The Catholic Herald....Mormons Are Not Christian

[blueadept]

It is true that at one time I expected more out of the Catholic Church, but I have concluded that it, as an institution, is just as corrupt and lacking as any other institution of man. She will fight against the Church of Jesus Christ just as assuredly as any other of the organizations of men. Thankfully, as individuals, we may stand together as disciples of Christ and value the examples of holiness found within these other groups.

Having a bad day SR? I'm glad the RCC and LDS church have a few common goals. I witnessed a few of them in my mixed-faith marriage

[spartacus]

To be intellectually honest, we differ with our Catholic friends about the nature and kind of being that Christ was. Our doctrine is at odds with their conception of who Christ was and is. Indeed, we share common values and even similar beliefs and interpretations rooted in the Bible, but ours is a faith informed by the Restoration tradition, just as theirs is largely informed by a reading of the New Testament through the lens of neoplatonic philosophy.

Latter-day Saints essentially say the same thing when they make the "only true Church" claim. We can say all we want about our shared beliefs rooted within the larger Judeo-Christian tradition, but by saying that salvation in its fullest extent is only available through Christ via The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we're denying that our neighbors and friends believe in the truest and most real Christianity.

I don't dispute that Latter-day Saints fit within the larger umbrella of Christendom, but comments such as those featured in the Catholic Herald must be understood in light of the fact that our beliefs about Christ (while in many ways similar) are different enough to be excluded from the beliefs of post-Nicene Christianity. If Catholics aren't comfortable with calling me a Christian, I'm okay with that. I live out my faith by trying to do the things that Christ did and treating others with compassion and tolerance. Someone else's conception of what my faith is and isn't has no bearing on what I personally believe, or my commitment to follow Christ grace to grace.

We don't prove to people that we're Christians by pointing out the name of the Church ad nauseam. We prove all things by our faith and by the fruits of that faith.

<Stands up and applauds the honesty and balance> BRAVO! MAGNIFICO!

((I could have done without the "neo-platonic" dig. But I appreciated the "ad nauseum" of the NAME game SO much!))

BRAVO!

[why me]

If the Mormon Times or the Ensign or the Church News would publish a negative article about the Catholic faith, catholic apologists would be outraged and it would be all over the catholic forums like a spark on dry wheat. Comments such as 'mormons are arrogant' 'mormons are hostile to all faiths' 'Mormons are hypocrites because they should show love to all faiths' 'Mormonism teaches hatred' etc would be posted by the catholic posters among choice other comments about the lds faith.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond me to comprehend. Lets hope that Mitt will show his christian side during this campaign and that Ann will be an example for many human beings to admire.

[Storm Rider]

Having a bad day SR? I'm glad the RCC and LDS church have a few common goals. I witnessed a few of them in my mixed-faith marriage

Yes, I am. I have always loved the Catholic Church and the many things that I have learned from her and her members. When we value something it the pain is more acute when it does not meet our expectations.

To simply proclaim the truths they know and never attack the beliefs of teachings of another; how easy and how much better the world would be if all churches did that. I am tired of the divisions and tired of institutions that lead their members into contention. Would that we could all just stand together like John Paul II encouraged.

Thanks for the gentle reproach and bless you.

[why me]

To be intellectually honest, we differ with our Catholic friends about the nature and kind of being that Christ was. Our doctrine is at odds with their conception of who Christ was and is. Indeed, we share common values and even similar beliefs and interpretations rooted in the Bible, but ours is a faith informed by the Restoration tradition, just as theirs is largely informed by a reading of the New Testament through the lens of neoplatonic philosophy.

Differing with the catholics about the nature of christ and the kind of being that christ was does not give them the right to be the final judge about whether mormons are christian or not christian.

Did the catholic church consider the luthern church christian during the reformation? No. In fact, protestants and catholics spent years killing each other in wars that shook the Europe during the religious wars. .

[kolipoki09]

When they say we are not "Christian", they are saying we are not followers of Christ.

The qualifiers about "their conception of Christ" is mere weasel-wording to justify their special pleading.

And yet "true Christian" isn't the definition being argued. We are discussing "Christian" without the artful and disingenuous qualifiers.

Actually, most of them tend to make the "different Jesus" claim, and when it comes to defining who Jesus is, we believe different things.

You're welcome to call them "artful and disingenuous qualifiers." I call it trying to understand opposing views in a respectful, constructive, and fruitful approach to ecumenism. RIchard Mouw calls it "convicted civility" - a term later picked up by Robert Millet.

