We’re all Christians
First published Oct 22 2011 01:01AM
Updated Oct 22, 2011 01:01AM
Some Evangelical Christians are noising it about that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is a new and frightening cult, far removed from traditional Christianity.
In fact, Mormons represent a tradition that was present in the beginning of the Christian faith. Mormons believe in a separation of the personalities of God the Father and the Son, while most Catholics and Protestants believe they are one and the same.
This idea of physical distinction between the two deities goes back to the early Christian church’s Arian wing, which was a quite large minority segment of Christianity. At times, Arians were the established or preferred denomination of Roman and Byzantine emperors and their realms.
When politically motivated church people wag tongues and shake fingers today at Mormons, making them seem like second-class citizens, they display a degree of ignorance of this history. They also act like religious bullies, lording it over a minority just because they can. This invites the question, are they truly Christian?
Kim Shinkoskey
Woods Cross
This is my response:
Wow. Arius was twice deemed a heretic, first by the First Council of Nicea in 325, and then again by the First Council of Constantinople in 381. How very postmodern of this writer to think that just because Arianism was a "marginalized" view that it should be approved. By this reasoning, the LDS should abandon their views and embrace the RLDS/CofC understanding of the Trinity as three persons in one substance, their refusal to baptize the dead, and their conviction that men do not become gods. The CofC is, after all, a minority compared to the LDS!
That said, I think it is quite possible that we will see our Mormon friends at the great feast...it's just that I don't think they are justified in saying that they represent traditional, orthodox Christianity.
For more information about the differences between the LDS and RLDS/Cof C, look here
1 comment:
The recovery of a heresy as a "marginalized" view reminds me a lot of the Rob Bell controversy--that's essentially what he argued about universalism. I would guess that this sort of move is only going to become more common...which raises some interesting questions about Christians' views not only of the authority of scripture (the way we usually frame it) but of church counsels and history in general. Are we so post-modern now that we can get away with re-writing history to our own political ends?
Post a Comment