Grasping at Straw Polls

Mitt Romney just barely edges out Mike Huckabee in the "values voter" straw poll, but Huckabee actually trounced him among people who actually attended the conference rather than voted online.

If Huckabee had money, it seems to me he'd be a formidable contender. As things stand, he mostly seems like a potential spoiler who might step on the big headlines out of Iowa that Romney needs.

UPDATE: In a related development Pam Spalding notes this Dallas Morning News article in which Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, urges his congregation not to vote for Romney: "Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult." The "cult" charge is patently unfair and seems to reflect bigotry, but the perspective that Mormonism is more of an offshoot of Christianity than a variety of it seems fairly well-supported to me. Generally, when you add a new holy book, you have a new religion.

Comments

In this "Value Voters" Straw Poll Ron Paul finished 3rd. I'm pretty sure we can throw it out as a great measure of social conservative opinions.

Posted by Rob | October 20, 2007 8:55 PM

The "cult" charge is patently unfair and seems to reflect bigotry

It's also a very common view among Fundamentalist Christians, as well as many Evangelicals. I expect this to become more of a problem for Romney, though it may not always show in the polls (for much the same reason many whites will say they'd vote for a black candidate, but don't).

Posted by Biff Crankshaft | October 20, 2007 9:18 PM

The "cult" charge is patently unfair and seems to reflect bigotry, but the perspective that Mormonism is more of an offshoot of Christianity than a variety of it seems fairly well-supported to me. Generally, when you add a new holy book, you have a new religion.

Well its not like the religious right doesn't do this itself when it speaks of "Judeo-Christian values".

Since religions are just myths anyway, there's no way of deciding what "true" Christianity is and thus no way to determine objectively what counts as Christian. Thus, I go by the fact that Mormons call themselves Christian and believe that Jesus was divine. If you believe in a divine Jesus and call yourself a Christian, you're a Christian, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 20, 2007 9:36 PM

Yeah, a new book is good indicator that you have founded a new religion. If you want to found a new denomonation you just quibble about intepretations of the old book.

Posted by d | October 20, 2007 9:53 PM

"The "cult" charge is patently unfair"

No, it isn't. Mormonism is a cult, unless you're going by size as an indication of whether something is a "cult" or not - which admittedly a lot of people do. However, a lot of people like to refer to certain religions as "cults" despite the fact that said religions may have hundreds of thousands of members. It started out as a cult and it still is - it's just run better than most cults.

" and seems to reflect bigotry"

Duh! When do religious arguments NOT "reflect bigotry"?

"but the perspective that Mormonism is more of an offshoot of Christianity than a variety of it seems fairly well-supported to me. Generally, when you add a new holy book, you have a new religion."

That's probably correct. Let's face it, most Christians are not going to buy the idea that Mormonism is a "legitimate" part of Christianity - especially Fundamentalists who don't even like the Catholics who WERE the founders of Christianity.

I mean, the Fundies like to think that Jesus was somehow a "Christian" despite the fact that he was a fanatical Jew who never dreamed of founding a new religion, let alone one that would persecute his own people in his name for the next two thousand years. "Christianity" was started by a Roman double agent named Paul who essentially "hijacked" a Jewish prophet, turned his teachings 180 degrees, and started his own "cult", despite being stoned by Jesus's followers, condemned by Jesus's own brother, and having to go into protective custody with the Romans and flee to Rome to start his cult.

This is why I gotta admit the Israelis are really scoring a big one against Christians by getting American Christians to support sending their kids to die in and paying for Israel's wars.

You gotta laugh at that one - if it wasn't so damaging to the rest of us in this country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 10:23 PM

Generally, when you add a new holy book, you have a new religion.

Really?

Posted by Andrew Edwards | October 20, 2007 10:58 PM

I think you're under-rating Huckabee's chances. Ordinarily he wouldn't stand a chance in the establishment-orchestrated Republican nomination fight, but it should be obvious by now that all the major contenders are simply unacceptable to the religious right rank-and-file. Huckabee doesn't have to wage an insurgency against the whole Republican Party apparat - only against its religious wing. Follow Andrew Sullivan's links for the buckled-knees response Huckabee got for his speech at this thing, throw in a good result in Iowa, and you'll see that it's not impossible.

Of course, you've already over-rated Huckabee's chances, too, so in a tactical sense you've shrewdly left yourself positioned to re-claim the pundit bragging rights you relinquished by staying long Howared Dean in 2004.

Posted by Dave L | October 20, 2007 11:11 PM

the perspective that Mormonism is more of an offshoot of Christianity than a variety of it seems fairly well-supported to me.