More ironically, you continue to put words in the mouths of Latter-day Saints.

I have never heard a faithful Latter-day Saint talk about being a "true" Christian while others a "false" Christians.

We simply claim what is indisputable to the honest observer: that we, as a people, are followers and disciples of Jesus Christ.

Again, this is a rather silly and tendentious "so's your Mama"-type excuse.

You continue to conflate contradiction with persecution- and have no rationale or logical reason to do so, save that it advances your agenda.

Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, what exactly is my agenda?

This is an irrational and counterproductive position. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately and clearly.

The idea that people get to arbitrarily redefine words simply to suit their agenda is so absurd that even Lewis Carroll mocked it.

But language isn't always so black and white. High context cultures, specifically religious groups, have internalized understandings and interpretations of different terms. Cross-cultural communication attempts to define certain terms for a different audience in ways that the group being examined will not be misunderstood. That's all I'm trying to do here. Yes, we can always think of bigoted exceptions on both sides, but for Latter-day Saints, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics attempting to genuinely understand each other, this is typically the way the ball rolls.

Pardon the semiotics, it's just something I've become all-too accustomed to doing.

[spartacus]

I don't particularly disagree with most of what you say. I was just pointing out the blatant "you are not christian stance" is somewhat bigoted. I don't see too many LDS scholars trying to point out to the rest of the Christendom that they are not Christian,

No, the LDS church missionaries do a highly regimented and repeated work of that (apostasy lesson). And a plethora of past prophet and apostle statements have said the same - either explicitly "not Christian" or "not TRUE Christians". LDS scholars participate in defending the apostasy as fact.

neither have I pointed out ad nauseam the Church's name. I think it is only fair and proper to us the correct name of the church.

Fair

The name of the church is doctrinally essential no matter what anyone says or thinks.

The three or so years as "The Church of Latter Day Saints" must be similarly important too.

Salvation is found in the ordinances of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and no one will enter back in to the presence of the Lord eternally, who has not accepted those ordinances.

The "has not" is a bit imperfect. It seems to imply that if you "have not" received them in THIS life then no "enter back", but per Gospel Principles Terrestrial Kingdom members can be those who "have not" in this life but did afterward. Nit-picky? Perhaps, just clarifying. Otherwise this seems like an exclusion of non-LDS Christians as Christians because "their not really saved".

That is why we have the blessings of the temple. No one will be denied the full blessings of exhalation, they are made available to all through a merciful and loving God.

A nice sounding statement, but I'm not sure of its accuracy. Maybe its just a little vague. New Topic?

[why me]

Latter-day Saints essentially say the same thing when they make the "only true Church" claim. We can say all we want about our shared beliefs rooted within the larger Judeo-Christian tradition, but by saying that salvation in its fullest extent is only available through Christ via The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we're denying that our neighbors and friends believe in the truest and most real Christianity.

The catholic church also claims to be the one true church, dating it back to Peter as the first pope. And it is here that there is a problem with catholic apologists as they attempt to prove that their faith is the true faith and why mormonism is false and not christian. When we go back in catholic history, we see torture and killings of people who the catholic leadership thought heretical (uncatholic) The Catholic Herald has forgotten its past. Christians can disagree with one another in a christian way: they have done it since christianity began. But hate, mocking, ridicule and bashing is never the way to go. And I just don't see the lds church doing this. Do you?

And this forum is a good example of how the lds treat other religions. If I were to go off on a catholic hating rant, I would be suspended or maybe even banned.

[kolipoki09]

Differing with the catholics about the nature of christ and the kind of being that christ was does not give them the right to be the final judge about whether mormons are christian or not christian.

Which is why I'm saying that in light of their understandings about your commitment to Christ, what truly matters is what you believe about Him. They can say, think, and do what they want. As I mentioned before, there is an abundance of valuable material that articulately defends the LDS position with relation to Christianity. I believe Mormonism fits within the Christian tradition. I'm just saying that in light of certain theological and traditional definitions and understandings of Christianity, I can see where my opponents are coming from. I think it's important for both sides to discuss this issue with each other, rather than simply talking past each other.

Did the catholic church consider the luthern church christian during the reformation? No. In fact, protestants and catholics spent years killing each other in wars that shook the Europe during the religious wars. .

They certainly considered them heretical and outside the "true church." However, it was communication and ecumenism that ultimately settled things down.

