Here's Russell Arben Fox's reply to my post requesting pro-Latter Day Saint sources explicating, defending, or explaining away the Book of Mormon's history of Mesoamerica; check out the extensive comments on my post as well, and this post at Times and Seasons. (Here's a good place to start if you want to know how believers respond to objections to the Book of Mormon's authenticity.) I can't promise that I'll wade my way through the recommended material all that quickly; I can promise to minimize blanket dismissals of Mormonism until I'm better informed as to the pro-LDS side of the argument.
« The Case For Deterrence | Main | On Chesil Beach » Ask and Ye Shall Receive13 Jul 2007 11:28 pm Comments (43)
The primary question ought not to be the historicity of Mormon claims about Mesoamerica, as important as such questions are. The question is whether they espouse a Christian doctrine of God. The question is whether they affirm the classical creeds of Christian faith. Are they Trinitarians? No, they are not. But that is not the end of it either. Neither do they believe in the classical attributes of the biblical God--his oneness, simplicity, omnipotence, complete separateness from the created world, etc. Their central theological doctrines are effectively pagan and not Hebraic. These issues are the central ones, and not squabbling over history. When disputes overlook the theological marrow of the debate, the conversation borders on pointlessness. Ask a Mormon to expound clearly their doctrine of God, especially with respect to the foundational Christian claims made in the Nicean and Chalcedonian creeds. You will see that they do not--indeed cannot--come close to affirming them in a way consistent with orthodox Christian belief. 
Thomas: I'm quite sure Catholics said much the same sort of thing about Protestants during the Reformation. In fact, the creeds themselves were an attempt to narrow who could call themselves "Christian," to limit who could speak on behalf of God.
Bingo, Kelly. Sir Thomas Nelson's objections are really nothing more than statements that Mormons fit outside his definition of "Christian," which is his prerogative to define, and which in his opinion is deserving of ostracism from the community of other peoples who call themselves Christians. In other words, his definition excludes Mormons before the debate even begins, although LDS devoutly believe and can justify their view of Christ based on the Bible. But this is a standard m.o. for Evangelicals, as demonstrated in this excellent "Blogalogue" between Albert Mohler and Orson Scott Card: http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/
I wasn't trying to prove anything either way. I only wished to point out the risibility of claiming that Mormonism is consistent with creedal Christianity--which, incidentally, most certainly includes Protestants and Catholics. I want to hear a forthcoming statement from Mormons about how their understanding of God's nature differs from orthodox Christianity. Nothing more. I cut and paste my post from the other thread, which is growing long. (My apologies: I mis-posted on the other thread. I am becoming a nuisance.) My assertions (they were not more than that) still stand. Mormons are cagey about stating clearly their doctrine of God. I repeat, for Mormons "God" is finite, corporeal, limited, not one, not simple, etc. In conceiving of "God" in this manner they overturn--decisively repudiate--the Jewish-Christian doctrine of the biblical God. I note that Mr. Fox did not dispute my statements. Mormons may be wonderful people. Mormons may be models of piety, etc. Mormonism may even be true. It just so happens that Mormonism is through and through pagan. It has little more in common with Abrahamic monotheism than any primitive or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion.
"I can't promise that I'll wade my way through the recommended material all that quickly; I can promise to minimize blanket dismissals of Mormonism until I'm better informed as to the pro-LDS side of the argument." I appreciate the fairmindedness inherent in this statement. To the extent that you have any influence, see if you can persuade Father Neuhause, MY, or others who opine with such definiteness on our beliefs to do the same. Thanks again.
"I only wished to point out the risibility of claiming that Mormonism is consistent with creedal Christianity" "Mormonism . . . has little more in common with Abrahamic monotheism than any primitive or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion." Surely you must admit that there is some conceptual space between rejecting creedal Christianity and "primative or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion." As a Mormon, I am perfectly fine with the claim that Mormonism rejects the Nicene and post-Nicene creeds. I've no desire to be accepted into that club. On the other hand, I take it as rather obvious that the Christianity of the NT, for example, is not obviously creedal. One may, of course, make arguments in favor of the creeds on the basis of the NT, but one may make arguments the other way. Furthermore, even a passing familiarity with the history of the politics surrounding Micea and the later councils makes it rather obvious that whatever were the driving forces at work, it wasn't a pristine allegiance to NT hermeneutics. It is your notion that the slightest deviation from the creeds renders one a complete stranger to the Abrahamic tradition that is risible.
