A neighbor at First Thoughts has found occasion (someone was listening to Glenn Beck…) to issue yet another warning to any who might consider communing as Christians with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fair enough. Since we Mormons (you may as well know) in fact regard our church as “the only true and living church,” we really don’t crave recognition by gatekeepers of another orthodoxy. The somewhat quaint Vatican statement our fellow blogger relies on reads like a puzzled anthropologist’s report on an exotic tribe of whom we have but fragmentary information. It notes very correctly that, although Mormons baptize in the name of “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,” they are not Trinitarians, and concludes from this that the Mormon concept of divinity has no “substance.” Well, the Mormon “concept” (if that’s what it is) certainly has no Trinitarian “substance.” The Vatican document offers a rather odd account of Mormonism as a “sacred history” rewritten in America, in which what God revealed was the “latter-day saints” – whatever that would mean. But it suffices to open the Book of Mormon to its title page to learn that its own stated purpose is “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself to all nations…” (Caps in the original).
Now, none of this is secret, and so, if you’re tempted to try survey research or to consult primary sources in addition to referring to Vatican reports of strange peoples, you might just (1) ask the Mormon next door or down the hall, who will no doubt willingly confess to not having a stake in the 3-in-1 doctrine, however elegant the venerable creedal statement may be, or (2) consult reliable information available at mormon.org – which, I can assure you, is not just an exoteric front. What’s published there is really what we believe! And indeed, you may note there both the prominence of Jesus Christ and the absence of Trinitarian sophistication, or, if you prefer, profundity.
So, please, commune with whomever you believe you ought to commune with. And if it helps to ease anyone’s mind, I can validate the following logic for you: All Christians are Trinitarians; No Mormons are Trinitarians; Ergo No Mormons are Christians. Well argued! But Mormons start with a different premise, and reach a different conclusion. And of course there have been many believers, before and after 325 AD, who called themselves Christians, but who would not have recognized many theological formulations that are now considered “traditional.” But to each his own definitions, if define we must. There remains, however, the question whether our blogger’s dichotomy between “scripture and tradition” and “personal revelation” is adequate to frame the question of how to arrive at good definitions.
Whatever may be at stake in affirming that Mormons believe in a “different religion” from “traditional” Christians, maybe we can at least agree that the only important question is, finally, not what is traditional, but what is true. That question seems a better starting point for “interfaith relations” than the pre-emptive deployment of definitions. In fact I have found discussions with Trinitarian friends (yes indeed, some of my best friends are Trinitarians), discussions not only of political and moral things, but indeed of the highest things – discussions, so it happens, that simply skipped over the stage of “definitions” –to be extremely rewarding, not only for reaching mutual understanding of differences and for forming practical alliances, but even for approaching and gaining glimpses of the meaning of truth, notably the truth of Jesus Christ’s infinite atonement (excuse the Mormon locution). I won’t try to define that for you here.
In any case, it is curious that our First Thoughts blogger seems oblivious to much fuller discussions of these matters, discussions published not all so long ago, in the very pages of First Things. Check out the Hancock-Peterson-Holland letter in particular. You can be sure the authors indeed depart from Father Neuhaus’s “tradition,” respectfully but with no regrets.
April 16th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ryan alanna, abby sebastian. abby sebastian said: The Mormon Menace: to issue yet another warning to any who might consider communing as Christians with members of … http://bit.ly/cB1TFA [...]
April 16th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
Speaking as a theist who is both a unitarian and a universalist, although not a member of the UU church, I am also one those whom many people read out of Christianity. I don’t mind because, of course, no one has to right to say who is and who isn’t a Christian.
Where the matter gets troublesome is when people conclude that anyone they say is not a Christian worships a different god than the Christian god.
I am ecumenical enough to view Islam as part of the same religious community as Christianity and Judaism. From my neutral (or at least uncommitted and leaning in neither direction) position I find the status of the Muslims and the Mormons in respect to Christianity about the same theologically – there are major political differences. Each of them offers a new revelation that perfects to original. A great deal more could be said but I don’t think this is the proper place.
