Why is Mormonism a “cult?”
It’s not that I’m feeling like an incendiary post, I’m just constantly moved to wonder…
Why is it that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (”Mormons”) is so frequently characterised as a “cult”?
Of course, the question has a self-evident answer to a degree, rooted in the historical persecution of Mormons for their allegedly unconventional and deviant beliefs. Interdenominational / interfaith religious conflict is a thing only as old as theology itself. It’s also rather tiresome and boring from a secularist’s point of view.
I also recognise that “cult” can just be another pejorative epithet uninsured by any sort of critical thought. Why, I should know, it’s often bandied about by fellow atheists to describe the totality of theology and theological history.
But I don’t feel like the answer begins and ends there. As near as I can tell as an non-ingratiated outsider unschooled in scripture and professing only a very narrow, cursory familiarity with theological doctrine, the incongruities among various other Christian denominations — and indeed, individual professors of any faith — are at least as vast and cavernous.
And commensurately, I see some dismissive derision going on; in Protestant-dominated Middle America, making fun of Catholics seems particularly the fashion. Or maybe I’m just more acutely perceptive of that having grown up in the confines of a Catholic university and proximate to Catholic intellectual tradition through the scholarly work of my mother, and some other avenues.
But the kind of vitriole, the churning bile, the raging contempt that I see toward Mormonism from so many interlocutory angles? I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it in the broad daylight of “respectable” society in view of God, although the dark, moldy catacombs of religious extremism and theo-political fanaticism in certain other parts of the world offer enough parallels. Also, I don’t see the representatives of many other er, “dichotomous” Christian denominations, however mutually antagonistic their expressed positions, so thoroughly moved to drown each other in spirited accusations of being “cult”-like, or particularly primed to deploy the caustic discursive power of this C-word at all.
Granted, my theoretical exposure to LDS thought is limited largely to my interaction with a few real, live, practising Mormons, most substantially Clint, along with some kids I went to high school with. But all the same, I simply fail to see whence the applicability of “cult” is derived, along with all the other bitter hatred.
Although I command no expertise in the area whatsoever, I am compelled to say that it seems like a very reasonable, pragmatic, and tolerant theology. On the other hand, being an atheist, and an ill-educated one at that when it comes to these sorts of matters, I also don’t have that part of the brain that scoffs or takes offense at any of the LDS (re)interpretations or revisions to whatever other Christians consider established, uncontested historical, spiritual or exegetical fact. Clean slate here.
Because I’ve mostly engaged LDS theology in the larger context of social, moral, and personal issues (as opposed to, say, deeply esoteric fine points of scripture or doctrine), there is a heavy inflection to the sort of thing that I take away from it.
Four thematically recurring features that stand out to me as an outsider are:
- Extremely heavy role of community, distributed involvement, lay ministry.
- Very strong emphasis on human volition, willpower and metaphysical free-will libertarianism. A view of God that presumes the inalienability of uncoerced human choice participating before Him.
- Importance of character development, decency and qualitatively positive personal featuers on an extrinsic, interpersonal plane.
- Views on topics of extrinsic, worldly applicability — social issues, moral conduct, law, politics, etc. — tend to be grounded in very accessible, generalisable terms that do not rely dogmatically on the force of scripture nor on fundamental or literal interpretation of scriptural prescriptions. Almost all views I have heard from Mormons on a variety of topics of common social interest — and sometimes accompanied by frequent controversy — have been grounded in basically worldly terms. There is frequent recourse to observations in sociology, psychology, and other areas, whether considered part of established scientific knowledge, or just otherwise inhabiting a shared communicative universe with a non-Mormon. This resonates with me extremely, as it leads to thought-provoking, inspiring, transformative and polemically effective reasoning that I can engage, converse with, and benefit from even as a nonbeliever/secularist. (I don’t really mean to suggest that LDS positions on worldly topics have a wholly secular basis; of course, in the final analysis, they don’t. But that is not the point; the point is that there is very deliberate effort to reconcile those positions with some degree of universalisable empirical reality.)
