Mormons are Christian. I write this because there have been a spate of pastors and so-called experts who claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a "cult". While I understand the sectarian need to put down others in order to feel better about oneself, what really rankles me is when other Christians say that Mormons do not really believe in Jesus Christ (1). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Of course, I admit that there are wide differences between Mormon doctrine and that of mainstream Christianity. I wouldn't have it any other way--I believe firmly in the Mormon worldview and won't sell out by trying to claim that the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture, so they aren't all that bad after all.
But these differences belie the one, important similarity between Mormonism (which is the doctrine preached by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and the rest of Christianity. The one thing that unites us all is faith in Christ.
After all, every single Christian denomination has doctrine that differs one from another. The one constant throughout these differences is this faith in Jesus Christ: that He is the Son of God, that He physically came to the earth, that He was resurrected from the dead, and that He is the sole Author of our salvation, having suffered for our sins.
There are those who say that Latter-day Saints don't believe these things. I say PROVE IT. Prove it by quoting authorities in the Church, prove it by quoting historical documents, prove it by quoting from LDS scripture--don't simply assert it and move on, as if it were self-evident. Don't decontextualize single verses or hundred-year old sermons. Don't create a 'straw-man' Mormonism to berate.
Following my own advice, I quote from LDS scripture, curriculum, and authorities:
From the Book of Mormon, when a righteous king was preaching to his people shortly before his death: "...I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."(2)
Again from the Book of Mormon, when a prophet told the people of his duty as a prophet, as well as the duty of all who follow God: "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."(3)
Also, the culminating event of the Book of Mormon is when Christ appears to the people in ancient America after His resurrection and ascension. During this supernal event, Jesus explained His status as Savior: "...feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." (4)
Other examples of our faith in Christ follow, though I won't quote them in whole:
Gospel Principles, a Church-published book used in weekly Sunday School meetings and approved as official Church curriculum, speaks extensively about Christ, especially in chapters 3, 11, and 12. (5)
Jesus the Christ, a book in the Church's Missionary Library, is one of the few books other than scripture that missionaries are directed to use in their daily studies. It was authored by James E. Talmage, an apostle of the Lord, in 1915. (6)
General Conference is a biannual conference when the authorities of the Church speak to members about a variety of subjects. Our Christo-centric soteriology fills these talks extensively. (7)
Finally, in order to be considered worthy to enter the holy temple, members of the Church must acquire a reccomend from their priesthood leaders. These leaders conduct a pre-written interview, the first question of which asks if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. If the interviewee answers negatively, then they are not considered worthy to enter the temple. In other words, those members of the Church who do not believe that Jesus is our Savior are not fully Mormon.
There are hundreds more examples of this: indeed, Mormons are convinced we believe in Jesus as the Christ. While we differ in the way this is interpreted (we do not accept the Nicene Creed, or the theological creations after it) we ABSOLUTELY believe in Jesus. That is what makes us Christian.
Yet, others will still insist that we do not believe in Christ. They typically do so in environments that do not call for much research or rigor ("counter-cult" workshops come to mind) and where mere assertions, without the bothersome requirement of citation and evidence, are assumed to be correct. This hides the intelligent arguments that they may have; I've never actually heard a critique of Mormonism that is both based in fact and substantively relevant to the question of Mormonism's Christianity.
So I respectfully invite all to whom this post is received: if you believe you can prove that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ, or if you believe that in order to be Christian we must accept your creeds, please leave a comment. I'd be happy to clarify any doctrinal points that you would like discussed.
1. Hunt, Kasie. 2011. AP news article, accessed 08 OCT 2011: http://news.yahoo.com/perry-backer-romney-cult-not-christian-212937351.html
2. Mosiah 3:17
3. 2 Nephi 25:26
4. 3 Nephi 11:14
5. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2009. Gospel Principles. Salt Lake City, UT: Intellectual Reserve.
6. Talmage, James E. 1915. Jesus the Christ. Salt Lake City, UT: Intellectual Reserve.
7. See General Conference archives and the Church's homepage at www.lds.org
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Would the recognition of same-sex marriage be fulfilling?
I read an excellent article today that precisely depicts what I've been thinking about: the proponants of same-sex marriage are not interested in any right that they don't already have, or in the ability to live their lives the way they choose. Instead, they simply want to make their way of live accepted by society at large.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3060
I'll summarize:
Once upon a time, the gay rights movement only sought to not be persecuted. Engaging in homosexual practices was illegal, and they sought to have such laws declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they wanted to live according to their own chosen lifestyle. Essentially, they were asking for the right to pursue happiness in the way they believed morally acceptable.
