A rather odd–or underreasoned–op-ed from Harvard prof Noah Feldman is making the rounds, that Mitt Romney’s candidacy is Mormonism’s ticket to American Protestant acceptance. That’s a very big yes and no, as we shall see:
As a deeply believing Mormon, he actually, sincerely (yes, sincerely) believes that his moral values are equivalent to those of evangelicals.
Why Prof. Feldman finds this worthy of note or the least bit puzzling is puzzling. Romney’s values are the same as American evangelicals’. Not only that, but the feeling is mutual.
“Traditional Jews and evangelical Christians have quite different theologies, but they often have virtually identical values. (That is why this Jew is so supportive of evangelicals and why evangelical Christians syndicate my radio show.)
Conservative Catholics and evangelicals differ on theology but share virtually every important value. The Founders differed on theology but rarely on values.
It is hard to identify any area of life in which Mitt Romney’s values and life differ in any way from the finest evangelical’s values and life. And with regard to electing a president, that is what matters.”
Via the internet, I’ve heard some of the stations Prager refers to, say WORL in Florida, which explicitly self-identifies as “Christian” in its station breaks. They carry the conservative Jewish commentator Michael Medved as well. They don’t mind.
In 2012 the evangelical right has embraced the American Founding’s vision of religious pluralism—park the soteriology [the business of salvation] at the door and concern yourselves politically only with the concerns of this world. This detente has been vitiated by the rise of secular-progressivism and/or libertarianism-libertinism, both of which largely reject any notion of natural law, that there exist objective and universal standards of morality that a society should govern itself by. The “Judeo-Christian” thing.
Feldman, who is a Harvardly expert on religion as well as constitutional law, adds to the undifferentiated soupiness thus:
In historical terms, this change is business as usual. Catholics came to be seen as a legitimate Christian denomination only after years of oppression. Then came the acceptance of Jews. Mormons are the latest beneficiaries. Eventually, Muslims and Hindus will have their day as well.
Well, not exactly. It’s not just one big stew where you toss in this religion or that one, as if they’re all more or less the same. Salt isn’t pepper isn’t an onion isn’t a carrot or a hunk of lamb or even a stone. [Stone soup actually tastes like water with it a stone in it. Ick.]
Theologically, Christianity’s relationship with Judaism has finally warmed in the past century, that the Jews have a legitimate place in God’s plan, and it’s certainly indisputable that their Bible is biblical. However, there will be no such dispensation for the unbiblical Book of Mormon [or the Quran, for that matter]. When it comes to man’s religions, one size does not fit all.
A Rev. Frank Pastore [ex-Cincinnati Reds pitcher, now a scholar and evangelical pastor and talk show host] can support Romney socio-politically [“We’re not electing a pastor, we’re electing a president”], but has reservations that such a tolerance-acceptance is a theological endorsement of Mormonism as a legitimate variant of Christianity.
Many Christian sects remain kissin’ cousins, and accept each others’ legitimacy as authentic Christianity. But Mormonism with its additional book of revelation [like Islam]?
No can do. Never. But that’s theology. All that stuff will be settled on Judgment Day and not one day before.
Back here on earth, for years now, the leftish chattering class has been predicting an evangelical rejection of Mitt Romney’s candidacy—and thus a splitting or neutering of the Religious Right if and when he’s nominated.
But the Religious Right are neither the blithering idiots nor the implacable theological ideologues that would reject a Romney for an Obama, whose own Christianity hasn’t much in common with theirs when it comes to this here planet.
[Even as the president’s surrogates are “letting slip” that Barack Obama the man is theologically much more the orthodox Christian than he was in 2008. That should probably be a post of its own. I find it inappropriate—bizarre if not cynical—for one’s pastors and advisors to be leaking a candidate’s theological bona fides to the press.]
Indeed, it’s the evangelical right who have settled comfortably into the Founding era’s religious pluralism, a sort of don’t-ask-don’t-tell—that doctrine and dogma are unhelpful, and indeed are needless distractions when it comes to constructing a polity congenial to your values.
As John Adams wrote to Abigail about his cousin S[amuel] Adams—an über-Calvinist—at the very first Continental Congress in September 1774:
When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a Motion, that it should be opened with Prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of N. York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious Sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Aanabaptists, some Presbyterians and some Congregationalists, so that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.
Mr. S. Adams arose and said he was no Bigot, and could hear a Prayer from a Gentleman of Piety and Virtue, who was at the same Time a Friend to his Country.
He was a Stranger in Phyladelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duche (Dushay they pronounce it) deserved that Character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an episcopal [Anglican, i.e., Church of England—TVD] Clergyman, might be desired, to read Prayers to the Congress, tomorrow Morning.
The Motion was seconded and passed in the Affirmative.
That the Religious Right fancy themselves the successors of the American Founding is well-known. Few of them would find the above story surprising or anything less than wise: in the 21st century, the most Protestant issue joint politico-moral declarations with the most Papish!
The Founders would smile if not laugh in satisfaction, and it’s very disappointing to those who oppose the Religious Right, I suppose, that they refuse to commit political suicide over theology. But it’s an American tradition that goes back to at least 1774 and the launch of the American Revolution, and that’s very good thing.
Otherwise, you know, you’d be reading this in English.