Seems very pragmatic, tolerant, and reasonable to me as an outsider to Christian faith. Definitely among my top choices of interlocutor in discussions involving topics on which theology has a bearing, although I imagine individual exponents of the faith vary as much as individual exponents of anything in particular and acknowledge the possibility that I may have just had incredibly good opportunity to surround myself with high-quality people.
So, where’s the source of this inference to “cult”? Where is the source of this profound contempt?
Is it because Mormons do seem heavily invested in a unitary conception of doctrine through centralised, intersubjective revelation? How does that differ from Catholics or many others?
Is it because Mormons are characteristically unapologetic about the strength, relevance and primacy of their faith? How does that differ from anyone else of actual religious conviction?
Is it because Mormons have a well-disciplined, structured and effective international church organisation and a very deliberate public outreach strategy that relies on the cultivation of individual relationships, proselytisation, etc? While I’ve seen where people are coming from when they generalise about many Mormon missionaries in “monolithic” and “homogenous” terms, that is neither true nor particular to the LDS.
Is it because they seem to have a very tightly-knit, integrated, and distributed community and form close–dare I even say, sometimes exclusive?–relationships within their localities? How does that differ from many other communities of faith, or shared belief systems of any kind, really? Is it any secret that strong moral convictions shared by a group of people tend to lead to clustering and reticence toward pervasive moral relativism and ideological eclecticism?
Misconceptions about lifestyle choices and/or the role of certain overblown historical relics such as polygamy? Well, I don’t know any polygamous Mormons that belong to the LDS proper. Do you? Besides, if that’s your beef, is it not best directed at secular relativism, “post-modern” sexual politics, and other prime factories of “novel” lifestyle advocacy and “revolutionary” deconstruction of “traditional” morality? And what does this have to do with cultism?
So, what is it? Why did I run across a flyer the other day encouraging me and my fellow churchgoers to come to a seminar about “combating the cult of Mormonism?”
December 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
IMO it’s because antimormons are fundamentally insecure in their own belief systems, and the ease with which Mormons are able to fundamentally alter Christian theology through the tools of prophecy and scripture accentuates how fragile the Protestant theology is. Because they can’t combat this enemy with reason, they resort to ad hominem.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Are there some particular examples in mind that you could use to easily illustrate this for me? I don’t really know how the Mormons “are able to fundamentally alter Christian theology through the tools of prophecy and scripture.”
December 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I’d compare it to the way neodarwinists attack punctuated equilibriumists or Catholics attacked Protestants … When your belief system is grounded solely in appeals to authority, contradictory authorities cannot simply be different or wrong … They must be evil to prevent uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
examples: evangelicals believe that one is saved by belief alone — Mormons believe some degree of good works are necessary. Both groups ground their belief in the authority of a book or books and credited prophets. But when prophets disagree and there’s no falsifiability to either claim … Things get scary.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Do you have any specific examples I could understand?
Other than some redesignations and reassignments of prophetic appointments and some reinterpretations of the significance of various Biblical luminaries, which too are vague generalisations I’ve scrapped together from things I’ve heard, I don’t really know what it is that Mormonism questions about incumbent Protestant theology.
I never ask because I usually won’t understand the answer anyway, as I do not know the old or new testaments nor grasp much of the mythos on anything more than a very, very primitive level.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
we had some overlap in our postings but I think the requirements of salvation are prolly the clearest example. Evangelicals believe, on the authority of one particular interpretation of the bible, that salvation (ie heaven) comes from belief in a particular set of ideas, while Mormons believe it comes through belief and good behavior. Which set of interpretations is right? No way to know. Hence comes fear, and with it xenophobia.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Question about evangelicals: Do they not see a moral and logical inextricability of causality between belief in a set of ideas and the ways in which belief in those ideas causes one to act?
Or do they believe them and worldly actions to reside in nonoverlapping domains of human experience?
December 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
they believe that ethical behavior is a consequence of right belief and relationship with god, but that ethical behavior is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of salvation
December 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
So, it’s possible to simply hold certain “correct ideas in one’s head,” behave in a profoundly unethical way, and still get into heaven?
December 27th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
correct. Martin Luther said “sin boldly!”
December 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Surely that can’t be the whole picture. That doesn’t make any sense!
December 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Perhaps the real issue is that because the strong emphasis on human volition is not there, they don’t tend to harp on ethical choices in the same light of foremost significance that say, Mormons would? But that would still make the “ethical behavior is a consequence of right belief and relationship with god” part very important. It would just make unethical behaviour logically contradictory to the right belief/relationship with God.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
it’s difficult if not impossible to draw that conclusion from scripture or basic ethical common sense. That’s why they react in fear to other scriptures that say differently. Mind you not all Christians hold this belief but typically those who most hate Mormonism hold it in its starkest most absurd form.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
your analysis is correct if one acts unethically consistently it casts one’s “faith” into question but it is “faith not works by which we are saved.” this assumes a rather shallow definition of faith — to be a faithful husband is to be faithful in thought word and deed as the Catholics and Mormons believe but evangelicals do not.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
So, if that is in fact a concrete sore spot for the Evangelicals, I suppose they might respond with the impulse that Mormonism, for instance, is an abhorrent belief system.
Still leaves me mystified as to the ubiquitous suggestion that it’s a “cult.”
December 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Having concluded that Mormonism is not only wrong but evil one faces the question “why do so many people believe it even after exposure to my much truer pov?” must be an evil manipulative leadership and mind control. Ergo cult.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Another thing about Mormon theology that probably bears some controversy is the conviction the goodwill of God can meet even those who do not embrace Christianity, but who have led good lives from solemn, sincere, and earnest intent to do good - in other words, for the right sorts of reasons, not incidentally. This illustrates the point fairly well.
Or at least, that’s my interpretation. I do not know to what extent LDS theology faults those who have had exposure to the notion of Christ for rejecting it.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
bingo. Evangelical views on that issue are directly contrary to the explicit teachings of Jesus and the more inclusivist views of the Mormons frighten them.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I suppose if the goal is to discover less why Mormonism is disliked and more why the label of “cult” is applied, this article provides some answers, as well as this one.
I suppose, for one, if you presume the archaeological and historical backdrop of the Mormon story to be a fabrication of Joseph Smith, you might use the term “cult” to refer to the masses of people “duped” into the resulting superstructure.
But I doubt that most people use that term with such deliberate incisiveness. It’s also frequently thrown around by atheists and agnostics; sometimes it’s applied to all organised religion, but other times to Mormonism specifically.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Just as a disclaimer, I am Mormon, so, I’m not necessarily a “neutral” observer of this.
In general, I would chalk up the “cult” label on Mormonism to a couple of reasons which have pretty much been stated here already:
1. It is a relatively new religion. For all the general religious animosity that Mormonism is subject to, it is generally quite mild compared to some other religions at similar stages. The animosity that Alex mentioned in regards to American Catholicism is the reverberations of the religious wars (some of which were quite literally wars, and quite brutal ones at that) that went on for hundreds of years after Martin Luther; although it is relatively mild at this point, anti-catholicism was, if anything, even stronger than anti-mormonism has ever been and behaved in a generally similar manner.
2. I tend to think that the militant Evangelicals use various “issues” such as this to shore up their congregations. Substantively, it’s not much different than politicians who headline their campaigns with “preserve family values and fight “. This is where I tend to see as the root of the anti-mormon sentiment originating.
3. As has already been discussed, the claim of modern prophecy makes Mormonism more of a perceived threat than, say, a Methodist congregation is to a Baptist. It is, in that vein, more analogous to Martin Luther circa 1500’s than, say, John Wesley–it is a very different approach that, to some extent, invalidates the prior approaches if accepted.
