Mormons don't believe in Jesus

[Jeffret]

Mormons have long fought the claim by other Christians that they aren't really Christian. There are some significant and sometimes valid reasons for this criticism, though in many ways it really just boils down to one group attempting to enforce their definitions onto another group.

I have, though, long maintained that Mormons don't really believe in Jesus. Or perhaps believe Jesus. Or maybe it's that they don't really believe in the Atonement. Or in repentance. Certainly they don't really have faith in it, at least not faith as an action, as a significant motivator for their lives.

There are many examples of this lack of faith. Mormons' staunch refusal to consider the implications of grace is a primary example and is one of the main reason many Christians do not consider Mormons Christian. The Mormon avoidance of Paul, except in carefully proof-texted verse, is another example. (Though admittedly proof-texting is the Mormon, and often human, way.) When you start looking at Mormon culture and behavior, this lack of faith becomes noticeable.

If you read the stories Sam Young has been collecting, you see many vivid examples. Mormon Church leaders lack any significant belief in Atonement or repentance. Few, if any, of these stories recount how they were met with an outpouring of love and faith in the Atonement's ability to heal. Instead, one of the most prominent responses is to force them to read Spencer Kimball's "The Miracle of Forgiveness", which would be better titled, "It Will Be a Miracle if You Ever Get Forgiveness". Instead of encouraging the member to seek out the Atonement and the blessings of Christ, they require their ultimate submission to church leaders. Instead of encouraging the member to partake of those rituals and events that the Church teaches draw people closer to Jesus, church leaders deny them opportunities for fellowship, sacrament, and other activities. The intention is to make them submit to church leaders. Nothing in these responses intends to draw them closer to Jesus.

One of the most prominent and vulgar of the demands of church leaders clearly demonstrates they have no faith in Jesus or the Atonement. Many of these accounts describe church leaders insisting that members must recount all of their past sins. At least all of their past sexual sins, which does lead one to consider the voyeuristic aspect. When the member tries to claim that they had already taken care of those things, the church leader insists that he needs to hear everything, everything that has been confessed at any time, anything that a previous leader has declared complete, anything that interest him. In doing so, he clearly demonstrates his total lack of faith in repentance or Atonement. Nothing can ever be repented of. No sin is ever really erased.

This pattern pervades the entire church. No one ever really believes in repentance. No one ever really has faith in the central message of Jesus.

[blazerb]

This pattern pervades the entire church. No one ever really believes in repentance. No one ever really has faith in the central message of Jesus.

You would be hard-pressed to find a bishop or higher authority that ever repented of a "serious sin," as defined by the church. If excommunication really were the healing process that the church claims it is, you would see people moving on from it.

Personally, I think the main reason for requiring the confession of sexual sins is so that those called to prominent positions are less likely to have that type of skeleton in their closet. If the church knows who has been sleeping around, the leaders can make sure those people never get called to a position that could be even a little embarrassing later on.

There are some efforts to bring grace into Mormon practice. There was that book "Believing Christ." I remember an article on grace in the Ensign. However, that message is drowned out with all the messages that you point out.

[alas]

There is also the way sexual sin is talked about, especially to the young women. Analogies of dirty wedding dresses, licked cupcakes, smashed wedding cakes, flowers with the petals pulled off, those are all damage that can never be fixed. So, if the girl gets sexually tainted, she is damaged goods, forever dirty and worthless. There is no repenting and making her clean again, no repentance, no atonement. The lack of repentance isn't the only problem, but the fact that the things in these analogies have violence done to them, the cupcake did not seek being licked, the cake did not smash itself, it is more an example of rape that a woman willingly consenting to sex. Instead of talking about possible long term consequences, like pregnancy or STD, the lesson teaches that the real consequence is you are beyond fixing and forever worthless.

The whole concept of "worthiness" is not really Christian because Christianity considers that we are all unworthy, we are all sinners made clean through Christ. It is not our worthiness but His, and we get that worthiness as soon as we accept him as Savior. So, the whole Mormon idea that one earns worthiness to go to the temple is totally not Christian.

