I have been studying the life of this unique American religious leader for over 30 year.. Most of those years I have viewed him, as most non-LDS do, as a charlatan and a fraud. I often viewed him as the "Moriarty" to my "Holmes" (A delusion of grandeur to be sure, but it was a fun delusion). Over the past 10 years or so, I've rethought my understanding of Joseph Smith. There were a couple things about Joseph that really stood out to me. First was his capacity for forgiveness. One of the hardest things for a person to do is to forgive someone who has wronged them. Yet Christians are commanded to do it. Actually, we are one of the few religions that command us to practice forgiveness. Joseph freely forgave several men who had betrayed him--W.W. Phelps, Orson Hyde come to mind right off the top of my head. These men testified against him in Missouri and as a result (at least in part) of their testimonies, Joseph spent 4 1/2 months in a dungeon. Yet, when these men asked for forgiveness, Joseph granted it freely. Speaking for myself, that would be a hard thing to do. And I think it is pretty strong evidence that Joseph wasn't merely a charlatan.
Another reason has to do with Joseph's death. History is filled with religious charlatans—men and women, deceivers, who claimed to have “the truth”. Their movements make a big splash and then they disappear. A few create organizations that survive their deaths--Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russel, Mary Baker Eddy come to mind. Most of these alleged visionaries lived relatively long lives and died in relative prosperity. Indeed, many of the modern day false prophets of the so-called “prosperity gospel” live in the lap of luxury with tremendous wealth. A few have gone out in a “blaze of glory” so to speak—Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate/Hale-Bopp) and David Koresh. Throughout history, these leaders have milked their people for their money and at times have demanded their lives. Jones and Applewhite ordered the death of their people and killed themselves. Koresh ordered his people to resist Federal agents and died with them in the ensuing inferno (some, including Koresh, died by suicide). But there is one alleged “false-prophet” that stands apart from his fellow deceivers—Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS (Mormon) Church. How is Joseph different? He was the only one who ever died FOR his people. Tensions were high in Hancock County Illinois in 1844. Throughout their history (and for various reasons) the Mormons had a hard time getting along with their neighbors. The citizens of Illinois, which had initially provided a refuge for the Latter-day Saints, were rapidly becoming hostile to them. In June of 1844, Joseph Smith, Mayor of Nauvoo, and the city council ordered the destruction of a newspaper (the Nauvoo Expositor) critical of Smith and his leadership. The owners of the press went to the county seat, Carthage, IL, and swore out warrants for the arrest of Smith and the other town leaders. But this was not enough for many of the old citizens of Hancock county who were enraged with Smith. Years of perceived favoritism by politicians, Smith's ability to circumvent county and state laws through the courts of Nauvoo, rumors of polygamy and sexual immorality served as dry tinder for the spark that was the destruction of the Expositor press. Consider the words of Thomas Sharp, the editor of a neighboring community's newspaper, The Warsaw Signal, just before and after the Expositor incident. “ We have seen and heard enough to convince us that Joe Smith is not safe out of Nauvoo, and we would not be surprised to hear of his death by violent means in a short time. He has deadly enemies -- men whose wrongs have maddened them...The feeling of this country is now lashed to its utmost pitch, and will break forth in fury upon the slightest provocation...” “We have only to state, that this is sufficient! War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!! -- Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS!! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!” Joseph was worried for his own life and those of his people. He was being warned that mobs were amassing and if Smith and his city councilors did not surrender the city would be attacked. Now, Smith had at his call the Nauvoo Legion a militia with over 2,000 men. He could have easily called up the Legion, fortified Nauvoo and engaged in a bloody civil war with the neighboring militias. But he did not do that. It became obvious to Smith, that he was the primary target of the legal action and the antagonism of the neighboring communities. He felt that if he were to leave town things would calm down and the residents of Nauvoo would be safe. So he left for the west. He didn't get very far when a delegation of leaders from Nauvoo sought him out. Some of his followers thought he was deserting them, others accused him of cowardice. Smith is reported as saying, “If my life is of no value to my friends, it is of no value to me.” Smith did return, assisted in the disarming of the Nauvoo legion, surrendered to officials in Carthage and was murdered at the hands of an angry mob in Carthage, Illinois on June 27, 1844. Smith reportedly made another comment as he was preparing to leave for Carthage, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am as calm as a summer’s morning I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men.” Some witnesses dispute that Joseph ever said these things. They argue that Smith was confident he would again escape from the long arm of the law. But given the warnings of Thomas Sharp and the Warsaw Signal, he had to know that if the mobs were to get a hold of him, he would be lynched. And that is what happened. Yes, Joseph had a gun, and yes, he used it (as I think any of us would if we were in his situation). Was he a martyr for his faith? Scholars can debate that. But when faced with impending doom, he didn't order his followers to kill themselves or to fortify the city and prepare for battle, he did what he thought he needed to do to save his people, not just his own skin, which is pretty odd behavior for a huckster don't you think. As a matter of fact I can't think of any other known “false-prophet” in the history of Christendom who sacrificed himself for his people.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Are Mormons Christians?
