Mark Paredes’ article Are Mormons Christians? Of Constantine and Karaites (Jewish Journal, November 1, 2011 AD) presents us with a picture perfect example of why very simple and commonsensical issues become so very complex and nonsensical.
He begins by quoting Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to this affect:
Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And with this the first fallacy, of many, rears its ugly head. The first lesson is: never bring a grammar dictionary to a theological discussion.
But is it not true that a Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ? The second lesson is: always define your terms. Mark Paredes seeks to define “Christian” yet, the question is which “Jesus Christ”? “Jesus Christ” who? And this is where Christianity and Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) differ. The Biblical, Christianity’s (the historical) “Jesus Christ” is different than the Mormon “Jesus Christ”—see: Which Jesus?
This issue brings us to note that Mark Paredes stated the premise of his article as he seeks to elucidate “why Evangelicals and Baptists feel so strongly that Mormons are not Christians”:
…Since even they will admit that Mormons usually have good values and lead good “Christian” lives, it all comes down to certain points of LDS theology that they believe lie outside the bounds of “traditional” Christianity. I know that most Jews aren’t terribly interested in the finer points of Christian theology…
The first fine point is the very nature of God Himself. No, not exactly a fine point is it?
First of all, Mormons are not Trinitarians. We don’t believe in a three-in-one god (or, if you prefer, a one-in-three god). We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit exist as three separate beings, not as one god. This belief alone is enough for many Christians to eject us from the Christian fold. Why we are criticized for refusing to follow the lead of the Jew-hater Constantine is a mystery to me.
And the lessons keep on coming. He refers to Constantine as a “Jew-hater” an “anti-Semitic Roman emperor” and to “anti-Semitic bishops” who were “espousing anti-Semitic views” and represent “anti-Semitism at its highest levels.” Now, the issue is not, not necessarily and not in the context, whether they were or where not anti-Semites.
You see, he notes that:
Mormons are proud to disagree with Constantine and his anti-Semitic bishops on the nature of God…Mormons disagree with an anti-Semitic Roman emperor
Thus, this is an ad homenim / genetic fallacy. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity must not be true because it was formulated by anti-Semites. This is clearly rejecting an argument, as it where, by attacking its source and this is logically fallacious. Consciously or not, he is building an emotional barrier as one naturally wants to empathize with him against anti-Semites. Yet, the conclusion that their theology must therefore be wrong is, indeed, faulty.
One could just as easily, and fallaciously, state that we ought reject Mormonism because its early teachings included the view that dark skinned people were thus pigmented as a curse from the Mormon god. They were African-American-haters, dark-skinned-people-haters, anti-African-American, anti-dark-skinned-people (at least until such time as Mormons realized that there were funds to be gained from preaching in countries wherein dark skinned people abounded and the Mormon god conveniently changed his mind). Indeed, for a long time dark skinned people were not allowed to become official Mormon priests, etc.
Many of us hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because it is biblical, although the formulation came later, and not because of tradition, proclamations by councils, etc.—see:
Trinity : God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine
Another issue is not simply that Mormons are not Trinitarian but that they are not monotheists. As a side note: yes, you will have Mormon missionaries claim that they are Trinitarian but ask them to define the term Trinity and you will see, with some amount of prodding, that they do not mean that which is generally and traditionally understood by the term “Trinity”—see:
Mormon Theology – Monotheism or Henotheism?
Mark Paredes writes as if Mormons rejected Trinitarian doctrine (and monotheism) due to concerns about Constantine’s anti-Semitism. The fact is that the Christian denominations which were in the same geographical area as Joseph Smith were Trinitarian monotheists but according to Smith’s first vision, first revelation from the Mormon god to him, Smith was not to join any of them:
…I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right-and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’ He again forbade me to join with any of them…”—Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History 2:2:18-20
Thus, according to the Mormon god Trinitarian monotheism is cultic as are otherwise perfectly orthodox biblically Christian denominations—see:
Rick Perry on Robert Jeffress: Mormonism as “cult”
Mark Paredes quotes Constantine to this affect:
It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … Let us … studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. … For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. [ellipses in Paredes’ quotation]
Interestingly, this sounds a bit like The Book of Mormon’s 2 Nephi 10:3-6
…it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.
For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God.
But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.
Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, pestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be scattered among all nations.
The text does go on to note that the Jews “they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.”
In short, the important point is that Constantine’s statements are not only anti-Semitic but un-, non- and anti-New Testament—see: “The Jews” in the New Testament
Mark Paredes also notes:
Karaites believe that the Hebrew Bible stands alone as divinely inspired scripture for Jews, and do not consider the Talmud and the Oral Law to be binding. Just as most Jews believe that the Talmud and other rabbinic writings serve to affirm the truths contained in the Torah, Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures affirm the validity of the Bible.
Of course, Karaites went on to develop their own authoritative commentaries, etc. just as Mormons went on to develop vast amounts of authoritative literature which even contradicts their earlier authoritative literature. For example, the Book of Mormon is monotheistic but Mormonism is no longer monotheistic. Asked about this by this author, a Mormon missionary simply stated that now the Mormon prophets teach that there are many gods and so it is.
Now, “the Talmud and other rabbinic writings serve to affirm the truths contained in the Torah” and the correlation is that “Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures affirm the validity of the Bible.” However, Joseph Smith claimed:
…the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth and the keystone of our religion. And a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.
Also, Mormon article of faith number eighth reads:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
And how do you know when it has been accurately translated? Textual criticism, manuscript evidence, study of ancient languages, etc.? No. The issue is very simple, given the Mormon worldview: if it deviates from Mormon doctrine then it is considered not to be translated correctly with absolutely no regard to any other considerations.
Lastly, we end up where we began as Mark Parades writes what appears to be his attempted coup de grace:
Mormons are entitled to ask why we can’t simply ask the question that Jews pose when determining whether someone is Jewish or Christian: Does a person accept Jesus Christ as his Savior?
A Mormon’s answer to that question leaves no doubt as to which fold we belong.
Do Mormons accept Jesus Christ as Savior? The answer is a heavily qualified “Yes.” That is, qualified in the sense of qualifying terms. In this case, there are two qualifying terms: one is Savior and the issue is that Mormons believe in a works based salvation whereby their good works save them or, work with Jesus’ atonement or, maintain Jesus’ grace, etc. The other qualifying term is the one with which Mark Parades and we began namely, “Jesus Christ.”
The Mormon “Jesus Christ” was a man born on another planet, grew up, died, was resurrected, became a god, came to Earth to make atonement (which Mormons believe took place in the Garden of Gethsemane), resurrected, traveled to the Americas, etc.
The Biblical “Jesus Christ” has been truly God, as one of the three persons of the Trinity, for all eternity, came to Earth, offers grace alone based salvation via His atonement on the cross, resurrected, ascended, etc.
Same name “Jesus Christ” but two different people and two different theologies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.