Jesus, jesus, jesus. How many times do we have to try to set the record straight? I get the feeling you and Andrew Sullivan take a perverse pleasure in needling Mormons. As your LDS and ex-LDS commenters have made clear each time the point is raised, Christianity is the central characteristic of the Mormon faith. Telling a Mormon he/she is not really a Christian is like telling a white Hispanic she's not really white, or a mixed-race person he's not really black, etc. It's actually quite offensive. I know evangelicals do it all the time, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much since I learned to ignore them long ago. When you make the assertion on your site, try instead imagining that you are telling a Mormon to their face that they are not really a Christian. Maybe you could tell a returned missionary who just came back from two years of telling people about Jesus in Japan or Belgium or somewhere equally secular. I'm sorry it bothers me so much, but it does, and I'm an atheist, for Christ's sake.

Posted by yave begnet | October 20, 2007 11:45 PM

“...despite the fact that he was a fanatical Jew who never dreamed of founding a new religion”

Wow, talk about egregious BS. You have no clue what Jesus did or didn't dream. It's absurdity to make such claims about an historical figure that many historians aren't even sure existed because of the paucity of non-Biblical documentation about his existence, much less his inner-self.

And if you do take the Gospels as a reliable source, then Christ's words make a much stronger case for his awareness he was starting a new religion than the opposite.

“The ‘cult’ charge is patently unfair and seems to reflect bigotry”

At this point, yes. But for those who specialize in this—not theologians, but people like sociologists and psychologists—the notion of “cult” has a defined meaning based upon a set of shared characteristics such as a messianic leader, insular and paranoid culture, retribution against heretics, indoctrination of children taken out of custody of parents, unusual sexual practices (often by the leader), transfer of wealth to the leader and leadership cabal...stuff like that.

It's easy to suppose that most religions began as something either quite like this or at least mildly like this. Some retain that character for a long time, even when it's grown quite large. I don't think it's still true for LDS, but I do think it's still true for Scientology.

Mormonism has a large number of very odd-seeming beliefs to the contemporary American Christian. The distrust of Romney, I think, will have a large correlation to just how much a particular Christian voter knows about Mormonism. The more they know, the less comfortable they will be.

But Mormons are famously likable, nice, good-seeming and very godly people. For the Christian that knows Mormons by acquaintance or friendship but knows little about their beliefs or practices, a Mormon President will seem very attractive.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | October 20, 2007 11:48 PM

“When you make the assertion on your site, try instead imagining that you are telling a Mormon to their face that they are not really a Christian.”

You're right, of course, that the group themselves gets to make the association they wish. But it's also true that from an objective point of view LDS is a deeply exceptional and distinct variant of Christianity. I think a good analogy is with Islam and the Druze. The Druze consider themselves Muslim Shias, but many mainstream Shais disagree.

What's important and probably determinative is that LDS sees other Christian churches as not more like itself than the other churches see LDS. If the alienation were mutual and very strong, the argument that LDS is a distinct religion from Christianity would have more merit.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | October 21, 2007 12:13 AM

Telling a Mormon he/she is not really a Christian is like telling a white Hispanic she's not really white, or a mixed-race person he's not really black, etc. It's actually quite offensive.

No, it's not, because people aren't religions. You can stick the LDS with Unitarians and just above the Unification Church and Jews for Jesus, because it's sufficiently distinct in its core tenets.

If it offends them to point this out, then tough titty. I'm sure it offended those on the receiving end of Romney's mission in the godless depths of France -- 'Paris is well worth a Mass', anyone? -- a fuckload more.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 21, 2007 12:27 AM

there's no way of deciding what "true" Christianity is and thus no way to determine objectively what counts as Christian.

There are extremely good rules of thumb -- let's call it a theological field. There is no 'true' bear, but there are bears and there are koalas.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 21, 2007 12:35 AM

"You have no clue what Jesus did or didn't dream. It's absurdity to make such claims about an historical figure that many historians aren't even sure existed because of the paucity of non-Biblical documentation about his existence, much less his inner-self."

While this is technically correct, in that there is indeed a paucity of non-Biblical literature about his existence, the reality is that based on the documents and historical chronicles known, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the best interpretations of them and the other historical documents of the times, Jesus was a follower of the Jewish Law and had no intention of starting a new religion - still less, as I said, one that would blame his own people for his death.

In any event, the point was that the Fundies are incapable of comprehending that Jesus was a Jew, not some "original Pat Robertson" - or the nut who founded the Mormons.

"And if you do take the Gospels as a reliable source, then Christ's words make a much stronger case for his awareness he was starting a new religion than the opposite."

