LDS want "apostate" Christians to call them Christian

[consiglieri]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

[Notquitewetyet]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

Hi,

I posted this in the other thread as a direct response to your similar question:

The best example of this was, when I was talking to one of my friends about Warren Jeffs, and referred to him as "Mormon"

"Jeffs isn't Mormon"

"Well, he believes that Joseph Smith is God's messenger. He considers himself Mormon, so, saying he's not Mormon, is kind of like saying Latter-day Saints aren't Christian"

"But, we are Christian. But Jeffs isn't Mormon."

"Is Jeffs Christian then?"

"No. He practices polygamy."

So, do those Saints who follow the fundamentals of the Gospel, who are denied being part of "Mormonism" by LDSs, how does this reflect on the question of the label "Christian" being denied to LDSs?

I think what drives this is two things:

1. The belief that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Only True Church with priesthood authority and a connection with God.

2. A desire to have good publicity so that prospective converts aren't turned off to the message the missionaries are there to sell.

They view 1 as necessary, in order to believe in the Church and the Priesthood, and 2 as being necessary to bring souls to the fount of Priesthood authority. Of course, it's a paradox.

[LeSellers]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

I prefer to be called a "Saint", all other things being equal. If they will do so, I will not ask them to call me a "Christian". But, instead, they want to call me a cultist, a "Mormon", and they expect me to accept their pronouncement.

In the animal kingdom, the rule is , eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.

All other things are not equal. Being excluded from the "club" has one serious problem: It causes people to believe, falsely, that we do not believe in Christ.

That is the whole issue, as far as I am concerned.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

There is no paradox here.

Contrary to many sectarians, Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian.

When this is understood, the perceived paradox, like all illusions, vanishes.

[erichard]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

....

Hi,

If other churches are apostate, and your church is not apostate, then why should you let them get away with saying you are "not Christian"?

Is there a difference between wanting to be called a "Christian" and NOT wanting to be called "not Christian"?

Just my thoughts on this matter.

Richard

[Cold Steel]

We're only trying to get our terms correct. If we used the same definition of Christianity that the sectarians use, they would not be Christians in our eyes and we would not be Christians in theirs. What they're doing is a public relations ploy and they're being dishonest. For all their accusations that we're not Christians (because we worship a "different" Jesus), it's like saying a person cannot be a citizen of the United States because they believe in a "different" Lincoln. Where's the sense in that?

My wife and I took some people to the temple's visitor's center and one of them remarked, on seeing the portraits of Jesus, "I was told that you're not Christians, but that's not true; not if you believe in the crucifixion and resurrection." Whoever told her we weren't Christians misinformed her and did so intentionally.

I recently read an article where the writer complained of how the word "evangelical" was being misused and slurred. They certainly don't like it when others play the game by their rules to their detriment.

We cannot preach the gospel to the world if we're abusing the religions of others, and we expect the same courtesy. There was a time when President McKay had a very dim view of Catholicism, but by the time he died, he had done a complete turnaround. Respect is something we're losing as a society. It's also something that vanished from the Nephite society shortly before its demise. Contention really is of the Devil, and sometimes we have to be reminded of that.

[3DOP]

I prefer to be called a "Saint", all other things being equal. If they will do so, I will not ask them to call me a "Christian". But, instead, they want to call me a cultist, a "Mormon", and they expect me to accept their pronouncement.

All other things are not equal. Being excluded from the "club" has one serious problem: It causes people to believe, falsely, that we do not believe in Christ.

That is the whole issue, as far as I am concerned.

Lehi

Le Sellers,

Thomas Szasz, eh? Wow. Blast from the past. "Define or be defined". Not challenging...I trust you...I would be interested though if you have the full reference. I know Szasz from his book of some years ago which attacks the notion of "mental illness". Perhaps he did some other forms of philosophizing with which I am unfamiliar?

[LeSellers]

Thomas Szasz, eh? Wow. Blast from the past. "Define or be defined". Not challenging...I trust you...I would be interested though if you have the full reference.

No.

I classify Szasz in the same general category as Ayn Rand: a champion of freedom, but morally misguided.

I've read Rand, I haven't really read Szasz

I know Szasz from his book of some years ago which attacks the notion of "mental illness". Perhaps he did some other forms of philosophizing with which I am unfamiliar?

