My fellow Evangel blogger John Mark Reynolds has a piece up at the Washington Post On Faith blog about Mormonism and the challenges its practitioners face in the political arena. In the post, he notes that the LDS church upholds many virtues that are beneficial to the republic, while its “theological vices” are not threatening to the community. I don’t take issue, really, with any of this. Certainly, it is true that the LDS church cherishes America and wishes it well. It is also true that the LDS church has nurtured a number of outstanding citizens. Tangentially (very tangentially), one of the best lines in the piece is where Reynolds notes that the media is highly aware of Glenn Beck’s Mormon faith and amnesic with regard to Harry Reid’s.
However, I think much of the concern with the public perception of the Mormon church is misplaced with regard to politics. Being Mormon is probably not as heavily disabling a factor as many think it is. I know many will point to Mitt Romney’s run for president in 2008 as proof of anti-LDS bias, but too much may have been made of it. Mitt Romney had several pretty serious problems facing him in the presidential primary.
First, he ran for president as the one term governor of Massachusetts. It does not inspire confidence when a governor holds office for one term, declares victory, and abdicates for a presidential run. This is especially true when one suspects he would not have been able to win a second term. That, of course, is not Mitt Romney’s fault. It is Massachusetts’ fault, but it still reflects badly on him as a political champion.
Second, Romney conducted his campaigns for office (senator and governor, unsuccessful and successful) in Massachusetts and thus had to run away from the kind of conservative image that attracts voters in many other parts of the country. Opponents could point to archival evidence of Romney distancing himself from Reagan’s legacy, for example, and making statements in sympathy with the pro-choice position.
Third, Romney’s crowning achievement as governor of Massachusetts was presiding over a comprehensive health care reform effort which required individuals to purchase health insurance. Setting arguments about federalism and the appropriateness of states doing such a thing versus the federal government doing it aside, that kind of gubernatorial activity did not create the strongest foundation for a Romney primary run in ’08.
All of this is to say that being a member of the LDS church was probably not Mitt Romney’s biggest problem as a politician running in conservative primaries.
February 14th, 2011 | 10:52 am | #1
Respectfully, Dr. Baker, I have to disagree. Conservative evangelicals have spent a generation explaining to their congregations that Mormons are a cult – I find it highly unlikely that these same evangelicals will support Mitt Romney in large numbers. Furthermore, what remains of the old yellow dog Democrats coalition in the South will exploit that point to no end should Romney make waves in next spring’s primaries.
February 14th, 2011 | 10:59 am | #2
The problem with a Mormon running for public office is not within the political sphere itself. It is in the spillover of the public understanding of Christianity. The LDS insistence on referring to its own theology as Christian, is detrimental to the public’s understanding of Orthodox Christianity. If a Jewish politician, or a Buddhist, Hindu, or even an atheist were to run, this would not be a problem, but in the process of claiming the Christian label in the public square, Christianity becomes redefined along moralistic, rather than metaphysical terms.
February 14th, 2011 | 11:21 am | #3
Add the previous comment to my original one. That’s the most important problem with supporting Romney for a Christian, in my opinion.
February 14th, 2011 | 12:52 pm | #4
If conservatives find it hard to control the religious divisiveness within their base, their problem is entirely self-inflicted. They’ve essentially made the open display of evangelical Christian faith a job requirement.
Time to back peddle.
February 14th, 2011 | 1:29 pm | #5
If liberals find it hard to control the secular divisiveness within their base, their problem is entirely self-inflicted.
Time to move forward anyways.
February 14th, 2011 | 3:51 pm | #6
The second point was put very mildly. He was as liberal as Ted Kennedy (his Senate opponent) on a number of key issues. My personal litmus test in the GOP primary is this: If my 11 year-old daughter has been pro-life longer than the candidate then I can’t support him.
I’d be very interested in supporting him if he proved himself genuine at a lower office level. He should run for Senate in Utah.
I think there is a combination of his extreme and dramatic shift on important policy issues and his faith. The history of mormonism is marked by major changes and shifts in beliefs. Ever tried to witness to one that came to your door? They will tell you anything and deny anything. How do we know Romney is now genuine on policy? I’d happily support a Mormon for president if he had a track record in office of consistency.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:10 pm | #7
Dr. Baker,
Very good post and I think a very solid observation. I agree with just about everything your post said. I think that being a Mormon was one of the lesser challenges that he faced regarding his campaign. From my political analysis, it appears that religion often doesn’t play much of a role in voter support unless it seems to play much of a role in their political philosophy. I would support your observation about Harry Reid, the fact that he is a Mormon is rarely acknowledged in his political ventures because it seems to rarely influence his political ideologies.
I think that for the most part this is true to Romney. For the most part, the only aspect of Mormonism that seems to really have an influence on his political ideology is the general conservative nature of his beliefs. However, the general conservative beliefs are also found with evangelical Christian candidates. So it appears to me that there is nothing about Mitt Romney’s political philosophy that is uniquely Mormon.
I think that most voters are at least able to understand that as far as politicians go, their religious roots don’t play much of a role in their political philosophy anymore. After all, many evangelical Christian candidates advocate for laws that seem to completely contradict values of their religion. Obviously, there are those who are not able to understand this.
Of course, there are those like me who believe that theological and political views should not necessarily contradict, and that politics doesn’t exist in a a vacuum. However, this is irrelevant to the fact that Romney had nothing (or at least very little) about his political campaign that was distinctly Mormon.
I personally missed the polls, however I would have gladly pulled the lever for Romney over McCain. Someone pointed out LDS not being static on their policies and doctrines. True as this may be, I don’t think that Romney was wishy washy on his political campaign because he was a Mormon, but rather because he was politician. I would argue that McCain was just was hesitant to be pinned down onto one view and went back and forth just as much if not more than Romney. Yet, McCain had no Mormon background.
I would have to agree with Dr. Baker that Romney’s troubles came from politics, not religion.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:51 am | #8
I still disagree – evangelicals have been told, sometimes with rather blut instruction, that Mormonism is a cult; a false religion. How then are they to vote for one its adherents for President?
Different denominations are one thing – even Catholicism is palatable. But something that is considered a cult? That’s a far thing, indeed.
I’m not saying it’s right, mind you, but I do think this will be the situation on the ground, and it will take colossal blunders by President Obama for Mitt Romney to unseat him.
February 15th, 2011 | 11:42 am | #9
The odds are against Mitt Romney of even winning the GOP primary in 2012.
February 15th, 2011 | 1:41 pm | #10
MRS,
Than I suppose I agree to disagree. I too have been told that Mormonism is a cult. But literally speaking, every religion that is not Christianity should be considered a cult (they center their lives and worship an idol or false god). But that’s another topic. I stand by my point that most voters are able to understand that since there is nothing distinctly Mormon about Romney’s political thesis, the fact that he is a Mormon (or part of a cult) has really to relevance to his presidency.
Regardless, I understand your point. This discussion is mostly speculation anyway, so only time will tell.
February 15th, 2011 | 5:10 pm | #11
You and I may feel that way, but I fear that the, um, old folks, won’t be so discerning.
February 15th, 2011 | 9:26 pm | #12
MRS: As someone who comes from a family (although I haven’t been a mormon believer for several years) of mormons, I want to make it as clear as possible: Mormonism, is not, repeat, is NOT a cult! It’s a religion, like any other. Disagree with it, until the cows come home, but don’t call it a cult, because it’s not, and to do so, makes evangelicals, and other Christians, who share this “cult” view, look quite uneducated.
February 16th, 2011 | 1:23 am | #13
Bret,
How do you define a cult?
February 16th, 2011 | 3:49 am | #14
Bret,
Volk beat me to the punch. It is a good question. Cult is often an ambiguous term that is often used but not properly understood, so I am also curious to hear what you would define as a cult. You seem to make the connection that just because something is a religion, it must not be a cult, but such a statement requires an understanding of what qualifies as a cult, otherwise it’s simply an argument of semantics.
I also come from a family of Mormon background. My entire father’s side (which is stereotypically large) is both LDS and FLDS. My great uncle and his three wives are part of the FLDS and my great uncle was part of the hierarchy (for lack of a better term) in Warren Jeff’s—well since you don’t want to call it a cult, you can fill in the blank. But, since the FBI didn’t look too kindly on the group and after the arrest of Jeff’s, my uncle has been underground ever since. So I have a lot of experience with Mormons and their beliefs, practices, and doctrines of both the LDS and FLDS.
I am curious to what you define as a cult. If it is anything like the common criteria, it’s likely going to be ambiguous. I hope this isn’t the case, and that you don’t get too hung up over technical definitions, but rather you look at the matter from a more ontological standpoint.
February 16th, 2011 | 3:56 am | #15
MRS,
This much may be true, however I don’t think that the democratic vote will gain much of the elderly vote regardless of the republican candidate. If the elderly vote is not discerning about Romney’s political view vs. his religious views, than they probably only think “Democrats passed health-care, which cut medicare, so I’m voting republican”
Again, all speculation.
February 16th, 2011 | 9:26 pm | #16
Livingston Dell: Good comments.
Nickolai Volk: Mormonism is a religion. I believe that it’s a Christian religion. I disagree with its version of Christianity, but it meets the definition just fine. You can disagree, based on your belief (I’m presuming) of the Trinity, and mormonism’s rejection of the latter. But you cannot legitimately disagree that mormonism is a religion. It clearly meets all the criteria for the latter. It does not, however, meet any of the criteria for being a “cult”, and to insist otherwise, makes one appear, well, silly.
February 16th, 2011 | 9:28 pm | #17
Livingston Dell: i think a cult is a group, that’s attempting to manipulate, and brainwash its followers. Also, it tends to isolate members, from nonmembers, and try to stigmitize the latter.
February 16th, 2011 | 10:05 pm | #18
“I think a cult is a group, that’s attempting to manipulate, and brainwash its followers. Also, it tends to isolate members, from nonmembers, and try to stigmitize the latter.”
I suppose that definition is true to an extent; the term “cult” has lost much of its denotational value and instead accrued substantial pejorative value. However, I do not find this to be the proper definition of a cult; a cult has generally been defined as a religious group with highly unorthodox practices/views that vary far from the mainstream.
I was only asking your definition of a cult because I was curious how you judged Mormonism, not because I assume Mormonism is a cult. I don’t think it is. It is a religion; one that I disagree with, but one nonetheless a religion.
Oh, and by the way, if we take this
Also, it tends to isolate members, from nonmembers, and try to stigmitize the latter.
to be an essential part of the definition of “cult,” then every religion is a cult.
February 17th, 2011 | 1:33 am | #19
Bret,
I suppose that is a better definition than is usually provided, and to an extent I agree with you. Mormon’s (or at least LDS) aren’t usually what one would consider a cult. Do I think they are Christian? No. But that’s another topic of discussion.
My view on what is considered a cult is a little different. My view is a little more ontological and I suppose takes in a larger picture.
I will say that FLDS is a cult. Especially considering the definition you provided. When you look at the LDS compared to the FLDS, FLDS is a lot closer to the laws and doctrine that were set forth by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. So although LDS doesn’t quite constitute as a cult (by your definition), I believe that the Mormon roots are very much a cult.
February 17th, 2011 | 3:01 am | #20
Nikolai Volk: thanks for your comments. I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said the word “cult” “accrued substantial pejoritive value”.
My guess is that, the principal reason that many Christians refer to mormonism as a “cult”, is to attach a pejorative label to mormonism, and, if so, that’s very unfortunate, even desperate. Mormonism is a religion, one can argue that it’s “false”, or “true”, but it really fits nicely into the definition of a religion. The doctrines may seem strange, to many, but if one grew up in mormonism, they tend to not have this mysterious, cultish strangeness, to them. They’re just mormon doctrines, that one can argue for or against.
You state that, a cult can be defined as a religion that has unorthodox practices, and views that vary from the mainstream. True, and of course, Christianity, when it originally emerged over two thousand years ago, would therefore fit this definition of a “cult”.
