The real "Mormon issue-" or is it the "Evangelical issue?"
A great deal of press has been given to the religious bigotry which would seek to deny Mitt Romney the presidency on the ground of his religion and its teachings.
But there is another "Mormon issue," and one which- while hardly a scandal or a red-button issue- may legitimately raise concerns. If Mike Huckabee has emerged, not simply as an "evangelical" who is running for president, but as the candidate of the "evangelical" movement- and that's supposedly a bad thing- to a much greater extent Mitt Romney is not merely a Mormon who is running for president, but the candidate of the Mormons.
I'm not speaking here of some sort of conspiracy on the part of the LDS, or anything of the kind. But Mormons have to a significant extent formed a political bloc supporting the Romney candidacy financially and in every other way with an amazing degree of unanimity. Indeed, it's hard to imagine the financial position Romney has enjoyed throughout the campaign without his status as a sort of surrogate for other members of his religion.
This is very understandable. Like John Kennedy's campaign in 1960, Mitt Romney's is about a religious group which historically has been marginalized in American public life seeking admission to the mainstream. Nothing sinister here. But I predict nonetheless that the degree to which the Romney campaign is supported and financed by Mormons as a bloc will turn out to be a much more disconcerting thing to most voters than the theology of the LDS.
Which, in turn, raises an interesting point: if it's OK for Mormons to rally around Romney on religious grounds, why is it not OK for "evangelicals" to rally around Huckabee? Or is there anything wrong- or disturbing- about either? And if both are OK, why is it wrong for Huckabee to appeal to "evangelical" voters on much the same basis that Romney receives the support of so many Mormons?
What do you think?
But there is another "Mormon issue," and one which- while hardly a scandal or a red-button issue- may legitimately raise concerns. If Mike Huckabee has emerged, not simply as an "evangelical" who is running for president, but as the candidate of the "evangelical" movement- and that's supposedly a bad thing- to a much greater extent Mitt Romney is not merely a Mormon who is running for president, but the candidate of the Mormons.
I'm not speaking here of some sort of conspiracy on the part of the LDS, or anything of the kind. But Mormons have to a significant extent formed a political bloc supporting the Romney candidacy financially and in every other way with an amazing degree of unanimity. Indeed, it's hard to imagine the financial position Romney has enjoyed throughout the campaign without his status as a sort of surrogate for other members of his religion.
This is very understandable. Like John Kennedy's campaign in 1960, Mitt Romney's is about a religious group which historically has been marginalized in American public life seeking admission to the mainstream. Nothing sinister here. But I predict nonetheless that the degree to which the Romney campaign is supported and financed by Mormons as a bloc will turn out to be a much more disconcerting thing to most voters than the theology of the LDS.
Which, in turn, raises an interesting point: if it's OK for Mormons to rally around Romney on religious grounds, why is it not OK for "evangelicals" to rally around Huckabee? Or is there anything wrong- or disturbing- about either? And if both are OK, why is it wrong for Huckabee to appeal to "evangelical" voters on much the same basis that Romney receives the support of so many Mormons?
What do you think?
Comments
Much of Mitt Romney's "religion ploy" has been to claim persecution, call it bigotry, and seek sympathy. That's a classic Mormon tactic.
In fact, the Salt Lake Weekly, the independent newspaper in SL City, predicted this more than a year ago! They really know Mormonism!
See the entry at romneyforpresident.townhall.com
Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems. The blog also documents the Mormon bloc support for Mitt Romney. (You'll have to look around to find the posts.)
(Funny photos too!)
Having said that, I also know there is a large degree of support. I interpret this differently than you do. You say Mormons are rallying around Romney based on religious grounds, but I see a group who starts the investigation into the candidates without the starting obstacle of distrust that non-Mormons often seem to feel. Then it's a simple matter of clear thinking to see that he's the most capable, best qualified, genuine, electable candidate. :-)
Just as Romney suggests, I neither support nor oppose my choice based on the similarities or differences in our faiths. That they happen to be the same is irrelevant. He still is the best person to lead the country.
The danger, and probably an intellectually cowardly thing to do, is to receive inaccurate secondhand information about what it means to be a Mormon without finding out if it’s true from a reliable source and allowing that to influence one’s vote (as is true of any issue). But if people have a correct understanding of what it means to be a “Mormon,” it’s difficult to see anyone being dissuaded from voting for Romney in the primaries or general election.