He opposed the worship of science (including medicine), especially "psychiatry", and he opposed overreaching government. For both of these, I applaud him.

He was right more frequently than most intellectuals. That is the praise I can shower him with.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

I don't agree there is a paradox.

Republicans, democratics, libertarians, socialists, and others

differ radically in their political views. They often disagree

violently over what it means to be American. Yet they are all

Americans.

The same is true of "Christianity".

Bernard

[Aquilifer]

A topic related to this just opened up on By Common Consent. A few paragraphs rang true to me:

The problem is that when Christians demand that Mormons stop describing themselves as â??Christian,â? they leave us with no good way to acknowledge what is at the core of our theology, which isâ??sorry, Christiansâ??Christâ??s atoning sacrifice. All of the weirdnessâ??the pre-mortal existence, the three distinct (and physical) personages of the Godhead, boy prophets digging up gold plates in the woods, strange and mysterious undergarmentsâ??none of it means anything without Christ. None of it has ever meant anything without Christ. So when someone asks us, â??Are you a Christian?â? what should we say? â??Noâ?? Really? Or â??Yes, butâ?¦â?? But what? â??But I belong to a cult of Christianity?â? I donâ??t see that tripping off the tongue either.

Perhaps, we might argue, since itâ??s those â??traditionalâ? Christians who want to restrict the definition of Christianity, it should be incumbent upon them to use the modifiers. But I for one donâ??t object to using a modifier myself. Iâ??ll happily refer to myself as, say, a â??Mormon Christian.â? (Heaven knows itâ??s a heckuva lot less cumbersome than â??member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,â? which wears me out just typing it). I mean, maybe I donâ??t want unsuspecting persons assuming that I believe in the Trinitarian God, either. (Harumph!)

How long have Mormons been trying to convince the rest of the world that weâ??re a Christian religion? Putting Jesus on the cover of the Book of Mormon hasnâ??t worked. Enlarging a portion of our logo hasnâ??t worked. Acting perplexed about the whole issue (â??What? Didnâ??t you notice the big JESUS CHRIST in our name?â?) hasnâ??t worked. The reason none of it has worked is that none of it has addressed the real problem that Christians have with Mormons, which is that we donâ??t believe the same things they do about the nature of God. These are differences that canâ??t be reconciled because we ourselves donâ??t want to reconcile them. If we did reconcile them, we would cease to be Mormons. So why are we knocking ourselves out to get other people to change their definition of â??Christianâ? to accommodate us? I think the last thing we want is to be seen as indistinct from traditional Christianity. So why should we not at long last surrender and re-emphasize those differences? It should pacify those evangelicals who wish to protect the Christianity brand and simultaneously serve as a big â??Suck it, haters!â? to those who think weâ??re trying to steal their identity when weâ??re really only trying to steal their converts.

For me, the only real reason I cling to the "Christian" label for dear life is that I want people to know that I have faith in Christ and His Atonement, and that it is the center of my worship. You can add just about any qualifier to that as you see fit, but I at least want that clear, even if you think that my understanding of Christ is waaaaaaaay off base.

[ttribe]

For me, the only real reason I cling to the "Christian" label for dear life is that I want people to know that I have faith in Christ and His Atonement, and that it is the center of my worship. You can add just about any qualifier to that as you see fit, but I at least want that clear, even if you think that my understanding of Christ is waaaaaaaay off base.

I'd say this is a pretty good summary of where I am on this issue as well.

[jadams_4242]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

Maybe on an individual level some members think this way. but church beleife is that amost religons do have some truth....

[sethpayne]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

I feel like saying Amen every time you post something.

Amen!

[No Touch]

I agree with the OP in seeing the issue. For my own part, I think it's silly and irrelevant. I don't expect other religions to view mine as correct because if they did, then they ought to probably join. I could care less what they call me to be honest, as long as it isn't profane. I refer to the rest of Christianity as "Christians" as often as I mention them at all, so who am I to tell them to recognize me.

IMO, I think it's a waste of time to expect or even try to convince people who are essentially competing with us to be honest about who we are, especially when most of them have grave misconceptions about who we are anyway. We are much better off pleading our own case then asking someone else to do it. And while someone may tell me I am not a Christian, I can simply respond with the fact that I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Creator of the world. I know that He atoned for our sins and that through that act He offers us salvation, and that through His gospel we can receive exaltation. Now whether the other person wants to categorize me as Christian or not is completely up to them. The way I see it, free agency means having the right to be wrong.

