« New Salvo Site | Main | Inclusive Public Prayer »
June 30, 2007
Mohler on Mormons: Beliefnet
Are Mormons Christians? Absolutely not, says Al Mohler. He debates Orson Scott Card, Mormon author, who begs to differ, here at Beliefnet. Just because a new religion comes along and is initially persecuted, does that make it right? Americans didn't consider Catholics Christians, and some still don't. But if you can write a new book of scripture and spin the New Testament a bit thereby, you might fit into the category of something like Islam. (Does that make Joseph Smith the founder of a modern American "Islam"?)
Now, I have to run and visit our local neighborhood festival, where the only religious booth on hand, I believe, is the latest Kabbalah religion. They might have some water bottles, Kabbalah water, you know:
The Kabbalistic blessings and meditations that are used to create Kabbalah Water, for example, bring about elegant and balanced crystalline structures in water, while negative consciousness has an opposite effect. This is hugely important. In a very literal way, Kabbalah Water is life's original blueprint information brought into the modern world.
So is this new Kabbalah religion Jewish? Is Mormonism Christianity? Depends on how elastic you want to make names. Let's just say it's a stretttccchhhh.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 01:35 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e008cfc18b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mohler on Mormons: Beliefnet:
Comments
I did not realize that Card was a Mormon and disagree with him on whether Mormon's are orthodox Christians, but his Ender's Game is a Sci-Fi tour de force. Kudos to Dr. Mohler for not shying away from this issue.
Having said that, I would not hesitate for vote for an orthodox Mormon who is running against an apostate Christian.
Posted by: GL | Jun 30, 2007 3:44:07 PM
There's a wonderful write-up on the Mohler/Card discussion, over at Times & Seasons — a Mormon blogging community. Well worth the read.
Posted by: Silus Grok | Jun 30, 2007 3:57:53 PM
GL is right about Ender's Game, as well as its "companion" novel, Ender's Shadow, telling the same story from another character's perspective. Card is a fine writer.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Jun 30, 2007 4:21:48 PM
Card has also written a series called, I believe, the Alvin Maker books that's a fantasy take on the Book of Mormon. He's considered one of the few conservative-religious voices in SF right now.
Posted by: Nick | Jun 30, 2007 4:36:41 PM
FYI,
Card's "Memory of Earth" series is essentially a retelling of 1 Nephi from the Book of Mormon (with a bit of creative license).
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 1, 2007 11:03:53 AM
Let me start out by saying that I've found Mormons to be good and moral people. Setting aside the question for the moment of whether Mormon is Christian, one must acknowledge at some level that they are profoundly different. They are of the opinion that Jesus' church went into apostacy in the old world and was killed off in the new to be re-established by Joseph Smith in the early 1800's.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jul 1, 2007 12:49:59 PM
Excellent exchange on Beliefnet!
I am a Catholic who has engaged in extensive personal apologetics and faith discussion with a bitter ex-Catholic family member, and I thought Card's response was a hard-hitting, well-written one. It does, essentially, come down to defining your terms, and considering more than "just" the official teachings of a religion (at least in this here-and-now world of the flesh).
On the other hand I agree with one of the comments on Card's article: just what exactly are we talking about here? I am one of many "traditional" Christians who are pretty ignorant of what the Mormon Church teaches EXACTLY about Jesus, God, and truth.
I do know that my own denomination's beautiful, true teachings can be horrendously distorted by the ignorant and the hostile in our aggressively secular culture, so I appreciated Card's reference to the feeling of a believer when your faith is mangled and then shot down!
Sum up: It makes one feel good to throw insults and dismissals to those who believe differently, but isn't "traditional, orthodox" Christianity a matter of INVITATION? Of giving "the reasons for the hope within us", of sharing the "good news" we have found, of showing the love of Christ to the world, rather than concentrating on slapping down an opponent who is "wrong"?!??!!
God grant us all the Spirit of charity and truth!
Posted by: Ann Church | Jul 1, 2007 10:53:37 PM
Isn't it ironic...
Mormons themselves don't recognize (little "o") orthodox believers as Christians, and yet they want orthodox believers to recognize them as Christians.
Posted by: Kirk | Jul 1, 2007 11:11:25 PM
>Of giving "the reasons for the hope within us", of sharing the "good news" we have found, of showing the love of Christ to the world, rather than concentrating on slapping down an opponent who is "wrong"?!??!!
Even if they are "whited sepulchres, full of dead men's bones" or a "brood of vipers"?
>God grant us all the Spirit of charity and truth!
Which would pretty much rule out telling Mormons they are Christians.
Posted by: David Gray | Jul 2, 2007 5:36:54 AM
>>>I appreciated Card's reference to the feeling of a believer when your faith is mangled and then shot down!<<<
What about when one's faith is presented correctly and then shot down? This seems to be the thing to which Mormons object most: people who simply lay out what Mormons truly believe, and then either repudiate it utterly or compare it to orthodox, Nicene Christianity and say, "Whatever Mormonism is, it isn't this".
That Mormonism is at its heart gnostic makes such anger understandable: gnostics believe in esoteric knowledge (gnosis), which only adepts can access (this is another difference between Mormonism and Christianity--there are no "secret" teachings in Christianity, which drives certain pseudo-intellectuals nuts: "You mean any Tom, Dick or Harry can achieve true holiness? That's IT??!!??"). Mormons assiduously conceal these teachings not only from outsiders, but even from most rank-and-file Mormons. Telling secrets out of class is as big a sin to them as it is for Scientologists--probably for the same reasons, too.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 2, 2007 5:52:54 AM
Of course, nothing we do can ever compare with what South Park did:
GARY SR.
And that's how it happened.
KIDS
Yeah! All right!
STAN
...Wait. Mormons actually know this
story and they still believe Joseph
Smith was a prophet?
GARY SR.
Well sure. The story proves it, doesn't
it?
STAN
No, it proves he DID make it all up.
Are you blind?
MARK
Well, Stan, it's all a matter of faith.
STAN
No, it's a matter of logic! If you're
gonna say things that have been proven
wrong, like that the first man and woman
lived in Missouri, and that Native Americans
came from Jerusalem, then you'd better
have something to back it up. All you've
got are a bunch of stories about some
asswipe who read plates nobody ever
saw out of a hat, and then couldn't
do it again when the translatios were
hidden!
RANDY
Hey, Stan, don't denounce our religion.
To which Gary the Mormon kid responds with the classic Mormon rejoinder:
GARY
Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in
crazy stories that make absolutely no
sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make
it all up, but I have a great life.
and a great family, and I have the Book
of Mormon to thank for that. The truth
is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made
it all up, because what the church teaches
now is loving your family, being nice
and helping people. And even though
people in this town might think that's
stupid, I still choose to believe in
it. All I ever did was try to be your
friend, Stan, but you're so high and
mighty you couldn't look past my religion
and just be my friend back. You've got
a lot of growing up to do, buddy.
The problem with that rejoinder is it is fundamentally anti-Christian. It is, in fact, profoundly secular, since it judges "religion" on the basis of its utility and ability to make one happy. Jesus, of course, wasn't really interested in that at all. In fact, He knew his message would be profoundly disturbing and make people very unhappy--at least until they understood that they had to stop judging happiness by the standards of this world. Alexander Schmemann warned that secularism is not inherently anti-religious, but rather chooses to tame religion and have it work according to the ethos of the world. Thus, religion is good to the extent that it makes people good citizens and allows them to lead upright, peaceful lives. Christianity is not really all that good for that purpose--but it can be made to conform to that purpose. Mormonism, with its various strictures and powerfully intrusive hierarchical structure, is much better. Being a practical people, Americans view religion in a practical manner, and from that perspective, most Americans think Mormons are a bit peculiar but otherwise harmless.
That it's the only religion prior to Islam with which the U.S. ever went to war seems to escape notice.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 2, 2007 6:52:06 AM
In a mixed room of Catholics and Mormons, I can say, "Mormons will do what they are told by the Church and Catholics won't," and each of the groups will take it as a complement.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jul 2, 2007 7:08:35 AM
>>>In a mixed room of Catholics and Mormons, I can say, "Mormons will do what they are told by the Church and Catholics won't," and each of the groups will take it as a complement.<<<
And, interestingly, it's been like that since the foundation of each.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 2, 2007 7:15:22 AM
Frankly, I am less concerned about whether good Mormons are Christians than I am about how many "orthodox Christians" are Christians. We all fail to live up to the standard, but many self-proclaimed Christians don't even try nor give any indication of even caring. If "they" will know we are Christian by how much we love God and our brothers, the evidence is pretty damning. I don't believe in works righteousness, but I do believe true faith will produce fruits.