Nevertheless, I tend to find the doctrinal and historical arguments a litter bit…superfluous / strawmen. This is somewhat based on the reality that most anti-___ material is substantively the same, regardless of the target religion. The historical objections generally dance around “research” that is easily fabricated when convenient and easily forgotten when inconvenient–in other words, I view it largely as demand driven rather than supply driven. Under the general standards used, it is fairly simple to make the argument that virtually any religion, most political organizations, and even most societal institutions at large are “cults”.
It is also somewhat my view that, on a practical level, there really isn’t that _much_ of a difference between most religions. Theological differences require a nuanced view to understand that most people simply don’t have…few people (of any faith) actually understand their own theology, let alone another theology with enough clarity to actually do a comparative analysis. This is especially obvious when one chats with an atheist, who tends to simplify all religions into “” -> “Try to be act religious”.
This is, of course, overly simplistic, and does ignore the fact that theology (ie, one example that Alex mentioned is the Mormon understanding of agency) does have very profound, yet subtle effects on behavior. Nevertheless, I still think it is, in a lot of ways, like 10 different essays arguing for why a country should/should not go to war. The reasons may vary, but the argued result (behavior) doesn’t differ all that much. And, while the subtleties are understood by people who busy themselves in that sort of thing, the differences are often too nuanced to be appreciated by the masses. A good example of this is faith vs works. Regardless as to whether a religion argues that salvation proceeds from faith, and then people who have the “grace of God” do good things, or whether a religion is “works” based, and a person does good things to obtain salvation, the end result is (supposedly) the same–Group A does good works, either because they are saved or they want other people to believe they are saved and Group B does good works because they believe that, in doing so, they will be saved. Either way, they do good works AND either way good works stem from “faith”.
BTW, I’m very much not an eccumentalist, as may be supposed by the last few statements. Personally, I do find the logic, reason, and philosophical differences very important, in part, because I tend to try to act more in terms of philosophical precepts rather than a set of regulations that someone else inferred from those precepts. Also, this is important in terms of evolution of religious thought which is largely centered around the underlying philosophical basis much less than the proceeding behavioral expectations. Nevertheless, I do argue that most people do exactly the opposite and act in accordance to guidelines / regulations with little understanding or even interest in the underlying philosophical basis.
Still, all that said, I have been a little disheartened by some of the backlash resulting from Romney’s presidential bid (even though I largely disgree with many of his political viewpoints, don’t support him at all politically, and have no intention of ever voting for him). I do find that there has been too much…undue burden on him politically because of his religion; by and large, he has had very little press time or coverage that did not center around “the mormon angle” and even the NYT and similar news outlets that attempt to have a veneer of respectability have published editorials articles that would not ever have been published if they dealt similarly with any other candidates religion. While a politician’s religion is, perhaps, important, it all seems quite absurd if the same standards were applied equally. Thompson and Huckabee have not ever had to answer a question regarding their church’s (Southern Baptist) theological and practical support and advocacy of slavery. No Protestant candidate has ever had to answer questions regarding Martin Luther’s support of wholesale slaughter of peasants by the nobility, etc… These types of questions are absurd and seriously undermine the political process. I don’t think Romney should get elected…but, I want him to get rejected politically, not religiously.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Just a few addendums:
1. BTW, good post and commentary. For obvious reasons, it’s something that I find interesting…
2. To sum up my feelings on the matter, I tend to see religion as both often being a business (unfortunately) and a dirty one at that. Unfortunately, when religious groups turn dirty, it often resembles (or beats) the worst of politics.
3. Anti-___ literature is actually a fairly prosperous, thriving industry in its own right. Anti-whatever videos and literature gets sold to churches for hundreds of dollars.
