The New Republic

I think that we all agree that the 'Christian Right' is a political, rather than a religious, movement. It is made up of people that feel disenfranchised with changes in the countries' culture, that seems to have sprung from the American Civil Rights movement, when people were told, by both Church and State (see Chappell's 'A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow), that they were morally and ethically wrong for attitudes held, and policy regarding, African Americans. Follow this up with the loss of the war in Viet Nam, where Americans learned that they could be on the wrong side of a war, and an increasingly consumerist society where sex and violence are used pervasively to sell everything. The doubts raised seemed to have opened the door to the influence of John Birchers and fringe evangelicals that promise a return to times that never existed. The result has been that there has been a feeling amongst these traditionalists that they are under siege by the surrounding culture, and that it is the fault of liberals in America. They are completely unable to see that both Hollywood and Madison Avenue are not liberal, but that they are merely libertine, following the amoral stance that anything goes as long as it sells tampons and trucks. The

- hepneck

September 14, 2006 at 11:10am

It won't matter, McCain is viewed as the true apostate, and it certainly won't matter against a Democrat. Against a Southern Evangelical I agree it will make a difference, Romney already has one strike against him being Governor of Mass., being a Mormon could kill him in the deep south. Hepneck, I understand your point but it has only been the past few years Catholics could win in the south, Mormons don't stand a chance. As to your question "What are traditional Christians?" In the Bible belt they know (or think they do) them when they see them, and Romney ain't. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, all claimed to be born again and all won in the south. Romney can't make that claim.

- blackton

September 14, 2006 at 1:27pm

thanks. I would argue that Mormonism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. Mormons are not modern day marcionites - they just read the HB and NT as forecasting more.

- bstahlbe

September 14, 2006 at 1:36pm

is the linked Neuhaus article which quickly debunks the notion of the relationship between Christianity and Mormonism being in any way similar to the relationship shared between Judaism and Christianity. Joseph Smith is shown to have been quite Marcionite in his approach to the HB and the NT. Read the article, it will quickly help you to understand the common, yet erroneous, belief that Christianity and Mormonism are part of the same religious tradition, or that they are in any way connected.

- hepneck

September 14, 2006 at 2:10pm

Sigh. How many times will critics argue that "Mormons" somehow are not Christians, yet refuse to study the standard works on which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka, the Mormon Church) relies? In addition to the King James version of the Bible, Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the Book of Mormon to be holy scripture (hence, the nickname). Even a cursory reading of that book shows conclusively that members of the Church are, indeed, Christians: they believe Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world, they worship him, take upon themselves His name when they are baptized, and earnestly strive to live His commandments throughout their lives. Yet many critics studiously ignore the theological and scriptural bedrock on which the LDS Church is built by insisting that "Mormons" cannot be considered Christians based on standards and definitions their own churches have erected. Perhaps the conclusion reached by the author is correct, though: affiliation with the "Mormon" Church may affect Mitt Romney's chances of gaining political support in the deep South. If that is the case, it will be due to inaccurate understanding of the beliefs and convictions of "Mormons", not because they aren't Christians.

- dave2.gardner

September 14, 2006 at 2:44pm

or maybe could not understand, the Neuhaus article. Sorry.

- hepneck

September 14, 2006 at 3:55pm

I think that anyone who has read the Bible and specially the New Testament can't say in anyway that mormon's aren't Christians. I would say that they are more Christian than any other denomination. They believe, among other things, that Christ, as the only beggoten, and through his atonement is the savior of mankind. Only by abiding to his comandments, and true repentace, can we ever be able to return to our heavenly father. How can anyone say that this isn't pure Christian doctrine. Please, I beg you, before critizing mormons as not being christians, read more about mormon doctrine, but not what others write about them, what they write themselves. Best wishes from Spain

