Seizing The Mormon Moment
November 8, 2012
Rachel Lu
With Mitt Romney’s campaign for president concluded, his co-religionists are left to reflect on what has been, for them as well as for him, a very revealing day in the sun. Mormons and non-Mormons alike have learned many interesting things about the place of Mormonism within the American religious landscape.
The good news for Mormons is that America does not hate them. A year ago many Democrats were hopefully predicting that Americans would be unwilling to elect a Mormon president. In the end, though, Romney’s Mormonism does not seem to have been a serious obstacle. It may even have been a mild asset, insofar as it added a truly “American” note to his polished, upper-class image. In any event, conservatives were clearly willing to rally around their Mormon candidate in the heat of a close election.
From the Mormon perspective, however, there is also some bad news. According to a recent Pew survey, about half of Americans still believe that Mormons are not Christian. Mormons are familiar with this claim, but in the past they have tended to attribute it to irrational anti-Mormon prejudice. Now it becomes clear that conservative Christians still believe this, despite their willingness to accept Mormons as friends and allies in other endeavors. In light of this unique “Mormon moment,” it may be time for Mormons and Christians to determine where they stand with respect to one another.
For Mormons, it might be useful to reflect a bit more on the extent to which they want to be included in the larger Christian community. Although they often insist that they are Christians (and wish to be universally regarded as such), Latter-Day Saints also regard themselves as exceptional in many ways. The Mormon historical narrative includes a lengthy period that is normally termed “The Great Apostasy,” extending from the death of Christ’s original disciples until the time of Joseph Smith. During this time, the true Church is said to have been absent from the earth. Needless to say, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism were not absent from the earth during this period, and the implication would seem to be that the Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants are apostates, or at least not members of Christ’s true Church.
Mormons assert their institutional independence in other ways, too. Converts to Mormonism are baptized absolutely regardless of whether they came from a Christian sect or not. If, as most Christians believe, we enter Christ’s Church through baptism, then it would seem that Mormons regard only themselves as members. Of course this impression is only reinforced by the fact that Mormons take themselves to be the only ones with the true priesthood and regard their prophet as God’s truly appointed seer and religious authority for our time.
It would clearly be unreasonable to demand that Mormons stop calling themselves Christians. As they tirelessly point out, they are devoted to Jesus Christ, and they view themselves as the embodiment of Christ’s true Church on this earth. But it is odd in many respects that they should insist, in their interactions with Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, that they are Christians also. This smacks of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Mormons need to consider carefully whether they prefer to be unique and independent, or whether they would rather be members of a larger, Christian family.
Non-Mormons, for their part, could benefit from a clearer understanding of what Mormonism really is. Mormons are confusing because their heterodoxy does not fit the familiar mold. Contemporary Christians have considerable experience with laxity, ignorance, and duplicity concerning Christian dogma. In a pluralistic world filled with secular influences, the core of believing, orthodox Christianity is subject more to erosion than to dramatic collapse. Thus, we have ample experience with what sociologist Christian Smith terms “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” a watered-down collection of quasi-Christian ideals that provides emotional satisfaction without really adhering to the historical or philosophical roots of Christianity. We are familiar, as well, with defiant statements from people who wish to be identified with the great religious traditions, but who take umbrage at the suggestion that they should submit to religious authority. These forms of heterodoxy are readily recognized and understood by orthodox Christians.
Mormonism does not fit these familiar molds. As a rule, Mormons are neither lax nor liberal. They go to church regularly and affirm the value of religious authority. They have large families and a strong marriage culture. They are prolife. Whatever Mormonism is, it should not be classified with the various strains of “Christianity lite” that run rampant in our society. We need another angle from which to illuminate the oddities of Mormonism.
Committed theological deviants are somewhat exceptional in today’s religious landscape, but they are common in the history of the Church. It may be helpful, then, to try viewing Mormonism as a heresy of an older style. Its errors spring from a genuine commitment to faulty principles rather than a loose and lax attachment to good ones.
Mormons can appear threatening at times, insofar as they adhere to (and promote) their beliefs with conviction and energy. Still, they are morally serious and concerned about truth, and these laudable traits can provide openings for cooperation on moral issues, and for fruitful dialogue. Like most heresies, Mormonism includes some very strange elements. History has shown us again and again that this tends to happen when the careful, precise theological formulations of the early councils are rejected. By the same token, history shows that the Church can benefit enormously from exchanges with heretics, insofar as these provide an opportunity for her to clarify and promulgate her own teachings. So it may prove in this case.
History has presented us with a Mormon moment. Let us see that it does not go to waste.
Rachel Lu is an independent scholar and an instructor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.8.2012 | 5:25am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Mormonism accepts, without qualification, the legitimacy of the New Testament. It believes that it's an accurate historical account of Jesus Christ's existence on the earth. It accepts the view that most reasonable people accept as being what makes one a Christian, that Christ died on the cross, rose three days later, and this enabled all of humanity, if they repent, and accept Christ, to be saved. Without Christ's death and ressurrection, humans would be lost. This is absolutely essential to Mormonism. So why do we continue to hear the immensely tiresome, and illogical claim that Mormonism is not Christian?
