Are Mormons Christian Mormon? — Part I

Introduction
Any fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 knows that if you ever want to generate a discussion that carries on for pages and pages, just head into an MST3K forum of some kind and start a thread on why Mike was better than Joel or Joel was better than Mike, then sit back, relax, and enjoy the nerdrage. [1] Likewise, if you should find yourself wanting to set off the horror aficionados, just find a group of people discussing John Carpenter’s 1982 The Thing and say, “So, at the end of the film, who here knew that Childs was a Thing?” The thread you create will have a better shelf life than that Skittle in your couch cushions.
The field of Mormon interfaith dialogue and debate has its own never-ending question: “Are Mormons Christians?” Regardless of how you answer it, your reply is bound to be the source of much anger, indignation, and the religious friendship equivalent of “Dear John” letters from those who dislike your take on it. It’s been asked in a variety of forms and answered by many people in many different ways. Some of those answers are thoughtful and compelling while others dismissively attack the matter with all the finesse of a snarling raccoon in your backyard trash can. Thanks to the emotionally charged nature of this question, even obvious, bungling Internet trolls have been known to generate message board threads lasting 27+ pages (and counting).
Alas, as much as I could use the cheap traffic, “Are Mormons Christians?” [AMC] is not the main subject of this blog post. Today, I want to look at a related, less prominent question, theAndrew Wilson to AMC’s Owen: AMM. Are Mormons Mormon?
Meet the Mormons. All of Them.
From a historical perspective, the Mormon tradition derived its origins from Joseph Smith’s activities in Palmyra, New York in the early part of the 19th century. While the name “Mormon” comes from the name of a pivotal figure in the Book of Mormon, which was published in 1830, this name was not selected as a nickname by the Mormons themselves. It originated with outsiders, who meant it in a pejorative way. As Parley P. Pratt summarized in 1853:
Mormon was a man, a Prophet, an author, a compiler, and a writer of a book. Mormon was a teacher of righteousness, holding certain doctrines. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are agreed with Mormon, as well as with many other ancient writers, and hold to the same principles; therefore their neighbors have seen fit to call those principles they hold, “Mormonism.” They might as well have called them, Abrahamism, Enochism, or Isaiahism; because the ancient Prophets, Patriarchs, and Apostles, held to the same truths in general terms, only differing in circumstances, in distant countries and ages of the world, and acted upon the same general principles, according to the particular circumstances that surrounded them. But the world, out of all the ancients, have selected one called Mormon, and all the principles held by all good, inspired men of all ages and countries they have seen fit to sum up, and call “Mormonism.” Well, it is as well as anything else, for aught I know; the name does not affect the principles.
Here Pratt speaks of Mormonism and applies the term to his own religious group, which had recently claimed Brigham Young as the successor to Joseph Smith and followed him out to the Salt Lake basin. However, even in 1853, Pratt’s group was not the only organizational body to have followed Joseph Smith and believed in the Book of Mormon. Since Joseph Smith established his church in 1830, there have been over 100 groups to trace their religious lineage through him. Most of these groups have claimed that they alone are the true heirs of Joseph Smith’s prophetic legacy.
Maybe a few dozen of these groups still exist today, the largest being The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its claims to 14.1 million people on the rolls. The second largest is the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, with some 250,000 members. Numbers for Mormon groups that currently practice polygamy are hard to be certain of, but the two largest appear to be Warren Jeffs’ Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Apostolic United Brethren, each of which may have as many as 10,000 members. After that, the numbers get smaller and smaller. Some have several thousand members; others have around a dozen. I knew one splinter group which could only claim eight members and thus likened themselves to Noah’s ark in a corrupt world.
There is little doubt that all of these groups would point to Joseph Smith at some point in their religious pedigrees. The question is: are all of them “Mormon”? Can all of them self-identify as “Mormon” if they so choose?
My answer is “yes.” Others would say “no.”
To Be Continued.