If your church makes you wear magic underwear… you might be in a cult.
If your church has secret handshakes… you might be in a cult.
If your parents weren’t allowed to attend your wedding… you might be in a cult.
If your church asks for your grocery money and tells you to go hungry…you might be in a cult.
If your church has more than one bible…you might be in a cult.
If your church tracks you down where ever you go…you might be in a cult.
If your church tells you to follow their leader even if they are wrong…you might be in a cult.
If your church builds a $5 billion dollar mall…you might be in a cult.
If your church hides their archives in a mountain cave…you might be in a cult.
If your church was started by a guy looking into a hat and receiving messages from magic rocks…you might be in a cult.
If it preaches the evils of sex, yet the first 2 leaders were sex addicts. . . you might be in a cult.
If at your wedding, both you and the officiating priest were wearing baker’s hats…you might be in a cult.
If you have to pay 10% of your money to go to heaven and be with your family… you might be in a cult.
If you are asked by your leaders if you touch yourself at night and if you climaxed… you might be in a cult.
If when you present the facts of the church to them and they wave it away claiming “they know the church is true”… you might be in a cult.
If someone has ever said “you are in a cult”…you just might be in a cult.
If you have ever had to argue that you are not in a cult…you just might be in a cult.
Huh. A riff on Jeff Foxworthy that’s actually equally as funny and insightful as Jeff Foxworthy.
Oh, burn!
Nah. The difference between a cult & a religion is the latter has adherents with money and advanced weaponry.
That is, cult:religion::dialect:language . It would make a good SAT question.
Cult Schmult. What does that word mean anyway? It’s basically the religious equivalent of the N word. “Cult” is a meaningless derogatory term that says more about the person using it that about the group they are presuming to describe. The gist of the article is that no one cares. Amen to that.
Here are some definitions I gave a million years ago:
Totally Cynical: A “cult” is what a religion is called when it is not the religion shared by the speaker.
Less Cynical but Still Cynical: A “cult” is a religion without any political power.
The best definition of cult I’ve seen, but it’s not that funny: A cult is a sect that gets most of its adherents as adults through conversion. A religion is a group that gets most of its adherents as children raised into the faith.
That last one is very close to “A cult that lasts long enough and hangs onto its followers becomes a religion”, which is probably as good an operational definition as we’re going to find. Much like a classic being a work of art that’s still widely enjoyed after the generation it was originally aimed at is no longer around.
Thx, Sam. I was on the fence about deleting the comment but let it stay. I’m not good with attacks on people’s religions, but in the end I’m glad it opened up the floor for your reply. [And Mr. Psycho’s, which was just damn funny.]
The first mention I found of that list on the internet was at exmormon.org, which is naturally kind of a bitter site. A little angrier than I see from ex-Catholics, but not as much as y’d think. ;-D
Sort of like “regime” — it seems to mean “government we don’t like”.
Hey Laman where’s Lemuel??? A lot of inaccuracies and distortions as usual.
If you are so worried that another religion may be a cult…you might be in a cult.
Bitterness, jealousy, bigotry and envy only hurts yourself. Get a life and move on.
Jesus did not put up messages of hate about others that believed differently. He loved them and they came willing to Him. Any sect, cult, religion, or other belief system someone may have will not respond to this abusive approach. May God bless you and put you on a path that leads you to help others in a way that Jesus would have done. Amen.
Jesus did not put up messages of hate about others that believed differently.
Though a horrifying number of people think that by doing so they’re following him.
“If you are asked by your leaders if you touch yourself at night and if you climaxed… you might be in a cult.”
I think this says it all. I could argue aganst this but perhaps, it is sufficient to quote it.
Funny thing about that is that if you answered in the negative, people would say you were displaying an unhealthy repression of your own sexuality.
The Apostle Paul taught that it is wrong:
1 Corinthians 7:4
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Since Paul, and therefore Christianity teaches not to do it to yourself, then is it your belief that Christianity is a cult?
I think you are missing the point. The point is… we are Americans living in America. We can do whatever we want to do when it comes to religion as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. We are a Republic and we adhere to the rule of law. Don’t we? At least that is the America I know and love.
As an American you can belong to whatever religion, club, cult, group, organization you want to and not lose your head (literally) over it. You can hold any opinion you want to of any other person or group as long as it does not cross the line into defamation or perjury. (Which these comments are extremely close to crossing the line in my opinion)
If you’ll pause and take a look at world history, you will realize that America is THE rare exception! If you want to view the LDS religion as a cult that is hunky dory by me. I don’t give a flying crap, I can believe what I want to believe and your opinions do not have to sway mine in the least, nor vice versa. Here in America we judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, the group/class they belong to, or what they choose to do on Sunday. Historically, we are exceptional. Here’s to keeping it that way!
Hi Susan,
Great post except for one thing. It’s it’s more refined to say “I don’t give a flying bird dropping”. Nobody can think less of you if you use that wording, and it is something most people have experienced.
I know, I am an old prude.
As the host here, I prefer “flying crap.” Zingier.
Tom,
Long before I joined the Church I heard my little sweet non-member grandmother refer to a man a horse’s rosette. It term was so descriptive and effective! Fom that time forward I never called a man an …hole again. That’s because I realized that questionable language is not near as effective as plain and simple English.
