Mormons Aren't Christians (Columnist also calls Luther a heretic)

Dallas Morning News ^ | 12/16/07 | Rod Dreher

[Mobile Vulgus]

Mormons aren't Christians ...

... and other thoughts on religion and politics sure to get your blood boiling

Herewith, my views on religion and the politics of the present moment, with something to offend just about everyone:

1. Mormons aren't Christians. I don't mean that as a criticism, only as a descriptive phrase. When Mormons claim Jesus Christ as their savior, there's no reason to doubt their sincerity and good will, or even to deny that they are in some way followers of Christ. Yet Mormonism rejects foundational doctrines of traditional Christian orthodoxy, such that it is impossible to reconcile with normative Christianity.

2. Anyway, the Latter-day Saints church teaches that all other Christian churches are apostate. A heretic is someone who rejects one or more doctrines of religion, but an apostate is someone who has rejected the religion entirely. How is it, exactly, that you can get mad when people you regard as apostates consider you to be ... apostate? How does that work?

3. Theologically, this is a big deal. But politically, so what? Mormons vote like Southern Baptists and come down on the same side of most issues of public morality like conservative Christians do. If you're a socially conservative lawmaker, wouldn't you rather have a Mormon in your legislative foxhole than a Kennedy-style cafeteria Catholic or progressive mainline Protestant? I'm no Romney fan, but is there really no meaningful political difference between Good-Mormon Mitt and Bad-Catholic Rudy, to say nothing of Liberal-Protestant Hillary?

4. There are plenty of good reasons for conservative Christians not to vote for Mr. Romney, but his religious beliefs are not among them. Do Christians want to be in the position of rejecting a candidate whose political views and moral values they agree with, solely because they don't like his religion?

[BackInBlack]

“His point of view is that of an academic, and as such is an excellent starting point for academics. It is a primer, nothing more.”

It’s an awful primer for academics, who would be much better served reading, for instance, St. Augustine who embraced Christianity precisely because it made no ridiculous claims at being logically provable. I’ve read about five books now by C.S. Lewis, with people continually assuring me that I’ve thus far read the wrong ones and just need to read a different one to understand his brilliance. I’ve given up.

As for the point about what Christians agree on, I’d suggest that people read the various creeds that were adopted long ago — especially the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds — rather than suffer through the embarrassing drivel of C.S. Lewis.

[broncobilly]

Mormons are not Christ centered..they are Joseph Smith and their temples’ centered....

---

If that is true, Lutherans are Martin Luther centered.
The Reformed churches are Calvin centered. Methodism is John Wesley centered. Catholicism is Pope centered. Come to think of it, using that low level, biased logic, must be no church is Christ centered.

The ignorance displayed on these threads in incredible.

[Cvengr]

From the article"...But we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Adams' observation that the U.S. Constitution is made "only for a moral and religious people" and will not work for any other. 10. Adams' pronouncement raises the question: "Whose morality, and whose religion?" The American constitutional understanding of the rights of man and human dignity come out of both the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian tradition. The American constitutional order, and the American civil religion, is inexplicable outside of both, together, in creative tension. Religion is not sufficient for securing liberty, but religion, restricted by boundaries required by a pluralist democracy, is necessary to maintain it."

IMHO, I would phrase the question implied by the author differently. A direct answer to his question, "whose morality ans whose religion?" is simply that which God provides Himself for us to follow. He doesn't provide a religion where man himself (other than Christ Jesus) establishes the doctrines of their faith, rather all faith comes from Him and just as different believers may have different spiritual gifts, their paths of sanctification may vary from believer to believer, but always through faith in Christ.

The author also might do better to use a vocabulary that better expresses his meaning in the word "religion".

Religion, per se, is acknowledged as a valid for of worship in Scripture, so God does recognize religion. The humanist perspective, judging all forms of doctrine as comparative religion fails to qualify as religion in His eyes. When the humanist promotes religion without qualification, it becomes a counterfeit substitute for that which God provides.

The author is correct, IMHO, to sense a nation and its leaders are able to be successful even if believer or unbeliever. Nationhood is one of four divinely established institutions in which humans, believers and unbelievers, may live productive lives, provided they respect the legitimate authority of those institutions.

IMHO, we observe our nation attempting to dismantle legitimate authority of those institutions. Volition is challenged by legislation promoting the legalization of hate speech as a crime and promotion of infanticide. Marriage is challenged by the promotion of homosexual agendas. Family is challenged by divorce and humanist educational agendas. The nation is challenged by the promotion of a New World Order and globalization and a one world government.

Here is a set of notes regarding divine discipline for nations which reject what He provides.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1568429/posts

For these reasons, I find it imperative that the leadership of the nation be a believer and to remain in fellowship through Christ as best attainable. Those candidates who have exemplified worldly success, IMHO, are less qualified at this point in our history than one which simply remains in fellowship with God through faith in Christ.

A degenerate or backslidden believer, or unbeliever, are likely IMHO, to advance worldly agendas which will further attack divinely established institutions and their legitimate authority.