IF you can specify where in the original Aramaic he said that, I might listen. Quoting translations which may or may not reflect the original words of the Gospels rather than the intents of the translators is not an argument.

From what I've read, it is clear from the nature of his supposed followers and the general tenor of his statements that he was a "good Jew", possibly with an intent to "clean up the faith" or even modify it to his liking, but in no sense someone opposed to Judaism as it existed at the time.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 21, 2007 12:41 AM

A quick Google leads to a site which discusses the issue of whether the Mormon religion is consistent with fundamental Christian beliefs:

Is Mormonism Christian?
A Comparison of Mormonism and Historic Christianity
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html

They also include the official statements of five major Christian denominations which conclude that "there are irreconcilable differences between LDS doctrine and Christian beliefs based on the Bible." These denominations include Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Baptists and the Methodists.

I'd say that pretty well covers the field.

They have a Catholic Bishop's article there, too, saying basically to cut the Mormons some slack in the interests of inter-religious harmony because maybe one day they'll actually be Christians - or maybe the LDS will split into the old LDS and a sort of "Christian LDS."

But the comparison of basic Mormon beliefs and common Christian beliefs pretty much trashes the notion that Mormons are in any basic way conventional Christians.

Bottom line: Nope, Mormons aren't Christians except in the sense that anybody who likes Jesus is a Christian - including Muslims, presumably.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 21, 2007 12:56 AM

“IF you can specify where in the original Aramaic he said that, I might listen. Quoting translations which may or may not reflect the original words of the Gospels rather than the intents of the translators is not an argument.”

We don't have the original words of the Gospels. While Jesus and others probably mostly spoke in Aramaic, the trade language was Koine Greek, which is what all the earlier available versions of the Gospels are written in.

I studied Classical (Attic and Homeric) Greek and Koine is very easy relative to those dialects. I've read and translated portions of the Gospels, thought it was a long time ago. I'm no Bible scholar, I'm not even a Christian, so I can't think of any particular passage off the top of my head. I think agree with you that Jesus Christ was a Jew and thought of himself as a Jew. He didn't think of himself as starting a new religion, but he certainly thought he was radically transforming Judaism. It's not a huge distinction.

The King James is not a reliable translation. It's a beautiful piece of English literature, but the scholars of that time did not have a very strong grasp of Koine Greek. But most of the modern translations are quite reliable.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | October 21, 2007 1:39 AM

The distrust of Romney, I think, will have a large correlation to just how much a particular Christian voter knows about Mormonism. The more they know, the less comfortable they will be.

Only in the sense that if you probe deep into any different religion, you will uncover troubling beliefs you do not share. Read the Qu'ran or the annotated Talmud sometime. Or the heavy harm organized secular progressive Jews have done to American institutions and to Russia with their role in the Communist Democide..

But the sense that I as a voter must only vote for people like me and who share my beliefs is at odds with a pluralistic society. I hope to elect people based on the job I think they will do in office. The best candidate who comes closest to me on issues, is competent, and in higher offices like President or Governor - can lead with vision and deal with the unexpected. That could be a Mormon, that could be a Jew. Or a gay person....who has different views than me, but makes for an excellent leader like my present Congressman...

My Dad has a Muslim cardiologist. I watch Tom Cruise movies and don't give a shit he is a Scientologist. I think Reagan, FDR, and Clinton made pretty good Presidents though none were very religious.

But Mormons are famously likable, nice, good-seeming and very godly people. For the Christian that knows Mormons by acquaintance or friendship but knows little about their beliefs or practices, a Mormon President will seem very attractive.
Posted by Keith M Ellis

Even more Ellis, for those of us who move past your stereotyping and have worked with Mormons - we have found them to be decent, honest, great team players, and hard workers. And knowing more about their funky practices than the average person does not make them so less attractive as candidates, as to be a deal-breaker. Same with a Jewish candidate.

America faces big challenges and Romney is on my short list with Duncan Hunter, Hillary, Rudy as showing promise at this stage to be capable of doing the job. And that is with all the baggage Hillary and Rudy carry with them. Hunter won't get in. Romney, though plasticky, is the one with the best chance to fix the problems in America that have festered since the 70s and which are now making us an uncompetitive, isolated nation...While no one HAS to be extraordinarily smart to do well as President, it helps - as Jefferson, Clinton, and Nixon before his moral failings caught up with him -demonstrate. Rudy and Hillary are smart. Romney is even smarter.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 21, 2007 2:05 AM

Re: There is no 'true' bear, but there are bears and there are koalas.

Koalas do not have ursine ancestry. The LDS did at least evolve out of Christianity.