It seems to me that talk about differences in doctrine is more or less a waste of time when one party believes the other does not worship the true god. The only thing worth talking about, it seems to me, is the god of the Jews. I have yet to find a explanation, good or bad, why exclusivist Christians are willing to view the god of the Old Testament as the Christian god but not the god of the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon
April 17th, 2010 | 12:12 am
Personally, I’m growing extremely weary of the efforts by some to define me, my wife, my children, my parents, half of my extended family, and many of my friends out of Christendom.
I wrote a book on the subject a number of years back, arguing that (by any reasonable lexicographical standard) Mormons plainly fit within the historical definition of “Christianity,” and I’ve never seen a coherent response to its argument. Nor, at this point, do I expect one.
I’m content to go forward with my life, trying to be a disciple of Christ, trusting in his atoning sacrifice and resurrection, seeking to live as a Christian. The critics are welcome to continue with their baseless word games.
My only real regret is that, in their zeal to exclude and to dismiss, they so often make the cause of Christ look so downright ugly.
April 17th, 2010 | 12:18 am
It can indeed seem quite useful to skip over definitions, especially when we define the same terms in mutually exclusive ways. The best people I’ve ever met for doing this are Vedic Hindus. Their method of evangelism seems to be to convince you that you already believe in their religion.
Can we at least agree not to do *that* to one another? :)
April 17th, 2010 | 1:56 am
If mainstream Christians are bound and determined to deny Mormons their much sought after claim to being “Christian”, then perhaps they can allow Mormons to be “Christ-believers.”
So, you can be the “Christians” and Mormons will be the “Christ-believers.”
April 17th, 2010 | 2:22 am
I had rather thought that a true Christian might be one who Christ will acknowledge as a true follower at some meeting in our future. Though that’s still a definition, we can’t tell for certain which people it includes. I have to confess I’m astonished at the certainties some people here express. Though Mormons do claim that their church is the only true and living church, they do not believe it follows that members of other churches are not Christian. Personal prayer and commitment trumps knowledge of history and doctrine. I suppose it’s quite possible to be quite muddled on many doctrinal questions and still receive the spirit. I would feel presumptuous in a Pharisaical way to proclaim who is not a follower of Christ, who I take to be a living being with whom true followers actively commune. I am sure that some who profess a belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God are in quiet communion with the Savior and are trying mightily to follow.
April 17th, 2010 | 3:48 am
Well, Freemasonry isn’t really Christianity either and they are also enemies of the Catholic Church and …hang on…weren’t Freemasons the ones who killed Joseph Smith for plagiarizing and revealing various rituals and symbolic ideas without permission and injecting them into Mormonism? Why don’t you go after those guys? Or do Freemasons turn invisible when you put on the rose colored glasses?
April 17th, 2010 | 1:58 pm
I live in salt lake city, utah, and I am not mormon. Having said that, I find the notion that mormons are not christians, to be ludicrous, at best. To assert that the conclusions of the council of nicea are the basis for being counted as christian, would lead one to the odd,to say the least, conclusion that all ostensible christians prior to this weren’t really christians! I have been a reader of First Things since 1992 (and a subscriber since 1996), and I have the greatest respect for father Neuhaus (and was very saddened by his death last year) but he simply got it wrong regarding mormonism. I do recall, in his article, in the public square, (was it the year 2000? I forget), his assertion that mormonism was not christian, but mormons, may be.(so Ralph, you may not be damned after all!!)I thought at the time, and still do, that this was charitable, but inconsistent. Since mormons naturally believe the tenants of mormonism, they would have wrong beliefs (regarding the trinity), and since having wrong beliefs regarding this makes one non-christian, mormons themselves would be non-christian.
April 17th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
In my opinion it is not exactly correct to say that Mormons are not trinitarian. We reject the Nicene version of the Trinity but accept the type of “social Trinity” described in the New Testament. See, for example, http://www.allaboutmormons.com/Questions/providing_forum_learned_information_questions_ENG_396.php
April 17th, 2010 | 3:10 pm
Very insightful. I also recommend Stephen E. Robinson’s “Are Mormons Christians” on this topic.
April 17th, 2010 | 4:39 pm
Very nice post. I think the point in calling Mormons non-christians is to put us into the ultra-unorthodox corner so that as few people as possible will pay attention to us, or if they do pay attention, only as a circus/freak show attraction, quite separated from reality or any sort of normality. It is laughable that man thinks he can define what a true believer in Christ should look like. To do so is to eschew his words when he said that his ways are higher that our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
Anyway, everything I do as a Mormon, every waking moment is (or at least should be) centered in Christ. Whether you want to call me a christian or not means very little to me. For a very good short book on the topic, I would suggest to the interested reader, “Are Mormons Christian,” by Stephen E. Robinson.