Thanks for good issues you raised!
P.S. A great site for information is mormon.org
Nobody I know of denies that Jesus Christ- or Jesus Christ as Mormonism understands Him- is foundational to Mormonism. The point is that according to the foul lines traditionally laid down by Christians - i.e., Nicene Christianity, and those doctrines concerning the person of Christ held by the overwhelming majority of Christians ever since 325 A.D.-
Mormonism stands outside the Christian pale. Mormonism, of course, rejects the Trinity and other doctrines held historically by the Christian Church as a whole to be constitutive; hence, to the degree that the doctrines of Mormonism reject the teachings historically held to be constitutive of Christianity, it cannot be said, in the historical sense, to be Christian.
That's the basis for the belief (which I happen to share) that Mormons are not Christians. This is not a denigration of your intention to follow Jesus, but rather a disagreement as to whether the Jesus you follow is the Jesus of Scripture- and the Jesus Christians as a group historically have worshiped.
I might suggest a different standard for falling in the bounds of what it means to be a Christian: a rational basis rather than a traditional one, or one based on the commonness with which it’s held. Looking a scripture, we see that Jesus was resurrected, he ate fish and bread in front of his disciples, and Thomas put his fingers in Jesus’s nail prints in his hands and feet, and thrust his hand in Jesus’s side, which suggest Jesus had a body after his resurrection. Also, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were present as separate beings at Jesus’s baptism; additionally, Jesus prayed to his father in the intercessory prayer (John 17). These suggest that the Trinity might actually be three separate persons. (Additionally, Joseph Smith receiving a visit from God and Jesus as separate beings). So it seems that at least a reasonable argument could be made that the Mormon view is a Christian view. Similarly, scriptures that suggest the Father and the Son are one, as well as that God is “light” (which could be understood to mean he has no body), could make a reasonable argument in favor of the Nicean Christian view. Even if either view is now or in the future happens to be held by a minority, because a reasonable basis exists for them, they should not be dismissed for being different than the majority. (Christ himself differed from the majority of his time :-) )
Thus a Mormon should accept the that a Nicean Christian is a Christian, because it’s a reasonable belief in Christ backed by scripture; and a Nicean Christian should accept that a Mormon is a Christian, because it’s also a reasonable belief in Christ backed by scripture.
Thanks again, Bob, for the thoughtful comment!
"Reasonableness" is not the issue. To suggest that it is is to suggest that there is ambivalence concerning the evidence given by a common body of authority. In fact, that is not the case.
To be blunt, we don't believe that God spoke to- or through Joseph Smith, or that the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the progressive revelations claimed by the LDS leadership are either in any sense divine, or ought to be considered authoritative. To the extent that you regard thes sources as important, therefore, you cannot logically shrug them off and pretend that the whole problem is that two groups of people holding the same religion just disagree about a few unimportant points! If that were the case, why should there be an LDS church to begin with- much less one claiming to be God's one, true Church!.
If the Church was "fallen," and Joseph Smith restored it to its pristine purity (by introducing, among other things, many doctrines unheard of before he asserted them), does it not follow that something more is involved here than a few quibbles about minor things? In fact, do you
Gentlemen, your faith explicitly denies me and all others of the Nicene persuasion membership in the Church of Christ. Your faith says the same thing about me that I say about you when I say that I understand you to be outside Christ's Church!
Now, I'm not complaining. You have a right to your belief, just as I have a right to mine. That we differ does not make us enemies, nor does it mean that we need regard each other's beliefs other than with respect, however emphatically we may disagree with them. We're discussing who is and is not a Christian, and you maintain that that word is applicable to both of us. But can there be such a thing as a Christian who is outside the Church of Christ?
We do agree on the authority of the Bible- sort of. The LDS speaks of its authority "insofar as it is translated correctly," (we opt fo the original Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic)and only then in coordination with its own unique set of other scriptures and authorities- authorities, of course, which the rest of us do not acknowledge at all.