Because Mormonism has a different theological conception of the the ontological nature of Christ. Mormonism believes that Christ is the son of God the father, the two being essentially distinct physical beings. In fact, Mormonism considers the Godhead, which consists of God the father, Jesus Christ the son, and the Holy Ghost, to be made of matter (although the Holy Ghost is not made of the same type of matter as the father and the son). But all three, in Mormonism, are united in purpose. They form a "trinity'' if you will, of teleology. (even though the word "trinity'' is seldom used in Mormon culture, to refer to their own beliefs, concerning the Godhead). So Mormons don't "deny'' the trinity, they just have a different metaphysical understanding of it. This may be wrong, and it certainly doesn't make Mormonism the same as "traditional Christianity'', but it cannot possibly render Mormonism not Christian, since, as I mentioned, Christ's death and ressurection is central to human beings salvation. And only a God could save humanity, in Mormon eyes, and Christ is a God.
So why not drop this illogical claim that Mormonism is non-Christian, and focus on what's the real distinction between Mormons and other Christians, the fact that the latter accept the results of the Council of Nicaea, and Mormons don't? This may mean Mormons are wrong on the details, such as the nature of the Godhead, etc., but they're still Christians; similarly, Catholics (from a protestant perspective) are wrong on the details, such as the need for Popes, the rosery, confession, etc., but still Christians.
Because Mormonism has a different theological conception of the the ontological nature of Christ. Mormonism believes that Christ is the son of God the father, the two being essentially distinct physical beings. In fact, Mormonism considers the Godhead, which consists of God the father, Jesus Christ the son, and the Holy Ghost, to be made of matter (although the Holy Ghost is not made of the same type of matter as the father and the son). But all three, in Mormonism, are united in purpose. They form a "trinity'' if you will, of teleology. (even though the word "trinity'' is seldom used in Mormon culture, to refer to their own beliefs, concerning the Godhead). So Mormons don't "deny'' the trinity, they just have a different metaphysical understanding of it. This may be wrong, and it certainly doesn't make Mormonism the same as "traditional Christianity'', but it cannot possibly render Mormonism not Christian, since, as I mentioned, Christ's death and ressurection is central to human beings salvation. And only a God could save humanity, in Mormon eyes, and Christ is a God.
So why not drop this illogical claim that Mormonism is non-Christian, and focus on what's the real distinction between Mormons and other Christians, the fact that the latter accept the results of the Council of Nicaea, and Mormons don't? This may mean Mormons are wrong on the details, such as the nature of the Godhead, etc., but they're still Christians; similarly, Catholics (from a protestant perspective) are wrong on the details, such as the need for Popes, the rosery, confession, etc., but still Christians.
11.8.2012 | 7:24am
A.M. says:
Liked the sentence in the other article , by Brian Douglas , on how we all can be 'factories of idols!' and increasingly , our laws and ways reflect same , that we would do away with the value given to us each , by the Incarnation and Passion of our Lord and God and become our own gods with our own ways and rules and the loss of dignity , as well as loss of trust in the goodness and power in an Infinte God , that comes with the acceptance of that truth and ways !
Repentance of such lies and being able to offer gratitude and praise , to The Lord who has taken on the enemy claims brought against us by such , is what Christian life is about !
Thus , may be the Christian moment here is that we are called to repent on behalf of the extent of idolatry in our midst and thus hope that many would find the light again !
Repentance of such lies and being able to offer gratitude and praise , to The Lord who has taken on the enemy claims brought against us by such , is what Christian life is about !
Thus , may be the Christian moment here is that we are called to repent on behalf of the extent of idolatry in our midst and thus hope that many would find the light again !
11.8.2012 | 9:25am
Dan says:
I have an LDS friend who was a direct descendant of Heber Kimball, I know, just about any Mormon can trace their lineage to the original Mormon "Apostles". But he was thought to have a big future in the Church. Anyway he knew me as an observant Catholic and frequently we would engage in conversations theological. He never tried to convert me save a few weak attempts to give me the "Book". One day we were walking down the Mall in DC God Talking and he turned to me with a look of near desperation and said "Dan, what is grace?"
11.8.2012 | 11:53am
Adam G. says:
[i]Mormons assert their institutional independence in other ways, too. Converts to Mormonism are baptized absolutely regardless of whether they came from a Christian sect or not. If, as most Christians believe, we enter Christ’s Church through baptism, then it would seem that Mormons regard only themselves as members.[/i]
The flaw in this argument is that Mormons don't see baptism as necessary to being Christian, since the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead lets us assume that the correspondence between institutional or sacramental Christianity and spiritual or individual Christianity will eventually all be sorted out in the wash.
One other thing--my experience with mainstream Christians is that apostate is a more loaded and vituperative term for them than it normally is for Mormons.
Other than that, a fine piece from which I dissent more in detail than in principle. Like most Mormons, I get most exercised about the 'Mormons aren't Christians' line because if often (hopefully unintentionally) functions as a form of false witness, where I have coworkers come in to my office near Christmas, see the Nativity on my desk, and be puzzled because 'what's with the Nativity, I thought Mormons weren't Christians?' But there are big historic differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity and finding a vocabulary to express those differences is fair. I don't mind mainstream Christians who characterize Mormonism as heretical Christianity or muddled, errant Christianity or somesuch.
One thing, though. Just because mainstream Christians are apostates from the Mormon perspective and Mormons are heretics from their perspective doesn't mean that it will always be justified or even excusable to point it out. Truth is not always a defense to giving offense.
