Are Mormons Christians?

"Are Mormons Christians?"

Elder Alexander B. Morrison

June 26, 2007

 

 

At the onset I must make it clear that although I am an emeritus General Authority I do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my remarks today.  No one has asked me to speak on the topic I have chosen, nor told me what to say.  My views are my own, and I bear full and total responsibility for them.  Some are taken from my recent book, Turning From Truth:  A New Look at the Great Apostasy (Deseret Book, 2005).  That said, however, my wish is to represent, as best I can, my views on what I consider to be an important topic.  The title of my presentation is:  “Are Mormons Christians?” 

 

In discussing this issue, I do not wish to disparage, criticize or belittle the sincerely-held beliefs of others, preferring to let each make his or her own decision about theological truths.  I recognize that in the realm of religion faith trumps all else.  But where we disagree it is my plea that we do so with respect, civility and forbearance, avoiding the name-calling and invective which too often take the place of reasoned dialogue. 

 

Although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been organized for more than 175 years, and continues to gain members rapidly around the world, most Americans know little about it.  To the extent they take any view at all, their understanding often is both myopic and wildly off the mark.  Though there are many who acknowledge that most Latter-day Saints are good, honest, and family-oriented people, few know much about our doctrine, which drives our lifestyle.  And much of what some think they know is quite frankly wrong.

 

For example, many other Christians do not believe Mormons, so called, are Christians, relegating us to the status of a non-Christian cult.  (As an aside, may I say that by any reasonable definition of a “cult,” New Testament Christianity also qualifies for that status.)  Many Latter-day Saints are both puzzled and frustrated by this rejection.  After all, we say, the name of the Church alone should indicate who we are, and whose we are.  The Church bears the name of Him whom we proclaim to be its leader.  One of our sacred books of scripture, the Book of Mormon, recounts in some detail the visit of the resurrected, glorified Savior, Jesus Christ, to faithful men, women and children in America, and proclaims Jesus’ own words about His church:  “And how be it my church save it be called in my name?  For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Ne. 27:8).

 

Jesus is the central figure in Latter-day Saint theology and practice.  We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name.  We worship Him and His Father, the Great Elohim.  As Nephi of old stated:  “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” (2 Ne. 25:26).

 

But the risen Christ whom we acknowledge as the Only Begotten Son of the Father, and laud as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, is not the Christ of the church creeds and councils.  We reject the councils, which convened over the ages, and the creeds they developed.  As President Gordon B. Hinckley has noted:  “We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on tradition and the conclusions of men” (Ensign, Nov. 1998, pp. 70-72).  We proclaim that the theology and practices the more than 20 councils produced over the centuries, starting with the Council of Nicea in the fourth century AD, were drastically different from those of the New Testament period, when the infant church was under apostolic direction.  Those creeds, we believe, exhibit profound differences in both language and concepts from the gospel principles found in the Scriptures.  Their adoption, after much politicking and bad faith, resulted in a body of theology that was acceptable to the gentile world, but departed in significant ways from the simple gospel message of Jesus and His apostles.

 

The influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology, including concerns about the nature of God, which so preoccupied the participants in the Council of Nicea, can hardly be overemphasized.  Edwin Hatch’s prescient observations of over a century ago still hold true:  “A large part of what are sometimes called Christian doctrines, and many usages which have prevailed and continue to prevail in the Christian church, are in reality Greek theories and Greek usages changed in form and color by the influence of primitive Christianity, but in their essence Greek still” (The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usage Upon the Christian Church, 350).

 

It is important to keep in mind the chronology involved in the events which transformed the early Christian church into an organization which lacked the divine approbation and authority needed to qualify as Christ’s church on earth.  Greek philosophy did not cause the Great Apostasy which Latter-day Saints proclaim occurred as the early church drifted away from its apostolic roots and foundation.  By the time Greek thought became an important factor in Christian theology, the apostasy had already occurred.  Many Latter-day Saints do not understand this fact:  Greek philosophy was integrated into Christian theology, but it occurred after the apostasy had already taken place, primarily in response to the dangerous teachings of schismatic groups in the third century AD.

