Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

There was continuing revelation during biblical times. Why did God stop?

I might ask you the same question. After all, such revelation did stop. My doctrine says it was not intended to continue indefinitely, so my doctrine agrees with the historical facts. Your doctrine says it was intended to continue indefinitely, so you are the one who needs to explain why the facts were otherwise.

[shalamabobbi]

Your argument does not follow from what Revelation 19:10 says. Evangelicals have the spirit of prophecy in the form of the revelations preserved in Scripture that provide the knowledge on which the testimony of Jesus is based. So I don't have a problem with this verse.

Oh wait. Is that more double talk? What is the difference between Peter's confession of the Christ recorded as scripture and say anyone else's confession of Christ by the same method of revelation that Peter received?

Edit to add:

Or are you saying that your testimony is the recorded revelation that Peter received? If so then you don't have a testimony, the spirit of prophecy, or ongoing revelation - all of which are necessary simply to validate the scriptures that have been given. If this is the case you do not know the Bible to be the word of God anymore than a muslim knows the Qur'an to be the word of God.

Edited October 14, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

I might ask you the same question. After all, such revelation did stop. My doctrine says it was not intended to continue indefinitely, so my doctrine agrees with the historical facts. Your doctrine says it was intended to continue indefinitely, so you are the one who needs to explain why the facts were otherwise.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. How does your doctrine agree with the historical facts but mine doesn't? We are looking at history through two very different perspectives, so you can't really say that.

[LeSellers]

those passages don't discuss the term Christian. And you are being inconsistent: you are complaining about anyone saying that someone is not a Christian, but then turning around and describing such persons' behavior as "un-Christian." Who set you up as judge of what is and is not Christian behavior?

Pot, kettle, well, you know the rest.

The problem, as I said earlier, is that there is no definition of "Christian" anywhere in the Bible. The word is used only thrice, and in none of them can we find any assertion that "Christian" is an acceptable name for the Saints.

In fact, the one most frequently seen in anti-mormon circles is the very one that makes the case that "Christian" is not an accepted title for Saints:

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

You'll note that it says "the disciples were first called 'Christians'...". There is no indication of who it was who called them such, but, more tellingly, it was not "Christians" who were first called "Christians", but "the disciples".

Those who ardently claim the title "Christian" do so with no biblical authority or basis (and, yet claim to be "Bible-believing"). Even more laughably, they arrogate unto themselves the right to label others as non-Christians, again with no biblical (their only authority) basis.

That "Christian" has become an accepted title is not in dispute. It is the means by which it became such. Because, if we are to believe the Evangelical community, nothing that is not in the Bible is permitted as, well, "Christian" (unless they say so, obviously).

Lehi

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

I have no more patience for these kinds of accusations.

As I have no more patience for the bigots that want, through the use of distorted and tortuous logic, to exclude Latter-Day Saints from being Christian.

If you want to excluded us from being "Evangelical Christians" feel free to do so. But there is no honest way to exclude us from being "Christian".

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

No. I hold that both orthodoxy and orthopraxy must be taken into consideration.

Ok, but too much orthodoxy in the mix doesn't distinguish between "Christian" and "non-Christian" but rather "Evangelical Christian" and "non-Evangelical Christian".

But what if a particular religion's founder doctored the NT to fit what he thought was the true Christian doctrine?

Nice rhetoric. I suppose if said individual "doctored the NT" to the point of being unrecognizable as being a testament of Jesus Christ, then, you just might have a point. Do you know of any "founder" that has done such a thing? Because I don't.

What then?

Well, if is "doctored" to the point of no longer being a "Testament" of Jesus Christ, then you just might have some concern.

I know a Christian church that, using a non-"doctored" NT, rejects the divinity of Christ, and I still wouldn't deny them the title "Christian".

[maklelan]

Let me explain my position on this subject. In my view, the term Christian has three distinct uses.

