Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: Welcome to the Truth Exchange podcast. This is a weekly program with Dr. Jeffrey J. Ventrella, where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Gilo, and this is another edition of the Director's Bag.
Whole host of comments and questions regarding the latest dicta that went out this past Monday on the subject of Mormonism. One writer wrote, as a Mormon, I'd sooner just use henotheism as a descriptor over tritheism. I find the latter insufficient in properly accounting for the Mormon belief in God the Mother, as well as other acknowledged divine persons.
And I've just noticed, Dr. Ventrella, that there's an increase in opinions that there are from, even from Christians, that there are more gods in this world. So you could take Dr. Michael Heisner for an example. And so my question then, based on this Mormon's Henotheism, how should we understand the scriptures, like in Exodus 15:11 or Psalm 86:10, which says, great, are you, O Lord, among the gods?
[00:01:29] Speaker A: Yeah. No. Well, a couple of things here. First, I'm delighted that someone who is Mormon is following an orthodox Christian podcast and reading our materials in the dicta and so forth. That's very important. I think that our donors should understand that we're not simply inside baseball people, that we're having reach. And so to me, that's an encouragement in and of itself. A couple of points before I get to your clarifying question, Joshua, is notice that the phrase that I used, tritheism, was a direct quote from the Mormon scholar Grant Underwood. It was Underwood who called the view of the, so we say not really a godhead, but the trifecta that the Mormons pay lip service to and called it tritheism. And that's exactly what it is. It's certainly not orthodox trinitarianism, but our questioner raises an important point because Mormon theology actually does have a pantheon of various, quote, gods for our planet. In fact, what people may not understand is the Mormon conception of, quote, heavenly Father is an enfleshed, embodied, glorified man who is married to at least one woman, if not multiple women, and they regularly engage in sexual intimacy and so on, so forth, to produce spirit babies and on and on. I think that the phrase, and we should probably define it, henotheism, simply means preferring one God in the midst of many. So Zeus is one Greek God, but there are many Greek gods, you know, Apollo and so on and so forth, Aphrodite.
So, of course, I was mixing my modalities there, wasn't I? Roman and Greek. You get my point. Neptune, Poseidon, Tomato, tomato. We'll get there, but. So I think you should take that up with Dr. Underwood and say, you know, what we're really talking about in Mormon doctrine is henotheism, not tritheism. But in fairness to Dr. Underwood, he's using tritheism to try to shoehorn in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit into a Mormon filter. So I think they're both right in that sense. And of course, they're both spiritually mistaken and greatly so. I think you were referring to Michael Heisner in some of his work on the unseen world. Michael, people may not know, was a presenter at Truth Exchange on many occasions, an orthodox Christian, an expert in ancient near east and Semitic languages and that sort of thing. And Michael, who's passed away, unfortunately, at an early age due to cancer, was a scholar that just questioned, what. What is this unseen realm and what is this counsel of these heavenly beings and so forth. And very fascinating. I think if you read his material, you won't see the Scriptures in the same Aristotelian light that we fail to admit that we often try to see it in. And he provides some very rich insights. My caution with Michael's work is let's not make an entire cosmology based upon one verse or one part of one verse. And the idea of gods here are we ought not to equate Jehovah with these other lesser beings that are called gods. We're talking about spiritual entities that are created. They are not. They don't have a satiety and the various attributes of the true and living God, who is triune. So I think that's interesting. I'm rather surprised that this inquirer knew about. He misspelled it in the written one. But it's Michael Heisner's work. Probably a grad student of some sort, I'm guessing, trying to put a fine comb in it. Most Mormons at the retail level would have no idea what he's talking about at that point.
[00:05:46] Speaker B: Dr. Ventrella, you quoted Dr. Underwood in the beginning, and I was curious, without having to go buy the book, would you explain the quote? Mormonism replaces the creator creature divide with a single ontological continuum of being. How does Mormonism do this? And second, are we not, in Scripture, also called little gods and also sons of God?
[00:06:11] Speaker A: Yeah, So I appreciate the question. So the quote comes directly from Dr. Underwood, and I commend him for being honest because the Mormon story is that they really don't have a theology properly understood. What they have is a fanciful anthropology that undergoes changes. And so whereas the Bible tells us that there's a creature creator distinction, Romans 1 makes that very clear. Genesis 1 makes that very clear. In Mormonism, there is in fact a creature continuity of being. In reality, that man progresses, that's the word they use, through meritorious obedience to Mormon edicts. And then at some point he's quote, exalted, end quote. And at that point he is conferred godhood and has his own planet to populate, so on, so forth.
So there is a continuity of existence. The problem is here there's no uniqueness to the Mormon concept of God, because as man was, so was God, then he becomes God. God is as man was, something along those lines. And so you've got this billions or at least millions depending upon your view of time, of these so called gods that were once men. And so there's no uniqueness at all. You're just one in an assembly line of these folks that get conferred this exalted status as gods.
Certainly the scripture, when it talks about you are sons of God and so forth, this is the glorious doctrine of adoption, that we become co heirs with Christ and hence our sons of God. But notice that in scripture in the New Testament, Jesus teaches us to pray our Father who art in heaven, but when he speaks to inner Trinitarian, he always says my Father. He never equates it. There's clearly and remains even in the Incarnation, a creator creature distinction. So there's a uniqueness there between Jesus relationship to the Father and our relationship to the. To the Father and the broader Godhead, if I can put it in those terms.
We have to be careful again to know where Scripture is speaking metaphorically and where it's speaking metaphysically.
