Was Mormonism ever pro-slavery?

Related Posts: Blacks and the Priesthood; Race issues in the Book of Mormon: Part I; Race issues in the Book of Mormon: Part II

Summary: In O’Donnell's rant against Mormonism he calls the LDS faith racist and Joseph Smith a criminal. He also accused the Church of being pro-slavery. His views are extremely biased--that will be obvious to anyone who watches the clip below. 

The LDS faith was never pro-slavery. Neither were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young--the only LDS Presidents during the antebellum period. Joseph Smith wanted to free the slaves by purchasing their freedom. Brigham Young said, “I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man.” He goes on to say if he had to choose he would be against the pro-slavery side. 

Brigham Young wanted Utah to be a free state, but as a territory it permitted slavery. Though there were probably never more than 100 slaves in the entire territory. 

Naturally, politics came into play. When the church was in Missouri it was accused of being abolitionist, which is something Joseph Smith had to deal with. Brigham Young was afraid if slavery were abolished polygamy would be next. So they both walked a political tightrope.

Their positions on slavery are not what we would like them to be. But I cannot conclude either of them were pro-slavery. 

Read more...

Images, Icons, and the Christian cross

Old Testament symbols

The Old Testament contains strong prohibitions against idolatry: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them” (Exod. 20:4-5).[1] The prohibition was not intended to forbid images generally, but to prevent images being made as objects of worship. Images can include sculpture, castings, relief, tapestry, paintings, decorative embellishments of religious objects, etc. Several examples of decorative images are the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18-20); two large cherubim in the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:23); the twelve oxen supporting the brazen sea of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:25, 44); cherubim on the veil in the tabernacle (Exod. 26:31); and lions decorating Solomon’s throne (1 Kings 10:19-20). The temple of Solomon was also decorated with carvings of cherubim, trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6:35), and lions and oxen (1 Kings 7:29). Such images are decorative and not intended for adoration or veneration. In the case of the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, they illustrate the exaltation of God over his creations.[2] Nowhere in scripture is a man-made image of God mentioned. The only possible exceptions are the brazen serpent Moses constructed in the wilderness, which according to Jesus was a type representing himself (John 3:14-15), and the image of God found in man: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” (Gen. 1:27). There is also evidence of statues, probably human in form (1 Sam. 19:13).

Old Testament idolatry
The Old Testament prohibition against idolatry was so strong that the Israelites were instructed to “make no mention of the name of other gods” (Exod. 23:13). And at times idols were destroyed: “[Josiah] began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images. And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images, that were on high above them, he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them” (2 Chron. 34:3-4; see also Exod. 23:24; 2 Kings 10:28; 21:3; Hos. 8:6; 2 Chron. 31:1; Hos. 10:8).

Idol worship included bowing to the idol (Isa. 44:15; Dan. 3:7); presenting food and drink offerings (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:18; 19:3; Hos. 2:8); immorality (Exod. 32:23-25; Amos 2:7-8); self flagellation (1 Kings 18:26-28); as well as kissing an image of the god (1 Kings 19:18; Hos. 13:2). It also included animal and even human sacrifice (Deut. 21:31; 2 Kings 17:31; 23:10; Jer. 19:5; Abr. 1:7-8; Mic. 6:6).

New Testament idolatry
With few exceptions, idolatry was the universal form of religious worship and was part of the fabric of everyday society. Hospitals and schools were dedicated to gods; all family and civic ceremonies invoked the name of a god; coins contained the images of gods; public festivals involved the worship of idols; contracts might invoke the name of a god. There were gods for doorways, door hinges, bridges, and gateways. The images of gods were on bracelets, rings, belts, earrings, shoes, and other handicrafts; as well as dishes, eating utensils, and cups. Thus nearly every form of employment in the public and private sector touched the idolatrous religions of the day. The New Testament does not furnish us with a comprehensive list of what Christians were permitted and forbidden to do. But it does speak extensively about avoiding fornication and eating things sacrificed to idols: “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:29). This strong prohibition against idolatry and eating things sacrificed to idols was inherited from Judaism.[3]