1. Generically, a Christian is anyone who professes to be one, and a Christian church, sect, denomination, etc., is any such group that professes to be Christian. On this definition, the worst hypocritical evangelicals and the most theologically off-the-wall religious groups that claim to be Christian are Christian. Making it into the category of "Christian" by this definition is no badge of honor, and no one should care whether they are considered "Christians" in this generic sense. But by this definition, both evangelicals and Mormons are Christians.

2. Theologically, a Christian is someone who professes to accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, who accepts the doctrinal and behavioral standards to which followers of Jesus Christ are expected to abide, and who has been baptized in association with other such persons. To the extent to which we disagree as to what the true gospel is and what those doctrinal and behavioral standards are, we will inevitably disagree as to who qualifies as a Christian in this sense. By this definition, Mormons should not view non-Mormons (such as evangelicals) as Christians, because we don't accept what the LDS Church teaches is the true gospel or its doctrinal and behavioral standards. Of course, Mormons are not obliged to use this definition, but the fact is that evangelicals do use it. From an evangelical perspective, it is not possible to be a Christian in this theological sense and be outside the true church. Thus, from our perspective, when the LDS Church claims to be the only true church, that is equivalent to claiming (in our understanding of the terms) that evangelicals are not Christians.

But this definition is really a question of what is socio-religiously normative. You say this Christian is someone who "accepts the doctrine and behavioral standards to which followers of Jesus Christ are expected to abide, and who has been baptized in association with other such persons." Whose expectation are we worried about? Who determines the standards? It seems to me a "theological Christian" is really just a Christian who is theologically acceptable to whatever current is mainstream, which would make this definition quite relative. The fact that the theological concerns you describe for today's Christian would not have described any Christian of the first century CE confirms that.

3. Spiritually, a Christian is someone who is genuinely in a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ and as a result has assurance of eternal life. From an evangelical perspective, we cannot make definitive judgments about who is or is not a Christian in this spiritual sense. However, clearly, we can make some reasonable judgments. We may presume that anyone who openly rejects Christianity in any form is not a Christian in this sense. I presume that Richard Dawkins, for example, is not a Christian in this sense. In general, evangelicals accept as Christians in the spiritual sense anyone who is a Christian in the theological sense, but with the caveat that many people who are Christians theologically are not actually Christians spiritually.

And what is the practical value of this distinction?

For example, I know a Baptist pastor who, by his own testimony, did not become a Christian in this spiritual sense until after he had become a pastor! So we don't use the term Christian in this spiritual sense to refer to everyone inside our "boundary." We also recognize that there are many Christians, spiritually speaking, outside that "boundary" of the theological definition, because there are many individuals who have come into a genuinely saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ who are working through those doctrinal and behavioral standards. For example, I personally know people who by their own testimony became Christians in this spiritual sense while they were still Jehovah's Witnesses, and they went through a process of reexamining their beliefs that led them out of that religion and into an authentically Christian church. That's why I would not claim that no Mormons are Christians in this spiritual sense, because I believe that some Mormons are also in such a process. Furthermore, I don't know which Mormons are Christians in this sense, and it isn't my responsibility to make such judgments.

However, I do have a responsibility to discern what is truly "Christian" in the theological sense and what is not, and my authority to do so comes from God, because in Scripture he commands all believers in Jesus Christ to be discerning in this way.

But this authority is self-appropriated. All religions who believe in Jesus Christ could claim this authority and reject any who disagree with the doctrinal and behavioral standards that their particular religion espouses. What value is there in saying a theological Christian is whatever any religion decides? It seems to me it only has value to people who want to exclude others from their brand of Christianity. That's just sectarianism.

For example, I reject Christian Science as Christian in the theological sense because its founder produced fraudulent scripture (the book Science and Health) that redefined Christian beliefs in a way that radically deviates from the doctrinal standards of Christianity (e.g., teaching that death is an illusion). I reject the Jehovah's Witness religion as Christian in the theological sense because it denies that Jesus Christ is God, it denies that he rose physically from the grave, and it adheres to other similarly serious false beliefs. Yet most JWs that I have known are sincere, hard-working, dedicated people with high moral values. So for me, saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians is not a statement of animosity, hostility, or prejudice against them, but a statement of theological conviction.