The flaw in this argument is that Mormons don't see baptism as necessary to being Christian, since the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead lets us assume that the correspondence between institutional or sacramental Christianity and spiritual or individual Christianity will eventually all be sorted out in the wash.
One other thing--my experience with mainstream Christians is that apostate is a more loaded and vituperative term for them than it normally is for Mormons.
Other than that, a fine piece from which I dissent more in detail than in principle. Like most Mormons, I get most exercised about the 'Mormons aren't Christians' line because if often (hopefully unintentionally) functions as a form of false witness, where I have coworkers come in to my office near Christmas, see the Nativity on my desk, and be puzzled because 'what's with the Nativity, I thought Mormons weren't Christians?' But there are big historic differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity and finding a vocabulary to express those differences is fair. I don't mind mainstream Christians who characterize Mormonism as heretical Christianity or muddled, errant Christianity or somesuch.
One thing, though. Just because mainstream Christians are apostates from the Mormon perspective and Mormons are heretics from their perspective doesn't mean that it will always be justified or even excusable to point it out. Truth is not always a defense to giving offense.
11.8.2012 | 12:11pm
Marshall H. says:
The issue seems to me to be a matter of definitions, definitely not "irrational anti-Mormon prejudice"; if one simply defines Christianity as devotion to Jesus, then obviously, Mormonism is a Christian religion. However, if one takes Christianity to mean the set of beliefs that the term has historically referred to, then Mormonism cannot be called a form of Christianity.
11.8.2012 | 1:55pm
MC says:
Dan,
Every Mormon knows that Jesus paid the price for our sins. And the Book of Mormon repeatedly speaks of God's grace saving us. So let's not extrapolate too much from one guy's effort to catch up on the lingo. At least Rick had several anecdotes to back up his conclusions.
Every Mormon knows that Jesus paid the price for our sins. And the Book of Mormon repeatedly speaks of God's grace saving us. So let's not extrapolate too much from one guy's effort to catch up on the lingo. At least Rick had several anecdotes to back up his conclusions.
11.8.2012 | 2:05pm
Stephen M. says:
Bret,
How is it that the centrality of Christ's death and resurrection to salvation defines Christianity, while the ontology of Christ is irrelevant? Isn't it the ontology that makes the death and resurrection so significant? Given that Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11, warns against those who teach "a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached" and goes so far as to call such people "false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ," it makes sense to ask whether or not Mormonism's understanding of Christ's nature qualifies it as a heresy.
You state that Mormonism holds that "Christ is a god." Well, that's quite different from "Christ IS God," isn't it?
How is it that the centrality of Christ's death and resurrection to salvation defines Christianity, while the ontology of Christ is irrelevant? Isn't it the ontology that makes the death and resurrection so significant? Given that Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11, warns against those who teach "a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached" and goes so far as to call such people "false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ," it makes sense to ask whether or not Mormonism's understanding of Christ's nature qualifies it as a heresy.
You state that Mormonism holds that "Christ is a god." Well, that's quite different from "Christ IS God," isn't it?
11.8.2012 | 2:10pm
MC says:
Do you really want to play the "Clueless Christian" card, Dan? Because I have some observant Catholic and Christian friends who couldn't coherently explain what "grace" means, or really anything theological. Does that mean they aren't Christian? FWIW, I'm Mormon, and grace is consistently taught at church and in the Book of Mormon. So maybe your friend just wanted to hear what you thought about grace?
11.8.2012 | 2:15pm
Pastor Spomer says:
I encourage our Mormon friends to more closely examine Monotheism. It is not merely an issue of what number of gods there may be. To believe that there is One God is to have an understanding of what God is. He is that which is All-powerful and by definition, there can only be one thing that is All-powerful. Everything in the universe (or even multi-verse) is, in beginning and ending and in each instant dependent on God for its existence.
He is not made out of anything, for He made all things. There is nothing behind Him, nothing preceding Him either in time or importance. If this were not the case, then He would not be worthy of worship, because the thing upon which He depends would then be the appropriate object of worship. As I have asked in the past, if god the Father was once a man, what then did he then worship? And should we not worship that?
Polytheism, no matter how it is constructed, (that is, even if it holds one god as much greater than other gods) is really a form of atheism. After all atheist believe that there are many agents of power in the world. What they deny is the existence of the Being which I have described above.
Reflect on the history of Western thought and the influence of monotheism upon it. The various profs for the existence of God depend upon His singular qualities. Western science, the rule of non-contradiction in logic, all the pre- deconstrutionist wisdom, all is dependent on an understanding of God as the source of reason and order, the grand horizon of all things. This is an understanding of God that I hope everyone comes to appreciate, and confess that “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but there are not three gods but One. Just as Father is all powerful, the Son is all powerful, and the Holy Spirit is all powerful, but there are not three all powerfuls but One.”
Sola Deo Gloria
He is not made out of anything, for He made all things. There is nothing behind Him, nothing preceding Him either in time or importance. If this were not the case, then He would not be worthy of worship, because the thing upon which He depends would then be the appropriate object of worship. As I have asked in the past, if god the Father was once a man, what then did he then worship? And should we not worship that?
Polytheism, no matter how it is constructed, (that is, even if it holds one god as much greater than other gods) is really a form of atheism. After all atheist believe that there are many agents of power in the world. What they deny is the existence of the Being which I have described above.
