Naturalism and Ethics

Some Thoughts on Naturalism and Ethics

Can naturalism provide the needed intellectual framework in which objective values make sense?  A number of theistic philosophers have answered in the negative.  Earlier in this presentation I presented the thought of William Lane Craig and his understanding of Christian-theistic ethics regarding the areas of objective moral values, objective moral duties, and moral accountability.  Dr. Craig has also argued: “If theism is false, we do not have a sound foundation for morality.”[1]  Paul Copan argues similarly:

An ethic rooted in naturalistic evolution ends up being subjectivistic and ultimately reduces to relativism.  Ethics is simply illusory, as [Michael] Ruse argues (and, as [Daniel] Dennett notes, naturalistic evolution doesn’t leave room for genuine natural rights).  So Westerners may find abhorrent practices such as female circumcision or a widow’s self-immolation on the funeral pyre of her husband (outlawed in India under the British Raj).  But why presuppose moral duties or human dignity and rights?  On what metaphysical basis should one oppose such practices?  If ethical beliefs are simply hardwired into us for our fitness and survival, we have no reason to think these beliefs are true; they simply are.[2]

Sometimes it is alleged that moral virtue can be objectively obtained by looking for that which maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures.  In this conception “bad” refers to the suffering of conscious creatures.  This can be based on demonstrable suffering.  There seems to be a philosophical move here that is too quick and without argument.  Surely we can speak of prudential value—that which is conducive to a human’s survival and well-being.  But this is not the same thing as moral value.  William Lane Craig, in responding to Mark Murphy’s views, argues against the confusion on this issue:

The claim here is that ‘what makes a state of affairs morally valuable (or disvaluable) is grounded in what makes a people better- (or worse-) off’ [Murphy’s idea].  What justification is there on naturalism, for this assertion, which represents the second step of his proposal?

“So far as I can see, the only justification Murphy offers for this assertion is that ‘the kind human is obviously a distinct sort of organism, and distinct in ways that are obviously ethically significant.  To take one example: human beings possess reflective and objectivizing intelligence, which enables them to call their inclinations into question and to see themselves as one person among others.’  This leaves me baffled as to the justification of Murphy’s grounding claim.  Certainly, if naturalism were true, human beings would still b distinct organisms possessed with reflective and objectivizing intelligence.  Such properties could still be said to be ethically significant in the sense that they are necessary conditions of being an agent and, a fortiori, of being a moral agent.  But I see no reason to think, without begging the question, that humans are therefore objectively morally valuable or have any moral obligations.[3] 

            Of course, the issue is not whether a naturalist and theist can share some of the same basic moral values—they can and do.  The more important question revolves around the grounding of those values.  Given non-purposive naturalism “it is not clear how one can establish normative values on the basis of processes that are ultimately thoroughly unconscious, nonnormative, and contingent in nature.”[4]

---

     [1] Craig argues this case in his debate with Paul Kurtz in the book: Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics; editors, Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield).

[2] Paul Copan, “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality,” in The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, ed. Robert Stewart; (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 153.  Available online: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf.

     [3] Craig, “This Most Gruesome of Guests,” in Is Goodness without God Good Enough?, 177—bold-face added.  See also Craig’s review of Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape in which the same confusions between prudential value and moral value are evident.  “Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape.  Available online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/navigating-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape. 

     [4] Steward Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 95.

God and the Meaning of Life: Some Resources

Resources on the Question of the Meaning of Life

1.     James Anderson, “Can Life Have Meaning Without God?” Gospel Coalition (July 16, 2013).  Online: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-life-have-meaning-without-god.

2.     William Lane Craig, “The Absurdity of Life without God” (chapter from Reasonable Faith (1994).  Online: http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-meaning-to-life/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god.

3.     Charles Taliaferro, “Jesus Christ and the Meaning of Life.”  Pages 215-229 in Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays, edited by Paul K. Moser (Cambridge University Press, 2009).  Online: http://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/nt/ntrex/moser-jesus-and-philosophy.pdf.