So, I don't believe Mormons are orthodox Christians, but I do believe the logs in our eyes keep us from properly seeing how to remove the speck from theirs.
Posted by: GL | Jul 2, 2007 7:52:03 AM
The Mormon belief that always cracks me up is the one about the Virgin Mary...
Because they believe God has a physical body...
and when you ask them to clarify, they explain that the Virginity of Mary is special because she was a virgin UNTIL God slept with her, after which, of course, she wasn't because it's absurd to think that a virgin could concieve!
Because, of course, someone who is a virgin until they're not anymore is SO worthy of prophecy, and SO awe-inspiring....... and it was SO unusual for a young girl to be a virgin in the ancient middle east....
I've found that whenever anyone tries to simplify Christianity's harder doctrines to make them more "rational", they end up with the assumption that the first Christians were stupid and naive....
like the "miracle of sharing" interpretation of the loaves and the fishes..... Because, of course, the disciples were so gullible they wouldn't realize that all that had happened was that Christ invented the potluck.....
But a lot of the Mormon teachings fall into this sort of way of thinking... and they DO treat the trinity like three separate Gods, which rules out being Christian.....
All the young Mormons I've met have been very nice, earnest people who really believe what they've been taught...
Which always makes me think of the leaders of their church, who have led these little ones astray......
Posted by: Deirdre Mundy | Jul 2, 2007 8:43:34 AM
Orson Scot Card is a very good writer. Most Mormons are perfectly lovely people.
Mormons are polytheists. They do believe that there are many gods, and the church teaches that they will become gods, if they live Mormon enough, and create and populate their own worlds in the usual fashion- by copulating with their spouses in Heaven. You and I and everybody else, in Mormon theology, were conceieved in Heaven as spirit children when the god of this world copulated with his spouse. The only difference between Jesus and the rest of us (and Lucifer) is that Jesus had two conceptions- the one in heaven we all had (lucifer and Jesus are brothers in Mormon theology) and he was also physically conceived on this earth by relations between Mary and the Mormon deity of this world.
This is not Christianity. Not because I defined the terms that way, but because God defined them.
They preach another Jesus.
Posted by: DeputyHeadmistress | Jul 2, 2007 11:44:44 AM
Deputy Headmistress has it right.
LDS beliefs rather closely resemble the beliefs of the Goa-uld in the late SF TV series Stargate:SG1.
They worship the local system lord.
They do not worship the Blessed Trinity.
LDS was not the only religion the US was at war with prior to 9/11.
There was the attempt to transplant Anglican bishops in the early 1770s.
There was the war with the Libyan pirates.
Since we bring up Card, let us not forget the prophet of the 5 Nations.
Nor the Ghost Dance later on.
Then there was that little squabble 60 years ago with Shinto.
Posted by: labrialumn | Jul 2, 2007 2:13:45 PM
The problem with attacking a religion by pointing out its absurdities is that it will almost always come back to bite you when similar absurdities in your own belief system come in for the same treatment. Seriously, is there a religion on the face of the planet that South Park couldn't rip to shreds?
I've been going to LDS services every Sunday for over 30 years now. I've served in various leadership positions. I grew up in the Mormon heartland.
That doesn't make me the last word in what Mormons believe. But it does allow me to provide a snapshot of the faith.
1. The "God slept with Mary idea"
I realize certain LDS Apostles sort-of made this odd claim (including a few vague statements from Joseph F. Smith).
But I don't know a single Mormon today who believes it. The current Church leadership would almost certainly deny the notion if asked. We don't teach it. I've never once heard it even mentioned among Mormons.
In fact, the only people I ever hear mentioning it, are critics of the Mormon church who often seem to be particularly fond of dredging up old and defunct theological notions from Mormonism's past with the aim of debunking its present.
2. Polytheism?
Yeah, I suppose we are a touch polytheistic.
So what?
Keep in mind that current Mormonism does not teach that any of us, no matter what sort of divinity we attain, will ever surpass God the Father. He will always be the object of our worship and always beyond our reach. That's why Mormons typically emphasize that we will be lower-case "gods" and not upper-case "Gods."
As for whether God is just one of many out there...
Who knows? Joseph Smith certainly seemed to imply this. I personally am agnostic on the point and most Mormons I know are as well. It's really not something we waste much time thinking about, believe it or not.
Neither is the divine end of humanity something we really keep secret. The first thing our missionaries will tell a new investigator is that the purpose of life is to "become like our Father."
Yeah sure, I think many Mormons are guilty of overly-familiarizing God and Christ. But no more than the countless "Christ-is-my-buddy" Christians that have infested America. So I'm not sure what the big stink is.
3. The "secrecy" thing.
Honestly, this kind of bugs me about my church as well. Seeing as how the entire temple ceremony can be easily found online, I'm not sure what the point is in keeping things hush-hush. I've gone through the entire temple ceremony and I can tell you, it's really nothing that outwardly spectacular. It's easily mocked, of course. But so are most religious ceremonies.
I can definitely confirm however that we aren't sacrificing virgins in there.
Incidentally, the LDS Church is becoming increasingly open about a lot of things. Their main website just put up an article discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and for once, the treatment is both extensive and doesn't try to whitewash the less pleasant aspects of it.
So we're making progress. Check back with us in about 15 years, and I'll wager the "secrecy" thing won't even be an issue anymore. Personally, I'm hoping for 5 years. Maybe then Stuart Koehl will shut up about this.
Are we Christian? We'll we aren't traditional Christians, thank goodness. If being "Christian" means we get lumped together with centuries of Christian-establishment obfuscation of doctrine and misdeeds, I'm not sure I want the legacy thanks. Mormonism is about a fresh start, a new theology. We're compelling enough to stand on our own without your help.
We absolutely are not just another Protestant offshoot. In fact, I find the notion insulting.
Mormonism is better understood as the "fourth Abrahamic world religion." I really don't care if I get to be accepted into the Christian country-club of American privilege or not. I'm shooting for something a little higher than junior-partner status in perpetuating the same errors of traditional Christianity.
I also don't care if any of you legitimize my baptism or not. Nor do I want my Church to start accepting yours.
But let's be honest. This debate isn't really about doctrine.
It's about protecting your own turf and Mormons looking to expand theirs.
Mormons want to be accepted as "Christian" firstly, because we believe in Christ and think that ought to be enough, but secondly, because we feel it will open more doors for our missionaries in our ongoing quest to convert the lot of you.
Evangelical pastors want to withhold the Christian label from Mormons because they think doing so will make their parishoners more likely to shut the door on said missionaries without giving Mormonism a fair hearing.
This is a turf war. May the best religion win.
But honestly, I think most of America is a little more receptive to the Mormon definition of "Christian" than it is to yours.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 2, 2007 7:21:26 PM
It's good to have frank statements by a Mormon that:
1) Mormonism is polytheistic, and that his position regarding that is "So what?" ("a touch polythesitic" being like "a bit pregnant");
2) Mormons are not traditional Christians, who claim (without a scintilla of evidence) all traditional Christianity to be characterized by "obfuscation of doctrine and misdeeds";
3) their religion is something made up from scratch (i.e., a gnostic cult, as traditional Christians have said all along);
4) the Mormon push to be accepted as "Christian" is a deliberate con job, whose sole and true purpose is to deceive other people, so that Mormons by lies can make themselves appear more acceptable to non-Mormons.
I'm forwarding your entire post to Christian friends who witness to Mormons regarding a true knowledge of Jesus Christ. Thanks for all the free ammunition.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 2, 2007 7:46:31 PM
Read it one-sided if you want.
I find too many of my fellow Mormons to be woefully ignorant of the thoughts and teachings of mainline Christianity. Historical Christianity is actually something you'll find me, on the balance, positive towards. I actually have defended all of you online on numerous occasions.
I'm also one of the first to get indignant in Mormon meetings when mainline Christian beliefs and practices are being belittled.
Furthermore, I'm one of the supporters of the recent move within Mormonism that is re-discovering our own dormant (and heretofore neglected) grace-theology.
I think that Mormons are the new kids on the block and have a lot to learn from mainline Christianity. A careful re-reading of my post will reveal that I do not, in fact, think the defining characteristic of the last millennia of Christian endeavor is "obfuscation of doctrine and misdeeds." I did say that traditional Christians have much to answer for and I'd rather not be a part of that. Especially since doctrinally, I needn't be a part of that. Mormons have enough historical problems of their own without being saddled with, say... Catholicism's as well.