[spartacus]

Something about stones and glass houses.

A good point for each person personally to consider. However...

Jesus said, "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." - Matt. 24:5

Jesus also said, "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." - Mark 13:22

This would indicate that the overall issue of which Christ (true or false) and thus what Christian (true or false) is still a valid issue and a valid one to question one's self (as you point out) and still others (as they are doing). Their perceived bravado could be a concern for glass, though, yes.

[spartacus]

If I had a dime for everytime I heard that we are not Christians.....

This situation is getting better. Currently, several churches who previously taught that LDS were not Christians have come out and publicly changed their opinions. All we can do as LDS is keep living good, clean, charitable and Christian lives. Eventually, most churches will come around and realize that the LDS represent many of the best parts of Christianity.

This is a rather silly attempt at special pleading.

That we claim to have more truth does not mean we are denying the sincerity or discipleship of Catholics.

You are conflating contradiction with persecution.

We do not, and have not, denied that they are followers of Christ. Pity that the reverse is not true.

Beleiving in "the truest and most real Christiantity" is not a part of the definition of "Christian".

By repeating such folklore, you are buying into and enabling an intellectually dishonest attempt to hijack the definition for polemical purposes.

With your post above, you are also attempting to project that sin onto the Latter-day Saint community as a whole- a sort of lame, "well, you guys do it too" defense.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Church has very publically repudiated such nonsense- and has done so at least since Brigham Young.

And yet the Nicene Creed is NOT included in the definition of "Christian".

Polemicists have tried for centuries to define "Christian" as "someone who believes exactly as I do."

And outside of isolated echo chambers, they have failed miserably.

The article in the OP is no different- no matter how one tries to justify their arguments.

Dhimmism aside, neither the Catholics nor the Evangelicals own the definition of Christian- and as such, they have neither the right nor the privilege to redefine words to suit their agendas.

Enabling such attempts is not merely intellectually dishonest- it is hypocritical.

This is a laudible goal, but is a separate issue from the dishonest attempts to hijack a word and an entire faith for sectarian polemical purposes.

True- but irrelevant.

The term "Christian" has a very specific (and comparatively broad) meaning.

Being a "Christian" and turning the other cheek does not require us to ignore error, nor does it requires us to turn a blind eye to wilfull bigotry and intentional deceit.

The Latter-day Saint faith meets every reasonable and commonly accepted definition of the word "Christian".

To argue otherwise, one must redefine the word itself to suit an ideological agenda.

Could not most, if not all, of what you have just said be justifiably said of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its trademark of the word "Mormon" and, as reported by those denied it, the LDS church's and/or member's refusal to accept or call Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints "mormons", let alone "Latter-day Saints"?

[why me]

No, the LDS church missionaries do a highly regimented and repeated work of that (apostasy lesson). And a plethora of past prophet and apostle statements have said the same - either explicitly "not Christian" or "not TRUE Christians". LDS scholars participate in defending the apostasy as fact.

I have no idea what this has to do with Mormons are not christians as we have entered the 21st century. However, can you please explain to me how latin america became catholic and what happend to the native religions and their followers? Or how certain countries of europe became catholic and other countries became protestant and if this was being done by going door to door by catholic and protestant missionaries and what message was being preached?

Latin America is full of penecostal churches with many members. All former catholics. What is the penecostal message? But I understand what you are trying to do. I have seen it before. Mormons deserve to be called not christian.

[why me]

Could not most, if not all, of what you have just said be justifiably said of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its trademark of the word "Mormon" and, as reported by those denied it, the LDS church's and/or member's refusal to accept or call Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints "mormons", let alone "Latter-day Saints"?

I believe that catholic is also a trademark as is Lutheran etc. There needs to be some clarification of what is officially mormon or lds. Or else, there would be a lot of confusion. What was your point? Of course, I understand that it would be very beneficial for exmormons to have the FLDS tied to the LDS in newspapers, magazines and inside people's minds. But..

[spartacus]

Were there not a lot of wars during the Dark and Middle ages and even later between Catholics and Protestants or others over who were the 'True Christians'?It is only in recent times that most of the Protestants and Catholics have begrugingly allowed each other to be true Christians. Give them a while ( a couple of hundred more years at least) to accept us as such.