Comments

Are Mormons Christian Mormon? — Part I — 11 Comments

  1. I’m not persuaded of any distinction that would, in my personal view of what makes sense, justify giving different answers to AMC and AMM. My personal inclination is that “yes” is the better answer to both questions (I was raised Mormon but belong to neither group at this time).
    If the questions are answered differently, the possibilities are Christian-only exclusivity (AMM: yes, AMC: no), or Mormon-only exclusivity (AMC: yes, AMM: no). I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Mormon take the Christian-only exclusive position or a Christian the Mormon-only. So I naturally wonder whether it isn’t a case of following neutral principles to their logical conclusions, but of awarding one’s own group a privileged status. The special status might be justifiable, even if there is some self-interest at work, but I think it makes sense to be skeptical.
    Ms Jack, I sort of think I remember you saying “no” to AMC, but I’m not sure. If so, I imagine you’re leading up to addressing the basis for giving different answers to similar questions, and I’ll be interested in seeing your reasons presented in the context of both questions.
    If my memory is at fault, and your answer is “yes” to both, your upcoming posts may not give me as much to think about, but in compensation, I will award you one (1) Internet correctness point. It’s win-win!
  2. Personally, I’m not all that possessive about the name Mormon. Anyone in the historical tradition can lay claim to it, if they want it, as far as I’m concerned.
    One thing worth pointing out – the FLDS experienced a schism back in the 50s over the issue of parental consent for underage brides. We all know how one half of that schism went – they’re the current FLDS.
    The other group is loosely known as the “Allred faction” by some, and they are arguably more numerous than the compound people in the current FLDS. Problem is – they’re all over the Intermountain West and tend to be very individualistic and isolated in nature. So it’s hard to pin down how many of them there are. But there’s probably more of them than the FLDS – if by some miracle you could ever get them to gather together in one spot.
  3. Badger ~ My answer to the AMC question is actually pretty ambivalent. On the one hand, I think that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, that their theology is Christocentric, and their tradition clearly derives from pre-existing Christian traditions, so I think one can make a very good case that Mormons are part of Christianity.
    On the other hand, Mormonism has radically departed from the historic teachings of Christianity, to the extent that it might be best to consider it its own religion. In that sense, I think one can say Mormons aren’t Christians in the same sense that one can say Christians aren’t Jewish. Christians believe in the Old Testament and they worship its God, but they do so through the lens of the New Testament (which Jews reject), and as such, their interpretations and use of the OT have radically departed from that of Judaism. Likewise, Mormons believe in the Bible and worship its God, but they do so through the lens of their own scriptures and the teachings of their prophet, which causes them to radically depart from Christianity.
    Most people who try to argue that Mormonism is “not Christian” aren’t using this argument. They just think Mormon beliefs are wrong, but that angle only makes Mormonism heretical Christianity at best. Besides, I don’t think deciding which sects are orthodox and which are heretical is a good role for religious taxonomy.
    Is it better to consider Mormonism part of Christianity or its own religion distinct from Christianity? I don’t know. My feelings on the matter tend to fluctuate.
    In the meantime, if Mormons want to call themselves “Christians,” I seldom object.
    Seth ~ Thanks for the tip about the Allreds. I’ve updated the post to mention their group (Apostolic United Brethren).
  4. It’s probably not necessary – given that pinning the “Allreds” down is so difficult. They’re a very libertarian bunch, and don’t really like taking orders from anyone. Which makes them had to successfully census.
    This is probably your best bet though:
  5. Jack said:
    On the other hand, Mormonism has radically departed from the historic teachings of Christianity, to the extent that it might be best to consider it its own religion.
    I have no problem with considering Mormonism (or perhaps in this discussion I should refer specifically to CoJCoLDS-ism) as its own religion. I basically find the issue of whether we’re Christian as boring; it’s a semantic issue and not much else. Tell me what your definition of “Christian” is, and I’ll tell you whether we are or not. By the main dictionary definition and the way the word is used practically everywhere outside of evangelicalism, of course we are; if only those who hold to certain theological positions are Christians, then of course we’re not. It’s that simple.