Reflect on the history of Western thought and the influence of monotheism upon it. The various profs for the existence of God depend upon His singular qualities. Western science, the rule of non-contradiction in logic, all the pre- deconstrutionist wisdom, all is dependent on an understanding of God as the source of reason and order, the grand horizon of all things. This is an understanding of God that I hope everyone comes to appreciate, and confess that “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but there are not three gods but One. Just as Father is all powerful, the Son is all powerful, and the Holy Spirit is all powerful, but there are not three all powerfuls but One.”
Sola Deo Gloria
11.8.2012 | 4:24pm
Matthew says:
I think that it is quite right to call Mormonism a non-Christian religion.
They have some of the trappings and terminology of Christianity, certainly, and morally they may be excellent people- as a whole they are certainly, I think, more excellent than society in general. But there is such a thing as a noble pagan. The substance that the Mormons preach is completely out of line with historical Christianity, and, indeed, Judaism. As others have mentioned, there is the polytheism and materialism, to which I would add the denial of creation ex nihilo and the denial of God as the supreme ground of the moral law. These denials and misconceptions are all incompatible with God’s metaphysical and moral ultimacy, and hence undermine the significance of Christ’s sacrifice- for if he merely died to placate the wrath of some alien king, rather than that of the one true God, of what use is that in absolving sinners of their sin?
They have some of the trappings and terminology of Christianity, certainly, and morally they may be excellent people- as a whole they are certainly, I think, more excellent than society in general. But there is such a thing as a noble pagan. The substance that the Mormons preach is completely out of line with historical Christianity, and, indeed, Judaism. As others have mentioned, there is the polytheism and materialism, to which I would add the denial of creation ex nihilo and the denial of God as the supreme ground of the moral law. These denials and misconceptions are all incompatible with God’s metaphysical and moral ultimacy, and hence undermine the significance of Christ’s sacrifice- for if he merely died to placate the wrath of some alien king, rather than that of the one true God, of what use is that in absolving sinners of their sin?
11.8.2012 | 4:30pm
Benjamin McLean says:
Very worthwhile things to say here, although it should also be pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, the Mormon church is not the only Latter Day Saint church on the market. Each Latter Day Saint church has different and unique doctrines and needs to be considered in the sense this article suggests on an individual basis.
The Latter Day Saint movement is more akin to being a third option against Protestantism and Catholicism that contains many denominations than it is like a single denomination.
The Latter Day Saint movement is more akin to being a third option against Protestantism and Catholicism that contains many denominations than it is like a single denomination.
11.8.2012 | 6:24pm
Layperson Trent says:
Oftentimes people get tripped up, Mormons included, on Mormons' conception of God and Godhood (similar to the way many people get tripped up on the fine points of the Trinity; Obviously Nicaea was only necessary because there was confusion and disagreement on the subject).
God the Father is God for Mormons, there is no other, He is one and ruler of the universe, everything we could possibly conceive and more. Christ is His Son, One with Him, and has risen in glory to be with Him. They each have individual identities, but are fully One. No beans about it, God for Mormons is not just some being that has risen to a certain "rank" in a hierarchy that now He is worthy of worship; God is everything.
Too often when people conceive of the concept of men being perfected by God to become over the course of eternity One with Him and with Christ, they think of a military- like structure, with ranks and levels and promotions and pride and orders, etc. This creates the idea that someone or something is worshiped because they are higher or grander or more promoted, or whatever. This is very wrong, and is no sort of worship at all.
A much better comparison, thought still imperfect, would be to think of it like parenthood or family. A child has parents, and those parents have parents, and those grandparents have/had parents. They aren't on different levels or ranks, they are a line of creation and connection and attachment. A grandparent is not really below or less than a great-parent, nor is a great-grandparent above or below a grandparent, but the grandparent has deference toward the great grandparent because the great-grandparent will always be a parent to them (this is getting wordy, hopefully it's comprehensible). The point is that nobody can take the place of a parent, nor is anyone "higher" than a parent or better than a parent, even if that parent may have a parent of their own to which they show deference, as a child.
Apotheosis is a concept of mormonism, though it is not often focused on, and it is present in some eastern orthodox christian faiths as well. The idea of God, sometime or somewhere in the eternities of multiverses, having a creator/parents/God of His own is not really requisite to Mormon faith, but if it were so, that would no necessitate that God the Father's children and creations (us humans) would need to worship God's God; a grandmother may be before a mother but she could never be considered the mother herself. A Father is always the only Father to his children; there is none else.
So in response to Pastor Spomer, it's not really part of the mormon psyche to think of God having a Father/Mother grander or co-eternal with God. God is God and the only God. But even if one were to suppose that God once was in a position of worshiping something greater, there is no corollary that God's creations must also worship that thing in the way they worship God. Rest assured, Mormons look at God the same way as Christians; they don't think of God as some man who rose to rank of general in heaven or whatever; God is God, infinite, eternal, omnipotent. One. Calling Mormons polytheists would be like calling Catholics cannibals; as worthless and misleading as it is untrue.
God the Father is God for Mormons, there is no other, He is one and ruler of the universe, everything we could possibly conceive and more. Christ is His Son, One with Him, and has risen in glory to be with Him. They each have individual identities, but are fully One. No beans about it, God for Mormons is not just some being that has risen to a certain "rank" in a hierarchy that now He is worthy of worship; God is everything.
