What do the Mormons believe?
I don't think Mitt Romney's religion should be of any particular interest to anybody trying to decide whether or not he should be president. However, the beliefs of that religion have become controversial (as witness Gov. Huckabee's question about Jesus and Lucifer as "spirit brothers"), and out of fairness to all concerned we should not have to rely on clueless secular reporters to sort out the theological facts when questions which really ought not to even be a part of the campaign manage to arise.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints maintains a website where the official teachings of the church are partially accessible. The trouble is that the account is far from complete, and really doesn't address many especially sensitive or awkward issues. Still, since a great deal of controversy seems to arise concerning what Mormonism does and does not teach, I commend this site to all concerned as a "straight from the horse's mouth" place to begin.
But leaving aside such weighty matters as whether Christ was uniquely begotten of His Father from all eternity or merely one of many "spirit children" conceived in time, the doctrine of the Trinity as opposed to a belief in multiple gods, whether God the Father has a physical body and a wife, and so forth, as a Lutheran I am especially concerned about Mormonism's doctrine of justification, which I cannot recognize as being remotely Christian.
There is plenty of other stuff Mormons believe which, for me, falls into the same category. I do not believe that in expressing that belief I am even remotely out of line, especially since I don't believe that a person should have to be a Christian to be president. But I do take exception to the notion that I am not as entitled to my perspective as to what constitutes Christianity as the LDS and its members are! Regrettably, LDS efforts to convince everybody that to regard Mormonism as other than Christian is somehow unfair creates public controversy on the very subject which the presidential campaign would be better off not involving. I don't mean to say that the LDS doesn't have the right to have its say on this matter. I do mean to say that it's OK, in a pluralistic society, for Mormons and others to disagree as to, following their own definitions of the word, Mormons are Christians- and that it's not OK to suggest otherwise!
But whatever one's opinion on such matters, it's probably best to let the LDS speak for themselves- at least insofar as they're willing to. It would be better if more detailed information would be more frankly provided. It would be better still, in the context of a presidential campaign, if the question would simply be dismissed as the political irrelevancy it is. But because both attacks on Gov. Romney based on his religion and efforts at Mormon apologetics in response to them are unavoidable, the better the sources of information that are available, and the more frankly and accurately the grounds of the theological disagreement between Mormonism and the rest of what claims to be Christianity can be presented, the better.
ADDENDUM: This site - which is definiately not sponsored by the LDS- might help, too- in comparing contemporary Mormon answers to questions about what the LDS teach with those given by previous LDS generations.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints maintains a website where the official teachings of the church are partially accessible. The trouble is that the account is far from complete, and really doesn't address many especially sensitive or awkward issues. Still, since a great deal of controversy seems to arise concerning what Mormonism does and does not teach, I commend this site to all concerned as a "straight from the horse's mouth" place to begin.
But leaving aside such weighty matters as whether Christ was uniquely begotten of His Father from all eternity or merely one of many "spirit children" conceived in time, the doctrine of the Trinity as opposed to a belief in multiple gods, whether God the Father has a physical body and a wife, and so forth, as a Lutheran I am especially concerned about Mormonism's doctrine of justification, which I cannot recognize as being remotely Christian.
There is plenty of other stuff Mormons believe which, for me, falls into the same category. I do not believe that in expressing that belief I am even remotely out of line, especially since I don't believe that a person should have to be a Christian to be president. But I do take exception to the notion that I am not as entitled to my perspective as to what constitutes Christianity as the LDS and its members are! Regrettably, LDS efforts to convince everybody that to regard Mormonism as other than Christian is somehow unfair creates public controversy on the very subject which the presidential campaign would be better off not involving. I don't mean to say that the LDS doesn't have the right to have its say on this matter. I do mean to say that it's OK, in a pluralistic society, for Mormons and others to disagree as to, following their own definitions of the word, Mormons are Christians- and that it's not OK to suggest otherwise!
But whatever one's opinion on such matters, it's probably best to let the LDS speak for themselves- at least insofar as they're willing to. It would be better if more detailed information would be more frankly provided. It would be better still, in the context of a presidential campaign, if the question would simply be dismissed as the political irrelevancy it is. But because both attacks on Gov. Romney based on his religion and efforts at Mormon apologetics in response to them are unavoidable, the better the sources of information that are available, and the more frankly and accurately the grounds of the theological disagreement between Mormonism and the rest of what claims to be Christianity can be presented, the better.
ADDENDUM: This site - which is definiately not sponsored by the LDS- might help, too- in comparing contemporary Mormon answers to questions about what the LDS teach with those given by previous LDS generations.
Comments
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact no part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and it confesses a religion utterly incompatible with the New Testament.
Because with the exception of his revival of the Arian heresy (modified in a way that would have made Arius himself blush), the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism were never held in the Church before Joseph Smith invented them.
And Coach... you really ought to read the substance of the post before you criticize it. It was an effort to direct people to objective sources about what it is that Mormonism teaches. Do you oppose that?
I'e mentioned before the self-defeating strategy of whining when Mormon doctrines- as little a place as they have in the presidential campaign- are accurately described, and claiming that the LDS is being picked on- thus seeking voter sympathy.
When that happens, the content of the Mormon religion becomes an issue- because you guys have made it one.
I did read your post, and I commend you for including a link to the mormon.org site. I didn't think Christians were allowed to do that. Something about the grip of the devil reaching through the internet and sucking your soul right out. [Memo to Bob: kidding.]
