Optional Research Paper:
Neighbors or Brothers?

Introduction:

One of the fastest growing religious movements in America is Mormonism. While composing this opening sentence, I nearly wrote the phrase "Christian movements" rather than "religious movements". That would pre-judge the matter. Is Mormonism a "Christian" movement, or is it so far removed from the basic tenets of Christianity, that the wider term "religious" is a more apt descriptor? The purpose of this research paper is to determine if people of the Mormon religion and Bible-based Christians should greet each other as "Brother" and "Sister" or should remain as religious neighbors.

In these several pages I will evaluate two books with contrasting views of Mormonism. They are A Handbook of Today's Religions by McDowell and Stewart and How Wide the Divide? by Blomberg and Robinson. Next I will consider two words in their Biblical context that may bring clarity to this issue. The two words are "neighbor" and "brother". Finally, I will offer three concluding observations.

Handbook of Today's Religions

The back cover of this handbook describes itself as

"a reference work written for all concerned Christians who desire to have a more discerning, broader-based knowledge of the major cults and belief systems that diabolically oppose Bible-based Christianity".

The lead author of this handbook is Josh McDowell who has been writing apologetic Christian material for a generation. His most well-known book is Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

In the introduction to this handbook, the authors quote two verses of scripture that they say shape the attitude of their book. One verse is I Peter 3:15: "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear". The other verse is I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". The authors then define "religion" is general terms. All the various definitions point to religion as "that aspect of one's experience in which he attempts to live harmoniously with the power or powers he believes are controlling the world (p 11)". Using this wide definition, all can agree that Mormonism is a "religion". The question becomes, "Is Mormonism a Christian religion"?

This handbook is broken into five parts. The first part deals with cults. Chapter One of this part is entitled "What is a Cult?". In three pages the authors describe "cult" in several ways and quote several Christian authors. Their most succinct definition is

"A cult is a perversion, a distortion of Biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church (p 17)"

. They also quote Walter Martin who says,

"A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly that God became man is Jesus Christ (p 17)".

Chapter Two is entitled "The Characteristics of Cults". In this chapter many religious movements are referred to as demonstrating cultic characteristics. The authors say: "The Mormon Church does not accept the deity of Jesus Christ. He is, to them, one of many gods, the first-born spirit child, spiritually conceived by a sexual union between the heavenly Father and a heavenly mother. He was also the spirit-brother of Lucifer in His preexistent state. His incarnation was accomplished by the physical union of the heavenly Father and the human Mary. No matter what the particular beliefs of any cult may be, the one common denominator they all possess is a denial of the biblical teaching on the deity of Jesus Christ (p 20)". The authors say that many cultic groups proclaim one thing publicly but internally teach something totally different. They call themselves "Christians" when in fact they deny the fundamentals of the faith. The authors use the Mormon church as an example of double-talk:

"The first article of faith in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reads, 'We believe .. in His son, Jesus Christ'. This gives the impression Mormons are Christians since they believe in Jesus Christ. However, when we understand the semantics of what they mean by Jesus Christ, we discover they are far removed from orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, the impression the Mormon Church gives from their advertising is that they are another denomination or sect of Christianity. One, therefore must be on the alert for organizations that advertise themselves as Christians but whose internal teachings disagree with Scripture. (p 23)"

For the great part, McDowell and Stewart steer clear of discussing personal piety and conduct. They examine the internal teachings of the cult and not their public advertising. They pass judgment on doctrine and not persons. I believe that all this is in the spirit of key scripture verses quoted in the introduction (I Peter 3:11 and I Thessalonians 5:21). On occasion the authors do say unflattering things about the founders and leaders of religious cults, but they speak with understanding and compassion for the general followers of Christian cults.

Chapter Three is entitled "The Beliefs of Orthodox Christianity". This chapter covers much of the material included in a class of Systematic Theology. It concludes with the warning of Peter: "the untaught and stable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)". After these three introductory chapters, this handbook then addresses 12 cults that are active in America. Mormonism is counted among them. Part II of the handbook deals with the occult and magic. Part II with non-Christian religions. Part IV with secular religions and Part V with a Christian approach to Comparative Religions.

Returning the chapter on Mormonism, I think that the authors do an excellent job in presenting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian cult, that is "a perversion, a distortion of Biblical Christianity and a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church". Please note, this is not to imply that members of this religion are "perverted" or "distorted", but certainly their doctrine is at odds with orthodox Christianity. The method of McDowell and Stewart is to let Mormon documents do their own talking. The authors quote original source material from the Mormon church itself to demonstrate its history, the visions of Joseph Smith, the Heavenly Messenger, the sources for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Many of these Mormon sources are juxtaposed with scripture verses to demonstrate the differences between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This chapter concludes with a brief overview of key Mormon doctrines, changes in the Book of Mormon, The Book of Mormon and Archaeology, False Prophecies, and Mormonism terms.