Too often when people conceive of the concept of men being perfected by God to become over the course of eternity One with Him and with Christ, they think of a military- like structure, with ranks and levels and promotions and pride and orders, etc. This creates the idea that someone or something is worshiped because they are higher or grander or more promoted, or whatever. This is very wrong, and is no sort of worship at all.
A much better comparison, thought still imperfect, would be to think of it like parenthood or family. A child has parents, and those parents have parents, and those grandparents have/had parents. They aren't on different levels or ranks, they are a line of creation and connection and attachment. A grandparent is not really below or less than a great-parent, nor is a great-grandparent above or below a grandparent, but the grandparent has deference toward the great grandparent because the great-grandparent will always be a parent to them (this is getting wordy, hopefully it's comprehensible). The point is that nobody can take the place of a parent, nor is anyone "higher" than a parent or better than a parent, even if that parent may have a parent of their own to which they show deference, as a child.
Apotheosis is a concept of mormonism, though it is not often focused on, and it is present in some eastern orthodox christian faiths as well. The idea of God, sometime or somewhere in the eternities of multiverses, having a creator/parents/God of His own is not really requisite to Mormon faith, but if it were so, that would no necessitate that God the Father's children and creations (us humans) would need to worship God's God; a grandmother may be before a mother but she could never be considered the mother herself. A Father is always the only Father to his children; there is none else.
So in response to Pastor Spomer, it's not really part of the mormon psyche to think of God having a Father/Mother grander or co-eternal with God. God is God and the only God. But even if one were to suppose that God once was in a position of worshiping something greater, there is no corollary that God's creations must also worship that thing in the way they worship God. Rest assured, Mormons look at God the same way as Christians; they don't think of God as some man who rose to rank of general in heaven or whatever; God is God, infinite, eternal, omnipotent. One. Calling Mormons polytheists would be like calling Catholics cannibals; as worthless and misleading as it is untrue.
11.8.2012 | 7:43pm
FW Ken says:
As a Catholic, I've enjoyed learning, in this Mormon moment, how much I have in common with Mormons:
They are a cult, we are a cult
They have magic underwear, we worship statues (or Mary, take your pick)
They see themselves as the continuation of the New Testament church, so do we.
They (re) baptize converts. We don't do that anymore, although we would (re) baptize a Mormon. For the record, Baptists generally (re) baptize converts. I think the Orthodox do, maybe. Baptists and Orthodox also regard themselves as the New Testament Church.
I'm being a little silly, but I think there is something in the American DNA that let's us disagree and still work together for the common good. Mormons are not the enemy nor a threat to the religious freedom that's our American heritage.
After a brutal, close election, that might be worth celebrating.
They are a cult, we are a cult
They have magic underwear, we worship statues (or Mary, take your pick)
They see themselves as the continuation of the New Testament church, so do we.
They (re) baptize converts. We don't do that anymore, although we would (re) baptize a Mormon. For the record, Baptists generally (re) baptize converts. I think the Orthodox do, maybe. Baptists and Orthodox also regard themselves as the New Testament Church.
I'm being a little silly, but I think there is something in the American DNA that let's us disagree and still work together for the common good. Mormons are not the enemy nor a threat to the religious freedom that's our American heritage.
After a brutal, close election, that might be worth celebrating.
11.8.2012 | 7:51pm
Pastor Spomer says:
"Each Latter Day Saint church has different and unique doctrines and needs to be considered in the sense this article suggests on an individual basis."
Mr. McLean,
Could you elaborate? Do you mean different sub-denominations of LDS, or are you referring to each Ward or Stake? Where could I find out more?
Are there any groups of monotheistic Mormons?
Thanks
Mr. McLean,
Could you elaborate? Do you mean different sub-denominations of LDS, or are you referring to each Ward or Stake? Where could I find out more?
Are there any groups of monotheistic Mormons?
Thanks
11.8.2012 | 10:13pm
Tim says:
Pastor Spomer,
I believe what Mr. McLean is referring to is that there have been several splinter groups from the mainstream "Mormonism". The largest splinter group is the Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) which split with the Mormon church after the death of Joseph Smith. The FLDS Church (Fundamentalist Mormons) broke off of the church after Wilford Woodruff banned polygamy in Utah. There have been other groups and many if not all refer to themselves as Mormons simply because of their shared heritage with the LDS (Mormon) church and their acceptance of the Book of Mormon.
I also want to agree with the statement earlier that Mormonism is a Christian church, though it rejects all doctrines introduced to Christianity after the time of the Apostles, particularly the Nicean Creed. They accept all the words of Christ, they accept all the words of his Apostles and Prophets. They simply interpret these doctrines through the lens of a Restoration and calling of a modern day prophet. It is foolish that protestant Christianity can define Christianity as those who accept Christian doctrines as they were concocted in the 2nd century AD but deny the term of "Christian" to those who reject the Hellenization of Christianity like the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses.
I believe what Mr. McLean is referring to is that there have been several splinter groups from the mainstream "Mormonism". The largest splinter group is the Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) which split with the Mormon church after the death of Joseph Smith. The FLDS Church (Fundamentalist Mormons) broke off of the church after Wilford Woodruff banned polygamy in Utah. There have been other groups and many if not all refer to themselves as Mormons simply because of their shared heritage with the LDS (Mormon) church and their acceptance of the Book of Mormon.