Some may, understandably, argue that, because I grew up mormon, and have many family members, who I love, very much, who are mormons, that I cannot have an objective view, of mormonism.
But sometimes if one grows up in a religion, and subsequently rejects it, as I have with mormonism, one can show that the religion is not strange, and quite similar to mainstream Christianity, at least with respect to practices, is concerned.
My point is, that mormonism certainly should be respectfully criticised, like any other belief system (including mainstream Christianity), but refering to it as a cult, is a cheap, low blow, that has no correspondence to the truth, of what mormonism really is.
February 17th, 2011 | 3:12 am | #21
Livinston Dell: Thanks for your comments. I do believe that mormonism (mainstream mormonism; I cannot speak for FLDS, or any other branches, of mormonism, since I know little about them), is Christian. I disagree with its version, of Christianity, but it fits well, with, say, pretrinitarian christianity, or what was believed by many Christians, prior to the emperor Constantine’s creation of the council of Nicaea. But you’re right, in that that’s a discussion for another time (and I’m sure it will come up again, and again, and again).
February 17th, 2011 | 9:45 am | #22
Bret,
“pretrinitarian Christianity”??? — please explain as in my view (which I believe comports with historic Christian orthodoxy in this case) there is no such thing. There is Christianity (which is by definition trinitarian from the beginning) and there is heresy and there are other religions.
Which leads to a second question. You seem to be saying at one and the same time that Mormonism is both a variant of Christianity (like Presbyterianism?) ~and~ a different religion. It surely cannot be both. It is, in the view of most major Christian denominations (including the liberal PC(USA) of which I am a conservative member) not a Christian faith.
February 17th, 2011 | 3:53 pm | #23
Pastor C.,
Glad to see you’re safely back from your trip to Nicaragua. I pray it was full of blessing, my friend. I’m glad you raised your question, as I too, was a bit puzzled over Bret’s statement and opinion of Christian history.
Bret my friend,
Please clarify how Christianity was pre-trinitarian before the council of Nicea if you could.
Blessings.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:10 pm | #24
Thanks Steve, awesome trip — got back Saturday. Learned lots and came back much renewed and excited about the work I saw being done in Christ’s name down there.
Appreciate the kind words.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:14 pm | #25
Pastor C.,
‘And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!”‘ (Rom.10:14, 15).
February 18th, 2011 | 2:39 am | #26
david c.: my use of the term “pretrinitarian christianity”, was/is meant to denote the period prior to the offical trinity doctrine being decided upon, at the council of Nicaea. Certainly, prior to the latter, there was more diversity of thought, concerning Jesus, the son’s, relation to the father. Certainly, most Christians, prior to the council, accepted the “trinity”, in the sense that there was the father, son and holy spirit, but not in the sense that they were all of one substance, which was my point of using the phrase “pretrinitarian christianity”. I should have clarified that better.
But I suspect that some Christians have a slightly “ahistorical” view, of how Christianity developed. there really was deversity, in terms of how to understand Jesus, and His relation to the Father, prior to the council of nicaea. Mormonism fits within this group, of christians, who existed, prior to the Nicene Creed’s formulation (conceptually, obviously not historically).
Mormonism, is my view, is a religion, specifically a type of christianity. Why? Because, and some people seem uninformed here, they accept all of the New Testament. They believe in all of the miracles, and that Christ died for our sins. This seems to me to be the crucial, essential element, in whether a religion is christian, or not. does it accept the New Testament, and that Jesus died for us, and was resurrected, on the third day? If so, it’s christian. Maybe not the correct form of christianity, but still christian.
February 18th, 2011 | 2:49 am | #27
Steve Drake: It’s good to talk to you again! I hope all is well with you!
I think maybe my comments to david c., clarified my view, but let me add something else. If whether one believes the nicene creed, is the crterion, for determining whether one or a group, is “Christian” or not, then, logically, all the people, who professed faith in Christ, prior to circa 325 A.D., are not christian. Did all of Jesus’s followers, understand the concept of the Father, son, and Holy spirit, being of one substance, when they followed Him, when He was on earth?
A clear distinction, has to be made between being “Christian”, and “Fully Christian”. Mormons meet the standard for the former, but not the latter, by virtue of their acceptance of the old and new testaments, just as those, who lived prior to the council of nicaea, are chriastian, but, not fully christian.
February 18th, 2011 | 2:50 am | #28
Bret,
Since you jumped into the issue, I suppose I will comment.
To clarify, Mormon’s believe in the new testament “insofar as it is translated correctly”. In other words, Joseph Smith changed the Bible after he realized that there were several verses that contradicted the Book of Mormon, including an extra verse in Genesis 50 that predicted his own coming.
Second, why is what defines Christianity? You made a claim with no justification, why is the belief that you presented what defines Christianity? It seemed to be an arbitrary criteria that you set forth.
On a further note, I have a question: Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet? Or even Brigham Young as well as the other Mormon declared “prophets” on which the religion is based. And yes, I say the religion is based because the religion claims the ability to change or ignore verses from it’s sacred texts and former prophets as long as the most recent prophet denies it.
February 18th, 2011 | 3:14 am | #29
Livingston Dell: I believe that what seperates a christian religion, from a nonchristian religion, is the acceptance of the new testament. Why? Because it supplies all the essential componants of christian beliefs. If it wasn’t enough, why didn’t God have the nicene creed formulated while Christ was on the earth, or soon thereafter? The new testament seemed to be enough to allow the Christ followers, who lived for almost three hundred years, to be sufficeintly christian.
I’m not implying that the Nicence creed, and subsequent creeds, are superfluous. They’re very important. But if they make up the essence, of christianity, it seems odd that God would not have commanded their formulation (at least the nicene creed) at the time the New Testament was written.
The “Mormon New Testament”, is almost indistinguishable from its protesant counterpart editions. Indeed, it’s largely the King James version. Joseph Smith made incidental changes.
I’m not an apologist, for mormonism, and thought I made it clear, that I’m no longer (for many years, actually) believer in it. Therefore, of course, I don’t believe that smith or Young were prophets. But I don’t believe the rather fanciful view, of some, that they were inspired by the devil, or evil. No, I think if one understands their lives, and the intellectual and religious climite that they lived in, their views are understandable.
February 18th, 2011 | 3:38 am | #30
Bret, the reason that I asked about Joseph Smith is because the Bible is very clear on following false prophets. The reason I have a problem with the assertion that Mormons are Christian are because although they accept the new testament, they additionally follow false prophets and they add to God’s word. Since the Book of Mormon, the staple of the religion, is based purely on a supposed translation from Joseph Smith, who we know is a false prophet, we must realize that although it contains Christian aspects, it claims to have authority from God that they do not actually have. I would call this deep heresy against the Bible. The Bible is very clear that those who follow a false prophet and add to God’s word NOT followers of God.
So although they may fit your technical term “Christian”, I still would not consider their religion the same as mine.
February 18th, 2011 | 3:55 am | #31
Livingston, that doesn’t mean that the bible was talking about Smith, and Young. That’s your interpretation. You may be right, or wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily follow. It would also seem to imply that the pope (I’m assuming you’re a protestant, of some form?) is a false prophet, as well. The Book of Mormon, doesn’t really contain anything that contradicts, the Bible, from what I’ve studied. Of course, this is a distinct question, from whether the book of mormon is true, which I do not believe.
I am more than a little reticent to say who’s a “real” follower of God.
February 18th, 2011 | 3:57 am | #32
Also, Livingston, since any christian demonination, that you don’t belong to, would by definition, not be your religion, are you prepared to place them, in the same false category, as mormonism?
February 18th, 2011 | 4:01 am | #33
In addition, I see your point about the Nicene creed, but I get the impression that you think the Nicene creed was an additional doctrine that supplemented the Bible. I feel this would be an incorrect depiction of the Nicene creed. The purpose of the Nicene creed was to protect the church and the truth of the good news from heresy that was running rampant (likely the “pretrinitarian” Christians that you mentioned). The Nicene creed is not an addition to the New Testament, but instead a clarification if it’s values.
As I’ve pointed out earlier, even ignoring the Nicene Creed, Mormonism has all of the markings of a false religion and a heresy that is warned against in the Bible.
Again, we can argue about semantics concerning the word Christian all day long, but ontologically, the religion is not the same as mine, and frankly I don’t consider those who follow a religion that follows false prophets, false texts, and a polytheistic god to be fellow believers. Acceptance of the New Testament must also include the acceptance of the Old, considering that the New Testament asserts the validation of the Old Testament. Though Old Testament laws were fulfilled through Christ, the Old Testament still contains ontological truths about God, one of which is monotheism.
I would argue that simple claiming of the New Testament as sacred is trivial when the religion frankly defiles the truths of said text through heresy and also claims to have the authority of God (which the prophets do).
Once again, technically “Christian”, but I refute the idea that Mormons are fellow believers in the same or religion, or the same God for that matter, that I believe in and that the Bible preaches.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:16 am | #34
Livingston, you’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think it’s possible to disagree with mormonism, and do it respectfully. I know you think that you’re speaking the truth, and you must do that, because that’s what God wants of you. I respect that. But I think that it’s helpful to understand WHY and HOW different religions, mormonism especially, arose, and to empathetically understand.
Empathy, it seems to me, to be an essential precurser to fully understanding, a religion. Not agreeing with it, but understanding why people, of good will, and normal intellect, would choose something that I would not.
Of course, one could argue why God did not just provide the Nicene Creed, three hundred years earlier, and save the heretical problems from arising. But you’re right, I do think that the Nicene Creed is an addition. Historically, it makes much more sense.
February 18th, 2011 | 8:34 am | #35
Earlier, Sarah J. Flashing posted an article titled “Evangelicalism: What’s In a Name?” So now we see a debate break out over whether the Mormon religion can be classified and defined as a Christian religion.
Mormons want the word or term Christian to be identified with them. Generally, Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxers don’t want to extend the word or term Christian to Mormons.
What I’m learning is that fighting for language, fighting for words, fighting for definitions, fighting for meaning, fighting for objective meaning … really, really matters!
Eg., the fight over the term or word or concept of marriage.
Linguistic or semantic fisticuffs is necessary, and dare I say it, even good.
Look at the fights over the Bible and what it means, what the original authors mean, what the proper hermeneutic is, and on and on and on.
Shepherds and wolves have to fight. True shepherds and false shepherds have to fight. Fighting is okay. Have you ever heard the phrase: “Fight the Good Fight”?
February 18th, 2011 | 9:52 am | #36
Dear Bret,
Thank you for your clarification. I think one must also understand the nature of mankind to fall into heresy, Bret. Or to substitute and worship the created thing/creature for the Creator (Rom. 1:25). To twist Scripture for his(man’s) own ends.
This is an ongoing struggle even today, and church history has been replete with these struggles to preserve the tradition handed down by the apostles. Mormonism worships a false God, Jehovah’s Witnesses worship a false God, Islam worships a false God, the list goes on and on. We can rightly have compassion for the individual caught up in the lies of Satan, (all false religions or philosophical beliefs are lies of Satan), have empathy for their situation, and speak truth in love to them as the Lord enables, but we are remiss if we do not condemn or point out the underlying false presuppositions upon which these lies are built.
February 18th, 2011 | 10:29 am | #37
“speak truth in love to them as the Lord enables, but we are remiss if we do not condemn or point out the underlying false presuppositions upon which these lies are built.”
Quite right, Steve Drake.
“remiss if we do not condemn”
Imagine that. Failure to condemn can be wrong.
But condemning will hurt some people’s feelings.
“point out the underlying false presuppositions upon which these lies are built.”
Pointing out lies requires a judgment that a lie has been made.
But pointing out that a person believes a lie or is spreading a lie will hurt some people’s feelings.
——
Hmmmm… So if you speak the truth in love when condemning something that needs to be condemned or if you speak the truth in love about a soul-destroying lie and the person’s feelings are still hurt anyways because you spoke the loving truth in love, well should you regret speaking the truth in love because hurt feelings resulted? And to refrain from speaking truth in love in the future because feelings were hurt from before and hurt feelings are likely to occur again when some people hear truth in love?