By the way, I didn’t mean to critisize Susan. I was just trying to point out that to prudes like myself a zingier can lessen the effect of a great message. I thought it might help her in the future.
A “horse’s rosette” is plain and simple English? The whole reason it has punch is that it’s not plain and simple, but an unusual and classy sounding word that stands in for something much more crass–the zing is in the contrast between high and low. But rosette is certainly not as plain and simple as ass.
Common, Laman. You paste this list into every article you can find that mentions “Mormons.” It really says more about you than it does about the LDS faith, for many reasons. First, you probably could not define “cult” if your next meal depended upon it; second, your comments are foolish, innappropriate, untrue and rude; third, your only agenda is to tear things down, as opposed to more sophisticated folks who would rather find the truth and build things up; and last, your war against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will fail and long after you are gone and forgotten, the names of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Thomas Monson and every other faithful member of that faith will be held in honored reverence by millions. It is still not too late for you to join that group, if you can get over your pettiness.
Laman.
Hatred, bearing false witness and belittling others are tools of the Evil one. You might want to think about that before posting something like this again.
Back here on earth, for years now, the leftish chattering class has been predicting an evangelical rejection of Mitt Romney’s candidacy—and thus a splitting or neutering of the Religious Right if and when he’s nominated
Well, we’ll see if they show up (and more importantly provide the ground troops for GOTV efforts) like they did in ’04, or like they didn’t quite do in ’08. (but they did and do love Palin)
Theologically, Christianity’s relationship with Judaism has finally warmed in the past century, that the Jews have a legitimate place in God’s plan
What that plan is, though, among a not insignificant number of American Christians, I would have a problem with were I Jewish. (i.e. see Chef’s regiment in the South Park movie)
Serious question: Why *isn’t* the ‘Judeo-Christian thing’ *not* the ‘Judeo-Christian-Muslim’ thing. On matters of ‘values’, on the existence of a (singular) higher power who governs all our fates, and moreover, in opposition to the secularization and ‘paganization’* of both society and the political system, there is no daylight between (the particular segments that cast themselves as champions in) each sect.
*an actual term used in one of the prayers of faithful at the last Mass I attended a few weeks ago.
Why *isn’t* the ‘Judeo-Christian thing’ *not* the ‘Judeo-Christian-Muslim’ thing
Back in 2000, Dubya was doing a pretty decent job of reaching out to Muslims in America. Had 2001 went a little differently, we would be well on the road to a Judeo-Christian-Muslim thing in America. “Values Voters” or the like would be one of the official names of one of the PACs in charge of fighting for defunding Planned Parenthood, arguments for public prayers at football games and the like, and such things as mention of Intelligent Design in Biology class.
Woulda coulda shoulda.
“Paganization” fits fine, the natural world without any metaphysics. That’s a little far afield of this post, which was more an analysis of the theologico-political forces at play.
The predicted evangelical split from the GOP over Romney’s Mormonism simply hasn’t occurred: the vast majority of evangelicals can tell the difference between civic values and soteriology.
As for Muslims entering the equation, a “one size fits all” lumping of theologies and metaphysics is exactly what I think is wrong about the “conventional wisdom” of all this. As an expert on Islam, I’d hope that Dr. Feldman would agree with at least that much, that a) Muslim ideas aren’t necessarily as congenial to the Jewish-Christian axis as we might hope and b) “Judeo-Christianity” is firmly [definitively!] “Western,” whereas Muslim culture is Arab, African, Asian, European, Persian, Turkish, and so on.
Muslim culture is Arab, African, Asian, European, Persian, Turkish, and so on
Them what say “hell with this, I’m going to America!” have more than a few things in common with many of the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Americans who did the same two or three or four or five generations ago.
JB, I think it’s too soon to tell. I can imagine it, mind you, but there are a) simply too few at this time to see if they join the orbit and b) what they’ll be orbiting remains in doubt with our own culture wars being what they are.
Forget Athens or Jerusalem, Rome or Mecca. The question in the west right now is, Amsterdam or Salt Lake City?
The American Religion is very infectious. If Muslims in America haven’t caught it, it’s because they’re being told that they can’t participate.
It happens to everybody who comes here. Before long, they’ve got the house (though probably with a different terms than Jews/Christians have), they’ve got the 2.2 kids, and, yes, even the dog even though the dog is not, technically, halal. (“It stays outside.”)
There are a lot of bad reactions that took place in the early oughts and reactions to reactions and reactions to reactions to reactions and (we could do this all day).
The American Religion, if it plays its cards right, will have Muslims saying that we all worship the same God, at the end of the day. The differences will be a handful of food taboos and whether the dog is allowed inside.
If the American Religion is allowed to do its job, American Muslims will feel about Palestinians the way that Babtists feel about the Filipinos who get crucified every Easter.
Oh, I dunno about the Palestinian part. Ever. But the rest—could be, could be. Here’s the 2011 Pew on American Muslims.
“The predicted evangelical split from the GOP over Romney’s Mormonism simply hasn’t occurred: the vast majority of evangelicals can tell the difference between civic values and soteriology.”
