Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[Billy]

a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint.

Are you talking about the church in Salt Lake City or the James Strang (Mormon) Church?

http://www.ChurchofJesusChristofLatterDaySaints.org

"The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

"You have found the true Mormon church, a small group of primitive Latter Day Saints that has been in continuous existence since 1830, but remained in the Midwest when Joseph Smith was martyred in 1844. We support the Prophet Josephâ??s written revelation appointing a successor named James Strang on June 18, 1844, just nine days before the Prophet Joseph was killed. "

[Log]

You'll notice the hyphens in the dictionary definitions because you're neither dishonest nor reading-impaired, I'm sure.

[Billy]

You'll notice the hyphens in the dictionary definitions because you're neither dishonest nor reading-impaired, I'm sure.

Did you know that the original church used the term "Latter Day" not the present "Latter-day" form. I can't recall the exact reference on the top of my head, but I will dig around for it, I think that this can be found in one of Michael Quinn's books.

Addendum

I will look around for any other sources. But from the website http://www.strangite.org/History.htm it states the hyphens issue. Very good pick up on the hyphen issue, most LDS would of missed that one. Along with the fact that the Church changed it's name 3 times up until 1835 1838 and with the hyphen issue make that a 4th name change.

"The church was organized in New York on April 6, 1830. Since 1838 we have continuously been called the â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? in the same style most often used before 1844, without the British hyphenation later adopted by the other Mormons."

[Log]

Did you know that the original church used the term "Latter Day" not the present "Latter-day" form. I can't recall the exact reference on the top of my head, but I will dig around for it, I think that this can be found in one of Michael Quinn's books.

*Yawn*. As if that was at all relevant to anything anyone but you are talking about.

[Billy]

*Yawn*. As if that was at all relevant to anything anyone but you are talking about.

So you are OK with the fact that other sects can call themselves Mormon?

[Log]

So you are OK with the fact that other sects can call themselves Mormon?

No, I rather stand by the dictionaries on this one, as do most other people, and the same also with the word 'Christian'.

[Billy]

I made a mistake in my previous post which I corrected. I said that the church changed it's name 3 times by 1835, that is incorrect, they changed it three times by 1838.

"The official name of the Mormon Church today is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith founded it at the age of 24, in the state of New York on April 6, 1830. It was originally named the Church of Christ, and then in 1834 the name was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. In 1838 it received its current name. . ." http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm

However the quote is not entirely correct because the 3rd name did not have the hyphen which is in the present day form.

[Akboy]

EVs don't own the word 'Christian'. Most other folks use the word 'Christian' just like the dictionary says:

Do Mormons own the word 'hell?' What about 'grace,' 'faith' and 'prophets?' No, they don't. But they still use their own definitions of those words when they are talking with other people. If they do with those words, what's wrong with doing it with 'Christian?'

When EVs denigrate the Christianity of Mormonism outside of the EV culture, they are using an idiosyncratic definition of 'Christian' without informing their intended audience of the specialized meaning they have attached to the word, so the audience will therefore take the word 'Christian' at face (dictionary) value. EVs are engaged in well-poisoning, pure and simple.

Is it really idiosyncratic? Look at them again.

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

â??noun

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11. a male given name.

When someone says 'I'm a Christian' or 'I don't think Mormons are Christian,' they are using the term as a noun. Definitions 1-6 are of adjectives. So we should focus on 7 and 8. 'A person who believes in Jesus Christ.' In Jesus' time, if you believed in something, you changed your life and followed the principle or object of that belief. Can someone be following Jesus if they totally misunderstand some of His most important teachings, like salvation?

'A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ.' How can someone exemplify the teachings of Christ if they are contradicting His teaching of salvation?

[mpschmitt]

I've been collaborating with some other LDS folks and Evangelical folks on the following wikipedia page whose task is trying to examine the similarities and differences between Mormonism and other more "traditional" (in the sense of coming from credal Christianity), Christian churches.