But I'm not going to hide that one of Mormonism's key planks is that the authorized Gospel was quickly lost in apostasy and the LDS Church represents God's own personal restoration of that lost Gospel.
By the way, give your friends all the ammunition you want.
My experience is that such people are not likely to be open to the message of the Restored Gospel anyway. They're a little too entrenched in their own beliefs. I doubt they need any "evidence" from me to confirm what they already think.
Note also, the Mormon push to be recognized as Christian is PRIMARILY because that's how we view ourselves. We find the claim that we are not Christian hurtful, given how much we revere and treasure Christ himself. We also feel a bit indignant that certain entities feel they have a monopoly on the term.
But I think it would be disingenuous to claim that a church that is so deeply committed to its missionary work is indifferent to the effect this branding campaign from Evangelicals is having on those efforts.
If you talk to enough Mormons, you'll find that most are not quite so in-your-face as I am. Mormon leadership is also more about reconciliation right now than differentiation. Bruce R. McConkie (an LDS Apostle with a downright hostile view toward mainline Christianity) has been dead for quite a while now, and it's a new generation of LDS leadership.
I think the more open stance is, on balance, a good thing. But I'm also a bit ambiguous about it, and I'm flatly opposed to "assimilating into the collective."
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 2, 2007 8:09:04 PM
I appreciate Seth's honesty and forthrightness. Real dialogue can only begin when we are willing to be up front about our differences.
I for one have no problem referring to Mormons as Christians, although obviously if traditional Christianity is true, Mormons are heretical Christians. Likewise, if Mormonism is true, the rest of us are apostate Christians. To be a Christian means that the focus of one's religion is Jesus of Nazareth in some way, but it doesn't necessarily imply that one is correct about Him. I don't think many of us would deny that Arius and Nestorius were "Christians" in the broad sense of the word, although the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" clearly defined them as heretics.
Posted by: Protokletos | Jul 2, 2007 8:40:08 PM
I agree with that sentiment Protokletos. So do most Mormons I know. While we claim to be the only authorized Church of God on the face of the earth, we are not in any way opposed to calling Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, "Christians" in the full sense of the word.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 2, 2007 8:55:26 PM
>To be a Christian means that the focus of one's religion is Jesus of Nazareth in some way, but it doesn't necessarily imply that one is correct about Him.
Historically the word Christian has had considerably more meaning than that...
dave
Posted by: David Gray | Jul 2, 2007 9:19:54 PM
Quite right David. Mormonism's divorce of history is the same as the Witnesses. It is interesting that both believe in centralized authority but reject that authority, under any theoretical model whether "presbyterian" or "episcopal", in practice through the ages. As a former Witness I found that more and more disconcerting over time. That being said, you have to be careful not to cross into name calling. "The Kingdom of the Cults" mindset is harmful to any sort of conversion effort.
Posted by: Nick | Jul 2, 2007 10:07:53 PM
Mormonism doesn't even qualify as theism, since their "God" wasn't always a god.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jul 2, 2007 11:13:25 PM
I grew up in western Wyoming, which has a strong Mormon element. The Mormons were the largest religious group in my town—not a majority, but larger than the Catholics, the Baptists, or any other single Christian group. As a result a large number of my friends (including girlfriends) were Mormon. We all got along. Sociologically Mormons didn’t differ much from the rest of us. My best friend became a Mormon convert as a result of dating a Mormon girl (the sister of the girl I dated!) I’m not sure I’d call Mormonism a cult, but I’d call it “Christian” only in the very broad sense that Arians were to some degree Christians.
As someone who has studied Mormonism rather close up, I find it to be a particularly American form of religion. I believe some Mormons are very likely close to traditional Christianity, and that Mormonism is being transformed before our eyes into something resembling modern evangelicalism (that’s not always a good thing, but it’s better than what it replaces). Mormonism was built on opposition and persecution; the more Mormonism is accepted, the less effective it will be. Education and prosperity eat away at Mormonism, but there are no greater historical roots to which the educated and prosperous Mormon can look to to rebuild his faith. I suspect that Mormonism demise, at least in its historical form, will be rooted in its modern-day “success.”
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 2, 2007 11:24:17 PM
I am willing to accept some Mormons as Christians, but that is more a fault of their ignorance regarding Mormonism or at least misunderstanding thereof than due to the teachings of the Latter-Day Saints.
Seth,
>>I realize certain LDS Apostles sort-of made this odd claim (including a few vague statements from Joseph F. Smith).
But I don't know a single Mormon today who believes it. The current Church leadership would almost certainly deny the notion if asked. We don't teach it. I've never once heard it even mentioned among Mormons.
In fact, the only people I ever hear mentioning it, are critics of the Mormon church who often seem to be particularly fond of dredging up old and defunct theological notions from Mormonism's past with the aim of debunking its present.<<
Whether you know a single Mormon or not, the President/Prophet at no point since the inception of the LDS establishment has repudiated the doctrine, and it is therefore the official stance of the church. As to your own lack of experience on the subject matter, I can attest that it goes over quite strong in many wards and individual families--some of whom I consider friends. It was their correction of my "erroneous" theology that revealed this doctrine to me, not the other way around.
Your closing paragraph of this response is one of the biggest problems with the LDS establishment: "old and defunct theological notions from Mormonism's past" mean that the Restoration at its inception, in its earliest form, was not perfect in theology. The revelation given to Joseph Smith and his immediate successors was, apparently, in error. God is making occasional red markings on the Golden Plates, changing the revealed truth as it is convenient. If the LDS is the Restored Gospel, then it should have been pure at the beginning and corrupted over time. Instead, Mormons claim its the other way around. That the chief prophets of the religion were in error, that truth changed with the proclamation from a new President. That is nonsense. No fundamental--e.g. salvific--belief of orthodox Christianity has been in dispute since 325. Little sideshows--veneration of saints, the proper form of church government, the role of bishops--have been in dispute, but that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father, very God of very God, being of one substance with the Father, not a distinct ousia, has been the line to toe since at least the second century when the Church Fathers were writing against the gnostics; that for us man and for our salvation He did come, incarnate by the Holy Spirit (not a sex act), lived, was crucified, died and was buried, and rose again to conquer death has never been in dispute. But in Mormonism such a doctrine could change tomorrow when the President comes out with a new proclamation making such-and-such null and void. Not even the Pope has that power; he has power to change non-salvific practice alone.
>>Yeah, I suppose we are a touch polytheistic.
So what?
Keep in mind that current Mormonism does not teach that any of us, no matter what sort of divinity we attain, will ever surpass God the Father. He will always be the object of our worship and always beyond our reach. That's why Mormons typically emphasize that we will be lower-case "gods" and not upper-case "Gods."
As for whether God is just one of many out there...
Who knows? Joseph Smith certainly seemed to imply this. I personally am agnostic on the point and most Mormons I know are as well. It's really not something we waste much time thinking about, believe it or not.
Neither is the divine end of humanity something we really keep secret. The first thing our missionaries will tell a new investigator is that the purpose of life is to "become like our Father."
Yeah sure, I think many Mormons are guilty of overly-familiarizing God and Christ. But no more than the countless "Christ-is-my-buddy" Christians that have infested America. So I'm not sure what the big stink is.<<
Here's the answer to your so what: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One." Not three distinct beings forming the Godhead, just one. Count 'em. One. If God is just one of many, you have a sort of problem wherein...who is the supreme God? Who is the uncaused cause? It's a philosophical and theological conundrum that can only be answered by monotheism. After thirty years, I'm pretty sure you're not anytime soon leaving the Malchizedek priesthood, but most Mormons you know, including you, should "waste time thinking about it." If you love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, it is incumbent upon you to contemplate who He really is.
>>Honestly, this kind of bugs me about my church as well. Seeing as how the entire temple ceremony can be easily found online, I'm not sure what the point is in keeping things hush-hush. I've gone through the entire temple ceremony and I can tell you, it's really nothing that outwardly spectacular. It's easily mocked, of course. But so are most religious ceremonies.
I can definitely confirm however that we aren't sacrificing virgins in there.
Incidentally, the LDS Church is becoming increasingly open about a lot of things. Their main website just put up an article discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and for once, the treatment is both extensive and doesn't try to whitewash the less pleasant aspects of it.