[Hoops22]

I don't agree there is a paradox.

Republicans, democratics, libertarians, socialists, and others

differ radically in their political views. They often disagree

violently over what it means to be American. Yet they are all

Americans.

The same is true of "Christianity".

Bernard

But you are citing non-essentials to being an American. A better parallel would be to cite what constitutionally makes an American. There's your line.

[Mike Reed]

There is no paradox here.

Contrary to many sectarians, Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian.

When this is understood, the perceived paradox, like all illusions, vanishes.

Never?

John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.276

For example, Christians who do not believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and his resurrection after the crucifixion -- basic facts of Christianity -- are not Christians at all. They should not claim the name.

John A. Widtsoe, An Understandable Religion, p.172

There are those who say that the doctrine of human brotherhood is theoretical and impractical. Well, then, Jesus the Christ is the theorist. His doctrine of peace has always seemed impractical to self-centered selfishness. Difficult as it may seem in this day of upheaval, among nations and races, to reconcile this commandment with practical good sense, the Church of Christ must practice it to the utmost. That is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Men who reject this doctrine are not Christians.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:230 - 231

Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity.

George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 23: 100 - 101

Why I heard here a few days ago from one of our returned missionaries that the sermon of a notorious preacher in the East, delivered some time since, in which he advocated the wiping out of the Latter-day Saints by the use of arms and cannon and weapons of war-I was told that the sermon when it reached England was re-printed and distributed gratuitously at the doors of the churches. People rejoiced over it, thought it an excellent scheme, and yet you tell those people they are not Christians and they would be shocked, feel insulted and think themselves terribly abused by such a statement, and at the same time were rejoicing over the prospect of the Latter-day Saints being killed and the system being broken up by violence.

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p.201

The Greek, Roman, Anglican, Presbyterian, and other churches, baptize babies into membership. Converted or unconverted in after years they remain members of the church. The world is thus openly in the church. * * * No wonder that infidelity points the finger of scorn at the so called, Christianity! Not that a pious person will be lost on account of a mistake concerning baptism. But thousands grow up with the belief that in infancy they were made Christians-they speak of "Our Savior" and go now and then to church. That they are not Christians never enters their heads. Tell them so, and they indignantly ask whether you think them Jews or Pagans? Were they not born in a Christian land? And were they not made children of God in holy baptisms? But for this delusion they might be brought to discern their true condition-without God, without Christ, without pardon, without hope-and such discernment would lead in many instances to deep concern and true conversion. But the lie is upon their forehead and in their heart. They perish, sacrificed to infant baptism and membership, as completely as are the crushed worshipers of Juggernaut sacrificed to their idols.

Charles W. Penrose, Journal of Discourses, 22:71

This is the condition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in, and in that respect it stands distinct from all other bodies of so-called Christians now extant upon the face of the earth. But in this respect it is exactly the same as the old Church we read about in the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer, The Pattern of Our Parentage, Ensign (CR), November 1984, p.66

You may respond, â??Every Christian knows that.â? Perhaps every Christian does, but so-called Christians, with the help of clergymen, belittle in most unchristian ways our teaching that we are the literal sons and daughters of God.

Elder Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1954, Afternoon Meeting, p.130

For that hour, with Brother Tatsui Sato from the mission office translating my words, they listened. Of these men, none claimed to be Christians, and yet in the discussion that followed I learned that they were in truth more Christian than many of the so-called Christians who neither accept the divinity of the mission of Jesus nor of his reality as the Son of the living God.

Elder Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, April 1969, Third Dayâ??Morning Meeting, p.130

I would rather be concerned in an attempt to enlarge his views and his understanding as to the true concept of that glorified being whom all so-called Christians worship as God, our Heavenly Father.

President George Albert Smith, Conference Report, October 1950, Afternoon Meeting, p.155

In other words, the people, about twenty thousand of them, when they were expelled from Illinois, had their choice. They could have stayed there and lived with so-called Christians (I want to emphasize that), or they could leave and come out here and live with the Indians.

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1956, Third Dayâ??Morning Meeting, p.96

I bear you this testimony in soberness. I repeat, my soul cries out against this heresy that is taught by this group of so-called Christians.