Pagan sacrifice involved invoking the name of a god. Part of the sacrifice would be burned upon the altar (usually the entrails) and part would be kept by the priests as payment. Most of the animal would be returned to those who brought the offering, who might then invite their friends and family to participate in a feast honoring their god.[4] These type of feasts could be luxurious events: “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (1 Cor. 10:7, compare Exod. 32:6). The prohibition against eating things sacrificed to idols and against fornication is repeated in the book of Revelation (2:14, and 2:20). Paul said, “Sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed…is idolatry” (Col. 3:5). While one would be tempted to label immorality, lust, and greed as forms of idolatry (a correct observation), idol worship often did involve those things.[5]

But immorality wasn’t connected to all forms of idol worship: a pagan could be a very moral person. This being the case, why was participating in pagan feasts prohibited? Firstly, it would honor a false god. Secondly, it could hinder the conversion of others. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). If we know there is only one God and that an idol is nothing why not participate in these feasts? Paul admits, “for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (v. 8). But not every person knows this. Some people viewed idols as representing a very real god, their conscience being weak (v. 7). So he counsels the Corinthians to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” Paul ends by saying, “Wherefore, if food maketh my brother to fall into sin, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to fall into sin” (Web, 1 Cor. 8:13).

Other stipulations are as follows: “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For ‘the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.’ If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience--I do not mean your conscience, but his” (ESV, 1 Cor. 10:25-29; italics mine).

The symbol of the cross
The cross has symbolic and/or liturgical use in nearly every Christian denomination. It has many iconic forms such as the crux immissa (†), crux simplex (|), crux decussata (X), crux commissa (T), and the Greek forms (+). A cross that has an image of the body of Christ hanging on it is known as a crucifix. Most Protestant denominations do not use this symbol, but instead use an empty cross to symbolize Christ’s resurrection.[6]

The Christian writer Tertullian (circa A.D. 200) says in his Apology, “if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us” (Apology 16), referring to the Christian practice of using the cross as part of the worship of God and to the pagan tendency to worship images that in form resemble a cross.[7] Christians were generally reluctant to display any outward Christian symbols for fear of persecution. But after Christianity became universally recognized (A.D. 313) the public display of crosses became common.

In addition to the symbol of the cross some Christian denominations include making the sign of the cross as part of their worship and ritual. Making the sign of the cross goes back to at least A.D. 200. Tertullian wrote, “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross]” (The Chaplet iii).[8] Though this gesture is not derived from scripture, one reason behind its use was that non-Christians considered crucifixion a sign of great shame and mocked Christians for worshiping a man who had been crucified. Thus making the sign of the cross was a way for Christians to affirm the precept “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 9:33), and to show they were willing to glory in Jesus “which was crucified.”

There is evidence in the Old Testament of marking the forehead. God instructed Ezekiel to “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it” (NIV, Eze. 9:4). Apparently this mark was the form of a cross.[9] In the book of Revelation there is mention of writing the name of God on the foreheads of believers: “Him that overcometh…I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God…and I will write upon him my new name” (Rev. 3:12); “And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4; see also 14:1 and 7:3). These verses, however, refer to a figurative mark, not to a literal one.

Images in the Catholic and Orthodox churches
One difference between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church is that the Orthodox Church has images only on flat surfaces: i.e. paintings, murals, stained glass windows, and images of crosses sewed into vestments. The Catholic Church has those, as well as sculptures and statues. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches veneration of images is the act of giving honor to a person by giving honor to an image of that person. Veneration can include bowing, kneeling, making the sign of the cross, burning incense or candles, or kissing the object of veneration. Veneration is respect given to saints or to living persons of high rank. (This is similar to the honor given to kings, such as referring to them as your highness, your majesty, my lord.) Adoration is distinct from veneration in that adoration is worship due to God alone.

Most protestant denominations do not participate in veneration of saints or display the crucifix--one exception is the Anglican Church, which does not discourage the crucifix.