"I only wished to point out the risibility of claiming that Mormonism is consistent with creedal Christianity" "Mormonism . . . has little more in common with Abrahamic monotheism than any primitive or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion." Surely you must admit that there is some conceptual space between rejecting creedal Christianity and "primative or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion." As a Mormon, I am perfectly fine with the claim that Mormonism rejects the Nicene and post-Nicene creeds. I've no desire to be accepted into that club. On the other hand, I take it as rather obvious that the Christianity of the NT, for example, is not obviously creedal. One may, of course, make arguments in favor of the creeds on the basis of the NT, but one may make arguments the other way. Furthermore, even a passing familiarity with the history of the politics surrounding Micea and the later councils makes it rather obvious that whatever were the driving forces at work, it wasn't a pristine allegiance to NT hermeneutics. It is your notion that the slightest deviation from the creeds renders one a complete stranger to the Abrahamic tradition that is risible.
My apologies for the typos in my comments. I rely on the reader's charity to supply the necessary corrections.
Dear Mr. Oman, Please say more about why Neuhaus or any Catholic priest or believer should accept Mormon claims as "Christian." I do not think one should do this out of respect for the self-description of Mormons. The only unity worth having is unity in the truth. Beneath whatever disagreements Catholics and Protestants may have with one another, they are fundamentally united around their shared belief in the Triune God, as revealed in Scripture, and most authoritatively promulgated in the ecumenical councils. Can Mormons accept these claims concerning God? They cannot. Indeed, their theology stands on the decisive rejection of them. I do not see why Mormons pine for Catholics and others to consider them Christian. So long as Mormon theology remains what it is, it will never, ever be considered Christian by any Catholic or Protestant Church. This should not matter to Mormonism, which is a completely different religion.
Thomas Nelson: You ask two someone different questions. One has an relatively easy answer, and the other is more difficult. The easy question is why Mormons insist that they are Christians. I think that the easiest answer is that we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and we covenant to take his name upon us. Our insistance (or at least mine) is grounded in the desire to be faithful to this covenant. (If you are interested, I have a post on this over at Times and Seasons.) The more complicated question has to do with why I think that Catholics or Protestants should regard Mormons as Christian. In a sense, I don't really care. To the extent that what the denial of Christianity to Mormons means is that Mormons deny the creeds from Nicea on (although I know Mormons who believe that Mormons subscribe to the Apostles Creed), I am really not all that troubled by the claim. THe problem, of course, is that when Neuhaus and others say that Mormons aren't Christian, it serves functions other than the creedal ones to which you point. First, it denies the lived spirituality of Mormons as worshipers and followers of Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior of the world. This is fact is central to Mormon worship and lived Mormon religion. Nor do I think that it is undermined by Mormon rejection of the homoousion formulation of the trinity. For example, I would be extremely shocked if most of the denizens of your local megachurch could explain the distction between Nicene Christianity and modalism, or the precise nature of the Arian heresy. Asked to explain the relation of father and son, most of them I wager, would talk in either tritheistic or modalist terms, neither of which are consistent with the creeds. Yet their lived spirituality is Christian in that it centers on the faith in and worship of Jesus of Nazarath as the son of God, and there would be something deeply inaccurate about denying that they are Christian. So to of Mormons. Second, often the claim that Mormons are not Christian is made for political reasons. Here, I am willing to admit, that the paranoia that I inherited from my persecuted ancestors may be kicking in, but it seems to me that part of the reason this claim is made is to deny Mormons full participation in the civic community. Neuhaus, for example, has used "Mormons are not Christian" as the major premise in an argument for why Mormons should not be elected president. Of course, I think that the minor premise of Neuhauses argument is mistaken as well, but it is the conclusion that makes me question the motive of the major premise.
