"First Things" First - Mormonism is Christian

I read an article today from “First Things: The Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life” titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” The article is a dual effort between Elder Bruce D. Porter, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church and Gerald McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College and co-author of Claiming Christ: A Mormon–Evangelical Debate.

I thought Elder Porter did an exceptional job summarizing our beliefs (of course, that is his job :)). The only thing I thought was lacking in Elder Porter's section was that during his explanation of our belief in the Bible and how we generally take it quite literally, he failed to mention that we believe in the Bible “as far it is translated correctly”. I think this is something that sets us apart, and in a good way. I think it should be apparent to everyone that there is no way that the Bible, especially the New Testament, could possibly contain everything that God wants us to hear, or everything the Savior had to teach during his ministry. Not only is the Bible missing information, but some of the translations either purposely (1 Nephi 13:26-29) or through simple human errors, are incorrect or lacking.

There are a few things about Mr. McDermott’s piece that I wanted to comment on. Not that I have any authority to do so, but more for both my peace of mind and practice. McDermott says that there are four reasons that it is “unlikely” that the same Jesus who preached in Palestine is the same as the Jesus who visited the American continent (as described in the Book of Mormon).


1. He states that there are “many voices testifying” of the Palestinian Jesus (meaning the four Gospel authors), but that the Book of Mormon has only one voice, that of Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Mormon consists of many different prophets who all “testified” of the Palestinian Jesus Christ. Just because Joseph translated the book, does not make it one voice any more than a group of men translating the New Testament writings, make it one voice.

2. His second argument is that the testimonies to the Palestinian Jesus come from the same period of time, but that the “single” voice of the Book of Mormon comes 1800 years later. This again is incorrect because the writings that Joseph translated occurred both before, during and after the Savior’s lifetime. If we used Mr. McDermott’s same rationale for the Bible, it was actually written (or translated) in 1611 (at least the King James Version). At best, the actual Bible as we have it today wasn’t put together as a complete book until at least 200 years after Christ (see Wikipedia). Comparatively, The Book of Mormon as we have it today was compiled sometime around 400 AD.

3. I honestly had a hard time understanding his third argument. He states that the American Jesus is “fixated upon America” while the Palestinian Jesus “seems to think of the coming Kingdom as a worldwide phenomenon not limited to one geographical part of the earth…”. I think this is quite a stretch. It’s pretty clear that Jerusalem is a holy city, and that it’s future holds a prominent place in Christianity. However, both Isaiah (Isaiah 2:2-3) and Micah (Micah 4:2) state that “for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” So it’s obvious that there will be a Zion, or New Jerusalem, in addition to Jerusalem the ancient city. It’s not a matter of “favoritism”, it’s simply prophesy. McDermott also seems to have a problem with the three Nephites who were promised to not taste death until the Savior comes again. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for him. He actually argues that John was not promised to tarry until He comes (John 21:23), but only that he said “what is it to thee?" if John were to tarry until He comes. I’m not sure how many Christians have a problem believing that John was granted this gift. Actually, further revelation through Joseph Smith (D&C 7), and also the Book of Mormon, shed light on this verse. In 3 Nephi 28:6, speaking to those three Nephites, the Savior said “Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.” This is just one example of how the Book of Mormon, and additional revelation from God can clarify what is vague in the Bible.

4. The fourth argument is that the Book of Mormon preaches the Trinity, which to me seems kind of strange. Here McDermott takes all this time to state how we are so different, and looking for differences, but then argues that we really believe in the Trinity because the Book of Mormon supposedly teaches it. The truth is, and Elder Porter actually presents this quite nicely in the same article, is that the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son and The Holy Ghost are one, in the same sense that Jesus described it in the Intercessory Prayer (See John 17). The Book of Mormon does not teach the Nicene concept of the Trinity (three in one substance) but that, according to Elder Porter, "they are one in mind, purpose, will, and intention".

McDermott then addresses a few other thoughts on why we are so different from “historic Christianity”, and by that I assume he means Nicene (or 300-400 BC) Christianity, and in that he may be right; but Mormonism and true historic Christianity - that of the Savior’s ministry and teachings and those of the apostles – are quite the same.