Re: the reality is that based on the documents and historical chronicles known, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the best interpretations of them and the other historical documents of the times, Jesus was a follower of the Jewish Law and had no intention of starting a new religion

I agree that Jesus was not out to start a new religion. But he was not an orthodox Jew either. He was out to reform Judiasm, quite massively. And he was not a "follower of the Law" at least not as the Law was then interpretted. He routinely transgressed the Pharisaical (that is to say orthodox) conceptions of the Law.

Re: there are irreconcilable differences between LDS doctrine and Christian beliefs based on the Bible

Yes, and the Council of Trent said much the same about the Protestants. Your point is?

Posted by JonF | October 21, 2007 2:12 AM

I kind of view the Mormons as modern day Gnostics. They follow scripture that is not accepted within the rest of the Christian community, but they are Christians. They do accept Jesus as the one and only savior and they accept the Trinity. That's Christian. While Muslims may respect Jesus, they view him as one of many prophets, not a savior, and not the son of God. The comparison with Islam is nonsensical.

Posted by fostert | October 21, 2007 2:41 AM

Relevant point: Mormonism claims to be a restoration of New Testament Christianity. Even if you think they got it wrong, it's still very important to how Mormons think of themselves. They don't see themselves as an offshoot at all, but as a restoration.

Posted by ed | October 21, 2007 3:37 AM

"It's not a huge distinction."

Well, it is from the Jewish standpoint.

As for a "radical transformation", I'm not sufficiently well read to make that determination. But my understanding is that he intended to follow the Jewish law as he interpreted it - not as the Pharisees did, perhaps, but still a purely Jewish approach.

The creator of Christianity as we know it was Paul, not Jesus.

And while the Protestants were indeed denied legitimacy in their day, and most schisms are, if you read the site I posted (assuming it is correct), it is clear that very little of the basic Mormon concepts translate easily to basic Christian concepts - unless one decides the term "Christian" to have no basic concepts.

It's really that simple. And no, the basic Mormon concepts appear to have little or nothing to do with "New Testament Christianity".

In fact, although they accept the Trinity, according to that site, they believe the Trinity are 3 different gods, not 3 expressions of one god. That's rather radical for "Christians." It's not hard to see why the major denominations do not accept that interpretation as "Christian."

The Gnostics were also not Christians - at least, most of the Gnostic cults weren't, although some were offshoots or radical interpretations of warly Christine doctrine. Their fundamental concept was that one should not worship God - one should become God. This is in fact the basic attitude of radical Transhumanism, at least in conjunction with Greek rationalism.

Sorry - all the painstaking efforts are wasted. The Mormons are not Christians. They are a cult that uses Christian terminology - not the same thing as all. There are plenty of cults who use Christian terminology - was David Koresh a Christian? I doubt many denominations would claim that.

In fact, I expect it's very common for cults to exploit connections with existing religions in an attempt to recruit adherents. After all, it's hard to come up with your own entire religion - especially if you're only one guy. Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan religions as everyone knows. L. Ron Hubbard borrowed from various sources extensively for Scientology, including pseudo-science and psychology.

So it's not surprising that the Mormons latched onto the dominant religion in the country at its founding and built on it to create their own religion.

Doesn't make it a legitimate variant of Christianity - although I admit given the irrationality of all religions, it's hard to make that distinction stick easily, precisely because of the heavy duty borrowing.

If people want to consider Mormonism just another schism like the Baptists or the Methodists, fine, whatever. But the rest of those denominations have already spoken - and they said no.

And the bottom line is that's the politician's problem.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 21, 2007 4:09 AM

Lefties, and perhaps Jewish lefties especially, misunderstand something about Christians. They assume that every self-avowed white Christian is a hardcore believer (they don't ascribe this rigidness of belief to black Christians), and his public actions are necessarily determined by his religion's doctrines. Neither is the case. In a GOP primary, Romney is required to give lip service to notions of "faith", as every candidate is (and, to a lesser extent, Dem candidates are obligated to do so as well).

From his successful career in the secular world -- in business (as a CEO, private equity/investment banker), non-profit (SLC Olympics) and government (MA governorship) -- it's clear that Romney isn't hobbled by his religion. He either isn't a hardcore believer, or he is one of the majority of devout Mormons who has made an accommodation with the elements of the secular world that conflict with his faith.

This is not uncommon among religious Mormons, who are a uniquely worldly group. Due to their church's focus on international missionary work, Mormons have plenty of international connections and exposure to different cultures. They are also so adept at learning and teaching foreign languages that the Defense Department has studied their methods. Mormons have leveraged this missionary work into successful international business, and not just with fellow Mormons. You can't be successful at this sort of business without being tolerant of other cultures and beliefs, and having a certain pragmatism about your own faith that enables you to function effectively in the secular world.