Exactly why does the definition of "Christian" have to equal "creedal" Christianity? Nobody-- not even believers-- claims that those creeds were authored by God. Indeed, everyone knows they were authored at church councils in an attempt to consolidate power over differing strains of Christianity that were spreading, and to stamp out dissident and heretical sects that were claiming to be "Christian". Further, I doubt most believers define their Christianity in "creedal" terms. Rather, I bet the average believer defines it in terms of having a personal relationship with God, believing that Jesus is the savior, and, perhaps, that the New Testament is the word of God. Theologians and the Catholic hierarchy care about the Trinity and the Nicene Creed; the average believer, not so much. Thus, if you want to adopt a definition that excludes most of the world's practicing Christians, yes, it is possible to define Mormons as not Christians. But the actual criteria that believers use to define themselves as Christian include Latter-Day Saints.
Grrr...more typos. I plead sleep deprivation and my new daugher.
I am pleased to hear these views aired candidly, though I am less pleased (in a way) to hear Mormons parrot a version of church history seemingly cribbed from the Da Vinci Code. That is part of their tradition that is not so well publicized, and for obvious reasons. I note that nobody has yet to disagree with my central claim: that the Mormon 'god' is finite, corporeal, limited, and not one. It is manifestly not the God revealed at Sinai. Somebody called Jesus Christ the "savior of the world." One wonders what this can mean in a religion with many gods, many worlds, and many divinities. The day will come when Mormon claims will be pressed for greater intellectual clarity and precision. At that time we will see whether their claims are even coherent. I do not doubt that many Mormons sincerely believe themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Nor do I doubt that in some way the Holy Spirit is present when Mormon believers proclaim their faith in Christ. Nor, finally, do I deny that many Mormons live their faith in a way much to the shame of other self-professed Christian. But that is not the dispute. Christian dialog with Mormonism is, and will be for the foreseeable long-term future, strictly "inter-religious."
Neuhaus, for example, has used "Mormons are not Christian" as the major premise in an argument for why Mormons should not be elected president. That is a misreading of Neuhaus' comments. Neuhaus did not contend that a Mormon should not be elected president- only that his Mormonism is a permissible factor for non-Mormons to take into account in voting. Secondly, the view that "Mormons are not Christian" (which he and I do hold) is not the premise in his argument. His argument would also apply to say, the Adventists. Second, often the claim that Mormons are not Christian is made for political reasons. I'd say this is more compelling in the reverse: Mormons desire to be called Christians in order to complete their integration into American society and secure a place as an acceptable sect of Christianity. In short what is often desired is not merely the term but also the subjective identification of Mormons as Christians by others. The difficulty with this is that Christianity has a long history, and has defined for itself what it means to be within the Christian tradition. To demand the term now expand is an piratical attempt to demand linguistic inclusion without fitting the doctrinal prerequisites.
"...an piratical attempt to demand linguistic inclusion..." Arrgg, matey!
>>In short what is often desired is not merely the term but also the subjective identification of Mormons as Christians by others..
Ross, I am sincerely disappointed at your censoring my post (outright not allowing it to be posted) I submitted yesterday evening. It seems you are not truly seeking the truth about Mormonism, but have an agenda and want to control the discussion. Submitting an objective and skeptical post about so called Mormonism experts and their agendas and pointing out that religious beliefs in their very nature are next to imposable to PROVE because they usually are centered about the need to have faith, is hardly some overt partisan attempt to infiltrate the ongoing debate. Although I don't wish this post I am writing you to be posted, I would respectfully requests you reconsider allowing what I wrote to be posted or at least reply to me in private and defend your censorship. Scott Howard
While we're on topic. Can some Mormon also describe to us how the planet Kolob fits into your beliefs? Mormons believe that the gods live on and rule distant planets and galaxies. Kolob is the planet where god the Father now lives. Someday the Mormon faithful will also be made gods of planets, like the gods they now worship. I understand this to be fairly standard Mormon doctrine, though not usually the stuff they put in their commercials. This sounds like L. Ron Hubbard to most people. Help us understand why this is or is not the case. Or is this particular revelation, contained in the Book of Abraham (?), no longer authoritative, since the scriptural "texts" were later discovered to be common Egyptian funerary texts written thousands of years later than Joseph Smith claimed??? Sorry if I sound disrespectful. But there are so many questions to be answered.