This whole way Mormons are not really Christian has always bugged me.

[moksha]

... the cupcake did not seek being licked, the cake did not smash itself, ...

What always seemed unfair was how inaccurate these analogies were in portraying an actual physical condition. Despite being licked, all the frosting remained on the cupcake. No matter how hard it was smashed, the shape of the cake remained unaltered.

---------------

Apparently, there is a standardized belief in Jesus that can be detailed in a checklist of items which supposedly certifies the believer as being genuine. What would Jesus make of this checklist? We must remember that Jesus was more than a bit of iconoclast. He enjoyed tweaking the beards and forelocks of those Pharisees. He ate with whom he pleased and associated with those the establishment was down upon. Would such a rebel look at this checklist and think to himself, "What a bunch of dullards!" Would look studiously at the definers and say, "Who here can define me when I break all the molds? Why not try pissing against the wind? The wind would not mind, but I do."

Just a thought.

[wtfluff]

What are there, ~10,000 different "christian" sects?

So... Which "version" of jesus is it that mormons don't believe in?

Kind of like all the different religions fighting over their version of god that they've invented. The tribalism is a joke.

[RubinHighlander]

The tribalism is a joke.

Yup, this!

Not too mention that Jesus was just another borrowed story/fable from previous gods of other cultures, all the way back to Horace, the "sun/son" of God of Egypt. If the Egyptians had managed to hang on to their roots and languages they would be looking at the entire Christian world and telling them their Horace could beat up our Jesus. Of course, the ten commandments movies solidified that the Egyptian gods were false and the one true God was the one, but this argument about any of these super natural beings has been going on through all of recorded history. Fortunately, I think science and education are beginning to make some headway now.

[Jeffret]

You would be hard-pressed to find a bishop or higher authority that ever repented of a "serious sin," as defined by the church. If excommunication really were the healing process that the church claims it is, you would see people moving on from it.

Personally, I think the main reason for requiring the confession of sexual sins is so that those called to prominent positions are less likely to have that type of skeleton in their closet. If the church knows who has been sleeping around, the leaders can make sure those people never get called to a position that could be even a little embarrassing later on.

I don't think that explanation really covers it. There is possibly some of that, but it is far from all of it. If that were the primary justification, why is so much of the focus on women? They'll never get a calling of bishop or above. It's even worse than that as you'll see from reading the accounts or innumerable others (such as alas's) that I somewhat overstated the case. Some people do apparently receive institutional forgiveness. But they're pretty much all men. And too many of them are given support or placed in positions that they really shouldn't receive. Lots of Sam's stories describe how the woman or girl received far harsher treatment. Even in cases of rape and child molestation. It's the men who more frequently receive lighter treatment and they're the only ones that could be eligible for those higher callings.

I've also never heard of a man being called to higher office who was asked to confess all of his prior sins upon receiving the call. It might happen, but I've never heard of it and it seems unlikely. At that point, he's being welcomed into the club and receiving the special privileges of that club. To maintain the purity of the club, his leaders will stand by him in the face of almost all allegations or complaints.

[alas]

I agree, that we should not judge whether we are "Christian" by any other denominations definition of "Jesus".

But all the interfaith arguments aside, does what we actually teach in Sunday School really teach about Jesus and an atonement? Different discussion.

So, going back to that question, does our worship of Jesus outweigh our worship of general authorities? Does our belief in the atonement really show up in how we deal with sin? Do we really believe that God forgives us, or is it that we are saved after we prove ourselves worthy? Do we believe that some smuck that sexually abuses children until he is 84, then honestly finds out it hurts those children he thought he loved, and repents and finds Jesus and like Schrooge spends his final years being the most kind and loving guy you could find, do we REALLY believe that Jesus is going let this child molester off the hook? Who are we really supposed to be obedient to, our own conscience/God, or our general authorities. If the Good Samaritan is on his way to pay his Mormon tithing and sees an injured man on the side of the road, should he spend that tithing on giving the injured man medical care, or pay his tithing? Well, we know we are supposed to pay tithing before feeding our hungry children, so it would have to come before a stranger, right?