I suppose anything is possible, especially given what Peppermint Pattie has reported about this already starting. But I think you may be underestimating "how wide the divide" ? I admit not being well-informed in the history of the Catholic-Protestant dispute (theological or political) but I believe the differences are much greater between them and LDS than between just themselves. I'm sure many LDS might dispute this, but I know this is the perception of the both groups, so... if perception is reality... It may a be a while. But then, political correctness, post-modernism, and a general wish not to be seen as hating (whether the accusation is justified or not) may be strong catalysts. So... yeah...

[why me]

This would indicate that the overall issue of which Christ (true or false) and thus what Christian (true or false) is still a valid issue and a valid one to question one's self (as you point out) and still others (as they are doing).

And are you the final arbitrator or judge on who is christian and who is not? And can you claim in a newspaper headline that Mormons are not Christian.

[kolipoki09]

When we go back in catholic history, we see torture and killings of people who the catholic leadership thought heretical (uncatholic) The Catholic Herald has forgotten its past. Christians can disagree with one another in a christian way: they have done it since christianity began. But hate, mocking, ridicule and bashing is never the way to go. And I just don't see the lds church doing this. Do you?

Some might say that Mormonism too, has forgotten its (sometimes unsavory) past as well. As a missionary, I remember a pretty anti-Catholic talk that had been copied and passed around, mostly among our Spanish-speaking elders and sisters. It told (as I would later come to find out) a wildly inaccurate history of the early Christian fathers and made straw men of Catholic doctrines. Bits and pieces of this talk were later commonly incorporated into the lesson covering the apostasy. I've met others from other missions who reported reading the same talk which had no author as far as I am aware. Though I don't see it coming from the Church itself, anti-Catholicism (as one might loosely define "anti-Mormonism") isn't entirely uncommon at the grassroots level (Gospel Doctrine commentary, missionary lessons, etc.).

And this forum is a good example of how the lds treat other religions. If I were to go off on a catholic hating rant, I would be suspended or maybe even banned.

As long as Latter-day Saints can find common ground with their neighbors and friends outside the faith, I've observed that they generally treat others with courtesy and respect. That being said, I've had neighbors who would give me the shirts off their backs, stand in freezing rain to help jump a dead battery, and invite me over to barbecues. We've essentially "agreed to disagree" on the subject of Mormonism's relation to Christianity, but I can tell you now, I try to never miss an opportunity to return their favors and meet good deeds with good deeds. That's how I live my Christianity.

[CQUIRK]

I wouldn't take the Catholic Herald too seriously.

For one, its a British based newspaper (and certainly not reflective of the opinions & views of the majority of American Catholics and their leaders), and two- Lucie-Smith is already getting a ton of flak for his article (garbage).

[why me]

I suppose anything is possible, especially given what Peppermint Pattie has reported about this already starting. But I think you may be underestimating "how wide the divide" ? I admit not being well-informed in the history of the Catholic-Protestant dispute (theological or political) but I believe the differences are much greater between them and LDS than between just themselves. I'm sure many LDS might dispute this, but I know this is the perception of the both groups, so... if perception is reality... It may a be a while. But then, political correctness, post-modernism, and a general wish not to be seen as hating (whether the accusation is justified or not) may be strong catalysts. So... yeah...

But this has nothing to do with certain catholic organizations calling the LDS church not christian. But like I said, since the catholic church considers itself the one true church today, it is not surprising that they would attempt to label their competitor non-christian. Fortunately, I don't see these type of statements in the Ensign or in The Church News: Catholics are not Christian. And if you did read such a headline, I don't think that you would be so philosophical about it. But I could be wrong.

[TAO]

They can say what they want, but it won't be changing that I disagree with them.

The thing is, I don't think this is going to really help them win any respect from non-Mormons in general either. =p.

Edited April 15, 2012 by TAO

[spartacus]

The purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately and clearly.

And this is a nice segway into my response to the OP. I believe the main concern for Christians that make claims about the LDS church being "christian" or not, or mormons being "christians" isn't at all about a word. It's about the meaning. More specifically the practical meaning. The people don't want non-christians (non-LDS or traditional) to equate traditional and LDS christians. When the LDS church or members say "we're christians", traditionals want to make sure of a few things:

1- Defend (their) Truth of God from misinformation/deception - they don't want people spreading falsehoods about God under the guise of (regular) (true) (commonly understood by the general population) "christians"

2- Defend non-believers (in either) from confusing what (the traditionals believe) is false for what (trads believe) is true (that it's their belief of what is true or false doesn't change the justification for their actions - we can only be justified in our own minds by the content of them- our own minds.) They don't want people thinking that LDS are "the same" as traditionals. They don't want them to think that they believe in the "same God", "same Gospel", etc.