" I may protest that I understand myself as the Duke and that you are denying the lived experience of my being the Duke of Bavaria" That's the point. In your role as a pretender to being the Pretender, you don't have a lived experience of being the Duke of Bavaria. One of your purposes in denying that Mormons are Christians is to deny our lived experience of discipleship to the Christ. You want to say that its all a vast lie and fraud, like your pretensions to being the Jacobite dynast. To be frank, this does not speak well of you. I'm really not interested in a debate with your sort. I have had long and fruitful discussions with creedal Christians who did not believe Mormons were Christians, but I believed in their good intentions. I do not believe in yours. I have responded this time only so that my future silence is not taken as a sign that your "arguments", or their proponent, have any merit.
Mr. Gabriel, You argument that Mormons cannot be Christian because a group that excludes Mormons defines what Christian means is circular. Your argument from linguistics is badly ignorant of the actual linguistic facts of how the term 'Christian' is commonly used and understood. Like most Mormons, I've had several experiences where folks whose pastor had told them that Mormons weren't Christians were shocked to find that I believed in Christ as Divine Savior and observed Christmas and Easter.
Adam, I believe there are many, many things about Mormon piety and life which put Christians to shame. I also believe them to be good, sincere people. If I criticize it is in the interest of working for a future Christian ecumenism.
"I am pleased to hear these views aired candidly, though I am less pleased (in a way) to hear Mormons parrot a version of church history seemingly cribbed from the Da Vinci Code." You know, just because the Da Vinci Code was BS (which it was) doesn't mean that you can discredit anyone who talks about the messy early history of Christianity (which WAS messy) by saying they are cribbing from the Da Vinci Code. The fact is, there were all sorts of people running around for three centuries calling themselves "Christian" and espousing various beliefs which they contended were Jesus' teachings. The authorities in Rome-- secular and religious-- were consolidating power and held church councils in which they decided which beliefs were part of the canon and which were heretical. And then groups that continued to espouse heretical beliefs were subjected to the full power of the church and the state in an attempt to suppress them. That is what happened. I don't say this to espouse silly conspiracy theories about the Vatican. And I don't say this to bash on Christianity-- the truth is, EVERY major religion where we know the early history has featured struggles between competing beliefs in that early history. We are one and three quarters centuries into Mormonism. You can't expect it to look any neater than orthodox Christianity did at this point.
Everybody here seems to be circling around the central difference between Christians and Mormons. The Mormons keep tiptoeing around it and the Christians aren't being very clear about it. So, I'll just go on and say it: the issue is monotheism. All talk about a Triune God and Trinitarian theology is just a fancy way of describing how Christians relate their beliefs about Christ to their basic monotheism. I'll concentrate on the Mormon side for a moment. Dilan wrote: Rather, I bet the average believer defines it in terms of having a personal relationship with God, believing that Jesus is the savior, and, perhaps, that the New Testament is the word of God. This is an excellent summary of the similarities between (at least some forms of) Christianity and Mormonism, but unfortunately it elides over the central difference: monotheism. Belief that there is only One True God is not a peripheral Christian teaching and has been strongly emphasized in any church that I've ever gone to. In contrast, as I understand it, Mormons believe that God was once just a man like us (i.e. he was once non-divine), that it is possible for us to become Gods, and that there may be other Gods out there equal to God. While I respect Mormons for many things, Mormons have to understand just how central monotheism is to how Christians define themselves and how they decide whether or not to include other people within the term Christian. If you are not a monotheist, if you do not deny all other gods, you are not a Christian within the self-understanding of most believers. Period. Mormons want to use the term Christian, because they revere Christ, believe he is their saviour, and follow his true teachings, as they see it. Up to a point, I can understand this position. Mormons have to understand, however, that Christians have been using the term for 1900+ years to describe something else, and that Mormons are trying to change the historical meaning of the word. By that historical meaning, it is not just enough to revere Christ and believe in him in some sense as saviour, you have to believe that he is the one and only true God. After all there are Hindu groups who also revere Jesus, accept him as their saviour and believe he was a god, and it would be preposterous to describe them as Christian. To summarize, while Mormons believe Jesus Christ is a god, Christians believe Jesus Christ is the One True God. As has been pointed out, in practice, many Mormon congregations may be strongly de-emphasizing many of the above distinctive beliefs about God, and may be headed back towards Christianity as it has been historically understood. If this continues, Mormons may yet become fully Christian within the historical meaning of the word. If that happens, they will become nothing more than an eccentric Christian group, much like the Seventh Day Adventists, who have their American prophet and supplementary prophetic material too, but are now widely accepted as fully Christian. Most Christians will never believe in the prophetic minstry of Joseph Smith, or find any value in The Book of Mormon, but those are not the absolutely crucial issues. In such a spirit, I issue this challenge: if any Mormon here is willing to deny categorically that: I wish all Mormon readers here all the best, but have this final suggestion: trying to persuade Christians that monotheism isn't an absolutely crucial Christian belief is pointless. It is as central to Christian self-understanding as any belief can be. Unless and until Mormons become monotheists, Christians will quite properly regard them as being part of an entirely separate religion.