Like Jeffret said, maybe the right word is not believing IN Jesus, but *believing Him* when he said he would make us clean and worthy.

I personally think we have gotten so carried away with the Mormon markers, that we have left the concept of the atonement so far in the background that it has become meaningless.

[Jeffret]

... the cupcake did not seek being licked, the cake did not smash itself, ...

What always seemed unfair was how inaccurate these analogies were in portraying an actual physical condition. Despite being licked, all the frosting remained on the cupcake. No matter how hard it was smashed, the shape of the cake remained unaltered.

Yes! To both of these.

The virginity lessons (for girls) are my long-standing example on how Mormons don't believe in Jesus. These lessons totally deny the central teachings of Jesus / Paul / Christianity / repentance / Atonement. Reading the stories Sam has received really struck me with how institutionalized the whole thing is. Many of the leaders wholly lack any faith in Jesus and the system strongly perpetuates that.

Also, as moksha points out, the analogies are terrible. All analogies have limitations, as they attempt to share one thing is like another and ignore how they are dissimilar. These analogies, though, bear little similarity to the situation they attempt to describe. First, sexual virginity isn't really a thing. There is no definable thing known as virginity. There is no singular demarcation between someone who is a virgin and someone who isn't. Certainly not anything physical. Oh, people like to think there is for women (and only women), but that isn't actually the case. The hole still exists from the nail in the wood, but there is no definitive physical change that exists in the woman. Or the man.

[Mormorrisey]

I read an interesting blog post from the author of Believing Christ about reactions from his book. Here, if you're interested.

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/13/s…

What I found a tad unbelievable, is that Robinson claims that the doctrine of grace was warmly received by "the brethren," while the members had more of a hard time with it. While that's debatable, and I'm not going to call the guy a liar because clearly that was his experience, I have to admit I'm dubious given the lack of talks about the subject. The only talk I remember on the doctrine of grace was Utchdorf's talk on it a few years ago in conference (it was in the April 2015 session; if you're interested, look it up, it was actually one of the best talks of the last ten years.) I remember teaching that lesson to the HP, and the resistance to the idea of grace was palpable.

So I agree. Mormons are not big fans of the idea that Jesus can help you. And I'm pretty sure, with all due respect to Robinson, it starts at the top.

[oliver_denom]

I agree, that we should not judge whether we are "Christian" by any other denominations definition of "Jesus".

But all the interfaith arguments aside, does what we actually teach in Sunday School really teach about Jesus and an atonement? Different discussion.

It doesn't help that the nature and character of Jesus wasn't really nailed down until James Talmage produced Jesus The Christ in 1915. If you read Joseph Smith, then you see a depiction of Jesus that's a lot like Joseph. Jesus is Smith's buddy, and sure he's a stickler for rules, but he also understands that there's a number of exceptions. Jesus condemns, but he's also really quick to forgive. Apologize in public, shake hands, and everything is fine.

Brigham Young's Jesus is the red robed, dipped in blood, bringer of death and destruction to anyone who isn't loyal and obedient. He'll take your wives and give them to another, teaches that capital punishment aids in the forgiveness process, and that the order of heaven is the greatest bureaucracy ever conceived. Yes, Jesus forgives, but only after his authorized servants sign off on it.

If you're a Hegelian, then you might see a thesis / antithesis thing going on. Talmage is the synthesis. He merged together all the different views on Jesus that he could find into a single narrative as best he could. Some doctrines like Adam / God were left behind, but others were preserved. For example, he includes a long chapter about the apostasy, an odd addition for a book about Jesus considering it covers a span of time where he's already resurrected and gone. The chapter belongs because his forgiveness is inextricably tied to restored priesthood authority.

So I'd say Mormonism may not believe in its earliest conceptions of Jesus, but it does embraced a synthesized view as it's been refined most recently through correlation. In Mormonism, Jesus is a judge you don't really want to approach without an advocate. You don't deal with the top guy in charge, you deal with his subordinates, just like when someone thinks its a good idea to write a letter to the president of the church. It gets sent back down the chain to your local priesthood authorities. Mormons believe in Jesus, they just don't have a relationship with him because he's administratively much higher up in the bureaucracy. Given that, it makes a lot more sense that Sundays are spent discussing priesthood more than Jesus, because that's what we deal with when repenting or finding out what's right and wrong. Jesus has little to do with it, that's been delegated.