The cross in scripture
Paul uses the image of the cross as a symbol of Christ’s enduring the humiliation of the world, his suffering, and death. For example Hebrews 12:2: “the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame.” It is also used as a symbol of how Christ has slain the enmity between God and man: “that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:16). As well as a symbol of Christ’s obedience and humility: “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philip. 2:8). Paul often uses it to refer to atonement aspects of Christ’s suffering and death. Christ used the image of the cross as representing self-denial and self-sacrifice: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Matt. 16:24-25).

In the Book of Mormon the image of the cross is used primarily as a preaching device, illustrating that as Christ as suffered the humiliation of the world we should likewise endure our sufferings with patience: All men ought to “suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world” (Jacob 1:8); “forsake your sins…but cross yourself in all these things” (Alma 39:9); “it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell” (3 Nephi 12:30).

Mormonism and Icons
Mormonism is a religion with very few symbols. There is the beehive (representing industry and hard work), the angel Moroni on the top of many temples (representing the restoration and heralding the Second Coming of Christ). The Salt Lake Temple is also somewhat iconic. There is also CTR rings (Choose The Right); and certain paintings by LDS artists have become iconic within in the church. However, the acceptance of these symbols developed through tradition, and they have no liturgical function. In the foyer of every LDS church there are paintings of a religious nature; but in the chapel there are no paintings, crosses, or other symbols. In the temples there are paintings and murals on the walls, but I don’t recall seeing any sculpture in the ones I have been to. The celestial room in most temples does not contain any paintings or images; the only exception I know of is the Idaho Falls temple which has murals painted on the walls of the celestial room.

There are no prohibitions against sculpture, paintings, castings, and murals of Christ and/or the Apostles, both past and present; but these have no liturgical use. There is also symbolism in the temple clothing, but these symbols are to remind us of things religious and are considered sacred and not spoken of outside the temple. There is also a strong aversion to any display of crosses that is not art depicting the crucifixion of Christ; and I don’t recall ever seeing any kind of sculpture resembling a crucifix.

Mormonism and the cross
One thing that bothers non-Mormon Christians about Mormonism is that our faith does not include the symbol of the cross in any form. The standard explanation we give for this is that Christ’s resurrection represents his triumph over sin and death. “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen” (Luke 24:5-6). Further, there is no New Testament instruction for the use of iconic objects or images. I am not aware of any revelation in which God instructs the church not to use an image of the cross. But from Joseph Smith’s first vision we learn that all Christian denominations had departed from the truth. Thus the restoration was not a reformation, and the symbol of the cross never carried over to LDS symbolism. “Our mode of worship, and everything belonging to our religion. It has all been revealed to us, and we accept it as having come from a higher source” (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, 1883, JD vol. 23, p. 344).

Within Mormonism the symbols of the suffering and death of Christ are found in the emblems of the sacrament which we partake in remembrance of his body which he sacrificed and of his blood which he shed. We are specifically instructed to remember Christ’s suffering and death in this way:

the Lord Jesus…took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

The symbols of the death and resurrection of Christ are also found in baptism (Rom. 6:4), and we remember Christ’s death and resurrection in song.

Until the later half of the twentieth century using the symbol of the cross in any form of worship was derided by some LDS leaders as being in very poor taste. For Latter-day Saints “A humble, contrite spirit and sincere prayer of gratitude is a far better means of worship and acknowledgment of our love for the great blessings we receive through our Saviors voluntary sacrifice than to adore the cross,” wrote the Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (who later became 10th president of the church, serving from 1970 to 1972).[10] Sometimes criticism would take the form of ridicule[11]--in much the same way that Protestants sometimes accused Catholics of worshiping idols.[12] Presently, however, there is a more respectful attitude toward the symbol of the cross. In answering a question from a Protestant minister about why there are no crosses found in LDS temples, Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley (now President of the church) replied,

I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.

The minister then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?” Hinckley replied, “the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (Gordon B. Hinckley, The Symbol of Christ, Ensign, May 1975, p. 92).




End Notes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This is repeated in Leviticus: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it” (Lev. 26:1).

[2] “And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim that belongs to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD who sits enthroned above the cherubim” (1 Chron. 13:6).

