Posted on 05/02/2007 7:09:53 AM PDT by presidio9
Am I an anti-Mormon bigot for simply raising this question?
In this column two weeks ago (available here), I stated I would vote for Mitt Romney should he win the Republican nomination, and that “though I am willing to unite with and befriend Mormons in common cause to advance our shared values, I am hoping to be a voice of clarity – unwilling to allow Mormonism to be mistaken for orthodox Christianity and unwilling again to disqualify a candidate simply because he is from a faith tradition so different from my own.”
I also stated, “many Mormons in recent years have taken to calling themselves Christians, and a growing number of Christians are willing to speak of Mormonism as something akin to another Christian denomination. But, Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, nor is it merely ‘a non-Christian religion.’ To be theologically precise, though perhaps politically incorrect, Mormonism is a cult of Christianity.”
The Romney candidacy is both good news and bad news for Mormonism. It is the greatest opportunity in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to win converts because hundreds of millions of people from all over the world will be exposed to the teachings of Mormonism for the very first time.
However, that’s also the bad news.
I say this with no animus towards Mormons. I am neither “anti-Mormon” nor a bigot. But, words mean things. And we are in danger of losing a perfectly good word to the forces of political correctness.
“Cult” is in danger of becoming the new theological “n-word.”
If you winced when you read the title of this column, you’re already feeling the pressure.
Most Christians and many Mormons do not know Mormon theology, if the emails and responses from my last column are any indication.
“A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.” – Alan Gomes, Ed., Unmasking the Cults (Zondervan, 1995).
If Mormonism can no longer be called a cult of Christianity, then neither can the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Pentecostal Church, or the Unification Church (to name but a few). If this is to be the case, then books will have to be retitled, libraries and bookstores will have to relabel their shelves, and colleges will have to rename their courses. And, perhaps my seminary degree will be declared illegitimate since I had a course in “Cults” at Talbot School of Theology under Professor Gomes (homepage), whose Unmasking the Cults series linked above is simply the best thing on cults in print. The pertinent volume on Mormonism is written by Kurt Van Gorden and is available here, or from his website here.
So, though I am willing to unite with Mormons in common cause to advance our shared values, I am unwilling to allow Mormonism to be mistaken for Christianity.
Mormonism has almost nothing in common with Christianity. Mormonism is polytheistic, it denies original sin, it teaches that both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have physical bodies, that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, that Jesus was a polygamist, that Jesus traveled to the Americas during His three days in the tomb, and that every Mormon male will one day become a God ruling over his own planet, accompanied by multiple wives, just as the God of this Earth, named Elohim – who was once a man – has done here.
Each of these claims are rooted in primary source documents of the Mormon church (see my Cults Study Guide .pdf available free here.) Another good link to start an examination of Mormon theology is here.
However, you will not find this information located on the “Basic Beliefs” page of the official L.D.S. website (here). It is the “meat” you will learn once you’re able to digest the “milk” of basic Mormon theology. There is a lot of Christian terminology on the official website, but upon examination, you come to understand that though the terms are familiar, the meanings of those terms are foreign and heretical.
For now, in the spirit of clarity and to honor brevity, a simple overview of the birth of Mormonism must suffice.
In 1820, a 14 year old farm boy named Joseph Smith went to the woods to pray about the religious turmoil going on around his hometown of Palmyra, New York. Revivals had broken out, and young Joseph didn’t know which of the denominations to join. So, he prayed for guidance. God the Father and Jesus appeared to him in bodily form, and he was told, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History, 1:19).
Joseph claims he was told all Christianity was heretical, and that he would be correcting eighteen centuries of error.
The Mormon message is clear: historic Christianity false, Joseph Smith’s visions true.
Three years later, on September 21, 1823, in another vision, the angel Moroni appeared and told him of an ancient book written on golden plates buried nearby in Hill Cumorah. He was shown the location, but was prohibited from taking the plates. Moroni told him the plates recorded the history of an ancient American civilization written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics – an utterly unique language for which there is no evidence – and that he was to translate them with the aid of two magical seer stones called the Urim and Thummim. Moroni had been given the plates by his father Mormon, and Moroni had buried them prior to his death in the final great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites that took place near Cumorah in 385AD. After 1,400 years, Moroni – now an angel – had returned to direct Joseph Smith to the plates.