If anyone's interested in contributing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity

I've not been too keen on the title, but the page was started long before I ever got there so I have no control over that (sorry!)...

I've also not been too keen on the term "traditional Christianity" used in the article, but after much debate and discussion that stuck (sorry!)...

I've also also not been too keen on the use of "Latter Day Saints" rather than "Latter-day Saints". Apparently this is to include other branches than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but what is really being discussed is the doctrine of said organization.(sorry about that too, but it also stuck!). The other branches (Community of Christ, Strangites, etc) receive only passing mention

I originally started contributing to it because the way it read, it sounded more like an anti-mormon tract than a wikipedia page. It has since drifted into more objective waters and the contributors have developed a pretty good relationship with one another (the discussions page has had some interesting conversations between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints on various topics for the article).

On this topic, here is something I find interesting:

There are points of overlap between Mormon theology and other Christian churches, and departures, just as there are points of overlap and departure between Baptist and Catholic theology (transubstantiation, the infallibility of the Pope, the mode of baptism, purgatory, prayer to Saints etc), or Catholic and Lutheran theology (Marrying rights for clergy, The Ninety-Five Theses etc), or Calivinist and Methodist (and Arminianism) (The Predestination versus Free Will and foreknowledge issue, etc), or the conflict over the oneness of God between groups like Oneness Pentacostalism (One God in one person with three manifestations) and other Christian branches (One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct), or the Word of Faith movement, versus the rest of Evangelical Christianity (the prosperity Gospel, the "faith is a force, and words are the containers of the force" doctrine, the issue over whether Christ went to hell after suffering on the cross, versus what other Christian groups teach)...All of these conflicts of theology (and that's by no means even remotely complete as a list of conflicts), are significant theological issues. In many instances I would say they are comparably significant to a number of Mormon differences that are considered "controversial" and "downright heretical". So it has been mysterious to me at times that Mormons are for some reason considered to be a greater threat to "traditional Christianity" than the internal conflict over some pretty fundamental issues that goes on within "traditional Christianity"...

It seems that it's alright to debate aspects of the nature of God for instance, as long as you don't come right out and say "I am a prophet and have spoken with God and this is what he told me about his Nature". That for some reason is too far a stretch for many to accept. But what about the debates within and amongst traditional Christian faiths? Where is the line of demarcation that determines essential from non-essential Christian doctrine and how is it determined which topics are off limits for debate if you don't have or claim prophetic direction?

[Billy]

No, I rather stand by the dictionaries on this one, as do most other people, and the same also with the word 'Christian'.

Mormons are those who follow Mormon or the Book of Mormon and the founder's teachings namely Joseph Smith. Why are you trying to deny those who follow these teachings the title of Mormon? Isn't this exactly the same argument that you are trying to make with the term Christianity?

[Log]

Mormons are those who follow Mormon or the Book of Mormon and the founder's teachings namely Joseph Smith. Why are you trying to deny those who follow these teachings the title of Mormon? Isn't this exactly the same argument that you are trying to make with the term Christianity?

So, it's not dishonesty on your part; you ARE reading-impaired. I'm sorry. I hear they have schools for that. And, when you are done with school, there are dictionaries for you to access. Good luck!

[Billy]

So, it's not dishonesty on your part; you ARE reading-impaired. I'm sorry. I hear they have schools for that. And, when you are done with school, there are dictionaries for you to access. Good luck!

You just don't want to answer the question, I understand.

[Pahoran]

Mormons are those who follow Mormon or the Book of Mormon and the founder's teachings namely Joseph Smith. Why are you trying to deny those who follow these teachings the title of Mormon? Isn't this exactly the same argument that you are trying to make with the term Christianity?

Why no, it isn't.

But thank you for asking.

You see, Billy Bob, what both of these questions have in common is the issue of clear communication. The Church's position on them is therefore entirely consistent: we wish people to know the truth and not be deceived; therefore we correct those who falsely claim that we are not Christians, and we correct those who mistakenly--or otherwise--confuse other churches with us.

From that standpoint, the position of our opponents seems likewise to be consistent: they seem to wish to deceive the uninformed to believe that we do not believe in Christ, and they also seem to wish to deceive them into thinking that the various apostate splinter groups are just us. They know they can't get away with falsely asserting such, so they try to achieve it by a devious manipulation of labels.

Which I think just about covers it. Unless you feel you have a more parsimonious explanation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

You see, Billy Bob, what both of these questions have in common is the issue of clear communication. The Church's position on them is therefore entirely consistent: we wish people to know the truth and not be deceived; therefore we correct those who falsely claim that we are not Christians, and we correct those who mistakenly--or otherwise--confuse other churches with us.

From that standpoint, the position of our opponents seems likewise to be consistent: they seem to wish to deceive the uninformed to believe that we do not believe in Christ, and they also seem to wish to deceive them into thinking that the various apostate splinter groups are just us. They know they can't get away with falsely asserting such, so they try to achieve it by a devious manipulation of labels.

That's a pretty clear and accurate summary of the situation.

[Billy]

From that standpoint, the position of our opponents seems likewise to be consistent: they seem to wish to deceive the uninformed to believe that we do not believe in Christ,

Who said that you don't believe in Christ?

You are making up a false statement and then arguing against that false statement. I have NEVER said that you don't believe in Christ. But I have always maintained that your understanding of Christ and God are different that the traditional view held by mainstream Christianity.

and they also seem to wish to deceive them into thinking that the various apostate splinter groups are just us.

You say that you are Christian because you believe in Christ, fair enough I will go along with that, even if your definition of who Christ and God are are radically different than what mainstream Christianity teaches. The problem that I have is that you then turn around and distance yourself from these splinter groups who call themselves Mormon. You expect mainstream Christianity to welcome you in who they consider you a splinter group, then you turn around a try to distant yourselves from your splinter groups.

(I realize that most mainstream Christians would not consider Mormonism a splinter group)

[Akboy]

Can anyone else shed some light on this?

As I understand it, Mormons are opposed to EVs using their own definition of 'Christian' and then criticizing other groups for not being Christian. Mormons don't do this with 'Christian,' but don't they do it with other terms?

Mormons use their own definition of 'hell' and then criticize other groups for not following them. They do the same thing with 'grace,' 'faith' and 'prophets.' Of course they aren't as vocal about these definitions as EVs are about 'Christian,' but it still seems to be the official position of the Church that other groups are wrong about these topics. So if you're fine with saying that with these terms, then why can't it be said about Christian? Why are Mormons fine with openly using their definitions for many terms, but openly oppose using their definition of Christian?

[consiglieri]

On behalf of the vast majority of Mormons, I think that they are genuinely puzzled when they hear critics refer to them as non-Christian, because the very fundamental cornerstone of the Mormon faith is Jesus Christ; that he is the Son of God and Savior of the World.

When such Mormons hear others call them non-Christian, they are prone to think that this is either done out of ignorance or in an attempt to smear them with a label that, to them, is clearly untrue; a smear done for the political purpose of trying to get non-members to not even give them a chance to explain themselves and their beliefs.

Because of this, it is often a surprise to those non-members who have heard that Mormons are not Christian to find out from Mormons that they do, in fact, believe in Jesus Christ as Savior; which then makes some of those non-members feel they have been misled by the critics.

I would guess that, for the majority of persons in both camps who do not go into the details of why, it simply appears to be a smear campaign.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

Can anyone else shed some light on this?

As I understand it, Mormons are opposed to EVs using their own definition of 'Christian' and then criticizing other groups for not being Christian. Mormons don't do this with 'Christian,' but don't they do it with other terms?

Mormons use their own definition of 'hell' and then criticize other groups for not following them. They do the same thing with 'grace,' 'faith' and 'prophets.' Of course they aren't as vocal about these definitions as EVs are about 'Christian,' but it still seems to be the official position of the Church that other groups are wrong about these topics. So if you're fine with saying that with these terms, then why can't it be said about Christian? Why are Mormons fine with openly using their definitions for many terms, but openly oppose using their definition of Christian?

Light has been shed on it - both in this thread and in other places where you're posting - and yet you continue to dance around it.

I'll try to tell you again.

Claiming that Mormons aren't Christian is making a value judgment. Disagreements on doctrine do not have to be value judgments. There's a significant difference. It's as simple as that.

[Pahoran]

Who said that you don't believe in Christ?

Nobody that I know of. That's why I wrote:

They know they can't get away with falsely asserting such, so they try to achieve it by a devious manipulation of labels.

Is that clear now?

You are making up a false statement and then arguing against that false statement. I have NEVER said that you don't believe in Christ. But I have always maintained that your understanding of Christ and God are different that the traditional view held by mainstream Christianity.

And for once, you are right.

You say that you are Christian because you believe in Christ, fair enough I will go along with that, even if your definition of who Christ and God are are radically different than what mainstream Christianity teaches. The problem that I have is that you then turn around and distance yourself from these splinter groups who call themselves Mormon. You expect mainstream Christianity to welcome you in who they consider you a splinter group, then you turn around a try to distant yourselves from your splinter groups.

Billy, mere repetition of a position is not an argument, and does not support what you said before. Please actually read my post and engage my actual argument. There is no "turn around." I have demonstrated that our position is a consistent one. If you disagree, please produce an argument in support of your position.

(I realize that most mainstream Christians would not consider Mormonism a splinter group)

Speaking of which, has anyone bothered to poll "most mainstream Christians" to find out what they would think?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Akboy]

Light has been shed on it - both in this thread and in other places where you're posting - and yet you continue to dance around it.

I'll try to tell you again.

Claiming that Mormons aren't Christian is making a value judgment. Disagreements on doctrine do not have to be value judgments. There's a significant difference. It's as simple as that.

You defined a 'value judgment' as . . .

- an estimate, usually subjective, of the worth, quality, goodness, evil, etc., of something or someone.

- an assessment that reveals more about the values of the person making the assessment than about the reality of what is assessed

- An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

When Mormons say EVs aren't following the correct doctrines of hell, grace, faith and prophets based on their own definitions of those doctrines, aren't they being subjective? Aren't they making an estimate of the worth or quality of EV doctrines?

Don't those assessments of EVs reveal more about Mormons then they do about EVs?

[consiglieri]

Mormons are those who follow Mormon or the Book of Mormon and the founder's teachings namely Joseph Smith. Why are you trying to deny those who follow these teachings the title of Mormon?

Do you believe the Apostle Peter became the head of the church after Christ's ascension?

If so, what should we call you?

****-head?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Bumped--Mainly because I would hate for the world (and especially Billy) to miss that bit of ribald doggerel I posted at the end of the longest thread in recent memory.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hoops22]

Bumped--Mainly because I would hate for the world (and especially Billy) to miss that bit of ribald doggerel I posted at the end of the longest thread in recent memory.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm sorry, did you say something? I lost focus.

[Anijen]

Have you ever noticed how often Billy uses the word "mainstream" sometimes even quoted with "most mainstream"?

Does he know that his (if he is an EV) mainstream group is far lacking behind that other mainstream group known as the Catholics?

But as Pahoran has wrote with his ever sharp wit and one that I would like Billy to answer is where are your stats billy? Where are your sources? You keep saying most mainstream as if they are as numerous as cars during rush hour traffic. The last most mainstream card you played was with Maklelan and he caught you with it and threw it back in your face (the B. Ehrman as a OT temple expert ...) Come on Billy show us the sources, the poll numbers you are always saying the most mainstream, pony up or stop trying to support your flimsy views with pseudo stats.

but still respectfully yours

Anijen ~ who enjoys fishing in that mainstream Matt. 4: 19