Romney And The Manhattan Declaration
A declaration intended as the defining statement of conservative Christian principle in the post-2008 political landscape – endorsed by over 150 people over a period of a month – found room for not a single Mormon signatory. Mormons may contribute generously to social conservative causes like the National Organization for Marriage and the campaign against same-sex marriage in California. But when it comes time to define what is Christian and what is not, Mormons are not to be included. I have to think that’s ominous news for the Romney 2012 campaign. ~David Frum
In the last two years I have written extensively on Romney’s religious problem, and on this point I think Frum’s analysis is somewhat correct about problems for Romney in the future, but this is not because there were no Mormon signatories to this declaration. One qualification I would make is that conservative Christian leaders are not the ones who normally have strong objections to Romney’s religion. It is simply that rank-and-file conservative Christians, and not just evangelicals, will not support someone whom they do not regard as a Christian. The leaders may not regard him as a Christian, but they do not automatically refuse to work together with him in political causes.
The declaration itself makes clear that it is expressing the view of conservative Christian leaders on specific moral issues within the confines of churches that can claim membership in what conservative ecumenists like to call “the Great Tradition.” Despite enduring theological differences, members of these three confessional traditions have enough of a consensus on basic doctrine and moral teachings that they can make statements on moral questions that carry some authority. The broader the theological coalition one assembles, the weaker and vaguer the statements necessarily become. This does not automatically rule out claims to Christianity made by members of other churches. It is probably true that most of the signatories would deny that Mormons are Christians in the same way that Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants are Christians, but Mormons were “excluded” here just as much as Armenian Apostolic and Assyrian Christians were “excluded.” It could be that there were no Mormon signatories because they could not agree to the simple doctrinal assumptions made in the declaration’s first paragraph; it is possible that there were no Mormon signatories because conservative Mormon figures were not able to define themselves in the way that the others could.
P.S. As an aside, it is fascinating to find a document that can win the support of Patrick Deneen, Metropolitan Jonah and Jody Bottum.
28 Responses to “Romney And The Manhattan Declaration”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
By and large, Christians in the Republican Party will not discriminate against Mitt Romney because he is LDS (a Mormon). Most Christians feel a kinship with members of the LDS Church, and members of the LDS Church in turn feel an affinity for other Christians – they agree on the vast majority of issues – from strong support for Traditional Marriage (one man and one woman) to knowing that an unborn baby is still a baby. There are not enough bigots in the Republican Party to keep someone as qualified as Romney from the nomination.
Why no signers? It is simple. Mormons don’t mix religion and politics. It would be easy for Mormons to sign the declaration – but it’s not going to happen because they won’t cross that line. Mormons also will not argue about religion.
Mormons have a keen sense of the sweep of Christian history and see themselves in the forefront of carrying forward those beliefs/traditions/deeds/actions; believe in the Bible; worship God and Christ; in fact they talk, preach and minister in his name constantly.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media. The media should show up at a Mormon Church any Sunday, any place in the world and see how the worship service goes. A typical Protestant service – with the old familiar hymns, prayers to the Father, in the name of Christ, communion blessed & passed in His name; with no paid clergy – the sermons will be given by members of the congregation – who will typically quote scripture and close in the name of Christ.
Show up in Salt Lake City and tour the grounds of the main campus of the Mormon Church – packed with portraits, statues and movies on the life/teachings of Christ. It has one of the most impressive Christmas displays anywhere in the nation – Church members routinely celebrate Christmas and Easter.
Huckabee knows the artful use of language and knows he was lying and misrepresenting the Mormons in the last campain – but that it was all OK in hardball politics. But is that what we really expect from our candidates? This empty rhetoric worked in the 19th Century – but is not credible in the 21st Century.
The Party and the media had better focus on the fact that Mormons are very much mainstream Christians and get over themselves. With their ranks growing by one million more members roughly every two years – it is the fastest growing Christian denomination in the country.
With their traditional values and high work ethic framed on volunteerism they are the people that conservatives and the party need to engage and run with to retake the nation.
Pretending they aren’t Christians may serve some narrow secterian needs but it is simply not reality. Too much is at stake for Conservatives and the nation. Fox should go to Salt Lake immediately and tour the main square there. Spend the hour walking the grounds – listening, ask the questions and put this to rest once & for all. Hannity, O’Reily, Greta – are you listening?
Show that Mormons devoutly believe in Christ – so we can drop this and move on, unified and retake the White House with whichever nominee.
It is incredible Samantha2009 feel Mormons and Christians
“agree on the vast majority of issues”, and yet she mentions but two, gay marriage and abortion. That pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it. Religion as Politics – Politics as Religion. Ugh.
Samantha2009, it is not bigoted for Christians to prefer to be governed by other Christians. It is natural and common sense. How many elected politicians in Utah are Mormons? How many are evangelical Christians?