- gspotswood

September 14, 2006 at 4:09pm

Mormonism has long been considered a cult by tradional Christianity, ever since its inception when Joseph Smith claimed he was visited by an angel who taught him extra- Biblical doctrines. These doctrines, found in the Book of Mormon, are not, I repeat NOT found in the Holy Bible, and are even repudiated by the Bible. This, and this alone divorces Mormonism from Christianity, because the Apostle Paul said, "If any man preach any other Gospel to you other than what I have preached, let him be accursed." The hallmark of Christianity is the Gospel that says faith in Christ's atonement on the cross ALONE is what saves us, not our own good deeds, "lest any man should boast", as the Apostle Paul said. Mormons (like Jehovah's Witnesses in this respect) believe salvation depends on one's ability to "be good" and to "win souls". This is why we are visited by these "missionaries", because they are working on their brownie points toward their salvation. This is in direct opposition to the Gospel, and to the whole reason Jesus died on the cross! When Jesus said, "It is finished", He meant just that. His blood alone and faith in that blood is what saves us. Mormons also believe Native Americans are the so-called lost tribe of Israel. They baptize by proxy for the dead, believing that those dead people will be saved if someone is baptized in their stead. These are all doctrines NOT supported by the Bible. Christians believe the Bible, as we know it, as it was handed down to us many hundreds of years ago by the early Church fathers, is the entire canon of Holy Scripture, meaning it is the complete Word of God. It is God's revealed and absolute truth which cannot be added to or deleted from. As for Mitt Romney, folks, this is the political arena, and since Romney believes in preserving life and family values like marriage between one man and one woman, he gets the support of the conservatives. End of story.

- elizabethlyke

September 14, 2006 at 4:15pm

In fact, Mormons aren't even monotheists, much less Christians. I'm an atheist myself, and so have no dog in this fight; it's just objective fact that the Book of Mormon speaks of "Gods" in the plural and denies most of the central Christian (and for that matter Jewish) doctrines. It's a new religion, rather as Islam is, which incorporates some elements from the Judeo-Christian faiths.

- joatsimeon

September 14, 2006 at 4:28pm

Too funny.... The neocons think *they* are a religion. I foster the concept that everyone should own one.

- Icewiz

September 14, 2006 at 4:38pm

I love the comment by elizabethlyke, just the belief that Christ is the messiah will save us. Thus, I can kill, rape, rob, lie, do whatever I please, and still go to heaven because I simply believe in Christ. I think NOT. I order to go to heaven, one must be Christlike, that is, love, forgive, give, and repent from my sins. Salvation is not a free gift to anyone. One must earn it by doing good deeds.

- gspotswood

September 14, 2006 at 5:51pm

What Jackass Neuhaus is. He sets up as his two test of the LDS church's christianity (1) doctrinal adherence to unspecified "christian doctrine" and (2) his judgement of its radical discontinuity with historical Christianity. I don't know what he himself believes but to a person who belives Christ is our savior, this is an odd way to define Christians. To dave2.gardner's and gspotswood's points, Neuhaus doesn't care that Mormon's believe that only through Christ can mankind be saved, or that he is the son of God, or that he died and rose and lives now. None of that, per Neuhaus, matters. Given that, I think anyone actually attempting to be a follower of Christ can safely ignore this nut, but let's look at the two tests he claims he is making for Christianity. First are Mormon doctrines consistent with his favorite "christian doctrines"? He mentions two concrete examples, first the Mormon understanding of the nature of God as an exalted man. He doesn't really critique this doctrine so much simply assume that it is anathea to "real christians". His second point of alledged contention is the only "christian doctrine" that he actually points to, the Apostles' Creed. Here is the text from the wikipedia

I Believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried: He descended into hell, the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Based on the Artic les of Faith the only parts of the Creed that would give Mormon's trouble are what exactly is meant by hell, the bit about the holy Catholic Church, and some questions about the Communion of the Saints. If this is his test he has massively misread the results. Let us then consider his second point. Neuhaus asks

...what it means to be Christian if one rejects the two thousand year history of what in fact is Christianity. Christianity is inescapably doctrinal but it is more than doctrines. ... Christianity is the past and present reality of the society composed of the Christian people.