[3] Many Jews would rather die than eat something that had been offered to an idol: “The tyrant Antiochus... commanded his spearbearers to seize every one of the Hebrews, and to compel them to taste swine’s flesh, and things offered to idols. And should any of them be unwilling to eat the accursed food, they were to be tortured on the wheel, and so killed” (LXX, IV Maccabbes 5:1-3, translated by C. L. Brenton). According to Josephus, when Pilate tried to have images Caesar brought into Jerusalem, “Hereupon the Jews…fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed” (Wars of the Jews, 2:9).

[4] This is similar to what occurred in Jewish sacrifice. In Old Testament law part of an animal sacrifice was kept by the Levites as payment for their services (Ezek. 44:29-30). After the offering was made, the person who brought the offering would retain most of the butchered animal. If it was a peace offering it was to be eaten before morning (Lev. 7:15-21). As the peace offering could be cattle, sheep, or goats the person making the offering might invite friends and relatives to the feast: “all that be clean shall eat thereof” (Lev. 7:19; see also Num. 18:11, 12, 13). (For pagan feasts see Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, p. 16; Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, vol. 1, p. 167; W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, pp. 172-173, 181; L. R. Farnell, “Sacrifice (Greek),” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1921. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks, p. 13.)

[5] Pagan temple worship often involved immorality. Turtullian (c. A.D. 200) writes: “But if I add--it is what all know and will admit as readily to be the fact--that in the temples adulteries are arranged, that at the altars pimping is practised, that often in the houses of the temple-keepers and priests, under the sacrificial fillets, and the sacred hats, and the purple robes, amid the fumes of incense, deeds of licentiousness are done” (Apologetic 15).

[6] “Some feel that the cross should be empty since Jesus is no longer on the cross but has resurrected. They ask, ‘Isn’t the glory of the cross the fact that it is empty’?…We are certainly called to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord and the empty cross and tomb…this is God’s triumph over sin and death!…An absence of crucifixes…is a lop sided Christianity that celebrates the empty cross alone and never the sacrifice made upon it.” (here, written by a Anglican minister calling herself Reverend Rebecca).

[7] “how far does the Athenian Pallas differ from the stock of the cross, or the Pharian Ceres as she is put up uncarved to sale, a mere rough stake and piece of shapeless wood? Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross; we render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and complete. We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross” (Tertullian, Apology 16).

[8] Tertullian writes to his wife, “The more care you take to conceal [your faith], the more liable to suspicion you will make them, and the more exposed to the grasp of Gentile curiosity. Shall you escape notice when you sign your bed, or your body” (To His Wife v).

[9] According to the commentary by Keil & Delitzsch “God commands the man provided with the writing materials to mark on the forehead with a cross all the persons in Jerusalem who mourn over the abominations of the nation, in order that they may be spared in the time of the judgment. תּו, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, had the form of a cross in the earlier writing. התוה תּו, to mark a ת, is therefore the same as to make a mark in the form of a cross.”

[10] Joseph Fielding Smith (1957-1966), Answers to Gospel Questions, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, p. 17.

[11] Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “Of all the ways ever invented for taking life and the execution of individuals, among the most cruel is likely the cross. This was a favorite method among the Romans who excelled in torture. We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death” (Ibid).

[12] “All Protestants accuse the Roman Catholic Church of worshipping idols. It is the practice of its members to carry a cross with them to worship the Virgin Mary. They have paintings and images in their chapels and other places of worship; and they are accused of worshipping these paintings and images, and that they are idolatrous worshippers. But those representations were introduced in the same way that a father would show his children that Jesus Christ is actually a man like their father, by showing them a figure representing Jesus as extended upon the cross, and saying, “This gives you, my children, an idea that he was a man.” Now, let those children, when saying their prayers, have that representation before them, and how long would it be before some of the neighbours’ children would tell their mothers that those children were worshipping a picture or image? This is the way that idolatry has sprung up in the world, through a method established to keep the people in remembrance of the God they once worshipped and were acquainted with” (Brigham Young, JD 6:195).

Is Mormonism Christian?

Related Posts: Four Important Early Christian Creeds; Mormonism and Creeds of Christendom; The Trinity ; The Nature of Christ ; Godhead: God or Gods?