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” ~ John Jay
The idea that someone’s faith is irrelevant in the political sphere is a liberal one.
By Christian the signers mean something along the lines of accepting the historic creeds of the Faith. One must be a Trinitarian, believe in a literal resurrection, etc. Mormons clearly do not qualify as Christians on this account. They reject the historic creeds.
Some conservative evangelicals such as John McArthur and James White have criticized the document as beeing too ecumenical as it is.
So Frum is wrong that they couldn’t “find” a Mormon to sign it. No Mormon was asked. A Mormon would have shattered what was probably already a shaky consensus. Conservative Christians would be going nuts right now and would be demanding Al Mohler’s head, for example, if he had signed on to a document that purports to be speaking for a broadly Christian consensus but included Mormons and rightly so. Mohler is already feeling some heat for signing on with Catholics and Orthodox.
People like Frum who don’t take their religion seriously always fail to understand those who do. (And no that is not a swipe at Frum’s Jewishness. It is a broad comment about how the irreligious just don’t get religious people who take dogma seriously.)
The Manhattan Declaration organizers would be wise to create a complementary document for Mormons, conservative Jews and others who wish to express general agreement but cannot sign on to some of the more specific doctrinal claims.
ThomasJayKemp, the problem with Mormons besides believing grossly heretical doctrine, is that they are not honest about it. To pretend that Mormonism is simply another denomination of Christianity, like the Baptist or the Methodists, is simply intellectually dishonest and if you are a Mormon you know it. Mormons want to gravy train off the positive feeling people have for Christianity by cozying up to it and claiming to be simply another denomination of Christianity. It is a lie. A bald-faced lie. Mormons are not Monotheist. They reject creation de novo. They reject the Trinity. The “Jesus” that they worship is not the Second Person of the Trinity. As far as a shared conception of God, Christianity has much more in common with Judaism and Islam than it does Mormonism. And I dare you to dispute the truth of any of the above. You know it is true because it is your doctrine in plain English.
If you want to believe such obnoxious and foolish heresy made up by a charlatan then go right ahead, but at least be honest about it. If you had true conviction about what you believe you would lead with the differences and the distinctives and not try to slime your way in by claiming a proximity to Christianity you objectively do not have. Another denomination of Christianity indeed.
The Manhattan Declaration organizers would be wise to create a complementary document for Mormons, conservative Jews and others who wish to express general agreement but cannot sign on to some of the more specific doctrinal claims.
There are bets ongoing among liberal activists about how long it will be until the activist conservative Christians will sign up conservative Muslims, conservative Hindus, Scientology, the Unification Church, etc. into this confederacy.
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is also referred to as the Mormon Church. For those who are not of my faith, out of fairness and respect I please do not tell me what we believe or do not believe. If any of you really want to find out for yourselves, you know the honest way about doing it. Ask an active member of the church. Go to the internet and check out LDS dot org, attend one of our meetings, or ask one of our missionaries. I tell you we have nothing to hide and I bet we can answer any doctrinal questions with an appeal to the Bible. Are we not Christian? Of course, not! We are Christian…but I believe the best way to judge whether an individual or group is Christian or not, “by their fruits ye shall know them,” is how they live.
I like what ThomasJames had to say: ThomasJames // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Very few people outside of Mormonism understand the teachings of Joseph Smith. First off, he taught that the Bible is “true” in that it represents a witness about God’s dealings with man. He also taught that the Bible contains transmission errors due to mistranslations, scribal errors, etc. He taught that in many places it is symbolic (such as the Creation in 6 days.) This was back in the 1830s when these things were not yet proven.
Romney’s Mormonism makes Romney VERY objective. Mormonism, as a religious philosophy is very objectively minded. For example, Joseph Smith rejected immateriality and taught in the 1830s that everything in existence is matter – even God himself is composed of matter. Because of this revelation, Mormonism is grounded on “existence” and not “immateriality.”
Therefore, Mormonism rejects “instantaneous creation out of nothing” and the “immaterial Trinity doctrine.” It also rejects God “suspending universal reality” to accomplish a miracle. All things, according to Mormonism, are done within the realm of universal laws. There is no “hocus pocus” maneuvers outside of existence.
Mormonism affirms that Earth has an eternal destiny. Mormonism teaches its adherents that mankind must work to bring about certain realities – they aren’t just going to magically appear.
Why is this important? Romney can believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth and in evolution and still remain true to his religious convictions. This makes Romney very scientifically minded while affirming his faith of strong moral values and a belief in a divine creator. Within Mormonism, these are accommodated and fit within the faith’s creation theology.
Mormonism also teaches that all human souls are valuable to God whether they believe in Jesus Christ presently or not. Therefore, Romney’s Mormonism informs him that all Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or ATHEISTS are LITERALLY his fellow created brothers and sisters and that all of mankind (except a few) have an eternal destiny with God according to the truth that they accepted on earth. Romney would act according to the view that God would one day hold him accountable on how he treated every person (not just Mormons) regardless of their personal religious or political views at a particular time.
