Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The issue is once Humpty Dumpty falls from his comfortable wall of traditional upbringing he'll never be able to put the pieces of his lazy world view back together again..

Stumper..

One nation under God

"Be one or ye are not mine"

If the hand is not the foot, is it not of the body?

We had a great time yesterday (made of many instants)

Here is to hoping.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry that you aren't grasping the concept. It isn't "ONE GOD" versus "THREE GODS", but rather "The Father, and The Son and The Holy Ghost being one God in one sense and "The Father, and The Son and The Holy Ghost being one three Gods" in another.

It really isn't that hard to understand, IF you wanted to.

Also, "ONE GOD versus NOT ONE GOD" is a non sequitur.

[Sigh...] I fear Rob has grown incapable of viewing Mormonism on its own terms and instead tries to force it into a conservative-Protestant paradigm.

I wouldn't mind so much if Rob reserved his dogmatism for his own belief system; it's when he extends that dogmatism to LDS scripture and Joseph Smith's intended meaning that he becomes tedious.

maklelan made a very cogent argument a few posts ago when he pointed out that in John 17, Christ prayed that His disciples would be one with Him and the Father in the way that He and the Father are one. A clear and perspicuous reading of this scripture leads to the conclusion that God and Christ are one in purpose, just as He wants His disciples to be one in purpose. It would be nice if Rob would acknowledge that such a conclusion is plausible, at least. Instead, he charges us with being "woefully inadequate" in our explanation of what Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon scripture mean in characterizing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one God."

Or does Rob harbor the notion that the disciples of Christ will one day meld themselves into a single physical entity?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[zerinus]

1. Statements from 1827-1830 affirming one God as the creator, that this God has been God from all eternity, and specifically that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God:

<snip>

2. Statements from later in Joseph's life (1835-1844) affirming a plurality of Gods that made the world, that our God has not been God from all eternity, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one God but three Gods:

<snip>

In review: In the Book of Mormon and in Joseph Smith's earliest revelations, we find statements that explicitly state that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God," whereas later Joseph explicitly states that they are "three Gods" and that the idea of them being "one God" is curious, requires them to be "crammed into one God," making him "a giant or a monster." In the earlier statements, God has been God without change from everlasting, an unchangeable being from all eternity; in the later statements, Joseph argues that we have falsely imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, and that instead God came to be God.

I am a bit puzzled by your question, because I think you already know enough about LDS doctrine to know the answer to that question: the answer is that they are one in purpose, mind, and will; not that they are physically one, or that they are essentially or substantially one. In other words, there is no contradiction between the two apparently contradictory statements. Both sets of teachings or declarations are true at the same time, without contradicting each other.

This apparent contradiction exists in the Bible as too. Here are biblical statements suggestive of the oneness of the Father and the Son:

John 10:

30 I and my Father are one.

John 14:

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Here are verses that suggest the opposite, that they are two separate persons—meaning two separate Gods. It doesn't make sense for them to be two separate persons without them being two separate Gods:

John 14:

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 17:

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

1 Corinthians 8:

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

There are even verses that explain how they are one—or rather, how they are not one. In whichever way it is that they are “one,” it is not in the way that you guys think:

John 17:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So the bottom line is that there is no more contradiction between what Joseph Smith has taught in different places than there is in the Bible. They both teach the same thing. The apparent “contradiction” is observable in both.

Edited October 20, 2011 by zerinus

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[Sigh...]

Or does Rob harbor the notion that the disciples of Christ will one day meld themselves into a single physical entity?

I have a question that I would hope we could get some clarity on. How are God and Christ one? Of course, I fear, that we will go down the road of nebulous terms and trying to explain things in terms of "They are one in substance or essence". Which leads to the question of, "What does being one in essence mean?".

[Vance]

[Sigh...] I fear Rob has grown incapable of viewing Mormonism on its own terms, instead trying to force it into a conservative-Protestant paradigm.

I don't know why he is incapable, but it is rather obvious that he is incapable of doing so.

It would be nice if Rob would acknowledge that such a conclusion is plausible, . . .

That would be heresy to his anti-Mormon followers/employers. Such an exhibition of reason would be unpalatable for them.