Whether or not one thinks of Mormonism as Christian can depend largely on where one stands in the debate. Mormons would like to be thought of as Christian by others, and I suspect that many non-Mormon Christians do, but many well educated Protestants and Catholics do not. So on what basis is Mormonism Christian or not Christian? In a debate with Orson Scott Card, author of Ender’s Game, Dr. Albert Mohler argues, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is ‘no.’” (debate here) But why does he view Mormonism as affirmably non-Christian? He writes,

The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity...Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time…The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects. ("Mormonism is Not Christianity")

He also quotes Catholic scholar Father Richard Neuhaus who said that Christianity “is not honorific but descriptive” (Richard Neuhaus', "Is Mormonism Christian?"). Neuhaus writes,

[Christianity] is more than doctrines. Were it only a set of doctrines, Christianity would have become another school of philosophy, much like other philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. Christianity is the past and present reality of the society composed of the Christian people. As is said in the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." That reality encompasses doctrine, ministry, liturgy, and a rule of life. Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day. That is the Christianity that LDS teaching rejects and condemns as an abomination and fraud.

(He also mentions that there is no doctrine of creation ex nihilo within Mormonism.) Neuhaus uses the words “Great Tradition” and Mohler uses the words “normative Christianity.” In their views Christ’s church has endured throughout the centuries in the Greek or Roman traditions, or is found in the reformations of the Protestant churches. But that the church has endured is beyond doubt for believers like Father Neuhaus and Dr. Mohler. Historical Christianity is bound together by the Bible; common history, including schisms; and agreement in the early Christian creeds. And agreement on the early creeds bind Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity to the early church. Since Mormonism does not profess any of the Christian creeds we have definitely broke with that thread. And as to the point that Mormonism is very different from historical Christianity--it is beyond debate.

‘I damn you to hell’ or ‘I darn you to heck’?
A devout believer from any religion will likely believe his faith is the true one: A devout Catholic believes that salvation requires baptism in the Catholic Church; a devout Protestant believes that salvation comes by accepting Christ’s free gift of grace. So from a Protestant view those who believe and live according to Catholic doctrine (to the exclusion of the Protestant view) are eternally damned; and from a Catholic view those who die without baptism in the Catholic Church are likewise eternally damned. And yet this is Christianity? However, Christianity stands for something virtuous, as expressed by the phrase “living a Christian life.” And its essential corner stone is the founder and finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. “Is Christ divided?”, were the words of Paul. Is Christianity divided? That depends on how the word is defined.

Mohler mentions the Apostles Creed as one of the professions of normative Christianity. Though Mormonism does not profess any of the Christian creeds LDS doctrine does not prohibit me from believing anything that is true. For example, the Apostle’s Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty.

And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting. (For Important Early Christian Creeds)

It is true that Mormonism does not profess any formal creed, and that it must reject the Nicene Creed and similar creeds. But as a devout Mormon I can say that I believe in what the Apostle’s Creed professes. However one could argue that a Mormon could not believe in the phrase “I believe in…the holy Church” since it refers to the Christian church at the time the creed was formulated. That would be a correct observation. To me “holy Church” would refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; just as a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Christian would apply it to how he believes.

Though it is assumed that the doctrines in the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed can be traced back to the Apostles, it is because of unclarity in the Bible that creeds were necessary. And, it is true that the Bible does not contain an explicit trinitarian description of God. (See The Trinity, Mormonism, and the Godhead.) Though one is free to believe in the Trinity as God--implicit in the New Testament, preserved by tradition, and affirmed by creeds--the link is no stronger than one’s own belief. My own feeling is that the word Christianity should center on the divinity of Jesus, his teachings, life, death, and resurrection; and not “there are not three uncreated: nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated: and one incomprehensible.” But howsoever I may think, the Trinity is a central doctrine of received Christianity and many would argue that it is the central doctrine: Thus, the house (Christianity) is less important than the one who dwells in it (The triune Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). One counter argument is “how be it [Christ’s] church save it be called in [Christ’s] name?” (3 Nephi 27:8). If this is true for Christ’s church is should also be true for the meaning of the word Christianity: in its simplest form it refers to a profession in the divinity of Christ and that salvation comes by him.

