As an American, a Republican, and a fiscal and social conservative — and though I have endorsed no Republican candidate — there is one thing that would disturb me greatly if Mitt Romney were not the Republican nominee: if Romney’s Mormon faith were a factor in his defeat.
Many evangelical leaders have said that if Romney is the Republican presidential candidate, they will vote for him in the general election. What is implied, and sometimes explicitly stated, is that his Mormonism prevents them from voting for him in the primaries.
Advertisement
Most evangelicals label Mormonism a “cult,” and many accuse Mormons of being dishonest in calling themselves Christians.
Let me explain where I am coming from on this issue. First, all I care about with regard to the forthcoming election is that a Republican wins. It is difficult to see how the United States could survive as anything but a replica of Europe between Mexico and Canada (while Europe itself is not surviving as Europe) with another four years of the most left-wing president in American history. Just the prospect of Barack Obama appointing one or more additional Supreme Court justices should focus every non-leftist’s mind.
Second, as a Jew, I have no religious pony in this race. I believe that American Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the modern world, and that evangelicals are at the core of America’s backbone. And I have enormous respect for Mormons.
Third, none of my preferred candidates — Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, for example — are running. So I do not write this column on behalf of Mitt Romney or against Newt Gingrich.
Having said that, let me offer three observations on Mormonism and evangelical views of it.
Observation #1: Regarding Mormonism’s being labeled a cult, my study of religious history has taught me that just about every religion is seen as a cult in its formative years by the religion from which it sprang, or is labeled a cult by the older religion in order to delegitimize it. Jews and others regarded Christianity as a cult in its early years. Sunnis regard Shiites as a cult. The Catholic Church saw the early Protestants as a cult, while Protestants regarded the Roman Church as a cult. And Christians regarded the early Mormons as a cult.
Over the course of time, as a religion establishes itself and its members act more or less like members of the older religions, the charge is usually dropped. Jews hardly regard Christianity as a cult, and few Catholics or Protestants regard the others as members of a cult. After nearly 200 years, Mormons are an integral part of American society, with impressive reputations for family life, integrity, and other values. The label “cult” just doesn’t seem appropriate.
Observation #2: I may be mistaken, but I believe that what most annoys evangelicals (and some other Christians) about Mormonism is that Mormons call themselves Christians. In order for Jews to better understand evangelicals — and for evangelicals to better understand Jews — I think there is a parallel here. The vast majority of Jews understand that in a free society, people convert to other religions. Therefore, some Christians convert to Judaism, and some Jews convert to Christianity. What particularly annoys Jews is not the existence of converts but the existence of “Jews for Jesus.” To most Jews, this is a misleading label, because people who come to believe in Christ should call themselves Christians, not Jews.
So, too, in the view of most evangelicals, if people wish to believe in the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon and the prophecy of Joseph Smith, that is their business, but to call these and other distinctive Mormon beliefs “Christian” bothers many evangelicals. Of course, Mormons respond that a religion that calls itself “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” can hardly be dismissed as non-Christian. But it is not my interest here to adjudicate this debate. I only wish to offer one reason that evangelicals might be disturbed by Mormonism’s calling itself Christian.
Observation #3: Most important, theology and values are not the same thing. Traditional Jews and evangelical Christians have quite different theologies but they often have virtually identical values. (That is why this Jew is so supportive of evangelicals, and why evangelical Christians syndicate my radio show.) Conservative Catholics and evangelicals differ on theology but share virtually every important value. The Founders differed on theology but rarely about values. It is hard to identify any area of life in which Mitt Romney’s values and life differ in any way from the finest evangelical’s values and life. And with regard to electing a president, that is what matters.
What I am asking here is that evangelicals and other traditional and conservative Christians who have problems with Mormonism not allow those problems (however legitimate they may be from the perspective of Christian theology) to play a role in their primary voting, or in their general-election voting if Mitt Romney wins the nomination. The fate of America and the world hangs in the balance.