April 17th, 2010 | 5:05 pm
Mormons are not Trinitarians, as you have said. And you believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three persons, so you are not Unitarians, correct? Are Mormons then polytheists?
I browsed around on mormon.org for a bit, and also tried searching for “polytheism” and “monotheism” but I couldn’t find an answer to this question.
April 17th, 2010 | 5:31 pm
Good post and comments. It’s true Mormon’s aren’t Trinitrians, but for them God[s] is still personal and social. So they aren’t Deists (Lockeans) who believe that God is past tense and has nothing to say to us and can do nothing for us now. And they aren’t pantheists or believe in the deep unreality of personal existence or individuality, and so basically they’re good for our democracy and much better than all those New Agey neo-Gnostic liberal Protestants. th They aren’t polytheistic in the sense, say, the Greeks and Romans were; they don’t reduce religion to civil religion. They believe each of us was created, but they don’t believe in divine omnipotence. They don’t seem to believe in original sin or sin in general in a way Christians would recognize, but they are perhaps too morally serious or insist on almost too much personal responsibility. Jesus Christ does have a central place in their devotion. All in all we can say that the Mormons appear more Christian than the Unitarians and, from a Catholic view, about as heretical although in a different way than members of the Church of Christ. Because they do what they say or live what they believe much more than most Christians, they’re actual pretty transparent or neither devious nor dangerous. The fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon in good standing is one of the most reassuring antidotes to anyone who’s troubled by his undeniable flip-flopping.
April 17th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
The logic that “All Christians are Trinitarians; No Mormons are Trinitarians; Ergo No Mormons are Christians” begs the question, Are Americans Christians? Given that the majority of Americans believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals despite the fact that that the majority of their churches espouse the three in one Trinity concept means that the non-Christian is very high. Those that define Christianity to narrowly are defining America as a non-Christian nation. I have even read blogs saying that saying that if you believe something that is not in the bible, you are not Christian.
April 17th, 2010 | 9:31 pm
Are you sure you’ve captured the tone of Mills’s piece? It didn’t sound so antagonistic to me.
April 17th, 2010 | 9:48 pm
An interesting article. To answer the question about what Mormons are, technically they would be henotheists which, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is, ” The belief in one god as the deity of the individual, family, or tribe, without asserting that he is the only God: considered as a stage of religious belief between polytheism and monotheism.” Hence Mormons acknowledge the existence of other gods but grant supremacy to the Nicean Godhead, with God the Father being the chief object of worship through the intercession of the Son, Jesus Christ.
April 18th, 2010 | 12:24 am
Peter Lawler: “They believe each of us was created, but they don’t believe in divine omnipotence”
Citation, please. That God is omnipotent is taught as a fact in LDS church instructional materials, and is referenced in the LDS canon:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/o/18?sr=1
April 18th, 2010 | 4:28 am
So there is no group that Mormons don’t consider “Real Christians”?
Hmmm let’s see what Joseph says:
” Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.”
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them…”
So Curtis said in the responses that “It is laughable that man thinks he can define what a true believer in Christ should look like. To do so is to eschew his words when he said that his ways are higher that our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.”
Does this make Joseph Smith’s attitude laughable? Seems to me that J.S. is eschewing the words of Christ…
April 18th, 2010 | 6:20 am
The concept of Trinity was made-up by men in the 4th century. It says that God is a being without body parts and passion, and that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are the same being. These men came to one correct conclusion: the godhead is united in purpose, but they are 3 distinct personages. A cult is defined as a man-made creed. Those who claim that Mormonism is a cult are often the same people who claim that the Nicean creed accurately represents the bible. The Nicean creed is truly a man-made doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon is likewise. Say what you want, but as a convert to the LDS church, I have been able to come closer to my Savior Jesus Christ, and know Him, better than in any other faith to which I belonged. In my mind, I have settled the issue intellectually via the argument above. More importantly, I have settled the issue spiritually because I know Him and I know that He knows me.