So we're making progress. Check back with us in about 15 years, and I'll wager the "secrecy" thing won't even be an issue anymore. Personally, I'm hoping for 5 years. Maybe then Stuart Koehl will shut up about this.<<
Look, the point is that it should never have been an issue. You believe in the divinity (albeit not the Unity) of Jesus. God came down to Earth, He brought Himself to the people. He didn't hide Himself, He didn't hide His teachings. Gnosticism and neo-paganism don't fly so hot with orthodox Christians because they were heresies laid bare long ago. As in prior to the Bible being the Bible. As in right around the time of Paul.
>>Are we Christian? We'll we aren't traditional Christians, thank goodness. If being "Christian" means we get lumped together with centuries of Christian-establishment obfuscation of doctrine and misdeeds, I'm not sure I want the legacy thanks. Mormonism is about a fresh start, a new theology. We're compelling enough to stand on our own without your help.
We absolutely are not just another Protestant offshoot. In fact, I find the notion insulting.
Mormonism is better understood as the "fourth Abrahamic world religion." I really don't care if I get to be accepted into the Christian country-club of American privilege or not. I'm shooting for something a little higher than junior-partner status in perpetuating the same errors of traditional Christianity.<<
Misdeeds? Like the Mountain Meadows Massacre that the LDS is just now fessing up to?
Oh, sorry. That came off a bit harsh, but I am not going to be party to the "obfuscation" and merely delete my gut reaction. As to the obfuscation of doctrine...I'm a party-line Lutheran, and I'm pretty harsh when it comes to gripes against Catholicism, but you'd be hardpressed to accuse them of hiding what they know. Stuart, come give a much-needed history lesson on transparency with the laity and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, did the church at any time abuse these doctrines? In a word, yes. But at least they haven't changed them. In 150 years, Mormonism has changed more doctrines than orthodoxy Christianity has in 2000. Some Restoration.
And Mormonism can't be understood as the fourth Abrahamic world religion. Abrahmic religions are: monotheistic (strike one), bare prophetic tradition (you get a point), Semitic origins (strike two)*, revelationist (you get a point), ethical (you get a great big fat point), historical (ooh, strike three), desert (ooh, strike four) and traditional (strike five). You're pretty close to striking out twice with the broad term "Abrahamic," without even going into the fine details of "Christian."
*Native Americans did not cross to North America at any point in time. The archaeological, genealogical and, uh, common sense record completely refutes the notion. If all truth is God's truth, you cannot have it on faith in one hand and on science in the other and say faith weighs more.
>>My experience is that such people are not likely to be open to the message of the Restored Gospel anyway. They're a little too entrenched in their own beliefs.<<
Like you are in yours? Here are we, discussing to an extent those things which demonstrates Mormonism is not Christian, yet here you are speaking frankly and in a tone just shy of anger (perhaps a personal insult is felt). I'll give you that the seminary system is great--if mainline Christians could get their kids up for a 7 AM prayer meeting, let alone a 6 AM theology class, they'd be one step further along. If nothing else, the LDS establishment knows how to bring up kids and teach them faith, albeit a false one.
You want me to talk to Mormons...look, I have the quad sitting on my shelf. I've read and highligthed all of it, compared it to the Bible free of Smith's footnotes; a great friend of mine is leaving for two years for Colombia on the ninth (three guesses why, first two don't count!); another friend is an apostate of the LDS; another is a convert to Mormonism; I ballroom dance (poorly at that, but I'm sure you know what religion dominates ballroom dancing). It is precisely because I have become so familiar with Mormons that I am convinced the LDS establishment is antichrist.
I can grant this: some Mormons are Christians (mostly due to their own ignorance, misunderstanding of or personal disagreement with the LDS party line), but Mormonism is not Christianity.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 2, 2007 11:31:06 PM
Michael wrote:
"desert (ooh, strike four)"
You ever been to Utah?
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 12:04:16 AM
As System Lord polytheism, LDS is considerably further away from Christianity than Arianism, ir Islam or Sikhism even.
Posted by: labrialumn | Jul 3, 2007 12:33:12 AM
My husband and I spent the better part of last year studying with a series of young Mormon missionaries who came to our house for dinner once every week.
I read The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrine and Covenants the first time over 25 years ago, and I read them again last year. I read them the first time because I thought it all sounded very pretty and I wanted very much to believe it.
Over 25 years ago I also read the Journal of Discources, which was at that time on the shelves of the tiny library in the town where I worked. It disappeared from their shelves a couple years after that.
Joseph Smith did more than just imply that the God of this earth is one of many, he flatly said so (“And if ye abide not that covenant [speaking of polygamous temple marriages], then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory…and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph Smith to hold this power in the last days… Abraham received concubines and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness…and Isaac also and Jacob …they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones , and are not angels but are gods.”
Doctrine and Covenants 132:7,37).
And Brigham Young followed after him and did more than imply the same thing (and with him you have the Adam/God doctrine as well as Blood sacrifice, and his insistence that every one of his sermons in the Journal of Discources was a doctrinally pure prophetic utterance. So if he's wrong about that, the Bible says that makes him a false prophet.)
The Mormon missionaries in our home taught this doctrine as well, and used Psalms 82 as a prooftext. The popular Mormon hymn 'Praise to the Man' (the man being Joseph Smith) teaches this as well:
"Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven! Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain. Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again."
When Mormons say things that imply to Christians that they don't believe in more than one God, what they usually mean is that they only *worship* one god, the god who created this earth. It is still church teaching, or was this time last year when the missionaries were in our home, that there are many gods.
As for the physical Union between God and Mary- here are some once official Mormon sources for the teaching that God and Mary conceived Jesus in the ‘usual way' between a man and a maid:
http://www.bcmmin.org/jesusmor.html
The documentation is extensive, and it was official teaching until a very short time ago- it was included even in family home evening manuals and addresses by the church President.
I am sorry that my Mormon friends find it hurtful to be told they are not Christians. But I find it even more deeply grievous and heartbreaking to know that they are lost, trusting in a false Jesus.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, haev we not prophesied in Thy name? And in Thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, yet that work iniquity.”
And after all, if we truly believe that someone - anyone - of any faith has their faith wrong and is going to suffer for all eternity - wouldn’t it be a lot more hateful to shrug our shoulders and not say anything lest we offend? If a Mormon really thinks that I’m not going to Heaven - then they ought to tell me so.
It is true that most Mormons no longer believe that God is progressing, but Brigham Young taught this doctrine and insisted that he had received it as a revelation from God. Other Mormon Apostles and prophets also taught this doctrine. For more on this changing doctrine you can see this website:
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mormonapostle.htm
And the fact that current prophets dismiss what Brigham Young and other Mormon 'Prophets' once taught as a revelation they received from God and sound and solid doctrine for others to follow isn't something silly about Mormonism- it's tragic. IF your prophets were wrong, they were no prophets and what they revealed was not from God.
And it is not enough to 'revere and treasure Christ' if the Christ you revere and treasure is a counterfeit, and not the Christ of the Bible.
I once lived up the road from a girl who shared my name- even my middle name. One day three hippies came to my door asking for me (I was only ten). After much confusion (We didn't know then that she had the same name as I did), my Dad figured out that they were talking about two different people. They cleared this up by comparing characteristics ("you don't mean MY daughter- she's only ten"). The characteristics of the Mormon Jesus are not the characteristics of the Christian Jesus.
It is a fact that there is only one genuine Jesus. But, there are counterfeits:
The apostle Paul warned of counterfeit Christs:
2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(KJV)
There is no salvation in that ‘other Jesus’ whom Paul did not preach, nor in that ‘other gospel’ which Paul did not accept. I have read and studied LDS materials, and I believe that is a different gospel and a different Jesus.
One of the most basic differences would be where the two Jesus’ come from. The Christian Jesus is eternal, the same yesterday, today and forever. He has no beginning and no end, and therefore, a Jesus with a beginning is just not the same person.
President Hinckley, LDS prophet and apostle, acknowledges this as well. He was asked if Mormons ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ (He said) ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak….’”
(LDS Church News Archives, Saturday, June 20, 1998, reporting on Hinckley’s speech to 6,600 missionaries assembled in Paris. http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_church?dn98&9806210091)
If Mormon President Hinkley acknowledges that he’s talking about a different Jesus, I am going to take him seriously.
The LDS Jesus and the Jesus in the Bible are like me and my neighbor- they share the same name, but their different characteristics make it clear that they are not the same person.
Here are other passages pointing out the existence of false Christs:
Matthew 24:4 & 5. “Jesus answered: ‘Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.”