4. I’m not sure if I could even guess a percentage evangelical churches that traffic in anti-whatever literature (generally, if they do anti-mormon, they also do a lot of anti- literature / propaganda). Still, it is important to point out that it is not universal in usage and I have a few evangelical ministers who fundamentally oppose that sort of thing, even though they may or may not generally have a positive perspective on the religions being targeted.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Sasha - I deduce from the uses of “fellow” in this article that you are secularist, atheist, and a churchgoer.
Unitarian Universalist, perhaps?
December 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
No, that is an incorrect assumption made by the poster to which I was alluding. I am neither a Unitarian nor a churchgoer.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion This article helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity’s theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.
• Baptism: .
Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and prohibiting non-Christians from witnessing them.
• The Trinity: .
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”
Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.
• The Deity of Jesus Christ
Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html
• The Cross and Christ’s Atonement: .
The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.
• Definition of “Christian”: .
But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.
It’s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. . Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070037.htm , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today. . If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.
• The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:
The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this:
“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 had similar thoughts: “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.”
He also 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.”
The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.
* * *
• Christ-Like Lives:
The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
1. Attend Religious Services weekly
2. Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life – extremely important
3. Believes in life after death
4. Does NOT believe in psychics or fortune-tellers
5. Has taught religious education classes
6. Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline
7. Sabbath Observance
8. Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith
9. Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily
10. Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen (very supportive)
11. Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality
LDS Evangelical
1. 71% 55%
2. 52 28
3. 76 62
4. 100 95
5. 42 28
6. 68 22
7. 67 40
8. 72 56
9. 50 19
10. 65 26
11. 84 35
So what do you think the motivation is for the Evangelical preachers to denigrate the Mormon Church? It seems obvious they shouldn’t be denigrating a church based on First Century Christianity. The only plausible reason is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).
December 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I’m sorry I haven’t had time to read all the comments yet, except the latest by Mormons are Christian.
The term ‘cult’ is rather imprecise and inflammatory, and so it is unfortunate that so many Christians choose to couch their criticisms of the LDS using that word. A ‘cult’ as I understand it is properly defined in terms of sociology: mass devotion to a leader, cutting themselves off from the surrounding community or world, etc.
But many conservative Christians use the word ‘cult’ to simply refer to any popular religious movement that borrows some Christian ideas while not ‘truly’ being Christian. This is the intention behind the word when it is applied to the LDS, I think.
I myself am an ‘orthodox’ Christian and I would argue that LDS is not compatible with orthodox Christianity. With that, people can do what they want.
MaC’s comment above illustrates the problem for me. He (She?) is going to the mat to defend a denial of Nicean trinitarianism, but Nicean Trinitarianism has been historically considered the ‘baseline’ for being an adherent of the Christian religion in the first place. If you deny the Trinity, you are not a ‘Christian’ in any historical sense. If you want to disembody Christianity from its historical expressions and argue that
Claiming that the LDS simply follows the ‘first century church’ begs the question and is what the vast majority of radical or unorthodox groups have said. The anabaptists during the Reformation claimed to be rejecting all ‘man made traditions’ to ‘go back’ to the ’simple’ practice of Chrisitnaity as found in the time of the apostles. This is a claim; but it cannot be proven. And citing Roger Williams, who first separated from the Puritans to form an American baptist group and then separated from that in the name of there being ‘no constituted church on earth’, does nothing to reinforce the LDS apologists’ position. Williams is a radical, and his position runs contrary to the vast majority of historical Christianity. There is something ‘American’ about his separationist individualism, and in this sense I grant that there is sometihng very American about the LDS, but American does not necessarily equal Christian.
Citing Luther as a compatriot for LDS separationism is horribly anachronistic. Yes, Luther believed that there were certain truths that the medieval Church had corrupted or lost, and which needed to be recovered. But this hardly justifies denying the Trinity, which Luther affirmed with all his being.