If anything, the average Mormon is probably more flexible and pragmatic about his religions doctrines in the real world than the average liberal is about his 'religious' doctrines (e.g., egalitarianism, global warming crisis-mongering, etc.).

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 4:12 AM

Christian Science adds a new holy book too (Science and Health). Is it considered a new religion?

Posted by Mike | October 21, 2007 6:49 AM

MY is right. Mormonism is an off-shoot, and while Mormons consider it to be a restoration, it simply is not Christianity. The trinitarian views of Mormonism are that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings united in purpose but not essence. Christians hold the view that there is one God who has been revealed in three persons: God the Father (creator of the universe and author of the laws of nature), God the Son (Jesus Christ, who died for the salvation of humanity from sin), and God the Holy Spirit (the love of God and moral conscience within us all, among other ideas). While Mormons make those distinctions, they don't acknowledge how they're all essentially one God. May seem like a technicality, but if you ask me, if you don't believe Jesus was God, you're not a Christian. Also, I believe their notion of the afterlife (and although I'm a Christian, I'm fairly agnostic when it comes to afterlife theology) is misguided: focussing on humanity's ultimate divinity (an idea contrary to the essential tenets of Christianity) rather than holiness.

Not that there's anything wrong with Mormons not being Christians, as no religious doctrine can have the final word on God. MY is also correct that Mormonism is not a cult. A close friend of mine is a student at Brigham Young University and is currently on his two-year mission, a common practice among young LDS men. He's a very bright, kind, and independent thinking person. Any cult he would associate with would probably have more to do with Star Wars fandom than Mormonism. If these so-called "values voters" will refuse to vote for a candidate who is perfectly willing to reflect their priorities simply because of his religious beliefs, they need to examine their values.

Also, Hack, saying Christianity was created by Paul and not Jesus may be true in one sense, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Christ did create the Church when he commissioned, among all his followers, 12 apostles to spread the word and to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Christ initially espoused the original and still essential philosophies of Christianity. Now, St. Paul developed that philosophy into what we now know today as Christianity -- if you needed to explain to somebody what Christianity is, just have he/she read Paul's letter to the Romans. Also, the make-up of the Church is his responsibility, as many of the earliest Christians wanted the Church to be exclusively Jewish. Paul disagreed and preached to anyone.

"If anything, the average Mormon is probably more flexible and pragmatic about his religious doctrines in the real world than the average liberal is about his 'religious' doctrines (e.g., egalitarianism, global warming crisis-mongering)."

Heaven forbid liberals have principles and that they may include protecting the environment and providing social services to the needy. Can't have that.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 21, 2007 6:53 AM

If anything, the average Mormon is probably more flexible and pragmatic about his religions doctrines in the real world than the average liberal is about his 'religious' doctrines...

The analogy to liberals doesn't strike me as so apt, but the description of "average Mormons" does. Most Mormons I know aren't really defined so much by their theology.

When I was a philosophical-minded teenager asking everyone in my church about the difference between a Trinity and a Godhead, none of the (very well educated, very devout) adults could give an even halfway articulate answer. I have family members who are very active in the Church who consciously don't bother with about 75% of what would define the Mormon religion in Internet Theology.

Most of the more weird points of doctrine, like the truly righteous getting their own planets to be Christ for (or however it should be articulated), I learned about from curious non-members.

I left the church because I couldn't stand the way the power structure is set up, which makes it next to impossible to dissent from the official Church position on, say, the role of women or the status of gay people. These issues should be much, much more important to a political conversation of Romney's faith. But I guess we Americans are all amateur theologians in this Third Great Awakening.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

Posted by Jackmormon | October 21, 2007 7:44 AM

"If Huckabee had money, it seems to me he'd be a formidable contender. As things stand, he mostly seems like a potential spoiler who might step on the big headlines out of Iowa that Romney needs."

There's an incredible amount of value in being the non-Giuliani non-Romney candidate.

Huckabee's money woes obviously present a problem, but if McCain, Thompson, or Huckabee can emerge from the early contests as a consensus choice to stand in opposition to Giuliani and Romney, that's a prize worth winning.

Posted by Petey | October 21, 2007 8:33 AM

Robert Jeffress: "Even though he [Romney] talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult."