Ask a a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) if Mormons are Christians? and they will answer “Absolutely. After all the name of Jesus Christ is in the name of our church.” Many Southern Baptists and other Christian denominations would say that Mormons are not Christians. Some would go so far as to call them a “cult” (a later post will discuss why this is an inaccurate and unfair description). So are they Christians or aren't they? Well, it depends on your definition of “Christian”. If by “Christian” you mean one who holds to the historic teachings of traditional Christianity (which may/may not include some or all of the historic creeds and church councils), then Mormons would fall outside that definition.
But if you define “Christian” as a committed disciple of Jesus Christ (which I would argue is a more Biblical definition of the word). Then the answer changes to “Some are and some aren't.” And honestly that should be the answer for any church-- “Some are and some aren't.” Being a member of an organization, even a church, doesn't make you a Christian, any more than working for McDonalds makes you a hamburger. A Christian is someone who has committed their life to Jesus Christ. And I know many Latter-day Saints (AKA Mormons/LDS) who have done just that. I'm one of them.
Evangelical scholars such as Craig Blomberg, Greg Johnson and Richard Muow, who have taken the time to really develop relationships with Latter-day Saints (LDS) affirm the LDS commitment to Jesus Christ. Richard Muow, President emeritus and professor of Faith and Public Life at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote, “I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.” ( http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/09/my-take-this-evangelical-says-mormonism-isnt-a-cult/comment-page-27/).
This brings us to another important question/accusation that is often leveled at the Latter-day Saints: “Don't Mormons worship 'another Jesus'?” This description is taken from the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:4, “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”
Didn't Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the LDS church even admit that Mormons worshiped another Jesus in the following article? “...President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.'” (http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html)
What exactly did President Hinckley mean by those comments? I can't say for sure. But we should notice the adjective he used. He said the “traditional” Christ. He didn't say “Biblical” or “historical” Christ. I think President Hinckley was trying to say that he rejects the post-biblical traditions (including some of the creeds of historic Christianity) that developed around the person of Christ.
But that still brings us back to the main question—do Mormons worship a 'different' Jesus? Well let's look at some Biblical characteristics of Jesus that Mormons affirm.
They believe that Jesus:
was Pre-existant with the Father. Granted, their understanding of the pre-existance differs from historic Christianity. Perhaps we can explore these differences in a later post.
was Jehovah of the Old Testament.
was Born of a Virgin. (more on this later).
was both God and Man.
performed literal miracles.
was crucified and physically died upon the cross.
rose bodily from the grave.
appeared to his disciples and hundreds of witnesses after his resurrection.
ascended bodily into heaven.
will return bodily some day and reign over His Kingdom.
Sounds like they worship the historic, Biblical, Jesus to me; and not the other Christ that Paul was warning the Corinthians about.
So I would argue, that those Latter-day Saints who have committed their lives to be disciples of this historical, biblical Jesus, are indeed authentic Christians.
Are all Mormons Christians? No, only those who are committed disciples of Jesus Christ.
