Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land called Mormonism “the fourth Abrahamic faith” in a discussion of controversy over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation.
Land, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Bloomberg’s “Political Capital” with Al Hunt he regards Romney’s church as neither a Christian religion nor a cult.
“I consider it the fourth Abrahamic religion–Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the fourth,” he said. “Most evangelicals, certainly the ones I know–the polls show more than half–do not believe that Mormonism is an orthodox, Trinitarian, Apostolic, traditional Christian faith.”
While most observers believe it will be difficult to convince conservative evangelicals to vote for a member of a church that many consider an extra-Christian cult, Land has said from the start he doesn’t think Romney’s church affiliation is a “deal breaker,” but only Romney can address it.
I, personally, would have a hard time voting for a person who adhears to a faith as silly as mormonism. If they can be duped that easily, they can be duped by Iran, Russia, China, a sixthgrader or Walt Flanagan’s dog.
Romney may be a fine person who shares many of the Christian morals I hold to (as do many non-Christinas), but if he is a good mormon then he will follow closely his bosses in Salt Lake if they have a “new revelation.”
A mormon is taught to be a spiritual yes-man and that blind acceptance has no place in the oval office.
And, of course, the Unification CHurch is the fifth?
… further evidence of how politics corupts…
#1 – the same things could be said of Catholics running for president. In fact, most of them were said in 1960. Catholic social doctrine, as a point of fact, relegates prudential political decisions to the politicians, within a broad moral framework. Thus, John Paul II speaking against the Iraq War was not binding on Catholic politicians.
The question is whether Mormon doctrine makes that same sort of distinction.
But Abraham worshiped the one true living Triune God (John 8:56), so only Christianity is an “Abrahamic Religion”.
Albert Mohler makes the good point that, as Christians, an endorsement of a Mormon president could have the effect of giving renewed legitimacy to Mormon missionary efforts across the globe (the ‘halo’ effect of having a Mormon president). This is the last thing I’d like to see happen – for LDS missionaries to have any help recruiting members in third world countries where it’s hard enough to explain Christianity without having to explain why Mormonism isn’t the real deal.
#4,
Catholics use their brains. Logic is actually followed. Christian history can be (and always is) verified. eg. Jesus did live and die, Moses did exsist, Paul wrote letters, Isaiah existed and wrote stuff.
Mormon history is a joke. Jesus appearing in Central America, gold tablets that no one has ever seen. Mormonism is not Christian even if they use the similar words to talk about their faith.
Just because people may have said things about Catholics in the 60’s doesn’t mean they were true. I don’t see how that makes my critique of a Mormon candidate any less valid.
As someone who was raised Southern Baptist and has only recently made the determination to go through confirmation and become Anglican, I have to say that this is [i]exactly[/i] the sort of thing that I am glad to be leaving behind. Baptists are orthodox, but when it comes to politics, we’ve also tended to act expediently.
What about the Samaritans?
I do not think that Mr Land knows much about the origins of Mormonism, or else he would not call it the “fourth Abrahamic faith.” Mormonism is a product of the early 1800’s, and it had no spiritual antecedents. It simply use Christianity as a starting point for speculation, and nothing in Mormonism is the same as it is in biblical Christianity. There is some evidence (I think that this suggestion is found in [i] Kingdom of the Cults[/i]) that the [i] Book of Mormon [/i] was originally a novel written by a Christian pastor, and taken over by Joseph Smith.
[i]Catholics use their brains.[/i]
It has been explicitly stated on this site (by a reappraiser) that we do not. So I doubly thank you. 😉
My comment was not so much to refute your argument as to request a better explication why the religion test forbidden in the Constitution should be bypassed in the case of Mormons. Yes, it’s a silly religion and based on false history. Don’t say it too loud, but more and more folks are seeing Episcopalianism in precisely those terms. So do we not vote for Episcopalians? BTW, I don’t agree with Richard Land on this issue. I think Mormonism is a cult, but liberal protestantism is starting to look an awful lot like one as well.
#2, 5: If we’re going to use this silly (comparatively recent) neologism ‘Abrahamic religion’ – & it’s something I avoid doing – let’s include No. 6, Baha’i (the successor of Islam), and No. 6 1/2 Sikhism, the fusion of Islam and Hinduism.
It sounds like people want a religious test for the office of president. I do not agree with the Mormon religion however my boss is a Mormon, a very intelligent articulate man who speaks Japanese. He has authored chapters in medical books and conducted very sophisticated medical studies. He is also a very devote Mormon and an extremely honest honorable man. I think calling Mormonism anything other than Mormonism is wrong.
Words Matter,
I do agree with you about Episcopalians, even being one myself.(as an aside: I see the differences between Catholics and Anglicans as falling into the “eating meat sacrificed to idols” sort.)