4.     William Craig, “Is Life Absurd without God?” (Question #179).  Online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-life-absurd-without-god1.

5.     William Craig, “Is Life Absurd without God?” (Question #250).  Online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-life-absurd-without-god.

6.     William Craig, “Is God’s Life Absurd?” (Question #436).  Online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-gods-life-absurd.

      7.  William Craig, “Where Do Atheists Find Meaning?”            Online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/where-do-atheists-find-meaning

Slavery in the New Testament: A Few Comments

* I'm preaching through 1 Peter so I wrote up the following brief piece for our church bulletin to explain some of the background on the issue of slavery in the New Testament.  It's not meant to be exhaustive but it does give some further resources for study.

The New Testament mentions slavery.  Critics of the Bible have sometimes latched onto these texts as alleged evidence of the inferiority of the Bible ethics.  Why doesn’t the New Testament speak against slavery?  It seems to endorse the status quo.  So goes the challenge.  What can be said in response to such challenges?  Here a few items to consider…

1.     We need to properly contextualize slavery in the New Testament.  Simply mentioning a practice does not mean God condones or endorses the practice.  Paul urges Christians to honor the government but this doesn’t mean he condones everything the government does (Romans 13.1-7).

2.     The culture of the time did not allow for large-scale revolution on the issue of slavery.  Christians had to navigate the times with wisdom and engage in a longer-term project of undercutting slavery.  By some estimates 85-90% of the inhabitants of Rome and the Italian peninsula were slaves or of slave origins.  During the first century Caesar Augustus passed laws governing the number and ages of slaves who legitimately be set free.  It is helpful to remember also that in 73 BC Spartacus led a slaves revolt and this caused the general populace to look with fearful suspicion on any who would potentially foment opposition to slavery. 

3.     It needs to also be remembered that the Christian communities to which Peter wrote were being increasingly seen in a negative light.  Their lifestyles and refusal to fully endorse the gods brought them into conflict with the dominant culture.  This leads Dr. Steven Tracy to write:

What then could Christian slaves (who had no legal rights regarding their masters' abuse) and Christian citizens (who stood on the cusp of legal prosecution for their faith) do when experiencing abuse? Their best response was to let their godly behavior challenge unjust treatment and unjust slander, which is precisely what Peter repeatedly prescribes (2:12,1&-20; 3:16).[1]  

4.     There are ways that the New Testament expresses both direct and subtle opposition to slavery.  In 1 Timothy 1.9-10 and Revelation 18.11-13 kidnapping for the purpose of slavery is spoken against and presented in a negative light and worthy of judgment.  In 1 Corinthians 7.20-22 the apostle Paul encourages slaves to acquire freedom if possible.  In Ephesians chapter six when Paul mentions slaves and masters he does not quote Scripture as he does when discussing the other aspects of the household such as husbands/wives and fathers/children.  The marital and family bonds between men/women and parents/children were created by God so Paul can quote Scriptures about those relationships.  Slavery is an institution not created by God so the lack of a Scriptural citation is subtle but significant.

5.     The equality within the church tended to undercut the nature of slavery.  What is noteworthy is that slaves are addressed by Paul and Peter in their letters.  This dignified them as part of the church of Christ.  This was also different from the moral codes of the time outside the church.  As one biblical scholar writes:

The reason for this difference between 1 Peter and other moral codes of his time is simple.  For society at large slaves were not full persons and thus did not have moral responsibility.  For the church slaves were full and equal persons, and thus quite appropriately addressed as such.[2]

There are seemingly even slave names mentioned by Paul in his conclusion to the book of Romans when he is thanking and commending those who are worthy of mention in the church.  “The names of those mentioned in Romans 16 suggest that many had been slaves.  Andronicus [v. 7] and Urbanus [v.9] were exclusively slave names in the literature and inscriptions of Paul’s day.”[3]

6.     It should also be noted that the symbolic actions of the early church tended to undermine the dominant culture’s ideas of slavery.  The holy kiss and the language of “brothers” and “sisters” reinforced the larger family dynamic of the church.  Masters addressing slaves as “brother” would begin to subtly overturn the overt power structures of the relationship.  The words of biblical scholar F. F. Bruce regarding the letter of Philemon seem to apply more broadly to these kind of relational dynamics as well:

What this letter does [and I would argue these practices—RJK] is to bring us into an atmosphere in which the institution [of slavery] could only wilt and die.[4]

Yes, the New Testament mentions slavery but within the message and actions of the church are the seeds of slavery’s destruction.

Resources for further study:

1.     “Slavery in the Bible: Some Perspectives on a Difficult Topic.”  This is a Bible study I did last year on the topic of slavery.  It covers details of OT and NT slavery.  It also has some more resources listed in the bibliography.  Online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2015/11/slavery-in-bible-some-perspectives-on.html

2.     The Humanization of Slavery in the Old Testament, edited by Thomas Schirrmacher.  This is a collection of three essays that give perspective on slavery in the Bible, history and today.  Very good research and reasoning.  Online: http://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/dateien/Dokumente/Buecher/WoT_8_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher__ed.__-_The_Humanization_of_Slavery_in_the_OT.pdf

---

     [1] Steven Tracy, “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering” Calvin Theological Journal 41 (2006), 290.  Available online: http://mendingthesoul.org/wp-content/uploads/DV-in-Church-1-Peter.pdf

     [2] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter—The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 105.

     [3] A. A. Rupprecht, “Slave, Slavery” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 882.

     [4] F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 401.

God and Politics: A Few Reflections

* A piece I wrote for our weekly church bulletin to go along with the sermon on 1 Peter 2.13-17.

The arena of politics can be difficult to navigate.  Now throw theology in the mix and the difficulties seem to multiply.  Yet, God has given us his Word and he speaks to the political realm in a number of different passages.  Today passage—1 Peter 2.13-17—is one such passage that gives us direction on how to reason as Christians.  As will be mentioned in the sermon today, we need to apply God’s unchanging principles to changing circumstances.  Within the history of the church Christians have had to live under varying political realities: monarchies, oligarchies, parliaments, tyrants, and democratic systems.  These differing political realities still require the people of God to heed God’s timeless instructions.

A helpful essay is Attitudes Towards the State in Western Theological Thinking by Torleiv Austad in the October 1990 issue of Themelios.  Here are a few select quotations from Austad’s piece:

From the NT texts which speak of the life of the Christian in the world, we may draw the following conclusions for understanding the mandate and limits of the state: First, the mandate of the state is to deal with and regulate the common social, political, and economic life of society.  Secondly, the state has the right to require taxes from the citizens to be able to take care of some of the common needs, such as food and clothing, work and social welfare, law and justice.  Thirdly, the state has to take care of and reward those who are doing right and to punish those who are doing wrong.  Thus the state is on the way to fulfilling its mandate of administering justice.  If the state pretends to give itself divine attributes and becomes involved in people’s relationship with God, it goes beyond its limits. It is also a transgression of those limits when a state offends elementary civil rights, especially when it restrains freedom of conscience.  In addition, a just state, i.e. a state which functions in accordance with its mandate, may not be totalitarian in terms of claiming sovereignty in all areas of life without crossing the line and entering into injustice and demonic power.

The task of the church over against the state is threefold: First, the church has to remind the state of its mandate and limits.  Secondly, the church should encourage the citizens, Christians included, to co-operate with the actual state as far as it is true to its calling.  Thirdly, because the state is constantly tempted to become totalitarian and degenerate, the church and Christians are called to be critical of every state and evaluate its functions on the basis of ethical premises. (p. 20)

Austad goes on to note that in the New Testament the state is given neither principled renunciation nor uncritical acceptance.  He writes:

The apparently contradictory attitude can be illustrated by comparing Romans 13 and Revelation 13.  In both cases Christians are confronted with the Roman state.  While the governing authorities according to Romans 13 respect elementary civil rights, the same state in Revelation 13—about forty years later—is seen as the beast from the abyss.  Therefore the attitude of Christians has changed from obedience to disobedience.  Within the eschatological horizon of the NT the relationship between Christians and the governing authorities is never fixed; it is complex, sensitive and changing. (p. 22)

The interface between the church and the state can be tricky.  Faithfully navigating through all the twists and turns of both cultural and political analysis as well as critically engaging in rigorous biblical and theological thinking is difficult.  Even when Christians agree on fundament principles from God’s word there may still be disagreements on how to best apply those principles to concrete problems and situations.  May God give us the grace and wisdom to faithfully pursue righteous and justice in all that we do—including in the realm of politics.

The Death of Judas: Contradiction; Forced Harmonization?

And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary

and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Matthew 27.5

Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness,

and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle 

and all his intestines gushed out.

Acts 1.18

These are two separate statements about the death of Judas Iscariot.  Many have alleged a direct contradiction between these two texts.  "Which is it--hanging or bursting open?" critics will ask.  The traditional answer has been to seek some sort of harmonization between these two narratives.  Is there any way for both narrations to be true?  Must they be seen as contradictory?  

Gleason Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), p. 344 argues that Judas hanged himself and then he fell and his body burst open.  Here is how Archer describes the potential scenario:

Acts 1:18 goes on to state: 'And he, falling headlong, burst asunder, and all of his inwards gushed out.'  This indicates that the tree from which Judas suspended himself overhung a precipice.  If the branch from which he had hung himself was dead and dry--and there are many trees that match this description even to this day on the brink of the canyon that tradition identifies as the place where Judas died--it would take only one strong gust of wind to yank the heavy corpse and split the branch to which it was attached and plunge both with great force into the bottom of the chasm below.

This is fairly typical of the approach that would seek to find some sort of harmonization between the two texts.  Critics, however, might not be inclined to grant such a harmonization.  They might argue that such historical harmonizations are "forced."  Recently Steve Hays posted a short piece entitled How Did Judas Die? in which he looks at another historical event which has multiple, seeming conflicting narratives and shows how archeological evidence points to a harmonization.  Here are Hays' comments:

The death of Judas is a familiar crux. We have two accounts in Matthew and Acts. At least superficially, these seem to describes two different ways of dying. 

How these are two be harmonized is anyone's guess. My own theory is that Judas hanged himself, then animal scavengers yanked his body down (e.g. dogs, jackals, a bear, a lion). 

This is easy to visualize for anyone who's seen nature shows in which wildlife photographers string meat from a tree, then photograph predators attempting to pull it down. So I think that's an economical explanation.

However, an unbeliever will object that I'm guilty of special pleading. If it was anything other than the Bible, I'd just admit we have discrepant accounts. 

So let's take a comparison. Mattathias Antigonus was the last Hasmonean king. He was predecessor to Herod the Great. Depending on how you count them, we have three or four different accounts of his demise:

These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged, — a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, — and afterwards slew him. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 22:6. 

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king... Josephus, Antiquities ,15.1.2 (8-9). 

and he deprived many monarchs of their kingdoms, as, for instance, Antigonus the Jew, whom he brought forth and beheaded, though no other king before him had been so punished. Plutarch, Life of Antony, 36.11.

As you can see, Plutarch, Josephus, and Strabo (according to Josephus) all say that Marc Antony had Mattathias Antigonus beheaded. By contrast, Dio Cassius says Marc Antony had him crucified. 

Now, these aren't strictly contradictory. Dio Cassius doesn't exactly say Mattathias Antigonus died by crucifixion. It indicates that he was slain after he was crucified–which is rather vague. 

If, however, we approach these accounts with the same skepticism that unbelievers apply to Scripture, we wouldn't try to harmonize them. For one thing, isn't crucifixion and decapitation overkill? Moreover, why dispatch him before he dies from crucifixion? The whole point of scourging and crucifixion is to make your enemy die a slow, excruciating. To behead him before he succumbs would be counterproductive. Finally, his death by decapitation is multiply-attested, whereas Dio Cassius is the only source who says he was crucified. What are the odds that a man would both be crucified and beheaded? 

Ah, but here's where the story gets even more interesting. We aren't confined to literary notices. There's archeological evidence that, as a matter of fact, Mattathias Antigonus did undergo both crucifixion and decapitation. In 1970, an ossuary was discovered in the Abba cave. The remains were identified as belonging to none other than Mattathias Antigonus.

On the one hand, the cut jaw and severed second vertebra indicate decapitation. On the other hand, the ossuary contains three hooked nails (used in crucifixion) with traces of human calcium. 

Recently, that's has been confirmed by Yoel Elitzur and Israel Hershkovitz. As one scholar (Greg Doudna) summarizes the evidence:

There are the very clear and specific indications that this individual was both beheaded and nailed through the hands at the time of death. As I understand it, very few nails have been found inside any ossuaries (with the bones) in any case, and in no other case have nails been found attached to hand bones in an ossuary. And this particular individual was also fairly clearly beheaded (possibly with the executioner whacking twice to complete the job, per P. Smith’s analysis). The extremely unusual combination, with no other known parallel, of nails attached to hand bones and beheading corresponds specifically and exclusively to dual traditions of Antigonus Mattathias being hung up on a cross and flogged (Dio Cassius), and beheaded (Strabo). While that particular combination may have been done by Romans in cases not known to history, Antigonus Mattathias is the only case in which these dual traditions of these two particular kinds of death are recounted for the same person—the exact combination that turns up on a set of bones in an ossuary of a tomb with an Inscription referring to bones of one MTTY, of the approximate time as Antigonus Mattathias as independently established on dating grounds. 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/04/zia388008.shtml

Now, the death of Antigonus Mattathias is at least as convoluted and antecedently unlikely as harmonizing the death of Judas in Matthew and Acts. Yet there's both documentary and paleoforensic evidence that that's what happened. 

Incidentally, the reason Antigonus Mattathias might have been beheaded after he was crucified was to expedite his death. Unless a corpse was buried before sunset, it defiled the land (Deut 21:22-23).  Marc Antony may have been forced to accede to Jewish sensibilities in that respect. 

What Is an "Evangelical?"

* Written for a segment called the "Pastor's Pen" for our weekly church bulletin.

Last week someone in the congregation asked me a great question that I thought would be good to answer in this week’s Pastor’s Pen.  You will notice that each week we pray for a nation of the world.  This week we are praying for Nigeria.  Added in the information given are the population numbers for “Christians” and “evangelicals.”  The question I received had to do with the definition of “evangelical”—“What is the definition of an evangelical in distinction from Christian?” 

The word “evangelical” is derivative from the word “evangel” (from the Greek word euangellion) which is the gospel.  British theologian Alister McGrath helpfully notes:

Evangelical is thus the term chosen by evangelicals to refer to themselves, as representing most adequately the central concern of the movement for the safeguarding and articulation of the evangel—the good news of God which has been made known and made possible in Jesus Christ.

The book Operation World and its smaller, abridged version Pray for the World are resources used to reference the population numbers in our “Pray for the World” section in our bulletin.  There is also an online listing of the nations to pray for everyday at http://www.operationworld.org/.  The Operation World website has the following definitions which are used to inform their work:

            Christian

Anyone who professes to be Christian. The term embraces all traditions and confessions of Christianity. It is no indicator of the degree of commitment or theological orthodoxy. The primary emphasis utilized is that of recognizing self-identification as well as accepting the Scriptural principles illustrated in Matt 10:32 and Romans 10:9.

Evangelicals

All who emphasize and adhere to all four of the following:

•                The Lord Jesus Christ as the sole source of salvation through faith in Him, as validated by His crucifixion and resurrection. 

•                Personal faith and conversion with regeneration by the Holy Spirit. 

•                Recognition of the inspired Word of God as the ultimate basis and authority for faith and Christian living. 

•                Commitment to biblical witness, evangelism and mission that brings others to faith in Christ. 

•                 

Evangelicals are largely Protestant, Independent or Anglican, but some are Catholic or Orthodox. It is one of the TransBloc movements in this book. 

This definition is very close but not identical to the definition introduced in David Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s as the Bebbington Quadrilateral, which offered crucicentrism, conversionism, biblicism and activism as the four qualities of evangelicalism. 

Evangelicals are enumerated in Operation World as: 

•                All affiliated Christians (church members, their children, other participants of the faith community) of denominations that are definitively evangelical in theology as explained above. 

•                The proportion of the affiliated Christians in other denominations (that are not wholly evangelical in theology) who would hold evangelical views, whether Western in origin or otherwise.

This is a theological and not an experiential definition. It does not mean that all evangelicals as defined above are actually born-again. In many nations, only 10-40% of evangelicals so defined may have had a valid conversion and regularly attend church services. However, it does show how many people align themselves with churches where the gospel is being proclaimed as such. 

In the above mention was made of the “Bebbington Quadrilateral.”  In that a number of researchers use this definition it is important to know its content.  Here are the four points with some brief definitions. 

1.     Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g., all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages.

2.     Crucicentrism [cross-centered]: a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

3.     Conversionism: the belief that human beings need to be converted.

4.     Activism: the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.

There are, of course, others definitions of “evangelical.”  For example, Francis Schaeffer wrote that to be evangelical was to be:

Bible-believing without shutting one’s self off from the full spectrum of life, and in trying to bring Christianity into effective contact with the current needs of society, government and culture.  It had a connotation of leading people to Christ as Savior, but then trying to be salt and light in the culture.

John Dickerson, in his book The Great Evangelical Recession, comments on Schaeffer’s description (which is primarily given for American evangelicals):

Schaeffer emphasizes the “full-spectrum” of living in the culture.  Here, Schaeffer points out the practical distinctive of American evangelicals.  We have a heritage of intentionally interacting with the culture in a positive way, rather than isolating and reacting or submitting and capitulating to it.  This “engaged orthodoxy” stands noticeably apart from the spiritual bunker mentality that defined American fundamentalism.  It also stands apart from the spongy plurality that defines theologically liberal Protestants.

Defining and describing “evangelical” can be difficult but hopefully the above helps us better understand some of the defining characteristics of what it is to be “evangelical.”  Ultimately, at the theological level, evangelicals are concerned about the gospel—the good news—of Jesus Christ!

* Quotations from Dickerson, McGrath, and Schaeffer all come from John S. Dickerson The Great Evangelical Recession (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2013)--Appendix C "Defining 'Evangelical'" pages 229-232.

**Also of interest may be J. P. Moreland's brief essay Defining "Evangelical" in Public Discourse.

Are Mormons Christian? A Letter to Fellow Evangelical Elders

* I recently was in a conversation with some elders of another church.  The topic of Mormonism came up and someone asked me why I would engage in evangelism toward Mormons since they "are Christians."  I gave my answer in that context and then followed-up with a letter.  The majority of that letter is reproduced below with the appropriate deletions to cover the identity of the church.  I post this here for its scriptural reasoning and its quotations from Joseph Smith.
____________________________________

... Usually among such evangelicals there is a common theological core which it is recognized the LDS church does not embrace.  You will recall that I briefly mentioned that the LDS teaching regarding God denies monotheism in favor of tri-theism, that LDS teaching denies salvation by grace through faith, and that the LDS church believes in a different Jesus.  These are not minor or secondary issues on which Christians of good will and orthodox belief can and do differ—such as eschatological systems or even the proper recipients of baptism.  Rather, these issues are centrally located in the Christian theological system and cannot be modified in the ways that the LDS church does without ceasing to be Christian.

Why is this important?  The Scriptures give us the requirements for an elder.  One of those requirements is that elders in Christ’s church be those who are “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.  Titus 1.9  Not only must we as elders hold to the truth personally but we must be able to teach the truth and to refute those who teach against the truth.  Failure to upheld these duties brings pain to the church as false teachers are then able to upset whole families (Titus 1.11).  The apostle Paul provides us an example of his fighting for the truth of the gospel in the book of Galatians.  He begins this epistle with forceful words because the truth of the gospel is at stake.

⁶I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; ⁷which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  ⁸But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!  ⁹As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!  --Galatians 1.6-9

The apostle Paul can also challenge the Corinthian church because they are allowing the preaching of “another Jesus.”

For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.  –2 Corinthians 11.4

And who is doing this preaching of “another Jesus” and a “different gospel”—“false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11.13).

Just because a group says they are “Christian” or has the word “Christ” in their name (e.g., “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”) does not make them Christian in reality.  We need to examine the teaching of these groups to discern whether they are teaching a false view of God, Christ, or salvation.  When the Mormon religion is examined in this regard it fails to meet the most basic requirements of Christian theism.

Consider the central biblical and creedal teaching regarding monotheism—the belief in one God.  Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed monotheism even as it has confessed the doctrine of the Trinity.  The founding prophet of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, unequivocally denies the doctrine of the Trinity and the monotheism which is crucial to this doctrine.  Consider the following words from Joseph Smith from what is known as the “King Follett Discourse.”

I will preach on the plurality of Gods.  I have selected this text for that express purpose.  I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.  It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage.  Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.  If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret, 1976), 370.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God.  I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one and one in three! … All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret, 1976), 372.

Not only did Joseph Smith affirm polytheism and deny the Trinity, he also spoke of how God himself was not always God but was a man like us but attained to Godhood.

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, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, 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.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret, 1976), 345.

…it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God.  We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity.  I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple.  It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret, 1976), 345-346.

Joseph Smith argues that God the Father himself had a Father!

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.  Where was there ever a son without a father?  And where was there ever a father without first being a son? … Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?  I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Deseret, 1976), 373.

These teachings by Joseph Smith are still affirmed today in the official teaching of the LDS church.[1]  These teachings are at radical variance from the Bible’s teaching regarding God.  ...

These are no small matters.  I have only looked at the issue of monotheism and the Trinity but the same massive departure from central truth also is found in the LDS doctrines of Christ and salvation.[2]

I would urge you as elders in the church of God to faithfully hold to the essentials of the faith.  If you as elders and leaders in the church will not affirm and defend the truth then those under your charge will not be properly fed and led.  If you don’t believe that Mormons are in need of the true gospel then your people will erroneously believe the same.  They will not seek to share the real Jesus of the Bible with their Mormon neighbors nor will they pray for the conversion of those caught in the deceptions of LDS teaching.

I know that I have spoken directly and my desire is not to cause offense.  Ultimately the gospel message and the authority of the Word of God are at stake.  If you are willing perhaps we can continue to discuss these matters for our edification and the strengthening of Christ’s church.

For the Gospel,

Richard J. Klaus

---

     [1] For demonstration of this fact see the recent article by Robert Bowman “Are Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy? A Response to Richard Mouw.”  Online: http://mit.irr.org/are-mormons-approaching-orthodoxy-response-richard-mouw.

     [2] For a short but helpful introduction to these matters please see the article “Is Mormonism Christian?”  Online: http://mit.irr.org/mormonism-christian.