An appalling construction to this follower of Christ; Christianity is more than doctrine, it's also History. Nothing in there about faith? Hope? Love? Really, History? But onward anyway. He wierdly claims that Mormon's reject 2000 years of Christian history because of their belief in a Great Apostasy. Why he should believe that this perfectly good Calvinist doctrine that the original church established by Christ had become gradually corrupted sets Mormons uniquely apart he never explains. He does suggest that because LDS doctrine claims that all of the previous Christian denominations are fruit of an apostate tree, it is the Mormons who reject Christianity. He then follows this up with a reminder of the "prophets and seers who have reestablished 'the true church'" who litter the history of Christianity. This is self refutation at it's finest. He also completely fails to explain how he suposes the doctrine of the Great Apostasy prevents Mormon's from believing that while many plain and precious truths may have disapeared in the early history of Christianity, many others have not. This is not logic but obfuscation. And it is of a piece with the rest of that IRR site. Casting a glance at which, by the way, may give Romney boosters pause. Back to the political question for a moment, so far we're considering Romney's Mormonism in a vacuum. That's not how it will be when he faces primary opponents. And I don't mean he'll look better than McCain. Will his Mormonism be an issue once ABC starts airing docu-dramas about polygamy in the old west? When his opponents have Carl Rove making it an issue? Who'd have thought that McCain's having a black daughter would be a primary handicap? Imagine what those operatives can do with Mormonism. Mormons will finally get to see what the Christian Right really thinks of them.

- jacksonsher

September 14, 2006 at 9:00pm

It's very difficult to take any of this seriously - but since so many do, I suppose we all should at least try to work it into our understanding of the way others "think". If only we could approach our society and our world more logically and pragmatically.

- abowles

September 14, 2006 at 9:51pm

"Why he should believe that this perfectly good Calvinist doctrine that the original church established by Christ had become gradually corrupted sets Mormons uniquely apart he never explains"

What's your take on why Calvinist doctrine itself is not so much considered aposty as say Neuhaus is suggesting LDS is?

I guess I'd take Neuhaus's entire article to suggest that Mormonism hasn't undergone the rigorous examination by Mormon's themselves that Christianity has undergone by Christians; leaving the door open for serious Christian critics (potential Romney supporters) to ask LDS adherents, "just what is your relationship to Christianity"? Are you with us or 'agin' us? The corruption question being just one example. That lack of intellectual rigorousness also allows Christian supporters to cherry pick which part of Mormon history they want to use to say, attack a Mormon presidential candidate.

By the same token, Christians may not be doing the attacking, but may not want to be associated with Mormons when attackers point to some of the "weirdness" associated with the Mormon Churches origins; or the fact that according to LDS doctrine, Mormons are going to be god someday.

Maybe TNR readers (you for example) are willing to take the time to read other sources, find other opinions, but will the general electorate? Serious Christians may not be willing to risk the assumption that voters will make up their own minds (exercise as much critical thought as TNR readers) come election time when revelations about LDS doctrine are made and may find supporting Romney an uncomfortable proposition.

- jet

September 15, 2006 at 1:06pm

Let me get this straight: Richard John Neuhaus takes the Revelation of St. John the Divine seriously as scripture. And he thinks he has standing to complain that the Book of Mormon is "a bizarre phantasmagoria of fevered religious imagination"? I mean, let's restrict ourselves to commenting on people who can pass the Turing test...

- jbdelong

September 16, 2006 at 12:19am

I'm not sure what you mean by the Turing test and perhaps others are in the same boat. Could you please explain what you mean and how it applies to the topic? Thanks

- omnisavant

September 16, 2006 at 12:46pm

Simply that an intelligent being would recognize that The Revelation of St. John the Divine is also a bizarre phantasmagoria of fevered religious imagination, and that in this respect Nicene and Mormon Christians are closer than brothers.

- jbdelong

September 16, 2006 at 3:15pm

I wonder why it is that those of us who profess to absolute certitude mirror the lack of imagination in the face of those they accuse? Does a metaphor somehow invalidate its own content? Or does it, perhaps ratify in an enlarged and enlarging way? Locus and definition has been and will continue to be the issue. Not really 'whether' as many 'enlightened' contend.

- boxofrox

September 17, 2006 at 9:03am