WTF? What could be a better indicator of being a Christian than talking about Jesus as one's "Lord and savior"? If MY began blogging about Jesus as his "Lord and savior," he would be a Christian as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 21, 2007 8:39 AM

The Gnostics were also not Christians - at least, most of the Gnostic cults weren't, although some were offshoots or radical interpretations of warly Christine doctrine. Their fundamental concept was that one should not worship God - one should become God.

This is simply a slander, a repetition of the slanders of the early heresiologists. There are very few sources from groups called Gnostic which allege that one is to become God and none which allege that God should not be worshipped. Every single text we have attributed to the Gnostics reflects a clear Christian self-consciousness. You've taken the slanders spread by hte developing church against other Christians and taken them as historical truth. (see Karen King's What is Gnosticism? for a good covering of this field.)

As to whether Jesus or Paul or Emperor Constantine founded Christianity, I think the important point is that we all seem to disagree on this. We don't know. It's not really a knowable thing, as it all depends on our reading of complicated historical documents, and even more so on our definition of what Christianity is.

If, for instance, we take "new book = new religion", then prior to the council of Nicea there were a million different Christ-worshipping religions out there - and not just heretics, but the solidly orthodox cite the Shepherd of Hermas as authoritative Christian doctrine.

It would also call into question whether the Ethiopian church, with its 50-book New Testament, with its acceptance of the Enochian literature as holy writ, is "really" Christian.

Similarly the Catholic church and most protestant denominations with regard to the Old Testament Apocrypha.

This post by Matt reflects exactly what happens when philosophers try to do religion. They mix up theology and religion, and pass off their theological views as historically documentable truth. Whether Mormonism is or is not a new religion is not something that can be settled historically. It's a theological question.

Posted by DivGuy | October 21, 2007 8:51 AM

A comment I also posted at Pandagon:
An analogy:
Is Lyndon LaRouche a Democrat? He has run for office as a Democrat, he opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the Iraq war, he’s endorsed John Conyers’ United States National Health Insurance Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act), and opposed telecom deregulation. So he’s a Democrat, right?

Nope. Even though he has claimed to be a Democrat, he holds enough opinions that run counter to our core beliefs (global warming as hoax, opposition to the UN) and that are just plain weird (Queen of England as head of an international drug cartel) that most rational people realize that he’s not a Democrat, he just claims it for his own convenience, and without being faithful to our core beliefs he can’t be considered a real Democrat.

As a Christian, my take on the LDS fits my take on LaRouche (as a Democrat) pretty well. I’m not saying Mormons are bad people. I’m saying they aren’t Christians, as Christianity has been defined for the last two millennia.

None of which should be relevant to a political discussion, but since the GOP has decided to be the party of theocracy, then end up hoist on their own petard in this instance. Pass the popcorn; this show is worth watching.

Posted by Dave Pooser | October 21, 2007 9:38 AM

Re: But my understanding is that he intended to follow the Jewish law as he interpreted it - not as the Pharisees did, perhaps, but still a purely Jewish approach.

which is pretty much like Luther and Calvin saying they intended to follow the Scriptures as they interpretted not the Pope's interpretation.

Re: The creator of Christianity as we know it was Paul, not Jesus.

This is overstated. Christianity is a fusion of Paul's and Jesus's teaching. Or rather, it is Jesus' teaching as filtered through Paul (and to a lesser extent through John).

Re: I have family members who are very active in the Church who consciously don't bother with about 75% of what would define the Mormon religion in Internet Theology.

I suspectt his is true of a great many religious people, not just Mormons. Americans are pretty ignorant about theology and have no desire to be otherwise. They practice their religion in their own individual way (often quite deeply and sincerely felt) but seldom look deeper into tehir own doctrines and traditions. All of which helps the Religious Right enormously, since the RR can more easily warp Christian faith into a set of not-very-coherent political dogmas.

Re: This is simply a slander, a repetition of the slanders of the early heresiologists.

Gnosticism actually antedates Christianity, so the proposition that Gnosticism was not a form of Christianity has some basis in truth. Gnosticism was a fusion of Judaism and Greek Platonic mystcism. Jesus was appropriated by the Gnostics and made a key figure in their myth, so one can claim that Gnosticism grafted itself onto Christianity, but it did not arise out of Christianity in the same way that, say, Arianism, did.

Posted by JonF | October 21, 2007 9:48 AM

I’m not saying Mormons are bad people. I’m saying they aren’t Christians, as Christianity has been defined for the last two millennia.

What about a Mormon who says Jesus Christ is his Lord and savior?

Posted by Econobuzz | October 21, 2007 9:52 AM

Gnosticism actually antedates Christianity, so the proposition that Gnosticism was not a form of Christianity has some basis in truth.