So dispensationalists should reject covenant theologians as Christians? Who prioritizes the doctrines and decides which are serious enough to disqualify someone who follows Christ as a "theological Christian"? Is this list also just a matter of what is socio-religiously normative?

Likewise with the LDS Church. I find most Mormons to be sincere, dedicated, morally upright people, and many of them are quite likable. My view that Mormons are not Christians in the theological sense is based on theological differences as to the minimal doctrinal and behavioral standards (especially doctrinal) of Christianity.

But since these minimal doctrinal and behavioral standards are not described in the Bible, and since they obviously change throughout time, you again appear to be falling back on the notion that one's participation in "theological Christianity" is just a matter of alignment with whatever group is socio-religiously normative. I don't find a definition helpful if it means one has to first determine what is socially normative and what that normative group determines is the minimal doctrinal and behavioral standard. I've found that that standard is more a reaction to groups they don't want to be associated with than a declaration of what is fundamental to their faith.

We have different views as to what is the true gospel. We have radically different doctrinal positions on the most basic issues, such as the nature of God, the relation of Jesus Christ to God, the meaning and basis of salvation, and what is and is not the true church. Those are the considerations that lead me and other evangelicals to conclude that the LDS religion is not authentically Christian in what I am calling the theological sense.

I think calling this the "socio-religiously normative sense" would be more accurate, since the theology is really secondary.

Edited October 14, 2011 by maklelan

[Zakuska]

Ok, but too much orthodoxy in the mix doesn't distinguish between "Christian" and "non-Christian" but rather "Evangelical Christian" and "non-Evangelical Christian".

Nice rhetoric. I suppose if said individual "doctored the NT" to the point of being unrecognizable as being a testament of Jesus Christ, then, you just might have a point. Do you know of any "founder" that has done such a thing? Because I don't.

Well, if is "doctored" to the point of no longer being a "Testament" of Jesus Christ, then you just might have some concern.

I know a Christian church that, using a non-"doctored" NT, rejects the divinity of Christ, and I still wouldn't deny them the title "Christian".

Speaking of Doctoring the NT. Do we follow the KJV or the NIV which is missing several LARGE sections?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Zakuska

[CV75]

This statement appears to be a discussion-derailing comment.

Sorry, "it's Friday." The definitions you posted for #2 and #3 indicate that spiritual Christianity is not dependent on theological Christianity. The way it is presented, the definition and application of "theological Christianity" appears to be a barrier to the unity in Christ that the transcending Spirit would otherwise encourage. Definition #1 seems to have the potential to bring people together in Christ more readily than the divisive attitude expressed in #2 simply by contributing to a milieu of Christian love, and is therefore the more significant place to start in achieving #3. This is why the theological definition of "Christian" is the least productive and constructive to building faith--theology is a divisive, man-made corruption of the truth as opposed to the power of God as manifest through His revelations and spiritual relationships with His children.

[Ron Beron]

I was simply using the starting of the "Baptist Church" as a rough beginning of "Evangelicalism". Either way, my point is that it is, without question, predated by Catholicism, which they, reject as being "Christian".

Exactly.

[KevinG]

Disappointing. I should have known someone who fancies they have God's authority to judge who is and who is not Christian would create a narrow complex definition that excluded anyone he didn't judge to be Christian.

Yet as I contrast this with the simplicity of Christs words...

Luke 10

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy ^aheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt ^alive.

D&C 20:25

25 That as many as would ^abelieve and be baptized in his holy name, and ^bendure in faith to the end, should be saved—

I am conforted that no amount of sophistry can break the eternal covenant that Jesus Christ has made with me.

31 And we know also, that ^asanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who ^blove and serve God with all their ^cmights, minds, and strength.