Matt 24:24
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(KJV)
2 Cor 11:13-14
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(KJV)
Jesus himself clearly says that not everybody who thinks they are following Jesus and doing His work are right about that, and they err to their eternal damnation as seen in the Matthew 7:21-23 passage quoted previously
The Jesus Christians follow is the very God, part of the triune deity. He is not our spirit brother, older brother of Lucifer, nor was He conceived in Heaven by a union between Elohim and one of His wives.
I realize that hearing these things said is painful- or maddening, depending on the temperament of the hearer. I realize that for a Mormon to accept them would cost a great deal, more than most of us could imagine. I do not at all discount that pain and the price that it would take to accept them. But to refuse the real Jesus for the counterfeit of Mormonism would be to exchange a lie for the truth, to lose the whole world, to lose eternity. This is painful, yes. But things are not false just because they are uncomfortable, painful or distasteful. We do not withhold information we believe might save a life because it might hurt somebody's feelings.
The Mormon Jesus is also different from the Christian Jesus because the Christian Jesus is not only not married to a human woman, but the idea of a married Jesus fathering children in the flesh is revolting to Christian thought.
I realize this is yet another doctrine the Mormon church has largely dropped, but since Mormon doctrine is also that you cannot get into the Celestial Heaven without being married, they have a problem, and I have learned that most Mormons will admit they privately believe Jesus was married.
A Married Jesus fathering children is, as others have pointed out, gnostic, not Christian. This is the Jesus of the Da Vinci Code, not the Bible.
LDS teaching is that godhood is only possible for those married and sealed in the temple. So if Jesus is a god, to be consistent with LDS teaching he must have been married at some point. Otherwise, by LDS teaching, his eternal progression is ‘dammed up.’ This teaching is still official doctrine, since it is still in the Doctrine and Covenants 132, http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-20#15
See also here: http://scriptures.lds.org/gse/exlttn
The difference between the Jesus who is the bridegroom of the Church and a Jesus who was married to his lady followers is a substantial difference.
The Jesus Christians worship taught this doctrine to those who asked him which husband a woman widowed seven times would be married to:
Matt 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Here is more Mormon teaching on the wives of Jesus:
In the Journal of Discourses, Orson Hyde taught that Jesus had multiple wives:
“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If He was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper, to say the best of it.
I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom, with a train of women such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried or even married, he would have been mobbed, tarred and feathered, and rode out of town, not on an ass but on a rail.
What did the old prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see his seed, prolong his days, etc”? Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfill every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. … Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father’s law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty. …
Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ but remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light…”
Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol 4, pp. 259-60
“The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was, because he had so many wives. There were Elizabeth and Mary and a host of others that followed him. After Jesus went from the stage of action, the apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, “Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth.” …This ancient philosopher [Celcus] says they were both John’s wives. Paul, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy…”
Jedidiah M. Grant
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1 pp. 345-46
Here are other once official teachings on the plurality of the deities:
“We never could consummate the object of our mission to this earth, we never could fulfill the purposes of God in this estate…this doctrine of the eternal union of husband and wife and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man IN ANY AGE OF THE WORLD. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate wtih AND BECOME GODS…”
Joseph F Smith
Journal of Discourses, Vol 21, pp. 9-10
“If none obut Gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives.”
History of the Church
Joseph Smith
Vol 6, pg 250
I know many Mormon readers are shaking their heads at my quoting from the Journal of Discourses- many Mormons have never even heard of it, others have heard of it but believe current church teaching that these were never authoritative. But that's not what the Mormon leadership has always taught- and the foundation of Mormonism is not Jesus Christ, but modern day revelation- Mormonism claims to have living prophets and apostles still receiving direct revelation from God.
So doesn't it seem as if a Mormon prophet, a church President, says that he has received a teaching through revelation, he should be believed? If he says he has preached a sermon that is scripture, shouldn't a church founded on the firm belief that their church President's are prophets with ears attuned to God, accept that word? If not, then isn’t he a false prophet? You see, Brigham Young did make these claims for the Journal of Discourses and specifically for his sermons that were in them.
Regarding the authority of the Journal of Discourses, this is in the preface of the very first one: “…these Sermons will prove a source of light, information, and joy. And, according to the vocation which belongs to the Eternal Priesthood, all authorized ministers of God will hail their publication with gladness, for such an embodiment of doctrine will greatly accelerate the grand object they have in view-the salvation of souls the instruction of Saints, and the building up of Zion in the last days.”
(http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Manti/RefLibraryFolder/JournalOfDiscourses/Vol%2001/refJDvol1-1.html)
Brigham Young himself proclaimed that his sermons reprinted in the Journal of Discourses were scripture and that all Mormons should study them as such (”I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” (Journal of Discources, vol. 13, p. 95).
If he said his sermons were scripture, then why doesn’t the church accept their prophet’s proclamation? If he was a prophet, then why can’t we take him at his word when he says his sermons can be called scripture?
It is perfectly true that the Mormon church has backed away from many of Brigham Young’s teachings, because Brigham said some very odd things. But if he were a true prophet of God, how did this happen? When he said his sermons were scripture, was he being a false prophet?
The Journal of Discourses was actually still officially recommended for study and doctrine as recently as 1963.
IN volume 11, where Brigham Young says that Polygamy was one of the relics of David, Solomon, Jesus and the Apostles, ( published by Brigham Young, Junior) the Preface (written by Brigham Young) says, “EACH successive year the power of God is manifestly increasing upon His people, and more especially upon His ministers in the Holy Priesthood, whose duty it is to build up and instruct the Church in His most holy will.
The “Journal of Discourses” is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, then, that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family.
No Saint can afford to do without these precious precepts until they are able to exemplify them in their daily lives and conversation.”
On another occasion Young said: “The Scripture says that He, the LORD, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children …” (vol. 13, p.309)."
From the beginning, the Journal of Discourses was printed in the LDS church printing press, and the very first issue contained this note from the trained transcriber who published it:
“It affords me great pleasure in being able to put in your possession the words of the Apostles and Prophets, as they were spoken in assemblies of the Saints in Zion, the value of which cannot be estimated by man, not so much for any great display of worldly learning and eloquence, as for the purity of doctrine, simplicity of style, and extensive amount of theological truth which they develop.”
For years Latter-day Saints were encouraged to purchase a set to enhance their understanding of Mormon truth claims.
In March 1963, the church-owned Deseret Book placed an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune with a banner that read “The Voices of Prophets!” offering a set of the JoD and telling LDS members that they “should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration.”
Also in 1963, Axel Andresen, the assistant manager of church owned Deseret Book, answered a question somebody had asked him about the books: Andresen wrote, “In having in your library the 26 volumes of the ‘Journals of Discourses’ (sic), you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about.” He went on to point out that the volumes were published by the LDS church, and said that certainly the church would be publishing them if it didn’t agree with them.
This is the preface to volume 2- and this preface was written by Franklin Richards: “The Second Volume of the Journal of Discourses needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth. It is made up of the choicest fruit that can be called from the tree of knowledge, suited to the tastes of all who can appreciate such delicious food.”
Every preface is written by a leader in the Mormon church, and every preface sets the books forward as true reflections of church teaching.
If you will look at this website, it contains quotes from Mormon leaders about the J0D.http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/opinion-truth.html
Or you can read the whole thing yourself- I suggest you start with just the preface of each volume to see what Mormon leadership at the time were teaching about it, and then look especially at volume 2.
You can find the complete text here
http://journalofdiscourses.org/
and here
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9599
Read for yourselves what apostle Orson Pratt taught about Jesus' marriages. Read there what Brigham Young taught about the Bishops and Deacons and compare it to church practices today. Read what Brigham Young said was revealed to him by God about Adam and God.
This and more was official doctrine when Brigham Young was making church doctrine- to disbelive BY's teaching then was to be an apostate. Now, it's apparently standard Mormon doctrine to reject the 'Revelations' of previous prophets.
Brigham Young - “What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?” Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127 (1867)
Brigham Young - “I will take up the text again — I am responsible for the doctrine I teach. … If they will hear it, well; if they will not, I am clear of their blood.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 4 (1869)
Brigham Young - “I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of nations — that Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 (1870)
Brigham Young - “I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom … I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men , that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 (1870)
Wilford Woodruff - “… In my public teaching I never permit my mind to follow in any channel except that which the Spirit dictates to me, and this is the position we all occupy when we meet with the Saints … ” Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, p. 275 (1873)
Joseph Fielding Smith - “What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church.” Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 186 (1954)
“Words of Our Living Prophets — In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. ‘We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God’ (Articles of Faith 1:9).” Gospel Principles, p. 55 (1992)
If the Mormon church is now rejecting these 'revelations,' then previous Mormons followed false prophets in Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. This changing doctrine in Mormonism indicates that what this church is teaching today can be changed and called false doctrine tomorrow. But Michael has done a much better job than I can explaining why this this is a problem.