 

The God of the Greek philosophers, the God of the creeds and councils, was immaterial, without body, parts or passions.  The idea that God has a body of flesh and bones was to them utterly incomprehensible and logically unacceptable.  The body is intrinsically wicked, corrupt and evil, or so they thought.  For example, the neoplatonist thinker Plotinus, who lived in the third century of the Christian era, was reputed to be ashamed that his soul had a body and “could not endure to discuss his lineage, nor his parents, nor his fatherland” (Romer, Testament, p. 209).  Belief in an embodied God was, however, common among early Christians.  As Christian apologists attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian beliefs, it was not long before the corporeal nature of God came under attack.  By Augustine’s time in the fifth century, most Christian theologies had embraced the apostate neoplatonic view that God is immaterial.  As Professor David L. Paulsen of BYU-Provo has noted:  “The confluence of Christian and Greek thought in the first five centuries of the church would devastate the theological landscape for many more centuries to come.  Some truths would be altered, others, like divine embodiment, would be completely flipped on their head.  There had occurred a turning away from the truth…an apostasy….”

 

One of the most egregious errors of the Council at Nicea was the notion that the Son is consubstantial  (“of one substance”) with the Father.  The term, reportedly proposed by the Emperor Constantine himself, apparently was introduced into Christian theology in an attempt to reconcile different views on the nature of the Godhead.  The idea of consubstantiality does not appear in the scriptures and prior to Nicea had not been used in Christian tradition either.  But Constantine’s attempts to enforce unity on the matter, while superficially successful in the short run, just didn’t work for long.  Doctrinal differences between the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Roman or Latin) churches continued to plague Christianity for centuries.  Western bishops objected strongly to the contention that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father.”  They insisted on adding the words “and the Son,” so that the Holy Ghost was described as He who “proceedeth from the Father and the Son.”  This additional clause, known as the Filioque, was recited as part of the Catholic Mass in Western churches by the ninth century AD and played a significant role in the growing separation between Western and Eastern orthodoxy.  The increasing separation and open hostility between East and West culminated in June of 1054 AD when Pope Leo IX’s representatives in Constantinople excommunicated the Greek patriarch. He and other Eastern patriarchs could play the same game:  they promptly excommunicated their Roman Catholic counterparts.  Christendom was split asunder, left drifting without the apostolic moorings enjoyed by the primitive church. 

 

The Great Schism, as it came to be known, remains extant today, though most of our Christian brethren don’t talk about it very much, and most Christians, I warrant, don’t even know of its continued existence. 

 

Latter-day Saint views on the nature of God rest upon the power of the glorious theophany at  Palmyra─those events on a spring day in 1820 when the boy Joseph Smith saw “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above [him] in the air” (JS-H 17).  That appearance, by two separate, distinct Divine individuals, brought more truth and light to mortal understanding of the nature of God than all of the learned councils ever convened, and all of the creeds ever produced.  In an instant, the errors of nearly two millennia were swept away, and the true natures of the Father and Son were again revealed to mankind.  The curtain was parted on a new dispensation of the gospel─the dispensation of the fullness of times.

 

Joseph Smith’s understanding of the nature of God, acquired through both study and personal experience, differs from that of some other Christians.  In perhaps his most famous public address, the King Follett discourse delivered on April 7, 1844, Joseph proclaimed “the great secret” that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens…If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,─I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form─like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man…”(HC 6:305).  So we testify to all the world that the three members of the Godhead, though perfectly united in thought and purpose, are separate and distinct individuals.  God the Father and His resurrected Holy Son, Jesus Christ, are glorified persons with tangible bodies of flesh and bones.  The Holy Ghost, the other member of the Godhead, is a personage of spirit.

 

Elder James E. Talmage explained the Latter-day Saint concept of the unity of God, which though asserting that the Godhead consists of three separate Beings, speaks also to their perfect and complete unity of thought, purpose, and operation.  He said:

 

 “This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike.  Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity.  The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality.  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality.  Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God” (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p. 37). 