3- On a compassionate (though I understand this may be hard for LDS to imagine- but if you put yourself in their position) level, they do not want traditional christians to think that their LDS friends or neighbors are "just fine" (assuming the different Christ, different Gospel perceived by traditionals) but that they still need "the true Christ" and "the true Gospel".

An example would be if Christians started calling themselves Latter-day Saints/Mormons but still teaching their different-from-"traditional"-LDS Christ and Gospel. Assumedly, for the same three reasons above, LDS would not approve of this either. The fact that the LDS church has trademarked "mormon" is evidence that this would be the case, too.

[why me]

Some might say that Mormonism too, has forgotten its (sometimes unsavory) past as well. As a missionary, I remember a pretty anti-Catholic talk that had been copied and passed around, mostly among our Spanish-speaking elders and sisters. It told (as I would later come to find out) a wildly inaccurate history of the early Christian fathers and made straw men of Catholic doctrines. Bits and pieces of this talk were later commonly incorporated into the lesson covering the apostasy. I've met others from other missions who reported reading the same talk which had no author as far as I am aware. Though I don't see it coming from the Church itself, anti-Catholicism (as one might loosely define "anti-Mormonism") isn't entirely uncommon at the grassroots level (Gospel Doctrine commentary, missionary lessons, etc.).

And what does this have to do with a headline in a catholic sponsored newspaper that mormons are not christians? People are not perfect and this imperfection will come out. But the lds church does not have a concerted effort to mock, bash, name call other faiths. And no mormon magazine or newspaper will attack another faith as the Catholic Herald did. And if mormons were bashing the catholic church as catholics are bashing the lds in the comments section, well, I would have to question the spirit of these people.

[spartacus]

If the Mormon Times or the Ensign or the Church News would publish a negative article about the Catholic faith, catholic apologists would be outraged and it would be all over the catholic forums like a spark on dry wheat. Comments such as 'mormons are arrogant' 'mormons are hostile to all faiths' 'Mormons are hypocrites because they should show love to all faiths' 'Mormonism teaches hatred' etc would be posted by the catholic posters among choice other comments about the lds faith.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond me to comprehend. Lets hope that Mitt will show his christian side during this campaign and that Ann will be an example for many human beings to admire.

I know you are referring to now, but one of the reason why Catholics and non-Catholic Christians do make a point about this is that there have been very offensive things said about both groups by LDS prophets beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing pretty near the present.

[spartacus]

Yes, I am. I have always loved the Catholic Church and the many things that I have learned from her and her members. When we value something it the pain is more acute when it does not meet our expectations.

To simply proclaim the truths they know and never attack the beliefs of teachings of another; how easy and how much better the world would be if all churches did that. I am tired of the divisions and tired of institutions that lead their members into contention. Would that we could all just stand together like John Paul II encouraged.

Wow.

The LDS Church does not do this - "simply proclaim the truths they know and never attack...another." The LDS Church missionary lessons and whole church narrative begins with an attack on all other Christian groups and individuals - Total Apostasy.

IF the LDS Church SIMPLY said that they are the only ones with God's true prophet now, THEN they could simply say "we just have more" and "simply proclaim the [more] truths they know and never attack". But the LDS church does not do this.

I am always preplexed how LDS members seem to forget "The Total Apostasy" claim (and how utterly offensive it is) when they talk about traditional Christians attacking and how LDS never do.

[why me]

An example would be if Christians started calling themselves Latter-day Saints/Mormons but still teaching their different-from-"traditional"-LDS Christ and Gospel. Assumedly, for the same three reasons above, LDS would not approve of this either. The fact that the LDS church has trademarked "mormon" is evidence that this would be the case, too.

I can actually be a christian and still be an atheist. If I claim to be a follower of Christ's message of love without claiming that he was divine, I would still be a christian as a follower of Christ's message. We need to remember that the word christian came from being a follower of a man who lived on this earth centuries ago.

Who can claim that I am not a christian if I follow Christ?

[why me]

I know you are referring to now, but one of the reason why Catholics and non-Catholic Christians do make a point about this is that there have been very offensive things said about both groups by LDS prophets beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing pretty near the present.

This has nothing to do with it at all. It has to do with the 21st century and how some groups still make claims that the lds are not christian. What did catholic leaders say about luther at the time of luther? No very pleasant, for sure. But all has been forgotten.