Posted on 05/15/2008 8:02:36 PM PDT by hiho hiho
Mormons seeking recognition as a legitimate member of the Christian church is self-contradictory because the religion was founded by declaring it is the only existing true church, stated one of America’s pre-eminent evangelical leaders Friday.
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, focused in his second blog entry on how, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ own definition, it cannot be considered part of the orthodox Christian church.
“‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,’ as Mormonism is officially known, claims to be the only true church. As stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30], Mormonism is ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,’” Mohler wrote.
Mormons believe the church was corrupt after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.” And Mormons claim that it was not until the 19th century that the Prophet Joseph Smith restored the true church. This “true church” was given the keys to the Kingdom and the authority of the only true priesthood, according to Mormon theology.
“Why would Mormonism now want to be identified as a form of Christianity, when its central historical claim is that the churches commonly understood to be Christian are part of the Church of the Devil?” questioned Mohler.
The prominent Christian theologian has been engaged in an ongoing “blog dialogue” with well-known Mormon science fiction author Orson Scott Card since June 28. The two figures are debating whether Mormons can be considered Christians in a forum sponsored by the Web site Beliefnet.com.
Defending Mormonism is Card, who in his latest blog questioned Mohler’s authority to define who is Christian. More specifically, Card contended that the word “Christian” should include anyone that believes Jesus is the only way to salvation rather than in Mohler’s argument based on Christian orthodoxy.
In response, the Baptist seminary head said that Beliefnet had specifically assigned him to consider if Mormons were Christians based on traditional Christian orthodoxy. Mohler further added that if Christianity was defined in terms of sociology, the history of religions or other disciplines, then an expert from that field should take part in the debate rather than himself.
“The question could simply refer to common opinion – do people on the street believe that Mormonism is Christianity? But then the matter would be in better hands among the pollsters,” Mohler commented.
The evangelical theologian emphasized once again that according to how the question was framed theologically by Beliefnet, “the answer is clear and unassailable – Mormonism is not Christianity. When the question is framed this way, Mr. Card and I actually agree, as his essay makes clear.”
This is a little like Hillary criticizing Obama, but what the hey.
nuff said
Mohler is a stand up guy who is unashamed of the Truth and willing to engage folks with it - from SBC apologists for Armenians to Mormons.
It ain’t the same as Hillary and Obama, as Christians and Mormons are not in the same group.
I think he’s nailed it but the differences are far deeper than that.
Very glad my religion doesn't have to deal with this BS debate and that, for the most part, our own belief in the faith is strong enough that we don't get personally threatened if one of us decides to join the LDS or one of the snake-handling day care center/rec leagues.
Cause that's why these prots are so pissed at the LDSers.
Interesting insight...point well taken
According to Mormon Scriptures, one of the Apostles (John) supposedly never died. So if John the Apostle never died, then the "death of the apostles" never occured.
I have asked the question many times about how did the Church go into complete apostasy if John the Apostle was and is still tarrying on the earth?
On several Mormon Blogs I have discovered a theory that John the Apostle may have left the surface of the Earth and may have joined together with the 10 Lost tribes of Israel inside the HOLLOW EARTH*
Yeah that might explain it.
*Shameless plug for my Hollow Earth Thread.
Courtesy Hollow Earth Ping to Gamecock.
It is not a question of semantics, it is a question of ontology!
Of all of the major sects of Reformed Protestantism, the SBC alone can say they are the most arrogant and self righteous.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and now I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If the Southern Baptist church wants to label me a non Christian, I couldn’t care less. Jesus died for me, too, and that’s all that matters.
The LDS church is not static. It moves with the winds of the times. Polygamy was allowed until the government threatened to enforce the law. Then the church decided polygamy was wrong BUT it kept an official endorsement of the existing polygamists. Eventually, they told them to leave the country to practice the Principle. Then, they just threw them under the bus.