    I’m working hard here not to get too much off-topic, but a question I would find interesting would be to ask whether Christians are Christian. When I look at the broad spectrum of evangelicalism (and even more so with Protestantism), and especially on the fringes, I see “different religions” too. Is a Pentecostal (even one who doesn’t reject the Trinity) whose apparent purpose in worship is to have some sort of an ecstatic experience really of the “same religion” as the evangelical whose worship emphasizes a more intellectual approach to gaining Biblical knowledge? I’m not so sure. I don’t see them as having a lot in common other than the words they use to describe their theology.
    Anyway, to get back to the original topic: If you ever get the chance, Jack, spend a day in Independence, Missouri. Within a block of each other are the beautifully distinctive Community of Christ temple, a major LDS visitor center, and the headquarters of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), which owns the site where the early Saints were to build a temple. The three churches, of course, have radically different understandings of the Restoration.
    When I went visited the town a couple years ago, my traveling companion and I spent about an hour talking with an apostle from the Temple Lot church (actually, he did nearly all the talking) — it was fascinating. In his view, Joseph Smith was a prophet, but a fallen one, and the other churches in his vicinity are heretical at best. The CoC, on the other hand, downplays Smith’s prophethood in the LDS sense but still sees him as a highly inspirational figure while all but ignoring many of his teachings from the Nauvoo period.
    And in a strictly legal sense, by any objective historical standard the CoC and Temple Lot churches have as much of a rightful claim to Smith’s legacy as the LDS church does. (In fact, courts have said as much in various property disputes.)
    There are also other Restorationist denominations, some of them quite small, with churches in Independence.
    It’s all quite interesting. I look forward to the rest of your series!
  6. Very good (and amusing) analysis.
    I agree that there are legitimate arguments in both directions for AMC. Ultimately, I don’t care either way, but I predict that Mormons will eventually succeed at getting most people to accept them as a part of Christianity if that’s the way they want to self-identify.
    OTOH, their claim that other LDS sects can’t be called “Mormon” is absurd, and — considering their battle with the AMC question — a tad hypocritical.
  7. As a Mormon converted from protestantism, I have no desire to be associated with other Christian denominations any more than they want to be associated with Mormons. I admit that we are quite different in practice and doctrine, though the doctrine of the atonement is the same. If I look from a macro perspective, the biggest differeces I see are that Mormons are heavily engaged in religion while most protestants are not and Mormonism has a ton more doctrine. From this perspective protestantism looks like Mormon lite.
    Since mainstream Christianity feels a strong connection with the word “Christian” and does not want an association with Mormonism, they have no choice but to call us non Christian.
  8. Ms Jack, thanks for bringing me into sync with your actual thoughts on AMC. I like “heretical” much more than “non-Christian”. Doesn’t the Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy imply that Mormons would expect to be seen as heretics by the bulk of Christianity? I mean, if the Restoration hadn’t even managed to venture outside Christian orthodoxy, what would have been the point? So it’s the perfect solution, with one small drawback: I seem to be the only person on Earth who thinks so.
    Eric, your comment reminded me of a gentleman I once met who had been a practicioner of one of the Afro-Carribean or Afro-Brazilian religions (I forget the details), with worship involving drumming, dancing, possession by spirits, and perhaps small animal sacrifices. Later in life, he joined a Protestant denomination whose services regularly included speaking in tongues and casting out devils. He told me it was great: much more respectable, but “just as good”. That “just as good” still cracks me up today.
  9. There’s also the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, and the Church of the Lamb of God, both tied into the LeBaron family. Both are LDS Fundamentalist types of groups, with schisms & murder involved. They did some Missionary work, unlike some of the other groups.

0 коментарі:

Post a Comment