The church of the Devil
One aspect of our doctrine that upsets many Catholics and Protestants is we believe there is only one true church. Consequently all other churches are the “Church of the Devil” (1 Nephi 14:10). There is no getting around this, for in God’s view there are only two churches: His True church and deviations from it. God cannot look upon apostasy with the least degree of allowance. While the term “Church of the Devil” is a strong stand to take, God’s stand is nothing less.

Though seemingly harsh, the phrase conveys the idea that God does not recognize any deviation from the true original Church. This idea is something Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons agree on and use in the context of their own religious convictions.[1]

However, apart from doctrinal error and lack of priesthood authority I don’t think of non-Mormon churches as the church of the devil. Though admittedly some Mormons do, and shouldn’t. But I strongly suspect that some Protestants are more keen about spreading the idea that Mormons believe they are the church of the devil than the Mormons are. Often Protestants will say that Mormons believe “normative Christianity” is the Church of the Devil, as if to convey the notion that we believe they are satanic. The Catholic Church and the Protestant churches are not satanic. In the Mormon view all things which inspire people to love and serve God are inspired by God (Moroni 7:13). I view Protestantism and Catholicism in this light: the truth they teach leads adherents to live a truer Christian life. When I use the words “Protestant Church” or “Catholic Church” I am referring to an organized body of believers who profess Christ’s divinity, resurrection, and who live Christian values; not to my view of their doctrinal errors. In this light it easy to separate “Church of the Devil” from the Protestant and Catholic churches--the church of the devil phrase has a narrow definition and some theological value. Some people, wanting to embarrass the Mormons, quote Bruce R. McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine. “The Roman Catholic Church [is] specifically--singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches,’” reads his 1958 edition (p. 129; italics original; brackets mine). However, McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote this; Mormon Doctrine is not published by the church or by Deseret Book (a publishing company owned by the church); the passage he bases his conclusion on is open to alternate interpretations; and, when the First Presidency learned of this book they had a committee go through it and Elder McConkie was asked to remove many things that were not established doctrine. McConkie did remove those things and consequently the above quote is found only in the first edition. (Many anti-Mormon writers conveniently set this information aside, which goes back to what I said: many Protestants are keen about spreading this “Church of the Devil” stuff--I say Protestants because we get the most flack about this from them. For example Dr. Mohler.)

Who gets to define Christianity?
One reason for believing that the word Christianity is “not honorific but descriptive” is Mormonism departs from many of the threads that bind Protestant, Greek, and Roman Christianity together. However, there is a simple and profound Christianity that traces itself to Jesus, and Mormonism is part of this. If Christianity is defined in view of traditional Christian orthodoxy then of course Mormonism is unique. But how someone defines Christianity can depend on his relationship to it. Does he believe that the Church has endured through the centuries? Is he an atheist? Or an agnostic? Or a true believer? Christianity may be defined in light of orthodoxy; tradition; normative Christianity; a body of those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins; or from a religio-historic view as a series of historical movements focusing on Christ’s divinity. The Encyclopaedia Judaica defines it as

A general term denoting the historic community deriving from the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth; the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community. …The vague character of the term provides this wide range of meaning…Christianity can be viewed as a religious institution (whether as a universal church or as distinct churches), as a body of beliefs and doctrines (Christian dogma and theology), or as a social, cultural, or even political reality shaped by certain religious traditions and mental attitudes. (parenthesis original)

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary under “Christianity” defines it as “The body of doctrine that consists of the teachings and way of life made possible by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit.” The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “The religion based on the belief that Christ was the son of God, and on his teachings.” The Athanasian Creed defines it in this way: “The Catholic [i.e. true Christian] Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity” (Four Important Early Creeds). The Jewish Encyclopedia under “Trinity” opens with: “The fundamental dogma of Christianity; the concept of the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite persons.”

