This rather lengthy article on the comments of Southern Baptist leader Richard Land had some things that were interesting to me.
Among them:
Asked why Evangelicals believe Mormons — whose church is officially called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — are not Christians and what that says about Jews, Land says most Evangelicals, as well as Catholics, consider Mormon beliefs to be beyond the parameters of apostolic Christianity.
“I would look upon Catholicism as an erroneous understanding of the Christian faith; that’s why I’m a Baptist, not a Catholic,” Land says. “I would look upon Mormonism as another faith in the same sense that I would look upon Islam as another faith. I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion — Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Muhammad plays in Islam.”
I love it when people who are not of a certain faith try to define what people in that faith believe. It usually comes out sounding strange to our ears.
Now, of course, this was Land’s “charitable” description of Latter-day Saint belief.
Evangelicals who are “less charitable” call Mormonism a cult, Land notes.
“A cult is a form of faith which does not comply with the essential teachings of the Christian faith but claims to be within the Christian faith or to be the true expression of the Christian faith, as opposed to being another religion like Judaism,” Land says.
If I were Richard Land’s media adviser, I would tell him to describe the Latter-day Saint faith more like this instead:
Mormonism claims to be the restoration of the true Christianity that was practiced in the first century AD when the Savior walked the Earth. Mormonism thus say they are true Christians. They also share some of the evangelical beliefs that Jesus’ birth was predicted in the Old Testament. They say that prophets before Jesus’ birth preached about Christ, something that most evangelicals can agree with. Mormons claim that they are led by a modern-day prophet who is also preaching about Christ.
Personally, I do not believe this to be true, but this is what Mormons claim. Some evangelicals will describe them as a cult, others as a completely different religion — I don’t know which is true. All I can say is what they say they believe.”
Wouldn’t it be nice to see a “charitable” description along these lines?
I should point out that overall Land’s comments on Romney and Mormonism were more favorable than some. I like his take that liberals oppose Mormonism because they see us as “people of faith on steroids.” Based on my experience, and many articles on the internet discussing Romney, I believe that to be true.
At the end of the day, I agree with Land’s take that more liberals will oppose Romney than far-right evangelicals. Yes, I know about Bill Keller and his crazy antics. But Keller is the only evangelical leader with any following who has said such a thing — most evangelicals are in Land’s camp and respect Romney as an ally on governmental policy. Meanwhile, there is a long list of liberals who have expressed distaste for Romney simply because of his religion. (Damon Linker of NR and Jacob Weisberg of Slate are the two best-known).
Of course, the big reason liberals will oppose Romney is that they disagree with his policies, but for some of them anti-Mormon bigotry will be a factor, just as it will for far-right evangelicals.
…the big reason liberals will oppose Romney is that they disagree with his policies…
This is a more than sufficient reason that I’ll continue to support Hillary’s campaign and oppose Romney’s (and most of the other likely Republican candidates’), as I explained to Romney’s campaign manager for my state in the hallway between sacrament meeting and Sunday school yesterday.
Greenfrog, more power to you. I disagree with you on this issue, but I always appreciate your thoughtful comments here.
What do you think of Richard Land’s description of our Church?
Well Geoff, I agree that a public figure is better served to use tact and discretion in his remarks. He probably would have done well to say something more along the lines of your suggested remarks – although I would not expect him to say he “doesn’t know” which is true, if he does in fact have a pretty firm belief in one or the other.
But I’m not a “public figure,” I’m just a blogger, so I’ll say what I think.
I think he’s essentially correct. Mormonism is the “fourth Abrahamic religion.” We also happen to be the only officially authorized one of the four. But we are not a part of the historical Christian tradition. We’re about as different from mainline Christianity as the original Christianity was from Judaism.
What I do take issue with, is his claim that we aren’t a part of the “apostolic Christianity.”
Nope. We’re the true apostolic Christians and he is not.
Look, Mormonism came here to pick a fight with the world and all its precepts, not to simply “blend in with the natives.” We are not a part of their traditions. In fact, sometimes I think we have more in common with the Jews than with the Protestants.
I do think it’s a little high-handed that some have mis-appropriated the word “Christianity” in such a way that excludes some who believe in Christ. But whatever Land’s faith may be, I don’t think we’re members of it.
Geoff, I think Land’s description is highly interesting.
Isn’t there an LDS book written in the 80’s that explores the connections between the Mormon and Muslim religions?
This is going to bug me. I will be back with the title.
What do I think of his description?
I’m (of course) conflicted.
From an external perspective (which, presumably, both Land and his audience share), it’s an incredibly generous and respectful perspective — he’s assigning Mormonism a kind of parity with the greatest of the world’s monotheistic traditions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s a pretty respectable group to be in. And while that group assignment places us outside Christianity, it doesn’t seem to me to be really a disparaging assignment.
From an internal perspective, of course, it shows that he doesn’t consider us to be within the domain of Christianity. On the one (internal) hand, given the current manifestation of the Church, that seems just silly. Jesus is hardly an infrequent topic these days. On the other (internal) hand, I think I tend to agree with Catholics and Protestants that what they think of when they refer to the post-mortal “Jesus” is pretty significantly different than what I (when I wear my LDS hat, at least) think of when I refer to a post-mortal Jesus. That Trinity thing is pretty substantially different than our Triumvirate. It’s not beyond the realm of the sensible to view that difference as being as significant as the difference between the Old Testament Yahveh and the New Testament Jesus. But, in the end, I still think of myself as profoundly Christ-oriented, from my reverence for the texts of the New Testament gospels.
Given that personal orientation, I’m not sure how I can not be a Christian, though I allow that perhaps Catholics and Protestants may be the ones to answer that question more than I.
(cross-post with SethR)
I met Richard Land a month ago, and spent about an hour with him. He was in every sense a gentleman. The man has a PhD in theology from Oxford, so it’s not as though he’s uninformed about the issues. He told me he does not believe Mormonism is a cult, and that he would support Romney for the Republican nomination over Guiliani.
Personally, I don’t see how that first quotation is offensive at all. It merely shows that he’s read Jan Shipps (whose ideas about Mormonism I’ve heard a lot of Mormons embrace with pride).
Frankly, I like Land’s characterization (whether or not our leaders would agree with it or whether or not it’s factual is another matter).
A good friend of mine often says that it’s probably better for the Church in many circles NOT to be lumped in with the rest of Christendom.
You folks are making some excellent points.
Question to consider: would we rather be described as a “new world religion” or “another Christian religion?”
Of course, I’d prefer us to be described as the “True Christian religion,” but that’s not going to happen in the popular press.
I’d rather be a new world religion, rather than being new wine put into old Christian bottles.
I prefer the new world religion label. I think it gives us more control over our destiny. Traditional Christianity has waaay to much baggage associated with it.
I also think our current debate with American Evangelicals (really, that’s the only significant group for whom this question is even an issue) over the Christian label is distracting our attention. We’re so wrapped up in this little purely American squabble (and it is really only an issue in the USA), that we’ve lost sight of the fact that we must convert the entire world. If we have to run over the Christian Right in the process, so be it.
We also have to get our heads around the fact that we are a “world religion,” not an American religion.
This whole Christian question is so laughably self-consciously American.
Time for us all to grow up. Let the Southern Baptists screech all they want. They’re pretty much irrelevant. Already an anachronism destined for the dustbin of history. They just don’t know it yet.
It sometimes feels like we’ve been suckered into an ill-advised contest to see who can shout “Jesus” the loudest.
Mormonism is Christianity it just isn’t Constantinism or Niceanism.
Some accuse the Church of not being followers of Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . This post helps to clarify such misconceptions
· Baptism: .
Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them
· The Trinity: .
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creedâ€s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. . The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”
Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. . Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.
· The Deity of Jesus Christ
Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sinâ€, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html
· The Cross: .
The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming.
· Christ’s Atonement: .
But Mormons donâ€t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christianâ€. . They believe Christ’s atonement in Gethsemane and on the Cross applies to all mankind. . The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christâ€: . All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and should address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.
Itâ€s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology , they are likely more “Christian†than those who adhere to the Emperor Constantine’s Nicene Creed.
Ironically, Niceanism was a government sponsored religion and had as much or more to do with politics than it did with theology. I find it ironic that conservatives are stick on Niceanism.
I hope you will pardon a cross-post from Nauvoo Forum. The context was a discussion of a debate between Orson Scott Card and a Dr. Mohler who took the position that Mormons are clearly not Christians.
—–
I think the real burr in everyone’s saddle is the potential for equivocation that is present in Mohler’s position.
The word “Christian” can mean many things. To Mormons, and a good many other people, it means a person professing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But there is also Mohler’s sense, of a believer in creedal Christianity. I find this definition awfully cramped. But if that was all there was to it, our best response to it would be to say “By your rather cramped definition, no, we aren’t Christians” and just move on.
The rub is that there is yet another definition of the word “Christian,” which is a person who believes and practices basic Judeo-Christian morals. Here is where the equivocation comes in:
“You’re not a Christian.” (creedal Christian)
“Not by your definition, no.” (still creedal Christian)
“I expect you must be very wicked.” (ethical Christian)
Mohler is careful not to make this equivocation himself, at least in this piece. But the basic strategy of the anti-Mormon movement is to make this equivocation, and brand Mormons with all the ugly connotations that come with being branded “un-Christian.” You may be aware that the ugliest anti-Mormon propaganda starts by showing we are not creedal Christians, and ends with anecdotes and distorted statistics to “prove” that we are as evil as you would expect un-Christian people to be.
Perhaps I should not rush to judge the motivations of another. But when someone adopts as cramped a definition for “Christian” as Mohler does, in order to put us outside it, I have a hard time believing that he is not deliberately encouraging the equivocation.
————————————————
Slightly tangential, but Friday I ran across a blog posting discussing Romney’s sick dog story, in which the writer of the article suggested that it is characteristic of Mormons to be cruel psychopaths. Most of the commenters agreed. I refuse to link the posting or to quote the incredibly vile comments. Take my word for it that the level of hatred would take your breath away.
Since Romney became a presidential candidate, I’ve seen more of this than I would have believed possible, even as a former missionary in the South. I went home Friday with my illusion of security thoroughly shattered. We all talk about the possibility of persecution, but I’d wager none of us really believed that we’d be subject to serious persecution, involving really substantial denial of our basic rights, any time soon. I think we tend to believe that a few deranged ministers and their followers may say nasty things about our beliefs or make ugly aspersions on our character, but these are easily debunked and pose no serious threat. Our fellow citizens are basically people of good will and simply need a tad of educating.
I no longer believe any of this. I no longer believe I can count on enough of my fellow citizens to protect my civil rights as a Mormon. And it frightens me badly.
Is anyone else having this experience?
Kent, I’ve not had such an experience. I will post some of my more encouraging thoughts later this week.