Are all Southern Baptists Christians? No, only those who are committed disciples of Jesus Christ.
A word about the Virgin Birth.
It appears that there was a time when the LDS church had a radically different understanding of the virgin birth, than did historic Christianity. But that understanding does not appear to be taught by LDS leaders today. Consider these words by Dr. Robert Millet, LDS theologian and emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University.. “'Luke 1:35 and Alma 7:7...(are the) only two scriptural passages I know of that describe how Jesus was conceived. I am not aware of any official declaration or official proclamation; I am not aware of any General Conference address by the brethren today or for the last 50 years that goes beyond that.... Millet said. A member of the LDS Church came up to Millet after an interfaith meeting in California. She was not happy and accused him of lying. 'You told us that we believe in the virgin birth,' she said. He responded, 'I think we do.' 'No, no, you said we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, and you know we don't.' 'Yes we do.' 'No, we do not believe in that.' 'I'm afraid we do.' 'No! From the time I was this high I was taught that God had sexual relations with Mary, and that is how Jesus was conceived.' 'I am fully aware that that was taught by some people. I'm even aware of when (the talk that mentioned) it was delivered, and by whom. There are people who taught it, but it is not the doctrine of the church. The doctrine of the church is what is contained in Alma 7 and what is contained in Luke 1.'” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705381423/Robert-L-Millet-Drowning-questions-with-living-waters.html
Bottom line, there is only one historical, Biblical Jesus that can save. I met this Jesus when I was 14-years-old. And though I obviously cannot judge someone else's salvation. I can look at fruit. And I believe that there are many Latter-day Saints who have a relationship with the saving Christ? Do you have a relationship with Jesus? Have you ever committed to be a disciple of Jesus Christ? You can right now. Just pray to our Father in Heaven in Jesus name and tell Him that's what you want to do. Your life will change.
The Trinity
I've spent the last 34 years of my life immersed in Southern Baptist (SBC) and LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) theology and history. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so is how much mistrust and misunderstanding there is between the 1st and 3rd largest non-Roman Catholic Christian traditions in the United States (United Methodists are #2 by the way). For the last few years I've toyed with an idea of starting a blog to address some of the misunderstandings between our respective traditions and possibly provide a forum for conversation and common ground between us. The blog is still a work in progress, but I've decided in the meantime that I would make an occasional doctrinal post here on Facebook and see how it goes from there. These posts are not meant to criticize either faith tradition, but rather to explain misconceptions and compare and contrast the two. Genuine comments and questions are welcome, but please no drama. If you want to bash or debate, message me. I don't want these posts to become a big theological WWE match. They should be viewed solely as an attempt to clarify and explain the theological positions of the LDS and SBC.
I would assert that the most significant difference between our two faiths is the concept of the Godhead. Now, there is much to discuss here. So for now, I only want to focus on the Trinity. I have met/read very few LDS who really understand the historic Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. That is not a gibe. For that matter I've met very few non-LDS Christians who really understand the Historic Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. So, let's start with an explanation of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be.
LDS rightly argue that the word “Trinity” is not found in the New Testament. The word was actually coined by Tertullian, an early church leader around 200 AD. Christians coming out of the strict monotheism of Judaism struggled to reconcile the fact that the Scriptures attest the Father is God (1 Cor. 8:6), Jesus is God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is God (2 Cor. 3:3), with the view that there is only one God.
LDS also rightly argue that doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Greek Philosophy. But in fairness, that is to be expected. The pedagogy of early Western Civilization was rooted in Greek Philosophy. For the first 1000 years after Christ, if you wished to express yourself academically, scientifically or even theologically you would have done so within a Greek Philosophical framework; (in much the same way that today academics and scientists are expected to express themselves within a secular/evolutionary framework.) That was just the milieu in which the early church existed. It was not an overt attempt to corrupt or change Christian theology.
During this time, several church councils were held and different creeds were developed to try and explain important Christian beliefs and refute false teachings. The most famous and foundational Trinitarian Creed is the Athanasian Creed. It describes the Trinity in part.“... we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost... So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord....