This is false. There is zero evidence of "pre-Christian" Gnosticism. It was made up by German scholars looking for the "Oriental" roots of Christianity.

There's been scholarship written on this topic since 1953. The Mandaeans didn't preserve the verbatim teachings of John the Baptist, either.

Posted by DivGuy | October 21, 2007 9:55 AM

Is Lyndon LaRouche a Democrat? He has run for office as a Democrat, he opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the Iraq war, he’s endorsed John Conyers’ United States National Health Insurance Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act), and opposed telecom deregulation. So he’s a Democrat, right? Nope

Hell, a whole lot of folks who call themselves democrats couldn't pass that test.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 21, 2007 10:02 AM

While there may have been some Gnostic groups which did claim that we should try to become Gods, this was clearly not true of them all. The Marcionites for example, certainly believed that one ought to worship the true God, father of Jesus ; their heterodoxy lay in the fact that they identified the true God and the Old Testament God as two different beings. Likewise the Albigensians, I believe.

To the extent that there were Gnostic groups which did claim we ought to try to become Gods, then I would agree they ought not to be considered Christian. Likewise the Mormons, perhaps. But a group like the Marcionites I would call Christian- heretical maybe, but still Christian. There is a continuum, of course.

The argument that Jesus was a faithful Jew, or did not intent to found a new religion, makes sense only if one approaches history from a purely secular viewpoint, and not in a spirit of faith- and only if one is willing to completely discount the Gospels as an accurate source. In the Gospels, Jesus almost never refers to his Jewish audience with the pronoun 'we', rather as 'you.' He repeatedly refers to his Jewish audiences as 'a brood of vipers' and so forth, and showed as much acceptance of Samaritan and Roman followers as Jewish ones. If one accepts the premise that Jesus was the Son of God, then to talk about him 'following' some religion is absurd- He is the object of worship, not the worshipper, and had no need to 'follow' any religion at all. He made it sufficiently clear to his followers that he was the Son of God, of one being with the Father, with in itself is a complete denial of Jewish doctrine.

If one is prepared to discount the Gospels of course then there is no grounds to claim that JC was God, or considered himself to be God, but then there is no grounds to claim anything else about him either. There are no details about His life that even claim to be factual, outside the early Christian (or heretical Christian) writings.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 21, 2007 10:04 AM

Christian Science adds a new holy book too (Science and Health). Is it considered a new religion?

According to the same fundamentalists who don't accept Mormonism as Christian, yes. That's actually no dispute at all amongst conservative evangelicals about Christian Scientists. Nor is the labeling of Mormons as "not really Christian," which is not approached by fundamentalists in the manner of some commenters here, who presume that one can be a member of an expressly polytheistic faith as long as he says Jesus is his savior.

This is all that's relevant. It doesn't matter what Mormonism "really" is. It matters what socially conservative churchgoing Republican footsoldiers think. Even the recent endorsements from, e.g., Bob Jones III have been hedged with references to "theological disagreements." They're endorsing him anyway, because they've bought his flip-flops on social issues over to the usual Mormon POV (anti-choice, anti-gay, authoritarian, historically racist, etc.). It's finally making explicit that many of these people never really cared about Christianity per se, only about their political agenda.

And I'm rooting for this to stay in the public eye, because I'm hoping that such pointless theological quibbling will remind people why the "no religious test" clause was put into the Constitution, and that separation of church and state is a good thing.

This is false. There is zero evidence of "pre-Christian" Gnosticism. It was made up by German scholars looking for the "Oriental" roots of Christianity.

So Orthodox Jews are deluded idiots in their beliefs about Kabbalah? (Unfortunately, I'd consider this plausible.) Granted, the texts that are supposed to originate from the 1st Century CE are suspected by many of having a medieval provenance, but I'm just having a hard time picturing Talmudic scholars saying, "Hey, you know that tradition of Jewish mysticism Maimonides is so hostile to? Let's beef it up by cribbing from obscure Christian sects!" Though stranger things have happened in the thrilling world of religion.

In this "Value Voters" Straw Poll Ron Paul finished 3rd. I'm pretty sure we can throw it out as a great measure of social conservative opinions.

Why? I'd consider this plausible, since he's anti-gay, voted for a federal ban of an abortion procedure ("states' rights", my ass), hangs out with "The Confederacy was right!" groups, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and thinks the "world government" UN is the devil. The only thing that would keep him from moving up would be his antipathy to our wholesale slaughter of heathens overseas.

Posted by mds | October 21, 2007 11:13 AM

"Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

Jesus broke with Judaism.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 21, 2007 11:50 AM

A close friend of mine is a student at Brigham Young University and is currently on his two-year mission, a common practice among young LDS men.

