"The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity"

Below is an editorial from our local paper, circulation 65,000. Inspiration set in, and away I went, realizing this could not go unanswered. Following is my reply, and those who stepped forward to rebut me. In future posts, I will address some of their points as I elaborate on why it is important that we worship the correct Jesus.


The campaign’s religious bigotry
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Lead editorial, Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah

There are certainly valid arguments against picking Mitt Romney as vice presidential candidate to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain. We can list several here. His opposition to abortion is suspect; after all, he once supported abortion rights. Another reason: In an environment hostile to business, Romney was once a venture capitalist who eagerly slashed jobs from companies he restructured. Another reason: He now opposes gay marriage, while once he seemed to support the practice.

There are, conversely, many reasons to support Romney. He is the choice of most conservatives, so he may rally the base for McCain. Another reason: His business acumen and 2002 Winter Games executive experience may prove a national and international advantage in these weak economic times. Another reason: McCain needs campaign cash, and the well-connected Romney can raise it.

All of these are valid reasons, depending on your political perspective.

There is, however, one clearly bad reason for not supporting Romney. That is religious bigotry against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately, opposition to Romney as vice president has coaslesced under that sour rationale. In a rather un-Christian manner, so-called evangelical leaders are working overtime to try to poison the atmosphere against the former Massachusetts governor.

Witness this quote published last week in the national newpaper The Washington Times: The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of the Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., and a national evangelical figure, said, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep. It will alienate the entire evangelical community—62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," he said.

Similar sentiments were echoed by another famous evangelical, Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the popular "Left Behind" series. LaHaye, perhaps more politically astute than McCoy, was quick to add "we aren’t against Mormonism."

Yeah, right. It is the canard of bigots to add the phrase, "we aren’t against (blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, Mormons ...").

The Washington Times’ article says that many of Gov. Mike Huckabee’s supporters are "rabid" in their dislike of Romney and that his Mormon religion is their paramount objection. It should be noted that Huckabee stoked this type of bigotry in an Iowa campaign ad last December in which he claimed to be the "Christian" in the nomination race. Saying that Mormons—who do believe in Jesus Christ—are not Christians is a common theme of anti-Mormons. Perhaps Huckabee could be encouraged to give a speech urging some of his supporters to put aside their prejudices against the Mormon faith.

As we have stated, there are legitimate reasons that Romney may not be McCain’s running mate. His Mormon faith, however, should not be allowed to play a negative role in his chances.


The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity
There are 6 comments for this page
Monday, August 11, 2008
By CHUCK GOLDBERG Guest commentary

Good reasons exist not to support Mitt Romney as John McCain's running mate, but religious grounds should not be one of them, asserted the Standard-Examiner's lead editorial on Aug. 5 ("The campaign's religious bigotry").

The "B" word was repeatedly used to describe evangelical Christian leaders dead-set against Romney due to his Mormon faith. Their opposition was called a "sour rationale" done in "a rather un-Christian manner," and it was also suggested that Mike Huckabee's supporters should "put aside their prejudices against the Mormon faith."

It would be wonderful if voters made their decisions only on the issues, but it has never worked that way. During the primary season, women voted in droves for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. Blacks voted in droves for Obama because he has black heritage. Christians in the Bible Belt went heavily for Huckabee, and Mormons voted for Romney. When Romney won the Utah primary with some 90 percent, I doubt it was due to his command of the issues. It's clear too many only want to vote for their own.

The Standard asserted: "Saying that Mormons -- who do believe in Jesus Christ -- are not Christians is a common theme of anti-Mormons." However, many evangelical leaders have responded to this thinking not with bigotry and prejudice, but strictly on the facts. They have shown the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity. He's another Jesus entirely; thus, their point is that claiming belief in Jesus is insufficient. One must believe in the correct Jesus. If you get caught passing counterfeit money, try arguing with the authorities that it's still money. You have to deal in the genuine.

Even the late Gordon B. Hinckley admitted the Mormon church believes in another Jesus. This he did in a talk given on June 6, 1998, in Geneva, Switzerland, reported by The Deseret News.

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times."