As for a religion test in the constitution, I was making a personal observation as to who I think might make a good president. Of course a Mormon could be president. Just not one that I would vote for (see dupe comments above).
“A Mormon president could have the effect of giving renewed legitimacy to Mormon missionary efforts across the globe” —Anglican Hopeful [#6]
That would be very likely. And a Mormon president would certainly give Mormonism unprecedented visibility within the United States.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“This is exactly the sort of thing that I am glad to be leaving behind. Baptists are orthodox, but when it comes to politics, we’ve also tended to act expediently”
—Diezba [#8]
Richard Land is the Southern Baptist Convention’s political guru. It noteworthy, although not surprising, that he’s the SBC leader making this statement. Looks like Land may be preparing the way to smile on Romney’s candidacy while reaffirming that Mormonism is not Christian.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Mormon history is a joke” —St. Ox [#7]
True. But plenty of individual Mormons are smart and demonstrate good judgment both personally and professionally.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Mormonism is a product of the early 1800’s, and it had no spiritual antecedents. It simply used Christianity as a starting point for speculation”
Mormon founder Joseph Smith was sort of the 1820s version of New Age, drawing not on Eastern religions but on Christian and other esoterica. He did use Christianity as a starting point for speculation, paying particular to obscure Biblical passages and practices (e.g., Melchizedek and baptism on behalf of the dead). Mormon ritual evidently draws heavily on Masonic ritual.
Joseph Smith grew up in western New York State at the time of the Second Great Awakening—a place so heavily evangelized, reevangelized, and revivalized that historians have called it the “Burned-Over District.” It gave rise to a remarkable number of religious and social movements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district
Episcopalianism – The Sixth Abrahamic Faith
There was a South Park episode a few years ago, called “All About Mormons.” A Mormon family came to town, and hijinks ensued. The episode went into the whole plates-of-gold story, and — in typical South Park fashion — utterly lambasted it. I mean, they tore it to shreds, and then held up the shreds and mocked them into smaller shreds.
But at the end of the episode, the Mormon kid got to speak his piece:
Doctrine and history are a large part of what any given religion is, but far from the totality. If you want to understand what, say, Buddhism means to people who practice it, you have to talk to living Buddhists; you can’t just read the life and teachings of Siddhartha. Sure, the Mormon story about the golden tablets and so on is… let’s say, peculiar… but that’s only a small piece of what Mormonism means to actual living Mormons.
It’s not a religion I’m likely to ever convert to, but that doesn’t mean that its adherents have been “duped” into believing it.
Dave B said (#13), “It sounds like people want a religious test for the office of president.”
The Constitution forbids the government from making a religious test a qualification for office. However, individuals and organizations have the right, for any reason (reasonable or not) or for no reason to vote for whomever they choose, or to oppose anyone. When individuals or organizations decide to vote for, or against, someone, they have every right to do so, and they have every right to encourage others to follow their lead. However, if they encourage voting for, or against, someone, the reasons they give will be examined by those who hear the encouragement. If the reasons are examined and found to make sense, then those who hear may follow the suggestion.
The government is to be religiously neutral. I do not have to be — but I had better make sense to anyone I seek to influence.
I would think a cardinal requirement of any “Abrahamic faith” would be monotheism. (Of course, not all monotheistic religions are “Abrahamic faiths”, but that’s a different issue.)
Mormonism is not monotheistic.
Therefore, Mormonism cannot in any rational sense be considered an “Abrahamic faith”.
#17 says: ‘Sure, the Mormon story about the golden tablets and so on is… let’s say, peculiar… ‘ Exactly. I don’t want my vote to legitimize that peculiar story that doesn’t add up, or the people telling it, because it’s not the real message of Christ.
#19 is right. Momonism is definitely not monotheistic– not even tritheistic, as some believe. But what is implied in Mr Land’s statement is that he doesn’t regard it as Christian either, but as a FOURTH Abrahamic religion– that distinguishes it from the rest. But it really isn’t Abrahamic, being polytheistic. After all, polytheism is what Abraham walked away from in order to serve the living God in the first place. Mormons are fine moral people; but also theological crackpots.
As a former American Baptist, I find the SBC as embarassing now as I did ten years ago. As I see it, this amounts to a tacit endorsement from Mr. Land. It is also a bunch of hooey.
Mr. Huckabee, change your denominational affiliation. You deserve better.
Folks, as much fun as this Baptist bashing is (and I have been known to do a bit myself), the real question is not whether to vote for a Mormon but whether one should vote for the methodist.
I have to say, if it comes down to the Mormon vs the Methodist, I am voting for the Mormon.
Just in case you don’t know what I am talking about, the Methodist in question is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I would vote for a DRUID (too bad Archbishop Williams is ineligible!) rather than HRC.