I also want to agree with the statement earlier that Mormonism is a Christian church, though it rejects all doctrines introduced to Christianity after the time of the Apostles, particularly the Nicean Creed. They accept all the words of Christ, they accept all the words of his Apostles and Prophets. They simply interpret these doctrines through the lens of a Restoration and calling of a modern day prophet. It is foolish that protestant Christianity can define Christianity as those who accept Christian doctrines as they were concocted in the 2nd century AD but deny the term of "Christian" to those who reject the Hellenization of Christianity like the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses.
11.8.2012 | 11:21pm
Father Joe Blonski says:
You may want to look up Servant of God Cora Evans, a convert from Mormonism to Catholicism whose cause for sainthood is proceeding.
11.9.2012 | 5:25am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Stephen M: my point is not that Mormonism is necessarily correct; my point is that Mormonism, despite possibly (or perhaps probably) being false, still qualifies as being considered Christian. Why? Because it accepts all of the Old and New Testaments, and considers what Christ did, his death and resurrection, to be absolutely essential to our salvation. The New Testament mentions nothing about the trinune conception of the Godhead. One might reasonably infer that if a correct understanding of the trinity is essential for one to accurately be described as a Christian, this would be included in this essential text of Christianity? And speaking of understanding the trinity, does anyone really understand it? We use words like God the Father, Jesus Chrisit and the Holy Spirit being of "one substance'', but I doubt that anyone, regardless of his or her level of philosophical sophistication, can honestly assert that he or she understands this. But if no one really understands what the trinity means, in its full ontological richness, perhaps, for consistency's sake, one should conclude that no one is "really'' a Christian? Don't we have a double standard here? That is, if Mormons are considered not to be Christian because they don't understand the ontology of the Godhead, then no one else can be considered a Christian either, because no one else understands the ontology of the Godhead either.
Perhaps you might retort that those who accept the "one substance'' conception of the Godhead at least understand the Godhead better than Mormons do, even if they don't really understand it fully. Perhaps (although I would submit that, just because people accept the "one substance'' view, doesn't mean that understand it at all) this is so. But wouldn't this imply that those who are more philosophically sophisticated, and therefore might be able to grasp the concept of the trinity a little better than, say, an illiterate Christian who accepts it, and cannot grasp it at all, is really the only Christian, or at least a better Christian than the illiterate one? But, clearly this would mean that the only "real Christians'' are the intellectually elite ones, which has never been accpted by any Christian Church. While I'm on the subject, did those who Christ ate with, the down and out, homeless, prostitutes, etc., understand the philosophy of the Godhead? And if not, would Christ object to them being called one of his followers? I think not. And what about Peter? A smart man, to be sure, but not at all philosophically trained. Was he a Christian?
Perhaps you might retort that those who accept the "one substance'' conception of the Godhead at least understand the Godhead better than Mormons do, even if they don't really understand it fully. Perhaps (although I would submit that, just because people accept the "one substance'' view, doesn't mean that understand it at all) this is so. But wouldn't this imply that those who are more philosophically sophisticated, and therefore might be able to grasp the concept of the trinity a little better than, say, an illiterate Christian who accepts it, and cannot grasp it at all, is really the only Christian, or at least a better Christian than the illiterate one? But, clearly this would mean that the only "real Christians'' are the intellectually elite ones, which has never been accpted by any Christian Church. While I'm on the subject, did those who Christ ate with, the down and out, homeless, prostitutes, etc., understand the philosophy of the Godhead? And if not, would Christ object to them being called one of his followers? I think not. And what about Peter? A smart man, to be sure, but not at all philosophically trained. Was he a Christian?
11.9.2012 | 11:03am
Jettboy says:
"For Mormons, it might be useful to reflect a bit more on the extent to which they want to be included in the larger Christian community."
Mormons have been reflecting on this since its founding. The religion wasn't born and doesn't exist in a bubble. I think that those who don't consider Mormons Christian are either missing the point or deliberately obfuscating what Mormons want by that recognition.
"This smacks of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Mormons need to consider carefully whether they prefer to be unique and independent, or whether they would rather be members of a larger, Christian family."
Mormons are perfectly fine having their cake and eating it too, because as so many like to point out there is a different set of theological beliefs about what makes someone a Christian. For Mormons it is a loose, and in some ways secular and cultural, definition. Is Sponge a "non-Christian," because I have never heard anyone argue he isn't and yet he is a Christ denier even more than Mormon teachings ever will be. Mormons do NOT want to be in fellowship with other Christian churches and denominations. They do NOT care for acceptance at all. What they do care about is a recognition that they believe in Jesus Christ who lived, suffered, died, and was resurrected as the Savior of the World. To deny them the fact they worship Jesus Christ by calling them not or non-Christians is absurd, abusive, and lacks charity.