[00:08:49] Speaker B: Yeah, our union with Christ, we never lose that distinction of creator and creation.
[00:08:55] Speaker A: That's right. That's really important.
In fact, I pointed out in the article that even in the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, Jesus is one person with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature, but without separation, without confusion, without mixture, maintaining again, as you said, the creature creator distinction. Yeah, Mormonism denies that. It fuses them together and then transmutes them, which again shows that it's not orthodox.
[00:09:27] Speaker B: Next up, we have a question that says hi Truth Exchange podcast. I'm looking forward to this coming episode addressing the Dicta. I have a friend whom I have known for a long time and they recently had a bad experience at church and to make a long story short, are now worshiping at a Mormon church. I'm concerned for her salvation, but she is convinced that she can love Jesus and continue to worship there. I would appreciate any feedback and any guidance.
[00:09:54] Speaker A: Yeah, I think in those situations you are right to be concerned about her salvation. Mormonism is not Christian. It teaches a salvation by meritorious works. And of course it doesn't worship the true and living God in any sense.
So that's deeply concerning. So from a pastoral standpoint, you need to be in a position there to understand that as she gets sucked into that orbit, likely they will pressure her to sever relationships in that way with orthodox Christians, particularly with evangelicals. If they can't convince her to co op you into Mormonism, they will ultimately try to get rid of. They might not burn the bridge, but they'll tear it down or block the bridge with respect to that. So what do you want to do? You don't want to go at this in a head to head situation, you know, theologically, apologetically, unless she asks you a doctrinal question so you can compare and contrast. So I would adopt the posture of asking questions that are, that are in the nature provocative, not attacking people or attacking things, but say, oh, I thought we were supposed to worship one God. Isn't that what the first commandment says? You know, those sorts of things.
But I would be side by side. You probably can't take her to have a cup of coffee because they don't drink hot beverages.
So be careful with what you do. You don't want to needlessly offend, but you want to metaphorically put a pebble in her shoes so that she knows that there's a distinction, that there's a difference, and that the true and living God is much more gracious, much more merciful and much more rigorous than these puny, glorified, hail fat guys who become gods in their mind. That's probably insulting to say it that way, but it does bother me because I've seen people do that. I've had relatives who have been drawn into this and it makes it very difficult. And I think the thing we have that they do not have is prayer. We can actually pray to the creator of the universe who is distinct, who superintends every atom and every inch of reality. And so I would commit, doubly commit to a prayerful approach to all those situations.
[00:12:28] Speaker B: Last up is a question from dale. He writes, Dr. Ventrella, I appreciate your writings on many things. I did struggle with this last dicta on Mormonism.
I felt that the polemics of this piece could further widen the gap between our Mormon neighbors in the realm of politics. I find that the Mormons and Catholics together share many of our civil values and could be a help down the road. I welcome your corrections and thoughts. Keep up the good work.
[00:12:59] Speaker A: Well, Dale, I appreciate that. And we want to be cognizant of our tone in the manner of our engagement. I think having grown up in Southern Idaho and currently living in Arizona, where there's a strong engagement and penetration of Mormonism in the political structure itself, we need to be understanding of what's really at stake. And the infiltration and ultimately controlling of various institutions is a very real thing that's happened in places where the Mormon population has been very, very strong, that has ultimately discriminated against and banished people who are not Mormon. So great deal of pressure. And so I think in those situations still must be godly in our tone. But I think the nature of the case in the book I was addressing was not Mormonism in general, but the rebranding of Mormonism to make it, as Dr. Underwood is claiming, just another specie of Christian theology, I think is a false claim. And I think that we need to be rigorous and stand on the scriptures and the creedal formulations that make this very plain.
As to the question of co belligerence, yes, when we are engaged in public theology, it's important to recognize that there are different pockets of people of goodwill and we ought to be persuasive and welcome people who are going to, for whatever reason, vote for righteousness. As one candidate once said, you know, you are welcome to vote for my positions for whatever personal reason you choose, as long as you vote correctly.
So Francis Schaeffer, who is an apologist and a cultural critique critic, many, many years ago categorized such folks as co belligerents. It was very clear. They're not Christians, but they're co belligerents. And we can link our arms on the retail level, so to speak, and vote for, say, protecting unborn life, vote against human trafficking, deal with economic issues that promote human flourishing instead of human bondage and so forth. And we welcome that. And we need to have a vocabulary that is welcoming with respect to that. But let's understand, at the bottom line is that politics is not salvific. It's necessary, but never sufficient. And just because someone votes right doesn't mean their theology is correct and vice versa. There are people with trinitarian theology that are just horrendous in the public square in terms of the policies and the persons they are supporting and they need to be called out as well. So we are called to be discerning. We are called to be godly. We are called both to honor the emperor without compromise or contradiction. But in the end we are called to fidelity to the lion who was the Lamb, who is the ultimate political operator. He's the Lord. So in the meantime, we do the best we can, always understanding that our salvation is the hands of God and it's through belief that we do believe.
Believe that we believe. Sounds weird, but that's exactly right that we do come come together in that way and those things matter.
So I would just say have a robust and accurate political theology. And of course we've written about that and glad to help address that in coming weeks and months, God willing, years.
[00:16:54] Speaker B: This concludes a recording of the Director's Bag. For more resources from Truth Exchange, please visit us online at www.truthexchange.com. you can follow us on X as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth Exchange. Be sure to join us next week for more questions from the Director's Bag. I'm your host, Joshua Gilo, and this is the Truth Exchange Podcast.