Of all the Republican candidates, these views make Romney the most scientifically and rationally minded theist.
As for the slight against Romney’s Mormonism in that he’s not “Christian.” This claim is one of exclusion through a narrow definition of Christianity. It has no real meaning. It’s a point of view only.
Christianity is a tradition of many views. Recently, the Evangelical Christian wing of the party continues to use the political tactic against Romney because they know that many peolple don’t know much about Romney’s religion. By claiming that Romney is NOT Christian, while saying nothing about his views of Jesus Christ, the Evangelical groups mislead their constituents to believe that Romney is some kind of “non-Christian” who 1) doesn’t recognize the Bible or believe in Jesus Christ. At its worst, it’s a fraud. At it’s best its a white lie.
@RedPhillips such angst, it must be good old righteous Christian anger. You say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are being “intellectually dishonest” and because they say they are a Christian Religion that it’s a “bald faced lie”. Give me a break. Mormon doctrine has been plainly available to the world for the past 180 years. There are 60,000 missionaries throughout the world, stop any one of them and ask them. Most of the members are converts from the Baptist, Methodist, Catholic and other protestant religions, I think they know what the term Christian means.
So let me spell out for you what Mormons do believe. 1. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved. 2. Mormons are plainly polytheistic as is the old and new testaments – remember when Christ was baptized and the Father spoke from heaven saying “Behold my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” – let’s see – according to you Christ was talking to himself – I don’t think so. 3. Yes indeed Mormons reject the notion of creation de novo. In Genesis the Hebrew word create means to organize. Is that simple enough for you! 4. I should also add that the Church adds nearly a half million converts to it’s beliefs each year. Statistically speaking your dinosaur attitude will be dead and buried while the church becomes the dominate world religion within about 100 more years.
The bottom line is for those who truly want to welcome Christ into your life and see the change He can make – check out the Mormon religion and their belief in the divinity of Christ. I will add this promise, once you have studied the doctrine of Christ’s restored Church you are more than welcome to take the matter to your Father in Heaven in prayer in the name of Jesus Christ and He will tell you Himself that it is His restored Church. Don’t take my word for it. Now do the right thing and study this out for yourself.
:))
creation de novo above should be creation ex nihilo. I mixed up my Latin phrases.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter “the Church”) has a general policy of not signing declarations such as the Manhattan Declaration, while at the same time being willing to work with other faiths on humanitarian projects and occasionally on political issues where the Church deems its participation appropriate. The Church speaks for itself on the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom and has spoken clearly. LDS.org would be a good place to start for someone interested in the Church’s position on these and other issues. This is done in the spirit of doctrinal forthrightness and honesty with no intent to blur denominational lines. The Church does not pretend to be in communion or ecumenical unity with other faith traditions, while at the same time recognizing that different faith traditions may share values and beliefs and accordingly work in concert.
As for the definition of Christianity and what constitutes a Christian, I leave for the reader to decide whether a person’s Christianity should be judged by how well he or she lives the Sermon on the Mount or by some other definition, such as how closely one adheres to the Nicene or other post-Biblical creeds.
I venture no opinion on how all this might affect a Romney candidacy.
RedPhillips: You almost have it. To be strictly latin you should be using: creatio ex nihilo. But you are right we do not believe the creeds or creation out of nothing. We certainly believe that Jesus is the second member of the Godhead that you call Trinity. We differ in what we understand their corporeal natures to be, but we affirm the places of Father, Son and Holy Ghost respectively. We affirm that Christ gave all glory to the Father. We pray to the Father in the name of Christ. We believe the Father and Son to be separate and distinct physically, but one in purpose. Such a depth of one-ness of purpose we cannot fully understand, but that lack of understanding does not lead us to believe that they are made of the same substance, or that they are metaphysically identical. Indeed, such an explanation is an attempt to put a humanistic understanding to the nature of their relationship.
Many believe that Mormons are blasphemous when we state that God’s children are able to become like Him. But the most natural understanding of family relationships speaks to the desire that parents (earthly and Heavenly) seek the happiness, well-being and growth of their children.
Such a notion does not debase the parent. In fact, it glorifies them. The success of Christ’s mission glorified the Father. All things that Jesus did on earth glorified His Father. Likewise, as we keep God’s commandments, have faith in Christ and serve one another, we glorify God. There is nothing that we can do to grow and progress that does not increase the glory of God. As we learn, grow and become more like Jesus and His Father, our obedience adds to their glory.
Let me restate: there are many that believe that mormons are heretical because we believe we are placing ourselves “equal” with God. We do NOT believe this. Just because we believe that, (as His children) we can become like Him, indeed we are designed to become like Him, it does not mean we are equal with Him. We become “joint heirs with Christ” in all that the Father has. But this does not set us equal with Him. He is our Father and he always will be.
