The chosen defender of Mormonism in a much talked-about online debate avoided the challenges posed by one of the nation’s preeminent evangelicals Wednesday on why Mormons cannot be considered Christians. Instead, well-known science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card called for unity among believers of Jesus in his latest blog.
The former Mormon missionary spent an extensive amount of his essay detailing how he was seen as an outsider by some Mormons who considered a good Mormon to be a Republican and someone that holds a steady day job. Card, a democrat and writer, noted that these Mormons were from a town in Utah where 98 percent of the population was Mormons.
However, when he moved to the east coast where Mormons are the minority, fellow Mormons there embraced him and accepted his differences.
The long personal narrative was given as a micro-example of how one’s point of view can change depending on if people feel they are in the minority or majority.
Card contends that the major Christian denominations view Mormons as the odd minority group and thus thinks they can afford to reject it. However, when these Christian groups consider the secular world as its opponent then it is the minority and therefore all believers of Jesus Christ should band together to confront the opponent.
“Instead of ‘mainstream Christianity’ seeking opportunities to shun and exclude and deny the Christianity of Mormons, it might be more helpful for us to admit our irreconcilable differences but then recognize that in this world, today, right now, we can gain more for the cause of Christ by treating each other with respect and honoring each other for the degree to which we do live up to his teachings,” wrote Card in his second blog entry.
The Mormon author and Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, have been engaged in an ongoing “blog dialogue” since June 28. The debate is sponsored by the Web site Beliefnet.com and confronts the question whether Mormons can be considered Christians.
Though Card’s long essay does provide points why Mormons should be considered Christians, it avoids responding to Mohler’s second blog, in which the evangelical scholar asked why Mormons now want to be considered part of mainstream Christianity when at Mormonism’s founding it declared itself as the only true church and denounced all other churches as corrupt.
“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.
In addition, Mohler had explicitly stated in his second blog that Beliefnet had asked him to debate whether Mormons can be considered Christians based on Christian orthodoxy. In other words, the arguments as set by the sponsor site should revolve around Christian orthodoxy and theology.
Mohler noted 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 Baptist theologian’s clarification of the debate was in response to Card’s challenge in his first blog of “Who Gets to Define ‘Christian’?”
Still, as debate spectators noted, Card’s latest response was also not based on Christian orthodoxy or theology but rather on general logic.
“Did you intend to walk out of the original debate? Because...you did,” wrote a person identified as “Dal” in the blog’s comment section. “It's nice and all that you posted a very qualified…essay, but it really isn't that relating to the topic at hand. Please qualify the question 'Are Mormons Christian' instead of qualifying your intended agenda.”
In addition, the Mormon defender also wrote extensively on former Massachusetts governor and presidential contender Mitt Romney, praising him as a faithful family man and a devoted religious follower that even evangelical Christians could be proud of.
“What I find myself puzzled by, as an evangelical Christian, is Mr. Card's penchant for skirting the issue and speaking in generalities, of spending so much time on Mitt Romney, etc,” commented another spectator.
“That said, the issue is not, ‘is Mitt Romney a good guy’, or ‘are Mormons moral, ethical people,’ or anything like that; it's simply, what does the Bible teach, and how does the Mormon church stack up with its teachings?”
Card concluded by calling on Mohler to accept Mormons as Christians, despite their theological differences, based on their merits done in Jesus name.
“But just as the Catholic Church has accepted Mormon help in serving the poor in the name of Christ, and just as ordinary Republican Mormons have found it in their hearts to accept me, a Democrat, as if I might be a real Mormon all the same,” wrote Card.
“I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard: Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Comments
James and peace123,
Regarding your statements that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not officially taught until the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in AD 325 is true in this sense: the word Trinity was not an "official" term used until the decision of the Council. However, the doctrine of the Divine Triad was taught prior to the Council. I suggest you read JND Kelly, Early Christine Doctrine, probably most widely accepted as the best text on early Christian teachings.
The Nicene Council had NO compromise. Trinitarian doctrine was accepted after Athansios the Great, only 19 at the time, presented his On The Incarnation, which stated that, "God became man, so that man may become god." In other words, what Jesus is by nature( the Son of God), we become (sons of God) by Grace. Arius and his followers who denied the Incarnation, were banished, Arianism was condemned as a heresy. Arius was later brought back by another Emperor, but was again banished and his teachings once again were condemned as heresy. Arianism survived only a few centuries later.
The Bible and Smith' books. Not compatible.
this applys to most organized religions,if you have a glass of water say 98%pure and Only 2% poison shouldnt the 98% protect you,you either beleve the scriptures or you dont, Mormons ect. have basterdized the scriptures, in such a way as to make there own brand of salvation,through the inclusion and makeing = to the bible there aditional books and doctrines that are in opposition to scripture.take it back to the hebrew and greek use a concordance namely-a strongs exhaustive concordance,which unlocks the minds of the author of the bible
peace123-you are off topic,you refer to docrines of man,man made buildings called churchs,take the dispute back to the bible,Look up the meaning of who God is who Jesus is who the holy spirit is look these up in a strongs exhaustive concordance(hebrew and greek)now list every verse where each occure keeping in mind the subject being talked about,and what is the topic for each accurance,learn to read befor and after each verce to grasp the settings with these three in mind ask yourself or rather God and jesus to guide your research write down what you find, ultimately youll see the answer your needing,
Luther, while recognizing purgatory, indulgences, and the invocation of the saints, denied all effect of indulgences on purgatory. He had issues with the Catholic Church but his goal was to pressure reformations of the Church. Had the Church eliminated indulgences on purgatory during Luther's era would we still have lutheranism?
James
This belief directly contradicts the concept of the Trinity, which are three Gods without form or passion in one. The Trinity was not officially taught in the Christian church until 300 years after the Resurrection of The Savior. The idea of the 3 in 1 Trinity was the product of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Under the direction of Constantine, a council of theologians, scholars, and clergy were called together to organize the official doctrines and beliefs of the church. Confusion about official doctrine was rampant at the time. The council debated the nature of the Godhead until a compromise was reached. That compromise was the Nicene Creed, which established the idea of Christ "being of one substance with the Father" . In the 5th century the Athanasian Creed reaffirmed and expounded further on The Trinity.
You are correct and that is what that poster truthandjustice was getting at before in one of the sites. Most Catholics are aware of that but protestants don't like to discuss it.
However, your comment about: While the Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from true Christianity, Lutheranism and Anabaptists find the remedy in reform, whereas Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and arguably Luther) claims the necessity of inspired restoration, not only for theological purposes but also to reestablish a broken line of apostolic succession and authority, is really the key statement. Luther as a former Catholic never questioned the authority of the Pope he merely wanted to reform the Church. Thus, the name Protestant reformation. I'm not a mormon but the more I read posts from different people the more a picture is becoming clear - remain Catholic (question nothing), become a protestant try to reform the Church (thus prophets statements about people leaving the Church inorder to get it to change), become a mormon reject the Catholic faith and the reformation attempts of the protestants. However, I wouldn't become a mormon personally because they have a lot of strange beliefs based on their founding (the missing tablets, etc.) one of the funniest shows i've ever seen is Southparks attempt to explain the mormon religion -A MUST SEE. Another aspect I don't understand is why you can only go into certain temples if you are up to date on your tithing. Shouldn't God be accessible to everyone?
James, I'm still waiting for comments about the Book of Mormon. That extra-biblical one that
they use? What say you about the total lack of proof archaelogically? Even BYU says there is
none, and told missionaries not to try to use that as a basis for the book since it would be
fabrications. Also, speaking of creeds, who is it now that defines and translates the
meanings of scripture in the Mormon "church"? Why is it also that those have changed so much
throughout the history of Mormonism? There needs be no "centralized head" but Christ
Himself. He is the Head of the Church. We are His body. The Roman Catholic church might be a
majority, but I believe that the Pope and their hierarchy are deathly afraid of losing their
power base to the Evangelicals and Pentecostals, especially in South America. They have so
much as stated so, and are now posturing for the attacks against them. I think that is the
reason for his statement. Fortunately, I think that if most people read the Bible without
resorting to "creeds" they would be much better off. To be a Berean Christian is the best
kind. You as a Mormon have indeed listened to the creeds and proclamations of the Mormon
church to form your filtered understanding of scriptures, God inspired or not. In my
opinion, you have yourself allowed others to tell you how the Holy Scriptures are to be
translated, and not on your own, as you could not have come up with those things on your own just like followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults. You indeed have accepted
"another gospel" and "christ". The Mormon church has also accepted the biggest lie Satan
gave in the garden, that you too can become gods.
The most fundamental difference between the LDS Church and traditional Christianity is the principle of the Godhead: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. In 1820, when Joseph Smith knelt and prayed in a grove of trees Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to him. Now known as the "first vision", Joseph beheld that the Father and the Son were separate and distinct beings. This has been the official doctrine of the LDS Church ever since.
This belief directly contradicts the concept of the Trinity, which are three Gods without form or passion in one. The Trinity was not officially taught in the Christian church until 300 years after the Resurrection of The Savior. The idea of the 3 in 1 Trinity was the product of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Under the direction of Constantine, a council of theologians, scholars, and clergy were called together to organize the official doctrines and beliefs of the church. Confusion about official doctrine was rampant at the time. The council debated the nature of the Godhead until a compromise was reached. That compromise was the Nicene Creed, which established the idea of Christ "being of one substance with the Father" . In the 5th century the Athanasian Creed reaffirmed and expounded further on The Trinity.
The Godhead conceived in the Nicene Trinity was not taught in the Church prior to the Council in 325 A.D. Edwin Hatch, an emeritus professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford taught,
"And if the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit." [Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,) p. 124.]
Bible References teaching
The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost
are Distinct and Separate Beings. (PART 1)
if you have a glass of water say 98%pure and Only 2% poison shouldnt the 98% protect you,you either beleve the scriptures or you dont, Mormons have basterdized the scriptures, in such a way as to make there own brand of salvation,through the inclusion and makeing = to the bible there aditional books and doctrines that are in opposition to scripture.
Mormon theology teaches tri-theism, that there are three gods and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings united in purpose, but not in essence. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons united in one essence; so that the three are One God, not three. This is why the Mormon religion is not Christian. They do not worship the true God, even if they use the same names as Orthodox Christians. The God of Joseph Smith is not the God of the Bible.
Dhster:
The “witnessing” technique of declaring that Mormons worship a false Christ because we believe in the premortal life, is a technique started by antimormon publishers about 20 years ago.
They can’t just say, “we don’t believe in the premortal life of spirits”, instead they use guilt by association, to “witness” to Mormons. The guilt here is a connection with Lucifer or the devil.
By your own logic then, we could argue that God the Father is a false God because God created Satan in the first place because God, knowing all things from the beginning, KNEW that Satan would eventually become evil. Is this the logic you want to use against Mormons?
My point was that Evangelical Christians don’t believe in premortal life of spirits. They don’t know about Lucifer before he became Satan and therefore, they dismiss anyone who claims to know.
However, ancient Christians knew something about Lucifer and how he was once connected to God as God’s son and how he rebelled and rejected God.
Some Christians bear false witness when they state that Mormons claim a connection between Jesus and Satan that is “active” or “ongoing”. Here’s the problem with their theology:
If Jesus was the Son of God BEFORE he was born to Mary, he would have to be a Son in another way. The only way Jesus could be the Son of God before the world was made, is in the spiritual sense. Therefore, Jesus (the Word) is God’s spirit Son. Therefore, any son of God or daughter of God could therefore be considered a “sibling” to Jesus Christ in the spiritual sense.
To put it terms of Trinitarians, Mormons believe that the sons and daughters of God could be considered spiritual siblings with the Son of God (the person of the Son). However, this in no way diminishes Christ’s sovereign power but merely points out connections within the family of God. Jesus Christ is the Father’s “family” just as the sons and daughters of God are the Father’s “family”.
From what I have been told, Evangelical Christians do not accept any scripture other than the Bible.
If that is true, then let me ask you a question. Did Catholic Bishops write scripture in the creeds? Are the creeds the “word of God”? If they are not the word of God, then you can’t expect Mormons to believe them. If they are not the word of God, then you should not accept them either. For Evangelical Christians is a “black and white” issue -
If you claim that the creeds are the word of God, then you believe in ADDITIONAL scripture and your arguments against additional scripture through Joseph Smith are invalid.
If you say that the creeds are not the word of God, then why do you accept them?
The Book of Mormon doesn’t speak of “negroid” or African American people instead speaks of the Lamanites were of Jewish descent who were “marked” by God either by his power or through intermixing with indigenous people of the area.
However, the Book of Mormon says that as they receive the gospel that the “scales of darkness” would fall from their “eyes” not off their skins. According to the Book of Mormon anyway.
The Utah Mormons? The Kirtland Temple case has been proven to have been a farce where the RLDS Church was “legally” set as the “heir” of the property in dispute, since priesthood keys distinguish one as the “authority: over the other, what purpose does this case serve?
The LDS and RLDS Churches share the same scriptures and the legal “heir” would be that body who possesses all of the keys of the priesthood. The keys of the priesthood can only be exercised by a majority of the Council of the 12 Apostles which the RLDS church never had. Keep in mind that the RLDS Church didn’t appear until decades after the death of Joseph Smith and the council of the 12 had moved to Utah. So, the argument that the RLDS Church is the “heir” of authorioty is in a word, fallacious.
But I know why you brought it up. You supposed that if you told me that there was a split in the LDS Church that it would somehow justify the 1000s of splits in Christianity. But I didn’t bring up the split to say that the Catholic or Protestants churches were wrong because of their split.
Nope, I brought it up to show you that Dr. Mohler nor any other pastor can speak for Christianity. None of you can define what Christianity is because there is no “central” authority within Christianity that you would call the “final word”.
Just recently, the authority (Pope) of the MAJORITY Christian religion declared that all Churches apart from the Roman Catholic Church are “defective” (not true) and that salvation is only through the “one true Church” – the Roman Catholic Church.
Dhster, unless you’re Roman Catholic, your status as a “saved Christian” is, according to the leading Christian authority the Pope, invalid.
Of course, this doesn’t mean anything to Mormons because we didn’t splinter away from the Catholic Church like Protestants did. We aren’t reformed Catholics – we are restored Saints. We reject all Catholic creeds and councils from 150 AD to the present AD. Why? Because you can’t put new wine into old bottles… because they will eventually break and shatter.
We find it strange that Protestants accept SOME Catholic creeds and Councils, but not all of them – including the most recent declaration by the Pope. Either ALL Of the Catholic Popes (Bishops) are Peter’s successor or NONE of them are. Which do you believe?
Dhster, Joseph Smith didn’t say that all Christians are corrupt. This is a misquote by antimormons to incite anger and confusion. The exact quote is this:
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join.
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."
According to Joseph Smith, the Lord said:
* All Christian Churches were wrong.
* Creeds were an abomination (non-scripture)
* Professors were all corrupt (professional clergy that Joseph Smith knew)
If we go back in history to the time of the reformation, Martin Luther, to one degree or another claimed the same thing about the Catholic church.
* The Roman Catholic Church was wrong about doctrine – Catholic churches wrong.
* The Roman Catholic Church had adopted abominable creeds
* The Roman Catholic Church was full of corrupt Popes/Bishops.
So Dhster, even you would have to agree, in part, that the assessment above is accurate according to the history of Christianity at one time or another.
However, when Evangelicals read what Joseph Smith said, they don’t like it because their own tradition got dragged into the mix. Why? Because like I said, you can’t put new wine into old bottles – or it’s a disaster. The reformers didn’t “restore” the Church. Why not? Because they had no apostolic authority – by declaration that the Church was corrupt was the declaration that all Bishops had lost all authority.
I think the first Baptist Pastor summed it all best in this way when he said:
Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America, concluded the following, shortly before leaving the church he established:
"There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking. (Picturesque America, p. 502.)
Martin Luther said the following:
"Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,...unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation."
On another occasion he wrote: "I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it."
While the Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from true Christianity, Lutheranism and Anabaptists find the remedy in reform, whereas Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and arguably Luther) claims the necessity of inspired restoration, not only for theological purposes but also to reestablish a broken line of apostolic succession and authority.
James: To label someone who testifies against Mormon doctrine as "antimormon" is to
disregard in totality anything truthful they might have to say about the subject. Those in
the Mormon church have done this for many years. It's their way of saying that everything
attested to by them is to be shunned, and not even debated. Sure, we can use purely human
argument to slant the Bible to say almost anything we want. You purport to use quotes from
people that are well, to somewhat known. But they are just humans too. You also mention that
the post-first century church has splintered, and to what end? Your own Mormon church is
splintered also. In fact the Reorganized Church of Latter-Day Saints is legally the only
"Mormon" church by way of court action.
Now let's touch upon the use of extra-biblical sources by the Mormons, namely The Book of
Mormon. Now tell me that you don't use that as scripture? There is no evidence at all to
prove the accounts thereof. Show me sir, when is it possible that a Black person can repent
and become white again? According to that book it was God's judgement upon a certain people
that they became black-skinned. Of course the "church" has disavowed that it is racist as it
did for polygamy. So, the Utah Mormons use "another scripture" that the Bible specifically
prohibits. Others have written much more exhaustive works about the fallacies of Mormon
belief and doctrine so I won't try here. Then again, you would label them "antimormon" even
though many of them came out of there and have specific knowledge about the subject.
As was stated by another poster here, how can Mormonism be considered a Christian
denomination when your leaders have said that we outsiders (Non-Mormons) are all corrupt,
and the Bible misinterpreted by everyone but Mormons? That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses
say about us, and you too.
Have I been ousted from this site?
::begin quote::
I don' t know you, Danny, so I don't know whether you are homophobic. People who dislike homosexuality because of religious beliefs but treat gay people with dignity and respect and don't try to take away their rights are not homophobic in my book. But people who are actively hostile toward gay people, constantly belittling them, spreading misinformation about them and opposing measures that would merely treat them as equal human beings under the law are homophobic in my opinion.
::end quote::
I think that is a fair statement to make. I will state that I personally do not believe people who practice homosexuality should have extra rights(rights beyond those of what is currently established), but equal rights to that of a heterosexual I have no dissagreement with. I would qualify that further, but for the sake of avoiding contention I will leave it at that.