That, folks, is the real question. Would you prefer this Methodist? to this Mormon?
P.S. I hope that the choice is not that but, if it is, I go with the Mormon.
[blockquote]I would think a cardinal requirement of any “Abrahamic faith†would be monotheism. (Of course, not all monotheistic religions are “Abrahamic faithsâ€, but that’s a different issue.) [/blockquote]
Try explaining Trinitarian doctrine to an Orthodox Jew sometime. 😉 We carry that same issue as far as they are concerned.
That said, the LDS is sort of odd, at best. On the other hand consider that President and Senator Clinton are members of a conservative / orthodox protestant communion.
What matters in the voting booth, I think, is your belief that the person has the character and judgement to do the job and generally agrees with your [i]approach.[/i] I get so tired of hearing about ‘issues.’ Can anyone suggest that we had a clue what Mr. Bush would face? Would you have voted for or against him because of how he might handle say a successful terror attack on New York and Washington? If anyone had suggested such was likely during the election he would have been laughed at.
So too, now, the question should be if Gov. Romney’s judgment, character, intellect and beliefs make it likely that he will be able to handle what are, clearly going to be challenges we do not anticipate. Of course, the exact same question is what democrats should ask themselves about Sen. Clinton and her competitors.
FWIW
jimB
RECChip: Frankly, I prefer the Church-of-Christer to the Mormon or the Methodist: Fred Dalton Thompson.
BCP28: Easy on the Southern Baptists.
The Mormon faith does share with Islam the belief in salvation by good works. I do not see what an American religion has to do with Abraham.
Well said, Jimb (#24)
The issue isn’t just what religion (or none) a person practicies, but that person’s character and governing history and goals and well as the positions (s)he supports. We are not electing a religious leader and I am sure that just as many “God bless America”s will issue from Romney’s mouth as will issue from Clinton I or Clinton II’s mouth.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The fact that Romney is a republican is more disturbing to me than whether or not he is a mormon.
Very interesting tactical move on the part of Land. By simply taking Mormonism “out” of Christianity altogether, he could now justify supporting a Mormon for president, as he could justify (theoretically) supporting a Jew or Muslim for president. The question of “heresy” simply does not arise. Very keen! Abrahamic religion isn’t essentially about monotheism. Abrahamic religion is about encountering something real, whether that “something” comes in one, two, or three (or more) persons. 🙂
Romney has been competent as a businessman, Olympic chairmen, Governor, and an honorable husband and father. I am voting for some one to run the country, not develop a theology or impose a theology. I would rather have a Christian of his caliber, but since none are available I’ll take him. John McCain is my first choice but I don’t think he is going to make it.
I don’t think this SBC leader has read The Book of Mormon or The Pearl of Great Price. Mormonism is in no way, shape or form an ‘Abrahamic’ religion. In recent years, they have publicly played down their –ahem! — ‘unique’ doctrines (e.g., ‘as man is, so God was; as God is, so man may become’) to try to position themselves as ‘just another Christian denomination’. But ask any Christian what it’s like to be a ‘Gentile’ in a Mormon-dominated area. Mormonism’s all-encompassing activities for each member of the family serves to isolate members. If they leave the ‘Saints’, they leave their social networks, and, in many Mormon-dominated areas, they will lose their jobs, too. That’s why it’s so difficult for most to leave; and that is also the mark of a cult.
Scratch the surface, and you’ll find a very, very strange religion filled with ‘doctrines’ which one MUST adhere to to earn one’s way to Godhood (if one is male; if one is female, one must attach oneself in celestial marriage to the right man). It is BIZARRE, and certainly in no sense within ‘the pale of the orthodox Christian faith’.
I nearly fell out of my chair when I read the SBC leader’s pronouncement. But then it struck me, of course: it’s all about political power. Iiiiiccckkkk.
Scratch Christianity and you’ll find (likewise!) a very, very strange religion filled with “magic”: Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Bread turned into Christ’s Body, speaking in tongues, and on and on.
I believe in all of those things but that doesn’t make me ineligible for the presidency. Nor do Mormon beliefs. I recall, too, that Joe Lieberman–who wanted to be president–walks to the Senate on the Sabbath rather than break the rules for the Sabbath; that’s odd, too. But none of these are criteria for the presidency!
I am also VERY concerned about the idea of NOT voting for a Republican who is not a “Christian”–a Mormon or a “pro-choice” contender–and will vote for a loser; that’s guaranteed to put someone like Hilary or another pro-choice/anti-war/tax and spend Democrat in the White House. That’s past scary; it is truly devestating.
The question in a nutshell is, are mormons bound for hell?