How Wide the Divide?

This book is subtitled "a Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation". A back-cover comment reads:

"Mormons and Evangelicals don't often get along very well. They often set about trying to convert one another, considering the faith the other holds as defective in some critical way. Unfortunately, much of what they say about each other simply isn't true. False stereotypes on both sides prevent genuine communication. Having discovered this sad state of affairs, Craig Blomberg, a committed Evangelical scholar, and Stephen Robinson, a committed Mormon scholar, set out to listen to one another and to ferret out the genuine agreements and disagreements between them".

Reading through this book was challenging for me. I am one of those who is referred to by both authors as "anti-Mormon". Even back-cover comments quoted above raised my hackles. My impulsive response to conversion conversation is this: "of course we should try to convert Mormons. Isn't that part of the great commission? Preaching the gospel?" I was surprised at how logical and conciliatory the Mormon author could be. A lot of his comments make sense. On pages 16 and 17, he makes nine statements of faith. All but the last seem to be fairly orthodox to me. But then he says just before closing his introductory chapter,

"For Latter-day Saints also believe in the literal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of humanity. We believe that God and humans are the same species of being and that all men and women were his spiritual offspring in a premortal existence. … Finally the LDS believe that God intends, through the fullness of the gospel, to make us what Christ is and to share with the most faithful of his children the blessings, powers and glories of eternity (p 18)".

Does it really matter beyond this point what Robinson says about the Mormon Church? It seems to me that Mormons are believing the first words of deception ever spoken in Scripture: "Ye shall be as gods", the serpent said to Adam and Eve. Throughout the book, Stephen Robinson shows himself to be an able defender of his faith. One question left unanswered was in regard to Robinson's specialty. Dr. Robinson is noted as a "professor of ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University". Yet one wonders how such a specialist could possibly defend the Book of Mormon. This book which Mormons accept as scripture claims giant ancient cities were once located in the area of New York State. Why is Robinson doing archeology only in Palestine? Why isn't he laboring to locate the Hebrew inscriptions in America, or ancient copies of the Book of Mormon, or any true artifact that proves the Book of Mormon is true? If I were Blomberg, I would have asked him about the status of Mormon archeology in North America.

Although, I found many of Robinson's comments alarming, I was more concerned with remarks made by Craig L. Blomberg. After all, I expected Robinson to emphasize Mormon continuities with mainline Christianity rather than point out discontinuities. I am not sure what to make of Blomberg's comments. He seems to saying over and over again that both Evangelicals and Mormons worship the same Jesus Christ, and therefore we should reconcile our religious differences. He seems to be saying that Evangelicals have only minor differences with fellow Mormons. This position reminds of a pithy comment once made about the "minor differences" in the Pacific Northwest between environmentalists and loggers. The joke is this: "Both sides in this dispute love trees. It's just that environmentalists like them vertical and loggers like them horizontal". I suppose that if I looked at Mormonism as hard as Blomberg, I could find numerous continuities. In this dispute, we both love Jesus. It's just that we love him vertical (as very God) and they love him horizontal (as a created person, whose deity they may attain through perseverance). Throughout How Wide the Divide? Blomberg paints over differences between the two religious points of view, then in a brief summary he makes it obvious that Mormons are outside the bounds of orthodoxy. For example, as Blomberg makes concluding remarks about the Trinity he says

"Both communities accept the full divinity of Jesus Christ, his divine sonship, and his role as the only means of salvation for human beings."

Two sentences later he says this,

"Evangelicals insist on an eternal difference in kind between human and the divine, whereas Latter-day Saints see the human and the divine as a single species. They believe that God and humans are reconciled in Christ, who makes it possible then by grace for humans to become what God is."

Many give-and-take sections are like this. Blomberg says repeatedly "we jointly affirm", then he points out a difference that makes our faith vertical and their faith horizontal. Often times, discussion is tangential to the point at hand. For example, in a section concerning the 27 books of the New Testament canon, ninety percent of the discussion involves the Evangelical view that the canon is "closed" whereas Mormons believe that it is "open". In this case, I agree with the Mormons. There is not a scriptural or logical requirement that the canon be closed. If God so chooses, He may provide us with further written revelation. The apologist position is not that further written revelation is impossible, but that the Book of Mormon is not this revelation. In twenty pages of discussion, this idea was presented in only a few paragraphs.

How Wide the Divide? ends with a joint statement by Robinson and Blomberg. This is the chapter that really got under my skin. A series of rhetorical questions are asked: "can Mormons and Evangelicals get together with each other in love and for the sake of understanding, not proselytizing? Can we work toward common social goals?" The authors jointly list four lessons that can be learned.

First, we must treat people as individuals.

Second, we take people at their word when the people live upright lives.

Third, we must pay better attention to the difference between us in theological terminology.

Fourth, we can beware of the labels we apply to one another.

The authors take special issue with Walter Martin for labeling the Mormon church as a "cult". They say, "As applied to contemporary Latter-day Saints, the term is technically incorrect (p 193)." They suggest that Martin defines a cult as being "small, new withdrawing from society, led a by a charismatic leader (p 193)". This may be a more common understanding of the term "cult", but as quoted earlier in this paper, Water Martin defines cult as "a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly that God became man is Jesus Christ". In spite of the positive spin given by Blomberg and the apologetic defense given by Robinson, it still appears to me that Mormonism fits squarely into this definition. It is truly strange to me that page 195 begins with the following words:

"On the one hand, we jointly and sincerely affirm the following foundation propositions of the Christian gospel as we both understand it. (1). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one eternal God".

Then on page 196 the authors list among issues that divide us:

"(3) Was God at some point in eternity past a human being like the mortal Jesus, or has he always been the infinite Supreme Being? (4) Can exalted humans one day share by grace all the attributes of God or only the so called communicable attributes?"

Am I the only person who sees a disconnect between the public pronouncements of Mormons concerning persons of the trinity (affirmation one) and their distortion concerning persons of the trinity (divisions 3 and 4)? How can Mormons possibly believe in the same Trinity that I believe in and yet affirm that God the Father was once as I am (unworthy of worship), and that I may someday become as God the Son is today (worthy of worship)? I don't wish to be harsh, but isn't this dishonesty? Isn't this double-talk?

I think that I have an insight into what Craig L. Blomberg is attempting to accomplish by co-authoring this book with Stephen E. Robinson. I see his agenda in the language that he consistently uses. Blomberg refers to "our two communities". He urges "our communities" to get along better and to stop calling each other names. If one reads carefully the four lessons on pages 192 and 193, not one lesson refers to doctrine. All four lessons deal with treating one another with respect and listening rather than chastising. This is his purpose, I believe, to reduce the tension and ill will between Mormon and Evangelical - the two communities. This is a noble cause. I have no opposition to it. I would like Dr. Blomberg to know that I do hold Mormons in high esteem. I have known individual Mormons who live morally upright lives. These are people for whom Christ died. It is not their person that is perverted but their doctrine. I need to share the Gospel with Mormons, whether the Mormons approve or not, and (sadly) whether Blomberg approves or not.

Recovering a lost vocabulary

In my youth I watched too much television. I remember one time watching a movie that starred either John Wayne or Gary Cooper. (When I was young I got the two confused.) The film was set in late 19th century America. I believe the star played a Pennsylvania Quaker starting a trek out West. I remember an opening scene in which the star is leaning on a fence near the road in front of his rustic house. Several people walked by and the Quaker greeted them. He would greet some of these travelers with the words "Howdy, Neighbor" and others he would greet with "Howdy, Brother". After several of these greetings, I realized that the Quaker was using the word "neighbor" to greet those people with whom he was acquainted, but who were not members of his Quaker community. The words "brother" and "sister" were reserved as a greeting for members of his own Quaker Church. This vocabulary should be recovered and used in our Evangelical churches; not in our greetings but in our attitude toward those of like faith and toward those of a different faith.

Who are my neighbors?

My Webster's dictionary defines "neighbor" curtly as "a person who lives near another". A study of the New Testament finds the word "neighbor" prominently in two places. As part of the great commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, Galatians, and James. These verses make it abundantly clear that however we end up defining "neighbors", we are commanded to love them. Defining the parameters of "neighbor" is the central teaching of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. In Luke 10:27 to 37, an expert in the law asked Jesus the question about neighbors. This Jewish lawyer seemed to believe that only fellow Jews should be considered neighbors. His concept of "neighbor" was limited to his brothers and sisters in Judaism. After Jesus tells him the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the expert in the law must admit that a non-brother could also be a neighbor. To his credit, he rightly notes that the neighbor of the three was "the one who had mercy on him." Jesus then tells him to "go and do likewise" - to be a good neighbor to all of our fellow human beings. I believe that a Mormon can be an excellent neighbor. I also believe that I must be a good neighbor to all the Mormons whom I encounter. In line with the Great Commandment, this means that I must love them as I love myself. I believe that this is the message that Blomberg was striving to make. Latter-day Saints are not our enemies but our neighbors. . Just as the Jewish lawyer was reluctant to admit that the Samaritan was a neighbor many chauvinistic Evangelicals may be reluctant to admit Mormons as neighbors. However, we find a commandment spoken by God the Father in the Law of Moses. We find the same law explained by God the Son in the Gospels. Then we see same law repeated in the epistles. It is undeniable that our duty is love our neighbor.

Who are my brothers?

The Webster's dictionary shows a secondary definition of "brother" as "any person closely united to another by some common bond or interest". We see this scriptural usage of "brother" especially the Book of Acts. "Brother" takes on the special meaning of a "fellow believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Just to cite two of the many appearances of "brothers" in Acts, we find these words in Acts 11:1: "The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God (NIV)." We also find in Acts 15:32-33 "Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them (NIV)." Peter uses the term this way: "Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall (2 Peter 1:10, NIV)." Paul refers to "sisters" one time in this spiritual sense: "Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity (1 Timothy 5:1-2)". It seems that in general, New Testament writers use the word "neighbor" to describe people other than ourselves, that is "all fellow men and women". The term "brother" (or "sister") is reserved for men and women of like faith. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 8:23: "as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ (NIV)."

James R. White has written a book entitled Is the Mormon my Brother? This book is similar to How Wide the Divide? However, in his book, White does not leave his answer as open as Blomberg does. White first concludes that Mormonism is outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. Accepting the definition that a brother is someone who shares a common faith, the only conclusion must be that the Mormon is not a brother. White says that "the first act of love in reaching out to Mormons is to demonstrate that we do not worship the same God (back cover)". It seems to me that White has the neighbor/brother distinction clear, while Blomberg seems to fold neighbor and brother together.

Three Concluding Observations

1. In light of the definitions just offered above, I affirm that the Mormon is indeed my neighbor. I am obliged to treat Mormons as neighbors - I must love them as I love myself. I believe that this is what Blomberg is saying beneath the surface of his conciliatory book. His four lessons all scream out, "Let's be better neighbors". I also affirm that the Mormon is not my brother or my sister in the Lord. The book asks "How wide the divide?". My response is "not so wide as to prevent the Mormon from being a neighbor, and yet too wide to prevent the Mormon from being a brother in Christ".

2. I understand why Latter-day Saints might object to the term "cult". Webster's Dictionary defines cult as "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for a person, or principle". This term, as generally understood, does suggest a group that is small, new, withdrawing from society, and led a by a charismatic leader. I would urge that both Josh McDowell and Walter Martin stop using "cult" as a descriptor of the Mormon Church. It is misleading to most people. It would be better to view the Mormon Church of 2003 A.D. more like the Arian Church or the Gnostic Church of 300 A.D. These were simply "Christian heresies". The Webster's dictionary defines "heresy" as "a doctrine or belief that is contrary to the fundamental doctrine or creed of any particular church". This term may be just as objectionable to Mormons, but it would probably be more correct. I do believe that Blomberg is being purposefully ambiguous (maybe generous?) in his conclusions. He does state that Evangelicals should not use the term "cult" when referring to Mormons because this term is technically incorrect. However, he never gets around to stating what the technically correct term is. Maybe he wants to avoid stating openly that the technically correct term for the Mormon Church is "heresy". I believe that both Blomberg and I know perfectly well that The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints is a latter day Christian heresy.

3. The closer I draw to Jesus the more "Christian heresies" offend me. The Hare Krisnas are heretical Hindus. This is what orthodox Hindus tell me. I have a hard time telling the difference between the two. The Shiite are Islamic heretics. At least this is what orthodox Sunni Muslims tell me. I don't have much interest in their debate. I believe that Mormons (and Christian Scientists, and Jehovah Witnesses) offend me because they present a person that I love - Jesus Christ - and twist Him into something that He is not. How can a Mormon really worship God when the fifth president of the Mormon Church says "As man now is, God once was; as god now is, man may be"? Maybe just as I strive to love the sinner and hate the sin, I must strive to love the heretic but hate the heresy.

Bibliography:

Blomberg, Craig L. & Stephen E. Robinson. How Wide the Divide? : A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

McDowell, Josh & Don Stewart. Handbook of Today's Religions. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

McKechnie, Jean editor. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, second edition. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

White, James R. Is the Mormon my Brother?. Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 1999.