 

Some Christians believe that Latter-day Saint rejection of the concept of the Trinity as understood by many simply puts us beyond the pale, and renders us ineligible for inclusion in the Christian community.  But I reiterate:  nowhere in the New Testament do we find any explicit Trinitarian doctrine, nor even any mention of the word Trinity.  Neither Peter nor Paul, nor Jesus Himself, preached it.  Harper’s Bible Dictionary notes this fact:  “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.”  Two verses in the King James version of the Bible have been used in vain attempts to strengthen the view that the concept of the Trinity, as it is understood by many Christians, is scriptural in origin.  But those two verses, in 1 John 5:7-8, in fact represent not an example of Biblical inerrancy, but rather changes in the Biblical record which have occurred over time.  Professor Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina, one of the leading New Testament scholars of our time, and a man who by his own admission has no religious faith, tells the checkered story of the two verses concerned. 

 

In 1515 the Dutch humanist Erasmus produced the first printed (as compared to hand copied) edition of the Greek New Testament.  In doing so, he relied heavily on manuscripts which had been produced well over a thousand years after the originals.  He did not include an account given in 1 John 5:7-8, because it is not found in any Greek manuscripts prior to the sixteenth century AD, though it is found in the manuscripts of earlier versions of the Latin Vulgate.  (The Vulgate was translated by Jerome at the command of Pope Damasus in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.  It was “the Bible” of the Western church for a thousand years.)  In the Vulgate, 1 John 5:7-8 reads:  “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the spirit; and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”  Almost exactly the same wording is found in the King James Bible.  This is the only passage in the Bible used by many Christians which alludes to the concept that there are three personages in the Godhead but they constitute one God, and are of one substance.  As such, it was an obvious candidate for inclusion in a version “corrected” by an unknown scribe who wished to make certain readers would have the truth as he saw it.  The earliest evidence of a change in the original wording of 1 John apparently comes from a manuscript of heretical origin, coming from North Africa or Spain in the fourth or fifth century AD.  But Erasmus did not find this wording in his Greek manuscripts, which read as follows:  “There are three that bear witness:  the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”  There is no reference in the Greek manuscripts to “the father, the word, and the spirit.”  Erasmus, of course, did not include “the father, the word, and the spirit” in his Greek text.

 

As Bart Ehrman recounts the story in his book, Misquoting Jesus (Harper, 2005), a fury broke out among theologians.  Erasmus was denounced, accused of tampering with the doctrine of the Trinity.  He replied that if the text found in the Vulgate could be found in any Greek New Testament, he would include it in his next revision.  Evidently, so Ehrman proclaims, someone manufactured such a text by copying out the Greek text and substituting the Latin text found in the Vulgate for the passage in question, translating it into Greek, of course.  This was presented to Erasmus, who dutifully included the revised wording in his subsequent editions.  Interestingly enough, these Greek texts provided the form of the text used in producing the King James Bible so familiar to us today, even though the words in what scholars call the Johannine Comma are not found in what Ehrman considers to be “the oldest and best” manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. 

 

It seems possible, even perhaps probable, that an unknown scribe, attempting to provide proof for the false doctrine of the oneness in substance of the Trinity, altered 1 John 5:7-8 to support the apostate notion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in substance, not separate beings. 

 

Latter-day Saints also believe─as Joseph Smith and his prophet-successors have taught─that human beings have the potential to become gods, over the eons of time encompassed by our eternal existence.  We take at face-value Christ’s admonition:  “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).  We know very little about how this may be done, though it clearly will not, and indeed cannot, be accomplished in mortality. 

 

Joseph Smith understood that deification is the task of the eternities.  Said he:  “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel…But it will be a good while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them.   It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (HC 6:306-307). 

 

Further, we do not believe that our understanding of deification will ever lead us to become the equals of God or independent of Him.  We ever will be His sons and daughters, with all that implies in terms of filial obligations, position, and responsibilities.  Though we may become joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17), we believe this is received only through the Savior’s Atonement. 

 

Some other Christians reject Mormon belief in the potential for deification of mankind as blasphemous pagan doctrine which demeans the majesty of God.  But Professor Stephen Robinson of BYU-Provo, in his instructive book, Are Mormons Christians?” points out that many orthodox Christian Saints, from Saint Irenaeus in the second century, and including Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Athanasius, Saint Augustine, Saint Symeon the New Theologian and numerous others, all believed and taught that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods….” (to quote Athanasius’ felicitous phrase).