Re: The authorities in Rome-- secular and religious-- were consolidating power and held church councils in which they decided which beliefs were part of the canon and which were heretical. The authorities in Rome were not the ones holding the early Councils. Rome itself was no longer the seat of the imperial government, even in the West. That had moved north to Milan (closer to the much-beset Germannic frontier) and of course east to Constantinople. The bishop of Rome, contrary to what is often stated by both the partisans and opponents of Catholicism, made no claims as yet to being anything but the Primate and Patriarch of Italy; though he enjoyed high prestige, his word was was not yet (canon) law outside Italy. He called no councils and claimed no teaching authority greater than any other bishop. The Church in this era was collegial, not monarchial, and the councils really did enagge in active debate, not just reflexive anathemizing. Now to be sure more than a few of the bishops had big egos and small minds and some were on very serious power trips. And yes, imperial authorities (it was generally the Eastern Emperor who called the early Councils) interfered at will to advance this or that preference (but generally a personal preferrence unlinked to their secular political concerns). But still, the Da Vinci code portrait of this era as some sort of sinister conspiracy to suppress some sort of neat and nifty liberal Christianity is not borne out by history.
>>Everybody here seems to be circling around the central difference between Christians and Mormons. The Mormons keep tiptoeing around it and the Christians aren't being very clear about it. So, I'll just go on and say it: the issue is monotheism.
Thursday's reasoning is lengthy and circular. The MO is to select some group or groups that do not include Mormons, call them Christians, pick some characteristic common to them that Mormons arguably don't have, and then point out that Mormons can't be Christians because they don't have this characteristic. Thursday's variation on this MO is another variation on the argument that Mormons can't be Christians because they don't accept the creeds. In this case, because Mormons don't usually accept that the Father and the Son are separate persons but one being, whatever that may mean, Mormons obviously don't believe in Christ's divine sonship, mission to the Jews, miracles, crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, ascension, and exclusive status as Savior.
The formulation of the creeds were the result of the necessity of showing how Christian faith in Jesus Christ did not in any way compromise monotheism. The creeds, and the theology surrounding them, showed how Christian proclamation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit maintained complete fidelity to the oneness of God. This is what the creeds were all about. Christians realized (rightly) that if fidelity to Jesus Christ meant that there was more than one "God" then their faith was misplaced. Mormons can obviously call themselves Christians. Nobody can stop them. I just find it odd that they ask "other" Christians to do so when they emphatically reject many, perhaps most of, the basic claims of Christian faith.
Adam, I wonder if you could imagine the following scenario in the future: Mormons continue to move closer to Christianity by a continued reinterpretation of their faith. Some of the posts above suggest some of this re-thinking is already happening. This might involve a permanent sidelining of certain Mormon claims (pre-existence, plurality of gods, some of the cosmology, etc.) and an overwhelming emphasis on commitment to Jesus Christ. Again, we are informed that some of his is going on now. Along with this we might see a reinterpretation of Mormon scripture. Instead of seeing it as the revealed word of God, Mormons instead come to see it as a spiritual guideline for their particular Christian community. Think, perhaps, of the way that certain works have a special status in some Protestant communities (the Quakers) or maybe even how the Rule of St. Benedict functions in some Catholic communities. In this scenario, the Book of Mormon and other works would be highly valued and revered spiritual works, but would not be considered in any way like the Bible. They would be guidelines for Christian living and part of the cultural inheritance of Mormon Christians, but would not, strictly speaking, claim to be a part of salvation history. Can you foresee something like this? Would this be possible? This would move Mormons, slowly but surely, into the ambit of Christian faith. Christianity might then gain a very powerful witness in the modern world.
