Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[jwhitlock]

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

This really sums up the whole debate quite well

It also explains why LDS respond the way they do to the accusation of being non-Christian; value judgments are rarely received well. The fact that this value judgment is untenable also reflects poorly on those making the judgment.

[LeSellers]

Only Jesus Christ has the authority to determine which is correct, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, that He would accept any all people that believe in Him, even if they disagreed on His nature. but were sincere in their beliefs.

What if they sincerely believed Jesus was a sinful man like the rest of us?

You, "the rest of us", can believe as you like.

We LDSs believe Him to have been (and remain) sinless.

Lehi (exploiter of linguistic ambiguities)

Which, of course, misses the point badly.

Hoops, did you forget to check your humor drive unit? The clutch may be stuck in "Disengage". Note my sign-off line. Or, as you said,

here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

Expressions of love and affection for non-Mormons are expressly prohibited on this thread.

I confess to being surprised upon coming back to this thread and seeing it having grown beyond all reasonable expectation.

Then upon reviewing the contents, I was surprised again by the numerous twists and turns the thread has taken since its inception. (But that, I suppose, is the nature of threads.)

Let me mention some things that I have learned as I have read through the posts:

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

I think this difference in view between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians may stem from the fact that Mormons tend to see salvation as more of a continuum from hell to exaltation, with many a stage of gray in between.

For most non-LDS Christians, they see salvation as black and white; either one is in heaven or in hell ("that damned, elusive Pimpernel").

I see the LDS view of gradations of salvation as perhaps causing the LDS to view with greater liberality those who may be called Christian. In fact, LDS continue to show this liberality by believing that non-LDS Christians (such as Luther and Calvin) as well as completely non-Christians (such as the Buddha and Mohammed) were inspired by God.

In sum, then, it is easier for me to understand why some Christians cannot bring themselves to allow Mormons to be called "Christian," now that I understand that to call Mormons "Christian" is tantamount for them to saying that Mormons are "saved."

This, I think, is a valuable insight for me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Uh, I would find it most uncomfortable to criticize you if you are going to be this reasonable. And since that is a vice I don't want to give up I'm asking that you immediately return to your former self.

And I agree.

[Hoops22]

What if they sincerely believed Jesus was a sinful man like the rest of us?You, "the rest of us", can believe as you like.

We LDSs believe Him to have been (and remain) sinless.

Lehi (exploiter of linguistic ambiguities)Which, of course, misses the point badly.Hoops, did you forget to check your humor drive unit? The clutch may be stuck in "Disengage". Note my sign-off line. Or, as you said,

here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.

Lehi

Sorry, Lehi. I have to admit that I don't expect stabs at humor from you. Consequently, I didn't get it. Or I'm too dumb.

As for me, I try to use humor in every post, that way, every thousand posts or so is actually funny. Kinda like the "where's the perfect man" post. I mean, after so many tries one would expect one to show up -

a humorous post, that is.

[consiglieri]

Uh, I would find it most uncomfortable to criticize you if you are going to be this reasonable. And since that is a vice I don't want to give up I'm asking that you immediately return to your former self.

And I agree.

Your queu of one seems to be evaporating, old bean.

(Apologies for the inter-thread joke.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[coolrok7]

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

This really sums up the whole debate quite well

It also explains why LDS respond the way they do to the accusation of being non-Christian; value judgments are rarely received well. The fact that this value judgment is untenable also reflects poorly on those making the judgment.

The following is a value judgment and is usually directed at Protestants:

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its placeâ??a religion that professed to be Jesus Christâ??s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, â??having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â?. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiahâ??s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, while speaking at a BYU devotional in 1984 states the following (directed at Protestant Christianity):

I wonder how many of us are aware of one of the great religious phenomenon of the ages, one that is now sweeping through Protestant Christianity, as only one other thing has ever done in the whole Christian Era. . . .let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity.

This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity- and truly it is the father of all heresies-. . .pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. . . .a spirit essence called the Trinity. . . .The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy. . . .