I’m reading some books on polygamy in the late 1800’s and God lives on the planet Kolob according to these people. Does He still live there or did He move?
I know Baptists, Church of Christ members, Presbyterian members, and many others who believe their own church's take on Scripture is the only one that is right. I can see they are all following Christ as best they know how, even if I believe something different from my own interpretation of the Bible.
That said, I do believe that the “extra” books of the Bible Mormon's claim are repugnant; however, those Mormons I know are great people.
err... scratch the noodle thing...
WWFSMD?
Part of my problem is that I used to be an athiest. When people talk to me about their faith, I ask them direct questions to see if they answer me clearly and truthfully. Even if I think they are wrong, I respect their beliefs. But I cannot accept people disguising their beliefs.
Honest dialogue is a real problem on this matter. That’s why we argue so much. If you are the only true church, then say so. It’s OK.
"People who know George Bush are by definition his acquaintances."
That sounds correct until someone who says they know George Bush say he is a nine-foot tall bald eskimo basketball player and card shark who became president.
Since there are clearly two George Bushes being talked about, the right one and the basketball player one, one of the groups must be wrong.
So saying it is just semantics doesn't wash. Many groups use the words "Jesus Christ" and say they follow Him, but the definitions of who He is are completely different.
Thus the phrase Jesus will say "Truly I never knew you" now take on lethal meaning. Getting it right is a big deal. The biggest. And honestly and sincerely thinking you're right when you are really wrong is going to cause a lot of people to go to hell. That's not a PC thing to say. But Jesus wasn't PC and He's the one who said it.
There are realistic reasons why it will not work. Mostly because women-men ratios are 50-50
Please give the date the Hollow Earth theory was canonized by the Mormon church.
Are you referring to Hollow Earth time or Flat Earth time?
Well said.
I personally believe there is some latitude in what would be acceptable to God on how Christians seek to follow Him. However, I do believe that if we know better, both from Scripture and from wisdom, we need to strive to do better.
I don’t put as much of my heart in to following Christ as I should. Visiting new churches in my area since I recently moved, hasn’t been the priority I know it should be.
May we all truly glorify God in our hearts and in our walks.
And also please cite these “several Mormon Blogs”
Paul said even if an angel came preaching a different Gospel than the one he first preached to reject them. End of story.
Earth time would be good...it would be a nail in the Mormon coffin.
The LDS teaching that the Mormon god was once a man, per BYU prof Stephen Robinson, is not "canonized" anywhere. So does that mean that Lorenzo Snow's "couplet" and Joseph Smith's King Follett funeral sermon "refutation" about how God wasn't god from all eternity and how "you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves are just "theories of mythology" tantamount to the LDS "hollow earth theory?"
OK, can you imagine Muslims accepting Mormons as fellow Muslims just because they both believe in submitting to God's will? Give me a break! The polytheism of Mormons would make the Muslims' heads spin!
The notion that we are gods, and/or "gods-in-embryos," and that we will be worshipped and prayed to and treated as omniscient, omnipotent beings running our own planets is quite offensive to Christians. And for so-called "Christians" to somehow think is tolerable under the broadest umbrella of "Christianity" is beyond the pale.
Armenians? Don’t you mean Arminians? Armenians are from Armenia.
Once upon a time, there were Three Nephites......
Really, what religion is that?
Ooops - yes, my boo-boo. I’ve got no beef with Armenians. Those danged Arminians are another matter :-) (As is my spell-checker)
I’ll give you a hint on visiting churches. Don’t look for the best church. Don’t look for the best fit. Look for the church that needs you the most. You are there to serve the church, not the other way around. Look for a friendly church.
We found several churches that were “perfect” but were already well-equipped. The Methodist church was very friendly but really needed some workers so we ended up there.
Do you know when the last scripture was added to the cannon of Mormonism?
I do. It was 1977, and the scriptures added were a treatise by Joseph Smith from the mid 1800’s, and an address by Joseph Fielding Smith from the early 1900’s. For a Church that is lead by a living Prophet, that is a long dry spell of inspiration from God, almost 100 years.