If we look to Jesus and other major figures in the Bible, did they ever hurt people’s feelings while speaking the truth in love? If people’s feelings were hurt, did it stop them from speaking the truth in love?
February 18th, 2011 | 12:41 pm | #38
Bret,
I apologize for the staggered comments, I post before I am finished thinking (debate habits).
To answer the first counterfactual about the Pope, I would say that there are a couple huge difference between the Pope and Joseph Smith that makes this counterfactual and incorrect comparison. First, let me clarify what I mean when I use the term “prophet”. I am referring to someone who claims to brings a public revelation from God. So for obvious reasons, this doesn’t apply to the Pope considering that the Pope doesn’t claim to have a public Revelation, and in fact the Church believes that the last public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Second, I believe message that the Pope preaches is actually a Biblical one, and that the Pope speaks Biblical truths. Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s teachings contradict the Bible (and I’ll address the BoM later). Third, the Pope never claims to add to the Bible or God’s word, his claims have always been about Biblical and spiritual interpretation. This is obviously different than Joseph Smith who claimed to have an entirely new gospel.
To answer the second counterfactual about the different denomination being different religions, there is once a gain a stark difference that does not make LDS comparable to other denominations. Like the Pope, other denominations don’t claim to have a new gospel and new sacred texts or renewed laws from God (past the NT). The same can’t be said for LDS who assert that they have the new gospel that Jesus gave to the Nephites. Additionally, LDS claims to have an additional sacred text (three more to be technical) that they believe was new law given to them by God through Joseph Smith. Denominations have only ever claimed to have the correct interpretation of the New Testament, not to have an entirely new gospel.
Livingston, that doesn’t mean that the bible was talking about Smith, and Young. That’s your interpretation. You may be right, or wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.
I believe, and most Biblical scholars would agree, that this verse is giving a universal statement and warning against false prophets, which you agreed Joseph Smith was. If this is the answer we are supposed to accept when referring to Biblical interpretation than scholarly studies and rational discussions aren’t even necessary. Could I be wrong about my belief in God? Yes, theoretically. However I have faith and a rational and educated understanding of the existence of God so I believe that Christianity contains truth. The same logic follows for Biblical interpretation. I really don’t find any logical reason you provided to understand that verses warning against false prophets DON’T actually warn against false prophets. If the answer to every Biblical interpretation is “Well that’s just your opinion” than talks about scripture are hardly edifying.
The Book of Mormon, doesn’t really contain anything that contradicts, the Bible, from what I’ve studied.
If this is the case than I recommend an even further study. Contradictions between the BoM are common and vast. After personally reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon that was given to me by my grandmother (member of the LDS) the contradictions are not hard to find, especially for someone like you.
Bret, with all due respect (and believe me I DO respect you, I applaud your intellectual ventures) I feel that I have an understanding of the Mormon religion and it’s roots. I’ve had interviews with several members of the LDS and I’ve read most (except the entire Pearls of Great price) of the LDS holy texts as well as done extensive research on the history of the LDS church. Obviously, I feel empathy for my family who I feel is lost and it hurts me deeply to think that they worship a false god and follow false prophets. However, I don’t feel that saying that they are not Christian is not having empathy for my family. This isn’t an attack on Mormons or their intentions. I’ve never met a Mormon that intended to harm me, and of course my family that is Mormon is very loving and I cherish them. But Steve has a point, though I love my family I cannot ignore the falsehoods of their religion. The reason that I have trouble with Mormon’s being “Christians” is because we believe that Christianity is true, and that Mormonism is false. Christianity worships God, whom I believe is the true and only God. Yet, Mormon’s preach a different gospel and a different god that is based on false teachings from a false prophet. So to say that Christianity=Truth and that Mormonism=False teachings and then to say that Mormonism=Christianity seems to be a problem with me.
I respect and appreciate the discussion with you Bret, thank you.
February 18th, 2011 | 1:41 pm | #39
Bret,
With respect, I believe that the term “pretrinitarian christianity” is an oxymoron used by the heterodox and heresiarchs to justify a situation that never existed. You seem to be asserting that it took the Council of Nicea to get Christians to firmly commit to the Trinitarian formulation of the Godhead . That’s ahistorical and inaccurate. From it’s inception, grounded in Jesus and the teaching of the apostles, Christianity was trinitarian. That was the baseline and we can see it reflected in the earliest creedal formulations — both in scripture and in the church. Was there “diversity of thought, concerning Jesus, the son’s, relation to the father” — certainly but that is a far cry from something we could call “pretrinitarian christianity”. Non (rather than “pre” as there was never such a thing) trinitarian “christianity” is better understood in Christian history as heresy or subchristian belief. Arians, gnostics, docetists, marcionites etc. all were identified as such (rather than as non-trintiarian “christians”) for the very reason that belief in the Trinity is an essential and irreducible component of any faith that wants to be understood as Christian.
Thus Mormons are not “Christians”. Neither are Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians — despite the fact that they may share some sacred texts and theological terminology with Christianity.
It may be that many Mormons consider themselves Christians. I know for a fact that many Mormons are wonderful people, caring, compassionate, responsible, great family life, etc etc etc. But what one thinks or how one lives is not the essential question. The essential question was put to Peter and the disciples (and by extension is put to us) by Jesus “Who do you say I am?” Unless one is prepared to say “You are the Christ, the Son of God” and mean it literally (rather than meaning “you are one of many Christs and many sons of God”) then one cannot claim to be a Christian.
I know that may sound judgmental, or intolerant, I don’t intend it to be. I just think we do not serve anyone well by categorizing what are in fact different faiths under the same banner. When we try to reduce the irreducible we end up with something that looks like, well (to borrow Christian Smith’s term of art) moralistic therapeutic deism….
February 18th, 2011 | 1:48 pm | #40
FWIW, if the choice was between Obama and Romney in 2012, and given that Obama is a professing Liberal Christian and Romney is Mormon, I’d vote for Romney as a conservative Christian.
February 18th, 2011 | 1:51 pm | #41
Bret,
You claim analogizing Mormons to “pretrinitarian Christianity” (whatever that means) would make sense if….Mormons existed during that time. But, they didn’t. Mormons came quite a long time after the initial Christianity, so acting as if their interpretation of Scripture was no different than those Early Church ideas is pretty nonsensical. The beliefs of Mormons are nothing like the beliefs of the Doecitists, the Arians, or any of the other early church heresies.
February 18th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #42
“speak truth in love to them as the Lord enables, but we are remiss if we do not condemn or point out the underlying false presuppositions upon which these lies are built.”
Quite right, Steve Drake.
“remiss if we do not condemn”
Imagine that. Failure to condemn can be wrong.
But condemning will hurt some people’s feelings.
“point out the underlying false presuppositions upon which these lies are built.”
Pointing out lies requires a judgment that a lie has been made.
But pointing out that a person believes a lie or is spreading a lie will hurt some people’s feelings.
——
Hmmmm… So if you speak the truth in love when condemning something that needs to be condemned or if you speak the truth in love about a soul-destroying lie and the person’s feelings are still hurt anyways because you spoke the loving truth in love, well should you regret speaking the truth in love because hurt feelings resulted? And to refrain from speaking truth in love in the future because feelings were hurt from before and hurt feelings are likely to occur again when some people hear truth in love?
If we look to Jesus and other major figures in the Bible, did they ever hurt people’s feelings while speaking the truth in love? If people’s feelings were hurt, did it stop them from speaking the truth in love?
February 18th, 2011 | 10:53 pm | #43
Mormons’ theology is based on First Century Christianity, not Fourth Century Creeds. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views on Baptism, Lay Ministry, the Trinity, Theosis, Grace vs. Works, the Divinity of Jesus Christ comport more closely with Early Christianity than any other denomination. And Mormons’ teenagers have been judged to “top the charts” in Christian Characteristics by a UNC-Chapel Hill study. Read about it here:
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
Those who would denigrate the Mormon religion, usually are mis-informed.
Mormons have a better understanding of Christianity than any other denomination, according to a 2010 Pew Forum poll:
http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians. Those who insist on their narrow definition of Christianity are doing our Republic an injustice.
By their logic these Founders would be ineligible for public office today.
February 19th, 2011 | 3:38 am | #44
Steve Drake: thanks for your helpful comments. I don’t believe in mormonism, and I hope that I’ve been clear on that. My argument, is whether or not mormonism can legitimately claim to be “Christian”. This is entirely distinct, from whether it’s fully true. I think we can agree that truth can be found in many, unexpected areas? And, even though we find truth, in these unexpected areas, that does not commit us to endorsing the view that, the whole unexpected area is true?
For example, I’m against abortion. But I certainly find some things, done, or advocted, by Planned Parenthood( PP),to be good, such as their information about women’s diseases, on their website? It would be false, for me to assert that PP is entirely bad, even though, of course, it’s bad in its support of abortion.
Similarly, mormonism, states that Jesus Christ died, and was ressurrected, for our sins. It advocates a complete acceptance of the supernatural, and indeed, with the exception minor, technical changes, by mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, the same new testament, as the one read by protestants (most anyway) today. One can, as I do, reject the additional scriptures, of mormonism, and the theological explanation of God the father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and therefore rightly conclude that mormonism, as a whole, is incorrect, but if it accepts the New Testament, and what Christ did, then I’m going to say it’s in a qualified sense, a Christian religion.
I’sn’t this what you, and others do, with respect, to Christian demoninations, that you believe are not fully true? You accept that Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodox, are Christian, but not fully true, and they would feel the same, with respect to your particular demonination? And, why do you do this? Why not say that they’re not really christian, since, from your standpoint, they don’t fully represent the truth?
I think you do it, for similar conceptual reasons, that I do, in “allowing” mormonism, although not fully true, to be still considered Christian: they accept the new testament, and the church councils, concerning the Trinity. But, I humbly submit, that making the “cutoff point”, for being christian, the councils, is arbitrary. They’re refinements, on the fundamental Christian message, contained in the new testament; very important ones, no doubt. But the basics, of Christ, and what He did, and represents, are in the New Testament, and if a person, or group, accepts that, I’m prepared to call them “Christian”.
These belief systems, are positioned, on a spectrum: depending on one’s demonination, one will naturally put one’s own, in the “full Christian/truth, class, but, in general, it’s fair to argue that, Catholicism, eastern orthodox, protestantism, in its various forms, share more of a “family resemblance” (to borrow phrase coined by the philosopher, Wittgenstein, in a different context), and mormonism, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnessess, less, but they all share one, crucial element: belief in the supernatural, saving power of Christ, as represented, in the new testament.
I certainly understand the need for truth, but, from your standpoint, wouldn’t it be more consistent, to assert that, ANY demonination different from your own (which makes sense, obviously, we all believe that are own particular brand is the correct one, otherwise we wouldn’t belong to it! that’s not a sign of arrogance, just sanity!) is not really christian, because it doesn’t have the full truth of Christ. It may be closer, than mormonism, but, closeness doesn’t cut it. If someone “almost” finishes the race, we still, rightly say he didn’t finish it. Similarly, if Eastern Orthodox, is very close to full christianity, it’s still not fully christian, from the protestant standpoint. Mormonism, to continue the race analogy, might just be half way through the race, so it cannot be said to finish the race, but it’s still in the same category as the eastern orthodox, that went 95% of the way. Both are non race finishers, logically. So, if you insist that mormonism, is nonchristian, it seems, logically, you’re commited to denying the christianity of all denominations, different from your own, but you don’t, you merely make the same distinction I do with mormonism, and say they’re christian, but don’t have the full truth, am I wrong?
February 19th, 2011 | 4:06 am | #45
Livingston Dell: Thanks for your comments. I hope I didn’t imply that I think you’re an “unepathetic person”, in my comments. I realized, after reading your latest comments, and my original ones, vis a vis empathy, that they could be so construed (rather ironic. perhaps I should have been more empathetic to how you, or anyone could perceive them!)
My point was more of intellectual empathy, which I should have made clearer. You certainly seem like a very kind person, who loves his family a lot. My point is, the intellectual, religious, milieu, that mormonism originated. It really makes sense, how it arose, when it did. And, to any mormon readers, I don’t mean this in a condescending way. Any faith, has a history, true, or not, and to study how and why a given one arose, provides one with insight, into the belief systems, and their development. I don’t believe that Joseph Smith was “evil”, or “bad”, just wrong. Why the need, of so many, (perhaps not you, Livingston) to make him a product of Satan, and evil forces? After all, we don’t do this, with others, who have wrong beliefs, in history. no one, who i’m aware of, concludes that Galen, despite being completely wrong about many aspects of medicine, was under the influence of Satan. We just think, for a variety of historically contingent, and complicated intellectual, social, and other reasons, that he got it wrong. Why not conclude the same, with respect to Joseph Smith? Especially, after studying his history, the latter, explanation makes more sense?
True, mormonism claims to have continuous revelation. but, in a way, doesn’t every individual christian claim the same, not for the religion, as a whole (as mormonism’s prophet is said to do), but for themselves, whenever we pray, and ask God for guideance, and help? It’s not so different. The pope, has been considered, up until more enlightened times, by many protestants, to be Satan’s representative, on earth. the whole history, from Luther, up until fairly recently, has been of calling either catholicism, if one’s protestant, or vice versa, the product of not just error, but in some cases, a result of satanic influences. Curiously, this sort of talk has been almost eliminated, due to a variety of factors, but to some extent, it’s a diplomatic catastrophy. It’s only newer religions, like mormonism, that don’t seem to get the same consideration. But my guess is that, when mormonism becomes more influencial, this “satanic, nonchristian” rhetoric, will cease.
Thank you, too, I enjoy talking with you, you’re very intelligent, and thoughtful.
February 19th, 2011 | 4:19 am | #46
david c.: thanks for your good comments. The council of nicaea, was needed, provide a uniformity of belief, vis a vis God’s nature. You seem to imply that God’s nature, as specified in the Nicene Creed, was widely accepted, prior to the council, but if so, why bother to formulate a specific creed? Clearly, there were many reasons, why the council arose, but principally it did, to put an end to the diversity of christian interpretations. I don’t dispute that belief in God, Son, and holy spirit were the norm, since the new testament, since the three are obviously represented throughout the new testament. My point is, many did not equate, the son with the father, viewed the latter as superceding, ontologically, the son, (e.g., Arian) , or they viewed Christ as one God among many (see Bart D. Ehrman’s scholarship here, on the fact that christians, early after the new testament, believed not only in Jesus, but at least many, believed in other gods as well).
February 19th, 2011 | 4:30 am | #47
Nickolai Volk: thanks for your good points. Certainly, believing mormons consider their belief system to be the “original christianity”. I don’t believe this. But if one compares mormon views, of Christ, and the views of many christians, prior to the council of nicaea, one cannot give a pass to the latter and not the former. The one’s who did not accept the council of nicaea (since it didn’t happen yet!) still are considered christians. But if one logically excluded mormons, from being christian, on the basis that they reject the councils, one must also reject that those “christian”, living prior to the council, also are not christian (This has been pointed out by BYU professor, Daniel Peterson, but this should not cause one to dismiss it, because Peterson is a believing mormon. He’s just pointing out the logic, that all, regardless of faith, but with a rational mind, can see).
February 19th, 2011 | 4:38 am | #48
Nickolai: the beliefs of mormons and the arians, are similar, in one essential respect: both reject the council of Nicaea, as the criterion for being christian. So if mormons aren’t christian, by this standard, neither are arians.
February 19th, 2011 | 9:06 am | #49
Dear Bret,
In your comments to me you are confusing the differences in “who” we worship and the essential nature of “His” character, with non-Christian religions that distort this character and make God something that He isn’t. This is fundamental.
If Pastor C., Mr. Dell, Mr. Volk, and the others in this thread have not cleared this up for you, my friend, then I lose hope that you will see the truth in their statements.
Blessings.
February 19th, 2011 | 8:07 pm | #50
Dear Steve: my point is that there’s a distinction between some religion being christian, and being true. a religion can be one or the other, or both. If a religion accepts the teachings of the new testament, it qualifies as christian, but maybe not true.
My guess is a lot of this is political. Maybe not on your part, Steve, but on the part of many Christians who feel that, to concede that mormonism is christian, would be to give away too much power to mormonism, in the war over truth.
But if one is concerned for truth, one must acknowledge that, mormonism centers its religion around Christ. It regards Christ as the savior of all humankind. He died on a cross, was resurrected three days later, and this possesses the efficacy to allow all humans to be saved. To my mind this logically qualifies it as Christian, but not the full truth, of christianity. why not give it credit, for this?
blessings to you, too.
February 20th, 2011 | 3:10 am | #51
“If a religion accepts the teachings of the new testament, it qualifies as christian.”
Sure. But Mormons don’t.
“My guess is a lot of this is political. Maybe not on your part, Steve, but on the part of many Christians who feel that, to concede that mormonism is christian, would be to give away too much power to mormonism, in the war over truth.”
Perhaps this is true for some, but not necessarily for others. For me, it’s simple: truth. I don’t like it when people act like they believe in the same things that I do and call us “the same” when they’re not. I’m not trying to put down Mormons; I don’t think the truth of their religion hinges on whether or not I call them Christian. Even if I accepted them as “Christians,” I would still find them equally as wrong in their theology than if I didn’t call them Christian. That aside, however, I’m still for calling things what they truly are.
Personally, I’m a little unsure about this issue. Right now, if I threw a dart at this issue I’d find Mormons somewhere in between “unorthodox Christian” and “not Christian.” But leaning more towards the latter.
February 20th, 2011 | 4:53 am | #52
Does it hurt the feelings of Mormons when many or most Christians say that they’re not Christians or don’t accept Mormons as Christians?
February 20th, 2011 | 5:41 am | #53
Definitely the latter, for although they use the word “Christ” all over the place (someone tossed a boatload of references at me recently), that word doesn’t mean what it means in Christianity. Jesus and the apostles warned of false Christs; there is hardly any greater spiritual danger named in the New Testament.
The Mormon “Christ” is not the unique Second Person of the Trinity; not co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit nor co-equal with them. The Mormon “Christ” came to North America and preached to the inhabitants here after his ascension, which is not only completely unhistorical a denial of teaching in Hebrews and elsewhere concerning his sitting at the right hand of the Father to intercede for the saints.
So Mormonism is “Christian” only if by “Christian” they mean, “we like the word ‘Christ,’ we acknowledge his spiritual leadership to the extent that we will co-opt his name for our purposes. It doesn’t matter to us that when we use that name we mean something different than everyone else means; but it’s useful to us for external relations to allow others to think that we do.”
The Mormon “revelation” through Joseph Smith is in contradiction to the clear closing of the canon at the end of Revelation and the associated anathema, and scholars have shown that its language and thought are not heavenly as claimed, but situated firmly in 19th-century upstate New York.
There is much more, some of it very strange, but I’ve found that Mormons tell me I misunderstand it or I’m misinformed when I bring it up. It matters little, for this much is enough.
February 20th, 2011 | 5:50 am | #54
Bret,
For me as a Christian, there is no war over truth, no competition, and no concern about giving away power concerning others who accept the teachings of the New Testament. We are brothers and allies. If Mormonism actually accepted the NT, if it centered its religion around Christ without deceitfully altering the meaning of the name, then Mormonism would be an ally, too, and a most welcome one.
I am quite sure, by the way, that there are Mormons who are saved through belief in Christ who died for their sins and was resurrected three days later. If they put their faith in Christ that way, yes, there can be salvation. Perhaps they do not know how their religion’s teachings dishonor the truth of Christ as taught in the New Testament. I am making no judgment on individual Mormons. It is the system of Mormonism that I reject.
February 20th, 2011 | 6:33 pm | #55
Tom: the fact is, that mormons do believe in a different Jesus Christ, than the one advocated by many Christians. But let’s not forget what this mormon christ is: the most revered being in the mormon church, along with God the Father. The Christ, from the New Testament, and the Mormon Christ are indistinguishable. Of course, the theology of mainstream christianity, and mormon christianity, is radically different, but, as a non-believer in mormonism, I’m struck by the fact that, if one looks at the new testament, the Christ contained in it, is compatible with the mormom Christ.
It’s rather curious that you bring up the “unhistorical” nature of the Book of Mormon (I agree, by the way, but that’s beside the point), since, as Daniel Peterson, BYU professor, has pointed out, the same arguments, against the Book of mormon’s alledged historical inaccuracy, could, and are used, by secular scholars, against the historical accuracy of the old testament!
Please correct me, if I’m misinterpreting you, here, but I get the impression, that you think that mormons don’t “really” believe in christ, but are using His name, for their own power plays. If so, this is a most uncharitable interpretation, and I hope you’ll reconsider this interpretation.
February 20th, 2011 | 6:36 pm | #56
Nickoli Volk: Sorry, but you’re just factually incorrect about mormons and the New Testament. They do believe all of the New Testament. They just interpret different portions of it, especially the ontological nature of Christ different than you do.
February 20th, 2011 | 7:29 pm | #57
“I am making no judgment on individual Mormons. It is the system of Mormonism that I reject.”
Ditto.
February 20th, 2011 | 7:33 pm | #58
Tom: I certainly understand your concerns, over mormonism. but as someone who has grown up in, and at one time believed in, mormonism, I can tell you that, in my experience, Mormonism, is genuine in its reverence of Christ.
Based on what you said, I’m concluding that you believe (although I could be wrong, so please correct me, if I’m misinterpreting you) that mormons advocate a different Jesus, but also the Mormon church, and those who speak for it, want to give an impression that, the
Mormon Christ is more similar to the mainstream Christian Christ, than it really is.
I’m sorry to say that, if this is your interpretation, it’s “uncharitable”, that’s too strong. I believe that you’re honestly interpreting it. But if my reading of your interpretation is correct, what evidence are you basing it on? Because I get the impression that the LDS church is merely pointing to the common ground, between its faith, and mainsteam Christianity, but is not trying to imply that more similarities exist, than actually do exist.
February 20th, 2011 | 10:34 pm | #59
Who are we kidding here? If you deny the Triune nature of God, you are not a Christian. Period. It does not matter what denomination you belong to. If an entire religion (and I’m perfectly fine with calling Mormonism a religion) denies the Trinity, then it is not Christian. When you compound this error of Mormonism with the fact that they naturally deny that Jesus is God, it only gets worse.
Religion? Yes. Christianity? No way.
February 20th, 2011 | 11:00 pm | #60
Brad Williams: why? What rational basis, do you have, for concluding that, a religion that accepts every part of the New Testament, and that Christ died for our sins, and without the latter, we would all be lost, but, doesn’t accept that the Godhead is ontologically one substance? Why is the acceptance of the latter, the criterion for determining whether one, or a group, is Christian, and not the acceptance of the New Testament?
Would you feel better, if mormons were called New Testament Christians, since it would qualify that, they accept the New Testament, and not the subsequent creeds, divised at the councils?
February 20th, 2011 | 11:04 pm | #61
Brad: Also, Christ is ontologically equal, in terms of power, intent, and purpose, with God the Father, in Mormonism. mormons believe in “Tritheism”, where the Godhead, composed of three physically distinct beings, God the father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, are equal in purpose, and power.
February 20th, 2011 | 11:34 pm | #62
Also, my description of the Mormon Godhead, where the Father, son, and Holy Ghost, are all united in purpose, intent, and equal in power, is not my own interpretation. Please refer to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM, and see the section on the Mormon Godhead.
February 20th, 2011 | 11:57 pm | #63
If I may answer your question to Brad:
First, that’s not accepting every part of the New Testament.
Second, the rational basis is outlined in the historic creeds of Christianity, and all of the theological work that has gone into them. It’s a very lengthy story.
Third, tri-theism is polytheism.
Fourth, the Godhead cannot be a matter of physically distinct beings, because the Godhead is not physical. Nor, strictly speaking, is God “a being;” rather he is Being itself. There is no category of Being above God in which he partakes; or in other words, he does not partake of being the same way we ordinarily think that beings do; rather all other beings partake of God’s Being. Certainly that description of God as Being itself would be impossible for “three physically distinct beings;’ for being separate and physical, their existence as such must be of the sort that partakes of being rather than having the nature of Being itself. There is no plural form for Being itself.
I appreciate that your description of Mormon theology is not your own. To be honest, I wouldn’t care to claim it for myself either if I were you.
February 21st, 2011 | 12:16 am | #64
Tom: actually, one can accept every word of the New Testament, and still be a mormon, it’s one’s “metainterpretation”, of what’s in the new testament, that leads one to either accept tritheism, or the traditional trinity interpretation.
you’ve shifted the burden of proof, of what constitutes being Christian, which is fine, but I find it a little unusual that, you cannot provide a clear cut, rational basis, for why one must accept the conclusions of the councils, in addition to the new testament, for one, or a group, to be a described as a christian.
Also, the irony, here, is interesting: you’re a bible believing christian, but you rely on extrabiblical documents, to provide the essential criteria, for determining whether a group, or person, is a christian.
one reason, that the new testament, should be the criterion (to try and answer your question) for determining whether one, or a group is christian, is that all the essential aspects, of what christianity, does for humankind, is contained in it. that is, we have Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, contained in it, and why we must accept it. If these things, and their acceptance, don’t constitue the essence, of christianity, i don’t know what does.
I also appreciate your definition of God, not being physical, but you provide no reason why one must accept the incoporeal nature of God, to be a christian.
And, while I’m giving credit, where credit’s due, I think, but am not sure, (I’ll correct it, if I find something different) the phrase “New Testament Christian”, in the context of mormonism, was originated by Stephen Robinson, of BYU. My point, in giving proper credit, is just that, to give proper credit, to to group, or people, who are responsible, for the idea, it’s not that I’m ashamed of these views (I don’t believe them, but that’s a distinct issue), after all, many highly intelligent people accept them, Tom.
February 21st, 2011 | 12:47 am | #65
In response to this:
“Sorry, but you’re just factually incorrect about mormons and the New Testament. They do believe all of the New Testament. They just interpret different portions of it, especially the ontological nature of Christ different than you do.”
I echo what Tom said: by not accepting the Godhead as three in one, they are not accepting all of the New Testament. You may say, “they accept Christ as having existed,” but while they believe that Christ’s existence and subsequent death/resurrection happened, they don’t believe many of the things he said, including being of the same substance as the father. This isn’t a question of them interpreting the Bible differently, it’s blatantly ignoring the things Christ said.
February 21st, 2011 | 12:59 am | #66
Nikolai: Again, we’re talking about interpretations, that you make, or I make, or mormons make, of the New Testament.
That is, assuming we all have the same translation, we all read the same things, in the new Testament. but, as a result of many passages, possessing ambiguity, we can interpret them differently. Your example, is, well, a perfect example, of the ambiguous nature, of certain New Testament passages. It says that christ is the “same substance”, as the father. Does this mean literally, as you seem to interpret it? Or, could it be, as mormons seem to interpret it, that they’re literal father and Son, and, the same substance, in that regard, and, the same in their purposes, a more metaphorical interpretation. you and I may not agree, but considering that the bible contains a plethora of metaphors, it’s hardly unreasonable, for mormons to go this way.
February 21st, 2011 | 8:15 am | #67
Bret, you say,
Don’t find it so odd. It was late at night, I had had an unusual Sunday of being away from home for most of the day, I’m working on a major upgrade of my Thinking Christian blog, my wife is away for more than a week helping a very, very ill mother so I have extra concerns there and extra responsibilities at home, I have a conference coming up to prepare to help lead, I’m moving into a new office, I have a talk to prepare for Wednesday night, I have a four-hour meeting to lead with our church’s pastors tomorrow; and the reason I “cannot” provide this “clear-cut, rational basis” is because it can’t be done in two minutes or even five or ten.
Oh, and by the way, you hadn’t asked for a clear-cut, rational basis for why we should accept the conclusions of the councils.
You assume far, far too much when you say that I “cannot” do what you thought I should have done. Why not just ask for it? I had provided the beginnings of an answer, so it’s not as if I had ignored you. You decided on your part that my answer was insufficient, and apparently you concluded the reason that was all I wrote was because I had already given you all I had to offer.
It’s ironic that you called it ironic that I was relying on extrabiblical documents. Look, here’s my answer to all your questions in short form: Read the Bible. Do you want something other than that, some explanation, some “clearcut, rational, basis”? I’m afraid I’ll have to write an extrabiblical document in response. I’m not going to write a new Biblical document, after all, and presumably you won’t be satisfied if I just refer you to the New Testament, so I have no option but to write you a new document that will be extrabiblical. Or, since many people have already done that work, I could rely on what they have done. What’s wrong with that?
Well, of course. But if one misreads the New Testament, then what one obtains out of that misreading is a distortion, a deception, and the essence of Christianity is not a deception.
Short answer: because a corporeal God is not the Christian God. It’s a terribly dishonoring diminishment of God, who created all physical things. I think you can find that in the Bible yourself if you look for it. Try John 4, and try any of the creation passages (Genesis 1 and 2, Colossians 1, John 1, Romans 1…). That’s only a start.
We are talking about interpretations, yes, Bret, but you are wrong to suppose that lets tri-theists off the hook. There is such a thing as a wrong interpretation, and tri-theism is certainly one of those. Is it unreasonable for Mormons to go this way? I have a better question: Is it wrong for Mormons to go this way? The answer is yes, it is wrong, it is a misinterpretation, and as a result it is not New Testament Christianity.
Do you think it’s possible to have varying interpretations of the NT and know whether any of them are false? How about if I interpreted the NT to mean that Jesus Christ was a spiritual figure like a ghost, not a physical person at all? Or how about if I interpreted the NT to mean there are three physical Gods? Just two examples of interpretations that can be known to be wrong, and to be violations of NT Christianity.
Here’s a principle: if someone says they get their religion from the NT but they deny or contradict NT teachings, then their religion is not NT Christianity. Period.
By the way, are you operating from a mobile device, or is there another reason you do not capitalize proper nouns like God, Christ, Christian, New Testament, and Mormon? Just curious.
February 21st, 2011 | 8:36 am | #68
Bret, I did provide a clear-cut, rational (albeit brief) basis for why tritheism cannot be true. I’ll repeat it here for you:
I could also have quoted some very familiar passages from the Bible: the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the reiterations in the NT such as 1 Timothy 2:5. Would you care to respond to any of this, please?
February 21st, 2011 | 12:04 pm | #69
Bret, I find it deeply ironic that you are suddenly concerned about “appeals to extrabiblical authority”. When it has come to discussions about issues related to gay marriage and homosexuality, you’ve shown no hesitance to make such appeals. Nor have you when it comes to discussions with Steve and others on something we happen to agree upon (the age of the earth).
Indeed, to bolster your case you have yourself appealed to the (hardly mainstream and certainly extra-biblical) New Testament scholarship and interpretations of Jesus Seminar member Bart Ehrman and BYU(!) professor of “Ancient Scripture” (not “New Testament”) Stephen Robinson — a well known LDS apologist.
I am left wondering what you think is at stake in demanding that Mormons be understood as Christians? It has been the considered and uniform judgment of a vast array of Christian churches from the very beginning of its existence that Mormonism departs from orthodox Christian theology, doctrine, and praxis in ways too significant to allow it to be called a “Christian” faith. It is a Christian heresy. Which is to say (if you prefer) a different religious faith with some elements held in common with Christianity.
Perhaps an analogy would help. For most Jews, Christianity is a heresy of Judaism. For most Muslims, Christianity and Judaism are recognized as common “peoples of the Book” but as heretics to the one true faith of Islam. The situation between Mormons and Christians is analogous, therefore, not to differences between denominations (as you have tried to argue) but to differences between separate religions with common elements.
Notice that this does not address the issue of truth claims at all. For example: I will grant for the sake of discussion that one way Christianity can be understood is as a heresy of Judaism. It is, by belief and practice, a different faith than Judaism. It is also, I am committed to believing, true. So whether it is a “heresy” or not, (as Jews and Muslims would assert) does not in any way affect my believing it…
February 21st, 2011 | 12:50 pm | #70
Bret,
David just asked a good question. Do you have any stake in the Mormon question at all?
If there is any apparent common theme in what you write on this blog, it is this: that you consider yourself a Christian, but a Christian who takes it that Christianity must be accepting of everything else that makes a passing claim at being Christian. Thus you are open to tritheism, but I’ll wager you are also open to monotheism, as if a good Christian ought to hold both options open at the same time. You are open to every faintly Christian belief, except that you are personally closed toward anyone who takes a position that is personally closed toward any Christian-like belief.
It seems (based on what I see on this blog) that you take an opposition position toward any statement that opposes another person’s position. You are opposed to opposing, so you oppose it whenever you see it. You hardly ever frame it as opposition, but instead as questions (“why would you oppose x?”); still it comes across as a firm commitment (on what you consider Christian grounds) to stand against anyone’s holding a firm commitment on Christian grounds.
To clarify: I began with a question and moved from there to the reason I asked the question. I have offered my interpretation of what I have observed here, and I ask you again, what is your stake in this discussion? For that matter, can you summarize your position, your stake, as it were, in your overall presence here?
February 22nd, 2011 | 10:10 am | #71
“It seems (based on what I see on this blog) that you take an opposition position toward any statement that opposes another person’s position. You are opposed to opposing, so you oppose it whenever you see it.”
It kinda sounds like being intolerant to the intolerant.
February 22nd, 2011 | 10:31 am | #72
(A) It is okay for Christians to call Mormons fellow Christians.
(B) It is not okay for Christians to call Mormons fellow Christians.
Binary choice: A or B? Gotta pick. Can’t abstain.
“Is Okay” = Honors Jesus. “Is Not Okay” = Dishonors Jesus.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:15 am | #73
Thanks, Tom, for your comments. I certainly respect your Christian commitment, and the courage of your convictions. You stand by the truth, as you interpret it, and I can only admire that.
As I pointed out to Nikolai, the New Testament, is not easily interpreted. It contains many metaphors, and mormons interpret it one way, you another. I’ve made it very clear, that I disagree with mormon doctrine. But since they believe in the salvific power, of Christ, and accept all of the New testament, I’m prepared to grant that mormonism is Christian, although of an unorthodox sort.
Tom, you point to the supposed, as i interpret you, philosophically incoherent view of mormon ontology. Well, I agree. It’s one ofthe reasons that I rejected the truth of mormonism. but that’s completely seperate, from the question of whether mormonism can be considered Christian.
you seem to believe that, in order for mormons to be Christian, they must accept the mainstream interpretation of the New Testament, and accept, at least implicitly, the greek philosophy that formulates the basis, to a large extent, of the Nicene doctrine of the Godhead. That’s your right, but are you also prepared to grant that all followers of Christ, prior to circa 325,A.D., who knew nothing of philosophy, and nothing of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being one “Substance”, were also not Christian?
You also seem to believe that, your notion of Being itself, being God, is either self evident, or the only rational conclusion that one could come to. Of course, when one studies the history of philosophy, one realizes that that view is untenable. (I happen to agree with you, but, again, that’s not the point!).
Mormons, agree with Aristotle, that the universe always existed. Is this conpatable with some, unorthodox version, of Christianity. Of course it is. All that’s required, for a religion to be Christian, is for it to believe that Christ died, and was resurrected, and the latter is essential for our salvation. That’s the basics of Christianity. Obviously, mainstream Christianity added more to it, to make it more coherent, and comprehensive.
If I’m interpreting you, correctly, Tom, you seem to be implying that, the conclusions of the Council of Nicaea, are implicit, in the New Testament. If so, that’s your right, I consider that to be, well, rather imaginative and fanciful (not to mention unhistorical). But, since you’re a Biblical Christian, it would be wholly consistent.
My lack of capitalization, is a result of sloppiness. Purely unintentential.
You say that a corporeal God, is not the Christian God. Well, ok… mormons disagree. but it’s irrelevantt to whether mormonism is Christian. you also assert that, it’s a “terribly dishonoring diminishment of God”. Really? how so? Only if one presupposes that, being physical is somehow not good. Mormonism doesn’t teach this. It teaches that, God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are the most sacred entities of the universe! Seriously. Perhaps you haven’t studied mormonism, as precisely as one should, to fully understand what you’re refuting?
You presumably believe that, the Bible has the final word on all. Fair enough. But it gets down to interpretations. Do you deny that, people of good will, can have different interpretations. Considering that the New Testament was written in Greek, i’m assuming that you would not dispute the notion that, in order to have as unambiguous an understanding, as possible, of it, one would need to know greek? I don’t. but I’m not a biblical scholar. You seem awfully confident of you reading of the New Testament, so I’m going to infer that you’re very fluent in greek, and can read the orginal greek New Testament, accordingly. Am I wrong?
i provided an explanation, for why mormonism, should be considered Christian, (comment 64).
Feel free to refute, if you’re disposed. So far, you haven’t addressed it.
Obviously, there’s a wrong way to interpret the New Testament, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. That’s not the point. The point is, whether one can provide a plausible interpretation of it, as distinct from a correct one. I believe that mormonism has provided a plausible one, but not a correct one. Obviously, if a group intepreted the NT in a way, where Christ was a flying monkey from outer space, that would be not only false, but also implausible.
You say that it’s “wrong” for mormons to interpret the bible the way they do. So, do you think this moral culpability, on their part, is intentional, or unintentional?
So far, you assert that, only a noncorporeal God, will do, and mormons misinterpret the bible. That’s your right, but conspicuously absent, here, are REASONS for why this is so. You provide assertions.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:38 am | #74
david c.: Thanks for your response. i’ve never claimed that I take everything from the Bible, or use the Bible as the ultimate criteria, that everything else, is to be judged on. big difference. I believe that the Bible is a holy book, but, it was never meant to be the final judge of everything else. I’m gussing, based on the scare exclamation point, that you don’t respect the scholarship of BYU. Actually, whether one agree with mormonism, or not, any objective assessment, of BYU, is that, its scholarship, is well respected, generally.
It boils down, to a failure, to make subtle distinctions, intellectually, david c. no one doubts that mormonism, departs highly radically, from mainstream Christianity. But, when one CAREFULLY examines mormon doctrine, one realizes that, its doctrine of Christ, fits within the notion of unorthodox Christianity (from the mainstream perspective, of course). That is different, from being true. Do you consider Catholicism, Christian? If so, why, if not, why?
To address the demonination/different religion distinction. If mormons claimed that, Jesus was a great teacher, but never died on the cross and was resurrected for our sins, then, no doubt, mormonism, would not be Christian, but a different religion. Or, if it denied that Christ was resurrected, then it would not be Christian. But if a religion, claims that, Christ died for our sins, meaning we are saved, due to christ dying, and being resurrected, then it qualifies as Christian. It may be very different, in other respects, but it’s still Christian, in my view.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:46 am | #75
Bret: “I believe that the Bible is a holy book, but, it was never meant to be the final judge of everything else.”
That’s helpful to know where you’re coming from.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:49 am | #76
Tom, in your comment 68, you provide a good description of Being, and how mormonism is different. I agree. But you provide no reason why this being view, should be accepted by mormons (perhaps that’s not your intent). for what it’s worth, I agree with you. but I don’t agree with you, that this refutes the notion that mormonism counts as a form of Christianity. i’m not open to every “faintly Christian belief”, if you mean by that, that I’m open to believing it. No. but I’m open to interpreting it, fairly, and comprehensively, and not dismiss it. I’m only closed to those views that I consider lacking in rational merit. Hence, I’m not open to proabortion views, because, they’re without rational merit, for example.
Of course, I have firm commitments, and I don’t oppose, for the sake of opposing. I oppose, because I disagree!
You say (in 69) that I’m “open” to tritheism. only in the sense that it’s not necessarily incongruent with a form of Christianity.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:49 am | #77
“As I pointed out to Nikolai, the New Testament, is not easily interpreted. It contains many metaphors, and mormons interpret it one way, you another. I’ve made it very clear, that I disagree with mormon doctrine. But since they believe in the salvific power, of Christ, and accept all of the New testament, I’m prepared to grant that mormonism is Christian, although of an unorthodox sort.”
Perhaps this is all a matter of “interpretation,” just perhaps, but it’s not as if Mormons were Christians who just one day thought, “You know, maybe we’ve been reading the Bible wrong.” The Mormon faith is based on a wholly new “revelation” to Joseph Smith. The genesis of the Mormon faith is much like the forming of a new religion because, hey, it IS a new religion. While its purported history goes back a long way, the existence of the religion has not been so.
February 22nd, 2011 | 12:05 pm | #78
Nikolai: thanks for your comments. Yes, mormonism, no doubt, is a new religion, but this is entirely compatable with it still being Christian. Let’s say we have a class, we’ll call “A”, and there’s an essence to “Aness”. Let’s also say we have other classess, that claim to have the essence of “Aness”. Let’s say most of these classes, do have the essence of Aness, but they also have many other things in common. Let’s say another class, comes along, that’s new, but also has the essence of Aness, like the others, but is dissimilar, in the nonessential aspects, that the others are similar. Clearly, the new class still, has the Aness, in common, obviously.
February 22nd, 2011 | 12:40 pm | #79
[...] this piece from the ‘Evangel’ blog at First Things. The author attempts to make the case that: I know many will point to Mitt Romney’s run for [...]
February 22nd, 2011 | 12:49 pm | #80
Bret,
Well we’re getting nowhere fast, and seem to be talking past one another so this is probably it for me. First I want to reiterate my question (and Tom’s) a third time. What is at stake, do you believe, in whether or not we are willing to call Mormon’s Christians? You have brushed over that now several times and I am not sure why?
I understand that Mormons want to be called Christians and their reasons for doing so as you have explained in great detail. But why? And why do you suppose that not one single Christian body, denomination, or church has ever to my knowledge agreed to that claim? They’re all wrong and you (no longer a Mormon) and the Mormons are right? Again, why not allow that the differences between Mormons and Christian orthodoxy are so significant that every church that has looked at the question has concluded that Mormons are not Christians.
My point about the BYU professor was that he teaches at the flagship Mormon university and is a prominent Mormon apologist. Thus his understanding of the New Testament and history of interpretation is going to reflect that, is it not? Probably my best New Testament Professor was a guy named Gordon Fee. He wrote the flagship commentary on 1Corinthians and was acknowledged by most as knowing more about that text in particular (and New Testament textual criticism in general) than almost anyone alive. Gordon Fee was one of the first PhD’s ever to come out of the Assemblies of God. Thus when he would talk about the issue of — charismata — of spiritual gifts I knew that, great scholar or not, there was a personal, faith commitment element for him. I knew that I had to take that into account when evaluating his scholarship on the gift passages in the NT….
As for the quality of the Biblical Scholarship at BYU I can’t say I know a lot about it. But that probably means something as that is a world (Biblical Studies) that I tend to keep one foot in. I do wonder how you can say it is “generally respected”? On what basis? What criteria? On the basis of the number of BYU professors that have written mainstream Biblical Commentaries? On the number of BYU scholars on Bible Translation Committees? On the number of BYU scholars who have contributed articles to Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias? On the number of BYU trained PhD’s teaching in Christian seminaries? Generally respected in what sense?
I am sorry that you believe me incapable of making “subtle distinctions intellectually” as that is exactly what I am doing. Distinguishing, intellectually, theologically, practically, between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity. Frankly, in my view, the differences are hardly subtle. They are stark and irreconcilable. I know that Mormon’s claim to believe in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. But which Jesus? Not the second person of the Trinity. Not the unique God-man — fully human and fully divine of Christian orthodox understanding. In other words a “false christ”.
Not sure why you are asking whether I consider Catholicism (by which I presume you mean Roman Catholicism) Christian and why or why not? My answer is, of course I do, precisely for the reasons that I do not consider Mormons Christians. Roman Catholics and Protestants share an identical understanding of the nature of the Godhead and of the person and work of Jesus. There are differences and they are arguable and important, but not enough for me (or most others) to read them out of the faith (or them, me)…
Thanks for the discussion. Be well.
February 22nd, 2011 | 12:55 pm | #81
“a common ‘Aness’ ” ?? So we’re talking eschatology now?
February 22nd, 2011 | 12:57 pm | #82
davidc.: my point was/is, that, there’s no logical reason that, a religion cannot be christian, merely because it arose, at a late date, and in a different way, from most other Christian religions.
February 22nd, 2011 | 1:17 pm | #83
david c.: sorry, I missed your first comments. I guess we have hit an impasse. But my view is, clearly if mormons believe in Christ, and His saving power, they should be recognized as fellow Christians. Of course, no one denies that there’s radical differences, between the Mormon Christ, and the mainstream Christ, which accounts for them being different religions. You say that the mormon Jesus, is so different, from the mainstream, as to not count as Christian, but Roman Catholicism, for example does. But don’t Roman Catholics believe in a different, Jesus, and hence false one, from your perspective, since their Jesus advocates Popes, priests, Real Presence, praying to saints, etc.? True, there are LESS differences, between your Christianity, and Roman Catholicism, and your Christianity, and Mormonism, but there are STILL differences, enough to render, from your perspective, the Jesus of Roman Catholicism, false, and therefore nonchristian.
This seem incoherent to me. A little bit of falseness, vis a vis Christ, is tolerable, hence your acceptance of Roman Catholicism, being still Christian, but a lot of falseness, is not acceptable, hence your rejection of mormonism, being considered Christian?
I would have thought that even a little bit of falseness, concerning Christ’s nature, would be enough, from your perspective, to render a religion nonchristian.
I certainly respect your intelligence, and decency, davidc. And I respect that you’ve had enough. You’ve made great points, and thanks for the civil discussion.
February 22nd, 2011 | 2:02 pm | #84
Bret,
Thanks — it has been informative for me as I have wondered at why some LDS folk I have known get bent about not being considered Christian. I still don’t know why, as this is a question you (and they) will not answer (or at least have not).
On the question of Roman Catholics. I think you are making a categorical error here. I may disagree with a RC about the meaning and implication of a teaching of Jesus or a Biblical text, but that is a very different thing than disagreeing with him about the nature of the One doing the teaching or of Biblical Authority. We agree on Jesus, we agree on the authority of Scripture (more or less) we disagree on the exact implications of what he or the Bible teaches. In other words — we agree on the essentials — the person and work of Christ. (Thus we are all “Christ”ians). It is some of the details that lead to our divisions.
Mormons do not agree with us on the essential of the Christ — therefore they are not “Christ-ones” that is — Christians.
Surely you can see the difference?
Thanks again. I truly am done now. I am writing a sermon on “not eating the bread of anxious toil” (Psalm 127) and I better get to work if I am going to heed that stricture.
BTW – my comment about eschatology was a little (very little) attempt at humor. Eschatology is of course the study of “end things”. If you say “Aness” out loud, you’ll get the drift.
February 22nd, 2011 | 2:21 pm | #85
david c.: thanks! I’ve enjoyed talking with you. I understand where you’re coming from, even though I disagree.
As someone who grew up, mormon, I think I can answer your question, on why mormons get upset, at being referred to as nonchristian. They truly, love, and revere Jesus Christ, more than anything! It does hurt them, because Christ is their redeemer, too. I think Christ is big enough for all of us. and He surely would reject no one who seeks Him. True, mormons have a “wrong” conception, of Him, but don’t we all? That is, no one, really understands the Trinity. Aquinas, that person, who personified reason, as much as a human could, concluded that the Trinity, was a “mystery of faith”, that was inscrutible.
Thanks for your contribution. You’ve provided intelligent insight. Your Church is lucky to have you.
February 22nd, 2011 | 2:21 pm | #86
Oh, and thanks for the joke, that’s a good one!
February 22nd, 2011 | 3:16 pm | #87
“True, mormons have a “wrong” conception, of Him, but don’t we all? That is, no one, really understands the Trinity. Aquinas, that person, who personified reason, as much as a human could, concluded that the Trinity, was a “mystery of faith”, that was inscrutible.”
Saying that “we don’t fully understand the Trinity” doesn’t mean that a blatantly wrong interpretation of the Trinity is just a “different opinion.” We may not fully understand the Trinity, but we know that it is the tripartite relationship between the father, son, and spirit, all who are of the same substance yet distinct from the other. Now, the dynamics of the whole thing we’ll probably never be able to pin in this lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t allowed to judge those who make bad interpretations.
February 22nd, 2011 | 3:21 pm | #88
Nikolai: I agree that we must make judgments, about what’s right and wrong, but we have to be humble. (I’m not saying you’re not humble; i’m speaking in general, for all of us). One can still say mormons are wrong, but still Christian.
Also, Christ, may very well consider the beautiful faith, exibited by most mormons, in Him, to be more important, than having an intellectual grasp of the Trinity.
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:11 pm | #89
Bret,
Thank you for your comments. I am still wondering what your stake is in these discussions, as I asked it in #70.
You say,
This requires some further exploration. I have been saying that they place such different meaning on their terminology that even though they use the same words that Christianity uses, they are not talking about anything sufficiently like what Christianity says. You have repeatedly answered me by ignoring what I have said. Instead you have repeated your assertion that their use of Christianity’s founding documents and terminology qualifies them as a Christian religion. I specifically challenge that point. I will explain now in greater detail. This is a step-by-step extended argument, and I would ask of you that you follow it through step by step.
You give every indication of believing that because Mormonism claims it is based on the New Testament, and claims that it believes in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation, it has thereby met all necessary and sufficient conditions for being called a Christian religion.
Surely, though, you would grant that it is at least logically or theoretically possible for some religion to make claims like that, while misinterpreting the New Testament so badly that its actual belief is completely at odds with biblical Christianity. Otherwise, you would have to believe that there is no distortion so great that it could disqualify a religion from membership within the Christian fold. If some religion were to say that Christ was a young flea who appeared on earth in holographic representation as a human, and that we are saved by this “Christ’s” death and resurrection for our sins, and that this salvation consists in our graduating to eternal life as fleas living on eternal dogs, and that these eternal dogs are the creators of the universe, then it would be wrong to deny that this is Christianity—for after all, this religion “believes in Christ’s death and resurrection for our salvation.”
Now, that’s an extreme example that I am sure you would reject. It is intended to show this: that even though claiming follow the New Testament is a necessary condition for some religion’s being Christian, it is not a sufficient condition. A religion must (at least) also meet some standard of accuracy in understanding what the New Testament teaches about Christ, what the Bible overall teaches about the nature of God, what it means to be human, what salvation actually is, and so on.
What do you believe about this? Is it theoretically possible that there might exist some religion that claims to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation, but which nevertheless is not Christian and can be known not to be Christian, by reason of its applying a different and non-Christian meaning to terms like “Christ” and “salvation”?
Where I’m heading with this should be obvious. If you think that there is never any way to recognize a false religion among religions claiming to follow the NT, then you make your belief system open to the flea-religion I described above. If on the other hand you think that it is at least theoretically possible for some NT-claiming religion to be recognizably false by reason of applying different meanings to key terms, then you must be open to discussion on those key terms and their meanings, and how we can determine what is really Christian among different possible meanings.
That entails that you must find some other answer to the challenge we have raised against Mormonism’s classification as Christian. You have said that Mormonism is Christian because it follows the NT and “believes in Christ’s death and resurrection for our salvation.” We have said that the content they have poured into terms like “Christ” and “salvation” is inaccurate and non-Christian. If you think it is theoretically possible for a religion to make that kind of mistake, you can no longer defend Mormonism’s classification as “Christian” just by reiterating (as you have done so often) that they use that terminology. You must also recognize the relevance of discussing the meanings they assign to those key terms. And if you recognize the relevance of that discussion, you must (if you wish to argue in good faith) cease acting as if it is sufficient that they use Christian-sounding terminology.
What follow here is parenthetical. The above is more important, but you have presented some specific questions to me, and I want to answer at least one of them by way of illustration of how this conversation is going:
Also
There is an easy answer to that, which is (a) you’re wrong, I have provided more than assertions, and (b), this is what I said: God is the creator of all physical reality, and if you consider him to be himself physical, then you reduce him to something of the same order of being as that which he created. That is true even if being physical is good. Additionally, though you state that my argument in #63 is unsupported, actually it is the beginning of an argument that you brushed aside as “unusual” for my not completing it. See my answer in #67 and the Scripture references contained within that comment. See my further answer, with additional support as you requested, in #68.
When you ask a question and I answer it, it is unseemly for you to tell me that I have not answered it. You may think the answer is insufficient or incomplete, or that there are counter-arguments against it. But to simply ignore what I wrote, or to brush it aside as mere assertion, is to argue in bad faith.
End parenthesis.
I request that you answer the major question I have put to you here. If we can make progress on that one question, and if you will agree to carry on this discussion in good faith, then maybe we’ll have enough common ground to make it worthwhile to discuss other specific questions you have raised.
To make sure it’s clear, I will repeat that one major question. Is it theoretically possible that there might exist some religion that claims to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation, but which nevertheless is not Christian and can be known not to be Christian, by reason of its applying different and non-Christian meanings to terms like “Christ” and “salvation”?
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:21 pm | #90
Not to undermine the key question I have just raised, but I want to point out something else. You wrote,
This is the fallacy of the red herring, or changing the subject. Suppose Christ did consider some Mormons’ “beautiful faith … in Him” to be more important than their doctrine of the Trinity. That would not make the system of thought that denies the Trinity a true or Christian system of thought. It would just be a matter of Christ overlooking or forgiving the error in that system of thought. Let’s keep the discussion on the system of thought, please.
(That’s assuming that their “beautiful faith … in Him” is really in Him, of course. The question I have just previously raised is whether you think it at least theoretically possible that the “Him” in whom some persons might place their faith is some distorted, false “Christ.” I hope we stay on track with that question.)
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:23 pm | #91
Bret Lythgoe: “As someone who grew up, mormon, I think I can answer your question, on why mormons get upset, at being referred to as nonchristian. They truly, love, and revere Jesus Christ, more than anything! It does hurt them, because Christ is their redeemer, too. I think Christ is big enough for all of us. and He surely would reject no one who seeks Him.”
#1. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. Revelations 22:18 comes to mind with Joseph Smith and Mormonism: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.”
#2. “I think Christ is big enough for all of us. and He surely would reject no one who seeks Him.”
Well, let’s look at what Christ says in Scripture in Matthew 7:
“21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Should Jesus Christ reject multitudes of Mormons from Heaven and they are sent to Hell, who is to say otherwise?
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:39 pm | #92
Tom, I’m thankful for your comments. But your claim that I have been unseemly, or not used good faith, needs to be answered. I did answer you in good faith. If I misinterpreted you, I’m sorry.
please don’t accuse me of being unseemly, or acting in bad faith. You cannot see inside my mind. Considering this, I’m not going to continue this conversation further.
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:42 pm | #93
I would like to have a discussion with you, but I’m reluctant to, if we cannot asume the best of attentions, of each other.
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:54 pm | #94
Perhaps you don’t mean to, but I interpret your tone, Tom , as mildly hostle. Perhaps it’s just your writing style, I don’t know.
You say that I ignore some of your questions, well, you’re right, i have, because i feel they’re not relevant. We can agree to disagree.
Speaking of ignoring, do you, or do you not know greek? certainly, you would agree, that any work, that gets translated, will have something lost, in that translation? And, since that’s the case, how do you know that you’re reading the New Testament correctly, if you don’t know greek?
please provide some examples, of how mormons, are using the same terminology, as mainstream Christians, but mean something different? Because I’m unclear what you’re talking about.
by the way, my point about the faith of mormons, wasn’t meant to be an argument.
February 22nd, 2011 | 5:59 pm | #95
“please don’t accuse me of being unseemly, or acting in bad faith. You cannot see inside my mind. Considering this, I’m not going to continue this conversation further.
I would like to have a discussion with you, but I’m reluctant to, if we cannot asume the best of attentions[sic], of each other.”
Bret, although I do think you are severely mistaken for calling Mormons Christians, I do understand this lament of yours by virtue of my being a victim of uncharitable accusations as well. It’s rather unpleasant.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:16 pm | #96
Really the difference, between mormonism, and mainstream Christianity, is in the ontological view of God. Mainstream Christianity, views god the Father as pure Spirit. The Son, is spirit and body, but mormons, believe that God the Father, and the son are both Spirit, and body.
Mormons, understandably wonder how Jesus, being body and Spirit, can coherently be the same substance as God, and the holy spirit. Perhaps that’s a discussion, for another day.
But you insist that mormos misread the New Testament, but I don’t see how. For example, when jesus prays, they, understandably, think the common sense interpretation is, that Jesus is talking to His Father in Heaven. They really don’t interpret it differently, than you do, Tom, except, those passages that imply, from a mainstream standpoint, that Jesus, is identical with God. But, we mostly see “son of God”, mentioned, which could be interpreted, as mormons do.
you claim, in post 70, that I oppose, others, just to oppose. i could say you’re being unseemly, or writing in bad faith, since clearly,in all my opposing posts, I’ve provided reasons why I’m opposed, and I’m clearly not opposing just to oppose. but I don’t think you’re being unseemly, or acting in good faith, I think you’re honestly misinterpreting me. please show me the same consideration. If I misintepreted you, it was an honest mistake, and I stand corrected.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:19 pm | #97
Sorry, I meant to say, in my last post, I don’t think you’re being unseemly, or acting in bad faith, i think you’re just honestly misinterpreting me. not “good faith”, sorry for the error.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:25 pm | #98
We do not need to continue this conversation further, Bret.
I do not intend to be hostile toward you personally. I acknowledge thinking that your arguments are worthy of sharp correction. I have tried, however, not to adopt a sharp tone, but rather (as in my last comment) to ask you questions that I hoped would lead you to recognize that your position is seriously in need of re-evaluation.
As to knowing Greek, no, I have not studied the language, but I have studied tools through which one can understand the meaning of the original. Your question to me about this implies that you think no one should ever come to any conclusions about the meaning of the original if they have not studied the original. In that case your assertion that Mormonism qualifies as “Christian” is also baseless, if you do not know Greek.
In both of those cases just mentioned, your views are illogical and self-defeating. (The argument concerning the first is contained in my prior comment, not this one.) I think such things invite challenge, don’t you? If you can defend your views, by all means do so, but I don’t think you have done so, and I really don’t think you can. You stand upon a vapor. I really mean that, and I mean it not as personal criticism but as a point of personal concern.
Now again you ask me to provide illustrations of how Mormons have misinterpreted Christian terms. But I have already done so. See comment #54. Another illustration is provided in your own assertion that they are tri-theists and believers in a corporeal godhead. See #67 and #68 also.
I repeat: When you ask a question and I answer it, it is unseemly for you to tell me that I have not answered it. You may think the answer is insufficient or incomplete, or that there are counter-arguments against it. But to simply ignore what I wrote, or to brush it aside as mere assertion, is to argue in bad faith.
I will amend that as follows. It may not be intentionally in bad faith. Your intentions may be just fine. But if you tell me I have not answered a question when in fact I have, that leads to a similar decision: there is no need to continue a conversation of that sort.