But as you say, it’s too early to tell. You can’t call the game over in the top of the 4th inning, you can’t even call it a complete game yet if there’s a rain out.
and the only point I had on the ‘paganization’ (besides that it wasn’t me that was making up the word, even if it is cromulent) was that the political battle is indeed joined, and at the grass roots level, at least from a single anecdotal observation of a random outer suburban Catholic Church. (which does support your thesis, to be sure)
Oh, Mr. K, “paganization” is a live discussion in non-liberal Christianity. [I find it quite accurate re the modern abolition of metaphysics and the elevation of hedonism to a political philosophy.]
As for your use of “cromulent,” further emications will result in immediate contrority and derundment.
As for Muslims entering the equation, a “one size fits all” lumping of theologies and metaphysics is exactly what I think is wrong about the “conventional wisdom” of all this.
Putting *everything* into the same zoo enclosure is incorrect, I’ll give you, but a classification that lumps Roman Catholics, Episcopalians/Anglicans, old school Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Copts(?), Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, and Reform Jews into the same phylum, but puts Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims (and Mormons) (and Jehovah Witnesses) into a completely different kingdom seems wrong as well.
“Judeo-Christian” works on a real level, as a historical definition of “Western” or “American” as both a culture and a political theology.
“Abrahamic” works somewhat as theology in that it makes a claim to monotheism and to divine revelation. After that, I’m unsure, especially if the question is Amsterdam or Salt Lake City.
[There are deeper philosophical foundations as well, such as the role of Aristotelianism, of human dignity, of liberty-freedom. The role of the female! At the moment, my thesis is far more modest re Mitt Romney and Sam Adams, that in the American milieu they really don’t have a problem with each other, to the surprise of some.]
And that’s were we disagree. “American” works on a real level, “Western” a bit less so (as it can include sometimes anything and everything from the Levant to Hawaii, as the context changes, but always seems to exclude, for instance, Casablanca). ‘Judeo-Christian’ though, specifically when taking a cultural and political theology view, well, the term is kinda patronizing to Jews, who come from a significantly different religious, ethnic, and most importantly cultural background than your run of the mill Methodist, 20th century suburban homogenization notwithstanding. I mean, I get whence the term gains purchase, to be inclusive and recognize what is a real common bond, but that comes to my point of why Muslims can’t get a piece of that action, as they (as a cultural phenomenon) are simply more of the same 57 varieties that have been augmenting and transforming the Anglo Saxon cultural paradigm (with a bit a Native American syncretism) since the founding.
And btw, most Jewish voters still seem to go for Democrats. As I’m sure you’re aware.
The only difference between reform Judaism and the Democratic Party is the holidays. [Old joke.] And I don’t think you can squeeze Islam into the Western tradition, especially the Anglo Saxon one.
“Judeo-Christian” is a retronym, invented only in the 20th century which is why I put scare quotes on it, but it connotes this historical and cultural reality whereas trying to squeeze Islam in is a nicety, but not a reality.
I am hopeful, however, that American Islam will find enough commonality with the western tradition to fit in seamlessly. But as you see in more secular Europe—which I denote as “Amsterdam”—its variety of Westernism that does not appear to be a smooth fit. [So too, “western” Turkey is at this very moment facing increasing Islamization, or perhaps more accurately, returning to its more natural state, shedding Attaturk’s 20th century modernity, western secularism.]
My experience with Europeans vs Americans on assimilation, if I can be blunt and reductive, is that Americans bitch about exotic foreigners for a generation and then accept them as American, while Europeans speak nicely about them in public, but never accept them as part of the country.
I suspect the answer is actually somewhere in-between where you see others being and where you yourself are, though much closer to you. The religious right aren’t happily embracing Romney – if anything they seem to find him the bitter pill that must be swallowed. And at least some part of that has to do with his Mormonism. But they *are* embracing him in this next fight, against a Protestant, for a cause they indeed seem to find holy. This says much, I suspect, about American fundamentalism.
Tod, fundamentalism is not synonymous with evangelicalism, although there is overlap. However, the argument here is that the question of Romney and Mormonism does NOT say what many on the left hoped it would about them, that they’d vote against their values in favor of dogma and doctrine.
I think my point is that for many in Americas religious right, being a conservative American is as part of dogma and doctrine as is the resurrection.
And this isn’t true of left/social Gospel Christianity? Me, I have no problem with either the right or left variety, it’s all good.
I think I would agree
Mitt Romney after losing in November, will announce to family, friends, the GOP, and the media, that for years he(Mitt) has actually been a closet Catholic and now is looking for support to run for Pope.
“Traditional Jews and evangelical Christians have quite different theologies, but they often have virtually identical values.
This Jew can’t stomach torture, no matter how cleverly it’s rationalized, and doesn’t went to be told what my values are by the likes of Dennis Prager.
But this isn’t about you.
Nor is it about values in any real sense; otherwise torture and other forms of state violence would be discussed instead of being rationalized and minimized (as would the social safety net as an aspect of duty towards our fellow man.) . It’s about what’s called values in partisan politics:
1. Sex.
2. Public displays of religiosity.
3. A particular definition of capitalism.
4. Unconditional support of Israel.
And sure, once values means that, it’s unsurprising that it can include Mormonism as well as it does more traditional forms of Christianity.
Silly Mike — You’re just a Jew. You don’t get to decide what Jewish values are. That’s for such upstanding, honest and sincere folks as TVD (and Prager).