I am one of Christs disciples. I am a Christian.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

If you want to excluded us from being "Evangelical Christians" feel free to do so. But there is no honest way to exclude us from being "Christian".

Why would you want to be excluded from being "evangelical Christians"? The word evangelical means "of the evangel," that is, of the gospel. Are you saying you're not gospel Christians?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Ok, but too much orthodoxy in the mix doesn't distinguish between "Christian" and "non-Christian" but rather "Evangelical Christian" and "non-Evangelical Christian".

Don't worry. I don't exclude the LDS Church from being orthodox for failing to believe in forensic justification or even sola scriptura, but for much more basic, fundamental doctrinal deviations.

You wrote:

Nice rhetoric. I suppose if said individual "doctored the NT" to the point of being unrecognizable as being a testament of Jesus Christ, then, you just might have a point. Do you know of any "founder" that has done such a thing? Because I don't.

I have a somewhat more stringent standard than you do. Doctoring the NT to support one's claim to be a prophet of God and other false doctrines is sufficient for me to reject that founder's sect as not authentically Christian.

You wrote:

I know a Christian church that, using a non-"doctored" NT, rejects the divinity of Christ, and I still wouldn't deny them the title "Christian".

That's big of you, but I would deny them that title. Call me narrow-minded, but a church that claims to believe in Christ but denies his deity is in my view not a genuine Christian church.

[KevinG]

Vance,

You wrote:

Why would you want to be excluded from being "evangelical Christians"? The word evangelical means "of the evangel," that is, of the gospel. Are you saying you're not gospel Christians?

Nice word play. You excell at it.

When and if evangelical beliefs conform themselves with the gospel then we would be more inclined to share the title of evangelicals.

[KevinG]

The Latter-day Saints do not deny the deity of Christ. That is a slanderous falsehood you continue to perpetuate through sophistry.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

But this definition is really a question of what is socio-religiously normative. You say this Christian is someone who "accepts the doctrine and behavioral standards to which followers of Jesus Christ are expected to abide, and who has been baptized in association with other such persons." Whose expectation are we worried about? Who determines the standards?

I deliberately did not answer these questions in my definition, in order to make the point that Mormons and evangelicals disagree about the source of those standards, who makes the determinations, and so forth. My short answer is that Jesus Christ and his apostolic representatives in the NT have provided the authoritative revelations from which those standards derive. No one has been appointed arbiter over everyone else to determine what those standards are.

You wrote:

It seems to me a "theological Christian" is really just a Christian who is theologically acceptable to whatever current is mainstream, which would make this definition quite relative. The fact that the theological concerns you describe for today's Christian would not have described any Christian of the first century CE confirms that.

If this were so, then I would be arguing that Christians in the theological sense must accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy or some other such contemporary statement. I don't. For most purposes the Nicene Creed is sufficient to draw the lines, and in fact the standards to which I would appeal are all explicitly biblical standards. For example, it is not the formal creedal doctrine of the Trinity per se that is the standard, but the biblical truths that doctrine systematized.

Regarding the spiritual definition of a Christian, you asked:

And what is the practical value of this distinction?

It makes the point that the class of people who are saved in Christ is not identical to the class of people who outwardly conform to the doctrines and standards of orthodox Christianity. This is of immense practical importance, since salvation is a matter of the heart and not merely outward conformity.

You wrote:

But this authority is self-appropriated. All religions who believe in Jesus Christ could claim this authority and reject any who disagree with the doctrinal and behavioral standards that their particular religion espouses. What value is there in saying a theological Christian is whatever any religion decides? It seems to me it only has value to people who want to exclude others from their brand of Christianity. That's just sectarianism.

I have noticed that you like to accuse evangelicals of sectarianism a lot, which is ironic, coming from a member of a sect that claims that it alone is the true church on earth.

You wrote:

So dispensationalists should reject covenant theologians as Christians?

No, of course not.

