What it truly boiled down to for the Article 6 Blog - which is co-written by an Evangelical and a Mormon - was that they felt that TownHall was the wrong venue for my comments. But this IS my venue for my comments. All said however, I am thankful for the dignified discussion.

Dear Kevin:

As the author of the "downright silly" comment, let me agree with John's very thoughtful e-mail and add a few thoughts. I offer them in a spirit of conciliation and friendship. I also apologize in advance for the length of this e-mail.

As a general principle, it seems to me that if Mitt Romney is a candidate that religious conservatives are generally happy to see as a potential president because of his positions on the issues and his commitment to the values such voters share, then it is not helpful for conservatives to publish material (1) that is about matters irrelevant to the candidate's qualifications and (2) that damages Romney's prospects.

Your post making the case that Mormons are non-Christians surprised me for those reasons. Your written comments about that subject, in my view, are quite appropriate for a seminary, but inappropriate in general discussion and particularly in a political discussion.

Why do I say that? Because it is so easy for the parties to the discussion to talk past each other. When you and others say "Christian," what you mean is orthodox, historical, or creedal Christian. What many, if not most, of your readers hear (and certainly almost all Mormon readers) is, "Mormons don't believe in Jesus Christ." Whatever else might be said about my church, it cannot be said that we do not sincerely believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Speaking as a life-long committed Mormon, that's just the reality of Mormon life and worship.

Thus the argument becomes confused in many minds and often acrimonious and divisive. To Mormons, the argument, at first blush, is baffling, hurtful, and outrageous. Our worship, in reality, is centered on Christ. How can we not be Christian, we wonder? The answer is that to be Christian, we must believe in the Nicene Creed, among others. We freely admit that we do not believe in that or any other creed. If fact, it is central to our faith that we believe in a different view of what creedals call the Trinity.

We also believe in distinctive doctrines that we consider to have been divinely revealed. As your post notes, you feel those beliefs separate us from creedal/orthodox/historical Christianity. Fair enough.

The "Christianity' argument divides Mormons and creedal Christians further when it moves to the next level: Mormons do not really believe in the Biblical Jesus because (among other beliefs disagreeable to creedal Christians) we believe He is a separate being from the Father and that He has a body.

That is a very interesting theological discussion that, in the end, boils down to a question of numbers. We Mormons could argue (but do not) that it is really creedal Christianity that is not truly Christian because creedals do not believe in Jesus as he really is. It never occurs to me to make such an argument, which I consider to be insulting to people who, although I consider them mistaken, are sincere, God-fearing people who are my neighbors, and who are trying their best to worship God as they understand him. Of course, our view of Christ is a minority view; but if more Christians agreed with us than with your side, would the Mormon view then be "orthodox?"

In that light, here's an excerpt from an interview on PBS's web site for the recent documentary, "The Mormons." The comments are by Jeffrey Holland, one of our church's Council of Twelve Apostles, a man with a Ph.D. from Yale and the former president of Brigham Young University:

Turning the question around, do Mormons feel that Christians are Christian?

... It is absolutely incumbent upon us and our solemn obligation to acknowledge every good thing and every good act and every good truth of anybody on the face of this earth, including -- and especially, in terms of a brotherhood and sisterhood -- Christians and Christian churches. Somehow there has evolved this chasm, this decisive distinction. ... That seems to me absolutely wrong. It's wrong on the face of it; it's wrong in my experience; it's wrong doctrinally. ... As an institutional response, it seems to me that past, present or future, it is not our call to damn or deny or vilify anybody else. Our call is to extend the fruits of His ministry and the benefit of what we know.

Our universal cry, as I understand it, is to say, "Bring any good thing you have, bring any truth you've ever known, every Gospel principle you've ever embraced, every non-Gospel, civil, humanitarian impulse you've ever had," which, by the way, would be part of the Gospel in our definition -- and our only duty is to add to that. We do believe we can give value added. There's something we can contribute that ... was not available prior to the restoration, the Gospel and Joseph Smith. ...

I'm in the good-news business. It is to no advantage and to no purpose for me to desecrate or decry. I would do that against evil. I would speak out against child molesters and pornographers. There are things that I'm not going to equivocate on. But I'm not talking about individual people's religious belief and their quest for the best that's within them. ...

Now, in saying that, that is not some mournful plea from the gallery about wanting to be mainstream in 21st-century Christianity. That is not an issue for me. I don't have any particular desire to have anybody say whether we're mainstream or whether we're not. ... I have no particular wish to in any way be seen as another Protestant religion. We are adamantly not another Protestant religion.

But what I don't like, and what I don't want to perpetuate, is the personal antagonism and the personal cleavage where otherwise wonderful people can go to dinner together and have their kids on the soccer team together and carpool to the PTA together, and then, when it comes to religion, just start throwing fists. That does not seem to me right. ...

I think that pretty much expresses the current approach of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to such matters. I hope it's helpful to you in some way. You can find more of the interview here:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

I could go on and on. Again, Mormons readily admit that our views on many doctrinal matters are distinct from John's and yours. Without those distinctives, we would not be Mormons. Unlike John, I doubt we will move toward orthodoxy over time. I do think (hope?) that Mormons and creedals will understand one another much, much better over time and agree to disagree without attacking each other. John and I have both grown a great deal in that regard in the last year as we have co-authored our blog.

Anyway, these are all complex, sensitive, potentially explosive, and easily misunderstood issues. Why emphasize or call attention to them in a political context? Conservative Christians (defined broadly) have much in common politically and need to band together to defend and foster that which they hold dear-- primarily their views on values issues. In my opinion, writing about Mormon issues the way you did distracts conservatives from that need to band together.

That's why I said your piece was "just plain silly." I didn't mean to be offensive, just frank and succinct.

I hope that makes sense. Like John, I'd love to engage in further discussion with you about all these things. Just let us know if you're interested in doing that. And, whatever else we might say about theological issues, I am fully on board with you on political issues. Maybe there's a lesson in that.

Cordially,
Lowell Brown

My response:

Lowell (and John Schoroeder),

 

First off let me begin with an apology, I believed at the time that I hastily sent the e-mail that the John I was addressing had posted the "silly" comment was in fact someone other than the both of you.

 

Secondly let me respond to the assertion as to the discussion on my blog. I am a graduate of Moody Bible Insitute. My undergrad is a double major in Journalism/Theology. I am an unrepentant born-again Christian. As such I freely discuss on my blog any and all things that cross my path - that I take interest in. My radio show in New York does the same. Much like Dennis Prager openly infuses his view of Judaism into the discussions of the day.

 

I discuss politics, faith, entertainment and anything else that I feel passionately about.

 

The reason that I began the series on the distinctions between Christians and Mormons was to make simple assertions that theological differences matter... might I add quickly - in the arena of theology. If you read my posts on the matter you will see that that I argue that for the most part this should not cause a hinderance to voting. The vote should be cast for that candidate that most closely identifies with the values of the voter.

 

My readers are faith-based people. So this discussion was not one that was out of context.

 

I felt like the distinctions needed to be noted (not emphasized but noted) because there seems to be much hypersensitive blowback from Mormons that "anyone who points out distinctions between Mormons and Christians" appear to be being accused of "Romney bashing." And while I am at this point and time supporting Romney (if Thompson enters the race this will change) Christians are charged in scripture to "contend for the faith." It is part of Christian doctrine to point out - to the body of Christ - what is and is not part of our belief system.

 

Our differences between Mormons and Christians are too great for both groups to give full credence to the other on the theological level. There will never be a joint orthodoxy that allows for the significant differences - even in who Mormons and Christians view the person of Jesus Christ himself to be. The origin of Christ that Mormons are taught to embrace resembles nothing of the biblical view of Jesus.

 

None of this is said in a spirit of ill-intent. Rather simply to acknowledge - differences exist - and it is better, and far more honest to admit them than to pretend not to see them. I would have the same differences on a theological level with my Jewish friends Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, and Benjamin Shapiro - but we are all friends nonetheless and even labor together towards the cause of values that all embrace.

 

I would hope that the same could be true between you and I.

 

I thank you for writing me back.

 

Thankful for the dignified dialogue,

~KMC