Or does Rob harbor the notion that the disciples of Christ will one day meld themselves into a single physical entity?

He studiously avoids issues for which he can't provide reasonable explanations, like this one.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

It appear that Bowman has moved on to his latest quibbling nit picking attack.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Vance

[Zakuska]

I have a question that I would hope we could get some clarity on. How are God and Christ one? Of course, I fear, that we will go down the road of nebulous terms and trying to explain things in terms of "They are one in substance or essence". Which leads to the question of, "What does being one in essence mean?".

I like the "one substance" idea.... and then all the twisting and contorting to explain a unsubstantial God.

[altersteve]

I have a question that I would hope we could get some clarity on. How are God and Christ one? Of course, I fear, that we will go down the road of nebulous terms and trying to explain things in terms of "They are one in substance or essence". Which leads to the question of, "What does being one in essence mean?".

Fortunately, you don't have to ask, "What does being one in heart, mind, voice, and love mean?"

[Scott Lloyd]

So the bottom line is that there is no more contradiction between what Joseph Smith has taught in different places than there is in the Bible. They both teach the same thing. The apparent “contradiction” is observable in both.

To claim that Joseph taught conflicting doctrine is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. To accept the argument as valid, one must embrace Rob's erroneous interpretation of what the scriptures mean by God and Christ being one God. Which, of course, we as Mormons do not.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

It appear that Bowman has moved on to this latest quibbling nit picking attack.

Huh?

[Vance]

Huh?

Typo!

It appear that Bowman has moved on to his latest quibbling nit picking attack.

[Ares]

Wow! Great thread, great arguments! Ares was in here what four or five times and the thread was never locked out. I feel better now about starting a thread one day and having a chance of it staying open too.

[Mudcat]

I have a question that I would hope we could get some clarity on. How are God and Christ one? Of course, I fear, that we will go down the road of nebulous terms and trying to explain things in terms of "They are one in substance or essence". Which leads to the question of, "What does being one in essence mean?".

Hi Mola,

Hope you don't mind me playing ball on this one.I can't speak for other Trinitarians on the matter. In some respect, we like other religions have some mysterious elements we don't fully know and just take on faith.

But to answer, bold mine, I don't think God and Christ are one in the sense that God is one being and Christ is another being and their is some "oneness" X factor that links them that needs some sort of explanation.

I've expressed it before, but I see it in musical terms. Take "Cream" in example. Despite all the awesome songs Cream produced, for those who are familiar with Cream, we know that Cream was Jack Bruce, Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. I sort of see God this way, accept it's different in some respects. Cream broke apart back in 68, but God will never break up. To coin a line from the movie "Drum Line"... If God was a rock and roll band and had a motto, I think it would be "One band, One Sound." You could count this an analogy I suppose Mola,.. but this is actually the best way that I can express it, so maybe it's a bit deeper than an analogy.

To answer the question. "How are God and Christ one?" to me is like asking how Clapton was Cream. It wouldn't have been Cream without Clapton, Bruce or Baker. God would not be God without the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

There is more to it, and this is the part I can't express so well... it has to do with the notion that God will not break up, like Cream broke up. Cream was something, until it's elements fell apart. Now we can only hear what Cream was. As long as the unity that held Cream together was in place, then Clapton was just as much Cream as Bruce or Baker. Now no one is Cream. It was just a really good band, way back when.

IMO, with God there is an eternal unity that will never fall asunder and Christ is just as much God as the Holy Spirit and the Father are God.

That is my take on it.

I don't plan to introduce nebulous terms. It is what it is.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Edited October 20, 2011 by Mudcat

[altersteve]

Hi Mola,

Hope you don't mind me playing ball on this one.I can't speak for other Trinitarians on the matter. In some respect, we like other religions have some mysterious elements we don't fully know and just take on faith.

But to answer, bold mine, I don't think God and Christ are one in the sense that God is one being and Christ is another being and their is some "oneness" X factor that links them that needs some sort of explanation.

