The New York Times posted an article by David S. Reynolds titled Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Mormons.  This topic only arose on the pages of the New York Times due to Gov. Mitt Romney’s prominence in the GOP race for president.  Reynolds opens with the fact that Romney has lost a primary in an evangelical-heavy state twice due to “his brand of Protestantism: Mormonism.”  Yet, as his argument progresses, he doesn’t work to make the case that Mormonism is Protestant, but goes on to show how others who had doctrines that differ from evangelicals were in the White House as well.

Many evangelicals assert that Mormonism denies the divinity of Christ and is therefore not a branch of Christianity. But the Mormon belief is that Jesus was the first-born child of God and a woman, and that humans can aspire to share his spiritual essence in the afterlife.

What’s more, if a belief in Christ’s divinity were used as a test of our politicians, many past American leaders would fail abysmally. Most of the founding fathers — including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine — endorsed deism, which sees Jesus as a very good human being, not part of the godhead.

Here, Reynolds takes on two different streams of thought and tries to make them one argument. 

In regards to the first paragraph above, Mormonism is very much considered a cult because of this very doctrine.  Consider what is said from a Mormon publication back in 2005:

"Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another." - Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female, The Ensign, Jan. 2005, pg. 48

And with the notion that Jesus had a beginning, when the Scriptures teach numerous times that He had no beginning (John 1:1-3; John 12:37-42; Colossians 1:15-17, cf: Psalm 89:27) makes this a gigantic rift between evangelicalism and Mormonism.  According to the Scriptures, God the Father was never a man who simply ‘grew up’ to become God. 

But here Reynolds goes into another strand of the argument, taking us into the political realm.  No, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, nor Paine were evangelicals.  Jefferson wrote his own New Testament that took out all of the miracles, leaving us only the teachings of Christ—which he respected greatly.  Paine, writer of the classic Common Sense, was an avowed atheist.  Washington and Franklin never stuck to any religion at all, but did see value in the Bible as a way to craft a society.  However, having a respect for the Bible and surrendering to the Christ to whom that Bible points are two widely different viewpoints.

Reynolds goes on to speak of the 19th century spiritual awakenings that led to a strengthening of faith and a sense that some were appointed for a mission fueled by a vision of God’s will:  Ellen G. White (Seventh Day Adventists), Joseph Smith (LDS/Mormonism), Charles Taze Russell (Watchtower Society/Jehovah’s Witnesses), and Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) among others.

But Reynolds believes he understands why evangelicals have an issue with Mormons:  competition.

The real issue for many evangelicals is Mormonism’s remarkable success and rapid expansion. It is estimated to have missionaries in 162 countries and a global membership of some 14 million; it is also, from its base in the American West, making inroads into Hispanic communities. Put simply, the Baptists and Methodists, while still ahead of the Mormons numerically, are feeling the heat of competition from Joseph Smith’s tireless progeny.

Some evangelical leaders take this a step further to accuse Mr. Romney of vaguely conspiratorial motives. The Baptist minister R. Philip Roberts, author of “Mormonism Unmasked,” recently said that evangelicals are concerned not about Mr. Romney promoting his faith as president, but about the great boost a Mormon presidency would give to the church’s proselytizing efforts.

There is particular worry that Mr. Romney, a wealthy, prominent figure in the church, is too close to his faith. How else to explain the concern among evangelicals when it became public that Mr. Romney had tithed some $4 million to the church over the last two years?

Interdenominational competition may also explain why the faith of Mr. Romney’s father, George Romney, went unchallenged when he ran for president in 1968. Back then Mormonism was a much smaller, and therefore less controversial, part of the religious landscape.

“Baptist and Methodists . . .  are feeling the heat of competition from Joseph Smith’s tireless progeny”?  This is a sad commentary on the religious landscape when so many hear what we as church leaders speak of when we talk about our ministries—the issue of numbers. 

The time has come for those of us who are leaders of evangelical churches and institutions to make it very plain: we are not concerned just about physical numbers, but spiritual waywardness.  Reynolds appeals to religious tolerance—and on a democratic, republic level, this is a good thing.  We do not believe it is the job of the state to dictate what religion we should or shouldn’t hold to—this is why the Revolutionaries wanted freedom from England in colonial times. 

But on the religious/spiritual level, every religion cannot be true.  The argument that as long as you believe in something, that should be respected.  We can respect it, but we can also disagree with it. 

• If an evangelical says that Scripture is the sole authority, while a Mormon says it’s Scripture, but also the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—both of these cannot be true.
• If an evangelical says that Christ was divine in order to be able as God to fulfill God’s law, but also live as a man to actively identify and pay for our sins as a sacrifice on the cross; while Mormons believe that Christ had a beginning from a sexual union between God (who was once a man) and a woman, and that it’s by our good works that bring us into heaven—both of these cannot be true.

I could go on.  It’s not about competition.  It’s about truth.  It’s about “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).  For some, it may be about numbers and competition—but not for most.  For most evangelicals worth their salt, it’s about showing how it’s not up to us to work our way to heaven, but about trumpeting a Christ who came down from heaven to rescue us from our sin and self by His sacrifice on the cross and breaking the bonds of death Himself by His resurrection. 

It’s not about competition—it’s about a competence in speaking the truth!  And even in our day, there is still such a thing as absolute truth. 

The question remains: how does this issue play into the election of a Chief Executive in 2012?  Tune in later this week.