The fact of the matter is that the Mormon scriptures and revelations did not exist in 325. Even if one accepts the validity of the additional Mormon sources of authorty, Joseph Smith wasn't even born until 1805! So it's just not a question of reasonable views of the same data disagreeing. The Nicene Fathers were not a bunch of intolerant bigots anathamatizing a plausible position. The conclusion of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople- and I agree with that conclusion, as have pretty much everybody but the LDS and a few other small groups since then- is that Arianism and the other heresies condemned by the Ecumenical Councils are simply not in any way, shape or form compatible with the apostolic witness.
Arius denied the deity of Christ; he was not, however, a polytheist! Joseph Smith's view of the Godhead in fact originates with- Joseph Smith.
John 1 asserts that Jesus is not a creature- but that, in fact, the world was created by Him: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
That includes "spirit children-" a concept unknown to the ancient Church, and unique to Mormonism.
The notion that God the Father was once a human being, and has a physical body of flesh and bones, lies wholly outside the biblical tradition. As Jesus is recorded as telling the Samaritan woman in John 4, "God is spirit." In Luke 24:39, Jesus says to His disciples, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
The doctrine of the Trinity certainly explains Christ's intercessory prayer to the Father, as well as the presence of all three Persons of the Trinity at Christ's baptism. But there can be no reasonable case-made for Mormon beliefs on these and the other distinctive Mormon doctrines on the basis of the Bible alone.
Everything depends on those other sources of authority, guys. That's the only way you can support teachings that in fact were unknown in the Church before the time of Joseph Smith, and we happen to disagree as to the validity of those sources.
So where does that leave us? This is not an attack. This is not a criticism. This is simply the bottom line: you believe that there are plural gods; we believe that there is only one. Our God is a Spirit (except insofar as the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, including a physical body)who has existed as such from all eternity; yours is a human being with flesh and bones who evolved into deity. Guys, this isn't about charity, or the lack of it; this is merely the inevitable conclusion of any objective comparison of our understandings of the Deity: we worship different gods. We are followers of mutually exclusive Jesus's. Ours are not merely two different interpretations of the same religion, but two entirely different religions.
Now, here's the thing: as I pointed out to Jeff Fuller (of Iowans for Romney back when Mitt Romney first announced for President, his Mormon supporters really don't want to use his candidacy as an occasion for apologetics. The temptation to use it as a wedge to legitimize the LDS in the eyes of a suspicious public must be a strong one. But the fact is that the substance of LDS teaching on many issues would, if laid out in plain and simple terms, freak most Americans out.
This does not make it wrong. But it does make it lousy strategy for those who seek to refute what we agree is the wholly unreasonable and unjustifiable unwillingness of many people to vote for Mitt Romney because of his religion. The irrelevance of his beliefs that are distinctively Mormon to his functioning as President needs to be the argument, not the reasonableness of those beliefs, or their admissibility as being in some sense Christian.
It really does come down to standards. I would argue, gentlemen, that LDS doctrine on a host of issues simply cannot be sustained on the basis of the Bible alone. The reasonableness of those doctrines rests upon sources of authority we do not happen to have in common.
Which is find. In this country, it's OK to be of a different religion from somebody else. But the more you argue that Mormonism on one hand and Lutheranism or Methodism or Calvinism on the other are just two variations on the same theme, the more you're going to have to defend teachings that just can't be maintained on the basis of the sources of authority we have in common- and the more you will cause people to see Mormonism as something strange and alien simply by engaging in discussion of those teachings which are unique to the LDS.
Gentlemen, we are not of the same religion. We do not worship the same God. But I do not regard that as an obstacle to voting for Mitt Romney, should he be the Republican nominee, nor do I find it a reason to doubt that he would make a fine President.
It's OK for us to have different religions. Really. That's what the First Amendment (and the Sixth as well) are finally all about.
That there are genuine deep and abiding differences is certainly not disputed. I only take issue with the frank disdain with which some "Christians" have been very unkind to me personally for not having the same beliefs, witholding the label as some sort of silly "neener neener" way to make the faith less credible. For all your reassurances of respect for our right to believe differently than other Christians, I find your clinging to the term for ostensibly instructive purposes to really just be a surrogate for derisive purposes.
Ultimately, as you pointed out, the question is one of definition. I use the term Christian charitably to include all those who try to follow Christ, while many other Christians use the term less charitably for their own purposes.
I do not (and have not) disagree(d) with the notion that Romney's faith ought to be left out of the presidential campaign. I'm completely on the same page with you there.