In other words, fight the Left now. You can fight theology later.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
With the exception of Unitarians the standard litmus test of being a Christian is the acceptance of the Apostles creed as fundamental doctrine. The question of the divinity of Christ and the holy trinity is incapsulated in the creed . It took 300 years to affirm it as church doctrine. The difficulty is the ambiguity of the passage when translated. Father son and holy ghost are one vs. Father son and holy ghost are in agreement. Big difference. De dicto and de re. The other is the role of savalation in the Church. The next difficulty is regenerative grace and salvation by the church and the significance of the lords supper. Extra ecceslastium nulla sallis. Transusbstantiation? Hence the Reformation. Luthers "By Faith alone". The other problem is sola scriptura vs. sola fide. My reconcilliation of the multifarius conundrums?
Pan-thiesm, Spiritualism or Latitudinarianism. That sums the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Two proofs of the existance of God; Irriducible complexities in the natural world and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. De Cartes Trosieme Meditationes a bit weak and a required refutation is necessary if a siminary student. By Faith alone. With respect to tolerance and forgiveness Romans 5:10 "Where sin abounds, abundant grace abounds also.
John Walker, Nice summary of Christian history. Seriously. But no positions taken. And then you quote Romans 5:10 incorrectly. You meant to quote Romans 5:20. But let's start with 5:10.
It is: "10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
This verse clearly shows that both regeneration and sanctification are accomplished by Him. Evangelicals preach "the Gospel" which is that Christ died for our sins on the cross and that we add nothing to this." Truly this passage, along with virtually all the Scripture, say this. Those who wish to say that God makes salvation available, but that we must ourselves then earn it through words, ceremonies, or deeds are neither "reconciled to God by the death of his Son" nor "saved by his life."
Now, instead of your snippet, how about reading Romans 5:20 in context (verses 18-21)? "18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for fall men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Verses 18 & 19 clearly assert that "justification and life" and being "made righteous" are through Christ alone. Verse 20 is not an argument for easy forgiveness, as your silly snippet would leave it. No, verse 21 clearly points to "Jesus Christ our Lord." But without repentance, dear sir, can there be forgiveness? Is the message of John the Baptist and Christ Himself ("repent") so irrelevant? When you mention "tolerance and forgiveness" are these words used to mock righteousness? Simply put, is repentance optional?
If so, you preach another Gospel, that of transactional analysis: "I'm OK, You're OK." Cool. Put the Book down. No need for it. It's all good. Just be nice.
I say all this recognizing that there is a strong brand of "Christianity" which pushes this viewpoint. That's actually fine, it's unsurprising that counterfeits abound when the genuine currency is worth something. Still, to summarize great debates in church history and then settle on "where sin abounds, grace abounds" as a truncated doctrine is totally irrelevant to Evangelicals. They believe in repentance, that we are DEAD in sin and trespasses. There is no island of righteousness which we can add to God's work.
Romney vs. Gingrich vs. Santorum. Evangelicals vote for "one of the above" or stay at home. Regardless, the Pragers of this world will tell us how to compromise like reasonable men, when we deal with the unrepentant all the time. Gents, we know how to deal with it -- in this life we have no choice.
Thank you for the column Mr. Prager. I take my Christianity very seriously but we are voting for a President, not a pastor. Other presidents have claimed the mantle of Christianity but yet been terrible presidents (Obama and Carter, anyone?). Mitt Romney sides with evangelicals on every value and issue that matters in this election so I have no problem supporting him.
@cypher20: If you take your Christianity very seriously, please consider my reason for not voting for Romney under any circumstance:
The future of our nation is very important, but it pales in comparison to preserving the true gospel. (I don't expect everyone here, esp. Mr. Prager, to get my point, but you take these things seriously). Mormonism IS a cult. At its beginning, Joseph Smith THE PROPHET said that Christian denominations have gone so far astay that (per him) the true gospel had to be restored...Mormonism; hence the official name, The Church of Jesus Christ of LATTER DAY Saints.
There a lots of very serious problems with Mormonism, but all that is necessary to qualify it as a cult is its denial of the Trinity.
So, as far as I'm concerned, while our nation's future is very important, and Obama is awful, it would be worse to elect Romney because it would have the effect of normalizing Mormonism. Far worse from a heavenly perspective.