In 1827, Smith was finally allowed to take the plates just long enough to finish the translation before they were to be returned to Moroni. In May 1829, while Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in a forest near Bainbridge, Pennsylvania, John the Baptist appeared and conferred the Aaronic priesthood to them. Later, Peter, James, and John appeared and conferred upon them the Melchizedekian priesthood. The translation was completed in three years, and the Book of Mormon was published in March, 1830. On April 6, 1830, Smith and five others formed The Church of Christ in Fayette, New York. After two name changes over the next four years, they settled on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormonism is not Christian, from its birth it has been anti-Christian.
The first Christians believed they had met the promised Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. It is both correct and proper to say Christianity is the completion of Judaism.
However, Joseph Smith considered both Judaism and Christianity not incomplete but false, choosing instead to write his own versions of the Old and New Testaments while also adding additional holy texts. Had he not claimed to be the “corrected” version of Christianity, Mormonism would be a false religion. Yet, by claiming to be the “true” Christianity, he created the archetypical “cult of Christianity.”
For me, this is what makes the Romney candidacy so fascinating: a political conservative who belongs to a cult of Christianity.
It will be interesting to see whether Romney can persuade enough conservative Christians to vote for him, in spite of his Mormonism. Not since Kennedy have such questions been raised.
With regard to this writer’s vote, however, Romney’s got it – if he can win the Republican nomination.
How many times did Isreal sin against God by believeing they needed earthly alliances for deliverance from their own enemies? Dont make that mistake..
“Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.”
The ‘gods’ of the planets around those other stars might be upset about that..
By saying that God is only God of our world you are limiting him and saying someday you will be his co-equal...
Hmm. Good point. However, you are talking about a theocracy that had a covenantal relationship with God. The US is neither a theocracy, nor does it have such a relationship with God as did Israel. Neither does the GOP. The GOP is a political party, not a denomination or religious assembly.
If we were to take your contention to its logical conclusion, the GOP should be a religiously pure party. And it should purge all leaders who do not adhere to a particular religious belief. I don't think that you want that. I certainly do not.
I am not saying run out and stone Mormon, I am not even saying to abstaining for voting for one what I am saying is
1) They are clearly not Christians
2) Their numbers be they 6 million or 6 billion will not be what saves us from isloamofacist, God will do it will 1 man if needed..
My position had nothing to do with the secular world it had to do with what you are placing your faith and hope in. Mormons or for that matter the US will not be what saves the Body from isloamo-facisim it will be God himself.
You misquote me. I did not say that God is "only God of our world".
We believe what the Bible teaches:
1 Corinthians 8I believe He is also God of other worlds. It's a subtle but important distinction from what you said.4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(Emphasis added)
As far as becoming equal with God, I understand that doctrine makes many people uncomfortable. To me, it in no way diminishes the supreme position of the Father.
Does it make me something less if my children are able to become like me? No. Especially when it's largely because of my help that they progress and grow! In fact, I hope and pray that my children become at least as good as me.
I don't expect them to think less of me as a father when they do. I certainly don't think less of my father, now that I'm a father myself. He hasn't stopped being my father. My regard for and respect for my father hasn't decreased in the slightest; quite the opposite, actually.
Similarly, the Father wants each of His children to grow and progress. It's no threat to His dominion, power and perfection that this may occur.
The Savior even directed us to be "perfect, even as my Father which is in heaven is perfect." Was he mocking us with that directive? If such perfection is impossible, why would he command us that we should achieve it?
Our Heavenly Father not only isn't threatened by the idea of His children becoming like Him, it's exactly what He's working to accomplish!
Moses 139 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Well if a religion would have Harry “the body” Reid as a member, maybe they are a little strange.
On the other hand, I’d gladly vote for Mitt.