Whoa, Jeff
What do you mean just a Jew? It’s statements like that that have led to thousands of people being murdered. Besides that Jesus Christ was a Jew and all of us who are Christians worship him.
Cult Schmult. What does that word mean anyway? It’s basically the religious equivalent of the N word. “Cult” is a meaningless derogatory term that says more about the person using it that about the group they are presuming to describe. The gist of the article is that no one cares. Amen to that.
Well we Mormons believe that other Christians are a subset of Mormonism. We allow that they will all get into the heaven they preach on Sunday, deny that any of them are going to the hell they teach (at least not forever) and in fact believe that really wicked Mormons are probably the only ones who could go possibly go to hell forever. We are very accepting of them. Just a smidge of tolerance is appreciated but if they can’t come up with it no problem.
I noticed that in this article their was a negative comment about additional scripture to the Bible. The problem is that contained in the Bible are references and prophecies to scriptures that are not in it. For instance The Book of Mormon. Here is the story and the scripture.
About 600 B.C. God commanded the tribes of Israel to keep two scriptural histories rather than one as they had done in the past. The “Stick of Judah” the Bible record was still to be kept by the tribe of Judah, but the new record, the “Stick of Ephraim”, was to be kept by the tribe of Joseph. Thus, God also referred to it as the “Stick of Joseph”.
This new record was soon hidden from world when the Prophet Lehi and a small group from the tribe of Joseph were led by God to the Western Hemisphere. However, God declared to the Prophet Ezekiel that he would bring forth the Stick of Joseph to be joined with the Stick of Judah prior to the gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the latter days. Thus, God said these sacred records “shall become one in mine hand” Ezekiel 37:15-21 in the Old Testament.
Today, we know the Stick of Joseph as the Book of Mormon. It covers a period of history from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D., and contains the writings of some of the greatest prophets who ever lived. As a companion book to the Bible (the Stick of Judah) it provides Another Testament and a second sure witness to both Jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ!
Thank you for this explanation!
Your welcome Susan. I tape a copy of this explanation to the inside cover of every Book of Mormon that I place with someone, and I go over it with them at that time.
And they actually fall for it?
Christianity added to the Jewish cannon of scripture, so the original Christian belief was that it’s OK to add as long as it came from God. Many Christians adhere to the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” which means Only Scripture, meaning, Only the Bible. They say that only the Bible is authoritative in establishing orthodox Christian doctrine and theology.
The doctrine of “sola scriptura” was first taught by an Englishman named John Wycliffe in the 14th century and it was not until the Reformation in the 1500’s that the 66 books of the current Protestant Bible became the “sole authority” for Reformed Christians. I guess Christians prior to that didn’t know what they were doing and weren’t really Christians. These people who held to Sola Scriptura were the “cult” according to the “orthodox” Christianity of the time – the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman church claimed that the Bible, their traditions, and the pronouncements of the Pope were all authoritative in Christian doctrine and practices.
For centuries the “orthodox” Christian church in Europe prevented most people from even reading the Bible upon pain of death. Even among Protestants, men were burned at
the stake for translating the Bible into the language of the common people.
Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches even today still use Bibles containing seven additional books of the Apocrypha. These additional books were part of Martin Luther’s first German translation and every other Bible published prior to that time. The Apocryphal books were even included in the 1611 first edition of the King James Version.
So, “Only the Bible” is a relatively new doctrine that was not developed until about 1500 years after the time of Christ. Does that make Christians prior to 1500 not Christian?
In the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that “there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions,” thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) For contrary to the creed Jesus taught: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
Two of the most quoted references which are twisted in an attempt to say that the Bible is complete and there can’t be more revelation or more scripture this are the following:
Revelations 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Notice that nowhere in this passage does it say that God has finished his work, or that the cannon of scripture is completed. John says not to add to or take from “these things” and “this book” and “this prophecy,” which almost certainly means the book that John was writing at the time. The list of 27 books of the New Testament were not even proposed until 367 AD in Athanasius’s Easter letter. The composition of books selected to include were hotly debated for several more centuries.
Even if John were referring to the future New Testament, which was not yet assembled, his warning is an injunction that man is not to change Gods word, and not a statement which binds God so that God Himself cannot add more.
Note that God gives us the same warning in Deuteronomy 4:2 saying “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
So, if this commandment not to add or take away from Gods word means that the cannon of scripture is complete, then everything after Deuteronomy is false. This would mean that the WHOLE New Testament and MOST of the Old Testament, which were added after Deuteronomy, must be discarded. Clearly, God did not mean that the cannon was complete.
The other scripture that is commonly cited is this:
Galatians 1:6-9
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
See also 2 Corinthians 11:4
The idea embodied in this scripture is why Mormons don’t accept the extra-Biblical creeds and some of the mainstream orthodoxy of today. Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups are the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on, including the Westminster confession of faith. These are all extra-Biblical and no one should be held to them as a requirement for being Christian.
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Indeed, this is the source of friction between mainstream Christians of today and LDS Christians. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. More on this later. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.
Mormons believe in original Christianity restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. This restoration was necessary BECAUSE of a changing Christianity as exemplified by the creeds and warned against by Paul in Galations chapter 1. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed. Just as Christians believed in the Jewish cannon and the Jewish prophets with the added benefit of more revelationi, Mormons likewise believe original Christianity with the added benefit of current revelation from Christ. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then, of course, He will continue to give revelation to prophets just as he has always done so long as the people will receive it.