You want to separate Mormons from other Christians? There are other, and historical, names to call them besides "not Christian" that doesn't make you someone who bears false witness of a neighbor. Mormons are perfectly fine getting called heretical Christians, unorthodox Christians, non-Trinitarian Christians, non-historical Christians, and Gnostic Chrisitans (although that is a stretch). If you really feel nasty there is always pagan Christians (laughable as that is to a Mormon) or the simple False Christians. From this very article there is the choice of heterodox-Christian and quasi-Christian. At least Mormons call other Christians Apostate Christianity, implying a relatedness to belief in Christ. Why not do the same and call Mormons Apostates? Or is it uses of those terms just doesn't get Mormon's blood boiling and so isn't rhetorically useful?
Mormons have been reflecting on this since its founding. The religion wasn't born and doesn't exist in a bubble. I think that those who don't consider Mormons Christian are either missing the point or deliberately obfuscating what Mormons want by that recognition.
"This smacks of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Mormons need to consider carefully whether they prefer to be unique and independent, or whether they would rather be members of a larger, Christian family."
Mormons are perfectly fine having their cake and eating it too, because as so many like to point out there is a different set of theological beliefs about what makes someone a Christian. For Mormons it is a loose, and in some ways secular and cultural, definition. Is Sponge a "non-Christian," because I have never heard anyone argue he isn't and yet he is a Christ denier even more than Mormon teachings ever will be. Mormons do NOT want to be in fellowship with other Christian churches and denominations. They do NOT care for acceptance at all. What they do care about is a recognition that they believe in Jesus Christ who lived, suffered, died, and was resurrected as the Savior of the World. To deny them the fact they worship Jesus Christ by calling them not or non-Christians is absurd, abusive, and lacks charity.
You want to separate Mormons from other Christians? There are other, and historical, names to call them besides "not Christian" that doesn't make you someone who bears false witness of a neighbor. Mormons are perfectly fine getting called heretical Christians, unorthodox Christians, non-Trinitarian Christians, non-historical Christians, and Gnostic Chrisitans (although that is a stretch). If you really feel nasty there is always pagan Christians (laughable as that is to a Mormon) or the simple False Christians. From this very article there is the choice of heterodox-Christian and quasi-Christian. At least Mormons call other Christians Apostate Christianity, implying a relatedness to belief in Christ. Why not do the same and call Mormons Apostates? Or is it uses of those terms just doesn't get Mormon's blood boiling and so isn't rhetorically useful?
11.9.2012 | 11:06am
Rachel Lu says:
I may not have made clear in the original article my precise take on how we should define a Christian. I think Christians are the people who make up the Body of Christ, as unified through baptism. In a sense, then, the question "Are Mormons Christian?" may really be a question about the validity of their baptisms, but of course that is far more than a technicality. Mormons depart from the Christian mainstream on many theological questions, which is of course relevant. But what I wanted to call attention to here was the degree to which they hold themselves *institutionally* separate from Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox. These latter three, for all their differences, understand themselves to share certain things (baptism first among them) which gives them some sort of unity, even if it is sometimes a feeble unity. Mormons sometimes want to feel included in the group, but they also want to hold onto their distinctiveness in ways that make it impossible to truly bring them under the Christian tent.
11.9.2012 | 11:35am
Justin says:
I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I realize and acknowledge the reasoning behind why some do not consider me a Christian. However, I would like to testify, in a way, that I do believe in the Jesus Christ found within the pages of the Bible. I know that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. I know that He lived a perfect life; He went about doing good healing the the sick, raising the dead, causing the blind to see, and the deaf to hear. He was betrayed, mocked, beaten, spit upon, and crucified. He took upon himself the sins of all mankind; all because He loved us. Three days after He died on the cross, He rose and because He broke the bands of death. All humans will live again. I know He is my Savior and Redeemer. I worship Him, I serve Him, I love Him, and I follow Him. He is my Salvation!
Though some may say I am not a Christian or a follower of Christ. I say I do and God knows I do and that is all that matters to me.
Though some may say I am not a Christian or a follower of Christ. I say I do and God knows I do and that is all that matters to me.
11.9.2012 | 5:13pm
Sachiko says:
"Mormons sometimes want to feel included in the group, but they also want to hold onto their distinctiveness in ways that make it impossible to truly bring them under the Christian tent."
Protestants and Catholics believe in some mutually exclusive claims; either one is correct, or the other, but not both.
And yet it's not at all uncommon today for Protestants and Catholics to work together towards a common good and to allow that the other is Christian, though they disagree on key points of doctrine.
If a Protestant were to refuse to allow a Catholic into the "Christian tent", would that be a failure on the part of the Catholic, or the Protestant?
Protestants and Catholics believe in some mutually exclusive claims; either one is correct, or the other, but not both.
And yet it's not at all uncommon today for Protestants and Catholics to work together towards a common good and to allow that the other is Christian, though they disagree on key points of doctrine.
If a Protestant were to refuse to allow a Catholic into the "Christian tent", would that be a failure on the part of the Catholic, or the Protestant?
11.10.2012 | 3:44am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Certainly it's true that Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox seem to get along pretty well now, but anyone who engages in even a cursory study of the history of religious warfare knows, of course, how different things were. I suspect that all of this talk of Mormons not being true Christians will have about the same freshness one hundred years from now as Catholics claiming that Orthodox Christians are not true Christians and the Pope was correct in excommunicating his Orthodox counterpart in 1054. And I think that this will happen without Mormons changing any of their doctrines to be more in line with "traditional Christians''.