OK, what exactly is your definitional negative? Is it like describing a hole by what isn't in it?
>>1) They are clearly not Christians<<
Do they not worship the one God of Abraham, acknowledge Jesus as the messiah and ask forgiveness in his name?
That makes them Christians.
“If we were to take your contention to its logical conclusion, the GOP should be a religiously pure party. And it should purge all leaders who do not adhere to a particular religious belief. I don’t think that you want that. I certainly do not.”
The word Idols is “eidolon”
in the greek has three meanings
1) an image, likeness
a) i.e. whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary
b) used of the shades of the departed, apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.
2) the image of an heathen god
3) a false god
None of which is a God, I am interested in what translation you are using.
1Cr 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Your translation is leaving out the original greek ‘lego’ (to call, speak, name, mention ...) and just making them Gods, that is clearly not what the Epistle is saying,
So when you omit the right words in teh Bible and make up your own book to further justify it, yes you can make anythying you want..
James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
KJV
What exactly does that scripture mean? I can interpret it about a half a dozen different ways :)
Correction (dang Clipboard)
1Cr 8:4
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.”
>>James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
KJV
What exactly does that scripture mean? I can interpret it about a half a dozen different ways :)<<
I think it means believing that God is real is not enough for salvation. Worship, and asking forgiveness in the name of the Son are also required.
As one matures as a Christian one also comes to understand that good works are needed to live a good Christian life.
No because they think he was at one time a Man like themselves, and that his scope of power is limited because other worlds have other Gods. This is *clearly* not the God of Abraham.
They also believe Jesus and Satan were Brothers and that they themselves will someday be God
They have also arbitrarily added to the Canon
They are fine people and I could vote for one who has a history of agreeing with me on political issues but they are not Christians!
If you want to shut her up:
1. Ask her where does the bible tell her that she has the right, or capability, to judge whether or not someone is a Christian.
>> No because they think he was at one time a Man like themselves, and that his scope of power is limited because other worlds have other Gods. This is *clearly* not the God of Abraham.
They also believe Jesus and Satan were Brothers and that they themselves will someday be God
They have also arbitrarily added to the Canon <<
Lets assume you are correct.
Can you show me where Jesus said that agreeing to a certain Cannon or agreeing about where Jesus was before he came to earth is required to be saved?
As one matures they understand good works are the *fruit* of a good Christian life not the basis of it. One also understands that works are not, in and of themselves, proof of a Christian life.
>>As one matures they understand good works are the *fruit* of a good Christian life not the basis of it. One also understands that works are not, in and of themselves, proof of a Christian life.<<
Thank you. That’s a much better way to phrase that.
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
From the context it becomes clear that the verse you cited was part of an explanation on works and faith, and how faith that there is one God is a thing that will not in and of itself save.
This is a common misunderstanding of the LDS faith. Unlike most other churches, we don't create our doctrine solely by interpretation of the Bible. Numerous differing interpretations of the Bible have, over the centuries, resulted in various Christian denominations, all of whom disagree with one another over what parts of the Bible mean. In other words, that's what got us into this mess in the first place.
In fact, you pointed out yourself that there may be a translation error in the KJV (which is the version I quoted). There are many different translations of the Bible. Which one is correct?
It was precisely this environment of disagreement and conflict over the meaning of Bible scriptures that led Joseph Smith to pray for guidance in his day. That prayer was answered by the miraculous visitation of God, the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.
The LDS Church is led by prophets and apostles. Those prophets and apostles are inspired by Heaven to lead the Church, and sometimes to receive new revelation and scripture. Our understanding and doctrine doesn't come just from an interpretation of the Bible, but from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants and the teaching of living prophets as well.
We like to point out that our doctrines are usually present in the Bible, but they don't rely only upon the Bible for their truth.
Moses didn't quote from the Bible for authority, but was the mouthpiece of God in giving scripture to the world. We believe that Joseph Smith and the other prophets since him have the same authority as did Moses, both to reveal scripture and to interpret existing scripture in our day, although not every single thing they might say carries the weight of canonical scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.