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”
So what does all this mean? In plain English, it means the Father is God, The Son is God and The Holy Spirit is God, and they are one God. But the Father is NOT the Son (and vice versa). The Son is NOT the Holy Spirit (and vice versa). The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit (and vice versa). But they are all one God. Clear as mud right?
I will try and break this down a little more. But before I do that, I want to clarify a common misconception that LDS have about the Trinity.
The historic understanding of the Trinity DOES NOT TEACH that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. They are different persons! Again--The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, different persons. They play different roles in the work of creation/salvation and in some regards have different characteristics. If you hear a Christian assert that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the same being. They do NOT mean that they are the same person (unless they are a heretic or a Oneness Pentecostal, but that is a discussion for another day).
Let me say this one more time the historic understanding of the Trinity is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons! If you glean nothing else from this note, please understand this. It's interesting that LDS often refer to Jesus Baptism as a refutation of the Trinity. Ironically, Trinitarians point to these verses as proof of the Trinity! They readily affirm that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God yet three distinct persons.
So where does the “oneness” come from? How can they be one “being” if there are three distinct person? Well, let's think about this for a moment.... When we look at ourselves, are we merely “physical beings”? Do we not also have a Spirit/Soul? There is a metaphysical aspect to our being. When a man and a woman are married, Scripture declares that they become one flesh. The physical expression of that is expressed in sexuality, but is there not also a knitting of the soul/spirit as well? If there is not a knitting of spirits, how could we enjoy our communion as husband and wife in the interim period between death and resurrection?
Now, let's take that a step further. Historic Christianity teaches that one member of the Godhead (Jesus) has a physical body. LDS Christianity teaches that two members of the Godhead (Jesus and Father) have physical bodies. But are He/They merely physical or do They not also have souls/spirits? No, they have/are spirits as well. If a man and woman can have their spirits knitted together in a small way by God in a marriage ceremony. Is it not possible that the Spirit's of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are knitted together eternally? Think about it. Though LDS believe that we are all sons and daughters of Heavenly Father, we also recognize that there is a unique relationship between the Father and Jesus. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father. We also recognize that the Spirit has a special relationship with the Father and the Son in that He is the only member of the Godhead without a body. Then can it not be possible that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though separate and unique persons, have a deep, eternal, ontological and metaphysical relationship/connection/oneness that we can only begin to comprehend? The belief in that oneness is the essence of the Trinity—three distinct persons united in an eternal, ontological and metaphysical oneness. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Welcome to Saints and Southern Baptists
On October 21, 2013, Dr. R. Albert
Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
delivered a speech on religious liberty at Brigham Young University,
entitled, "A Clear and Present Danger: Religious Liberty,
Marriage, and the Family in the Late Modern Age."
Mohler stated that though Latter-Day
Saints and Southern Baptist may have significant theological
differences, we share strong convictions in religious liberty and the
importance of the traditional family. He continued, “I do not
believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may
go to jail together. I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living
in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe
will have grave and devastating human consequences. Your faith has
held high the importance of marriage and family. Your theology
requires such an affirmation, and it is lovingly lived out by
millions of Mormon families. That is why I and my evangelical
brothers and sisters are so glad to have Mormon neighbors. We stand
together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the
integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of
human flourishing...”
“I come in the hope of much further
conversations, conversations about urgencies both temporal and
eternal. I am unashamed to stand with you in the defense of marriage
and family and a vision of human sexual integrity. I am urgently
ready to speak and act in your defense against threats to your
religious liberty, even as you have shown equal readiness to speak
and act in defense of mine. We share love for the family, love for
marriage, love for the gift of children, love of liberty, and love of
human society. We do so out of love and respect for each other.
That is why only those with the deepest
beliefs, and even the deepest differences, can help each other
against encroaching threats to religious liberty, marriage, and the
family. I guess I am back to Flannery O’Connor again. We must push
back against this age as hard as it is pressing against us. We had
better press hard, for this age is pressing ever harder against us.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)