I think almost all Christians believe:
1. Jews: certainly — as it is written.
2. Christains (including catholics): almost certainly not. see #1.
3. Muslims: certainly.
4. Mormons: it begs the question — obviously they are more Christian than Jews or Muslims, but adhere to certain (heresies?) that not even protestants and catholics can stomach. Then again, some protestants think catholicism is satanic, and some catholics think that all protestants are hereics. But between jews and muslims, we probably all agree that mormons are the lesser of evils.
What do you think?
Personally, i think the book of mormon has been easily refuted as a pure work of fiction decades ago. But I don’t know enough about their beleifs to say if they are heretics or not — I certainly don’t think that about Catholics. But from personal experience, the mormons i’ve met were among the most straight, loving, and god-fearing people I’ve ever known. Would that the rest of us (myself included) were so committed to living the life of righteousness.
That said, as a social conservative foremost, I have no choice but to support Romney for president. My alternatives are divorced secular republicans, or SSM and abortion-supporting democrats.
God I wish he stood a chance of winning, but I’m afraid his mormonism (traditionally known as a cult in SBC circles) dooms his chances. But what can I do — write in James Dobson???
#33 Marty the Baptist says:
I wouldn’t be so sure about “almost all Christian believe.” There was a thread on the old T19 site, started when I asked whether people really thought that “No one comes to the Father except through me” really and truly meant that all non-Christians were going to Hell. Some people said they did; but the majority opinion seemed to be something like Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” notion. Many people quoted C. S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, where the Calormene kid was saved because Aslan took honorable service rendered to Tash as being rendered to himself.
I have been predicting since last spring that Romney will be the Republican nominee, largely for lack of an alternative more attractice to Republican primary voters. Giuliani is unacceptable to the party’ social-conservative base and will irk many more voters when they realize what an overhyped jerk he is. McCain looks like a shadow of his former self. Thompson and Huckabee haven’t as yet caught on. Gingrich remains fit for opera buffa. Romney would, moreover, be the Republican most formidable against Hillary Clinton. She could eat most of his opponents for breakfast and finish off the rest before lunch.
As a practicing Mormon (which faith has brought me and my family incredible happiness, direction, purpose, and hope through belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior) I can only hope that people understand that whether Mitt Romney is elected or not…he has my vote because of his values and stand on the issues, NOT his religious affiliation…If Romney were not running and a Baptist or Episcopalian or a (insert religion of choice) were running and espoused the values, political positions, leadership, etc. I would vote for him or her.
I am tired of this whole “abrahamic faith” line. Islam’s prophet started a new religion picking up a few practices from the ones already around, Judaism and Christianity, of which he knew very little beyond popular legends. This is why the biblical stories appear in the Koran in such strangely altered forms. The Islamic traditions about Abraham are add-ons; the core act of faith, the Hajj, consists of the ancient Arab polytheist practices with an Islamic veneer.
Islam is Islam. LDS is LDS. Neither is Christian. This is not polemics, it’s fact. I know people of both faiths who are decent, kind, honest, and whom I trust.
If I have the choice of Clinton or Romney, I’ll vote for the Mormon in a heartbeat. The Mormon would appoint federal judges who uphold the Constitution; the Methodist would not.
A number of US presidents were not trinitarian Christians, and others were CINO. Mormonism is only different because of the perceived nuttiness of its teachings, a lot of strange chaff mixed in with a Chrisitan substrate. Is it altogether too much to pray and hope that Mormonism – or at least some more enlightened elements of it – can be reformed by the Word of God, as Armstrongism (Worldwide Church of God) has been?
Meanwhile, why don’t social conservatives get behind Huckabee?
Imagine this: four more years of a teatotaler in the WH. Go figure?!
The only thing interesting about a potential election of Clinton versus Romney is that both candidates could appear in every community in the United States at the exact same time since each is nothing more than a cardboard cutout ( 2 dimensional, mind you, so you need to prop them up!). To call the LDS an Abrahamic faith is really stretching it. Of course, the reason people want this is that as a couple of commenters have said, Mitt Romney alleges to be a ‘social conservative” so he must be the hope for Christian conservatives. Interesting to those of us living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that he did not become such until he left the borders of the state ( as in the entirety of his second term as governor when he was always off trying to run for president). During that second term, he would be in another state bashing the state he served as an evil bastion of liberalism and when he’d return to Massachusetts he’d do such things as attend the same sex weddings of politicos or mouth vague phrases about women’s rights, etc. Mitt Romney a social conservative? The LDS and Abrahamic religion? Yeah…and the moon is made of green cheese; all the vitamins are in the crust; and there’s no correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer.
Will B –
Thank you for expounding on why I won’t support Mitt Romney (unless it comes down to him and Hillary). As I said up-thread, it has nothing to do with his religion.