But where does Mormonism fall among the world’s religious traditions? Some people would put it in a class by itself; a class that includes all branches of the Latter Day Saint movement traced back to Joseph Smith. Others put it with Christianity. But an interesting question is where do Mormons put Mormonism. [When I say Mormons I mean members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]

Do Mormons view Mormonism as Christian? Yes. Mormons believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s restored church. Do Mormons view Mormonism as a religion distinct from normative Christianity? Often. As a devout Mormon I am comfortable referring to Mormonism as a distinct religion and at the same time Christian. This is in recognition that many LDS doctrines are very different from those of received Christianity, and yet that we share a belief in the Biblical account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection.

Final Comments
Do most Mormons believe that the rest of Christianity is Christian? Yes, because we share a belief in the Biblical account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. But this view contains a proviso that other churches are deviations from the true church. Do Mormons view the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches as the Church of the Devil? From my experience most don’t, but regrettably some do.

There are valid historical and doctrinal reasons for putting Mormonism in a class by itself. At the same time, because Mormonism accepts the Biblical account of Jesus life and divinity, and that he will come again, there are valid reasons to view Mormonism as part of Christianity. For Mormon believers (like me) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the true gospel and is the Church of Jesus Christ. So naturally any suggestion that Mormonism is not Christian or is un-Christian is offensive to us. What further adds to the offense is that this is frequently done as criticism or condemnation of Mormonism. But for devout believers such as Father Neuhaus and Dr. Mohler, their view of Christianity and belief in the reality of Christ permits nothing less than a sincere and firm condemnation of heresy.

I must admit, before I started researching for this post I had no idea how central the Trinity was to historical Christianity. As a person who does not believe in it, and having been raised a Mormon believing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always separate and distinct persons, it took a while for me to realize that the Trinity was a truly foundational doctrine in “normative” Christianity throughout its history. Most Mormons do not understand to what degree it is emphasized, which only serves to aggravate our incredulity when devout Protestants or Catholics say that Mormonism is not Christian. My original impression of those who used the doctrine of the Trinity as central to their definition of Christianity was that they were simply trying to keep the Mormons out. I have since learned that my perception, for the most part, was incorrect. The Trinity is truly central to received Christianity; so much so it could be said that historical Christianity is the religion of the Trinity.

The debate about how Mormonism should be categorized will rage on. But the most powerful argument for us Mormons is a simple one: “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ” (2 Nephi 25:26). Then, as Jesus said, “let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). If we do this then the argument will be made for us.



End Notes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A statement released from the Vatican on July 10 titled “RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH” reads, “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one Church and instituted it as a ‘visible and spiritual community’, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. ‘This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…This Church, constituted and organised [sic] in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him’”.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. responded to the Vatican statement in an article titled “No, I’m not offended” published in the Baptist Press. He writes, “The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question…Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.” (emphasis added)

Michael Otterson, former as director of media relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, responded with “No Need to Pick a Fight” in the Washington post: “Of course, I profoundly disagree with this papal argument of Roman Catholic primacy, because on the basis of reason, secular history and revelation I reject the priesthood succession claim altogether. My own church stands firmly on the belief that priesthood authority had to be restored by divine intervention, not reformed, and that the apostles, lay ministry, missionaries and most especially the doctrines of the New Testament seen today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are evidence of that Restoration…It matters not one whit to me that the Catholic and some other churches don’t accept ‘Mormon’ baptisms. We don’t accept theirs either” (emphasis added).

Mormonism and the Creeds of Christendom

The Christian Creeds

Related articles: The Trinity; Is Mormonism Christian?; Four Important Early Christian Creeds; The Nature of Christ

All Christendom agrees that the Bible is a fundamental source for church doctrine and practice. In many of the Protestant churches it is the sole authority; as such all creeds are subordinate to the Word of God. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches hold that both tradition and scripture is the repository of authority and practice for the Christian faith; in these matters tradition and scripture are coordinate. However, despite these differences historical Christianity has two sources of common agreement: the Bible and the early Christian creeds. (See Four Important Early Christian Creeds.)

Creeds can take the form of a confession (using the words “I believe”) which can bind together those who are willing to adhere to them. They may contain statements of doctrine and/or condemnation of heresy, thus creating a distinction between orthodox and heterodox; and by this a distinction between Christian traditions: Protestant from Protestant, Roman Catholic from Protestant, or Greek from Roman, etc. Though creeds create doctrinal divisions, the early Christian creeds tend to unite denominations which otherwise might focus on their differences and provides a sense of unity and solidarity among Christians who would otherwise be hopelessly divided. As such the Christian creeds are of great importance to the larger Christian community.

Many Christian movements have at their beginning a statement of faith that outlines their uniqueness. Their creed might further include a condemnation of teachings it considers heretical. More established denominations might write a reactionary “creed” or statement condemning teachings divergent from its own. As such, creeds tend to be born from the doctrinal disputations of the times in which they originate: which reinforces the importance of creeds in historical Christianity. For example, in 1610 a group called the Arminians wrote a five-point statement of faith called Remonstrance in which they rejected several Calvinistic beliefs. The Calvinists responded by issuing their own five-point Counter-Remonstrance. In 1618 the Synod of Dort was convened to address the Arminian question; their ruling was a condemnation of Arminian beliefs.

In its simplest form a creed is a simple confession of faith. The word “creed” is derived from the Latin credo which means “I believe.” Reasons for writing creeds include the reasons already posed and a belief that, for a believer, “of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:45). A personal creed can take the form of a testimony, such as the one Martha professed: “I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world” (John 11:27). A formal creed can be seen as an ecclesiastical testimony of belief; something a person who wishes to unite with a denomination must verbalize or agree to.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not profess any of the Christian creeds. When Joseph Smith had his First Vision he asked which of all the Christian sects he should join. He was instructed they were all wrong, that “all their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight” (JS-History 1:19). In another instance Joseph Smith said, “I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’” (Teachings, p. 327).

Because creeds often affirm one set of doctrines and reject others they can have the effect of causing an adherent to reject entirely a different system of belief that does not hold to them. For example the Athanasian Creed was historically an important profession of belief. Its final statement is, “This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he can not be saved.” Such a profession would tend to prevent an adherent from finding truth in other denominations or religious traditions that reject his professed creed--truths not found in his own religion.

The history of the creeds is steeped in disputes over doctrine, disputes that have at times become exceedingly violent. Such contentions over doctrine are condemned by our Lord Jesus Christ: “neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:28-29).

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil” (Moroni 7:12). While this might sound like a blanket statement favoring only one system, it isn’t. Since truth and error can be found in nearly every religious and philosophical tradition the effect of such a statement is to encourage a thoughtful consideration of the arguments, coupled with the possibility of acceptance. A Latter-day Saint is free to adopt a “cafeteria” style approach to teachings found in other religious and philosophical systems, only with the proviso that such teachings do not contradict or discredit established LDS doctrine.

The nearest thing to a formal “LDS Creed” would be the Articles of Faith which contains thirteen statements of belief, twelve of which begin with the words “We believe” and one begins with “We claim.” These thirteen articles contain statements all Latter-day Saints can believe in, and may also serve as a short statement of belief for those who are unfamiliar with LDS teachings. (Becoming a Latter-day Saint does not require any liturgical recitation of these articles, but members of the church are encouraged to know them verbatim.) Though one might be tempted to label the Articles of Faith as a creed they do not serve the purpose that Christian creeds have traditionally served: they were written twelve years after the church was organized and were not crafted by an ecumenical council as a reaction to heretical teachings. But rather, these thirteen points are from a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth (the editor of the Chicago Democrat) which summarized Joseph’s religious experiences and the history of the church. In 1880 the Articles of Faith were included in the LDS cannon of scripture (“Articles of Faith,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

Because Mormonism holds that the primitive Christian church fell into apostasy very early in its history--1^st or 2^nd century--none of the creeds of Christendom are accepted as authoritative. And, many contain doctrine that the LDS faith rejects--such as the Trinitarian view of God. (See Godhead: God or Gods?) Further, a belief that God has restored the office of prophet means that doctrinal issues are settled by revelation or otherwise are left alone. As such the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be labeled a “creedal” faith.