Who prioritizes the doctrines and decides which are serious enough to disqualify someone who follows Christ as a "theological Christian"? Is this list also just a matter of what is socio-religiously normative?

No. One must show from the Bible not only that a particular standard is biblical, but that the Bible makes it an issue on which the church must be united. The deity of Christ is one such issue; the best way to understand the redemptive-historical development in the Bible is not.

You wrote:

But since these minimal doctrinal and behavioral standards are not described in the Bible, and since they obviously change throughout time,....

That is where we disagree.

[zerinus]

Let me explain my position on this subject. In my view, the term Christian has three distinct uses.

1. Generically, a Christian is anyone who professes to be one, and a Christian church, sect, denomination, etc., is any such group that professes to be Christian. On this definition, the worst hypocritical evangelicals and the most theologically off-the-wall religious groups that claim to be Christian are Christian. Making it into the category of "Christian" by this definition is no badge of honor, and no one should care whether they are considered "Christians" in this generic sense. But by this definition, both evangelicals and Mormons are Christians.

I think that is still a badge of honor. If somebody is willing to identify himself as a Christian, that still shows a level of commitment, however small that may be. There are many that don’t. They call themselves atheists or agnostics. There are many who are ashamed to call themselves Christians, even though “generically” they may belong to that tradition or culture. But Jesus said:

Matthew 10:

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Mark 8:

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke 9:

26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Luke 12:

8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God

9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

So if somebody is willing to confess before men that he is a Christian, it reveals a measure of commitment that is a badge of honor and respected in the sight of God.

2. Theologically, a Christian is someone who professes to accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, who accepts the doctrinal and behavioral standards to which followers of Jesus Christ are expected to abide, and who has been baptized in association with other such persons. To the extent to which we disagree as to what the true gospel is and what those doctrinal and behavioral standards are, we will inevitably disagree as to who qualifies as a Christian in this sense. By this definition, Mormons should not view non-Mormons (such as evangelicals) as Christians, because we don't accept what the LDS Church teaches is the true gospel or its doctrinal and behavioral standards. Of course, Mormons are not obliged to use this definition, but the fact is that evangelicals do use it. From an evangelical perspective, it is not possible to be a Christian in this theological sense and be outside the true church. Thus, from our perspective, when the LDS Church claims to be the only true church, that is equivalent to claiming (in our understanding of the terms) that evangelicals are not Christians.

That criteria flies in the face of your sola scriptura claim, because there is no biblical basis for it. The biblical standard for determining a Christian is quite simply stated: It is to believe in your heart, confess with your mouth, and most important of all, to bring forth the fruits thereof. That is the scriptural requirement. No other requirement is stated on the “theological” front. You are inventing your own Christianity as you go along.

3. Spiritually, a Christian is someone who is genuinely in a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ and as a result has assurance of eternal life. From an evangelical perspective, we cannot make definitive judgments about who is or is not a Christian in this spiritual sense. However, clearly, we can make some reasonable judgments. We may presume that anyone who openly rejects Christianity in any form is not a Christian in this sense. I presume that Richard Dawkins, for example, is not a Christian in this sense. In general, evangelicals accept as Christians in the spiritual sense anyone who is a Christian in the theological sense, but with the caveat that many people who are Christians theologically are not actually Christians spiritually. For example, I know a Baptist pastor who, by his own testimony, did not become a Christian in this spiritual sense until after he had become a pastor! So we don't use the term Christian in this spiritual sense to refer to everyone inside our "boundary." We also recognize that there are many Christians, spiritually speaking, outside that "boundary" of the theological definition, because there are many individuals who have come into a genuinely saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ who are working through those doctrinal and behavioral standards. For example, I personally know people who by their own testimony became Christians in this spiritual sense while they were still Jehovah's Witnesses, and they went through a process of reexamining their beliefs that led them out of that religion and into an authentically Christian church. That's why I would not claim that no Mormons are Christians in this spiritual sense, because I believe that some Mormons are also in such a process. Furthermore, I don't know which Mormons are Christians in this sense, and it isn't my responsibility to make such judgments.