This is the short version, all I have time for, but I hope you get it.
I think this encapsulates the problem Evangelicals have with Romney- they feel that a Mormon president will "normalize" Mormonism just as this author suggests from the being a "cult" to being just another religion in America. They do not want the national stage of the presidency to allow Romney to share the "false gospel" with the nation.
As to the first comment, it really depends on how you view Christian history. Mormons contend (rightly) that acceptance of the Trinity was not official Church doctrine until Nicea and Arianism (non-Trinitarism) was even the official doctrine of the Church briefly before its followers were expunged. Protestants contend that acceptance of the Apostle's Creed is the defining line, conveniently overlooking that they have chosen to redefine the initial understanding of "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" to a small "C" catholic (universal) which some kid always asks eventually in church and it has to be explained to them.
"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."
Are you saying they don't believe in those three, or are you saying they don't believe that they're the same entity?
Having read a bit in the Bible I find it interesting that when Jesus was baptized, there he was in the water, there was the Holy Ghost appearing as a dove, and there was the voice of God. Stephen looked up and saw God with Jesus standing at his side. Jesus was on the cross and prayed to his Father, God.
Mormons don't believe in the Trinity as Protestants and Catholics (the Orthodox have a more esoteric form) do in the sense that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are One (as in the Nicean Creed, "God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" which maintains monotheism (not two separate beings). Mormons maintain that God and Christ are two separate beings "one in purpose" - this is the essence of Joseph Smith's First Vision where he saw two beings (God and Christ), not one, and he was told that all other churches were "an abomination". Arianism in the early church supported the idea that the two were separate beings but this was overpowered by the Trinitarian view.
Unitarians have a similar view (Jesus was human, they worship only God). If you are going to call Unitarians Christian and then call Mormons non-Christian just based on the Trinity that would be illogical. There are many differences in how Mormons and Christians view God, Man, Man's purpose on earth, the afterlife - where the dividing line between Christian and not Christian is would be difficult to define. Are they followers of Christ and believe that his Atoning Sacrifice is necessary for salvation (if not sufficient)? Yes. Catholics also believe it is necessary, not sufficient. Is that enough? It's a difficult question, but I would say that depriving them of the label "Christian" would be hard to argue.
And yet D&C 20 says that the Father and the Son are one God. "God" is an entity -- a being. There is only one God, according to the Book of Mormon and elsewhere.
Likewise, Mormons do believe that Christ is fully God, "consubstantial with the Father." He and his Father share the exact same nature: They are both divine personages.
If you study the doctrine of the Trinity in depth, you will discover that it is *not* a teaching that Christ and his Father are the same person, or "being," in the sense that Mormons typically use that word (using it to mean essentially the same as what traditional Christians use the word "person" for.) The doctrine of the Trinity is not at all inconsistent with the First Vision of two distinct personages; the Trinity doctrine does in fact teach that the each persons of the Trinity has distinct, personal attributes, notwithstanding that together they constitute one God. Medieval art, in fact, often portrays the members of the Godhead as separate personages.
Here's the source of most of the misunderstanding. Mormons, when they think of the term "Trinity," think it refers to Modalism, as 11C20 demonstrates.
But that's not what the Trinity means. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply (if you can boil the turgid prose of the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds into anything resembling "simple") that (1) Christ is fully divine, the same as God the Father and the Holy Spirit; and (2) Christ is God, the Father is God, the Holy Ghost is God -- and yet they are not three gods, but one God.
Point (1) was the main thrust of the Nicaean Creed, which was agreed upon to put paid to the doctrine of Arius, who argued that Jesus was *like* his Father, but not of the same divine substance. That is, Jesus Christ was less than fully divine. The Council of Nicaea concluded that the Father and the Son were "consubstantial" -- "of the same substance." That does *not* mean that they are the same person. The Athanasian Creed is very clear on this; Christians are not to "confound [i.e. conflate, or confuse] the Persons."
The Athanasian Creed also uses the word "consubstantial" in saying that Jesus is both consubstantial with the Father (having a wholly divine nature) and consubstantial with his mother, Mary (thus having, at the same time, a wholly human nature). Nobody argues that Jesus and Mary are the same entity. "Consubstantial" means "of the same substance," not "fused with." This is where Mormons invariably misunderstand other Christians' beliefs.
