« Response to "Abortion Isn't a Religious Issue" by Garry Wills | Main | GodBlogCon or bust »

We Believe Different Things - We Can't All Be Christians

There’s an interesting Q&A in this week’s U.S. News & World Report with the Mormon elder M. Russell Ballard. Obviously, he claims Mormons are Christian and they believe in the Bible. Of course, the definition of terms is always key when discussing theology with Mormons. We may use the same words, but they don’t mean the same things.

He says that we call Mormonism a cult because we just reject the ideas that there could be a “restoration” or a new prophet, or Apostles. We think “the heavens are sealed.” Well, of course that’s not the reason Mormon claims of revelation are rejected. It’s the mirror image of why we do accept the revelation of Scripture. In one word: authority. The writers had authority to write. The Old Testament prophets were judged as reliably delivering God’s message. For the New Testament writers, they were all eyewitnesses to Jesus or one generation removed, relaying firsthand testimony. Joseph Smith and subsequent Mormon revelations just don’t have the kind of authority that would cause us to evaluate it as God’s Word. This is, by the way, many other writings in the early centuries after Christ were rejected by the church. We don’t think the heavens are sealed; they just haven’t given us good evidence to accept the teachings. In fact, the essence of Mormon conviction is subjective – the burning in the bosom, not objective.

Ballard claims that there was great uncertainty in the four centuries after Jesus. This is an attempt to justify the Mormon claim that it is the restoration that was lost by the early church. But that’s not an accurate reflection of early church history. Pick up any good church history like Bryan M. Litfin’s new book on the early church fathers to get an accurate picture.

And the reason Mormonism and Christian cannot be the same thing is summarized nicely by elder Ballard when he describes the Trinity as three separate individuals, rather than three persons in one substance. That core difference clearly distinguishes two separate religions, however we label each other. Ballard seems to bolster the Mormon definition by citing the common understanding most Christians have. Well, that’s only evidence of the bad training Christians have gotten; it doesn’t at all go to the accuracy of the definition.

One thing that isn’t always clear in the efforts such as Ballard’s to claim the name Christian is that Mormons don’t believe the rest of us are Christians. The whole point of Joseph Smith beginning the Mormon church was to restore what all the churches had lost. There were no true churches according to his purported revelation. Why else do they evangelize even when they find out someone is a Christian?

They make truth claims. Christians make truth claims. That’s fine. Let’s just admit that our truth claims don’t agree.

Comments

Thanks for this posting! It is really an important difference to know whether something is counterfeit. The Mormons make false claims that are so close to the truth it can be quite confusing for many. They are some of the most difficult to debate because they will mimic to a very fine degree the claims of Christianity, it isn't until one pins them down on the nature of Jesus Christ that the obvious litmus comes up a different color.

The scripture is very clear on false christs. We ought to be,too.

Posted by: ilona at November 7, 2007 12:59 PM

I grew up in Mormon country (not Utah, the other Mormon country) in Arizona. So, having missionaries show up at our house every so often was good incentive to learn about the teachings of the LDS Church.

I thought everyone was interested in what Mormons believe and was shocked as a teenager that people in our church were so ignorant and considered the Mormon church another Christian denomination. Moreover, they didn't care, on account of the fact that the Mormons they knew personally were so nice and friendly that they felt as if to learn negative things about that faith was equivalent to say negative things about their friends.

So it came as no surprise on an episode of Glenn Beck's tv show when he interviewed a fellow Mormon (as Beck is himelf LDS) and equated Christianity with Mormonism based on the title that the church AFTERALL, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...

This is the standard by which we know the content of teaching? This is how deep we should examine the beliefs of purported apostles and prophets? Look no further than the name on the side of the building? Aye me!

*Letitia*

Posted by: Letitia at November 8, 2007 1:00 PM

What to you gives the bible writers authority? I would say it was their witness of the Savior and their callings. Joseph Smith had both. So the heavens aren't sealed? Hmmm, in terms of new scripture even? I believe that is what Elder Ballard was referring to. As far as the subjectivity of Mormon conviction goes, the substance of the bible cannot be objectively proven either. We must rely on faith, desire and the promptings of the Spirit, just like we do. Imagine a fancy powerpoint describing the archeological digs of biblical sights as proof of its truth - followed by an altar call. Ridiculous. I think you know this. It's simply not how it works. It works on the inside and it is between God and the individual. Things of the Spirit are communicated by the Spirit. That is what the bible says. To believe otherwise is just one more example of extra-biblical belief among mainstream Christians who condemn Mormon extra-biblical belief. Another is that elephant called the trinity; most definitely not in the Bible. By the way Joseph Smith never said that other faiths weren't Christian. He routinely let them use his pulpit, in fact.

Posted by: Joseph at December 19, 2007 2:43 AM

Sorry you missed the point, Joseph.

What the Bible says is that there is but one door to the Father: Jesus Christ. On that point there is but one litmus test given:
"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

There is a historical marker and an account by eyewitnesses that we adhere to... this is closed by virtue of its place in time. There is no other Jesus, no other gospel, and those that teach otherwise are counterfeit. 1 John 2 and 4 teach this.

Jesus Christ came in time; that is what it means when saying that Jesus came in the flesh.

The Trinity is spiritually discerned through the scriptural account. This was well established by early Church fathers early on in the faith: read Athanasius for the full arguments in the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Melinda's point was well taken in comparing the difference between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity.

Posted by: ilona at December 26, 2007 2:21 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.