The only indicator for that that God has determined is their “fruits”. We determine what is in their hearts by observing their fruits.

However, I do have a responsibility to discern what is truly "Christian" in the theological sense and what is not, and my authority to do so comes from God, because in Scripture he commands all believers in Jesus Christ to be discerning in this way.

<snip>

The only responsibility you have to determine what is truly “Christian” is by observing their “fruits”. That is the only mandate that scripture gives you. And it is applicable individually as well as collectively, applying it to individuals as well as to churches and organizations. You are violating your sola scriptura rule by seeking a different mandate.

Edited October 14, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

The Latter-day Saints do not deny the deity of Christ. That is a slanderous falsehood you continue to perpetuate through sophistry.

I didn't say that they denied the deity of Christ! I said that I would not accept as genuinely Christian a religion that denied the deity of Christ. Vance brought that up, not me!

[Deborah]

Don't worry. I don't exclude the LDS Church from being orthodox for failing to believe in forensic justification or even sola scriptura, but for much more basic, fundamental doctrinal deviations.

How big of you. I find it interesting however that the doctrinal deviations come from those who deny prophets and apostles as Christ himself established in the church he founded.

I have a somewhat more stringent standard than you do. Doctoring the NT to support one's claim to be a prophet of God and other false doctrines is sufficient for me to reject that founder's sect as not authentically Christian.

CFR where anyone has doctored the NT. It says right there that prophets and apostles will guide the church:

• Luke 11:49
  49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
  
• 
  
• Revelation 18:20
  20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
  
• 
  
• Ephesians 4:11
  11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
  
• 
  
• Ephesians 3:5
  5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
  
• 1 Corinthians 12:28
  28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
  
• 
  

Call me narrow-minded, but a church that claims to believe in Christ but denies his deity is in my view not a genuine Christian church.

Once again you are preaching false doctrien. Where have we ever said Christ is not deity. He is the creator of the worlds, is part of the Godhead and is Jehovah of the OT according to the LDS.

[JAHS]

The Bible specifically states that Mormons are Christian:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN." (Acts 28: 26,28)

Well that's the way I interpret it

Edited October 14, 2011 by JAHS

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

CFR where anyone has doctored the NT.

Here you go: a comparison of the KJV with the JST. The latter, by the way, is a doctored version of the former.

You wrote:

Once again you are preaching false doctrien. Where have we ever said Christ is not deity. He is the creator of the worlds, is part of the Godhead and is Jehovah of the OT according to the LDS.

I've already answered this misunderstanding of what I said once. See my most recent reply to DaddyG.

[wenglund]

Folks,

To me, the bottom line even in terms of judging who is Christian in the theological sense, Rob only has authority to speak for himself and perhaps on behalf of those who share his theology. He does not have the authority to speak for us and the rest of Christianity. The way he may collectively judge people's theological Christianity has no force or bearing outside his group-think, and thus ought to be of little or no concern to us.

What this means is that in inter-faith argumentation, the theological sense of the word "Christian," is a virtual meaningless tautology. It is but a semantic/label game that amounts to nothing more than stating the obvious--we disagree theologically.

So, as I see it, there is little point in playing or encouraging this game. Rob can reasonably define Christians in theological terms how ever he wants, and we can reasonably reject his definition as meaningless and not authoritative, and move on to productive discourse, and not inadvertently lend credence and importance where it isn't due.

Just a suggestion...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

JAHS,

Oh, you were so close! Here is the correct reading:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said uNtO Paul, almosT thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN."

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of the true church?

[wenglund]

Wade,

Would you agree that Mormons do not have authority to speak for the rest of Christianity, and therefore do not have the authority to say that we are not part of the true church?

The previously expressed principle applies to us as well as to you. In terms of inter-faith discourse, we only have the authority to speak for ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-