I think we can conclude that much, most, and almost all of what is expounded from the Tabernacle isn’t canonized. It doesn’t mean it nothing is taught and believed however, does it?
To COnservativeMind:
Since you brought up the Catholic Church I thought I would respond. I will state up front that I am Catholic and while I disagree with the Southern Baptist Convention on numerous doctrines, on the point of whether Mormons can be considered orthodox Christians, I have to agree with Rev. Mohler.
The Catholic Church believes (as does the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Historic Protestant Confessions, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, etc) that the Sacred Scriptures do teach the Holy Trinity. From the Catholic Churches view, the Sacred Scriptures “teach firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided in the Sacred Scriptures” (Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 107). However, Catholic hermeneutic principles include three main criteria of interpretation Sacred Scripture in accordance with the Holy Spirit who inspired it. 1) Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture, 2) Read the Scriptures within the living Tradition of the whole Church and 3) Be Attentive to the analogy of faith, i.e. the coherence of the truths among themselves in the whole plan of salvation.
Thus, reflecting on the Sacred Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition of the Church (i.e. expressed in the Liturgy of the Church, Consensus of the Early Church Fathers). The Church in the Four Great Early Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451) formally defined the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and developed its Christological formulations regarding Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.
So from the Catholic perspective, what makes one a Christian is Baptism in the Holy Trinity, which also requires a belief in the Divinity of Christ and his Passion, Death and Resurrection. The Sacrament of Baptism and the underlying Theology behind it is critical, from the Catholic Theological view, of who is a Christian.
As someone who works with RCIA (assisting those who are seeking to become Catholic) I can state the following 1) While Mormons may use the Trinitarian Formula to Baptize, the underlying Theology of Mormonism is not consistent with how the Catholic Church understands the Trinity (Eastern Orthodox and Traditional Confessional Protestants share the same belief about the Trinity). Therefore, Mormons who enter the Catholic Church are “Unconditionally Baptized”. 2) While the Protestant Traditions do not agree with the Catholic Churches Doctrine on some issues (and this is ok), among the Doctrines we do share is belief in the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Christ and therefore persons from the Traditional Protestant Confessions (Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodists, and Baptists) are “not rebaptized” .
So In summary, Mormons are not orthodox Christians as their understanding of Trinitarian and Christological Doctrines are in opposition to the Doctrines taught by the Early Councils of the Church and the Creeds of the early Church (Apostles and Nicene).
Pax Domine
Following your logic a little further would mean that all Christians are Jews.
Who are you calling Reformed? ; )
Worth repeating!
CTrent, though I agree with you theologically, I have to draw a distinction here. The Catholic Church has of course pronounced Mormon baptisms as invalid for obvious reasons.
However, I don’t think the Church has ever defined what groups can claim the name of “Christian”. Certainly there are groups who have been heterodox regarding the Trinity who are still even today called Christians—Arians for example. I think I’ve even seen Gnostics referred to as Christians—which I think would be an even bigger stretch than Mormons.
Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that if Mormons want to be called Christians they have every right to claim the name, despite the Trinitarian heterodoxy. That’s what they self-identify with, so that’s good enough for me. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s how I sees it.
Anyway, I’m sure Rev. Mohler himself would admit he is not infallible. So how does anyone know he is right as to who is or is not in the Church...as to who is or is not a heretic? He’s just one Christian reading the Bible who may or may not be correct on that score. :)
Ping
One more thing....if Mohler's argument is "Christian orthodoxy" plain and simple, then what's to stop Catholics from classifying him as heterodox and therefore nonChristian? Why can't Mormons be wrong about the Trinity, but he can be wrong about the Sacraments?
Best we all be careful about throwing these kinds of dogmatic pronouncements around.
The Mormon Temple Ceremony and ordinance of “endowment” is not canonized anywhere either.
We're Christians Just Like You
The inescapable conclusion: Dr. Mohler is exactly correct. Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or Moonies.
Bump for Tennessee Nana
There are very few people who understand they are to serve not be served.
Good points you made.
“The two figures are debating whether Mormons can be considered Christians”
If you call mormons Christian, then you might as well
call Hindus Christian, since they have 300 million gods
to stack up against mormonism’s +TRILLION potential gods.
If you call mormons Christian, then you might as well
call members of the New Age Movement (read Shirley McClain)
Christians, since each believes they either ARE a god or
will BECOME a god.
If you call mormons Christian, then you might as well
call Muslims Christians, since they each like parts of the
Bible, but reject others (read, “so far as it is translated
correctly and compare that with Muslims claim that the Church
corrupted the Bible).
If you call mormons Christian, then you might as well
call all cults Christian, since they all pervert who Christ
is, who God is, and what the true Gospel of Grace is.
OR, we can just label mormonism what it is... another world
religion that only has one thing in common with Christianity...
the name Jesus Christ.
And even there, when mormonism uses that name, they define
it in a non-Biblical way.
ampu
Arians would be considered, and I know this is a loaded term, “heretics”. Any Catholic Bishop and Theologian who starts preaching Arianism would be corrected by Rome, and if the Bishop or Theologian persists in preaching Heresy, could and would be censured.
As for the difference when dealing with Christological questions among Traditions, and Sacraments and CHurches with Theologies that Sacraments are visible signs of Grace which are the normative means through which God sanctifies humanity (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) vs. those Churches with a low Sacramental Theology (Anglican, Lutheran, perhaps some Reformed) vs. those Churches with no Sacramental Theology (Baptists, Pentecostals, etc), I think the Catholic’s Church is quite clear. Even for Protestant Traditions with little or no sacramental theology, the Sacrament of Baptism is still valid, assuming 1) Trinity is used, 2) Water is used, and 3) the Church the Protestant person is being baptized by has a orthdox view of Trinity and Christ.
In summary, the Liturgical practice of the Catholic Church does indeed say that those two issues are different. Let’s look at it another way, a Church having unorthodox views of the Trinity and Christ is from the Catholic CHurch and Pope’s perspective, a Confession that is further away from the Catholic Church in terms of Doctrine than a Church with orthodox views of the Trinity and Christ, but different theology regarding Sacraments. Protestants from Historic Confessions (Traditional Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, etc) would fall into the latter group whereas Mormons, Jehovas Witness, Oneness Pentocostals, etc would fall into the former.
Cheers and thanks for commenting on my post
That doesn't mean that you aren't WRONG in your interpretation.
Besides, your argument can be used to suggest that I am not a Christian, either.
If Jesus is going to come down here and start telling people who is and who isn't a Christian, then I could go along with that. But he isn't there.
No. Christian in this context is self-identifying. I don't think LDSers want to walk around calling themselves Jews as well.
But Judiasm is alittle trickier because being a Jew is more about self-ID. It's about being born to a Jewish woman or undergoing a severe conversion process. There isn't a formal organization that tells you whether you are a Jew or not but I don't know if there is a big controversy of people disputing who is a Jew or not.
Look - how about this. LDSers are NOT Southern Baptist Christians. Happy?
What you are confusing is that you don't get to catagories people as Christian or not, individuals decide if they are Christian or not.
Some may be very bad or very wrong in their interpretation of Christianity (like Ted Kennedy), but there is, to quote Al Gore, 'no controlling legal authority' over who gets to be a Christian. And the SBC certainly isn't it.
“If Muslim or a Hindu wants to call himself a Christian, that’s fine with me.”
You’ve pretty much said it all right there.
I suspect that the insecurity so many feel towards the LDS reflects the subconscious awareness that they really don't have much of a historical or intellectual leg to stand on, so they get into these petulant, childish arguments over semantics.
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.