Rod Dreher

Get Over Yourselves, Millennials

Mormon, Not Christian

By Rod Dreher • June 14, 2012, 8:09 AM

A Mormon says there’s a fundamental difference, and he’s claiming it:

I want to be on record about this. I’m about as genuine a Mormon as you’ll find — a templegoer with a Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a Christian.

For the curious, the dispute can be reduced to Jesus. Mormons assert that because they believe Jesus is divine, they are Christians by default. Christians respond that because Mormons don’t believe — in accordance with the Nicene Creed promulgated in the fourth century — that Jesus is also the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Jesus that Mormons have in mind is someone else altogether. The Mormon reaction is incredulity. The Christian retort is exasperation. Rinse and repeat.

I am confident that I am not the only person — Mormon or Christian — who has had enough of the acrimonious niggling from both sides over the nature of the trinity, the authority of the creeds, the significance of grace and works, the union of Christ’s divinity and humanity, and the real color of God’s underwear. I’m perfectly happy not being a Christian. My Mormon fellows, most of whom will argue earnestly for their Christian legitimacy, will scream bloody murder that I don’t represent them. I don’t. They don’t represent me, either.

The writer says he agrees with the Southern Baptist theologian Richard Land, who calls Mormonism “the fourth Abrahamic religion” (after Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Mormonism is its own distinct religion, in other words — and, says this Mormon, his co-religionists ought to quit worrying about being accepted by Christians and embrace their radical difference.

Thoughts?

Posted in Religion.

76 Responses to Mormon, Not Christian

← Older Comments

Noah172 says:

June 14, 2012 at 5:40 pm

Mormonism started in the US, half its membership is still in the US, and the lion’s share of its missionary activity takes place in historically Christian lands. Mormonism presents itself as a Christian sect (or even as the One True Church) to make conversion more palatable to whites, mestizos, and Polynesians, who might be uncomfortable with something perceived as too weird, foreign, or what have you. Mormonism has long molded itself to public opinion rather than standing on religious principle: dropping polygamy when that became too unpopular, allowing black priests only after the Civil Rights Movement, ceasing baptism of dead Jews (but not other dead non-Mormons) because of bad publicity, and so forth.

As a convert to (Protestant) Christianity, I can understand how outsiders to Christian-Mormon debates can view this dispute over creeds and the Trinity as the proverbial argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (that’s not to dismiss the significance of that discussion). What bugs me about LDS as an institution (as opposed to individual Mormons, almost all of whom in personal experience have been unfailingly good-natured) are: its rather Judaic (or Islamic) legalism and works-based salvation; those gaudy and un-Scriptural temples (is the Epistle to the Hebrews not part of the Mormon canon? did Joseph Smith delete NT verses speaking of the destruction of the old temple, and identifying the new with Christ’s resurrected body and his worldwide body of followers?); and some of the political stances popular with much (though certainly not all) of the membership (particularly mass immigration and hardline Zionism).
Liam says:

June 14, 2012 at 6:21 pm

Actually, Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism (and, traditionally (in the Middle Ages, at least), Islam was considered a Christian heresy, rather than something apart from monotheism); Muslims are monotheists, while Mormons are not. That’s about the most fundamental theological differentiator there is. Doesn’t mean Mormons are bad people, or that they don’t love Jesus or God; if we are talking definitions, these things matter for that purpose.
MC says:

June 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm

Raymond Billy,

Surely you are aware of what the word “Restorationist” means, aren’t you? You can disbelieve a Restorationist religion, but don’t act shocked when its adherents decline to see themselves as a “spin-off” or “re-imagining” of another religion.
Glaivester says:

June 14, 2012 at 9:06 pm

By the way, Daniel Larison noted the same thing in his consideration of the quotations above, noting that this particular Mormon has come up with a new Trinitarian heresy!

No, it’s an old heresy, known as Sabellianism. There are churches who actually teach that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. The most prominent are the “Oneness Pentecostals.” Several seld-described “Apostolic Churches” are actually One-Ness Pentecostal Churches.”
Tyro says:

June 14, 2012 at 10:18 pm

I’ve always felt that there were many parallels between Mormonism and Islam.

However, many of the Mormon ideas about God would not have been out of place in the early centuries of Rome. Mormonism would have been one of many Christian offshoots.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have doctrines of the nature of Christ and the Trinity that put them outside the Christian mainstream, but they aren’t considered “a fourth Abrahamic religion.”

We do need another name for these groups, though.
J.L. Wall says:

June 14, 2012 at 10:44 pm

As neither a Mormon nor a (non-Mormon) Christian, I’m perfectly willing to let you guys figure this out for yourselves. I don’t have a stake in it, and I can understand both sides of the argument. But I do hope that students of early Jewish-Christian relations — that period before the distinction was really clear — are paying attention to the discussions. Because there might be something there to learn from, or at least cast something into relief.

I find it curious that in both cases, it’s the “new” sect (early Christians, Mormons) claiming continuity with the old, only to be rebuffed by (at least the stricter elements of) the old (Jews, contemporary Christians) as heretical. Part of me is curious as to whether Mormons will eventually take the same tack as many Christian thinkers of several centuries later, and define themselves in a very strenuous contradistinction to the group they used to claim to be a part of. If it is the case, I can’t help but wonder what that says about us — people generally, but specifically adherents of Abrahamic faiths.

And as someone who’s spent too much time reading Yitz Greenberg and Emil Fackenheim, it would set me to wondering what it would mean for the concept of “covenant,” practically applied.
Michele says:

June 15, 2012 at 1:03 am

I also agree that theirs is a different “Jesus”, because Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. That couldn’t be, in the Christian view, because the Bible describes Jesus as the Creator. Which means he created Satan, as well as other angels fallen or not. Jesus himself therefore could not be ‘brothers’ with a being that he himself created.
Church Lady says:

June 15, 2012 at 2:39 am

I still can’t read older comments. If the comments go over 50, it’s not possible to see them.
JonF says:

June 15, 2012 at 6:23 am

Re: Actually, Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism

Mormons see Jesus as divine, while Muslims decidedly do not.

Re: Muslims are monotheists, while Mormons are not.

This is an old canard which is simply not true. I have Mormons in my family; I have been proselytized (unsuccessfully) by their elders. I have direct experience with what the LDS preaches and believes not just “Wikipedia knowledge”, and the charge of polytheism is untrue.

Re: We do need another name for these groups, though.

“heresy” works. Yes, that trails after it some ugly history (autos-da-fe and the like), but it is apt.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

June 15, 2012 at 9:57 am

The other Abrahamic religions (Islam and Judaism) have charged Christians with polytheism because they view the Trinity concept as dodgy. Meanwhile many Hindus view themselves as monotheists because they believe there is only one ultimate God and everything else is merely that being taking on form.

So there’s no way to settle this debate because it’s an opinion members of a religion hold about their beliefs, and they won’t care about the opinions of outsiders.
Tiparillo says:

June 15, 2012 at 10:00 am

Get over yourselves, Christians
Jon says:

June 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm

“those gaudy and un-Scriptural temples (is the Epistle to the Hebrews not part of the Mormon canon? did Joseph Smith delete NT verses speaking of the destruction of the old temple, and identifying the new with Christ’s resurrected body and his worldwide body of followers?)”

That’s hardly just a Mormon thing though. Obviously the Catholics win the gaudy Church award, there’s plenty of protestant megachurches too, and St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow is extremely ostentatious. Of course, the older churches typically exceed the Mormon temples in artistic achievement, but there’s a reason those buildings kept standing for hundreds of years
Hugh says:

June 15, 2012 at 1:04 pm

JonF. You have said this many times. How do you square your position with the Book of Abraham 4:1-5? Also, if God was not always God but rather became God, then what about the creator of the original pre-God mortal that subsequently became God? Again this concept is found, I believe, in the Pearl of Great Price.
Judith says:

June 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm

JonF, re: “the charge of polytheism is untrue”

What about the FLDS doctrine that if a man has at least 4 wives he will become a God on his own planet in the afterlife?
Marcus McSpartacus says:

June 15, 2012 at 11:27 pm

“We do need another name for these groups, though.”

Americans?
AnotherBeliever says:

June 15, 2012 at 11:35 pm

There are other sects that do not hue to the normative view of the Trinity which are still construed by many people (though certainly not all) as Christian in essence, since they accept the grace of Christ’s atonement for sin, and his triumph over death through the Resurrection. Mormonism, as I understand it, does not quite accept this view of atonement. So, technically, it is not orthodox Christianity. I won’t go so far as to call it a cult. But it’s also not different and global enough that I will grant it status on par with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I guess all we can do for now is lump it uncomfortably with some of the non-standard minority Christian sects which co-exist with Orthodox Christianity in the East.
Francis J. Beckwith says:

June 16, 2012 at 12:10 am

So much drama for a theatre professor!

Typical New York Times. To opine on Mormon theology they don’t invite a BYU religion professor, but a theatre professor at a non-LDS institution in the vicinity of Graceland. Go figure?

What’s next? An essay on an issue in chemistry penned by a graduate assistant in political science?

Even when the Times is trying to appear fair on a religious matter, it comes across as theologically incompetent.
JonF says:

June 16, 2012 at 2:06 am

Re: What about the FLDS doctrine that if a man has at least 4 wives he will become a God on his own planet in the afterlife?

He will become AS a god, not literally God.

Which I think is poppycock (though it represents the first attempt to handle, theologically, the possibility of extraterrestrial life).
Orthodox (samll “o”) Christianity does have a doctrine of theosis too– we will become gods (lower case “g”) by adoption through Christ. This is very little emphasized anywhere in Christianity– it’s mentioned in the Orthodox Church but ignored everywhere else.
The LDS has taken this and run with it into some decidedly nutty (may I say “heretical”?) places. But maybe if mainstream Christianity had not buried this doctrine under a rock and insisted that we all ignore it, would Mr Smith & Co have had a firmer basis to launch from?
charles.r.curtis@mac.com Curtis says:

June 16, 2012 at 5:45 am

Uh, the LDS fellow does not understand the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. This is a very common problem with Mormons. They do not understand what they are attacking at all.

To put a point on it, neither the 4th Nicene Creed nor the 1st century Apostle’s Creed teach that “Jesus is also the Father and the Holy Spirit.” It almost makes my brain bleed to read something so daft.

The Church (One, Holy, Apostolic) teaches that God exists in three utterly distinct persons, possessing two natures (divine and human), yet one in substance. One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus is consubstantial or one in being with the Father, but possesses his own human will and nature seperate from the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, vivifying everything by his grace and energies. The Holy Spirit creates the Church through this mysterious sacramental action.

No Mormon I have ever met and discussed this with undertands this. And it is everything, the very essence of God’s nature. It is not mere acrimonious niggling, it is not trivia, it is not niggling detail. It is the very truth about God. Their dismissing it as such reveals how fundamentally benighted and spurious and finally unserious they are. Their heresy morphs as it must, to suit the ichy ears. The trinity, polygamy, black priesthood holders, baptism of the dead for Jews, whatever. Poke at it firmly enough and it all falls apart.
JohnE_o says:

June 16, 2012 at 10:56 am

No Mormon I have ever met and discussed this with undertands this.

Well, I don’t think anyone understands that – at most, I suspect, they assent to it.
C F says:

June 17, 2012 at 12:36 am

I’m a Christian, but I get a little weirded out by most discussions sbout the Trinity. It seems unnecessary and not particularly Biblical. But more importantly, theoretical discussions about the Trinity detract from Jesus’s very down-to-Earth lessons about how to lead a good life.
Mike Ehling says:

June 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm

The problem with an insistence on trinitarianism is that, by the standards of orthodox trinitarianism, John Milton (the Milton of the revolutionary and Restoration eras) can no longer be considered “Christian.” His subordinationism is definitely inconsistent with the “high Christology” of the fourth gospel and is probably most consistent with the theology of Mark’s gospel alone.

And by orthodox trinitarian standards, the first “non-christian” president would be John Adams, whose Unitarianism (as distinguished from contemporary “new age” Unitarian-Universalism) was “christian” but very definitely not trinitarian.
Ken G. says:

June 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm

This writer is absolutely correct.

At the risk of being sacrilegious/blasphemous, I would say that Mormonism is derived from Christianity in roughly the same way as Christianity is derived from Judaism.

The new religion respects and uses the scriptures of the old. But it radically reinterprets them, and adds many totally new doctrines unacceptable to the old religion.

Using Christian scripture and treating Jesus as a central figure of your religion does not make one a Christian any more than using the Old Testament and worshiping Yahweh makes one a Jew.
James Canning says:

June 20, 2012 at 7:15 pm

The Mormon religion is but one of a number of religions invented in Upper New York State during the first part of the 19th Century.
Dave P. says:

July 1, 2012 at 10:43 am

The simple fact of the matter that most Mormons don’t take a step backwards to look at is the fact that regular members don’t know exactly what the church believes other than what their leaders tell them they should believe. Despite the Book of Mormon clearly warning that polygamy in all forms is always an abomination and that there are no exceptions, the members let Brigham Young fool them into thinking it was a requirement to enter celestial glory. Despite Joseph Smith’s only hand-written account of his First Vision stating he only saw ONE person, today’s members are fooled into believing there are multiple Gods and that they themselves can become (with some already acting like they are) Gods themselves despite both the Bible and original Book of Mormon clearly declaring there is only one God. These flip-flop of doctrines and the fact that the church won’t be honest with its own history are just a couple of reasons as to why members today are leaving in droves.
Kenny says:

May 2, 2013 at 11:40 am

Actually the book of Mormon doesn’t teach that. Most critics quote Jacob 2 which condemns polygamy. But they fail to read the 30th verse. “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” What does the lord say? They are not to practice polygamy, unless they are commanded by the lord. It states this directly in the book of Mormon. And I do know the doctrines of the church. It is quite annoying when outsiders state that Mormon’s don’t understand their own doctrines. Its quite arrogant as well.