LDS has made a very bad name for itself in certain circles. It’s odd how God speaks to your prophets: just about the time the IRS wants to take away your tax exempt status, suddenly the Almighty tells your prophets the Sons of Ham are worthy in his sight.
LDS demands, and gets, its ten percent tithe. In this, it crosses the line from religion to cult. Jesus didn’t preach a Pay to Play route to heaven. LDS does, with its Letters of Recommend.
Anyone can call themselves Christian. This does not mean they follow Jesus in any meaningful respect. I could care less what LDS believes about the Bible. I do care about how they’ve consistently acted in restraint of personal beliefs. Once the oppressed, now the oppressor, LDS has become an agent of many evil trends in this once-tolerant nation. You are an unmerciful bunch, much given to talk of inclusion until you become a majority anywhere. Then things change, and not for the better.
And FYI, that’s “canon”, not “cannon”.
I commend your perspicacity in articulating the recognition by Evangelical Christians that they do not encompass a majority of American voters and therefore the only way to have their public policy goals enacted into law and government policy is to join in a common cause with people who are NOT Evangelical but agree on the public policy goals. Broad agreement across a wide spectrum of denominations is possible especially because the goals include reducing governmental micromanagement and giving both individuals and institutions more freedom to pursue their own goals through means they have themselves chosen. Therefore they do not have to reach a detailed agreement on publuc policy because each can act for itself. Mormon theological views on government emphasize government’s role in protecting freedom of religion. When religion is protected from interference, it can solve its other problems by itself.
The difference between sharing a common religious affiliation with a president and sharing a moral philosophy can be seen in the example of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Being Baptists was no guarantee that those men shared the actual moral values or public policy goals of most Evangelical Christians.
10 facts about Mormon history and theology that you will never hear from its critics.
1. 1833 – Joseph Smith receives a revelation that will become D&C 101. Verse 79 states “Therefore it is not right that one man should be in bondage to another.”
2. 1838 – Mormons are expelled from Missouri under threat of extermination (Executive Order 44). A petition against them complains that Mormons invited “free negroes and mulattos” to join them in Missouri.
3. 1844 – Joseph Smith runs for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850. He is murdered 4 months later.
4. 1869 – Utah gives women the vote. Up to this time only Wyoming has female suffrage.
5. 1887 – The federal government takes the vote away from Utah women (Edmunds-Tucker Act).
6. 1978 – The governor of Missouri apologizes for xecutive Order 44.
7. 1996 – Genetic research reveals that using observed mutation rates, most American Indians are descended from a guy who lived in 151 BC (Underhill 1996)
8. 2004 – Genetic research reveals that 15% of Yemenite Jewish males have Y-chromosome belonging to a subclade of lineage group Q1a3. Most Native Americans belong to a subclade of Q1a3.
9. 2008 – Genetic research by Ugo Perego fails to find a single descendant of Joseph Smith through any woman other than Emma Smith. Emma had always declared that Joseph had no other wife than her.
10. 2008 – The location of NHM is discovered in Yemen and 1 degree from due east is found an uninhabited oasis called Khor Karfet that meets the description provided in the Book of Mormon.
I grow increasingly sick and tired of LDSers messing around in Guatemala, trying to retrofit their theology into working archaeology, especially in Palenque. You’re considered pests and bad scholars.
The question that never gets asked is “do Mormons want to be considered mainstream” Christian or “Evangelical” for that matter? The answer to that might be surprising to outsiders. No, most of them don’t. They don’t consider themselves Protestant or Catholic and don’t want to be by others. That is part of the problem that people like Feldman and the blog writer never consider. They assume Mormons want to be accepted into the Christian fold (be reconciled together theologically) when they don’t. What they do want is pretty straight forward; respect as a religion and religious people, and the designation (hyphenated any way you want such as unorthodox or non-Trinitarian) Christian. The reason is that Mormons worship Jesus Christ as a Divine Savior of the World and when called “non-Christian” it is a slap in the face of that personal devotion. A few Mormons designate themselves as “Mormon Christians,” although personally they consider that a redundancy said for effect. Finally, Mormons have been part of the “Judeo-Christian” political scene for a very long time no matter if others want them to or not. Without them, geographically Republicans would have very little power.
Jettboy, theologically, it’s even more complicated than that, since Mormonism lays claim to the Christian tradition, just as Christianity lays claim to the Jewish one. [As does Islam.]
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/03/mormons-and-christianity-asking-the-right-questions
But the OP is about the doctrinal war that never happened, at least on the political level. The rest is interesting, although not very, to those with no dog in the doctrinal fight.
More complicated than what? I think, although your vagueness doesn’t give me room to make an argument, that we are working from different assumptions about what “Christianity” is and what Mormons think of themselves. This much I know. The writer you linked to is full of it and shows he has no idea what Mormonism is other than stereotypes.
I always expected that Romney would have to endure some criticism of his faith from the more strident quarters of the Evangelical community, but in the end he would win the nomination. Mostly because his primary challengers weren’t the highest caliber your party had to offer up. The sense I get is that your better candidates are holding out for 2016.