The Bible says that the Gods counseled together at the time of the creation of the earth. We don't believe in the trinity as put forth in the creeds because it is a false idea. It doesn't pass muster according to your standard either because it is strictly extra-biblical.
אלהים(Elohim) is indeed a Hebrew plural- but one which quite frequently functions grammatically as a singular, including its usage in Genesis 1. Interestingly, Christian apologists have often cited this paradox as the very first of very many biblical references to the Holy Trinity. More on that point in a moment.
As evidence for polytheism- a concept historically wholly foreign to both biblical Judaism and biblical Christianity, and first encountered among those claiming to be Christian in Joseph Smith nearly two millenia after the fact-the use of a plural form for a word that often (as in Gen. 1) functions grammatically as a singular, and which has been understood as a singular right up until Smith came along, is about as weak as arguments get. It is, however, a very powerful argument in favor of the Trinity- the only model of the Godhead in which God is both plural and singular simultaneously.
Now, the heretic Arius (along with several other, lesser figures in the early Church) did argue that Jesus was a kind of demigod, of similar but not identical substance with the Father. This is, as Mormons correctly obseve, essentially a form of polytheism, and one quite congenial to the Mormon concept of the godhead. The trouble is that the argument was made on philsophical grounds; it cannot be sustained biblically. Neither Testament leaves room for more than one God. Though Mormons try to argue that some sort of a political power play was at work at Nicea, the ultimate downfall of the Arians and their allies was their utter inability to make a coherent biblical case: 1)that there is more than one God; and 2)that Jesus is a being ontologically seperate from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Deut.6:4 clearly proclaims, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (or "is Lord alone"
I Cor. 8:4 admonishes, "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one."
In Galatians 3:30, Paul observes, "Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one."
In 1 Tim. 2:5, he writes, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus."
There is, in the view of both Testaments, but one God.
Now. The Trinity. It is true that the word never appears in the New Testament. That, of course ,is irrelevant; it is not the word that is at issue, but the concept. And the concept is foundational to all genuine New Testament theology.
This site does a good job of making that case To quote:
The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.
4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).
5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see: Luke 22:42; John 5:36; John 20:21; 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.
6) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.
The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.
The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That three loci of personality or consciousness are at work in the works of God, we agree- and no biblical case can be made to the contrary. But as we have seen, the notion of a plurality of gods is not only alien to both Testaments, but anathema to both.
The doctrine of the Trinity is- demonstrably and unmistakeably- the doctrine of the Godhead taught by Scripture. No coherent biblical case to the contrary has ever been adduced, and the case for the Arian/Mormon model is, in the last analysis, purely philsophical. It cannot stand against the clear teaching of Scripture both that there is one and only one God, and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operate within the economy of that one God.
If you want to try to be the first to make such a case, Joseph, go head. But make it on the basis of the Old and New Testaments, not on the basis of Mormon doctuments which came into existence nearly two millenia later.
One thing is clear: the Mormon doctrine is wholly absent from the New Testament, whereas the Nicene doctrine is what is clearly and consistently taught.
It not only passes muster when compared with the teaching of the New Testament. It is the teaching of the New Testament!
The faith/works argument is rather tired. Without Christ there would be no salvation. Period. We've always believed that. James says faith without works is dead. We just don't believe dead faith brings salvation. Do you?
Not only is the question of whether we are saved by faith or works not "tired" issue, but it's the ultimate one. Paul puts it this way: "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4).
It isn't just that the Mormon teaching as to how one becomes right with God is contrary to the entire content of Romans and Galatians. By Paul's explicit words, cited above, he who follows the Mormon approach to being accepted by God is instead damned and lost.
No, Joseph. We don't believe that dead faith brings salvation. Instead, we believe in the biblical model, taught by Jesus and Paul: that we are saved by a faith which inevitably and spontaneously produces good works. A "faith" which does not produce them is not, in the Pauline and biblical sense, faith at all.
But we are saved by that faith, and not by the works. As Paul points out, to seek to be accepted by God on the basis of works is to be rejected by Him.
Theosis is indeed an interesting concept. Unlike the rest of Mormon teaching, it does have the support of isolated passages of the New Testament. It is a theme in the (monotheistic and Trinitarian)Greek Orthodox tradition. It even has a certain affinity to Luther's doctrine onthe personal union of Christ with the believer through- wait for it- faith.
But this is a very undeveloped theme in Scripture, and one which biblically must be understood as a sharing in the inner life of the one and only God, not as setting out to become a seperate deity in our own right.
Jesus is talking in Matthew 7, not about believers, but precisely about false prophets. And he begins precisely with a warning about how not all gates get you into heaven:
"13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them"
You couldn't have picked a worse verse to make your point, my friend.People who teach that there is more than one god; who deny the plan of salvation offered by Jesus, and substitute one his apostle explicitly says will lead, if believed, to condemnation; who misrepresent Jesus and his most basic teachings and produce counterfeitversion of him unknown for the first 1800 years of the Christian era have failed the fruits test, my friend, no matter that they come in sheep's clothing.
A person cannot be a polytheist who teaches salvation by works and falsifies both the person and the message of Christ cannot be a Christian any more than a tree that grows crabapples can be an apple tree.
And your question about how much anti-Christian LDS material is out there is pretty disingenous. By definition, every defense of Mormon doctrine is an attack of Christian doctrine in precisely the same sense that I have attacked it.
Whining about being picked in this regard is hypocritical, Jarebear.