This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins.

[The last line as stated above (all added bolding/underlining throughout this post is for emphasis) is a common misperception/misrepresentation of the Protestant understanding of â??salvation by graceâ? (this is not what Lutheran Christians teach concerning the subject of justification and sanctification)]

Joseph wrote, in his own hand- written in 1832, that (with no mention of the Father and Son together appearing to him):

At about the age of twelve years my mind became Seriously imprest with regard to the all important concerns for the wellfare [sic] of my immortal soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God. . .thus from the age twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things. . .and by Searching the Scriptures I found that. . .there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament. . . (An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smithâ??s Early Visions, by Paul R. Cheesman, Masterâ??s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965, pp.127-28)

We have been invited to do the following (whether or not you accept our response is your prerogative (with your own built in biases like we also have) but we have been asked to respond:

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

As a Christian who accepts only the Bible for â??wisdom that leads to salvationâ? I believe the following is not good and does not â??harmonize in all particulars with divine truth.â?:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, â??Men can get nearer to the Lord, can have more of the spirit of conversion and conformity in their hearts, can have stronger testimonies, and can gain a better understanding of the doctrines of salvation through the Book of Mormon than they can through Bible. . . .There will be more people saved in the kingdom of Godâ??ten thousand times overâ??because of the Book of Mormon than there will be because of the Bible.â? (Address at Book of Mormon Symposium, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug., 1978.) (The Ensign, Pres. Benson, Nov. 1984, p.7)

[consiglieri]

Hi, coolrok7!

Just so you know, Bruce R. McConkie said a lot of things that made a lot of Mormons wince.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hoops22]

Your queu of one seems to be evaporating, old bean. (Apologies for the inter-thread joke.)All the Best!--Consiglieri

Not to worry. hardly anyone ever recognizes your humor as jokes.

Awsome. Hoops I love you.!!! :wub:I dont want him.

Shhhhhhh..... (if they find out were friends, they'll come looking)

[consiglieri]

hardly anyone ever recognizes your humor as jokes.

Nor your dates as potential marriage partners.

[Oops! There I go again with that inter-thread (non)joke thing.]

[Hoops22]

Nor your dates as potential marriage partners.

[Oops! There I go again with that inter-thread (non)joke thing.]

That was funny.

[consiglieri]

That was funny.

I'm just trying to desensitize you to criticizing me again.

[LifeOnaPlate]

[The last line as stated above (all added bolding/underlining throughout this post is for emphasis) is a common misperception/misrepresentation of the Protestant understanding of “salvation by grace” (this is not what Lutheran Christians teach concerning the subject of justification and sanctification)]

I've personally spoken with Christians who asserted that exact thing McConkie describes. While it deserves more nuance and clarification that McConkie gives it, he is not pulling such a thing from thin air.

Hi, coolrok7!Just so you know, Bruce R. McConkie said a lot of things that made a lot of Mormons wince. All the Best!--Consiglieri

Amen, God bless him!

[soren]

Yes, because Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchezedek FOREVER. But you will not find another Melchezedek priest in the entire Bible, except of course Melchezedek.

Also David in Ps. 110. In the OT, a Melchizedek priest is a priest who reigns as king. In the NT it is more specifically a priest who has a resurrected body. The key to this is the association of Ps. 2:7 and 110:4 in Heb 5:5-6. (Acts 13:33 shows that Ps. 2:7 is about the resurrected kingship of Jesus.) The resurrection is essential to this priesthood, because it is the deathlessnes of his body that makes him a priest "forever" as opposed to the others who grow old and die.

[Akboy]

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

I think this difference in view between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians may stem from the fact that Mormons tend to see salvation as more of a continuum from hell to exaltation, with many a stage of gray in between.

Exactly, that sums up the situation quite well. It's like I said earlier, Evangelicals see 'Christian' as a narrow term that describes those who are following Christ's teachings accurately. Mormons see 'Christian' as a broad term that describes someone who follows any version of Christ's teachings.

