Let me say at the outset, I don't vote based on theology and I'd be surprised if many people do. At the same time, if Mitt Romney becomes the Republican candidate in 2012, there will be a huge media storm about the LDS church and my opinion is that Mormon candidates for office would be better served by being upfront about the differences rather than pretending they don't exist.
For a lot of people, this is a ridiculous debate: “Of course Mormons are Christians! They believe in Jesus!”
But for people who pay attention to theology it’s not about the word “Jesus” or even believing that a person lived and died and rose again about 2,000 years ago – it’s about who you think that person was and what you think he did. So the meaning of the word is the critical part, not the word itself.
Traditional Christianity has embraced and taught from the beginning that God is a Triune Being: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and the Three together comprise God. This is one of the places that Christianity separates from its Jewish roots: Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” and understands it to mean the Triune God but Jews focus on “one” and say, “No, God can’t be a Trinity.” Obviously, as a Christian, I believe the two can be reconciled – but that discussion isn’t the topic of this post.
The LDS don’t believe in the Trinity; they don’t believe in eternal unchanging God; the Mormons believe that God was once a man and that a perfectly realized Mormon man has the potential to become god in his own future creation. This is radically different from either the Christian or Jewish view of God’s eternal and unchanging nature, “Who Was and Is and Is To Come.”
Normative (“orthodox” with a little “o”) Christianity believes that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, that He has been God and with God from eternity past to eternity future, always and forever. John says it beautifully in the first chapter of his gospel:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4)
Obviously that is not the Jewish view of Jesus or God and, fair enough, they’re not Christians, of course they don’t believe what Christianity teaches. But it’s not the Mormon view, either. According to LDS theology, Jesus and Lucifer are both spirit sons of God the father (who was once a man), and each came up with a plan to reconcile fallen humanity with God, and God preferred the plan of his son Jesus over the plan of his son Lucifer, who took offense.
Now I don’t know much about what Mormons believe happened to Lucifer, after God rejected his plan, and it’s not relevant to my point. The fact that Mormon theology believes Jesus and Lucifer are equal beings prior to the incarnation makes the Mormon Jesus very, very different from the normative Christian Jesus. The fact that the Mormon Jesus wasn’t with God from the beginning makes him very, very different from the normative Christian Jesus.
Details regarding the conception of Jesus, the scope of the forgiveness Jesus achieved on the cross, and the Person of the Holy Spirit all show a significant difference between Mormon beliefs and orthodox Christian beliefs.
Simply using the name “Jesus” while pointing to the historical figure and saying, “we believe in THAT guy,” doesn’t mean we believe the same things about “that guy.” Christianity believes that Jesus is Creator and Lucifer is part of the created order; they have never been equal or equivalent beings. In and of itself, the different understandings of God and Jesus, who they are, their history and their relationship, are sufficient to mark a vast gulf between the two religions.
My analogy is that the Mormon faith is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. Christians embrace the Hebrew scriptures (although, to be fair, many Christians are greatly ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures and some suffer confusion about the very nature of the “old testament God” – but those are personal limitations and not reflected by normative Christian theology) and then add the new testament, the gospels and epistles. Likewise the Mormons embrace the Christian bible (old and new testament) and add another gospel and additional books that form specific Mormon theology. I am told by Mormon friends that they are discouraged from reading the Bible, that it is considered inferior to the LDS scriptures. Joseph Smith was told by his angelic source that none of the churches were rightly following Jesus and he needed to form a new one. So he did.
I think the LDS and Mitt Romney in particular would be better served to acknowledge that they are Mormon and, while the religion has similarities with normative Christianity, it is significantly different. In my opinion Christians shouldn’t try to pass themselves off as Jews and Mormons shouldn’t try to pass themselves off as Christians, at least not as unqualified Christians – it looks deceptive to people who know something about the two theologies.
It’s a truth-in-advertising, accuracy-in-labeling question. And inadvertent misrepresentation could explode the candidacy of a Mormon.
Now, does any of this theology have any bearing on the suitability of Mitt Romney to be President? No, of course not. We're not voting for "Theologian in Chief," we're voting for "Commander in Chief." Would Romney's LDS beliefs have any bearing on his ability to do a good job as President? No (and, arguably, they could have a positive bearing: Mormon males are under a lot of pressure to live excellent and exemplary lives; there is no "cheap grace" in LDS theology). Would religious holidays in the White House take on a different flavor? Sure.
So what? This is the United States of America and we very purposefully chose not to establish a state religion. One of the consequences of that (wise) decision is that we've had Presidents from a variety of Christian traditions. And, in the larger sense, being Mormon certainly grows up out of the Christian tradition even while it is not traditional Christianity.
Are there religions which would prevent me from voting for a candidate? Yes, if the religion embraced a different set of values. I don't know that I could vote for a Muslim because the religion is inherently political; Islam doesn't see a separation between mosque and state. I wouldn't vote for a satanist. Would I vote for an atheist? If their values were solid and I believed they were the best person for the job, yes. If Mitt Romney is the conservative nominee most likely to win the general election, he should be the candidate.