He has given us everything, has taught us everything and will teach us everything we know, and we are therefore infinitely and eternally indebted to our Father and the sacrifice of Christ, no matter what we do in this life or beyond this life. All things we do in obedience to the commandments of God give glory to God. All the goodness we can bring about with His help flows back to Him. It is all about progression, not about attaining equality with God, which can never be done, nor is it desired.
This is a long way of saying that mormons clearly do not want to be lumped in with creedal Christians on certain points of doctrine. But there are numerous strains of Christianity that are not “creedal.” You said it yourself that your definition of “Christian” belongs to a “great tradition.” Mormons will never belong to, nor have a desire to belong to that tradition, but that tradition does not have exclusivity rights to the word “Christian” either.
Ontologically, you are being dishonest by not giving place for the mormon form of Christianity whatsoever. As though wishing mormons out of existence will make it so. More than one respondent here has shown that the number of new members being added to the LDS church each year is rising to half a million. This is not a threat, but is a statement that the existence of mormons should be recognized in the broad Christian community, which I actually believe it is. But for purposes of discussion here, and in an effort to be more inclusive while recognizing the differences, perhaps we could agree to a religious taxonomy, recognizing that mormons and creedal Christians belong to different “classes” of Christianity, but still belong to the same “phylum”.
What do you think?
I see the Mormon defenders are out in force. But despite all the shifty verbiage you actually confirmed exactly what I said. Mormonism rejects the historic Creeds of the Faith and has a view of the nature of God that is light years from the Christian view. What could possibly be more fundamental to a religious understanding than the nature of God? That is why I said that the Christian conception of God is MUCH closer to the Jewish and Muslim conception than it is the Mormon conception. Etrosie even uses the word polytheistic. So Mormonism is a form of polytheistic Christianity? That is an utter absurdity. One can no more have polytheistic Christianity than one can have dry water.
If I called myself a Hindu because I used certain Hindu language or had sprung from a Hindu milieu but was actually a monotheist, then I wouldn’t be a Hindu. Because monotheism is not what Hindus believe. If I did so out of ignorance then I would be a dolt. If I did so knowingly in order to gain a proximity to Hinduism that I don’t really have then I would be a dishonest charlatan attempting to mislead.
Also, some of you need to get your heads together on doctrine. Is Mormonism an exclusivistic religion that teaches “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved” as etrosie asserts or is it an inclusivistic religion that “informs him (Romney) that all Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or ATHEISTS are LITERALLY his fellow created brothers and sisters and that all of mankind (except a few) have an eternal destiny with God according to the truth that they accepted on earth” as jalfair asserts?
I don’t doubt that Mormons will defend their doctrinal specifics if asked, but in my experience they do not lead with them. They lead with we are just another denomination of Christianity as ThomasJayKemp did. With doctrines so fundamentally at odds with historic Christian doctrine, why not lead with telling “creedal” Christians where they get it all wrong? In my experience Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, are quick to point out where they differ from “creedal” Christianity.
So no Christianity and Mormonism are not in the same phylum. We are not even in the same kingdom although most Mormons insinuate they are merely a subspecies.
@RedPhillips I still don’t think you fully appreciate what is being said here. Mormons are not trying to snuggle up to Christian fellowship and seek some kind of brotherly acceptance into the protestant or Catholic view of the world. What is being said is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the “restored” Church of Jesus Christ. If you must put a label on the Mormon faith, then what is really being said is that we are defining what “Christianity” really is. Those who profess to be “Traditional Christians” have in all actuality drifted from the doctrines of the early Christian Church. What we are seeking and what we have sought for the past 180 years is simply the same respect we afford all other religions and peoples. Nothing more nothing less. But even if the Church doesn’t get that respect the work will still move forward at a constant steady pace.
I do agree that an understanding of the character and nature of God is fundamental to ones belief system and any religion that wants to grow will need to make sure that that is one of their foundational clarifications. We just claim that ours is the correct one.
Here is a statement that every missionary in the church understands perfectly well and teaches every convert but clarifies our position on deity.
“As man now is God once was and as God is now man may become” ~Joseph Smith
From your earlier comments I would suggest you will struggle with this one. {shrug} Do you see a plurality of Gods here?
So Mormons do teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved. That the “trinity” consists of three separate and distinct beings, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. All three are Gods but are one in spirit and in truth. We teach further that we are children of God the Father. That we lived as spirit children before we came to this earth to obtain physical bodies and that after we die we will live in a spirit world awaiting the resurrection from the dead. :)
Besides these doctrinal forays, I would suggest that instead of making offending statements that create angst between religions, that we would be better off finding common ground.
Given the current state of the world condition, where religion and values of all types are being driven underground, that we at least unite on that theme. It’s my sense that we are seeing the rise of secularism that will continue to grow in such a way that any belief in a “God” of whatever character and nature will be minimized and perhaps even criminalized at some point.
If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindi’s and any people that believe in God will unite and work together we can reverse this trend, we must reverse this trend away from secularism. If there is some type of end of the world struggle it will be between these two forces. My opinion.
:
“we would be better off finding common ground”
etrosie, “common ground” will not save anyone’s immortal soul. Only the Truth will, and that Truth is found only within the “creedal Church” and as an evangelical Protestant I would add, as would many of the signers, that that Truth would also include the doctrine of sola fide.
I agree with you that people of faith must resist galloping secularism, but they must do so on an honest basis. Please re-read ThomasJayKemp’s post, which is what I was responding to, and tell me you don’t see the sleazy muddling of doctrine that I was complaining about.
TJK wrote: “the fact that Mormons are very much mainstream Christians.” Ummm… no they aren’t. Even if we grant that they are Christian in some way, which I don’t but JFTSOTA, they are no more mainstream than Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists.
RedPhillips: I like your passion and your conviction. It is reassuring to talk to someone with whom we can agree on so much in so many areas. We really do have a lot of similar beliefs. Even so, we certainly understand a number of scriptures in a different way, mormons reject the creeds of the middle ages which are clearly non-scriptural. Moreover, we accept other scripture from modern and other ancient prophets.
I would argue that if you asked a Jew or a Muslim whether Christians were monotheistic they would answere vehemently: NO! One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is “trinity,” meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.
The LDS church is not polytheistic. Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.
We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ – not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become “like Christ” (1 John 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped – but the beings that Christ calls “gods” are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.
This explains both our belief in the eternal progress of souls and the supremacy of God, and that if we have faith in Christ and keep his commandments we are to receive of [the Father's] fulness, and be glorified in [Christ] as [Christ] is glorified in the Father.
Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled – including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin.
RedPhillips, the longer I live the less concerned I am about winning converts as much as I am about being understood. I cannot force you to think/believe a certain way, nor would I want to if I could. But I can ask you to objectively view what I am saying and take it for what it is, not what it is not. Hopefully there we will find understanding.
When analyzing the creeds and contrasting them to mormon thought there are distinctions to be made, but one is not monotheistic and the other polytheistic. Both have their intricacies and cannot be explained by one-word pejoratives. Of course we reject the creeds outright. But in our rejection of the creeds we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and condemn any and all that believe them as un-Christian even though we claim that we have the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such an absurd assumption would reject so much good that is being done by those who profess a belief in Christ as the Son of God.
Please keep asking questions, the “mormon defenders” will respond as best they can.
@RedPhillips as a final note, I would have to agree that Mormons are not “mainstream Christians” or as some say “traditional Christians”. The Christianity that Mormons espouse is more in line with that practiced prior to the Nicene Creed 325 AD and closer to the Church as originally established by Christ and the twelve apostles of those early times.
I do have to say that evangelicals should not lose site of their beginnings remembering Luther, Calvin, Tyndale and many others. Around that time, 1520 AD, the Catholics were the “traditional religion” and the protestants were just beginning. Protestants were seen as “heretical”, a threat to “The Church” and definitely were not saved but would “burn in hell”. Sadly, many were killed for their beliefs. 500 years later they have become the “traditional religion”. It seems ironic to me that evangelicals have now climbed upon that perch previously occupied by the Catholics and have taken the same stance toward other religions including the Mormons. I wonder where the Mormons will be 500 years from their beginnings – 1830 AD? It is easy for me to say that when the roles are reversed and the Mormons are the “traditional religion” that they will follow the teachings of Christ and reach out to their brothers and sisters across the world, who have different beliefs, with a hand of fellowship, tolerance, service and love.
And finally, to put your mind at ease, when Mormons arise each morning they are as comfortable with their own feelings of being saved as you are in yours because of our faith in and acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ.
:
@RedPhillips…I’m LDS and much of what you say is close to the mark, but not all.
The reasons no Mormons have signed is twofold:
1. As pointed out by another commentor, we’re unwanted and unasked because it would drive away some of your flock to have to associate with us.
2. As pointed out by Red and others, we have theological differences with the 4th-century creeds about the trinity. I’m not looking for outside acceptance of whether or not I’m a Christian, I can answer that one for myself…I am. As a Mormon, I would not sign it because of its trinitarian reference. I’m sure that reference was put in so that more Catholic and orthodox members, as well as many protestants would sign, but it is exclusionary to Mormons. If you’re interested in a Mormon declaration or creed, please see our declaration on marriage and declaration on the divinity and atonement of Christ. They’re both modern and straightforward and our church not only authors them, but works with many other denominations to push forward what they espouse.
Can’t we all just get along? :)
RedPhillips:
We agree that Mormonism is not Christian in the sense that it is comparatively identified as Catholic or Protestant.
I believe the problem of identifying Mormonism within the Christian tradition arises out of the last few decades when Evangelical Churches have tried to reserve “Christian” to mean only a certain interpretation of the Bible.