For me to broaden my use of the term "Christian" to include the LDS would not be an act of charity, but of dishonesty.
I understand that you do not advocate the injection of Mormon theology into the campaign. I mean only to warn that it is in the interest of Gov. Romney- of whom I have a high opinion, even though I support another candidate- that efforts at apologetics (including the discussion of whether or not Mormonism is Christian) be kept as far seperate of the current presidential campaign as possible.
What you call honesty is a tricky form of dishonesty (conscious or not). If you want people to really understand what you believe about the distinctions between your own faith and mine, you would avoid applying or witholding the label Christian altogether unless you clarified your meaning (as distinct from the more typical "follower of Christ" meaning I believe is far more pervasive). I don't mind being called "a different kind of Christian" or a "follower of Christ that doesn't believe in the Trinity", but as I said before, just saying I'm not a Christian is a tactical move common among some set of churches to obfuscate and discredit.
The name "Jesus Christ" isn't the issue. The identity of Jesus Christ is. And we follow different Jesus Christs, just as we believe in different gods.
We're saying so many of the same things, and I really don't know why I bother considering I've had this discussion so many times before. Honesty and precision are less the issue for my Christian friends as much as just being certain the overall final impression left of Mormonism is negative, and that's where I have to object. I have no problem agreeing with your assessment of our believeing in different Gods or a different Jesus. But I do object when the admittedly bizarre parts of church history and doctrine are regurgitated in an orgy of out-of-context caricaturing. And then there's always a defiant "Christian" demanding that I deny ANY of it, and I'm just left speechless by the complete futility of trying to describe how the inaccuracy is in taking the focus off Jesus Christ, who is the center and reason for our faith.
My point is that the Jesus Christ who is the center and reason for your faith and the Jesus Christ who is the center and reason for my faith are two different people- and only one of them is real.
Which one, we disagree about. But it can't be both.
They usually get the right answer.
You see, I believe in some historical figure named Joseph Smith. He grew up in New York; started a bank in Kirkland, OH; introduced polygamy to his followers, taking a bunch of wives; shot and killed two men from the Carthage jail.
But I know Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God.
So you can say you believe in someone named "Jesus." But it's WHAT you believe about that Jesus that's foundational. He has either always been the ONE and ONLY God or he was born of a father god, just one of a bazillion gods and had to earn his godhood in a probation on earth. Etc.
[But even after you lay the proper foundation, you have to build. Even the demons believe in the true God (James 2:19)- but they aren't saved. It's not simply believing in the right Jesus, but acting on that belief. (1 John 2:4)]
I don't know why "my argument" only makes sense if [insert repeatedly something I never said]. My argument is that your use of the term Christian is dishonest and politically driven, not a matter of integrity as you've said. This is an empirically based argument, not doctrinally, as you'd like to paint it.
The Jesus you worship- and I question the sincerity of no Mormon in that worship- has nothing but the name in common with the Jesus described by the Bible. In fact, the version of Jesus you subscribe to emerged only with Joseph Smith, nearly two millenia after the Bible was written.
Our disagreement, Coach, is essentially over whether words mean things. Or to put it another way, you are arguing in effect that if you have a bottle of nitric acid in your hand, and put a label reading "water" it, then it's identical with the bottle I'm holding in my hand that actually contains water. You're suggesting that it's the label, and not the content, that matters. Well, I disagree- and I think the average non-Mormon reading this exchange would be in little doubt as to which of us is doing the obfuscating!
It's not just that we disagree about certain things concerning Jesus. It's that your version of Jesus bears no resemblance but the name to mine- or, more to the point, to the one described by the Bible. Faith in the real Jesus and faith in a fictional one invented 1800-odd years later whose nature and proclamation are entirely different from the original are simply not faith in the same person. What is in common here is not the person, but the label- the name, and nothing more.
I'm willing to let the reader of this exchange decide who's guilty of obfuscation here. And I'm willing to openly state what I believe about Jesus. The trouble is that Mormon apologetics is generally about concealing beliefs which, if known to the average member of the American public, would discredit Mormonism in his or her eyes as being even remotely Christian. The next step is the claim that people are picking on Mormonism unfairly, that it's being misrepresented, and that it's just one more variation on the common Christian themes. The whole process falls apart, of course, once the beliefs of Mormonism are out in the open.