It's not that Mormons want to feel included, it's that they want to be treated fairly. They want to be accurately defined. And it's simply not accurate, and, frankly, borders on uncharitable, for those who disagree with Mormonism to say it isn't Christian. One should certainly qualify one's description of Mormon Christianity, by perhaps calling it "Mormon Christianity'', or "Non-Traditional Christianity'', or "Non-Trinitarian Christianity''; simple accuracy demands that it be so described.
Of course Mormons assert that they're the true faith, and make exclusive claims, but what religion doesn't do this? Clearly Mormons believe that Non-Mormons have to be baptised in order to be a Mormon, but Catholics, for example, believe the same about Mormons who wish to be Catholics. This is an extraneous issue, in my eyes. Clearly any religion will require those who wish to join it, to undergo certain things, to be a member of its exclusive group. Catholics who wish to become Protestants will stop praying the Rosary, and will no longer be able to accept the Catholic Eucharist, but neither, except for the more extreme members of either religion, denies the Christianity of the other.
It's not that Mormons want to feel included, it's that they want to be treated fairly. They want to be accurately defined. And it's simply not accurate, and, frankly, borders on uncharitable, for those who disagree with Mormonism to say it isn't Christian. One should certainly qualify one's description of Mormon Christianity, by perhaps calling it "Mormon Christianity'', or "Non-Traditional Christianity'', or "Non-Trinitarian Christianity''; simple accuracy demands that it be so described.
Of course Mormons assert that they're the true faith, and make exclusive claims, but what religion doesn't do this? Clearly Mormons believe that Non-Mormons have to be baptised in order to be a Mormon, but Catholics, for example, believe the same about Mormons who wish to be Catholics. This is an extraneous issue, in my eyes. Clearly any religion will require those who wish to join it, to undergo certain things, to be a member of its exclusive group. Catholics who wish to become Protestants will stop praying the Rosary, and will no longer be able to accept the Catholic Eucharist, but neither, except for the more extreme members of either religion, denies the Christianity of the other.
11.10.2012 | 10:06pm
Mike says:
It is a shame that people have to feel better through name calling. As a Latter-day Saints I appreciate those who accept my desire to be called a Christian because of my faith and testimony of Jesus. Some Protestant desire to label Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith. This I believe is unfair and seeks to push Mormons out of the Christian fold. I prefer to refer to Mormonism as the fourth Christian faith along with Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodoxs. The term Christianity usually refers to churches that follow Nicene creeds, which Mormonism does not. As someone stated above , if the rest of Christians have to feel better by calling Mormons heretical Christians, I guess you need to do what helps you feel better. What we would appreciate from other Christians as we "seek to have our cake and eat it too", is to be able to call ourselves Christians as one of the four Christian faiths, and to be respected as friends as we work together to bless and serve humanity.
11.11.2012 | 7:08am
John says:
In this "Mormon moment" I would suggest trying to read the Book of Mormon. In the months leading up to the recent election I gave it a shot. My mind is well tuned to both Hebrew and Christian scripture. The Book of Mormon strikes me as a kind of cobbled together, 19th century, fabrication of bible-like writing. I'm not aware that there has ever been an historical, textual criticism developed of the Book of Mormon. I have great admiration for the highly ethical, charitable and patriotic Mormon people but I do not give them a pass on a religion based on a scripture dug up on a New York State hillside.
It was only much later that I learned enough about the Mormon faith to realize that my roommate was doing what he had been indoctrinated ("brainwashed") to do: challenge fraudulent Christian leaders to produce their credentials.
Later still, I stopped at the Mormon visitors' center in Salt Lake City while on a long driving trip in 1975. After taking the usual tour, an elder enthusiastically tried to convert me. The one thing that stands out in my mind was his statement that God has a human body like ours...a male body, of course. "You mean God the Father lives in a biological contraption like ours?" I asked. "How do you know that?" The elder flipped open his Bible to Exodus 33:11. "And God spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend," he read. "How could God have a face," he asked, eyes gleaming, "If he doesn't have a body?" Case closed. It's certainly difficult to argue with logic like that!
When I went back to more university studies in 1993, I had a Mormon classmate, a former Army intelligence officer. One day we took a long walk together and talked about the Mormon faith. I learned from him that some races were cursed by God, and the curse shows up in the color of their skin. "You mean the curse actually turned their skin black, and that's how we know they are under God's curse?" He was a bit embarrassed by this, but he was too honest to lie about it. "Y..yes..." he finally answered. I then asked him about a Mormon belief I had heard of. "Do you think that some day you will become the god of a planet out in the universe, just like Jesus is the god of this planet?" He was embarrassed again, but hesitantly answered, "I...hope so."
Finally, in 1998, as we were preparing to leave for a year in Costa Rica, we had the problem of relocating our furniture to the basement. I was having problems wrestling a sofa through the basement doorway. At that moment, the doorbell rang. The youths wore black pants, white dress shirts, ties, and were clutching Bibles and the Book of Mormon in their hands. "Ahah!" I said before they could speak. "I'd love to talk with you, but I have this problem with my furniture." They came in, sized up the situation, produced screwdrivers, removed the basement door, and hustled the sofa down the stairs. As they left, I said, "You have just made the best missionary argument possible!"
Well, what can I say? Every Mormon I've ever known was a wonderful, solid character...someone I could instinctively trust. And that says a great deal. But what can I do with their religious doctrines?!