All About Mormons

I recently had an interesting exchange with Richard Abanes, an “expert” on “world religions, cults, the occult, pop culture, and the entertainment industry.” Mr. Abanes wrote an excellent article that encourages Evangelicals to share their message with Mormons in a more Christian way. I commend him for his efforts. He did not accurately describe LDS doctrines in his article, however, so I left him some comments. What ensued was a rather frustrating exchange in which, in my opinion, Mr. Abanes failed to live up to the ideals he’d described in his article.

I do not consider Mr. Abanes to be a rabid anti-Mormon. I think he is actually trying to encourage Evangelicals to avoid anti-Mormon approaches to evangelizing. Nevertheless, he did use some unfortunate anti-Mormons tactics when he accused Mormons of intentionally misstating their beliefs and when he told Mormons (several others as well as myself) what they believe, instead of listening to them describe their own faith. I thought I’d publish my side of the exchange (the portion for which I have “ownership”) to help others recognize some of these anti-Mormon techniques. Don’t be fooled, my friends!

Hope you find this exchange interesting!

Update: Unfortunately, subsequent communication with Mr. Abanes revealed that he is in fact a typical anti-Mormon. Given the Christian tone of his initial blog entry, I was hopeful, but, unfortunately, I was wrong. I myself was fooled! Quite ironic…

Update #2: After a rather frustrating exchange with Mr. Abanes, I was desperate for some sort of evidence supporting my long-held belief that Evangelical Protestants are basically good people. I was very happy to come across a blog posting entitled “Are Mormons Better Christians?” I think there are many wonderful Christians in many denominations. The author of this post, Tim Wade, a Southern Baptist, certainly demonstrates what being a good Christian really means. Thank goodness that not every Evangelical is a Richard Abanes. 🙂

————

As a practicing Mormon, I must say that when people acting in un-Christian ways try to convert me to their particular brand of Christianity, it is difficult to take them seriously. This article makes that point well.

Another common practice that is very off-putting is when people misstate Mormon beliefs, especially when the “research” used to backup those misstatements comes from non-Mormon sources. Unfortunately, this article provides a good example of this kind of misstatement of facts.

“Mormons deny the traditional definition of the Trinity.” This statement is technically true, because most Mormons don’t understand what orthodox Christians mean when they say “Trinity.” If you look at actual Mormon beliefs and ignore semantic misunderstandings, Mormons are Trinitarian. They believe in a kind of social Trinity not unlike that advocated by the Protestant theologian Jürgen Moltmann. See https://www.allaboutmormons.com/Questions/mormons_trinity_heard_ENG_112.php

“‘God’ in Mormonism is an exalted man and is only one god among many gods in the universe.” This is not really taught in modern Mormonism and is not established doctrine. See, for example, https://www.allaboutmormons.com/Questions/mormons_god_father_creator_ENG_21.php

“Additionally, Jesus is a created being whose nature is virtually the same as ours-the primary difference being that he has progressed to godhood.” Mormons have never taught that Jesus’ nature is virtually the same as ours. We teach that He is the divine Son of God, a God in His own right. He is the firstborn of the Father, and we will always worship Him.

“Mormons also teach that there are two salvations-general, which is merely resurrection life (a gift given by grace), and individual, which is godhood (a reward secured by a grace/works synergy.” By using the term “godhood” without explaining its Mormon connotations, you are almost certainly misleading your readers. You are right that Mormons use some words differently than other Christians. “Godhood” is just such an example. To see what Mormons actually mean when they use this word (which we rarely use now days anyway), visit https://www.allaboutmormons.com/Blog/email_exchange_truthinlovetomormons_webmaster_thought_ENG_29.php

————

Thanks for your response. With all due respect, the fact that links to Mormon sites are prohibited (a regulation I could not find in the Terms of Service) only supports my initial point that many Evangelicals do not take the time to learn what Mormons actually believe and instead repeat common misstatements. You complain that Mormons are not forthcoming about their beliefs when you speak to them, and yet when links are sent to pages that go into great detail about Mormon beliefs, you suggest they should be removed! Perhaps the Mormons you know don’t go into details regarding their doctrine with you because they don’t think your desire to understand them is sincere. Alternatively, perhaps you’re using Mormon “vagueness” to justify the fact that you have not taken the time to study modern Mormon beliefs. That having been said, your approach to evangelizing Mormons is much more civil that other approaches I’ve seen. I sincerely commend your efforts.