See what your “close friend” says after you carefully explain to him that he is not a Christian. Ask him what he is teaching people about on his mission. I’m curious to hear the result of your conversation.

Posted by yave begnet | October 21, 2007 12:44 PM

A close friend of mine is a student at Brigham Young University and is currently on his two-year mission, a common practice among young LDS men.

See what your “close friend” says after you carefully explain to him that he is not a Christian. Ask him what he is teaching people about on his mission. I’m curious to hear the result of your conversation.

It would also be worth asking your friend why LDS folks so frequently evangelize in parts of the world where other Christian groups have aleady established strong missions but have almost no presence elsewhere. If they're Christian, why do they try to "convert" other Christians? Why do they re-baptize the dead?

Posted by Drasty | October 21, 2007 3:08 PM

Re: There is zero evidence of "pre-Christian" Gnosticism.

Of course there is! Philo of Alexandria's Judeo-Platonic mysticism for example. Why are you being so obtuse about this? All you have to read the Gnostic Gospels themselves to find both pre-Christian and non-Judaic concepts in them. Jesus is actually kind of a bit-player in Gnosticism. The biggie is Sophia whose mission it is to rescue humankind from bondage to the corrupt material world that Yahweh (a fairly minor deity in Gnostic mythology) created.

Posted by Jonf | October 21, 2007 3:57 PM

"See what your “close friend” says after you carefully explain to him that he is not a Christian. Ask him what he is teaching people about on his mission. I’m curious to hear the result of your conversation."

Well, Michael would probably say, "Well, you may not think I'm a Christian, but I'm not the one whose church has been committing apostasy for two thousand years." Then we'd laugh and go get a bite to eat.

Even knowing I don't think Mormonism qualifies as Christianity, the theological difference, in my opinion, does not prevent my friend from living a life guided by Christ. In many ways he's a better Christian than I am even knowing I don't think his particular religion can be accurately described as Christian. He was probably working in a homeless shelter yesterday (as Mormons do have to do some community service every week on their mission) while I was drinking too much and watching college football. But that's how things roll in the Church of Ohio State Football.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 21, 2007 4:09 PM

Christians hold the view that there is one God who has been revealed in three persons: God the Father (creator of the universe and author of the laws of nature), God the Son (Jesus Christ, who died for the salvation of humanity from sin), and God the Holy Spirit (the love of God and moral conscience within us all, among other ideas).

This is a theologian's definition of Christianity that has nothing to do with ordinary belief. Most believing Christians have no opinion whatsoever about the nature of the trinity. (Indeed, many denominations of Christianity are not Trinitarians.) So, unless you want to define Christianity as a tiny minority religion that should have no influence whatsoever in the world, you need to adopt a definition that includes most believers. And once you do that, there's no reason to exclude Mormons.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 22, 2007 1:45 PM

Is Lyndon LaRouche a Democrat? He has run for office as a Democrat, he opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the Iraq war, he’s endorsed John Conyers’ United States National Health Insurance Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act), and opposed telecom deregulation. So he’s a Democrat, right?

Nope. Even though he has claimed to be a Democrat, he holds enough opinions that run counter to our core beliefs (global warming as hoax, opposition to the UN) and that are just plain weird (Queen of England as head of an international drug cartel) that most rational people realize that he’s not a Democrat, he just claims it for his own convenience, and without being faithful to our core beliefs he can’t be considered a real Democrat.

Bad example. A "Democrat", in the partisan sense, means a member of the party, nothing more. If LaRouche is a member, he's a Democrat. A bad one, an unorthodox one, but a Democrat.

The problem is that there is no definition of Christianity, because (1) there isn't an objectively "true" version; and (2) there are a very wide variety of different and sometimes contradicting beliefs that are espoused under that label, and no objective criteria to pick one from another.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 22, 2007 1:50 PM

It would also be worth asking your friend why LDS folks so frequently evangelize in parts of the world where other Christian groups have aleady established strong missions but have almost no presence elsewhere. If they're Christian, why do they try to "convert" other Christians? Why do they re-baptize the dead?

For the same reason that Protestants don't recognize Catholic Holy Communion, and Catholics don't recognize Prostestant ministers as representatives of God. For the same reason that the Catholic Church encourages its members who marry Protestants to obtain an agreement that the children will be raised Catholic.

Or, for the best example at all, for the same reason that conservative evangelicals have missions all over the place in heavily Catholic Latin America.

Look, just because people are Christian doesn't mean they don't have doctrinal differences and don't think their particular version is right and that people should believe in it rather than the other versions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 22, 2007 1:57 PM