You can't be a Christian if the Christ you love and revere is the Mormon Christ. He may seem to have the same name, but he's a counterfeit. Please, please, investigate the differences and give all glory and homage to the genuine Christ.
Posted by: DeputyHeadmistress | Jul 3, 2007 1:52:45 AM
>>You ever been to Utah?<<
No, you ever been to the forests of northern New York?
Posted by: Michael | Jul 3, 2007 2:59:31 AM
The issue is whether Mormons are Christian. I take it that the real issue is whether they hold to certain tests of orthodoxy:
1. The substance of the Nicene Creed.
2. The substance of the Definition of Chalcedon.
Even self-proclaimed, non-creedal Evangelicals hold to the substance of these two statements, though they are leery of their form and have different understandings of some of their elements than the more ancient traditions.
Seth,
Can any orthodoxy Mormon affirm in honesty the articles of belief incorporated in those two ancient tests of orthodoxy? If not, then Mormons are not Christian as historically defined. You may well be "the 'fourth Abrahamic world religion.'" I have friends who are Mormon, even some who insist that they are Christian. I need not be nasty about my refusal to accept that assertion, but reject it I must.
To All,
It is hard to convince a Mormon that his religion is false when the fruits of it appear more pleasing in the life of the average, self-proclaimed Mormon than do the fruits of Christianity in the life of the average, self-proclaimed Christian. The best missionary outreach we can make to our Mormon friends and neighbors is to live the life Christ called us to. Our words ring hollow when compared to our lives. Perhaps our problem is not in too narrowly defining Christianity to exclude Mormons, but in defining it too broadly to include self-professed Christians whose lives show not the slightest evidence of true faith.
It might help if the Baptist divorce rate was lower than the Mormon divorce rate, or at least below the national average. It might help if Catholic politicians who support abortion were disciplined by their Church. It might help if the size of the average Christian family was at least as large as the size of the average Mormon family. It might help if the average Christian had the evangelistic zeal of the typical Mormon. I don't believe Mormons are orthodox Christians, but I can see why we have a hard time convincing them that orthodox Christianity is true and their faith is false. They don't listen to our words because they are looking at our lives. It is easier to attack the beliefs of Mormons than to address the sorry state of Christianity in 21st century America.
Posted by: GL | Jul 3, 2007 3:42:31 AM
GL,
"The issue is whether Mormons are Christian. I take it that the real issue is whether they hold to certain tests of orthodoxy:
1. The substance of the Nicene Creed.
2. The substance of the Definition of Chalcedon."
To answer your question - no, I reject both of those as purely the philosophy of men mingled with scripture. You can say they are good and true tests till you are blue in the face. They are still from men and not from God. Say they are biblical if you want, but I don't find the Bible to be explicitly supportive of either test.
DeputyHeadmistress,
"I know many Mormon readers are shaking their heads at my quoting from the Journal of Discourses- many Mormons have never even heard of it, others have heard of it but believe current church teaching that these were never authoritative. But that's not what the Mormon leadership has always taught- and the foundation of Mormonism is not Jesus Christ, but modern day revelation- Mormonism claims to have living prophets and apostles still receiving direct revelation from God."
Honestly, the ignorance of Mormons about their own doctrine is a point of intense frustration for me as well. Historically, the Mormon church has tended to let uncomfortable or contradictory doctrines simply slip into unchallenged obscurity without really ever addressing the theological issues. I'll freely acknowledge that.
It's an approach that I find counterproductive since it leaves certain portions of the Mormon population vulnerable to the arguments of the Church's detractors. They simply end up broadsided by these arguments and feel confused that their own church never provided them with any information on the subject. Some end up feeling betrayed by the Church as a result and go on to criticize the Church online. I've seen it several times.
Thing is, I don't personally find the criticisms particularly compelling - and believe me, I've heard most of them. Nothing mentioned in these comments - all of which I have read - comes as a surprise to me.
I think the Church could easily prepare its converts and members for such challenges if it chose to. But, thus far, this has not been the preferred approach. I personally hope that the recent article now on the official Church website on the Mountain Meadows Massacre signals a new period of openness. So do many of my fellow Mormon bloggers.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 6:22:48 AM
Alright, let's just cut right to what I think the real problem here is:
Living prophets and a living evolving tradition of revelation.
Several of you have pointed out the contradictions in statements by acknowledged Mormon prophets. You are puzzled by how they can be "true prophets" if we are constantly picking and choosing among their recorded statements.
One question:
Are prophets always infallible? Do you need to be perfect to be a prophet? Do you need to be perfectly in tune with the mind of God, in order to receive His word?
Because I don't think that any prophet, Mormon or otherwise, has ever fit that description. Indeed, I look at the entire span of the Bible and I would characterize it as the story of deeply flawed men searching for God (and finding Him!). Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Peter... All of them had their bad points. Certainly, none were perfect men.
The same is true of Mormon prophets.
Honestly, I don't think that very many here have really explored the full implications of having a living prophet among the people. Have you really imagined what it was like for the people of Elijah's time?
Here you have a long tradition of Mosaic tradition expounded, analyzed and commented-on extensively by scribes and priests. And along comes this dirty man from the wilderness - Elijah - who sniffs at your treasured interpretations of holy writ and has the audacity to speak DIRECTLY for God.
Do you have any idea how much that shakes the status quo? How upset that makes people? The leaders of the Jewish religion turned on the prophets sent by their own God. Of course they did! He challenged the very basis on which they claimed authority: learned study and interpretation of holy writ.
Learned study and interpretation of holy writ.
I emphasize those words because this is exactly what traditional Christianity is founded on. Your entire building is sitting on a foundation of mortal efforts to interpret and understand the Bible. Claim you are right all you want. It's still just your own mortal efforts to understand a document that is actually more open to interpretation than you'd like to admit.
And now, once again today, John the Baptist has his camel hair robe on and is crying from the wilderness that the status quo is over. Of course, once again, the local scribes are upset. They've had a long and unchallenged run of speaking for God, premised on the idea that the Bible is a closed book.
But God will not be silenced, simply because you find the idea of an open canon to be an untidy proposition.
And that's probably what scares traditional Christians so much about a Living Religion. It is untidy. It's prophets are controversial and flawed individuals. It cannot be predicted simply by appeal to past writings. It says new and frightening things. And finally, it often turns the current system on its head.
Traditional Christianity may be alive and vibrant in the hearts of its believers (I think it is). But structurally, it is a dead religion parsing through the statements of dead men.
Your prophets died thousands of years ago. You've had plenty of time to embalm them in the mantle of respectable hindsight.
Mormons have not had that luxury. Our prophets, even our dead ones, are still uncomfortably alive.
Of course it's hard to understand why living religion is so messy. You've been following a religion that has been comfortably and tidily dead for centuries. Plenty of time to polish up the coffin and make a few last minute adjustments to the flower arrangements.
But change is in the air, and God will prove that He has more to say to His children.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 7:01:00 AM
>>>I emphasize those words because this is exactly what traditional Christianity is founded on. Your entire building is sitting on a foundation of mortal efforts to interpret and understand the Bible. <<<
The Christian tradition, as the true inheritor of Israel, WROTE the Bible. They took the inspired texts and gathered them together. The foundation isn't the Bible or mortal efforts to understand it, but Jesus Christ himself.
The churches which were founded by Jesus' true Apostles have an unbroken chain of tradition leading back to the beginning. While it might appear to be untidy--while it might BE untidy--so are most healthy living things.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jul 3, 2007 7:10:40 AM
Re: the Creeds -- "You can say they are good and true tests till you are blue in the face. They are still from men and not from God. Say they are biblical if you want, but I don't find the Bible to be explicitly supportive of either test."
A most remarkable statement coming from someone who holds to the ludicrous fabrications of man-made Mormon texts, and whose religon feels free (like Muslims) to alter the texts of the OT and NT at will to fit the later "sacred" texts. It also displays a complete ignorance of the extensive biblical exegesis by the patristic fathers that shows the Creeds to be fully faithful explications of the totality of the Scripture concerning the being and nature of God.