————

Regarding your comment that Mormons believe God was once a man, keep in mind that you have had two practicing Mormons now comment that this concept is “not a cemented area of the LDS canon and draws on many *personal* opinions of famous LDS teachers.” My statement that it is not actively taught in modern Mormonism is true. In an attempt to tell the both of us what we believe, you provide a quote from an article written twenty years ago by three men who were not General Authorities of the church. I’ll post some more recent quotes from Gordon B. Hinckley, the late president of the Church.

“There was a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about…Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection.” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley

“President Gordon Hinckley says the concept of God having been a man is not stressed any longer, but he does believe that human beings can become [more like God] in the afterlife.” ~ An reporter that interviewed Gordon B. Hinckley.

“On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain. ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it…I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” ~ a reporter after interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley

Clearly Mormons have a well developed doctrine of theosis, not unlike Eastern Orthodox Christians. Mormons believe that, under the guidance and tutelage of God our Father and His divine Son Jesus Christ, human beings can grow and develop. This concept of “theosis” or “exhaltation” is important in Mormonism. Every faithful Mormon hopes to one day become more like God, through the grace of Christ. But the idea that God was once a man just as we are today is simply not well established Mormon doctrine.

There are differences between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. If Evangelicals with to state that certain [actual] aspects of Mormon doctrine are false, that is fine, especially if they do it in the civil manner you’re advocating. But when Evangelicals start telling us what we believe, we are understandably bothered. Mormons are perfectly capable of articulating their own beliefs and don’t need others to do it for them.

————

Dear Mr. Abanes,

This will be my last email, as I feel that further discussion re. this matter is not productive. When I suggested that your view of Mormon theology was out of date because you cited an article from 1989, you proceeded to counter my argument by citing an article from 1976 and appealing to controversial statements made by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. You’ve now had three practicing Mormons independently point out that some of your statements re. modern Mormon doctrine are not accurate, yet you continue to insist that you know what we believe better than we do. I do not feel like I’m being ministered to “in truth and love.” I invite you to live up to the excellent ideals outlined in your blog entry. If your theory re. our doctrine is correct, how do you explain the recent quotes I provided from Gordon B. Hinckley? I ask this rhetorically, of course, as this is my last message.

Your argument that Mormons intentionally lie about their beliefs is quite inflammatory. I again urge you to follow the ideals of your article. We know what we believe, and we are capable of expressing ourselves well enough.

I did not mean to imply that theosis in Orthodox Christianity and theosis in Mormonism are identical. But, without a doubt, significant parallels can be drawn. Wasn’t it St. Athanasius of Alexandria who wrote, “God [Jesus Christ] became man so that man might become God,” by which I assume he meant “like God, but never greater than God”? I assume you interpret these statements from the early Church Fathers differently than I do, but to me they sound like solid Mormon doctrine.

Which brings up the challenging question of why the concept of God once being a man bothers you so much. Isn’t that the central doctrine of all Christianity? That God [Christ Jesus] became a man to save us all? Modern Mormons do not actively teach that God the Father was once a man, but I don’t understand why that concept would be so strange to you, even if we did. Was Jesus Christ [God] made less because He became a man?

We do agree that there are significant differences between the Mormon and evangelical views of God. For example, Mormons believe in a corporeal God. Mormons reject the idea that God is without “body, parts, and passions.” We believe in a social Trinity as opposed to a Nicene Trinity. It’s fine to acknowledge these differences. What bothers us is when people make up differences that don’t really exist, or when they present as Mormon “doctrine” issues that are uncertain or not actively taught. If we must dwell on differences instead of building bridges, could we at least dwell on actual differences?