The root word of Christianity is Christ. Mormons affirm that Jesus is the son of God and that the Old and New Testaments represents the life and teachings of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
What we are not is Trinitarians of the immaterial type.
We affirm the New Testament but reject the “creeds” that came in the 3rd, 4th and later centuries.
Christianity should include all those churches who believe in Jesus Christ.
Catholic and Protestants could be “Creedal or Trinitarian Christians”
Mormons could be “New Testament Christians”
What about those distinctions above? Better?
ThomasJames: Those are fine distinctions and correct, but I think the thing that often gets lost in all of this is that there are just too many opinions on this for any of them to matter any more. I know I’m Christian, you know you’re Christian…nuf said. We don’t claim to be the same as other traditions that also call themselves Christians, and that’s fine. Many of them try to alienate us from the word “Christian” because they want to point out our differences, and that’s OK. We have never espoused to be part of what is commonly known as “mainstream Christianity”, we simply want people to know that we believe Christ is our Savior and the center of our religion. I’d rather leave the name-calling alone…I know I’m a Christian…everything else is just sticks and stones.
When I was a young man I wanted to be a minister (Congregational – United Church of Christ). I studied religion constantly because I enjoyed it and it was going to be my vocation. I was comfortable with the theology and rhetoric of the day.
I knew many ministers at the time (mid 1960s) and they were of multiple opinions about Christ – but all of them pretty much agreed that Christ was just a man – that the entire concept of him as divine was added by writers later to add mystery to his teachings. They felt that their task, mission was a social gospel of ministering through actions – to encouarge, lift and improve the lives of the people they served. They considered the idea of Christ being divine as a discarded old fashioned notion.
The church at the time even promoted a movie portraying Christ as a clown. The Sunday School manuals portrayed the familiar figures of the Bible as ordinary men with major imperfections – as a way of puncturing the idealism/beliefs of the “old school” approach.
This “he was just a man” approach is widespread among ministers even today. Yet – some writers here would accept members of these faiths as Christians – even though they only retain the name but not the beliefs and would reject Mormons as not believing in Christ – because they say so.
No such test is required within the fold of the old mainline denominations. The idea that he was just a man is “good enough” for membership in those faiths. Yet Mormons that assert that He is Divine – the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world – and dedicate themselves to serving Him on full-time missions and a life time of service – at no pay – are rejected.
I would echo elbeau’s comment: “I’d rather leave the name-calling alone…I know I’m a Christian…everything else is just sticks and stones.”
He lives and because of His life, atonement and resurrection – so will we all.
Tom
I find it fascinating that this post has generated a lively discussion of LDS theology, but no comments on the Declaration itself. Can I assume most readers agree with it?
I know this blog is focused on foreign policy and sometimes presidential politics, but I would like to see a discussion about how the Declaration will help or hurt politicians outside the presidential race or Republicans in general for supporting/neutral/not supporting it.
I’m probably the most religiously liberal guy here, but even I have to side with Redphillips on this one. I think Mormons are great and are entitled to believe whatever they want about their religion. If they want to think of themselves as Christians, and call themselves Christians, that’s fine with me. But they can’t tell other people how to think about them, particularly Christians. Christians have their own historical sense of what it means to be a Christian, and they are not going to change that to suit groups that want to call themselves Christians, such as the Mormons. And that’s just that.
Jews have a similar problem with Christians, except that at least Christians have the good sense not to think of themselves as a sect of Judaism, one that has the “truth” of Judaism that has somehow been lost by the historical Jews. I’m sympathetic to groups like Mormons who think the scriptures have been distorted over the years and that they have a better version of the “truth”. I just don’t see how such people can call themselves historical Christians, and demand that historical Christians acknowledge this about them. It’s never going to happen, because whatever the reality is behind these words, the words themselves mean something.