Christian leaders have also explained that ever since Mormonism came along some 1,800 years after Christ, it has attacked Christianity and its churches as false, corrupt and apostate. It has also labeled the Bible as unreliable and untrustworthy. Mormon missionaries still make these assertions today. Many Christian leaders have defended their faith, again, sticking purely to the facts, refraining from negative characterizations. For example, they have often shown how an abundance of archaeological evidence has been found that vindicates the Bible. Yet, not a shred of archaeological evidence has ever been found to support anything in the Book of Mormon.

However, instead of receiving equally factual answers, these leaders are instead labeled "anti-Mormon," "Mormon bashers," as well as prejudiced and bigoted. It seems the Christian leaders could make the case that any group willing to sidestep the facts and criticize another is the true bigot. They would challenge naysayers to do the research so they can clearly come to the proper conclusions for themselves.

This is precisely the problem evangelicals have with Romney's faith. Some like him for the reasons the Standard cited, but the question I've heard some express, and that keeps coming up on the Internet, goes something like this: "We're voting for the highest office in the land. How can I support someone who believes this stuff? The evidence is right there. If he's so blinded that he can't see something this obvious, how can I trust him to properly discern the right course of action on the issues facing our country?"

Another question that came up during the primaries: "Will Romney do what's in America's best interests, or will he sometimes take a different position if that's what his church wants?"

And so Romney was forced to give repeated assurances he would do the former.

Prejudice, as defined in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."

By this definition, can the political and theological concerns many evangelicals have toward Romney truly be called irrational? Not if they're grounded in fact. If that's the case, their convictions cannot be called prejudicial.

Goldberg holds a master of divinity, has been an ordained minister since 1992 and is a long-time professional writer-editor. He lives in Layton.


Comments
By: Give me a break @ 08/14/2008, 11:51 AM
Good Grief. This highly educated man is as dumb as a bag of rocks. Mormon's as well as Christians everywhere believe in the man born of Mary named Jesus. All religions will difer on what his mission was, ie: did he teach that all would be saved who called on his name, or did he teach obedience to the commandments to be necessary. We can certainly disagree on this and many other aspects of his earthly mission but at the end of the day, we both are looking to the same person's life and teachings. It would be like you and I both knowing a man named Bob. While talking about Bob we discuss his education, his career, his wife and his children. Then I say that Bob grew up in Ohio. You are certain he grew up in Michigan. One of both of us is wrong. Based on this author's logic, our disagreement would lead you to conclude that I really don't know Bob and that the person I know is not the same person he knows. This is nuts.

The argument that President Hinckley agreed with the author's conclusion is laughable. Mormon's believe in modern revelation. It is not unreasonable to assume that from this modern revelation they have been given insight into person Jesus that they believe was not fully understood from reading the writings of the early apostles. Again that doesn't lead to the assumption that Mormon's believe they are looking at a different person than the one born at the meridian of time and worshipped world wide as Jesus the Christ.


By: John Tvedtnes @ 08/13/2008, 10:21 AM
The "Mormon Jesus" is the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of many Christians is the one defined by later creeds.A Utah Latter-day Saint man whose company was involved in the construction of the Nauvoo Temple became ill and went to see a doctor in Nauvoo. Though she treated him, she would not accept his Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance (despite the BC/BS emblem on her office door) because she didn't accept "Mormon insurance" (!). Dare I use the "B" word (I presume it means "bigot") to describe this person?


By: Steve Hill @ 08/12/2008, 2:31 PM
Anne Smith to the contrary, the problems with this article are numerous.


First, to Mr. Goldberg, Anne Smith, and all evangelical Christians, I say that I accept two absolute truths in life. First, there is no name under heaven whereby a man can be saved save it be that of Jesus Christ. Second, you aren’t Him. I am constantly dumbfounded how evangelical Christians like Goldberg act like they own the trademark and Christianity. It’s like they have the right to speak for Jesus and make decisions for Jesus. Who appointed evangelical scholars and Goldberg as the arbiters of what it takes to be a Christian. The Bible he clings to (see next paragraph) lists none of the requirements he and his ilk have set up. How does he justify his extra-Biblical requirements? Sorry, Anne Smith and Mr. Goldberg, I’ll put my faith in Christ and not in the arm of flesh.

To say we find the Bible "unreliable and untrustworthy" is nonsense. We accept the Bible "so far as it is translated correctly." I’m sure as an evangelical, Goldberg accepts an inerrant Bible. First, the Bible makes no such claim for itself. Next, there was no Bible as we know it until nearly four hundred years after Christ. As older papyruses are found, we see mistakes in the Bible. History shows that the Bible is not a perfect and errant document. So, to say we accept the Bible "so far as it is translated correctly" supports the historical facts. It does not mean we hold the Bible to be "unreliable and untrustworthy."

Archeology not only does not prove the Bible, there are times when archeological finds contradict the Bible. How does Mr. Goldberg rationalize this? William G. Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, believes that the Bible is historical. Nevertheless, he notes:

The "archaeological revolution" in biblical studies confidently predicted by [George E.] Wright and his teacher, the legendary William Foxwell Albright, had come about by the 1980s, but not entirely in the positive way that they had expected. Many of the "central events" as narrated in the Hebrew Bible turn out not to be historically verifiable (i.e., not "true") at all.(source: Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion by Brant Gardner)

To be brief, archeological examples that support the Book of Mormon include the probable location of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman; the location of Nahum; multi-family dwellings found at the time of the Book of Mormon; ruins of large cities dating back to Book of Mormon times.

Goldberg’s article is full of misrepresentations of distortions. We don’t object to honest and sincere criticism and disagreement with our faith. What we object to articles like this that bear no resemblance to our faith. That is what we call anti-Mormon.


By: Oscar @ 08/11/2008, 8:38
I applaud the SE for printing Pastor Goldberg's opinion, especially given the demographic of its audience. But I am saddened at the lack of logic, or intelligence, in the pastor's argument. Let's start with the crux of the "correct Jesus" discussion. I think most Christians would agree they believe in the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, son of a carpenter, was teaching in the synagogue by age 12, performed many miracles, had twelve disciples, suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane, was crucified on the cross, rose on the third day, etc. In this way, "main stream Christianity" and Mormonism are identical. Where they differ is in the nature of the Godhead, which arguably is impossible to prove. Different interpretations from the same Bible are used to argue both side's points very well. That is the difference to which President Hinckley referred.

With respect to your discussion on "archaeological evidence", Pastor Goldberg really needs to understand the concept that a lack of evidence does not disprove the occurrence of an event; it simply means that there is nothing that proves its occurrence (yet). Big difference. By the way, the Mormons do not discredit any Biblical occurrence, especially those "proven", they simply claim that over the centuries and numerous translations, some of the passages have been corrupted and therefore may have a different meaning in one version of the Bible vs. another. Doesn't the fact that you can walk into Barnes and Noble and choose one of 2 dozen different versions of the Bible prove that some have taken liberty with the "Word of God" in the interest of making it "read easier?" Has anything been lost in the translation? Mormons say "yes". Many may disagree, and that is their right, just as the Mormons have the right to believe the opposite.

With respect to Evangelicals having issue with a man that would believe as Mormons do, well that is their right. But again I am saddened that some Americans can be so narrow minded and not focus on the issues or the strength on ones character, but instead on an emotional issue of Religious belief that CANNOT be proven one way or the other. These same Evangelicals probably had no issue casting a vote for the Catholic President Kennedy whose religion believes in Patron Saints and the Immaculate Conception, neither of which have Biblical substantiation. This is their belief, which is just fine with most. But did this belief make President Kennedy any more or less of an effective President/man? Most would argue no. Double standard?

Bottom line, when it comes to choosing one to hold a political office, America needs to stop being emotional towards those not like themselves and focus on the substance of one’s character and the position one holds on issues important to this country like fiscal responsibility (both government and individual), sound energy policy, global terrorism, immigration, social security, and so on. Also, Pastor Goldberg needs to apply perspective when writing editorials.


By: Ann Smith @ 08/11/2008, 2:34 PM
Chuck Goldberg, well written. Thank you.


By: dkm1469 @ 08/11/2008, 8:55 AM
I am firmly convinced that all religion is bunk. It started with Sun worship and became more intricate and convoluted as it evolved along with man. So here we are at the pinnacle of Human intelligence and we are shown as a shining example of the "Christian" faith the pretzel logic and irrational rantings of Master Pastor ‘Chuck’ Goldberg.

I love his assertion that "They have shown the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity." Really.

Well Chuck, who is the divine authority on the definition of Christianity?? Whatever man-made University that bestowed upon you the rank of Pastor?? Yeah, right."

