, Coke Newell, a convert to the LDS church in his late teens, lays out why a drug culture vegetarian would find the LDS church compelling. In so doing, he glories in the ancient mysteries of Mormon cosmology and eschatology: from a God and a Goddess who produce offspring to a future in which deified humans rule a vast cosmos. Newell makes clear that he isn't simply convinced by Smith's claims; he is convinced because he loves the picture of reality they portray.

This should come as no surprise to evangelicals who have read the Apostle Paul's revelation of the roots of human idolatry in the first chapter of Romans. Fallen humans have affections and inclinations that they then prop up with beliefs, convincing themselves that their systems are true. This could not be clearer with Mormonism, which is in reality little more than an Americanized version of a Canaanite fertility cult. With this the case, evangelicals should take more than a scattershot approach to knocking down Mormon claims (although this is necessary). We must also present a counter-story to the Mormon story: one that resonates with the beauty of truth and holiness.

While I am not sure how Moore can compare Mormonism with a Canaanite fertility cult, his article is thought provoking when considering how we should witness to Mormons.  Check out what he has to say and see what you think.

When seeking to understand Mormon doctrine, knowing the written Scriptures of the LDS church is not enough.  Mormons have no concept of a closed canon (in fact, they tend to ridicule such an idea).  There are other ways in which Latter-day Saint teachings are established.

The Second Level: Official Statements from Presidency

The ninth Article of Faith states, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  For Mormons, God continues to reveal himself and his ways to them.  Fundamentally, this revelation comes through the living prophet and president of the church.  Thus, official statements by LDS prophets as well as official statements by the First Presidency are authoritative for Mormons.  They should also be consulted when examining Mormon beliefs.

The Third Level: Material from the Presidency and General Conference Statements

Materials that are produced by the First Presidency of the LDS church itself with the intent of teaching church members what they believe should also be considered as accurate and helpful sources of church doctrine.  One very important book in this regard is Gospel Principles.

Additionally, statements by general authorities during the church's general conferences carry a lot of weight.  Since all church members are supposed to watch these general conferences, and since these conferences provide a platform for LDS church leaders to address members, what these authorities say is often important in the beliefs of Latter-day Saints.

The Fourth Level: Other Statements from General Authorities

Once we get down to the fourth level, the authoritativeness can be relatively low.  Nevertheless, the general authorities tend to be highly regarded by church members.  With this in mind, what they say and write outside of general conferences can also be influential.

The Fifth Level: Other Writings

Some models do not include a fifth level.  Nevertheless, I believe that such a level exists in the lives of many Mormons.  While these writings may have no "official" authority within the church, some Mormons may see them as authoritative in some sense.  As an example, we have already seen that many Latter-day Saints have looked to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine for a summary of their beliefs.  Others draw heavily from contemporary Mormon scholars and apologists.  We cannot assume that all Mormons believe what is written at this level, but we can recognize that Mormons often will turn to others in having their beliefs explained and defended.

The Solution

This "hierarchy of authority" provides a strategy for understanding, examining, and critiquing Mormon doctrine.  It also allows us to keep various LDS material in perspective.  With these levels in mind, I hope that we can accurately discuss, debate, and refute the claims of the LDS church while pointing Mormons to the true Jesus Christ.

(I have based my hierarchy on James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity, 23-42.  To see this kind of model implemented, see Cky Carrigan's PhD dissertation, "An Assessment and Critique of the Distinctive Christology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).")