I've expressed it before, but I see it in musical terms. Take "Cream" in example. Despite all the awesome songs Cream produced, for those who are familiar with Cream, we know that Cream was Jack Bruce, Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. I sort of see God this way, accept it's different in some respects. Cream broke apart back in 68, but God will never break up. To coin a line from the movie "Drum Line"... If God was a rock and roll band and had a motto, I think it would be "One band, One Sound." You could count this an analogy I suppose Mola,.. but this is actually the best way that I can express it, so maybe it's a bit deeper than an analogy.

To answer the question. "How are God and Christ one?" to me is like asking how Clapton was Cream. It wouldn't have been Cream without Clapton, Bruce or Baker. God would not be God without the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

There is more to it, and this is the part I can't express so well... it has to do with the notion that God will not break up, like Cream broke up. Cream was something, until it's elements fell apart. Now we can only hear what Cream was. As long as the unity that held Cream together was in place, then Clapton was just as much Cream as Bruce or Baker. Now no one is Cream. It was just a really good band, way back when.

IMO, with God there is an eternal unity that will never fall asunder and Christ is just as much God as the Holy Spirit and the Father are God.

That is my take on it.

I don't plan to introduce nebulous terms. It is what it is.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Your analogies are interesting, but I get your point, and I don't think it really contradicts anything a Latter-day Saint believes about the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Just as Bruce, Clapton, and Baker (three separate and distinct beings) are united as one band, so are Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (three separate and distinct beings) united as one Godhead, or one God.

And this can be explained, and it should be if we wish to understand it, for we must understand if we wish to enter into that unity (John 17). It is a oneness of heart, mind, intent, voice, and love. It's a very easy and important concept to understand.

[Mudcat]

Your analogies are interesting, but I get your point, and I don't think it really contradicts anything a Latter-day Saint believes about the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Just as Bruce, Clapton, and Baker (three separate and distinct beings) are united as one band, so are Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (three separate and distinct beings) united as one Godhead, or one God.

And this can be explained, and it should be if we wish to understand it, for we must understand if we wish to enter into that unity (John 17). It is a oneness of heart, mind, intent, voice, and love. It's a very easy and important concept to understand.

Steve, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think there is a difference that goes beyond semantic in how we reference things.

I would say that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From my limited understanding of LDS beliefs, you guys seem to look at it more like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.

There is a difference that goes beyond the semantics of the "is" and the "are" in how we look at the picture.

edit add - I think somewhere along the way we are faced with the inexplicable part of things. I suppose I like to think that we actually meet somewhere there in the things we can't fully reach. Maybe it's not at all very different and it just seems that way because we are both headed for something, but headed at it from differing directions. Hopefully, it is simply our journeys to our destination that is only different, rather than both.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited October 20, 2011 by Mudcat

[3DOP]

Your analogies are interesting, but I get your point, and I don't think it really contradicts anything a Latter-day Saint believes about the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Just as Bruce, Clapton, and Baker (three separate and distinct beings) are united as one band, so are Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (three separate and distinct beings) united as one Godhead, or one God.

And this can be explained, and it should be if we wish to understand it, for we must understand if we wish to enter into that unity (John 17). It is a oneness of heart, mind, intent, voice, and love. It's a very easy and important concept to understand.

Altersteve...

Steve, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think there is a difference that goes beyond semantic in how we reference things.

I would say that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From my limited understanding of LDS beliefs, you guys seem to look at it more like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.

There is a difference that goes beyond the semantics of the "is" and the "are" in how we look at the picture.

edit add - I think somewhere along the way we are faced with the inexplicable part of things. I suppose I like to think that we actually meet somewhere there in the things we can't fully reach. Maybe it's not at all very different and it just seems that way because we are both headed for something, but headed at it from differing directions. Hopefully, it is simply our journeys to our destination that is only different, rather than both.

Regards,

Mudcat

Steve, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think there is a difference that goes beyond semantic in how we reference things.

I would say that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From my limited understanding of LDS beliefs, you guys seem to look at it more like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.

There is a difference that goes beyond the semantics of the "is" and the "are" in how we look at the picture.

edit add - I think somewhere along the way we are faced with the inexplicable part of things. I suppose I like to think that we actually meet somewhere there in the things we can't fully reach. Maybe it's not at all very different and it just seems that way because we are both headed for something, but headed at it from differing directions. Hopefully, it is simply our journeys to our destination that is only different, rather than both.