[alas]

You would be hard-pressed to find a bishop or higher authority that ever repented of a "serious sin," as defined by the church. If excommunication really were the healing process that the church claims it is, you would see people moving on from it.

Personally, I think the main reason for requiring the confession of sexual sins is so that those called to prominent positions are less likely to have that type of skeleton in their closet. If the church knows who has been sleeping around, the leaders can make sure those people never get called to a position that could be even a little embarrassing later on.

I don't think that explanation really covers it. There is possibly some of that, but it is far from all of it. If that were the primary justification, why is so much of the focus on women? They'll never get a calling of bishop or above. It's even worse than that as you'll see from reading the accounts or innumerable others (such as alas's) that I somewhat overstated the case. Some people do apparently receive institutional forgiveness. But they're pretty much all men. And too many of them are given support or placed in positions that they really shouldn't receive. Lots of Sam's stories describe how the woman or girl received far harsher treatment. Even in cases of rape and child molestation. It's the men who more frequently receive lighter treatment and they're the only ones that could be eligible for those higher callings.

I've also never heard of a man being called to higher office who was asked to confess all of his prior sins upon receiving the call. It might happen, but I've never heard of it and it seems unlikely. At that point, he's being welcomed into the club and receiving the special privileges of that club. To maintain the purity of the club, his leaders will stand by him in the face of almost all allegations or complaints.

Interesting tangent on who is given institutional forgiveness. Embezzling tithing funds is not easily forgiven. Evil speaking of the Lords anointed is not easily forgiven by the church. Abuse of women or children, um...what sin? It is like sins against those with no power is no biggy, yet sins against those in power are huge. Consider the church's reaction if some guy gets through church security and punches the prophet in the face, compared to their indifference when a man punches his wife in the face. Since all humans are of equal worth to God, punching someone in the face is an equal sin, no matter who it is. But the church sure would not treat them as equal. They would have the prophet puncher in prison for assault and excommunicate him. They don't even slap the guy on the wrist. It would be an unusual bishop that would even pull the guy in to tell him not to do it again. Most would pat the little wifey on the head and send her home, if not telling her how it is really her fault. If the wife wants to press charges, the normal reaction is for the bishop to talk her out of it. In all of the battered women that I counseled with, none had support from her bishop with leaving the abuser, pressing charges, or staying in a shelter. Most were too busy supporting the abusive man who, poor thing, his wife was angry with him and kicked him out of the house and he had no where to go, so the bishop offered him a room at his own house. I had two cases of men who were abused by their wives, and the bishop in both cases was counseling the man to divorce, to press charges, to file for full custody of children. Even when the husband was protesting to me, (his counselor) that he wanted to save his marriage. The crime of one wife was mostly screaming and twice in their marriage she had thrown things. In both cases, the abuse of the husbands was much less than the broken ribs, broken arms, bruises, and years of weekly beatings that most of the women who came to the shelter were getting. So, once again, crimes up the power hierarchy were serious, while abuse of those with less power, were seen as no big deal. Back to old English common law where a man could beat his wife with his hands or a stick as big around as his thumb, and same for his children. In fact, the first charges in the US against a man who had beaten his children were filed under the laws for prevention for cruelty to animals. There were laws protecting dogs from beatings, but nothing protecting children from beatings.

[Jeffret]

The tribalism is a joke.

Yup, this!

Not too mention that Jesus was just another borrowed story/fable from previous gods of other cultures, all the way back to Horace, the "sun/son" of God of Egypt. If the Egyptians had managed to hang on to their roots and languages they would be looking at the entire Christian world and telling them their Horace could beat up our Jesus. Of course, the ten commandments movies solidified that the Egyptian gods were false and the one true God was the one, but this argument about any of these super natural beings has been going on through all of recorded history. Fortunately, I think science and education are beginning to make some headway now.

Agreed on both points, but I don't consider either point terribly relevant to my main point in this thread. The tribalism is only useful in regards to comparing how others view it to how Mormons do so that we can better understand the Mormon experience. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. To borrow a couple of different ideas: they are all wrong, they are all sinners, they all see through a glass darkly, they are all composed of imperfect people trying their best to make their way through life. But, by examining other's experiences we can hope to better understand ours.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God, whether he performed what is attributed to him, or whether he even existed is a tangential discussion, as far as I'm concerned. The concept of forgiveness or repentance is powerful and useful. It isn't owned by or exclusive to any particular religious or tribal group. It's central to many non-religious therapies or ideas. Particularly from the standpoint of forgiveness of one's self, which is one of the key aspects of the whole thing.

From my perspective, the connection with Jesus in this discussion is mostly in terms of metaphor. Much like the Jewish painter in Chaim Potok's "My Name is Asher Lev" who used Christ iconography as the central presentation of his piece, I use Jesus's Atonement as the metaphor for the concept. Particularly because within the Mormon context, this metaphor is known and at least intellectually understood.

My key question is whether Mormons actually believe what they claim to, whether they actually act as if this faith is motivating in their lives. I find that they don't in many ways.

[Jeffret]

(Full disclosure, for what it's worth: I think the best evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was originally notable among the minor influence he had but did not possess any special mystical or divine attributes.)

[Jeffret]

It is like sins against those with no power is no biggy, yet sins against those in power are huge.
...
So, once again, crimes up the power hierarchy were serious, while abuse of those with less power, were seen as no big deal.

This is a key observation.

Tie this in with oliver_denom's observation and we see that hierarchical authority is paramount within the Church. At best, Jesus comes in a distant second, but I'm not convinced he ranks that high.

[Jeffret]

I read an interesting blog post from the author of Believing Christ about reactions from his book. Here, if you're interested.

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/13/s…

What I found a tad unbelievable, is that Robinson claims that the doctrine of grace was warmly received by "the brethren," while the members had more of a hard time with it. While that's debatable, and I'm not going to call the guy a liar because clearly that was his experience, I have to admit I'm dubious given the lack of talks about the subject. The only talk I remember on the doctrine of grace was Utchdorf's talk on it a few years ago in conference (it was in the April 2015 session; if you're interested, look it up, it was actually one of the best talks of the last ten years.) I remember teaching that lesson to the HP, and the resistance to the idea of grace was palpable.

So I agree. Mormons are not big fans of the idea that Jesus can help you. And I'm pretty sure, with all due respect to Robinson, it starts at the top.

I accept that was the response that Robinson received, but the top leaders have done nothing to demonstrate that they actually believe it or that it is important to them. They're too worried about maintaining the institutional imperative, subordinating Jesus to a lesser role.

[dogbite]

Mormons believe in the Jesus they find in the scriptures, whether well represented there or not. Others believe in the Jesus they find therein. Jesus is endlessly interpretable.

[alas]

I read an interesting blog post from the author of Believing Christ about reactions from his book. Here, if you're interested.

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/13/s…

What I found a tad unbelievable, is that Robinson claims that the doctrine of grace was warmly received by "the brethren," while the members had more of a hard time with it. While that's debatable, and I'm not going to call the guy a liar because clearly that was his experience, I have to admit I'm dubious given the lack of talks about the subject. The only talk I remember on the doctrine of grace was Utchdorf's talk on it a few years ago in conference (it was in the April 2015 session; if you're interested, look it up, it was actually one of the best talks of the last ten years.) I remember teaching that lesson to the HP, and the resistance to the idea of grace was palpable.

So I agree. Mormons are not big fans of the idea that Jesus can help you. And I'm pretty sure, with all due respect to Robinson, it starts at the top.

The article you linked to was interesting. I think Mormons mostly misunderstand Jesus. And the general authorities promote this misunderstanding our current ....OK, choking on the word prophet..Company president is one of the worst offenders with his idea of God's conditional love for us. In that article, Robinson uses the example of the new mother who just gave birth and what she feels toward that newborn. It is pure unconditional love, because he is mine. That is how Robinson says God loves us, unconditionally, just because we belong to Him.

So, I agree, that the problem with misunderstanding grace starts at the top. And the one who liked Robinson's book, liked it because his daughter had worked as hard as she could, done all that she could do and it was NEVER going to be enough. Well, that was exactly how his wife had been feeling about God's love. Her "best", her "all she could do" was never going to be enough to please "Mormon God". The Mormon leaders like this helpless very helmed feeling because it keeps their little rats running on the wheel. But Robinson noticed how destructive this was, with his daughter he loved, and his wife falling into depression. No, God doesn't love us because we are obedient rats running on the wheel. He loves us because we are his.

Now, a better example than the bike story would be when the kid wants a bike and Dad is realistic about the idea that working for pennies will never get her a bike. All she would have to do is ask and acknowledge that she can never do it by herself. Save the frustration of working for pennies and the frustration of knowing she can never do it. Leave out the working for pennies and focus on the idea that God really does it all.

The Mormon misunderstanding comes from the fear that Jesus taught about with the story of the laborer who worked all day, compared to the ones hired at the 11th hour. They want more reward than those who are slackers. They misunderstand the story of the prodigal son.

Other Christians understand that faith without works is dead, because works are what demonstrates that love. But consider our human relationships. That mother who loves her baby, what if she said, well, I have done enough for this kid, and refuses to care for him. Does she love him? Nope. What if the mother is disabled and cannot care for the baby? Then the lack of care does not prove lack of love, where the other mother's CHOICE to not take care of him does prove lack of love. All that is required is love for God to accept us as his. But if we prove we do not love him by lack of good works, then we are not his because we choose not to love him. So, all that is essential is our love for God, but we can prove our lack of love.

[LaMachina]

I hate the argument that Mormons don't believe in Jesus for many of the reasons already touched on (including by yourself Jeffret) but I'll try to flesh out my position. I'll start by saying I agree with everyone's criticisms of Mormon hierarchy, mormon interviews, mormon positions on sex (missionary??) etc.

Does Jesus demand obedience? I'd argue clearly and unequivocally he does. In order to be a follower of Jesus he demanded obedience. Mormons exercise faith, not by vocally or internally declaring allegiance but by demonstrating that allegiance through obedience. Hence the very mormon position of "we are saved by grace after all we can do".

This position definitely runs contrary to some of Pauline Christianity but does it run contrary to Jesus? Possibly. But like others have said, Jesus is pretty easy to fit into all sorts of boxes. Personally I find the mormon view of grace to be very well in line with things Jesus is purported to have said. He demanded action, he demanded contrition on repentance and he demanded evidence that you had changed your ways otherwise you were not of him. I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

Of course, the question then becomes how to do we demonstrate obedience to Jesus when he's not to be found anywhere. Do you go just be what's written in the bible, a book collected long after he's been dead and rife for differences in interpretation? Or do you follow leaders who purport to have been called by him or represent him in some way? Or do you go by whatever voices you hear in your own head? Every option has some pros and cons. Mormons have made their choice.

[Corsair]

I read an interesting blog post from the author of Believing Christ about reactions from his book. Here, if you're interested.

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/13/s…

What I found a tad unbelievable, is that Robinson claims that the doctrine of grace was warmly received by "the brethren," while the members had more of a hard time with it.

I accept that was the response that Robinson received, but the top leaders have done nothing to demonstrate that they actually believe it or that it is important to them. They're too worried about maintaining the institutional imperative, subordinating Jesus to a lesser role.

I have talked with Wendy Montgomery of the Mama Dragons. She has met with apostles one on one hoping to produce a change in the culture of the LDS church around LGBT youth. Her experience was similar to Brother Robinson's. The apostles will warmly receive your message and say nice things, but little will actually change.

Jesus said a lot about grace and virtually nothing about LGBT issues. The LDS church has taken the opposite approach by talking a lot about LGBT issues and not too much about grace.