To be fair, the typical Mormon's Protestant neighbor probably misunderstands the Trinity himself. My dear but clueless mother-in-law, who attends Rick Warren's Saddleback megachurch, understands the Trinity to mean that God is one person, in the same sense that she is a mother, a (former) wife, and a daughter -- but the same single person. Which of course is Modalism, a heresy that's been condemned by official, traditional Christianity for close to two thousand years -- but the laity still hasn't gotten the message.
So when a Mormon says he rejects the "Trinity," ask him what he thinks he means by that. Official Mormon teaching is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same divine substance, and constitute not three gods but one God. I wish more Mormons knew that (just as I wish more Protestants could figure out they're not supposed to be Modalists) but we can't all be theology geeks.
Actually mormons understand "trinity" perfectly well. In my experience the typical mormon is much more conversant about the gospel of christ then other christian denominations.
If Mormons believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself to the nations" (Book of Mormon, title page); and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (Doctrine & Covenants 20:28), eternal and unchangeable (Id. at 17)...
...then by what conceivable standard can they be considered to "deny the Trinity"?
Your reasons for NOT wanting to vote for Romney, per his religion is downright misguided and ignorant.
Mormonism is NOT. . i repeat NOT a cult.
By definition a CULT (in a nutshell) is a group or religious group that is lead by a man in whom they follow - - or worship. BY THAT definition ALL churches are follow a "man." ThePope, the priest, the reverend, the deacon, the bishop . . . .all men last i checked. But none worship a man.- - this includes Mormons.
You state that Mormons followed a PROPHET .. in all caps, like thats scary.
Even if (hypothetically) that prophet was no more than a holy man as the Pope is for the catholics. . . and the members themselves still focused their lives around Christ . .which Mormons do.- - why and how is that a cult?
Im not going to try and convince you of the existance of modern day prophets. - dont haev to.
But i do think its important for you to realize that Mormons follow Christ, . . .not a man.
just as i assume catholics follow their convictions and not the Pope.
or baptists follow their faith and love for Christ and not their preacher.
Mormons are (as a whole) good, decent, kind charitable, Christian people who love God, love their neighbor and love their countries wherever they reside. Those in the united states are very patriotic. - -im sorry you have a hard time with Josepth smith . .who was a man . .. a fallable-imperfect man who helped restore the church. He was a man and he was an instrument. - that's all. Mormons do no worship, nor have they ever worshipped him.
"The fate of America and the world hangs in the balance." - Dennis Prager
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" - Jesus Christ, Mark 8:36
It is a very, very big "if," but IF a person believes that his devotion to God and His revelation to man requires him to oppose the seemingly inevitable mainstreaming of Mormonism -- its becoming an increasingly "integral part of American society" -- then there's absolutely NOTHING that Prager or anyone else can accomplish by appealling to the gravity of the earthly consequences of that opposition.
Even significant political consequences pale in comparison to the question of one's soul, and even long-term earthly consequences recede to nothing in comparison to the eternal.
"What doth it profit a man?" It doesn't: selling your soul and compromising your integrity simply isn't worth anything in this world, including the world itself.
Certainly, theologically and politically conservative Christians should "count the cost" and recognize that this stand could have significant negative consequences for this country, but having counted the cost, the Christian is still obligated to follow God's plan as he understands that plan.
If you don't believe that God requires that stand, great: good for you. But if you DO believe that the integrity and clarity of God's good news to man would be damanged by the increasing mainstream of Mormonism, well then, you have your responsibility as a Christian.
What Prager seems to be suggesting is that your responsibilities as an American trumps your responsibilities as a Christian.
"What I am asking here is that evangelicals and other traditional and conservative Christians who have problems with Mormonism not allow those problems (however legitimate they may be from the perspective of Christian theology) to play a role in their primary voting, or in their general-election voting if Mitt Romney wins the nomination. The fate of America and the world hangs in the balance.
"In other words, fight the Left now. You can fight theology later."