Thursday's reasoning is lengthy and circular. The MO is to select some group or groups that do not include Mormons, call them Christians, pick some characteristic common to them that Mormons arguably don't have, and then point out that Mormons can't be Christians because they don't have this characteristic. OK. Alternately, I could just really think that monotheism is central to Christianity.
If Christians were serious about monotheism they would be Muslims. (Or perhaps Jews). Regardless of how much obfuscating theology you do, 3 does not equal 1.
Thomas, It's not even clear that the Bible itself is explicitly monotheist. The great diversity of Christian practice in the early church bears this out. Early Christians interpreted the nature of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a variety of ways. All had biblical support for their claims. The faction that carried the day at Nicea was just one faction, and arguably not even the dominant faction. You have to realize that your creedal demands smack very much of the victors writing history and then demanding everyone else to match up to a standard they themselves created. What's so special about Nicea that we ought to give it more weight than even the plain biblical text? Surely you've got a better argument than "Creedal Christians squashed all other dissenters, so that's what Christianity is"? If you got it wrong at Nicea, you got it wrong. End of story. It won't do to simply say that this is the way we've done it for the last thousand plus years, so that's the way God meant it to be.
Thomas Nelson: It is extremely unlikely that Mormons will reject either Restoration scriptures or the doctrine of the pre-existence. It is also extremely unlikely that they will reject a tri-theistic conception of the Godhead. The other examples of "polytheism" that you reference are mainly from nineteenth century sources that have been largely marginalized since the 1916. To be sure doctrines such as an infite previous regress of gods continues to a certain extent within LDS folk theology, but you will be extremely hard pressed to find these doctrines pushed in high profile fora for a century or more. This is one of the reasons that your characterizations of Mormon theology strike Mormons as distorted. It is not that they deny that the doctrines to which you and other Mormon-phobic Christians allude have been taught at various times in Mormon history. Rather, it is that the relative emphasis on the centrality (and certainty) of these doctrines stikes LDS as inaccurate. The fact that Mormons who point this out are accused of lying does very little to convince LDS that this is a productive conversation. May I also suggest that several of your comments reveal a fairly high level of ignorance about Mormon history or contemporary Mormon thought. You have also suggested that you are disinclined to learn more because of the "mickey mouse" character of Mormonism. Needless to say, this also makes the prospect of continued dialogue rather tiresome.
Seth, Indeed, I haven't tried to "prove" anything, but have only tried to show how sharp the disagreements are between Christianity and Mormonism. I have also suggested that Mormon claims have not been formulated in a way which would permit high-level theological discussion, and that they haven't been for a reason--they make even plainer some of the more unusual about Mormonism. Somebody above made mention to the infinite regress of gods. I thank him for doing so. This is most certainly a part of Mormon thought, but not one that you hear about. I thank Nate Oman for his post above. Perhaps I have come across chippy. I only want complete honesty on both sides. And part of that honesty involves making clear how radically different the words "God" and "Christ" function in Mormon and Christian though. I don't think anybody is reading this, so I'll quite now.
It's not even clear that the Bible itself is explicitly monotheist. This bears some comment: 1. The Bible has many writers, editors, etc. One cannot assume they all have the same view of God. Now, Joseph Smith was a clever fellow and, give him his due, he picked up on the henotheistic worldview of the early Hebrew narratives, something which mainstream Christianity was in denial about. I happen to think it a bizarre method of interpretation to interpret the later monotheistic parts of the Hebrew Bible by the older henotheistic parts, but I have to admit that Smith was picking up on something that was actually there. As Harold Bloom has noted Mormons seem to have gone back all the way to the religion of the early, early Hebrews. Unfortunately from a Christian position they seem to have gone back all the way to a time when Hebrew religion was not all that different from paganism. I suppose, if you take the New Testament and interpret it in light of the earliest, henotheistic parts of the Hebrew Bible, you might come up with something like Mormonism. Of course, in order to do that you have to radically de-emphasize the later monotheistic parts of the Hebrew Bible and Jesus' Jewish background, but one can at least see how one might come up with such beliefs. NOTE: As should be obvious from these comments I do not read the Bible as a biblical fundamentalist.