David O. McKay, Conference Report, April 1950, p.179

And yet if we face the facts tonight on the eve of his resurrection, the anniversary of his resurrection, we know that there are many so-called Christians who do not believe in the literal resurrection, and upon your shoulders and the shoulders of ten thousand others in this Church rests the responsibility of declaring to the world his divine Son-ship, his literal resurrection from the grave, and his appearance in person in the presence of the Father to the prophet Joseph Smith.

Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson , p.438

Many-too many-have almost ceased to observe the Sabbath. Not only is it a workday now, but it is supremely a day of amusement and recreation: golf, skiing, skating, hunting, fishing, picnicking, racing, movies, theaters, ball playing, dancing, and other forms of fun-making-all are coming largely to be the rule among too many so-called Christians. Some churches are said to encourage all these, if properly conducted. But God's law says keep the Sabbath day holy. "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work" (Exodus 20:9). (This Nation Shall Endure, p. 51.)

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 12:256

The inhabitants of the earth do not acknowledge the Lord as they should. There are very few but who believe in a Supreme Being; but do they honor God? No, they take His name in vain. Do they believe Him to be what He is? No, they so far mystify the character of Deity that it is impossible for the people to understand it. Do they reverence His name? No. If they believe in a God, He is so far off that they never can get near Him; they know nothing about the conduct of this Being; and He is so far off in their imaginations that He knows nothing about the children of men; at least such is the feeling amongst them, and yet many of the so-called Christians say His centre is everywhere and His circumference nowhere. They have mystified the affairs of salvation to that degree that the whole world of mankind have lost that reverence that is due to the Supreme Being.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 13:267

Now try this, Spiritualists! This is a text for you; and when you have produced order, system and unity among the inhabitants of the earth we will look and see what more there is that we have that the world have not. I am not going into details at all, but I just mention this to see if the Spiritualists can systematize or organize anything. When they have done this it will be time enough to admit that they have some science; but until then we will say that Spiritualism is a mass of confusion, it is a body without parts and passions, principle or power, just like, I do not like to say it, but just like the so-called Christians' God. The creed of the so-called Christians represents that their God is without body, parts or passions; and it should be added, without principle or power, for the latter is the corollary of the former.

George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 14:168

In asking these questions I do not wish to be harsh or to reflect on any sect, but only, in honesty, to place the truth before you from my standpoint. Say the so-called Christians, in answer to the above questions: "We do not believe in these things; this power has been withheld, it was only bestowed in the Apostolic age, and was necessary then for the establishment of the Gospel."

Moses Thatcher, Journal of Discourses, 23:198 - 199

Unlike ministers of the various Christian denominations the Elders of this Church claim no part of the commission given by the Lord to his ancient Apostles, but they do claim, and do have authority from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel, and the signs that followed believers then follow them now, as thousands can testify. Most so-called Christians have long since discarded the idea of works, holding that salvation coming only by grace, belief alone, is essential.

James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3:, p.65

The so-called Christians are most egregiously ignorant of the relations of man and wife; and while they talk quite flippantly of the eternity of matter, they know nothing of the eternity of matter and spirit of which man and woman are composed, nor the eternity of the marital relation, nor the eternal covenants entered into between men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children. The acme of all their hopes in relation to matrimony and its continuance, as expressed in their covenants, is "UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART." What a gloomy picture! What, nothing more? No; this is the general formula of all the churches, of all the millions of so-called Christians who dwell on this continent, and the hundreds of millions of professed Christians throughout the world.

Should I quote more?

Should we also discuss how the Church has recently denied that polygamist Mormons are "Mormon"?

[Notquitewetyet]

Should we also discuss how the Church has recently denied that polygamist Mormons are "Mormon"?

I mentioned the bizarre conversation I had with a friend, who seemed to want to only call Jeffs a polygamist, and not Christian or Mormon above. Most LDSs have such PR driven notions in their heads, they can't step back and honestly evaluate the nonsense, the two-faced hypocrisy of the notion that they have a right to be called Christians, and then a right to dispense a general denominational term at their own whim, thus making them accusers to their brethren.

[Mike Reed]

I mentioned the bizarre conversation I had with a friend, who seemed to want to only call Jeffs a polygamist, and not Christian or Mormon above. Most LDSs have such PR driven notions in their heads, they can't step back and honestly evaluate the nonsense, the two-faced hypocrisy of the notion that they have a right to be called Christians, and then a right to dispense a general denominational term at their own whim, thus making them accusers to their brethren.

Agreed. It indeed seems to be a double standard.

[Bernard Gui]

Should I quote more?

Moses Thatcher? Bernard

Most LDSs have such PR driven notions in their heads, they can't step back and honestly evaluate the nonsense, the two-faced hypocrisy of the notion that they have a right to be called Christians, and then a right to dispense a general denominational term at their own whim, thus making them accusers to their brethren.

This LDS has no PR driven notions in his head.Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

But you are citing non-essentials to being an American. A better parallel would be to cite what constitutionally makes an American. There's your line.

An American is a citizen of the US (sorry my Canadian and Mexican friends).

There are many colors and shapes.

They are all Americans.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.

There are many colors and shapes.

They are all Christian.

Bernard

[Mike Reed]

Moses Thatcher?

Yep. Apostle Moses Thatcher. His statement (delivered in General Conference, btw) was given 14 years before his fallout--his fallout, that is, due to his heroin addiction and trying to take control of the quorum. His history kinda makes Paul H. Dunn's fallout not look all that bad, eh?

You did notice the other quotes I gave, though, right?

[Joseph Antley]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Bsix]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

With all due respect, I think that the paradox as presented is somewhat false.

The claim that "Mormons are not Christians" is usually made to score a propaganda point. Such a claim is made with the intent of ending the interest of someone of considering Mormonism. Truth is, many who come from a traditional Christian background will not consider another religion unless it is founded on Jesus Christ. Matt Slick owner of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry calls this 'innoculating' members of the flock against Mormonism. (See the innoculating tract here.) His reasoning is that it is easier to prevent someone from ever considering Mormonism than it is to bring them out of Mormonism.

Matt Slick makes the classic propaganda argument here: "Is Mormonism Christian?"

I consider the claim that "Mormons are not Christians" to be a deliberate oversimplification -- bordering on a lie. Countercultists know that Mormons have a deep and sincere belief in Jesus Christ and his atonement. They know that we cherish and share many of the exact same Christian faith, moral, sacramental, and cultural values as as traditional Christians. However, it suits their polemic purposes to deliberately cast us as non-Christians.

It would be vastly more accurate to decry Mormonism as false, or apostate Christianity -- heretics. However, the critics know that to label us as misguided Christianity is to acknowledge our foundation in Christian principle. This leaves the door open to discussing the merits of our form of Christianity. It is much easier to simply avoid such a discussion by declaring that we are categorically not Christians.

I have never wished to be identified as a traditional Christian -- nor do I claim to be a traditional Christian. I am a Christian who believes in the atonement of Jesus Christ, in the miracle of his atonement, in the offer of his saving Grace, and in the restoration of his Church.

I may be a heretic...or even lost...in the eyes of traditonal Christians, but I am a believer in Jesus Christ.

If the critics of Mormonism wish to be honest, they'd stop trying to score propaganda points and tell it like they really see it. Mormonism to them is a false form of Christianity that cannot save. That's their opinion...but at least is is honsetly stated.

Regards,

Six

[Bsix]

Yep. Apostle Moses Thatcher. His statement (delivered in General Conference, btw) was given 14 years before his fallout--his fallout, that is, due to his heroin addiction and trying to take control of the quorum. His history kinda makes Paul H. Dunn's fallout not look all that bad, eh?

You did notice the other quotes I gave, though, right?

Please, a call for references.

Moses Thatcher was an apostle. He was released from the Quorum of the Twelve. He remained member of the Church and an apostle. He has been describe as being supportive of the Church for the rest of his life. It is claimed by critics that he was treated for pain medication addiction.

1) Please provide a reference to conclusively support the claim that Thatcher was a heroin addict. (Please, not just second hand sensationalism.)

2) More importantly, please provide a refererence that supports your claim that he was dropped from the Quorum due to his heroin addiction and attempts to take control of the Quorum.

I found the following references on this subject:

Political Manifesto (Comprehensive History of the Church)

Wiki: Moses Thatcher

Perhaps a new thread...so as not to derail this one.

Thanks,

Six

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

You are deep my friend! I believe it was President Kimball who said... "If there are any Christians, we are them." I once had a CARMite pose this question. "If you think we are not Christian, them why do you want to be one of us"? So begs the question...Is a "Christian" any follower of Christ, even if he is in error?