Historical Christianity means more than acknowledgment of Jesus. Hell, Hindus consider Jesus to be an Incarnation of Vishnu, the same as Krishna. Does that make them Christians? Of course not. Christianity is an historical tradition, like Judaism. Those who depart from that tradition, as Christians did from Judaism, don’t have the right to call themselves by the name of the tradition they have departed from. Christians don’t call themselves Jews, and Mormons shouldn’t call themselves Christians. They can do so if they want, but it doesn’t make sense to anyone else. Even if Mormons still venerate Jesus and consider him the sole path of salvation, they have departed from the Christian tradition in ways that are similar to how Christians departed from Jewish tradition, even though they still venerate the same God and acknowledge the same scriptural tradition. They added enough new scripture and new dogma to the Judaic tradition to be considered a new religion, not merely a sect of the old one. The same is true of Mormonism with the revelations of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
None of this means Mormons are bad people are even wrong. I’m not one of those people who thinks anyone knows truth for certain. I happen to find most Mormons wonderful people. Some of their ideas seem crazy to me, but so do some of the ideas of traditional Christians. Some of their ideas seem good to me, as do some of the ideas of traditional Christians. I’m not a traditional Christian myself, but I know what it means to be one, and it’s clear to me that Mormons are not within that tradition. That’s a choice they have made, and they have to live with it. I for one don’t believe the holy brotherhood of man excludes any religion, or anyone, but I understand that this is not an historically Christian belief, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But then again, even Jesus was not an historical Christian. He was a Jew. It was his followers who created historical Christianity and broke with Judaism, not Jesus himself. I’m not afraid to contradict Jesus’ followers, and I can acknowledge that what Jesus actually taught is probably not well preserved by his followers. So in my view “Christianity” is not the same as “what Jesus taught”, it is what his followers adopted and adapted from his teachings, and created in his name. That tradition is defined by the creeds of the various councils, such as Nicea. Stepping outside that tradition and asserting counter-truths is fine with me, but it’s not “Christianity” in any historical sense of the term. Mormons should openly acknowledge their departure from that tradition. One can claim to be a “Church of Jesus Christ”, and yet not be a Christian, just as one can worship Yahweh as God and not be a Jew (as is the case for Christians and Muslims). One can still say that Mormons are a branch of the Abrahamic faiths, just as Judaism, Chistianity, and Islam are, but it is its own branch, not a sub-branch of Christianity.
Conradg:
You’re right that there are large differences in doctrine and practice between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity…but before you tell us to give up on the term, you need to understand that this argument against our “Christianity” is carried out at pulpits throughout the world and the meaning they give is different than the meaning you give. Our detractors try in every way to teach people that we do not believe in Christ…not just that we follow different cannon or traditions. To give up on the term “Christian” would be submitting to the argument that we do not believe in Christ. We do not consider ourselves a branch of traditional Christianity, but that is a different argument than whether or not we’re Christian.
Christians have a doctrine. Mormons have a doctrine that is radically different, agreeing only in certain vague moral precepts and in acknowledging that Christ is rather important. I cannot conceive for a second how the Mormons can justify calling themselves Christians.
Thomas Jay Kemp writes:
“I knew many ministers at the time (mid 1960s) and they were of multiple opinions about Christ – but all of them pretty much agreed that Christ was just a man – that the entire concept of him as divine was added by writers later to add mystery to his teachings. They felt that their task, mission was a social gospel of ministering through actions – to encouarge, lift and improve the lives of the people they served. They considered the idea of Christ being divine as a discarded old fashioned notion.”
This means that TJKemp was raised a non-Christian in a heretical sect and continued to operate in heretical circles until he settled into the most bizarre heresy available to him, all the while confusing the various heterodoxies to which he was exposed with “mainstream” Christianity. TJKemp is either badly deluded about the vast majority of Christian churches or he is intentionally misleading readers. There are over a billion Cathlolics in this world, several hundred million Orthodox of various nationalities and denominations, and several hundred million Protestants of varying stripes. With few exceptions, TO A MAN these people would consider the rejection of the divinity of Christ and the trinity as apostasy. The only denominations who even toy with the rejection of Christ’s divinity are the extremely liberal wings of the Episcopaleans, who are also the only denomination that would toy with recognizing Mormonism as Christian, and for whom it is just a matter of time before they are themselves spurned by those who adhere to the doctrines. The process is already underway.
The doctrinal differences between the LDS are drastic to the point where they aren’t in the same theological Universe. Tell us, TJKemp, what exactly is Our Heavenly Mother? How was God a man on Earth before he became God? If that is the case, how was the Earth created? When do we get to reclaim our station as gods and godesses? Furthermore, what basis can possibly be constructed to argue that these absurd fantasies are any closer to the original Church than the allegedly compromised visions of the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants?
Furthermore, the problems with Mormonism do not stop with doctrinal differences. Mormonism is based on the private revelations of a certain Joseph Smith, which include historical absurdities and outright inventions of Nephites, Lehi, Moroni, and heaven-knows-what else. There is no witness to this revelation save for a sucker, Martin Harris, whom Smith took for all he was worth, as well as a couple of other credulous souls. This contradicts the spirit of both the Old and New Testaments, in which miraculous events are attested to by hundreds if not thousands. Christians understand that if Jesus were some dude issuing various proclamations he learned from looking into a hat, there would be no basis for believing in Him, just as there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that the inventions of Joseph Smith were anything but fish stories. (Of course there are plenty of reasons to believe that Smith was the classic charlatan and that the LDS Texts are egregious fairy-tales.)
The Mormons believe the historical Early Church was corrupted by later developments, and they are right. However, if they were serious about doctrine, they would then turn to an Apostolic, communitarian movement, or at least base their sect on historical evidence on what the early Church was like. They would not invent stories whole cloth about Mephites etc. and produce doctrines more radical than anything Origen could have dreamed of.