April 18th, 2010 | 10:44 am
Joseph Stanko,
I think that Mormon belief is probably best defined as either monolatry or henotheism. Practically speaking, we worship God the Father and are able to through the ministry of Christ and the intervention of the Holy Ghost. But that’s just a working model that I have, not anything like a systematic treatise or a full explanation of the wide variety of Mormon beliefs about God.
It is also worth nothing that Jews and Muslims often argue that Trinitarians are polytheists. So labeling internally and externally may differ. That said, we definitely aren’t polytheists.
April 18th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
One curious thing about all this discussion, is that I don’t think that many Mormons (if polled) would list non-Trinitarianism as one of the main things distinguishing them from Catholicism and Protestantism.
Most Mormons would probably say that (versus other Christian faiths) their defining features are the Book of Mormon, eternal marriage, modern day prophets, restrictions on alcohol/cigarettes/coffee, missionary service, lay priesthood, temple garments, exaltation, member callings, youth seminary, home and visiting teaching, strictness on pre-marital sex, etc.
I don’t think the Mormon view on the Trinity would even make the top ten. In fact, it is a bit confusing for the average Mormon to keep track of which scriptures in the Bible (and even in the Book of Mormon) are believed to refer to the Father and and which refer to the Son. (The Jehovah of the Old Testament is believed to be the Jesus of the New Testament but is called simply “God” during Sunday School lessons.) Mormons frequently conflate Father, Son, and Holy Ghost on a practical level.
April 18th, 2010 | 6:51 pm
At first, Hancock says the Mormon Church is “the only true and living church.” But then he says: “So, please, commune with whomever you believe you ought to commune with.”
Lawler says doctrinal belief is not important. It doesn’t matter that Mormons deny the Trinity, original sin, and the omnipotence of God. All that matters is that they are good citizens.
Should I infer from this that “postmodern conservatism” is identical to Lockean/Madisonian liberalism?
April 18th, 2010 | 9:56 pm
Jay,
Do you have a source for the claim that “the majority of Americans believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals?” I would have thought more Americans believe that these are 3 names for 1 God, or 3 aspects or functions of 1 God, as in the increasingly popular formula “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” Unitarian theology has a wide and deep influence in American history.
Either way, your point that the average “man in the pew” often doesn’t understand the nuances of theology is well taken.
April 18th, 2010 | 10:28 pm
The “concept” of the Trinity was not “made -up” by men in the 4th century it is an original Christian belief from the beginning that was officially declared dogma in the 4th century.
There’s a difference.
April 19th, 2010 | 4:29 am
If the Trinity was a “concept man made in the 4th century” then why is one of the things Christ made very clear that baptism was to be done in the name of “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” Why the equal weight? Why not just in the name of “God” or just “Jesus” why all three if they weren’t essential?
It’s not unclear that baptism is essential and that this is stressed by Christ himself.. this is no small thing.
In the very early church writings, too… this didn’t originate in the 4th century this is original apostolic Christianity.
April 19th, 2010 | 12:41 pm
Paul,
You are correct to note that some of the early fathers thought that the idea of the Trinity best described the scriptural record. To say that the “Trinity” originated in the 4th century is incorrect. However, there is more than one way to understand invocations of the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” and not all of them are trinitarian. Of course, not all the early Christians were trinitarian either. So, the historical record is somewhat ambiguous regarding the usefulness of reading trinitarianism into the scriptural record.
April 19th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
That doesn’t answer why are the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” given equal weight in such an important event.
There are “many ways” of understanding this invocation, sure… the very definition of “many ways of understanding” is basically what different denominations are all about, but all the oldest, most orthodox understandings are -in fact- Trinitarian…. whether or not they use that specific word, the understanding is universal.
April 19th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
[...] Things” broke out all over about whether Mormons are Christians or not. I know I will be accused of saying this just becasue I like Romney for POTUS, but that is [...]
April 19th, 2010 | 2:40 pm
It’s interesting that so much of the conversation is revolving around the Trinity as the fundamental dividing line between Mormonism and Christianity. This is not of course to say that the Trinity isn’t an important issue, just that it’s not the only issue. I think Dr. Lawler is on to something when he raises the question of “sin.” Mormons reject the idea of original sin, and struggle even to achieve a coherent definition of individual sin, so much so that the only people in anything definable as “hell” are.. apostate Mormons.