Will the Evangelicals vote for Romney vs. Obama? Of course! But I think it will be motivated more out of animus for Obama than love for Romney. And that could affect the turnout on your side. FWIW, the same dynamic holds for many of us on the Left.
I don’t think this observation holds. I spend a lot of time on libertarian websites and they very much cite natural law theory in support of their ideology. The problem, and this has been addressed in other posts here, is that “natural law theory” isn’t just one thing, like referring to the Constitution. There are about as many permutations on natural law as there are natural law theorists. I have yet to decide whether natural law theory is better described as “turtles all the way down” or simply circular.
In any case, as an atheist, I have a hard time with this notion that our society is fundamentally Judeo-Christian, and more importantly, that our laws should reflect that. I remember the first President Bush remarking in public that he didn’t believe it was possible to be an atheist and a “good” American. At the time of his utterance I was wearing a Navy uniform having taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution (Note: including the First Amendment) with my life if necessary. And yet, because I didn’t believe in his Sky Spook I wasn’t a good American. Fuck that.
Rod, the Bush41 quote from 1988 on atheists is unconfirmed. As for your problem with America’s “Judeo-Christian” origins, I’m afraid that’s your problem. I would say that on the whole, it has worked to the atheist’s [and non-Judeo-Christian’s] benefit, and screwing with it may be unwise in that Burkean sort of way.
As I see it, the founding fathers wanted the federal government to have no say in religious influence, neither establishing or requiring religion, nor forbidding religious influence in government. That’s why there’s two parts to the establishment clause. People often ignore the second part. it seems to me, from their writings, that they wanted religious influence in government but on a voluntary or grassroots level and not in any way mandatory or prescribed.
At that time a number of the States had official religions and the participants in the Constitutional Convention didn’t want the Federal Government to take that right away. The idea was that the Federal government is to stay out of religion and allow the States, or the people, to be religious, to have whatever brand of religion they want, or not to be religious at all. And the people have the right to bring their viewpoints to government, and have input into the process based on their beliefs, regardless of what they base their beliefs on, be it religion, or atheism, or whatever.
The problem today is that there is a prevalent viewpoint that anyone and any organization can participate in government except religious people or religious organizations. Religious people, and/or religious or moral ideas, are thought to be excluded from participating in government based on “separation of church and state” which is not in any of our ruling documents. It appears that this exclusion of one segment of our society is what the founding fathers sought to prevent by including the second part of the establishment clause. Everyone should be able to participate equally regardless of their underlying reasons or beliefs.
Oh, boo-friggin’-hoo. If there’s any “faith” group that’s effectively denied access to government it is undoubtedly atheists. It is absolutely impossible to be elected to any fairly high government office without waving around your religious (generally Xtian) bonafides.
This constant whining about how Christians are so0ooo persecuted is wearing more than a little thin. Every single President and approximately 99+% of all Senators and Representatives have been some flavor of Christian. But as soon as anyone pushes back and says, “NO! You do NOT have the right to push your religion down our throat!” you all immediately start whining a crying about how you’re so abused.
Really. Truly. Get over it already.
Dwight Rogers gets the first part right–religion was left to the states. A lot of people don’t know that part, only the “Godless Constitution” part. Why, Massachusetts had Congregationalism as the official state religion until 1833!
Mr. Rogers is a bit wrong about religious people being excluded from public life. America has always been cool to clergy, in fact I believe it’s still on the books clergy are barred form office in some states.
So too, even informally, Americans like our leaders to be religious but not too religious. John Adams blamed his loss to Jefferson on declaring a Thanksgiving day the year before that was seen as too closely allied with the Presbyterians. We like godliness; we hate sectarianism.
As Adams wrote [and remember, in the election of 1800, Adams supporters accused Jefferson of atheism:
The National Fast recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, &c,&c,&c, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment as a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whispers ran through them [all the sects] “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President”
Bold face mine. Let’s make no mistake–push come to shove, if Christopher Hitchens ran against the Pope, Hitchens would win. Even though [and perhaps especially] because he’s dead.
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution or any of our ruling or founding documents. President Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “separation of church and state” in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists in a letter he wrote on January 1, 1802. Later the same day President Jefferson attended the halls of Congress where a preacher gave a sermon. President Jefferson is the one who made the arrangements for the preacher to come and speak to Congress. Clearly President Jefferson did not think that religion was prohibited from informing government. His letter was to assure the Danbury Baptists that the Federal government would not infringe upon their right to participate equally in government along with everybody else.
The founding fathers wrote a lot about the need for religious and moral influence in government and expressed their desire for such influence. The second part of the establishment clause which says that the government shall not limit the free exercise of religion, was intended to allow religious participation in both the public and private sector according to the will of the people, not the will of the government. The idea is that religious people and religious organizations have just as much right to participate in government as do any other group or individual. ALL are supposed to have the right to participate equally regardless of what their beliefs or motivations are.
Our beliefs are eventually reflected in our laws and that is as it should be. Generally, the beliefs of the majority become law and all are allowed to equally participate in the process regardless of whatever their motivation or belief is. That means that everybody can’t have their way. But there must always be certain overriding principles that both protect the majority from an elite minority and at the same time protect the minority from a majority that would oppress them.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1779, reiterating earlier colonial legislation, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
It is frequently claimed today that the founding fathers were Deists. However, many of those who are supposed to be Deists attended and worshiped at Christian churches. Not all historians believe they were Deists and various historians cite historic records showing that they were, most likely, Christians, and not just Deists.