Regards,

Mudcat

Mudcat. Cream? Cream? You old codger! Oh man...I saw Clapton in Feb. '78 by himself. I was alone too. While in line outside, I turned down a joint that day, and thank God, never had one since. God is so good. Anyway...memories...Cream is three and Cream is one. God is Three and God is One. Some revelations emphasize threeness, others oneness. I am sure we agree to hold to both.

[Calm]

edit add - I think somewhere along the way we are faced with the inexplicable part of things. I suppose I like to think that we actually meet somewhere there in the things we can't fully reach. Maybe it's not at all very different and it just seems that way because we are both headed for something, but headed at it from differing directions. Hopefully, it is simply our journeys to our destination that is only different, rather than both.

I get the feeling at times that we've been given the same map and have the same destination in mind but have been given a different set of instructions on how to use the map including when it's time to unfold a certain section of it.

[zerinus]

IMO, with God there is an eternal unity that will never fall asunder and Christ is just as much God as the Holy Spirit and the Father are God.

That is my take on it.

I don't plan to introduce nebulous terms. It is what it is.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

So when the Saints are "made one" with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son are one, as taught in John 17:11, 20-23, do you think they will "fall asunder" some day?

[CV75]

I was just noting recently in Jacob 7 how the Lord God, Spirit/Holy Ghost and Christ are all mentioned and represented as having different roles and that the name "God" is also used; Enos 1 also shows how they are separate but one God (God, Christ, Lord God, Redeemer, Father--especially verse 27).

[ERayR]

I would say that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From my limited understanding of LDS beliefs, you guys seem to look at it more like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.

There is a difference that goes beyond the semantics of the "is" and the "are" in how we look at the picture.

Regards,

Mudcat

Mudcat: I would say: that the God(head) is The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost and that they are God(s).

Seems more like a difference that isn't a difference to me. Of course I have heard others define it differently than you do. I find it a little frustrating at times when the boundries seem to shift .

Ray

Edited October 20, 2011 by ERayR

[shalamabobbi]

If the Father Son and Holy Ghost are separate as individuals then their unity is wonderful and part of the greatness of God.

If the unity is simply mechanical in nature then it is part of a horrific fact related to nothing with meaning and makes the pronouncement of "Father" reminiscent of a quote from the movie "The Island of Dr. Moreau"..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola,

Hope you don't mind me playing ball on this one.I can't speak for other Trinitarians on the matter. In some respect, we like other religions have some mysterious elements we don't fully know and just take on faith.

But to answer, bold mine, I don't think God and Christ are one in the sense that God is one being and Christ is another being and their is some "oneness" X factor that links them that needs some sort of explanation.

I've expressed it before, but I see it in musical terms. Take "Cream" in example. Despite all the awesome songs Cream produced, for those who are familiar with Cream, we know that Cream was Jack Bruce, Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. I sort of see God this way, accept it's different in some respects. Cream broke apart back in 68, but God will never break up. To coin a line from the movie "Drum Line"... If God was a rock and roll band and had a motto, I think it would be "One band, One Sound." You could count this an analogy I suppose Mola,.. but this is actually the best way that I can express it, so maybe it's a bit deeper than an analogy.

To answer the question. "How are God and Christ one?" to me is like asking how Clapton was Cream. It wouldn't have been Cream without Clapton, Bruce or Baker. God would not be God without the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

There is more to it, and this is the part I can't express so well... it has to do with the notion that God will not break up, like Cream broke up. Cream was something, until it's elements fell apart. Now we can only hear what Cream was. As long as the unity that held Cream together was in place, then Clapton was just as much Cream as Bruce or Baker. Now no one is Cream. It was just a really good band, way back when.

IMO, with God there is an eternal unity that will never fall asunder and Christ is just as much God as the Holy Spirit and the Father are God.

That is my take on it.