The doctrine of atonement suffers accordingly. If we have not sinned, Jesus’ death (again dodging the issue of whether or not he was God incarnate) as a substitutionary atonement and the Crucifixion itself becomes problematic at best. What exactly is he atoning for if sin has not brought God’s wrath upon mankind?
Which further leads to a division over what the Resurrection means. Rather than being raised from the dead by God as God, Jesus becomes raised from the dead as A god, which will likewise happen to all of us.
Which in turn shifts the view of heaven, away from unworthy souls snatched from the hell which we all deserve and enjoying forever God’s presence and glory, to a view of heaven where we are rejoiced in as gods ourselves.
And the list goes on and on and on, to the point where we have to honestly ask how different Mormon theology has to be before they have defined themselves out of historic Christianity. It really is a non-sensical statement to say “Mormons are Christian, they just disagree on the doctrines of creation, sin, heaven, hell, the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurreuction.” By that logic, Muslims, Hindus, and any other theists you care to mention are just as Christian.
April 19th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
@Jim: Although from a perspective it might seem as though Mormon’s have no discernible doctrine regarding the atonement without original sin. However, from a Mormon’s perspective, this isn’t the case.
From a Mormon perspective, no unclean thing can dwell with God. Sin is spiritual separation from God caused by man’s choice of excising agency contrary to God’s commandments. (Note that for Mormon’s the atonement redeems man from two conditions: death, which is physical separation from God that was inherited via Adam and Eve taking mortality upon themselves in the Garden of Eden by partaking of the forbidden fruit, and sin, which is spiritual separation from God by virtue of our own excise of agency with respect to God’s commandments).
Thus, when God gives a commandment, there is a consequence that inures to our benefit or condemnation. The effect of rebelling against God’s commandments is a separation from God (no unclean thing can dwell with Him). This is justice.
Jesus Christ’s atonement for sin allows him to offer mercy to once again make us “right” with God’s commandments on the conditions of sincere repentance. Jesus Christ’s sinless life and his atonement in paying the price of our sins gives him the ability to reconcile each individual with the God’s law. This is mercy.
From our perspective, the doctrine of atonement is sound logically and most important spiritually, though from your perspective it might not seem sound.
April 19th, 2010 | 4:59 pm
Mohandas Gandhi said it well:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga107529.html
April 19th, 2010 | 6:44 pm
Well said, Jim.
Most modern ideas on theology seem to do little more than strip away the original meaning so that nothing actually means anything.
I find it more than a little strange that Mormons assert they are different because no one else gets it right, that’s why they change everything around -and- they are simultaneously the same religion as the one they refute.
Then again pretty much anything that Freemasonry touches has a strong odor of deceit wafting from it.
(cough) Gnosticism (cough)
April 19th, 2010 | 7:12 pm
Jim said… This is not of course to say that the Trinity isn’t an important issue, just that it’s not the only issue.
Besides inerrancy, the Trinity must be the most important. Without the Trinity, there is no Deity of Christ, without the Deity of Christ, there is no incarnation, and no atonement for sin. Inerrancy is the key. Without it, the entire text is compromised.
The Trinity of God is the first word in the Bible, along with Jesus claiming to be God Himself.
Original Sin is clearly taught in Scripture:
Romans 5
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Original Sin is upon all men, just as the image of God is; imputation.
I am not unaware of the massive theological problems with mormonism.
April 19th, 2010 | 7:49 pm
I am afraid that Jim (April 19 at 2:40 PM) has an inaccurate understanding of Mormon beliefs. Mormons believe that “Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. Mormons take sin very seriously, and thus take the need for repentance, and the offer of forgiveness by God made available through Christ’s atonement, very seriously. When a Mormon commits a serious sin (such as adultery), he is expected to repent by making confession to his ecclesiastical leaders, who may determine it is necessary to place formal sanctions against the member through a hearing by a church disciplinary council of local leaders, which may result in restrictions on participation (“disfellowshipping”) or revocation of the person’s membership (“excommunication”). Generally a person who has been excommunicated may attend public church meetings (worship services, Sunday School, etc.), but not take the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and it is a basic requirement that they continue in the status of being excommunicated for a full year before they can be considered by a disciplinary council for reinstatement, which also requires concurrence from Church HQ. How seriously do YOUR churches regard sin in actual practice?
Mormons believe that the reason we are not accountable for Adam’s transgression is because of the Atonement of Christ (“As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”). All mankind will be (eventually) resurrected. Those who have committed grievous sins and not repented will not be resurrected until the end of Christ’s 1,000 year reign on earth. Mormons believe that God does not intend that people who commit a felony for which they might serve 10 or 50 years in prison are intended to suffer a billion years and more in torment.
Mormons also believe that the “just men” and women of the earth, who have sought to live righteously according to their knowledge of God and his laws, will be resurrected with “the Just” at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Basically, most popular concepts of “heaven” will be fulfilled for them.
For Mormons, membership in the LDS Church involves making special covenants with God and receive additional blessings, including the promise that Peter and Paul spoke of concerning being “joint heirs with Christ.”
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was Jehovah who created the earth under the direction of the Father. Jesus/Jehovah made the covenant with Abraham (“Before Abraham was, I am”), he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, and and he sent prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah to warn Israel to repent or face conquest and exile–and that he retains the capacity to do the same today (a power that the “omnipotent” Christ of Traditional Christianity has allegedly lost).
Mormons believe that Jesus was the literal son of Heavenly Father and an earthly, human mother, Mary, with both the capacity to die and the capacity to be resurrected, and through whose resurrection all mankind were enabled to be resurrected along with him. Mormons believe that Christ’s atonement included, beginning in Gethsemane, the acceptance of the burdens of sin of all mankiind, as well as a comprehension of all the suffering and pain of mankind throughout history, past and future. Contrary to the concept of the impassable God, Mormons believe that God (including the Father and the Son) are animated by infinite love and compassion, and that these qualities were embodied in Christ’s atonement reconciling men and women to God. Mormons believe that this understanding of the Atonement is plainly taught in the Bible (“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son”), even as it appears to be denied in some of the creeds of later centuries.
Mormons believe in the doctrine of the “Harrowing of Hell”, which has largely been abandoned by traditional Christians, that during Christ’s time in the tomb, his spirit went on a mission to open hell for the release of captive spirits, including those who had died without hearing the gospel. Mormons believe he commissioned prophets and later apostles to continue that work, which was the basis for statements in the epistles of Peter and Paul about salvation for the dead. Mormons find this a more just disposition of all the billions who have died without hearing a Christian missionary through no fault of their own than telling them to suffer eternity in hell, an alternative that portrays God as a sadist.
Mormons affirm virtually all of the traditional Apostles Creed. Mormons find the Nicene and Chalcedon formulations of God being three separate persons of a single substance to be logically incomprehensible, and not required by the Bible, in Acts or the Epistles, where not a single person is asked to subscribe to that self-contradictory formula before they are accepted in baptism. Most of the popular descriptions of the doctrine of the Trinity turn out to participate in one or more heretical interpretations, such as that God wears three “masks”. In addition, the concept that the God of the Trinity has no physical body, even while Christ was resurrected with a physical body and is affirmatively a member of the Trinity, denies the plain testimony of the apostles, including Thomas, and Mary Magdalene.
One does not see people who answer the altar call at a revival being questioned whether they believe in the Nicene creed’s formula describing God, let alone whether they can even say what it is accurately. In practice, the main use of the creedal Trinity seems to be as a means to bash Mormons and Unitarians, not as an actual requirement for membership in any traditional Christian church.
Mormons believe in the unity of Father and Son which Christ speaks of in John 17, a unity which he asked the Father to also confer upon his apostles!
With respect to Mormons and apotheosis, theosis or deification, that concept is one that is still taught in the Eastern Orthodox churches (as my mother, a former Russian Orthodox, affirms), preserved from earliest Christianity, but Catholicism and thus Protestantism has somehow abandoned a doctrine that was taught widely and believed among the first Christians. Mormons simply believe the power of Christ’s Atonement reaches to the point of raising us up to sit with him on his throne, to make us “perfect”, as his Father is perfect, to be “joint heirs” with Christ of the glory given him by the Father. If Christians have faith in Christ, why not believe what he said?
For many of these beliefs, the Mormons have counterparts in one of the traditional Christian churches. For example, the theologians who assert the concept of the Open God have suggested that the creedal rejection of God’s emotions is a rejection of the plain words of scripture, and has harmed the ability of Christians to appreciate the extent of God’s love for them, to understand God as having real, felt compassion for those who suffer. One can imagine God being angry at those who have distanced humanity from himself through obscurantist human philosophical concepts, precisely the thing that Joseph Smith reported Jesus as telling him.
Mormons see themselves as receiving a restoration by heavenly messengers of the pure, original Christianity taught by the original apostles. And they have plenty of evidence on the scholarly side to back up that claim, evidence that, interestingly enough, has largely come to light well after the death of Joseph Smith, who could not have created Mormonism by cobbling together concepts in the churches of his day, who had lost so much of their understanding of early Christianity.
April 19th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
Paul,
I am deeply skeptical of your claim. Certainly those early christians who, for instance, believed that Jesus was completely mortal didn’t believe that this proved the trinity. The Gnostics, to choose another early Christian group, don’t appear to be Trinitarian (or, if they are, they appear to also be polytheistic). All the groups that eventually formed the Catholic Church may have come to this conclusion, but that is a narrow view that doesn’t consider the wide variety of belief in early Christianity. However, if you can substantiate your claim that all early Christians believed that that passage proved the Trinity (and didn’t use it to argue something else), then I will humbly retract my objection.
April 19th, 2010 | 10:09 pm
Those early “Christians” who believed Christ was merely mortal were corrected by the Apostles.
The Apostles were directed by Christ to guard the faith. That others held varying beliefs that contradicted Apostolic version of Christianity is neither surprising nor have any bearing on the authenticity of the original Orthodox views..
Yogananda’s New Age “Self Realization Fellowship” which is basically Hinduism/Kriya Yoga holds Christ as one of their “gurus” does this make SRF “Christian”? Everyone who mentions Christ or has a view of Him…. How is that necessarily automatically Christian?
Paul warned against the Gnostics All you have to do is read the New Testament to see them being mentioned and warnings against them…
Yes, they have views on Christ which differ from the Orthodox, Ironically it was the French Professor of Gnositicism Rene Guenon who came to the conclusion and whose writings convinced me after years of wandering through Gnostic studies that the Orthodox branches of any religion are the most authentic.
Of course in the toxic “relative truth” atmosphere of the late 20th / early 21st century Everything means anything means nothing at all.
The belief in the equal Trinity pre-existed the 4th century in the same way the bible as a collection of authentically Christian books pre-existed the second council of Nicea. It was merely acknowledged (Not invented) at a certain point as being authentic.
April 19th, 2010 | 10:34 pm
Paul,
I have no reason to believe that you are familiar with the original meaning of these terms or these ideas. You may well be erudite and learned in these matters, but your manner here doesn’t demonstrate (in fact, your seeming inability to entertain opposing arguments seems to argue against erudtion). Nonetheless, you’ve yet to demonstrate that you have a deeper understanding of the original intent or message of the Gospels than any of the rest of us. Is there any reason I should take your word for anything, because it doesn’t seem reliable on face value?
April 19th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
also, just because you brought it up, that US Constitution, made by a bunch of masons, is sure a deceitful document, no?
April 19th, 2010 | 10:54 pm
My friend who is a member of the Assembly of God church sent me this web site and knowing I am a Mormon, asked me what I thought. I just wanted to say that we believe in Jesus Christ and know that He is God’s only begotten son. We are God’s children too, but not like Jesus was and is. We believe that Jesus, Heavenly Father and The Holy Ghost are separate entities and are not one personage with 3 spirits in it. Jesus is the literal son of God and they can stand next to each other, and they are two separate distinct beings. The Holy Ghost is separate and distinct. But being that we love and believe in Christ as our redeemer, that fact alone would indicate that we are indeed Christians. We do believe that our church was established as the true authority handed down by God, & Jesus Christ. The keys of authority were handed down to Joseph Smith by Peter, James & John. Elijah the prophet handed down to Joseph Smith the keys to binding the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I believe in my church more than any other thing I ever believed in in my life. I believe that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and that our prophets today have all the revelations and prophecy that God wants to give us and if we listen to them, our lives will be much better.
April 20th, 2010 | 7:50 am
So it appears to me that Jim laid down the true challenge, and the responses have been most thoughtful and fascinating. It may be above my pay grade and certainly beyond the time I have this morning to respond. I barely had time to get all the reading done. But two points: It did immediately occur to me, when reading David Bentley Hart’s new “Orthodox” book, that what he says about what he thinks the Orthodox thinks the early theologians teach about the “divinization” of each of us through Christ sounded strikingly Mormon. (It also seems to me that Hart sounded Mormon, so to speak, when describing what hell is–separation from God’s love etc. and nothing more. And I also agree that most Christians today–including the “orthodox” in a broader sense–are reluctant to speak confidently about the eternal damnation of anyone.) A couple of Evangelical reviews I’ve read of that book have been creeped out by the extremism of DBH’s manner of expressing that view about personal divinization.
Point 2, finally: It also seems to me that the Mormons expect too much of sincere repetence from sinners and so grade too hard on personal behavior etc. when it comes to excommunication. While the evangelicals might be too complacent in saying that the “born again” remain sinners (which why Bill Clinton returned so readily to his Baptist roots during his troubles), it is true enough that repetence doesn’t make the sinner into something else in this world, except in the rare cases of the saints. So it seems to me that whatever the difficulties in the details of any doctrine of “original sin,” the Christian are right to think it explains why we don’t become perfect in this world or ever through our own efforts, but only by God’s grace. This life, of course, is the only one we get for the Christians, which imposes another definite time limit on any personal struggle for perfection. Socrates, the mortal, knew he never could become a wise man or a God in that sense.
April 20th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
Paul,
Regarding your quoting of Joseph Smith History 1:18-20, this is taken out of context. It was referring to the leaders of different Christian sects in the vicinity of where Joseph Smith lived in New York state in 1820, not to modern Christians of the current day. Not to say that it does not apply to some people in our day, be they of any faith, but certainly not in any kind of general way. Also, we should not judge others’ Christianity but should leave that up to God. I don’t as a Mormon try to judge the members of other churches, whether or not they are followers of Christ, but leave it as a thing that is between them and God. I am willing to share what I have and know, and help where I can, but ultimately God is the judge and is the only one who knows their innermost desires and intentions, strengths and weaknesses.
April 21st, 2010 | 11:03 am
“So it seems to me that whatever the difficulties in the details of any doctrine of “original sin,” the Christian are right to think it explains why we don’t become perfect in this world or ever through our own efforts, but only by God’s grace. ”
Yep. My opinion is that Mormons who sometimes disagree with the doctrine of original sin misunderstand what the doctrine of original sin is (so do some traditional Christians too, but never mind). if you think of original sin as a doctrine that God wants to send you to hell just for being descended from Adam, then, yeah, Mormons don’t believe it. But if you think of original sin as the doctrine that we’re all fundamentally screwed up, ineradicably tainted with evil by mortal nature (for some values of ineradicable) then, yeah, Mormons better believe it, because their scriptures do and because all experience testifies to it.
April 21st, 2010 | 2:19 pm
I have found the comments to be interesting regarding Mormons and traditional Christians.
The following article by Orson Scott Card may be of help in understanding the LDS point of view.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695233910/Theology-LDS-god-is-in-harmony-with-the-Bible.html
Now here’s a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS):
TC: The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other.
LDS: If they touch each other, they’re not parallel.
TC: Nevertheless, they are parallel, and they touch. They touch at every point.
LDS: If they touch at every point, they’re the same line. Not three.
TC: They touch at every point, yet there are three.
LDS: That doesn’t make any sense. Lines can’t be different yet the same, parallel yet intersecting. The words stop having any meaning when you say such things.
TC: That’s because you have a finite, mortal mind, which cannot comprehend the nature of geometry.
LDS: That’s just crazy. The Trinity is three lines, completely distinct, perfectly parallel, so they go infinitely in the same direction. That’s simple, it’s clear, and it’s true. In fact, we’ve seen the lines.
TC: That’s blasphemy! You can never see the lines! They’re only imaginary!
LDS: Your lines are imaginary. The lines we’ve seen are real.
TC: Then you are not Geometers!
And that’s where the discussion always ends.
May 16th, 2010 | 10:12 am
If we “Mormons” are not Christians…then no one fits the bill.
November 22nd, 2010 | 4:10 pm
[...] And as they ask today of a sect that followed after the Second Great Awakening in the 1820s, Are Mormons Christian? [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact