Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[jwhitlock]

This is a two way street. You have no problem banishing non LDS who do not accept the gospel in this life or the next to live an eternity WITHOUT God, but then turn around and complain about it when we are saying basically the same thing. We may call it different things, but in both cases it is an eternity without God.

There's a world of difference between EV hell and the terrestrial kingdom.

To make the two morally equivalent is simply being disingenuous. The two are not, in any way, a valid comparison.

[Billy]

There's a world of difference between EV hell and the terrestrial kingdom.

To make the two morally equivalent is simply being disingenuous. The two are not, in any way, a valid comparison.

Lets just say for argument sake that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and not a Celestial, Terrestial, or Telestial Kingdom.

With the above assumption do you think that it is a disservice to tell people that there is no hell and that if they do not make it into the Celestial Kingdom they will still be in a place that is better than we have it now, if this is not really true?

[jwhitlock]

Lets just say for argument sake that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and not a Celestial, Terrestial, or Telestial Kingdom.

With the above assumption do you think that it is a disservice to tell people that there is no hell and that if they do not make it into the Celestial Kingdom they will still be in a place that is better than we have it now, if this is not really true?

Uh, I'm not sure why you want to take EV doctrine and put it in the place of LDS doctrine in order to make a point about LDS doctrine.

It doesn't work.

And did you note my point that there is a world of difference between EV hell and the terrestrial kingdom? It's the reason your assumption doesn't make any sense.

[Akboy]

Hmmm...so dissension in the ranks. So assuming your analysis is correct, they are NOT Christian then?

I wouldn't really call it dissension because we never claimed we were one unified group. Like I said, it's hard to say from just that website, but my guess would be that they aren't following Christ's teahcings.

But Akboy, don't you see that the very question of "who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them" is the key question at issue in all controversies among Christians? Don't you know that as soon as you introduce that tag into the definition, you are introducing subjective, controversial judgements into what ought to be a simple matter of lexicography?

The issue is 'what does it mean to follow Christ's teachings and example.' How is that a simple matter of lexicography?

In order for verbal communication to work, words have to have meanings that everyone can agree upon. One participant in the conversation can't hijack the word for their own partisan purposes, and then demand that everyone else assent to such hijacking. In order for words to have universal meaning, they have to be allowed to remain in neutral territory, where they are accessible to everyone. It is arrogance of truly Evangelical proportions to demand that we have to use the word as they say it is to be used; and it is intolerable and unworkable to put the word out of reach until everyone agrees just who is really "accurate" in their doctrine and practice.

How can the term 'Christian' be neutral? Isn't it supposed to lean toward Christ's teachings?

That's how Evangelicals honestly use the word. Isn't there a little bit of arrogance saying they can't use the word the way they believe it should be?

So when EV's demand that the word "Christian" and its cognates mean "someone who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them," they are doing two things: (1) they are equivocating a word that is not proprietary to them, and (2) they are trying to privilege their interpretation by smuggling it into the definition. This is an exercise in truly hubristic arrogance.

Almost every Mormon I've talked to about this say a Christian is someone who sincerely believes they are following Christ's example and teachings, even if they're wrong about Christ. That's not in any dictionary definition. That was smuggled into the term.

Both groups read a little into the definition. The question is which is closer to what it means to follow Christ's teachings and example.

The claim that "Christian" is equivalent to "EV Protestant" is one that appears to rest on a number of assumptions. Here, in the dialect of the most learned advocates of this claim, are the assumptions.

1) We is thuh onliest Chrisjuns what thar is anywhar.

2) Tharfor, anybody who calls hisself a Chrisjun is tryin' tuh be jest like us'n.

3) Them Marmunz ben't jest like us'n.

4) Tharfor, them Marmunz ben't Chrisjuns.

We are not claiming we're the only Christians anywhere.

We are not saying people have to be like us to be a Christian.

Yes, those assumptions are wrong. They don't describe what EVs believe.

[Akboy]

I know several people who have a "genuine belief" in God, but they don't have faith in Him, but if one must have genuine faith, on that will produce works, to be saved, then one must believe that works are important in ones salvation.

Clearly we have different ideas of what "genuine belief" means. What do you mean by that term? I don't think someone can have a genuine belief without faith in Him.

No, we believe the only thing important in salvation is genuine belief and faith. The belief must be one that produces works, but that doesn't mean works are required. If you focus on having the right kind of belief, works will come naturally.

[Pahoran]

The issue is 'what does it mean to follow Christ's teachings and example.' How is that a simple matter of lexicography?

That is an issue; and it is a theological/sectarian one. A separate issue is, "what does the word 'Christian' mean?" That is neither theological nor sectarian, but strictly lexical.

How can the term 'Christian' be neutral? Isn't it supposed to lean toward Christ's teachings?

It is supposed to have something or other to do with Christ's teachings. But until there is universal agreement about what, exactly, it means to follow Christ's teachings, then no one group's interpretations can be used as the touchstone for determining the Christianity of anyone else.

Do you practice self-mutilation every time you sin? (Are you typing with your nose?) Do you advocate executing child molesters by drowning, using millstones as weights? If not, then you are not literally carrying out what Jesus is recorded as saying; you are therefore interpreting his teachings. Who says that your interpretations are any better than anyone else's? Well, you do. Which is entirely your prerogative, but it is not your prerogative to insist that your interpretations must become normative for something as essentially neutral as the meaning of a commonly used word.

That's how Evangelicals honestly use the word. Isn't there a little bit of arrogance saying they can't use the word the way they believe it should be?

Since when is honesty necessarily humble? They are honestly being arrogant in claiming to hold the monopoly on the title of "Christian."

Almost every Mormon I've talked to about this say a Christian is someone who sincerely believes they are following Christ's example and teachings, even if they're wrong about Christ. That's not in any dictionary definition. That was smuggled into the term.

Nice try, but allowing people to self-define as following Christ or not is just about the only alternative to what you assume to be preferable, namely, setting up a sectarian tribunal to act as gatekeepers.

Which will never work, because there is no one authority that all Christians recognise. There is one authority that the vast majority of Christians recognise, but that authority regards both us and you as heretical.

Both groups read a little into the definition. The question is which is closer to what it means to follow Christ's teachings and example.

No. The question is which is more workable in an environment where Christians cannot universally agree on what it means to follow Christ's teachings and example.

Modern lexicography is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't lay down the law about what a word is supposed to mean, it reflects how it is actually used. You guys missed the boat on claiming the monopoly on the word by at least forty years.

We are not claiming we're the only Christians anywhere.

We are not saying people have to be like us to be a Christian.

Yes, those assumptions are wrong. They don't describe what EVs believe.

They may not describe how EV's express themselves, but I have encountered plenty of EV's who don't think Catholics are Christian; and plenty more who define the term so narrowly as to include only them.

IOW, you may not come right out and say that you're the only Christians anywhere and that people have to be like you to be Christians; but plenty of your co-religionists are willing say that only (1) creedal trinitarians who (2) believe in salvation by grace, (3) rejecting "works-righteousness" and actual obedience to actual commandments, but holding to (4) sola fide and (5) sola scriptura are Christians.

You don't have to be called Pahoran to join my club; you merely have to be the same height, weight, age, hair colour, eye colour, drive the same car and live at the same address as me.

So you see, my club isn't the least bit exclusive, is it?

Lexical neutrality means that we don't have to take sides or assent to disputed claims in order to participate in the discussion. So let's keep the terminology neutral.

And then we can move on to other things. Such as discussing how Peterson and Ricks fully and finally settled this issue in Offenders for a Word.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Akboy]

That is an issue; and it is a theological/sectarian one. A separate issue is, "what does the word 'Christian' mean?" That is neither theological nor sectarian, but strictly lexical.

So what does the word Christian mean? Do you agree with the dictionary definition?

It is supposed to have something or other to do with Christ's teachings. But until there is universal agreement about what, exactly, it means to follow Christ's teachings, then no one group's interpretations can be used as the touchstone for determining the Christianity of anyone else.

There is a nearly universal agreement, among dictionaries, that a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example. I have no problem with this definition. I'm not saying we should add doctrines to the definition that people need to believe in order to be a Christian. My problem is with the claim that EVs and Mormons are both Christian. Their core teachings contradict each other, so they can't both be following Christ's teachings. Does the lexical definition give any indication someone can be a Christian without actually following Christ's teachings?

Since when is honesty necessarily humble? They are honestly being arrogant in claiming to hold the monopoly on the title of "Christian."

Is the LDS church being arrogant when it claims it's the God's true church and the only church with the full gospel?

Nice try, but allowing people to self-define as following Christ or not is just about the only alternative to what you assume to be preferable, namely, setting up a sectarian tribunal to act as gatekeepers.

EVs have said you need to believe some specific doctrines to be a Christian. They don't punish or penalize people for not agreeing. They don't force people to join their churches. They don't hinder other people from worshiping in any way.

They don't claim any kind of authority.

This argument about gatekeepers uses a false dilemma, either-or fallacy. That is not the only alternative and EVs have proven it. They've been making this claim for many years and they haven't done anything even close to tribunals or gatekeeping.

Lexical neutrality means that we don't have to take sides or assent to disputed claims in order to participate in the discussion. So let's keep the terminology neutral.

What discussion do Mormons want to participate in? Have you, or other Mormons, been told you couldn't join in some conversation or go to an event because you aren't Christian?

If EVs suddenly accepted Mormons as Christians, what would you guys do differently? Would you join EVs in more discussions? Would you join the Evangelical Theological Association, or some other theology group?

[Daniel2]

[Question:] WHY [do] some Christians refuse to allow that Mormonism is Christian.

Answer: For many of the same reasons that any special interest group wants to "control the definition of a term": to either validate or exclude those who they empathize with, or whom they wish to condemn...

In the oft-quoted poetic words of Edwin Markham:

He drew a circle that shut me out--

Heritic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in!

I think the "why?" is pretty much as simple as that. From my experience, everyone "draws" some of BOTH of these type of "circles"--the kind that "shut out," as well as the kind that "take in"--Mormons included. It seems to be human nature to divide the world up into types of people we agree and identify with, and types of people we wish to identify as "the other," whom we think are "wrong."

One of the greatest challenges for me as I have begun a paradigm shift into Unitarian Universalism is to root out these types of "divisions" or this system of "classification of people" that I learned from childhood (as an imperfect human--not necessarily as a former Mormon and former Christian). No doubt I have unjust prejudices of which I am still not yet aware. The more my world-view expands, and the more I come into contact with and hear the stories of others, my desire for empathy and compassion in human relations expand; while my harsh condemnation and rashly judgemental tendancies contract. I appreciate the gentle wisdom of the seven guiding Unitarian Universalist Principles, and continually attempt (albeit imperfectly) to seek to emulate them:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
  
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
  
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
  
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
  

http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

My view,

Darin

[Daniel2]

Boundary Maintanance.

Evengelicals are especially concerned with identifying themselves by excluding those not of their ranks.

As someone who's constantly confronting political action to enforce exclusion by one "not of their ranks," I think that Mormons are likewise "especially concerned" with the same phenomenon, merely in different applications (the LDS church's militant political support to pass Proposition 8 out in California, for just one example).

Darin

[consiglieri]

Answer: For many of the same reasons that any special interest group wants to "control the definition of a term": to either validate or exclude those who they empathize with, or whom they wish to condemn...

In the oft-quoted poetic words of Edwin Markham:

Or in the oftener-quoted words of Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

Weave a circle round him thrice

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

I think your perspective lends your words a certain force, and may cut to the heart of the matter in many instances.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Log]

As someone who's constantly confronting political action to enforce exclusion by one "not of their ranks," I think that Mormons are likewise "especially concerned" with the same phenomenon, merely in different applications (the LDS church's militant political support to pass Proposition 8 out in California, for just one example).

Darin

The Church's political support for Proposition 8 is to prevent the application of hate crime statutes against the member-missionaries for pure speech which might be claimed to be critical of homosexuals and thus intimidating them in the exercise of their newly-forged "rights." It is not aimed at controlling the terms of dialog for rhetorical purposes, as the current thread topic is, but in strict self-defense of life, limb, and property.

[emeliza]

--Consiglieri

Better keep a close eye on this thread Capt. It is getting closer and closer to your 666 posting.

[consiglieri]

Better keep a close eye on this thread Capt. It is getting closer and closer to your 666 posting.

I have to run to court for some hearings this morning, and therefore authorize you as my agent to make post 666 in my stead should I not be available for that momentous occasion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

Or in the oftener-quoted words of Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

Weave a circle round him thrice

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

I think your perspective lends your words a certain force, and may cut to the heart of the matter in many instances.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Or the even more-oftenerest-quoted words of Ogden Nash:

Purity

Is obscurity.

[captain-jack]

Better keep a close eye on this thread Capt. It is getting closer and closer to your 666 posting.

There is no other Capt. beside me, don't you know that?!

[emeliza]

There is no other Capt. beside me, don't you know that?!

You are the Capt of the high seas by all means, but Consig is the Capt of the SSCE. And I do believe he was Capt when you were still Commander Riker. So I think he trumps your card my dear friend.

[captain-jack]

You are the Capt of the high seas by all means, but Consig is the Capt of the SSCE. And I do believe he was Capt when you were still Commander Riker. So I think he trumps your card my dear friend.

I thought Stuess was the commander and chief of the SSCE, and as a member of the UMW, how do you know our hierarchy?

Either way, so long as I am not thought of as the one who has poop in their pants, I believe I can be satisfied.

[emeliza]

I thought Stuess was the commander and chief of the SSCE, and as a member of the UMW, how do you know our hierarchy?

Either way, so long as I am not thought of as the one who has poop in their pants, I believe I can be satisfied.

Close

Consig is Captain Poopie Pants of the SSCE. I believe he is numero uno.

Doctor Steuss, Vice President of Evil

Structurecop, Tyler of SSCE

Emeliza, Secretary

I am member of the SSCE and the UMW's. I just make sure that my left hand doesn't know what my right hand is doing and it is all good.

[consiglieri]

Either way, so long as I am not thought of as the one who has poop in their pants, I believe I can be satisfied.

Not until you see the Spanish Armada approaching, anyway.

Which reminds me of a rather humorous pirate story that I am sure you have already heard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I am member of the SSCE and the UMW's. I just make sure that my left hand doesn't know what my right hand is doing and it is all good.

Emeliza is actually the SSCE's mole in the UMW, who makes regular reports as to all their secret and nefarious doings.

The one thing we can't seem to wring from her is what UMW actually stands for.

(Maybe she is a UMW mole in the SSCE.)

Either way, she is a comely lass and a gorgeous addition to the SSCE ranks.

All the Best!

--Cap'n PP

[captain-jack]

Close

Consig is Captain Poopie Pants of the SSCE. I believe he is numero uno.

Doctor Steuss, Vice President of Evil

Structurecop, Tyler of SSCE

Emeliza, Secretary

I am member of the SSCE and the UMW's. I just make sure that my left hand doesn't know what my right hand is doing and it is all good.

You are also forgetting that I am the Naval commander, and Selek is our official Klingon translator.

Not until you see the Spanish Armada approaching, anyway.

Which reminds me of a rather humorous pirate story that I am sure you have already heard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yes I've heard it. I too have a red shirt and brown pants for such situations.

[emeliza]

You are also forgetting that I am the Naval commander, and Selek is our official Klingon translator.

Evidentally my left hand doesn't even know what my left hand is doing as I wasn't aware of the two titles. I knew you were members though if that makes you feel any better. For some reason I thought Selek was an ambassador of some type though.

[emeliza]

So....we are losing ground here with no one posting....can I help?

Mormons are Christians

Mormons aren't Christians

But yes they are....

No....they aren't....

Why aren't we?

Because you don't believe xyz.

Yes we do (or, we don't because--enter qualifier--).

No you don't (or the ---qualifier---is invalid)

Come one guys, we have to get to 666 here. Consig requested it and as one of his loyal subjects, I must comply.

[Flyonthewall]

Am too!

[Calm]

Okay, here's one for the Consig...