Thursday and Thomas Nelson: I am not convinced that even monotheism is that important to the average Christian. Again, no doubt, Church leaders believe it, both Catholic and Protestant. But do the average believers? Again, I think that average believers are focused on the fact that Jesus is their personal saviour, rather than on whether there are any other routes to salvation. And again, I don't think the average believer takes any position on the trinity-- obviously, if they are actually three separate beings comprising three separate substances, that would not be monotheism. I also doubt that many believers take a strong line that there can be no other gods, either. Some clearly do, but many don't. Really, you can go down this route of saying "you aren't a Christian unless X", but if you do that, you will end up with a much narrower defintion of Christianity that excludes the vast majority of people who consider themselves Christian. Personally, I don't think any definition that does that is a valid definition. What you are looking for is an "official" definition, which gets back to whether we should trust church councils 1700 years ago, acting on dubious motivations, to define who is a Christian. I don't see how that is anything other than arbitrary.
I am not convinced that even monotheism is that important to the average Christian. Your argument doesn't go far enough. Below a certain IQ level (I would say roughly equivalent to the ability to graduate from college) people cannot understand any theological concepts at all. Functionally, they cannot distinguish between Christ, Adonis, Krishna or Buddha, let alone between Mormon and Christian ideas about Christ. Popular religion is really just a big supernatural smoosh. Since the conception of the god is the same and the god pretty much does exactly the same thing, does it really matter what you call him. He's just a big guy up in the sky who does stuff for you. I'm not kidding you. At a popular level, there just isn't really much of a difference between any religions. Take this down to a certain level and we might as well call Buddhists Christians and Christians Buddhists. Who cares? The common people believe exactly the same thing. (If you'd like to learn more about the scientific study of religion, I'd recommend Razib Khan's writings on religion at gnxp.com as a good place to start. Just google the site for "razib" and "religion.") Really, you can go down this route of saying "you aren't a Christian unless X", but if you do that, you will end up with a much narrower defintion of Christianity that excludes the vast majority of people who consider themselves Christian. I have no problem with a definition of Christianity that excludes the vast majority of people who consider themselves Christian. There is even a very precise term for this: "nominal Christian." For example, I have no problem saying that Christian Europe never really was that Christian. The elites were, but the masses were still pagan. If you look at the "Age of Faith" in the Middle Ages, the supposed height of Christian civilization, true piety among laymen was almost all a middle class phenomenon. Nor do I have any problem saying that the vast majority of Americans are not really Christian, despite their vehement protests to the contrary. I'm not just picking on Mormons.
Wow! Ross has been very lucky in the commenters he’s drawn to this thread. Not a bigot, not an ignoramus among them. May I note that a member of either of the other two Abrahamic traditions, or a disbeliever like myself, will find it a little odd that a believer in the Trinity would so quickly and easily condemn others for failing to come right up to monotheistic standards. And if an amateur and ill-informed historian can presume to pronounce on the issue, I’d like to say that in the centuries before the adoption of creedal standards of true belief, and indeed in subsequent centuries, many who would in all honesty profess to having found salvation in Christ would have been denied the label Christian by the Thomas Nelsons of their time. That’s a mere fact, and perhaps the keepers of orthodoxy of every era (but was that Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or John Calvin—how does one determine which doctrinal error damns the errant or excludes him from The Faith?) have drawn the line at the proper place. But I take it both the Mormon and the True Christian would agree that reason and evidence can take one only so far, and that the richest and most valuable of their salvific beliefs are attained by revelation and faith. So that gets us beyond the ordinary canons of belief that permit those who adhere to the great variety of putative revealed truths, and those who would say they adhere, as best they can, to no revealed truth, to the realm revelation and faith. What are the canons, the standards, the criteria, that prevail there? How does one decide between the Christian monotheism of Thomas Nelson, the monotheism of a Muslim like Reza Aslan, and the tri-theism and pre-existentialism of Nate Oman? I venture to say that scriptural references to the revealed word of God—to the four gospels and to the letters of Paul, to the Koran, to the Book of Mormon (and other similar canonical documents)—are indispensable to the substantiation of doctrines of God and other doctrines essential to salvation of all three. Now, as an ordinary outsider, one not seized of the faith, when I read accounts of the resurrection—the concluding verses of the three pertinent passions, I Corinthians 15—I read them as I would read other putative pieces of history and as somebody who knows dead people stay dead. And I don’t begin to find consistent testimony and recollections that would begin to override my certain knowledge that dead people stay dead. Hume lives, Jesus doesn’t. Similarly, like Yglesias and Douthat, when I read the accounts of Joseph Smith’s visitation by Personages and discovery of the seer glasses and engraved plates, I’ve no doubt the source of the history recounted in the Book of Mormon lay entirely in the febrile and engaging imagination of Joseph Smith, and in no supernatural locale. So also for subsequent doctrinal revelations. Absent faith in the revelatory nature of these accounts, it’s impossible to derive from them any extraordinary, let alone salvific, belief. I understand how ordinary historical disagreements can be argued and resolved, if not definitively or finally (though sometimes even so) at any rate in a way that counts as genuinely progressive and edifying. I understand how Christians of an exclusionist bent, for whom doctrinal questions are settled and clear, can erect a standard that must be satisfied by any True Believer. I understand how others might reject that standard’s decisive criteriality. But what I can’t understand is how these disputes can possibly be resolved. The Mormon knows what he knows only because he also knows on the basis of revelation that as Joseph Smith lay abed September 21, 1823, and he was three times visited by Moroni, and when he went to Hill Comorah the next morning, lo, under the stone lay the plates. The Christian knows what he knows in necessary part because he finds what It ill behooves believers in revelation to be dismissive of each other’s claims. They all stand where anything goes.
I know this is late, but wasn't it helpful of the pope this week to decide that Protestants aren't Christians, and that their, um, organizations aren't churches? At least under that standard, we can rule Mormons out.
Perhaps a helpful suggestion. I really do have some sympathy for Mormons who want to express the central role Christ plays in their faith. The problem, as I see it, is that the differences between Christianity and Mormonism are too great for one term to bear. So, why not use another term? My suggestion: Christocentric. The term would refer to any religion that worships Christ. I don't think anyone could possibly object to saying that Mormonism is a Christocentric religion and that Mormons are Christocentrists (and darn proud of it). Its accurate, puts their reverence for Christ to the front, and doesn't result in any confusion between two very different religions. While we are inventing terms why not include Christophile. This term could refer to anyone who reveres Jesus as a person or a teacher, regardless of their religious position. Islam could be said to be a Christophilic religion, and even an atheist could be a Christophile.
One problem with that idea (besides it not sounding as snappy as "Christian"). Denying the label to Mormons is a way of excluding them from certain religious circles. When a Baptist minister thunders at the pulpit that Mormons are "Christians" what do you think the take-home message is for the listeners? That Mormons are unconventional and outside traditional Christian orthodoxy? Naw. They'll all assume we don't believe in Christ. The average Baptist may not know much about theology. But she knows she loves Jesus. And if those Mormons don't, well then... The problem is, the Protestant elites are opportunistically using the "Christian" label to paint Mormons as dangerous pariahs. They are fully aware of how their lay followers are interpreting the labeling game. But when you call them on it, they act like it's some big hyper-technical theological issue. It seems a bit disingenuous to me, but hey, what do I know?
Whoops. Should read "when a Baptist minister thunders at the pulpit that Mormons are NOT Christians."
buy canada in viagra
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I just took a look at Fairwiki on one issue I'd read some interesting comments on by Mormon apologists at Fox's blog and in comments on the earlier post- the limited geography model. I wasn't terribly impressed. The failing was that the explanations didn't even address the best objections thereto- mentioned by the Mormon apologists here and at Fox's.
Posted by gabriel | July 14, 2007 5:36 AM