MItt might be a sharp fellow, but IMHO, not the right solution to the problems we really face.

[BackInBlack]

“I say it is wrong, so it is utterly disputable. I just disputed it!”

Wow. Someone on FR explicitly defending moral relativism. There are no truths, per se; if someone says something is wrong, then by definition it is logically disputable. Is that your final answer?

[BackInBlack]

A case could be made that Catholics are pope- or church-centered, rather than Christ-centered, since they mediate their relationship with God through the church bureaucracy. But the same could not be said about Lutherans, Methodists, and various Calvinists. The founders of those strands of Christian thought put the emphasis (to varying degrees) on Christ himself.

I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Anyone who disagrees with me, is simply mistaken!”

Pleae watch this and come back and see if you still hold to that.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

[Jeff Chandler]

I’ll take your opinion under advisement. You make a lot of sense. Thank you.

[broncobilly]

Only it ISN’T a “big detour.” The article is quite clear if you actually read it. It says that a Mormon is fine for office, it’s just incorrect to say they are Christians.

---

Of course you should point out that the criteria for defining who is a Christian wasn’t worked out until the fourth century, so every one in those early centuries weren’t Christian either.

[80skid]

Lol. I hear ya.

[cowdog77]

No, Mormons aren’t Christians.

Spend some time doing a simple Google search and it will become crystal clear....they are WEIRD!

[Brad from Tennessee]

[Smart man, that Luther. For a heretic.]

In Rod Dreher’s biography he describes himself as a Catholic activist. What else can he call Luther but a “heretic?”

[GregH]

Whether someone is Christian or not is not for Rod Dreher
or other humans to judge, i think the Bible is quite clear on this point.

[broncobilly]

I myself wouldn’t call Catholics non-Christians, by the way.

---

Good advice for you. I didn’t say that. You did.
I consider all those religions Christ centered. My point was to show how absurd some of the information is these threads.

[Don Joe]

Mormons also believe that God was once a man, who evolved to become a God, and all Mormons will likewise evolve into becoming Gods, who will in turn be worshipped and prayed to as our God on Earth is.

You forgot the part about "Father" living on Planet Kolob with all those bucksom wives...

[DelphiUser]

Mitt believes that his wife cannot rise to heaven unless he, Mitt, calls her up by her secret name that only he and she knows.

I’m not voting for a person who believes women are inferior before god.

As a husband and a Mormon let me tell you what you have just stated as a fact is indeed not true. Will everyone be called to the resurrection by their "New name" yes that is Mormon Doctrine, a Husband is indeed supposed to call his wife, however, if he is not worthy to call her, the call rolls up to the next worthy priesthood holder in her line of authority, her father, grandfather, etc. Eventually you would get to Adam. In any event, no man who is worthy will refuse to call his wife from the grave for that's just not Christlike and would invalidate him form being able to do so.

This whole line of argument is one of those "God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it arguments created by people to try to place God or a church in difficult circumstances and so "prove" the church / God is not really true / extant.

In short, don't condemn us for believing what we don't believe either.

[Don Joe]

Anyone who disagrees with me, is simply mistaken!

Please select one of the below options for your reply:

* "Yes, Master!"

* "Same to you, bub!"

* "May I quote you?"

[Don Joe]

It seems to me that anyone who is solidly grounded in their Faith will not have the time or inclination to obsess about what other churches are teaching or practicing.

What if they're teaching it to your kids?

[Mobile Vulgus]

Whether someone is Christian or not is not for Rod Dreher or other humans to judge, i think the Bible is quite clear on this point.

Ah, the empty argument of "do not judge others" rears it's brainless head again. Well, then. If you truly want to hold to that decidedly UNChristian idea (for reasons I don;t have space to discuss here-- do you own research), then why are you bothering with politics? After all, who are YOU to "judge" that a Democrat is wrong!!?? Your argument is the best way to run away from both this debate and morality itself. If you cannot judge anyone, then morality and right and wrong DO NOT exist. Nice going!

[Don Joe]

Wow. Someone on FR explicitly defending moral relativism. There are no truths, per se...

He's hardly alone in that:

Reading is Believing

[DelphiUser]

But, like the writer said, Mormons are NOT Christian. It’s just a plain fact that they aren’t. It is utterly indisputable. Mormons are Mormons. They are NOT Christians.

Pardon me, but what a pant load.

And Baptists are Baptists, not Christians, and Catholics and Pentecostals and Born Agains...

So nobody is a Christian? Whew Glad we settled that!

Buddhists are someone who believes in Buddha, Taoists follow "The Path" Christians believe in Jesus Christ, which I a Mormon do, so I am a Christian.

Please stop lying about me and my faith.

If you want to accurately describe the difference's between what I believe and what you believe try this, Mormons are not Orthodox Christians. Say that, and allow me to believe in Jesus, according to my understanding and not yours, and we have no beef, and you will sound more educated to boot.

God Bless.