I came across this post quite by accident, but as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I would like to respond to what you have said. First, I appreciate the understanding that one need not share the same theology to share and support common values. This is a foundational custom in our history. Secondly, I appreciate your candor in this discussion. Though we disagree on some matters large and small, I appreciate an open and respectful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteAs a point of information, I feel it is important to address what I consider a misrepresentation of the LDS view of the Bible and I would like to suggest a correction on that matter. Contrary to what you state, there is ample evidence that the Bible is held in high regard and is foundational to the Mormon canon. It is always listed first among our books of scripture and its high status is upheld in the 8th article of faith which reads: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." There is no equivocation on the value of the Bible here. The word of God is precious wherever it is found and it should be treasured by truth-loving souls. The Bible is a sacred book of scripture and we regard it as holy. Many have felt that there is some prevarication in this phrasing, but I think it is reasonably common knowledge that the Bible has undergone a number of translations and care must be taken to preserve God’s word. This is what I understand the words “as far as it is translated correctly” to mean. How is this done? Well, that is the subject of another conversation (and I am happy to openly and respectfully discuss it), but that is not point that I am trying to make here. There is no indignity thrust upon the Bible in this terminology, because what matters is that the Bible contains (as it should) the word of God. As such, I am disappointed to hear that your Mormon friends feel that they are discouraged from reading the Bible and that they feel that it is held as inferior to other LDS scriptures. This is unfortunate. In my experience, this could not be further from the truth. Based on how you have discussed this, it doesn’t sound like you have examined the Book of Mormon in comparison to the Bible for yourself. If this is the case, I encourage you to consider doing so. In doing so with an open heart and in the spirit of Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians (1 Thes. 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”), I think you will find that they complement one another quite well. If you have taken the challenge to compare them, then I am interested in what you found.
On a related note, I am continually surprised when the subject of whether or not Mormons are Christians comes up. Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior, and yes, I understand that much of the rest of Christianity does not necessarily feel this is an adequate criteria by which to call one’s self a Christian. I believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose and so alike in character so as to be essentially indistinguishable from one another. But this does not mean that I believe them to be one and the same being. I understand that this is a sticky point for many Christians. It has been a sticky point for many of my Christian friends and will likely continue to be.
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous comment)
ReplyDeleteMy argument here is two-fold: first, what matters more – that God is a loving, omniscient, and omnipotent being whose first concern is the welfare of His children/people on earth? Or is it more important to God that we envision a triune being? I would argue that a loving God is more interested in having His children know how much He loves them and how much He wants to help them. This would be the essence of love – that even if we misrepresent, hate, defy, or forget Him as God of the universe, He still puts our concerns before His own. This is how Christ lived – always putting the needs of others before His own.
My second argument relative to whether or not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Christians is this: Why does it matter so much if Mormons are Christian or not? I am aware that there are some who consider this to be a hugely important question, but from where I stand, all it does is cause divisiveness and divisiveness is a tool of the devil. In the context of living a peaceful life in the way that Christ taught us to live, the issue of which theology is right or wrong – if any are right – is much less important than actually acting and being Christian about it. Now I am not saying that you are not Christian because of what you have said about my church and beliefs. What I am saying is that Christ was much more concerned with love, unity, and kindness than He was with being right. In the end, what really ends up happening is a playground gambit – we focus far too much on the differences we have than on the commonalities we share, when in fact our similarities are more in number and greater in magnitude than our differences by a significant factor. What I appreciate most about this blog post that you have written is that it is clear to me that we agree on this. We should build on common values and not argue about who is right or wrong. A respectful exchange is always appropriate, but the moment it becomes competitive is the moment that the strength of unity between people of common values is lost – regardless of theological persuasion.
In that spirit, I appreciate your willingness to consider a candidate who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have chosen to look at the candidates for myself and vote for the one who I feel is best suited to lead the nation – regardless of whether or not we have a common theological belief. I personally feel there are a number of good people who could do a good job as president. People of integrity who support and defend Judeo-Christian values, who seek to appropriately defend freedom, and who seek to protect and uphold the Constitution. And, like you, their religious beliefs are much less important to me than their efforts to live the Judeo-Christian values they claim to hold.
Hello Nathan! Thank you so much for engaging with me in a spirit of inquiry and kindness.
ReplyDeleteMy observations about Mormons and the Bible come from personal experience with Mormons (one who graduated from BYU and told me explicitly, "we were discouraged from reading the Bible," - I have no way of knowing whether that's common at BYU or not); I have a family member who comes from a very committed LDS family and she had no idea what concepts come from the Bible versus the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrines and Covenants, etc. - for her, they all blur together; so perhaps you can see why my own experience leads me to this opinion.
Let me *also* say, I have ZERO PROBLEM with God if I get to heaven and discover LDS are also in heaven! I have no need for my theology to be vindicated. My issue is that I cannot, in good conscience, say, "it doesn't matter what you believe, whether you're normative Christian or LDS or Jehovah's Witness, etc." I find enough clear detail about what "the gospel" actually is (as well as Paul's warning not to embrace "another gospel" per Galatians 1 -- "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" Gal. 1:6-9; I'm sure you've had that quoted to you before) that I do not feel safe giving comfort as to the state of one's salvation to anyone outside normative Christianity. You may well be saved; I genuinely pray you are. I know many wonderful, extraordinary Mormons and nothing makes me sadder than thinking *maybe they're not saved.*
But the fact that it makes me sad to consider the possibility shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not I consider the possibility. So, ultimately, as with all humans, I have to entrust your eternal existence to God and know that He loves you better than I ever could and will do everything possible to bring you to Him in the heavenlies.
But I hope you, in turn, can understand my qualms (quite like the qualms of the Jewish people who look at gentile Christians, eating pork, working Saturdays, etc., and wonder if we can actually be saved by that Jesus person), wondering if a belief in a God who was once human saves a human who believes that he will ultimately be God, too.
Blessings on you, Nathan, and upon our nation as we approach some critical elections over the next year.