 

Furthermore, C. S. Lewis, an individual whose genuine Christianity is virtually undisputed, taught the same doctrine.  Wrote he:

 

 “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas.  Nor is it a command to do the impossible.  He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command.  He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words.  If we let Him─for we can prevent Him, if we choose─He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.  The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for.  Nothing less.  He meant what He said” (Mere Christianity, pp. 174-175). 

 

Time permits only a superficial glance at another doctrinal element which separates Latter-day Saints from many other Christians, who labor under the misguided misapprehension that men will be punished for Adam’s transgression─that all humankind is born with an inherited fatal moral defect coming from Adam, and that the only way to gain salvation is to repent of Adam’s “sin” and be baptized, infants included.

 

Latter-day Saints reject this view, categorically and unequivocally.  We believe it runs counter to the whole concept of the Fall and the Atonement.  It removes from humanity the wondrous gift of agency.  Furthermore, the heretical view that infants require baptism to be saved flies in the face of the divine condemnation of such an abominable practice.  The scriptures attest that infant baptism is a “solemn mockery before God.”  Little children are not capable of committing sin, and the curse of Adam is taken from them in [Christ] (see Moroni 8). 

 

We state boldly that all who reach the age of accountability are responsible for their own sins, not those of Adam.  That is what the Plan of Salvation is all about:  all who are considered morally accountable will be judged according to their own works, subject of course to the need for individual repentance and overarched by Christ’s Atonement. 

 

Earlier in this presentation I pled that although we disagree with other Christians on numerous significant doctrinal issues, we should take special care to avoid the name-calling and invective which too commonly takes the place of respectful and reasoned dialogue between Latter-day Saints and those not of our faith.

 

President Gordon B. Hinckley has reminded us often of how we should behave towards others not of our faith:  “[We] can all be a little kinder, a little more generous, a little more thoughtful of one another.  We can be a little more tolerant and friendly to those not of our faith, going out of our way to show our respect for them.  We cannot afford to be arrogant or self-righteous.  It is our obligation to reach out in helpfulness, not only to our own, but to all others as well” (Ensign, May, 1999, p. 88).  Our beloved prophet’s views on respecting the rights of others not of our faith echo those of Joseph Smith, spoken in July of 1843:  “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves” (HC 5:498).

 

In remarks Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave at General Conference in November 2001, he stated:  “If we are truly disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will reach out with love and understanding to all our neighbors at all times, particularly in times of need.  There are some of our [LDS] members who may fail to reach out with friendly smiles, warm handshakes, and loving service to all of their neighbors.  At the same time, there may be those who move into our neighborhoods who are not of our faith who come with negative preconceptions about the Church and its members.  Surely good neighbors should put forth every effort to understand each other and to be kind to one another regardless of religion, nationality, race or culture” (Ensign, Nov. 2001, p. 36).

 

Thisthe doctrine of inclusionremains the standard which must govern our actions towards others not of our faith.  It is what I have been taught from my earliest years, and what I try to teach others, both by precept and example.  And it is what the living prophets and apostles teach over and over again.  Never in all of my life have I ever heard members of this Church urged by our leaders to be anything other than loving, kind, respectful and benevolent to our friends and neighbors who are not of our faith.  As we grow to respect and understand others, we soon learn that the Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on goodness.  We quickly find, as we reach out to others in love and respect, that those not of our faith are, in the main, good and honorable people, as we should be.  They love their families, as we do.  They are kind, loving, generous and faithful, as we strive to be.  With us, they long for peacethat “lovely child of heaven”for a laying aside of the ancient tribal hatreds, the wicked beliefs in racial or ethnic superiority, the bigotry and ignorance which continue to bedevil the human race.  I urge all to accept and live this simple truth:  there is much more which unites us than divides us.