And Seth simply evades rather than addresses the chief points made by DeputyHeadmistress -- that Mormonism claims to have a "restored" and "superior" divine revelation and theology that corrects the alleged errors and obfuscations of traditional Christianity, and yet is constantly jettisoning and altering huge and central chunks of that supposedly restored and superior divine revelation and theology as being contradictory and flat-out wrong. Since Mormonism claims it all to be of divine origin, the necessary conclusion is that either:
a) the Mormon head god is not only not infallible or omniscient, he is at best downright befuddled and incompetent, and at worst a demonic deceiver, or
b) the situation is instead the fault of the "prophets" who have received and propounded the Mormon head god's revelation and theology, and these are therefore at best incompetent and unreliable, and at worst frauds, liars, and false prophets.
If you want to dismiss the Creeds as "man-made", Seth, then by the same token prove -- prove, do not simply assert until you are "blue in the face" -- that any Mormon text is *not* man-made. Likewise, cite OT and NT texts that are "explicitly supportive" of such distinctive Mormon theological claims as e.g. a polytheistic godhead (do you just delete all the OT proclamations that "The Lord your God is *one* God"?), a physical body for the Father, a second mission of Christ to North America, etc.
At a minimum, better to have creeds that are not explicitly supported by the OT and NT texts in the strictest sense of explicit propositional statement, but are implicit in and fully compatible with those texts, than to have a new-fangled "revelation" that openly contradicts those texts and squares them with itself by re-writing them without a shred of textual evidence for so doing. Something about motes and logs comes to mind here....
But of course, I forget -- Mormon texts are not man-made. They have a far more subterranean origin from their primary author, the Father of Lies.
Certainly, however, my good friend GL is right -- real Christians have not presented a sufficient witness of adhering to right doctrine and conduct of life, and in the latter area many Mormons (and even some Muslims) have put them to shame.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 3, 2007 7:53:04 AM
"Alright, let's just cut right to what I think the real problem here is:
"Living prophets and a living evolving tradition of revelation.
"Several of you have pointed out the contradictions in statements by acknowledged Mormon prophets. You are puzzled by how they can be 'true prophets' if we are constantly picking and choosing among their recorded statements.
"One question:
"Are prophets always infallible? Do you need to be perfect to be a prophet? Do you need to be perfectly in tune with the mind of God, in order to receive His word?"
To answer the latter part first, there is a disitnction between the prophets as men and their message as divinely inspired. The prophets were not perfect men in conduct, as they themselves admitted. But their divinely given message was consistent, and without error and contradiction in all things pertaining to salvation. Unlike the Mormon false prophets, the OT and NT propehts do not contradict themselves or disown their previous divienly given messages.
Which leads to the answer to the first point. There is a difference between the original revelation of the OT and NT as Scripture and Tradition as the divinely guided and authoritative exposition of Scripture. (I happen to agree with the Eastern Orthodox position that Scripture is in fact the foundation and chiefest part of the Tradition, but even there this distinction between Scripture and patristic exegesis still holds.)
There is also a distinction between Tradition with a capital "T" and tradition with a small "t". The former refers to the normative, authoritative consensual exegesis of Scripture according to the Vincentian canon of "that which has been believed at all times, in all places, by all men"; the latter refers to non-authoritative opinions and customs that are not so universal. Small "t" tradition is thus subject to revisions that can substantially alter or set aside what has comes before. Capital "T" Tradition, by contrast, is not subject to this; the only "change" it can undergo is further elaboration that is totally consistent with what has gone before.
This is the crucial difference between the capital-T Tradition of the true Christian faith and the "evolving living tradition" of Mormonism and other gnostic sects, the apostate pseudo-Christianity of modern liberal Protestantism, etc. The "evolving living tradition" claims the liberty to contradict and dispense with what has come before it, supposedly progressing toward an ever more enlightened understanding than discards as superceded what has come before. The Christian faith, by contrast, holds that it has been given a fixed and unalterable deposit, which is complete in Jesus Christ. It can utilize the riches of that deposit more richly, but it cannot add to or subtract from it or substantially alter any of its essentials.
The very radical alterability (to coin a neologism) of Mormonism is why it, and not the true Chrisitian faith, is built on a foundation of sand rather than the Rock of Christ. And Mormonism, with its novel doctrines unknown before Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that openly contradict central passages of the OT and NT, certainly does not fufill the Vincentian canon.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 3, 2007 8:21:41 AM
"Unlike the Mormon false prophets, the OT and NT propehts do not contradict themselves or disown their previous divienly given messages."
So what was Moses doing when he laid down the Mosaic law?
What was Christ doing when He declared the Mosaic law fulfilled in Him?
I'm sure there were plenty of Jewish scribes who were appalled at Christ's "butchering of Jewish exegesis" of the Mosaic law.
Every dispensation has witnessed changes, new revelation, new commandments, and repudiation of some of the old ways. The problem is you expect Mormons to be simply building on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles when historically, that really isn't the pattern - except for you, I suppose.
"Mormonism claims to have a "restored" and "superior" divine revelation and theology that corrects the alleged errors and obfuscations of traditional Christianity, and yet is constantly jettisoning and altering huge and central chunks of that supposedly restored and superior divine revelation and theology as being contradictory and flat-out wrong."
Like I said, traditional Christianity has had plenty of time to "clean house." The Bible is an end product of a process. But it shows us very little about the actual process that ultimately created it.
To postulate a prophet who was absolutely in-tune to God's voice doesn't really make much sense. I think both of us would agree that all human beings are fallible, not just in general, but in the particulars of our lives. I would simply extend that fallibility to prophets as well. How is revelation received anyway, regardless of whether it's Joseph Smith or Joseph of Egypt?
Some of it by dreams, some of it by direct conversation with God, some of it by internal inspiration... But all of it filtered through the lens of the recipient. All revelation is, at a very basic level, flawed - however minutely.
Unless you believe that God forcibly intervened and moved Moses' hand as he wrote down the details of the Mosaic law...
But I don't believe that, and neither, I would remind you, do many mainline Christians. And we haven't even gotten into the process of transmitting and preserving what the prophet wrote down through the centuries.
In short, I don't think the traditional Christian ship is as airtight as you think it is on the subject of doctrinal consistency.
Incidentally, I don't think Mormon theology does contradict the Bible as it exists today. It contradicts the meaning you have read into the Bible, but not the text itself. We could Bible-bash all day on that subject, but I doubt it would prove a useful exercise for either of us.
"There is also a distinction between Tradition with a capital "T" and tradition with a small "t". The former refers to the normative, authoritative consensual exegesis of Scripture according to the Vincentian canon of "that which has been believed at all times, in all places, by all men"; the latter refers to non-authoritative opinions and customs that are not so universal. Small "t" tradition is thus subject to revisions that can substantially alter or set aside what has comes before. Capital "T" Tradition, by contrast, is not subject to this; the only "change" it can undergo is further elaboration that is totally consistent with what has gone before."
This is just a fancy way of saying that traditional Christian doctrine is a product of consensus-building. But I've seen too many consensuses turn out to be flawed to put too much stock in this. Basically you got a whole bunch of flawed human beings together and they gave it their best shot.
Of course that trivializes the magnitude and genuine impressiveness of traditional Christianity's accomplishments, but it doesn't make it any less of a flawed human endeavor. God is fully at liberty to trump those human creeds should He wish to do so. Mormons claim that He has.
St. Vincent himself actually supports my assertion:
"Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it."
Exactly. The Bible does happen to be open to various interpretations. Those disagreements have persisted throughout the centuries and still alive and kicking today. I can see why the process of Biblical exegesis of the early traditional Christians might inspire confidence. But I see no basis for your assertion that the Bible as we have it is complete, infallible, or even exclusive of Mormon claims.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 9:28:06 AM
I wrote:
The issue is whether Mormons are Christian. I take it that the real issue is whether they hold to certain tests of orthodoxy:
1. The substance of the Nicene Creed.
2. The substance of the Definition of Chalcedon.
Seth responded:
To answer your question - no, I reject both of those as purely the philosophy of men mingled with scripture. You can say they are good and true tests till you are blue in the face. They are still from men and not from God. Say they are biblical if you want, but I don't find the Bible to be explicitly supportive of either test.
My reply:
First, I believe that every word of the Nicene Creed can be proved from Scripture, but will admit that the specific declarations of the Definition of Chalcedon are difficult to prove from Scripture, though its general premise, that Christ is fully God and fully man, is Scriptural.
Second, to me this is simply a matter of definition. What is an orthodox Christian? Do Mormon's fit that definition? To me, affirmation of the substance, if not the form, of the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon is essential to being an orthodox Christian. (I believe that all orthodox Christians would agree with this statement.) Orthodox Mormons, as you admit, cannot affirm the substance of the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. Therefore, orthodox Mormons are not orthodox Christians. No aspersions, no slanders, just a simple matter of definition and application.