I’m still curious what your answer to my major question was in that last comment. I hope you’re thinking through the implications.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:28 pm | #99
You wrote,
That’s a misquote and a misinterpretation of what I wrote, thank you very much. Actually I said that you are opposed to opposing. (That’s a partial quote; please re-read the original.) You do not seem to realize that in so doing you are opposing.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:30 pm | #100
My stake is, my whole family, Tom is devoutly LDS, and I love them dearly. Also, I honestly think this whole notion, as I’ve provided ample argumentation to show, and I stand by it, of mormons not being Christian, is logically without merit. But I guess that it may not matter what I say, you have your views of mormonism, and you seem unlikely to change your mind. If you go back, to my comments, especially 73, you’ll see my arguments.
My suggestion to you, Tom, and perhaps your tone is friendly, with mormons, who you meet in person, but if you wish to get anywhere, with them, don’t put down their beliefs. People rarely believe based on argumentation, as I’m sure you know.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:32 pm | #101
But Tom, that’s not true, either. I oppose abortion, for example.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:35 pm | #102
I am, Tom, but I just disagree. I don’t find your “flea” example, compelling, sorry. i think we have hit an impasse, and i don’t want this to get heated. I will think about what you’ve said. I’ve always respected your intelligence, and Christian commitment. but I hope you’ll think about what I’ve said, as well.
February 22nd, 2011 | 6:38 pm | #103
Tom: one final thing. Please learn as much as you can, about mormonism. i suspect, then, you’ll be more understanding. i simply doubt you know that much, about it, but I could be wrong. Please show it some respect, I’m done now.
February 22nd, 2011 | 7:13 pm | #104
My goal has never been to misinterpret you, Tom, and I regret if I have. But I do want to clarify something. I’m an independent thinker. If I doubt something I see, or read, whther on this blog, or others, I will comment. Upon reflection, i can understand how you came the conclusion you did.
But my opposition is honest, and based on what I believe to be good reasons. i’m only open to what I consider to be rational alternatives, regardless of where they come from, and it happens to be the case, that I do oppose a lot of opinions, on this blog. My hope is to learn, from you, and others, and, perhaps they may learn from me.
But I hope you know that, I’ve never intentionally misread you, and I believe you have not intentionally misread me. That’s good, that we have this back and forth, because it enables us to correct each other.
February 22nd, 2011 | 7:28 pm | #105
You say,
I’m sorry to hear you think that. You have never addressed my counter-arguments, except just now concerning my flea example—which was not the argument, it was only an illustration to make the argument more clear.
I do not think you intentionally misinterpret me. I’m sorry we cannot communicate more successfully. I wish I were as optimistic as you are about being able to correct each other. I do not think it is working, in view of your continuing to complaint that I have answered you when I have, and your not answering questions that I have asked you.
Oh well.
February 22nd, 2011 | 7:48 pm | #106
Tom, I understand that the flea example, was just that, an example,of your argument. But I don’t believe that mormons distort the bible so radically. yes, I agree with you that, hypothetically,a religion could claim to follow the NT, and still be wrong. But I’ve never been convinced that mormons are guilty of this. As I’ve said before, mormons believe Christ to be a distinct being, from God the father, which CAN be supported bey the biblical text. you seem to fault them, for not reading a trinitarian view, of Christianity, into the NT. They don’t, because, although one COULD read the council of Nicaea results, into the New testament, one could ALSO accept that Christ is a distinct being, from His father.
Where, exactly, in the NT, is mormonism distorting things, aside from not viewing God the father and the son, and the holy ghost as of the same sustance?
Certainly, there’s nothing logically incoherent, with reading the NT as Jesus being the Son of God, who came here, to die on a cross, and be resurrected, for our sins, and that resurrection having the efficacy, to enable us to be forgiven? this can still be called Christian, can’t it, and not break any logical rules?
February 22nd, 2011 | 8:05 pm | #107
Let me, reiterate, my last point, and expand, a little on it. Certainly, mormons believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are distinct beings. There’s simply nothing, and i repeat, nothing, in the NT that contradicts this. Clearly, you, Tom, and others, believe that that’s a wrong interpretation, but’s it’s an interpretation that CAN be supported by the NT.Mormons interpret Christ as dying on a cross, and being resurrected, three days later. This interpretation CAN (and I’m sure you agree, is correct) be supported by the NT.
So, it boils down to mormons accepting that, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are distinct beings, which CAN be supported by the NT. I challange anyone, to come up with a passage, that, unambiguously, irrefutably, makes it impossible, for this mormon interpretation, to be plausible.
Mormons accept that Christ died for our sins, as other Christians do.
So it boils down to, your disagreement with the mormon interpretation. But you cannot provide a compelling LOGICAL case, for why the mormon interpretation, is false. (since mormons can plusibly cite passages, that can reasonably suport the notion that God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are distinct beings).
February 22nd, 2011 | 8:20 pm | #108
Bret Lythgoe: “Let me, reiterate, my last point, and expand, a little on it. Certainly, mormons believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are distinct beings. There’s simply nothing, and i repeat, nothing, in the NT that contradicts this.”
How about John 10:30?
“I and the Father are one.”
February 22nd, 2011 | 8:21 pm | #109
Tom, please consider reading, “Counterfeiting The Mormon concept of God”, a book review, by Richard R. Hopkins. The lsatter is reviewing a book called “The counterfiet Gospel of Mormonism, by philosopher (and contributor, here) Francis J. Beckwith, and tell me what you think. It’s on the NEALA.MAXWELL INSTITUTE FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOLARSHIP. maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review.
After reading this, we could fruitfully debate this issue.
February 22nd, 2011 | 9:38 pm | #110
Bret, I think we’re making some progress again. You have acknowledged (#104) that just claiming to follow the NT, and claiming to believe in salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection, is not sufficient for a religion to be Christian. I did not say Mormonism is as extreme as the flea-God example; in fact I explicitly rejected that possibility.
I will read the book review you asked me to read. In the meantime, it seems you accept it is possible that some hypothetical religion R, could (a) use Christian terminology, (b) claim to follow the NT, and yet (c) fail to meet the necessary and sufficient conditions actually to be Christian, thus making R not-Christian.
Thus I am wondering whether you think there are ways to know whether some hypothetical religion *R, which patently meets descriptions (a) and (b,) also fits under the description given in (c). Might any or all of these be indicators that *R meets description (c), and thus is an instance of R?
1. *R is founded by someone who is not a prophet of God.
2. *R is founded by someone who brought forth putative Scriptures that deserve to be rejected.
3. *R is founded by someone who for a variety of historically contingent reasons got his religion wrong.
4. *R presents a wrong conception of God and of Christ.
5. *R‘s theology is radically different from mainstream Christianity.
6. *R is acknowledged not to be a correct form of Christianity.
7. *R believes in an ontologically different Christ than the Christ of Christianity.
8. *R is unorthodox.
Given that it’s logically possible for a religion using Christian terminology not to be Christian in fact, if some religion *R exhibited some or all of these features, might that (or might it not) indicate that *R is not actually Christian?
February 22nd, 2011 | 9:52 pm | #111
I have read the review now. It amounts to an attempt to prove that classic Christianity is massively unbiblical, wrong and (by implication) not really Christian. (LDS is well known as being a putative revival of real Christianity after centuries of error exhibited by that which is not really Christianity.)
But you have been insisting that all it takes for a religion to be Christian is that it believe in Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins, so I cannot see why you would want me to pay attention to a review with which (it seems) you must strongly disagree.
February 22nd, 2011 | 9:57 pm | #112
It could, certainly, Tom. But I think whether mormonism could be considered some unorthodox form of Christianity, or not, hinges, on whether it can provide a rational basis, in th NT, for its claims. If it can, then it’s Christian, but not true. That is, is mormonism going through logical gymnastics, in its interpretation, of the NT, in order to show that it’s Christian, that no objective observer can accept? Or, could it be, that one could concede that, mormons have a basis, for their NT interpretation, even if one could argue a better interpretation? If the latter, I think it’s Christian.
But I will think about your list of eight there.
February 22nd, 2011 | 10:01 pm | #113
Thank you for thinking through the list of eight, Bret. I’ll see you here in the morning!
February 22nd, 2011 | 10:03 pm | #114
Tom, what the review shows, is that, one can, provide a rational basis (even if ultimately wrong) for the mormon conception of christianity, from the old, and new testaments. These texts, possess sufficient ambiguity, that allows this, difference in interpretation.
My position is, and I’m revising things, somewhat, but I want to try and be honest, is the reason, if one accepts Christ, and His resurrection, AND one can make a plausible case, for the mormon view (even though I disagree with it, in the final scheme of things), based on the NT, then mormonism qualifies as Christian. I think that the book review, meets this standard.
February 22nd, 2011 | 10:04 pm | #115
thanks, Tom.
February 22nd, 2011 | 11:48 pm | #116
Here’s the more telling question: is the Mormon faith sufficient for salvation (like the faith of evangelical Christianity presumably is)? In other words, do devout Mormons generally go to hell?
What do people think?
February 23rd, 2011 | 5:10 am | #117
I think the writer of the book review would disagree with the converse view, Bret: that historic Christianity qualifies as Christian. In other words, the review makes the case that Mormonism and historic Christianity are two entirely distinct and different belief systems. But I’ll wait to hear what you say about the list of eight.
February 23rd, 2011 | 9:10 am | #118
‘Here’s the more telling question: is the Mormon faith sufficient for salvation (like the faith of evangelical Christianity presumably is)? In other words, do devout Mormons generally go to hell?
What do people think?’
Question baiting.
February 23rd, 2011 | 10:36 am | #119
Steve Drake beat me to the punch here, Mr. Ehrlich. That is not (in the context of the current discussion) a “more telling question”. It is, rather, a separate question altogether.
The question as to whether or not Mormons ought to be considered Christians is one that can be discussed with due reference to Scripture, history, and tradition. The theology and doctrines of the LDS can be held up to critical scrutiny against the plumb line of generally accepted Christian orthodoxy. In other words it is a judgment that can be prudentially made by folks (councils, churches, even bloggers etc.) in rational conversation.
The eternal fate of a every human person is a judgment left to God and God alone.
Now, what I know to be true, what I confess, is that “there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have an opinion about how that works in relation to other religions, as do other Christians (and those opinions may vary from one another significantly) but, as I said, it’s a very different question.
Perhaps you can get one of the bloggers here to post a “who then can be saved” thread. I won’t be participating but you can give it a shot.
February 23rd, 2011 | 11:48 am | #120
So we’re suddenly agnostic about whether the Mormon faith is, in general, sufficient for salvation? How interesting.
It’s also interesting that folks think that the relevant question is whether someone with a scholarly and impartial view of these matters will categorize Mormonism as a form of Christianity. For this thread, I would have thought the more relevant question is about the perception of more ordinary folks–folks who might believe what their evangelical pastor teaches on Sunday morning. Would most of these folks call “Christian” a faith which they’d regard as insufficient for a person’s salvation?
Perhaps you’re not comfortable with the answer you’d have to give to my first question. But that’s no reason to call it “question baiting.”
February 23rd, 2011 | 12:38 pm | #121
Not uncomfortable (nor agnostic) at all — question asked and answered in the manner I am comfortable answering it. Salvation is ultimately in the province and providence of God. As to my opinion: insofar as I believe that Mormonism (as I have stated) teaches a “false Christ” I believe it therefore generally leads people away from rather than toward the only One who can save.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:14 pm | #122
Mr. Ehrlich asks:
Would most of these folks call “Christian” a faith which they’d regard as insufficient for a person’s salvation?
In my experience — probably not. But again not really relevant. The original question posed was “Does Mitt Romney have a ‘Mormon problem’?” That question then got shuffled off to the side when the question of whether are not Mormons are Christians came to the fore.
Now you would like to introduce a third question. “Are devout Mormons hell-bound?”. You assert that’s the more relevant and interesting question. Care to tell us why?
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #123
The content of a faith system can be publicly accessed and evaluated. Not so the character of a person’s heart. Thus it makes a lot more sense to stay on the topic of Mormonism than of Mormons.