Polytheism, for example. The idea that God grew up as an ordinary human being and evolved into deity. The idea that the Father has a body and flesh and bones- and a wife, with whom he has literal sexual intercourse in order to create "spirit children" rather than creating ex nihilo. The idea that the Christian hope is eventually becoming a god ourselves and getting to rule a world of our own.
You know, Coach. The stuff people get told when they actually become Mormons, and the LDS tries to keep people from realizing until they get to that point. The stuff that prevents the LDS from ever becoming a mainstream American religion.
Politically motivated? I've said repeatedly that Gov. Romney's religion ought to have no bearing on his candidacy for president, and should not play a role in anyone's decision about whether or not to vote for him. I'm not the one who is trying to fudge the facts to imply that the LDS is a mainline religion.
Yes, I think it's quite clear who's doing the obfuscating here. And one more point: while I'm not sure who "Lawrence" is, the notion that omitting the name of Jesus Christ from the title The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (did he merely call the group "the Latter Day Saints?" How shocking! How unfair!)has any particular significance at all- other than as a ground upon which a Mormon might choose to claim, rather unconvincingly, that the church is somehow being picked on.
No, our disagreement is whether words are honest based on being true or based on conveying something true. I understand (I don't know how much more emphatically I can say it) why you don't believe I'm a Christian. But saying only that I'm not a Christian DOES NOT CONVEY THAT TO MOST PEOPLE. Rather, it conveys only that I don't believe Jesus Christ is divine, that I don't believe He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, that I don't believe His beautiful parables and beatitudes and sermons to be the word of God. It conveys that I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual person who really existed, is divine. It communicates a factual FALSEHOOD, even given that your definition of "Christian" is the right one and Mormons indeed are not "Christian" in that sense. Whether you intend it as a lie (I know you don't) or not, it effectively communicaters a falsehood to many (if not most) people, and this is readily apparent to those who care to notice. Deliberate or not, it's an ad hominem rather than an informative statement in its actual use.
I know this miscommunication happens based on personal experience, like the one I described above with my Catholic friend. That's what I was talking about when I said my argument was empirically based, not doctrinally. If you were to forego saying that I'm not a Christian in favor of saying that you think my faith is deceptive, evil, sneaky, ridiculous, and frightening, I couldn't fault you for being dishonest in conveying your opinion. But if you say the faith is not Christian, whatever you intend to mean by that and whatever is actually true about the status of my understanding of the Savior, you effectively hide the truth about my personal relationship with and beliefs about the Lord.
Now, I should apologize for the way I've been pretty categorical in my criticism of Christians as having this as their "modus operandi". I think most have convinced themselves, as you have, that they are acting right and with integrity. I do suspect though, that it's often perfectly apparent that misinformation is being perpetuated, and that that fact is overlooked as acceptable in a subconscious rationalization that the end justifies the means. That's what I meant by obfuscation and clarity, but I'm sorry for making it sound personal.
And, very briefly, I can understand how my frank words could be off-putting, but you've taken the rebuttal a bit far with several things. I haven't discussed what people "get told" about Mormonism. I haven't tried to assert that Mormonism is or should be a mainstream religion. When I said politically motivated, I meant the politics of religion, not Romney's campaign. I have not "fudged" a single fact about the LDS religion. Nor have I engaged in describing the faith at all, except in relation to our understand of Christ (which seems on-topic enough). Nor have I engaged in Mormon apologetics or tried to conceal anything about our beliefs (other than to keep the discussion on point). The Lawrence in question said "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" as a proper name in substitute for its actual name, an omission that may have been inadvertent, but contextually seemed much more likely to be associated with the subtle dishonesty that we've been discussing herein. I haven't discussed or defended polytheism, or ex nihilo creation, or becoming Gods. That you bring up these irrelevant issues at all underlines that you haven't understood the issue as I've described it (regardless of those points being true... ish). Again and again I've acknowledged that we disagree on these issues.
I hope you'll consider the possibility that I do understand what you've been saying this whole time. Please try to understand what I'm saying instead of repeating yourself.
As for what the average person understands when he or she hears that Mormons are not Christians, you may possibly have a point. I can only add that neither I nor others who hold that belief can be responsible for what others might understand by it (something also true of Mormons and a great many of your beliefs, btw). I certainly agree that being clear about what we mean, and don't mean, when we say that is important.