LDS Restorationism is, by its own admission, a rejection of Christian history. That history is ‘apostate,’ as MaC put it in his comment. Fine; but then what is the relatoinship between your Restoration church and all those apostates who are walking around calling themselves Christinas. Joseph Smith’s claim was that the apostates are in fact not ‘true’ Christians. His church had it right, everybody else had it irredeemably wrong. This is why he was so despised, but it also made him honest about his position. Now many in the LDS are clamoring for acceptance by Evangelicals as fellow ‘Christians.’ But that’s not what the original LDS followers thought about us. Either we are an apostate group and an authentic group at odds with one another, or we are two groups pursuing the same fundamental system of religion. The LDS position has been the former, but now it seems to want to go with the latter and gain admission to the coalition.
The bottom line is, in my opinion, if you deny the Trinity then you are not a Christian. Christianity is Trinitarian theism. This is what sets it apart from the other monotheisms. To come along in the 19th century and claim that the Nicean creed should be scrapped and that in fact you have discovered the ‘true’ Christian faith, lost for centuries, shows that you might as well just claim to be starting a new religion from scratch. What’s the point of claiming to be the ‘true’ early Christians when you are cutting yourself off theologically from all the flesh-and-blood Christians who have actually lived since at least the 4th century? This is especially ironic given the LDS claim to believe in an ‘embodied’ God, b/c their position entails the rejection of the ‘body of Christ’–the Church–that has persisted through the years in real flesh-and-blood human bodies worshipping together in community. Instead they claim that an angel appeared to a man in upstate New York in the 1830s and exposed this whole historical body as a severe misunderstanding, and gave them the keys to recover the truth. If that’s what they think happened, then I do not object to their belief–but I object to calling it “Christianity.” Or, I object to patronizing those of us who remain ‘apostate’ by saying that we are all somehow ‘Christians.’ Somebody is in on the LDS sociology, and somebody is out. That’s just how it is.
I don’t say this to be rude or unnecessarily divisive, and I’m sure it is fun for Alex the atheist to watch two religious nuts have it out on his blog. And I do think it is dumb to call the LDS a ‘cult,’ for whatever that is worth.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Whenever I begin to lose faith in humanity (from excessive contact with people like “MAC” and evangelicals who share his or her mental illness), I’ll need to come back to this page in the archives, where I can see Alex, Xon, and Clint, all of whom come from ideological points of view radically different from each other (and from my own), all making solid, reasoned sense. Seriously. Y’all give me hope.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Xon:
For what it’s worth, you may be surprised to learn that no, “fun” isn’t what I’d call it–in the sense of “ha-ha” amusing.
I don’t know that I command all the attributes that are typically attributable to atheists culturally, especially in religious circles.
For one, I am not “anti-religious,” in the sense that I neither believe religion to be intrinsically harmful ipso facto nor discourage anyone from partaking of it. I do see a lot of harm from the social phenomenology and historicity of organised religion, but I very much deputise the moral burden for that to certain institutions, organisations and power structures that leveraged it as an instrument of social control. Even then, the inherent simplicity of that generalisation doesn’t sit very well with me, and feel that it ought to be infused with a great many qualifications.
Secondly, I feel that we are immensely indebted intellectually to our inheritance of theological tradition and its associated canon, inasmuch as philosophy is bound up in religion. Even so, there are many prescriptive claims a Judeo-Christian worldview makes that are essential and critical, yet outside the scope of what has been regarded in the modern context as philosophically addressable, particularly on ethical and moral questions.
Thirdly, in the incumbent Eastern European cultural view I espouse, there is a great respect and esteem of the sincerely faithful, even by those that are not themselves practising. There is a widespread perception that people that have given their life to God are “better” people than schmucks like me, and that is something I am given to countenance.
So, no, I’m not “amused.” Being somewhat interested in theology and ever curious to explore worldviews and perspectives engaged with people like yourself, it is certainly “fun” inasmuch as it’s interesting and curious - but nothing so pejorative and contemptuous as you may be implying.