Or in another way of saying it, betray God and His will and His gospel message for the sake of your country -- or at least postpone any concerns for His will until later.
Render unto Caesar EVERYTHING that the political fight requires, and render unto God anything that's left over, your duty to God being a mere luxury in times such as these.
I generally respect Dennis Prager, but this argument simply does not fly, and it tells me that -- when push comes to shove -- he really, really doesn't understand the first thing about devotion to God.
The first thing about devotion to God is that it is and must always be THE FIRST THING.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
He comes first. His will comes first. His message comes first.
Political considerations must never be highr than a very distant second.
As a very quick addendum, note that, here at least, I am not arguing WHETHER Mormonism is Christian OR whether a Christian has a duty to oppose the mainstreaming of Mormonism by refusing to support a Mormon politician.
I'm just presenting an IF-THEN statement: IF a Christian believes he has that duty, THEN appeals to earthly consequences do not and should not fly.
--
If it helps, apply this logic to a different situation: Christians who are strict pacifists, who are conscientious objectors even during an invasion by a brutal enemy, be it the ancient Vandal hordes or modern, genocidal totalitarians.
Can you imagine someone who takes religion seriously, taking Prager's tact in urging the pacifists to take up arms?
"What I am asking here is that [pacifists] not allow those problems (however legitimate they may be from the perspective of Christian theology) to play a role in their [decision to fight]. The fate of America and the world hangs in the balance."
I *STRONGLY* disagree with the position of strict pacifism: the Christian duty of turning the other cheek is a personal duty, and it no more applies to the state than it does within the family, in that the soldier still has the duty to repel invaders JUST as the parent still has the duty to punish disobedience. The Christian ethic of personal non-retaliation simply does not imply that we spoil our children by refusing to punish them *OR* that we invite invasion and tyranny by refusing to defend our borders.
Romans 13 is clear: "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord, NOT "vengeance is wrong in any and all circumstances," and Paul here teaches that God empowers the state to punish wrongdoers, and the state "does not bear the sword in vain."
I would certainly argue that we Christians don't have a duty to be strict pacifists, but if a person is immovable on that issue, I wouldn't dream of trying to tell him to suspend that duty for the duration -- to let his duty to God lapse and be trumped by his duty to his country, so that he can "fight the [invaders] now" so that he can live out his Christian duty later.
When we're most pressed to do the expedient thing is PRECISELY when it's most important that we affirm our true convictions through actions that may well have significant negative consequences. That's precisely when we most need to lay down our lives in devotion to God.
I'm sure Prager understands that on the subject of strict pacifism, and that's another reason it's so frustrating that he doesn't seem to understand it on this subject.
The problem, Lawrence, is that to vote for a President for the specific purpose of advancing one religion's sectarian interest, is incompatible with the American creed. If a person is sincerely convinced that this is his religious duty, then of course he owes it to himself, and to his God, to be faithful to his conscience and reject Americanism. But that does not make him any less un-American.
Regarding pacifism, incidentally, one of my American heroes has always been Nathaniel Greene -- a Quaker whose love for liberty was so strong that he decided to make an exception to his faith's pacifist tradition. Some religious hills just aren't worth dying on, if it turns out they require turning one's back on liberty.
So it doth profit a man, then... or that's your position, at least if political liberty is what's at stake.
You write, "that to vote for a President for the specific purpose of advancing one religion's sectarian interest, is incompatible with the American creed."
1) Says who? Does that mean that, say, the Amish shouldn't vote for coreligionists at the local level, if doing so helps ensure that the laws continue to permit their peculiar way of life? That to do so is un-American?
I would think that fidelity to one's beliefs would still trump "Americanism," but I reject the claim that the two are in conflict. You ought to say a word (or more) to prove what you merely assert, ipse dixit.
2) If you really believe this, I must assume that you strongly criticize those Mormons who support Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon -- those who helped Romney win ALMOST NINETY PERCENT of the vote in the 2008 Utah primary.
I can only assume it because you've given no indication of it. Instead, you're extremely defensive about Mormons as a group, even though you don't seem very committed to Mormonism's theological claims.