Today, things are different. No serious political actors want to return to the days of sodomy laws; indeed, it is distincly frowned upon to persecute homosexuals. Homosexuals are tolerated, and homophobia is frowned upon. Yet the LBGT movement has continued to press for same-sex marriage, despite the fact that this wouldn't affect gays' and lesbians' ablity to live their chosen lifestyles. Instead, it appears that they only seeking same-sex marriage so as to confer upon their lifesyle social acceptance.
What Carson Holloway, the author of the above-cited article, is saying, is that this public acceptance won't give gays and lesbians any substantive good. The strongest argument, he says, is one following the natural law theory: homosexuality is against nature and should not, therefore, be accepted. If homosexuality is indeed against natural law, then accepting it, rewarding it, institutionalizing it, won't give anyone anything. Indeed, it would end up hurting the people it seek to help by tricking them into an unnatural lifestyle.
If on the other hand, homosexuality is not against the natural law, then accepting it won't make it any better. It would be, as Holloway says, "...nothing more than a needless addition to a naturally fulfilling undertaking." If homosexuality were so fulfilling, why all the fuss about whether it's accepted or not?
I like much of what Holloway says. I've never been a uber-fan of natural law theory (I have no objections to it, I just haven't read much about it) but all of this seems to make sense. Here are my thoughts:
Even among heterosexual couples, these days there is little that people can do in marriage that they cannot do outside of marriage. The difference lies in what is done to them. People can live together, have children, have a loving and even sexual relationship, write wills including each other, all without marriage. The benefits that come with marriage are simply those that happen because society approves of and rewards that specific. Individuals have the right to be able to do what his neighbor can do. One does not have the right to have done to himself the same thing that is done to another who acts differently. In other words, two people who act differently cannot expect to receive the same consequence. Hence, gays and lesbians should not expect to have done to them (aka, be accepted) the same as if they acted heterosexually.
In the end, it's a question of rights. Individuals have right to be tolerated in non-criminal behavior; they do not have the right to be accepted in any behavior. Society has a right to define its institutions to match the moral beliefs of the majority of its inhabitants. No court can substitute the public morality for an alien, though tolerated one, without becoming the very tool of despotism.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3060
I'll summarize:
Once upon a time, the gay rights movement only sought to not be persecuted. Engaging in homosexual practices was illegal, and they sought to have such laws declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they wanted to live according to their own chosen lifestyle. Essentially, they were asking for the right to pursue happiness in the way they believed morally acceptable.
Today, things are different. No serious political actors want to return to the days of sodomy laws; indeed, it is distincly frowned upon to persecute homosexuals. Homosexuals are tolerated, and homophobia is frowned upon. Yet the LBGT movement has continued to press for same-sex marriage, despite the fact that this wouldn't affect gays' and lesbians' ablity to live their chosen lifestyles. Instead, it appears that they only seeking same-sex marriage so as to confer upon their lifesyle social acceptance.
What Carson Holloway, the author of the above-cited article, is saying, is that this public acceptance won't give gays and lesbians any substantive good. The strongest argument, he says, is one following the natural law theory: homosexuality is against nature and should not, therefore, be accepted. If homosexuality is indeed against natural law, then accepting it, rewarding it, institutionalizing it, won't give anyone anything. Indeed, it would end up hurting the people it seek to help by tricking them into an unnatural lifestyle.
If on the other hand, homosexuality is not against the natural law, then accepting it won't make it any better. It would be, as Holloway says, "...nothing more than a needless addition to a naturally fulfilling undertaking." If homosexuality were so fulfilling, why all the fuss about whether it's accepted or not?
I like much of what Holloway says. I've never been a uber-fan of natural law theory (I have no objections to it, I just haven't read much about it) but all of this seems to make sense. Here are my thoughts:
Even among heterosexual couples, these days there is little that people can do in marriage that they cannot do outside of marriage. The difference lies in what is done to them. People can live together, have children, have a loving and even sexual relationship, write wills including each other, all without marriage. The benefits that come with marriage are simply those that happen because society approves of and rewards that specific. Individuals have the right to be able to do what his neighbor can do. One does not have the right to have done to himself the same thing that is done to another who acts differently. In other words, two people who act differently cannot expect to receive the same consequence. Hence, gays and lesbians should not expect to have done to them (aka, be accepted) the same as if they acted heterosexually.
In the end, it's a question of rights. Individuals have right to be tolerated in non-criminal behavior; they do not have the right to be accepted in any behavior. Society has a right to define its institutions to match the moral beliefs of the majority of its inhabitants. No court can substitute the public morality for an alien, though tolerated one, without becoming the very tool of despotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)