So are you going to try to explain this to some of your fellow church members? Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

[selek]

Exactly, that sums up the situation quite well. It's like I said earlier, Evangelicals see 'Christian' as a narrow term that describes those who are following Christ's teachings accurately`. Mormons see 'Christian' as a broad term that describes someone who follows any version of Christ's teachings.

So are you going to try to explain this to some of your fellow church members? Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

Unfortunately, Akboy, this presumes that 1) your narrow, sectarian, and wholly self-serving redefinition of "Christian" is correct, and 2) that said "correctness" gives you the authority to make this demand of us.

Neither is the case.

I'm quite certain that the original Twelve would have had much better relations with the Jewish faith of the period had they been willing to supress truths that the Pharisees would never accept.

We are not obliged to stop speaking truth to power, nor required to cease and desist resisting lies and falsehoods just because those who love darkness are stubborn.

The fact that certain Evangelicals will not accept the truth does not mean we are required to stop teaching it.

Amity is all good and well, but the truth is not subordinate to it.

Correcting misinformation is not, in and of itself, defensive.

As a movement that hasn't existed for even two centuries yet, you presume an awful lot.

You do not own the copyright to the word "Christian", nor do you speak for the whole of Christianity. You have neither the standing nor the track record to make pronouncements about who is and who is not "Christian".

Evangelicalism is the Johnny-come-lately of Christian thought, and while it struts proudly and trumpets its own horn, it has yet to withstand the greatest of all tests: time.

Give it a century or two, and let's see if the Evangelical movement is as full of itself then, and more particularly, if it has brought forth fruit appropriate to its claims.

I rather suspect neither will be the case.

[Calm]

So are you going to try to explain this to some of your fellow church members? Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

Interesting that you see the obligation to compromise about this all on the LDS side and none of the EVs side. Do you demand the same response from all the rest of the Christians and all those nonChristians who use the more expansive definition as well, including all those editors of those ubiquitous dictionaries? Doesn't that seem a little unrealistic to you? Why not just add on an modifier/qualifier to avoid the confusion in the first place?

As to explaining this to my fellow LDS, yes, I do all the time. I have also had some very nice conversations with EVs and other Christians who also hold a more limited definition than the one in common usage and they have expressed perfect willingness to either make sure that if the limited definition is being used in conversation outside their church walls, that they make explicit the reasons they are defining it in the limited way OR they state they make a habit of only using the limited definition among those who believe in the same way they do.

[urroner]

Exactly, that sums up the situation quite well. It's like I said earlier, Evangelicals see 'Christian' as a narrow term that describes those who are following Christ's teachings accurately. Mormons see 'Christian' as a broad term that describes someone who follows any version of Christ's teachings.

So are you going to try to explain this to some of your fellow church members? Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

Interesting. Most of the EVers I work with know that I'm an LDSer and they all consider me Christian. Should I tell them they are all going to Hell for that?

[CQUIRK]

So are you going to try to explain this to some of your fellow church members? Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians

And Mormons aren't going to stop saying and proving otherwise- put that in your pipe and smoke it.

and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

So the only way to get along with EV's is if we let then talk down at us and our beliefs and do nothing in defense?

Sounds like the Protestant way of governing Northern Ireland before The Troubles.

[urroner]

Mormons are never going to convince EVs they are Christians and EVs aren't going to stop saying Mormons aren't Christians. It would help us get along better if Mormons realized these distinctions and didn't get defensive when the issue comes up.

Actually, the more I think about what you have just said Akboy, the more I realize that this is similar to what an abusive husband would say to his spouse - "If that damn woman would realize that I am right and if she would just realize her place, then I wouldn't have to keep tying to beat her down. What do you say to a wife with two black eyes, nothing, I've already told her twice."

Yep Akboy, if those damn Mormoners would learn their places, then we would all just be able to get along. They have to change, but not me. You know it'd be a lot easier if we made all the changes, it'd be easier on you EVers. You can't make any changes like that, now would you, like man, it's all about grace and changes require work and we sure can't have that now, would we.

DUH!!!!!!

[Akboy]

Unfortunately, Akboy, this presumes that 1) your narrow, sectarian, and wholly self-serving redefinition of "Christian" is correct, and 2) that said "correctness" gives you the authority to make this demand of us.

Neither is the case.

Okay, what's your definition of "Christian" and what makes it the right definition?

So what do you guys think about what consiglieri said:

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

I think this difference in view between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians may stem from the fact that Mormons tend to see salvation as more of a continuum from hell to exaltation, with many a stage of gray in between.

What's so different between what he said and what I said?

Do you demand the same response from all the rest of the Christians and all those nonChristians who use the more expansive definition as well, including all those editors of those ubiquitous dictionaries? Doesn't that seem a little unrealistic to you?

Part of the problem is the dictionary definitions are a little too vague. Most definitions basically say a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example. Mormons have taken this to mean a Christian is someone who sincerely believes they are following Christ's teachings and example. EVs have taken this to mean a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them (because if they are following teachings Christ didn't teach, they aren't following Christ).

[Calm]

Part of the problem is the dictionary definitions are a little too vague.

Again, this is a personal judgment you are making. It is highly likely that those editors were very careful in their choices. I've heard some interesting stories in the past about debates over certain words and what definitions should be included.

Why do you think that your personal judgment should be more important than the educated opinion of people who specialize in language definitions?

[jwhitlock]

The following is a value judgment and is usually directed at Protestants:

Sorry, but I fail to see how a broad generalization about the process of apostasy made by BRM or others relates in any way to the very direct declaration by EVs / fundamentalists that Mormons aren't Christian, aren't saved, are going to hell, and don't know / have any real relationship with God. The EV claims are value judgments made against Mormons as members of a group, as opposed to quotes made by LDS leaders which do not infer or make negative value judgments on the individual members of other churches.

See consig's excellent post earlier on this thread explaining value judgments.

The EV rationalization that "Mormons attacked first" is a shallow cover for what amounts to a very un-Christlike mischaracterization.

[Akboy]

Actually, the more I think about what you have just said Akboy, the more I realize that this is similar to what an abusive husband would say to his spouse - "If that damn woman would realize that I am right and if she would just realize her place, then I wouldn't have to keep tying to beat her down. What do you say to a wife with two black eyes, nothing, I've already told her twice."

Yep Akboy, if those damn Mormoners would learn their places, then we would all just be able to get along. They have to change, but not me. You know it'd be a lot easier if we made all the changes, it'd be easier on you EVers. You can't make any changes like that, now would you, like man, it's all about grace and changes require work and we sure can't have that now, would we.

DUH!!!!!!

I'm not asking you to "learn your place." I have criticized EVs on this issue multiple times, including on this board.

How long has this argument been going on? How long have we've been in this endless cycle of EVs saying "Mormons aren't Christians" and Mormons responding "Yes we are." This cycle isn't getting us anywhere. Yes, EVs do need to change their tactics, but Mormons aren't helping the situation by saying "Yes we are" and asking EVs to stop.

[urroner]

Yes, EVs do need to change their tactics, but Mormons aren't helping the situation by saying "Yes we are" and asking EVs to stop.

So, what are we suppose to say?

[Hannah Rebekah]

I really don't care what the traditional christians (TC) say about what the definition of a Christian is or who can use the title...they are not in charge. I am the one who gets to decide what my beliefs are and how I define who I am, like it or lump it.

My solution and the perfect remedy for everyone, and sorry...I know it may still really irk the TC's is to use the title of....ta-duh:

"LDS Christian"

It certainly kills two birds with one stone; LDS still use the title and it distinguishes us from the traditional Christians so there's no confusion as to who is being talked about. Perfect solution....I've been using this solution on other forums and also here as part of my signature. Hope it catches on with more LDS.