One must believe in the correct Jesus." Really.

We’ve gone from Political incorrectness to Religious incorrectness. I can hear two Cro-Magnons arguing, one saying your Sun in not the correct Sun. Now we have the Chuckster saying "Your Son is not the correct Son."

Now let’s move on to "It has also labeled the Bible as unreliable and untrustworthy." Really.

Chuck, why don’t you read the Bible like a novel instead of the alleged word of God. It is the most brutal, graphic, pornographic, (I could go on and on…) piece of trash I’ve ever read. And yes Chuck, I’ve read the entire thing, twice. The God of the Old Testament is either a vindictive Sadist, or a petulant pre-teen. It’s disgusting. Don’t forget the rantings of Saul Paul. All you ladies keep your heads covered and your mouths shut in church.

Only religion (I would say Christianity, but Judaism and Islam are precisely as stiff necked) could assert that there way is correct and everyone else is wrong. But wait, so do Mormons. You have a lot more in common than you think, Pastor.


Belief in Christ is what defines a Christian
There are no comments for this page
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
By DOUG EALY Guest commentary

I am not from Utah. I have lived much of my life in the "Bible Belt," and I find Chuck Goldberg's characterization of Evangelical Christian leaders naïve, at best, and deceptive, at worst ("The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity," Aug. 11 guest commentary). On one occasion my siblings were shunned by a preacher's children because we were one of "those Mormons." Hardly the noble characterization pictured by the guest commentator: "Many Christian leaders have defended their faith, again, sticking purely to the facts, refraining from negative characterizations." Imagine what would have happened to us if we had "attacked." This is only one example of many.

As far as archaeology is concerned, there isn't one shred of evidence that proves the divinity of the Bible. We don't have archaeological proof of the miracles of Jesus nor the miracles of Elijah. It doesn't mean they aren't true. There is plenty of archaeological evidence supporting the existence of ancient peoples on this continent. Just like the Bible, these evidences don't prove or disprove the divinity of the Book of Mormon. As Paul teaches, we can't please God unless we have faith. God has always required those who follow him to exercise faith. For Christians, this means a faith in Christ.

I believe in Christ. This should be the only thing that defines a modern-day Christian. It is the prejudices of modern Evangelicals and other Christians that keep them from accepting us as one of them. The counterfeit money analogy used by Goldberg assumes that there is a governing body that has an accepted and authorized standard for currency. What body of mortal men can dictate the attributes of God? We have the testimony of prophets, and I can easily prove the attributes of the God I worship using the Bible alone. The God of most modern-day Christians comes from the Nicene Creed -- a mixture of truth and the Greek philosophies of the day. My testimony comes from above, not beneath. Where better to learn the truth than from the source?

Self-righteousness is defined in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) as "confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinion and behavior of others."

The most wicked people in the Scriptures are the self-righteous. After all, who crucified Jesus? I believe that this is true today and something we should avoid like the plague regardless of our faith (i.e., Christians -- including Mormons -- Muslims, etc.). This does not prohibit sharing our beliefs with others. It does prohibit unfair accusations and the like.

Ealy, a South Weber resident, is an IT professional and father of seven children. He has lived in Utah a little less than two years.


Author twists truth regarding LDS faith
There are no comments for this page
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
By ANDREW CAMPBELL Guest commentary

In the Monday guest commentary headlined "The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity," Chuck Goldberg makes several flawed and ignorant assertions that need to be addressed.

First off, the author claims that those in the LDS church label the Bible as unreliable and untrustworthy. This is a twist on the truth. In our very own eighth article of faith, we claim: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." It should be completely obvious to anyone that there is bound to be some form of inconsistency with all the various versions and translations of the Bible. That is the only "unreliable" part, is that there are confusing and seemingly contradictory things in current versions of the Bible. However, we believe it to be the word of God, just like any other Christian church.

The author makes an erroneous claim that there is "not a shred of archaeological evidence to support anything in the Book of Mormon." On the contrary, numerous things about the Book of Mormon, such as the existence of concrete, glass, elephants, temples, etc., have all been ratified through archaeological research in Central and South America. The Book of Mormon contains several instances of Jewish poetry, much of which was unknown at the time of Joseph Smith. There is literally tons of physical evidence to support the story of the Book of Mormon, and none to dispute it.

He also claims that the Mormon Church has attacked other Christian churches on the basis of being apostate or untrue. While we unapologetically claim to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth that receives divine inspiration through prophets, we also allow others to worship as they please. Another petition to the Articles of Faith will reveal this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Clearly, any Mormon who attacks other Christians for his beliefs is not living the standard as he should.

On a final note, it is incredibly offensive to claim that we are not, in fact, Christian. It is ridiculous that anyone could tell me what is in my heart and what I truly believe and feel. The Jesus Christ I believe in, and my church believes in, is the savior of the world, the holy redeemer who lived 2,000 years ago and atoned for our sins so we may be whole. I believe he was resurrected so we may rise from the dead. Do other Christian churches claim anything differently?

I would urge the author, and anyone else who would doubt that "Mormonism" is Christianity, to look up Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's recent talk, "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent." He lays it out better than I ever could.

Campbell, 19, attends Utah State University and is preparing to serve a mission for the LDS Church. He is an Ogden native.


There are many concepts of Jesus
There are no comments for this page
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
By DON CARVER Guest commentary

The Aug. 11 guest commentary by Chuck Goldberg, "The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity,"The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity," shouldn't sting as much as it does. Let's begin with the fact that the "historical Jesus" also isn't the "Jesus of Christianity." Those who focus strictly on text don't even recognize the divinity of Jesus. And if you have read the New International Version of the Bible, even the "Christians" don't have a single concept of Jesus. There are many, many notes that give three to four different interpretations of a specific verse. So even the Jesus of some Christians is not the Jesus of other Christians.

What editorial line of text could be more perfect than, "One must believe in the correct Jesus." It's so weird that in a world where the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Methodists, etc., all have a different concept of Jesus, somehow, the Mormon Jesus loses out. They're all correct and yet all different? They pretend to believe in the same Jesus but each has a different concept. Maybe the most serious question is why we would care what they think of us. Do the Lutherans sit around asking what the Catholics are saying about them?

But Goldberg's most contentious argument is that Mormons believe in things that can't be proved. He says that, "not a shred of archeological evidence has ever been found to support anything in the Book of Mormon." The Bible is full of stories that can't be proved and haven't a "shred of archaeological evidence." Can you prove that the earth was completely covered in water? Can you prove that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son? Can you prove that Joseph had a coat of many colors? There's not a shred of evidence. These are all stories that are taken in faith.

It's bigotry. Call it the "B word" if you like. The willingness to reject a presidential candidate based on a particular brand of faith is bigotry. Calling it the "B word" doesn't change the truth of the matter. Sure you will vote for the candidate you like. Sure the similarities between you and the candidate will make you like them more. But if you reject a candidate because of beliefs unrelated to the election, how is it different from choosing a candidate based on skin color?

Carver lives in Ogden. He works as a software quality assurance engineer. He is a graduate of Ogden High School, Brigham Young University and holds an M.A. from Indiana University in history and philosophy of science.


Define 'Jesus' terms to be cogent
There are 3 comments for this page
Thursday, August 14, 2008

The opinion column by Chuck Goldberg ("The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity," Aug. 11) concerning the Jesus of Mormonism as compared to the Jesus of Christianity was most interesting.

However, surely with a master's degree in divinity, Goldberg should know, in order to make a cogent statement, one must operationalize terms. At least while obtaining my several graduate degrees, it was demanded that I closely define terms I was using.

That is, he should define exactly what he means by the terms of "Jesus of Mormonism" and "Jesus of Christianity."

To assist him, might I ask just what are the attributes he believes each Jesus presents? What is the personality, the character, the defining traits, the physical description, the place of residence, the expected actions, the ongoing relationship with mortals, the ongoing mission being fulfilled, etc., by each one?

I do not want to argue his points, I just want to better understand his position.

Rex R. Ashdown, Ph.D.
North Ogden


Comments

By: Ryan @ 08/14/2008, 1:44 PM
Thanks

By: philapol @ 08/14/2008, 9:13 AM
Ryan,Go to "Columns/TOUV" under OPINION and it was published on Aug. 11th.

By: Ryan @ 08/14/2008, 8:23 AMI couldn't find the opinion piece that Mr. Ashdown is replying to. Does anyone know when/where it was printed?Thanks