Posted by: GL | Jul 3, 2007 9:36:10 AM
"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." I Nephi 14:10
Posted by: Kirk | Jul 3, 2007 9:37:54 AM
Problem is, you can SUPPORT the Definition of Chalcedon by an appeal to the biblical text, but you can't prove it.
How do you know that the scriptures speaking of the "unity of the Godhead" is not simply referring to a unity in purpose, thought and intent - much as Christ invites us all to "become one" even as he and the Father are one?
And what of the repeated instances of Christ expressing his individuality from God the Father? I know traditional Christianity has some textual and mental gymnastics that allow it to reconcile those scriptures with its theological view.
Likewise Mormons have their own textual and mental gymnastics that allow them to reconcile the scriptures on divine unity.
I really don't see how that establishes that your gymnastics are to be preferred over ours.
Or is your argument similar to James: "more people agree with us, so there?"
Now, if by "orthodox Christians," you mean the same thing I mean when I say "traditional Christianity," I'll readily agree that we aren't orthodox Christians. But if you mean something synonymous with the religion Christ actually founded, well, I'd have to take issue with that.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 10:01:21 AM
I will let others more qualified than I explain how fulfilling a legal contract (Jesus and the Old Law) is not the same as contradicting it and saying it was never true at all (Mormon Prophets and their contradictory revelations).
A significant portion of Joseph Smith's prophetic work is founded on polytheism- I do not understand how Seth claims this Joseph Smith only hinted at this and never stated it implicitly when it is, in fact, the reason for the final version of the story of his vision in the woods, as well as a major part of Mormon doctrine plainly stated by many Mormon prophets and in Mormon scriptures, attested to in Mormon hymns, and taught by Mormon missionaries as recently as last year. And this false teaching is plainly contradicted in scripture with no ambiguity whatsoever:
ISAIAH 43:10,11 — Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.
ISAIAH 44:6,8 — Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
ISAIAH 46:9 — For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.
I am all too well aware that this is seldom convincing to Mormons. Last year one of the Mormon missionaries in our living room told us that it would not matter if the book of Mormon had been changed thousands of times, if we could prove that it was a false book, if we could prove that Mormonism contradicted the Bible, no matter what, he would still hold to Mormonism because 'without Joseph Smith he had *nothing.* '
We pointed out that without Joseph Smith, without the book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures, without the Mormon church, we still had Jesus, andt his put Joseph Smith above Jesus in his theology, and he basically shrugged. In fact, his partner, in an attempt to show us the folly of our ways, said that we were being silly, and what did that prove anyway because the same could be said of us- without Jesus we had nothing. Well, yes. That's quite true. And once more we could see that Mormonism is simply not Christianity.
Posted by: DeputyHeadmistress | Jul 3, 2007 10:05:20 AM
Or is your argument similar to James: "more people agree with us, so there?"
No, my argument is that from the early 4th Century onward, the Church has defined Christianity to exclude those who do not affirm the Nicene Creed and from the mid-5th Century onward, the the Church has defined Christianity to exclude those who do not affirm the Definition of Chalcedon. Since those times, the Church has held each respectively as a test of orthodoxy. It is not a matter of how many people agree or disagree with these tests, it is simply that from those times, respectively, the definition of orthodox Christianity, as defined by the Church (as agreed to in ecumenical councils) has excluded those who cannot or will not affirm those two statements.
To demand that Christians who affirm those two statements recognize Mormons as Christians is to demand that we abandon the test of orthodox Christianity which has been a part of our faith for more than a millennium and a half. We cannot do so and be true to our own faith.
Posted by: GL | Jul 3, 2007 10:22:53 AM
Now, if by "orthodox Christians," you mean the same thing I mean when I say "traditional Christianity," I'll readily agree that we aren't orthodox Christians. But if you mean something synonymous with the religion Christ actually founded, well, I'd have to take issue with that.
I mean both what you mean by "traditional Christianity" and "something synonymous with the religion Christ actually founded," because I hold that "traditional Christianity" is "something synonymous with the religion Christ actually founded." Mormons and orthodox Christians disagree on this and so, therefore, Mormons are not Christian as orthodox Christians define Christianity and, again, to demand that we recognize Mormons as Christians is to demand that we renounce an essential part of our own faith.
Posted by: GL | Jul 3, 2007 10:30:09 AM
deputyheadmistress,
More on the other points later since I gotta run, but missionaries are frequently instructed not to try and "go to the mat" on scriptural dueling. I think these two would have been well advised to avoid doing so as well. I served as a missionary myself, and I'm painfully aware that they can be a mixed bag both in the depth of the testimony and in the depth of their grasp of doctrine and knowledge of the scriptures. Keep in mind they're just 18 year old kids.
Posted by: Seth R. | Jul 3, 2007 10:47:38 AM
Are the Copts Christian? They reject the definition of Chalcedon...
And as for secrecy -- "Catechumens depart. Let all who are catechumens depart. Let none of the catechumens remain." -- Orthodox Christianity has at various times been about as secretive about the Eucharist as Mormonism is about their temples.
Anyway, the way I figure, they're either their own religion, or they're heretical Christians. They can't be both.
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Jul 3, 2007 11:27:30 AM
Peter,
That is a good question. I have been informed on this site by others that the dispute over the nature of Christ which resulted in the split between the Copts and the rest of the Church was a big misunderstanding (which served political motives) rather than a disagreement over whether Christ has one or two natures.
Wikipedia records the following regarding the Copts:
Before the current positive era of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox dialogues, Chalcedonians sometimes used to call the non-Chalcedonians "monophysites", though the Coptic Orthodox Church in reality regards monophysitism as a heresy. The Chalcedonian doctrine in turn came to be known as "dyophysite".See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church. Based on that information, it would appear that Copts are Christians. Recall, I kept referring acceptance of the substance of the Definition of Chalcedon, not necessarily its form.A term that comes closer to Coptic Orthodoxy is miaphysite, which refers to a conjoined nature for Christ, both human and divine, united indivisibly in the Incarnate Logos. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria believes that Christ is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one hypostasis "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration". These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (Coptic Liturgy of Saint Basil of Caesarea).
Posted by: GL | Jul 3, 2007 12:29:58 PM
While I'll accept that Chalcedon forms a requirement for Orthodox Christianity Arians were not wholesale purged from the church. Baptisms were, for example, considered valid. Arians, while heterodox, are at least Christian.
I will object to calling Mormons Arians. They aren't. Arians aren't polytheists. In fact, that was the whole point of the Arian debate. Arians, as Archbishop Rowan Williams correctly points out in "Arius:Heresy and Tradition" were mono-theists and based their arguments on scripture and relevant traditions (ABishop Rowans is making a very subtle and awful argument in the background, please over look that). Mormans, being polytheists, don't qualify for Arianism.
Posted by: Nick | Jul 3, 2007 1:30:59 PM
"Mormons, being polytheists, don't qualify for Arianism." The Mormon delusion does not even rise to the level of a heresy, that is true; it does, however, rise to the level of a confidence game or a comic book. Amazing that an obviously intelligent man like Seth can seriously advance the thesis that the ravings of a 19th century con man are worth consideration. May God have mercy on the millions of decent and honest Mormons who have "a zeal for God, but without knowledge." Their Prophet was a charlatan, their scriptures are tedious bilge and their religion comes straight from the pit. "Are they Christians?" Is somebody kidding?
Posted by: Scott Walker | Jul 3, 2007 9:26:40 PM
"President Hinckley, LDS prophet and apostle, ... was asked if Mormons ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ (He said) ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak….’” (LDS Church News Archives, Saturday, June 20, 1998, reporting on Hinckley’s speech to 6,600 missionaries assembled in Paris. http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_church?dn98&9806210091)
Add to this fact Joseph Smith's wild "translating" (editing/delting) of the text of the Bible (I dare anyone to defend with straight face the Joseph Smith Translation), and you cannot but conclude that Mormonism is an intentional vandalism of truth by theological cad named Joseph Smith. Any given Mormon might be a fine person and even a Christian, certainly, but Mormonism itself can't be anything other than what it was introduced to be.
Fence-sitters on this score might visit a Mormon Temple during a pre-dedication tour. I have yet to meet a Christian who was not forcibly struck by the pagan nature of those places. It is all good to talk of civil theological conversations, but spiritual battle is a reality and a Mormon temple throws realities into stark darkness and light.
Posted by: joe | Jul 3, 2007 9:40:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