I am not a Mormon. I ask the Mormons on this thread: even if Church doctrine is currently not perfectly authentic, what on earth compels me in any way to adopt the radical deviations of Joseph Smith? Why should I believe him, rather than Syung-Mun-Moon or one of the other ten million megalomaniacs who pretend they spoke with God? What evidence, witnesses, or testimonials does the LDS produce that would convince me?
Is it the wholesomeness of the Mormon life? Well, the thing is that the early Mormons were very much the aberrations in an otherwise rather pious country. It is only recently, with many reforms aimed at toning down the many eccentricities of Mormonism, that the tables have somewhat turned; but nonetheless, there are still, in absolute numbers, many more pious Protestants than pious Mormons, and the Christians who recognize Mormonism tend to be the most un-pious and unsound Christians around.
The LDS Church has adopted a credible Darwinian strategy for propagation, since it can make few converts. It’s amazing the lengths to which human credulity will go when some form of political identity is at stake.
elbeau,
I appreciate the difficulty Mormons have in relation to Jesus and Christianity. Internally, amongst one another, I don’t have an objection to Mormons thinking of themselves as Christians, even as a more genuine form of Christian than the rest of the world. But to expect others to acknowledge them as Christians in the generally accepted sense of the word is just irrational and unrealistic. It’s not going to happen for very good reasons, as others here have pointed out.
There are a number of radical religious sects that have their own ideas about Jesus that fall way outside the mainstream. I’d point to the “A Course in Miracles” followers, who consider a channeled text written by a secular Jewish psychologist in the 1960′s to be the real teaching of Jesus, even though it openly contradicts much of the Bible and much of Christianity. I’ve read some of it, and some of the Book of Mormon, and if I had to choose which was more likely genuine, I’d pick A Course in Miracles. And yet, the notion that either book is the “authentic Christian teaching” is simply absurd. ACIM followers like to think of themselves as Christians, even the genuine article, but no one else does, and no one else ever will. Likewise, only Mormons will ever consider Mormonism a genuine form of Christianity, regardless of how highly they regard Jesus.
That doesn’t mean Mormonism, or ACIM, can’t be a genuine religion that attributes its origins to Jesus and acknowledges that he plays special role in God’s work. But nothing in what remains of Jesus’ historical teachings even remotely resembles the teachings of Joseph Smith. So it can’t rationally be called a form of Christianity, since Jesus didn’t teach it (at least according to the historical record). Creating an alternative Jesus and an alternative teaching that is mystically attributable to Jesus does not make one a Christian. It makes one something else. If you prefer that alternative and believe it is true, then by all means practice it. But don’t demand that others acknowledge your religion as a Christian one. They won’t, and you will have to recognize that you chose to depart from the Christian tradition, even in pursuit of what you think the true teachings of Jesus were. You can’t expect that tradition to pat you on the head and welcome you into the fold. It didn’t happen to Joseph Smith, and it won’t happen for the Mormon church unless it renounces the teaching of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon, which makes the case moot.
The more realistic route for Mormons to take is to simply accept their status as a minority religion, just as Judaism or Islam is in this country, and not press for acceptance into the Christian mainstream.In fact, the more Mormons try to present themselves as the true Christians, the more they will be rejected by Christians. This is not unexpected.
(Note: I am using “LDS” here instead of “Mormon” because I seem to recall that the people in question prefer the former term, and I am lazy enough to want to use acronyms instead of the full term each time I use it).
I think that there are two separate issues here.
First, are LDSs Christian and should they call themselves Christian?
Second, is ecumenism between LDSs and “mainstream” Christians (by which I mean, in essence, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals – I should point out here that there is a lot of disagreement between these groups as to which groups are “truly Christian,” but I will avoid getting into that right now) possible, as ThomasJayKemp seems to imply?
For the first issue, I would say that they are not Christian, because I believe that their theology is not Christian. However, I don’t have a problem with them thinking of themselves or referring to themselves as Christian, because obviously if their beliefs were correct, they would not just be Christians but would be the most theologically sound Christians, and obviously LDSs are going to think that their faith is the correct one (they would have to be pretty stupid to believe in a faith that they thought was the wrong one, to paraphrase Archie Bunker).
On the other hand, in a debate about LDSism vs. “mainstream” Christianity, I probably would not explain my theological differences simply as “Christianity vs. LDSism,” as phrasing it in terms that asserts that LDSism is not Christianity begs the question.
As for ThomasJayKemp’s (first) post, I think his assertions are wrong. He essentially says that LDSs are misrepresented, are “mainstream” Christians, and that their reverence for Jesus (as they understand Him) and their traditional values ought to ward off any doubts as to their faith.
But the fact of the matter is, as RedPhillips points out, and as a lot of the LDS posters acknowledge, is that regardless of the similarities between LDSs and “mainstream” Christians, the thelogical differences are far too large to simply paper over.