However, regardless of whether they were Deist or Christians, they did support the idea of religious and moral influence in government:
Thomas Jefferson :
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”
James Madison:
there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government…republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p.361)
John Adams “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”
And: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles F. Adams, 1854)
George Washington : “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue and morality are a necessary [foundation] of popular government.” (James D. Righardson, A Compliation of the Messages and Papers of the President, 1789-1897, U.S Congress, 1988, vol. 1, p. 220 )
George Washington in his farewell address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
Alexander Hamiltion: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest” (Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul L. Ford, 1892, pp. 251–52).
Note how George Washington belives in Jesus as shown in his prayer:
“Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. . .Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be peace and justice at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail. All of which we ask through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.”
Washington wrote “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution, framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.” (Maxims of Washington, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1894, pp. 370-71)
Washington: “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution.” .” (Maxims of Washington, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1894, pp. 371)
Benjamin Franklin: appeal for daily prayers at Constitutional Convention.
“If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? I believe without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the building of Babel.” (Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, Deseret Book Co., 1975, p. 88.)
Benjamin Franklyln: again Constitutional Convention.
“All of us who were engaged in this struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor…The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men.” (Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 17876,vol. 1, p. 451
Abraham Lincoln during Civil War asked which side of the conflict God was on: “I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” (Abraham Lincoln’s Stories and Speeches, ed. J.B. McClure, Chicago: Rhodes and McClure Publishing Co., 1896, pp. 185-86)
Abraham Lincoln “We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of their own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!” (A Proclamation “to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.)
This is why LDS is feared by all democratic people of goodwill. You really don’t believe in separation of Church and State. We are currently at war with just such folks in Afghanistan who believe as you do. They are called the Taliban.
I’m gonna police the thread a bit down here in the sub-blog, BP. This sort of thing crosses the line. Pls desist.
Mr. Rogers, pls confirm your quotes. Some are accurate, some are fake, like this one:
Note how George Washington belives in Jesus as shown in his prayer:
“Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. . .Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be peace and justice at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail. All of which we ask through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.”
Further, the Lincoln quote is not a quote, although it is a congressional proclamation he signed.
The man clearly does not believe in separation of Church and State and has said as much. It is equally true the Taliban have every intention of imposing their religious views upon the people under their political authority, believing in the supremacy of God and the Congregation and not the Constitution.
When Thomas Jefferson came to the presidency, he repealed a great many little religious flub-dubs which had encumbered the nation, including Days of Fasting and Prayer. He established the supremacy of the Supreme Court, which gave us Reynolds v. USA, which put down the LDS practice of bigamy and Torcaso v. Watkins, a particularly compelling case you should examine at your leisure, where public officials are not obliged to declare their belief in God.
As for your little sub-blog, I will be glad enough to leave you to your own devices.
Feldman’s a law prof. Why the media assumes law profs actually understand politics is a bizarre mystery. Some do, of course, just as some people from most professions develop a good understanding of politics. But so far as I’ve ever been able to discern, there’s absolutely nothing about the three year course of legal studies that actually prepares a person to understand politics, government, or public policy.
As a deeply believing Mormon, he actually, sincerely (yes, sincerely) believes that his moral values are equivalent to those of evangelicals.
Why Prof. Feldman finds this worthy of note or the least bit puzzling is puzzling.
See above.
I’d assume anyone who manages to become a full professor has mastered practical politics.
A full professor needs just the most rudimentary knowledge (and can drop it when tenure is achieved), sticking around a few years as a college administrator is what gives you a political education, and becoming a dean demonstrates mastery.
+1
(Although, truthfully, Kolohe’s right–I’m amazed at how many profs have absolutely no political skills at all, myself included at times).
Reverand Jeffress said. “And I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians.”
This seems to be a common view among many Christians and actually they are right to say that there are some major differences, although there are more similarities than differences. . However, there are also vast differences between current Christianity and Early Christianity.
If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity? It turns out that Joseph Smith was right. Mormonism is a restoration of Original Christianity. It is not my intent to criticize Christians of today. However, with all the criticism of Mormonism it is important to notice that in many areas of belief Mormons are closer to original Christianity than are most Christians of today.
Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. However “Trinity’ is a word that is not found in the Bible. Nor are the definitions and wording formulations in the extra-Biblical creeds found in the Bible. In 325 AD a council of about 300 (out of 1800 serving) bishops gathered in Nicea at the request of the pagan Emperor Constantine and formulated a creed that tried to reconcile the Biblical statements that there three persons called “God” and yet there was “one” God. They then forced all Christians to accept their solution as “gospel”, with varying results. Theological debates and other councils continued to tweak the concept for centuries which produced additional creeds.
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that “there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions,” thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) Contrary to the creed Jesus taught: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
Joseph Smith taught “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.
Mormons believe in original Christianity and that it was restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed.
Thx, Mr. Rogers. Theological truth claims are above our pay grade here, but I’m far happier yielding the floor for your apologia for Mormonism than that other fellow’s Jeff Foxworthy whang on it. Thx for contributing.