I don't plan to introduce nebulous terms. It is what it is.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I appreciate your thoughts. I get it. And I have no issues with "Its a mystery." I guess my response is generally more towards those that are critical of the LDS because we cannot explain every little detail of very thing. Of course as others point, the analogy is more in line with LDS thinking.

I guess the issue for me is the contradiction of terms. How can 3 = 1. I know, I know, there are various ways to get there. 3 distinct person but they are not separate and people talk in terms of metaphysical oneness but they don't mean that. I don't see any way to not have 3 Gods but they are one God. Always maintaining the separation and distinctness. And they would be one in the way Cream is. Oh well. I guess this will always be a point of difference in the LDS theology and mainstream theology.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I’m satisfied that I have stated my views clearly enough regarding my position, which is that I or any other Christian teacher is authorized to discern whether someone’s stated beliefs stand adequately within the circle of acceptable Christian doctrine or fall outside the parameters of genuine, authentic Christian beliefs. I don’t care to rehash the matter further.

I had written that “Christians need to know what those standards are for a variety of reasons:

• because knowing them is a safeguard to the soundness of their own faith
  
• because they need to teach them to their children
  
• because, if they are teachers or leaders in the church, they have a responsibility to make sure that the members know what sound Christian doctrine is for their own spiritual health and development
  
• because Christians need to have some idea what groups of professing Christians need to be evangelized due to a lack of sound knowledge of the gospel and its supporting doctrinal truths and what groups do not need to be evangelized (e.g., Baptists do not need to evangelize Calvary Chapelites but do need to evangelize Christian Scientists)”
  

You replied:

I've not once seen any of these concerns expressed in relation to this issue. Every single time I've ever seen anyone assert their authority to declare another group non-Christian it has been for the sole purpose of excluding that group from some perceived benefit. Can you point to public examples of that authority being exercised expressly for each of the purposes above?

What I said above was that “Christians need to know what those standards are” for the reasons I listed (and others). You continue to be fixated on someone supposedly “assert[ing] their authority to declare another group non-Christian.” In the sense that you apparently mean it, I am not defending the idea that anyone has “authority” to do that. It’s my guess that this impasse will continue to prevent this discussion going anywhere. However, all one needs to do is to look at the most popular books on cults, false religions, heresies—whatever terms they happen to use—to see that the types of concerns I mentioned are in play, with evangelizing people in heretical religions being commonly the dominant concern.

In my book Orthodoxy and Heresy (1992), pages 30-32, I made some comments of relevance to your question, discussing three ways in which Christians may and should engage in “judging”:

(1) Judging truth from error and good from evil. The New Testament is emphatically clear that we are to judge truth from error and good from evil. We are to do this, not merely as individuals, but corporately, as the church (Rom. 12:2, 9; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-22). These passages especially focus on the need to discern true revelations from false revelations. Those who claim to be prophets, who claim to speak under the inspiration of the Spirit, must have their teachings tested by the teaching of the apostles and prophets in Scripture (Acts 17:11; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:2; 1 John 4:1-2; Jude 17).

(2) Judging unrepentant sinners in the church. Both Jesus and Paul taught that those who commit serious sins that violate the integrity of the church, and who refuse to repent, should be excluded from Christian fellowship (Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 5:9-13). This is not a matter of judging their eternal future. It is not a matter of consigning them to eternal punishment. Rather, it is a matter of bringing discipline to the unrepentant and maintaining the integrity of the church. In other words, it is for the good of both the sinner and the church.

Again, note that this is the responsibility of the church as a whole, not of isolated individuals. Jesus indicates that the judgment must be made through due process. Such due process safeguards against superficial judgments.

(3) Judging teachers of false versions of Christianity. Not only are we obligated to reject for ourselves false prophetic revelations and false doctrines, but we are obligated to reject from Christian fellowship those who bring them. Once again, the Bible is explicit on this point (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Tim. 3:16-4:4; Titus 3:10-11). False teachers are to be identified, by name if necessary (2 Tim. 2:17), and the church warned not to support their teaching.