 

Now, of course, as I’ve already noted, there are differencessignificant differencesin the theology, doctrine and ordinances of the Latter-day Saints and other Christian communities.  We must never bend on matters of principle, if we are to be true to the heavy responsibility God has placed upon the Latter-day Saints.  We must always uphold the truth, as God has given it to us, regardless of what others may say.  We must be boldbut not overbearing (see Alma 38:12)in proclaiming to all the world that the everlasting gospel of Christ has been restored to the earth for the last time, for the blessing of all humankind.  But we can do so without being disrespectful of others.  We canif the situation requires itdisagree politely and quietly, without being disagreeable.  We need not belittle others to sustain our own position.  We can speak of principles, rather than harping on personalities.  And we can acknowledge the sincerity and good will of others who don’t believe as we do.  We can, as one of our Articles of Faith indicates, allow all men the privilege [of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience] “let them worship how, when, or what they may” (Articles of Faith 1:11).  We all must look for the best, not the worst, in others, recognizing there is much each can learn from the rich diversity of viewpoints in our communities, wherever they are.  In that diversity there is great vitality, strength and renewal.

 

I believe that in our relationships with others we must go beyond tolerance, to a higher plane, which President Hinckley has called “affirmative gratitude” (BYU 1990-91 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, Oct. 16, 1990, p. 30).  “Tolerance” too often implies a mean-spirited, begrudging putting-up-with others, just because we can’t demand or require them to change.  Too often, I “tolerate” your behavior, even though I don’t like it, only because I lack the power to change it, forcibly if necessary.  “Affirmative gratitude,” on the other hand, connotes the positive values of “respect,” “understanding,” and “appreciation,” all of which we need to embrace, nurture and employ.

 

I assert again that there is much more which unites us than divides us from others.  What are the hoops of steel which bind us to others, including those we might foolishly consider as “strangers and foreigners?”  Perhaps of greatest importance is the reality that we are all the children of God and thus, in the most profound sense, brothers and sisters.  We are all part of a great family, with God as our Father.  Truly, as the Apostle Paul proclaimed in Athens two millennia ago, “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26).  As we look beyond the differences of skin color, ethnicity, cultureeven religious faithwe come to understand that all of us are partakers of shared humanity, and are thereby bound together as members of the human family.

 

We are bound to othersand they to usby the indissoluble bonds of sibling responsibilities and affection.  And thus, we carry in our heartsas should all men everywherea desire to succor the poor and needy, to help the widow and orphan in their distress, to lift the burdens from the backs of the suffering, and to bring a healing balm of Gilead to all who seek solace from alienation, discrimination, bigotry, poverty and hopelessness.  Joseph Smith, the mighty Prophet of the Restoration, revealed a great truth when he said:  “a man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race” (HC 4:227).

 

All good people everywhere are unwilling to condone violent lawlessness as an acceptable way to deal with their differences.  They recognize the need for all of us to work harder to build mutual respect and understanding, regardless of the doctrines and philosophies any individual or group may espouse.  They understand the importance of civility and courtesy towards others, and practice those attributes of good character daily.  And they teach their children to do likewise.

 

All of us would agree, I think, that our children must rank high on any list of the ties which bind us to everyone else in our community.  Our children, in a very real way, are the community of the future.  They are our tomorrow, for better or worse.  They need love, protection, education and encouragement.  They thrive on sunshine and light, and are weakened and blighted by the darkness and sin of the world.  On a global basis, they bear far more than their share of suffering and sacrifice.  About 120 million children, worldwide, do not go even to primary school, but labor often for long hours at home, in the fields, on the streets, or in crowded, dingy, and unsafe sweatshops.  Infectious diseases take the lives of millions in developing countries each year.  Abuse and neglect of children are prevalent evils in every nation.  We cannot be true disciples of the Master unless we care about them, and for them, with the same tender love He espoused (see 3 Nephi 17:21-25).

 

My plea, then, is that we reject the too-common tendency to fixate on our differences and avoid obsessing on so-called “divides.”  Too often, such become not only self-indulgent carping and complaining, but ultimately evolve into a destructive, self-fulfilling prophecy.  Rather, let us work together with others of good will and good hearts, building the bridges which unite us and further the common good.  As we respect the rights of others to believe as they wish, we join together in respecting, understanding and appreciating our differences, and each other.

 

I end where I began:  Are Mormons Christians?  The answer, to me, is simple.  Yes, indeed we are Christians, though our views on many important doctrines differ from numerous of our brethren, whose Christianity we in turn do not dispute. 

 

Testimony.  In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

 

© 2007 Intellectual Reserve, Inc.  All rights reserved.