Again, our fallibility in making such judgments must be admitted, but it does not relieve us of our responsibility. If I saw some people about to drink acid in the mistaken belief that they were drinking water, I would warn them. I would not let the fact that I might possibly be mistaken prevent me from issuing the warning. If they disputed my claim, I would not let the matter drop, but would insist that they examine the fluid with me to make sure. Nor would I let the fact that I am not a chemist stop me from issuing the warning. Even nonchemists can tell the difference between water and acid, if they take the time to learn some basic facts about both.

Similarly, it is entirely appropriate to warn others that the religion they are “consuming” is bad for their spiritual health. Before we can do that, of course, we need to learn to tell the difference between true Christianity and false versions of the Christian faith.

Broadly speaking, evangelical teachers give attention to the issue of heretical groups for two reasons. One such reason is that it benefits evangelicals themselves (by protecting them from falling into error, by contrasting false doctrine with true doctrine so they can tell the difference and know why the truth is important, by helping them understand their neighbors and loved ones who are in such groups, etc.). The other reason is for the purpose of evangelizing members of those heretical groups. The latter tends to dominate evangelical books on heretical groups, but both types of reasons are involved. Look at the books on heretical groups by such diverse authors as Walter Martin, Ron Enroth, Richard Abanes, Alan Gomes, and me, and you can see this quite easily. And here’s the point: Neither of these types of reasons has anything to do with “excluding” people “from some perceived benefit.” If a Jehovah’s Witness is spiritually lost, he’s lost; denying that they are genuinely Christians doesn’t exclude them from anything they would otherwise have if we didn’t deny that they were Christians. We evangelical critics of the LDS religion are not trying to exclude Mormons from something; we’re trying to educate our own people so (a) they won’t accept the false doctrines that the LDS religion and other similar groups teach, and so (b) they will reach out in love with truth to Mormons. How is that “excluding” you from anything?

You wrote:

I have seen Christians caution others about staying away from heresies, but the consequence is always just branding as a heretic. I have never seen a Christian warn another that some perceived heresy will land them outside the boundaries of what has been authoritatively declared to be Christianity. I have only ever seen that card played for the purpose of declaring a person or group already outside the boundaries of Christianity. Can you point to any public examples of the former? I can point to numerous public examples of the latter.

It’s my guess that you have only looked at this issue from the perspective of what evangelicals say about Mormons. If so, that would explain why you’ve only seen what you say you’ve seen. Quoting again from my book Orthodoxy and Heresy:

“If a group of people arises within the Christian church that begins to teach false doctrine so contrary to Christian beliefs that those following it can hardly be considered practicing Christians, the church has the responsibility (not merely the right) to divide itself from that group” (34).

Heresy is heresy, whether the person advocating it does so from the “outside” or from the “inside” of the orthodox Christian community. I make no distinction theologically between a heretic in the Episcopal Church who denies the resurrection of Christ and a heretic in the Church of Christ, Scientist, who denies the resurrection of Christ. Both claim to be Christians, both say they follow Jesus, but both are heretics whose doctrines place them outside the authentic Christian faith, regardless of their institutional affiliations. And my view on this is typical of evangelicals.

[zerinus]

I’m satisfied that I have stated my views clearly enough regarding my position, which is that I or any other Christian teacher is authorized to discern whether someone’s stated beliefs stand adequately within the circle of acceptable Christian doctrine or fall outside the parameters of genuine, authentic Christian beliefs. I don’t care to rehash the matter further.

<snip>

The problem still remains though, how would someone like a Mormon choose which one of the "competing theologies" in Christendom is the right one for him to accept in place of Mormonism? Let's suppose I decided to follow your advice, and abandon Mormonism in favor of one of the mainstream Christian denominations; how should I decide which is the right one? Christianity (especially Protestantism) is split up into many competing factions; and they all use the same criteria that you are advocating to determine that their interpretation of the Bible is the closest to the real thing. So if your methodology is the correct way to make the kind of "judgements" you are advocating, how come it has led to such diverse and competing interpretations of Christianity resulting in countless numbers of sects and churches? And how should a Mormon like me decide which is the right one to choose?

[Hannah Rebekah]

I'm wondering if these quotes may shed some light on this discussion?

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)

The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. (Origen in Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers, 324.)

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing.( Origin, De Principiis, 4:1:36 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:381.)

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah