Hi I'M A Mormon And I'M An Atheist

[dougtheavenger]

Not to be outdone by that Mason guy who wrote a letter to the New York Times asserting that he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and NOT a Christian, I make this post in the same spirit. OK. I'm really just being a smart aleck but I do have a point.

If we accept the definition of Christian contrived by the enemies of the church we might as well just say we are atheist too. We most certainly do not believe in the same GOD; that is God the Father that other so-called Christians believe in. For example, God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, that occupies a finite volume of space. He can only be in one place at the same time. I could go on to cite what some members believe that is not strictly doctrine but rather extrapolation from doctrine, but that is not neccessary. Official LDS doctrine is enough to make us atheists if we allow our enemies to define all terms.

My point? Saying that we are not Christians is

1. False.

2. Bad policy.

[robuchan]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58274-mormonmatters-podcasts-seem-to-be-pretty-tame/

[why me]

My point? Saying that we are not Christians is

1. False.

2. Bad policy.

It is also unchristian to call people, who believe in Christ as the son of god and follow his teachings, unchristian. But the hypocrisy of it is overlooked by those who make the claim that mormons are not christian.

[mfbukowski]

There are actually those who think that religion has nothing to do with believing in God

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

The lively dialogue that concludes this volume, moderated and edited by Santiago Zabala, analyzes the future of religion together with the political, social, and historical aspects that characterize our contemporary postmodern, postmetaphysical, and post-Christian world.

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341685502&sr=1-1&keywords=future+of+religion

But I suppose that would be a derail of this thread. Maybe I will start a thread about this soon. Oddly it could be argued that Mormonism is somewhat compatible with this point of view. Certainly, God does indeed regard humanity as "friendly" in Mormonism.

No I am not saying that Mormons can be athiests- but sometimes when we speak of God as a human, it becomes easy to wonder if humans created God in our image or if God created humans in his.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is also unchristian to call people, who believe in Christ as the son of god and follow his teachings, unchristian. But the hypocrisy of it is overlooked by those who make the claim that mormons are not christian.

What many want to do is control the definition of the word. Control the definition, control the debate. Some have made a good living doing it. The board not to be named comes to mind.

[LDSGuy]

Christ said his disciples would be known by their love for one another and by their love for Him, which means keeping his commandments. Shouldn't this be at least the starting point for identifying who is a Christian?

[Vanguard]

Christ said his disciples would be known by their love for one another and by their love for Him, which means keeping his commandments. Shouldn't this be at least the starting point for identifying who is a Christian?

Not keeping the commandments can make one a combination of either 1) a Christian who genuinely struggles and/or 2) one who could care less about said commandments but a Christian nonetheless. It seems the one defining element of what makes one a Christian has to be his belief in the Atonement. All other considerations pale in comparison to this one supernal event.

Is there a better line than this?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Vanguard

[treehugger]

It is also unchristian to call people, who believe in Christ as the son of god and follow his teachings, unchristian. But the hypocrisy of it is overlooked by those who make the claim that mormons are not christian.

And many shall say 'Lord, lord, did we not cast out devils in your name...etc, etc.' And the will say 'Depart from me Ye workers of iniquity, Ye never knew me'

So simply claiming Christ or doing things in His name does not mean much even to Christ.

[cwald]

What many want to do is control the definition of the word. Control the definition, control the debate. Some have made a good living doing it. The board not to be named comes to mind.

Let me ask a question. Isn't this the same thing we do to the term "Mormon?" Don't we (the LDS church) try to control the definition of what it means to be a Mormon, and get upset when other groups/sects/fundamentalists etc etc who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith call themselves Mormons.

I mean, I can understand why other christian religions do not call us Christians and want to control what the word means. It makes sense, right?

[Vanguard]

What many want to do is control the definition of the word. Control the definition, control the debate. Some have made a good living doing it. The board not to be named comes to mind.

Let me ask a question. Isn't this the same thing we do to the term "Mormon?" Don't we (the LDS church) try to control the definition of what it means to be a Mormon, and get upset when other groups/sects/fundamentalists etc etc who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith call themselves Mormons.

I mean, I can understand why other christian religions do not call us Christians and want to control what the word means. It makes sense, right?

Controlling the definition is the name of the game. Whichever definition rings the truest should have the day. In this way the most folks can understand better what the term "Christian" means rather than allowing myriad different definitions to hold sway. In other words, if a Christian is simply one who can claim he is Christian then Christianity means nothing. Again, it seems the best way to go about defining the term would include belief in the Atonement and that alone. In this way, our definitions can make room for individuals as I outlined in my previous post. For those who believe Christ's humanitarian mission but do not believe in the Atonement, we can call them good non-Christian folks.

As for the term "Mormon", I am not aware of any one group who regularly identifies themselves as such without attaching a descriptor of some sort (i.e., fundamentalist, reorganized, etc.)? In my own estimation, the term "Mormon" must include the notion of an unbroken chain of authority most recently layed at the feet of President Monson. With that belief everything else by force of logic must fall into place.

[dougtheavenger]

Christ said his disciples would be known by their love for one another and by their love for Him, which means keeping his commandments. Shouldn't this be at least the starting point for identifying who is a Christian?

I agree. Christ never mentioned any of the metaphysical beliefs that some insist are requisit for being a Christian. A nine year old child can be a Christian, but I doubt that many 9 year olds can understand how Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father and also the Son of God begotten before all worlds.

[dougtheavenger]

Let me ask a question. Isn't this the same thing we do to the term "Mormon?" Don't we (the LDS church) try to control the definition of what it means to be a Mormon, and get upset when other groups/sects/fundamentalists etc etc who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith call themselves Mormons.

I mean, I can understand why other christian religions do not call us Christians and want to control what the word means. It makes sense, right?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian church. All arguments to the contrary have one of three defects.

The first type of flawed argument is made when the party doesn’t know LDS doctrine. For example, on MSNBC, which briefly morphed into the 700 Club, it was claimed that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ. In reality, Mormons believe in a trinity of three divine persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who are one in purpose. Jesus is God the Son, a divine person and member of the Godhead. Clearly Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ.

The second type of flawed argument is made when the party doesn’t know the doctrines of their own faith. For example Mormons believe that Jesus was begotten of God the Father before the creation of the world. Some critics extrapolate from this that Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being. Not so. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus “was begotten of the Father before all worlds […], begotten, not made.” Clearly official non-Mormon Christian doctrine holds that there is a difference between “begotten” and “made” or created. Mormon doctrine and non-Mormon Christian creeds both hold two beliefs that some may see as being in conflict. They are that (1) Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father and (2) Jesus was begotten of the Father before the creation of the world. Whatever conflict you may believe these two doctrines present, they are certainly Christian if Catholics, Presberterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, and Methods are Christian.

The third type of argument is based on differences between Mormon doctrine and non-Mormon Christian doctrine as presented in the creeds. These differences are real. However, the Christian creeds are post-Biblical and those elements that conflict with Mormon doctrine are not supported plainly by the Bible. For example, in the Nicene Creed, it is stated that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are not merely one in purpose but one in substance. This doctrine is called consubstantiation. Good luck finding consubstantiation in the Bible. Roman Catholics can fall back on Papal authority for validation. Papal authority is a coherent if not convincing argument. Protestants, however, are forced to engage in some intellectual defense that is plausible, at best, but has no clear Biblical authority.

Edited July 7, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Christ said his disciples would be known by their love for one another and by their love for Him, which means keeping his commandments. Shouldn't this be at least the starting point for identifying who is a Christian?

Yes, yes and yes.

[ERMD]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

[mfbukowski]

What many want to do is control the definition of the word. Control the definition, control the debate. Some have made a good living doing it. The board not to be named comes to mind.

All we have is definitions. Control the definitions and you control reality.

[TAO]

All we have is definitions. Control the definitions and you control reality.

And classifications! Though technically that's a subset of definitions, too. But yes, you are right!

[Vanguard]

Christ said his disciples would be known by their love for one another and by their love for Him, which means keeping his commandments. Shouldn't this be at least the starting point for identifying who is a Christian?

I agree. Christ never mentioned any of the metaphysical beliefs that some insist are requisit for being a Christian. A nine year old child can be a Christian, but I doubt that many 9 year olds can understand how Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father and also the Son of God begotten before all worlds.

But who does understand any of the metaphysical beliefs? Though we as adults may be closer to that full understanding, we are certainly nowhere near it. My 9 yro. daughter understands in 9-yro old fashion the concept of Christ atoning for her sins. Isn't that enough? Isn't the Atonement the one thing that most distinguishes Christ from anyone else? There are plenty of humanitarian beliefs that espouse the notion of loving one another. This cannot be the determinant of who is or isn't Christian.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Vanguard

[LDSGuy]

But who does understand any of the metaphysical beliefs? Though we as adults may be closer to that full understanding, we are certainly nowhere near it. My 9 yro. daughter understands in 9-yro old fashion the concept of Christ atoning for her sins. Isn't that enough? Isn't the Atonement the one thing that most distinguishes Christ from anyone else? There are plenty of humanitarian beliefs that espouse the notion of loving one another. This cannot be the determinant of who is or isn't Christian.

When we say love one another and love Christ, by keeping his commandments, it means also (at least for me) that we accept the atonement as our means of our salvation. However I was talking about the way a Christian is identified by others. Christ said, "by this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." I would also add our love for Christ and all that through him we can obtain.

[Vanguard]

When we say love one another and love Christ, by keeping his commandments, it means also (at least for me) that we accept the atonement as our means of our salvation. However I was talking about the way a Christian is identified by others. Christ said, "by this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." I would also add our love for Christ and all that through him we can obtain.

I suppose you do have a point though who keeps the commandments? I know we try with varying degrees of success but we certainly all fall short on a daily basis. The danger lies in arbitrarily setting up some kind of litmus behavior for determining who is Christian and who isn't. We may fall into the trap of thinking about another, "Well, he doesn't attend Christian services nearly as much as he should, he isn't really much of a Christian" or "He gives money to the homeless whenever we are out in public, he definately sets the standard for being a true Christian". I don't like where those kinds of conclusions lead us. I don't know what either of those two behavioral examples say of the individual. I would rather not be in the business of making those determinations.

Do you believe Christ atoned for your sins? If so, we're good to go and I consider you a Christian brother. Do you fall short of the mark in being a Christian? That's ok, keep striving - you're still every bit a Christian. I like that much better.

[Storm Rider]

The reason I think accusing a group of not being Christian when they believe in Jesus as the Christ is that they elevate a specific belief about Jesus over Jesus himself. To not be Christian is to be moved beyond the aid of Jesus' atoning sacrifice for humanity. Jesus becomes secondary to their doctrine about Jesus.

Those who throw this type of accusation about also are devoid of any understanding of scripture. At no point does the Bible provide for this type of belief; God the Father was central to Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught us that he was the intermediary to the Father. Jesus specifically derided the pharisees for their unholy attachment to doctrine/Mosaic law. They did not understand it just as those who accuse LDS of not being Christian do not understand Jesus and his message.

When did doctrine become more important than Jesus himself?

[djholmess]

Hi,

I'm an evangelical Christian (first post) – encountered some Mormon missionaries lately and have been looking into your beliefs.

I found this topic interesting.

As I see it there are really two potential definitions of ‘Christian’ we could be talking about.

1) Christian as it was defined in the times of the NT when applied to believers/disciples of Jesus. So if you are calling yourself a Christian meaning ‘I hold to the religion/beliefs of the first Christians’ then that’s one thing. To do so you would have to demonstrate what NT Christians believed and show that you agree.

2) Christian as it is used in today’s language. Whatever the beliefs of ‘NT Christians’ the word Christian as it has been used in recent history and in modern times at its simplest has referred to the religion focused on the Trinitarian God. (although obviously that’s not just what it refers too)

If you are talking about Mormons being Christian in the sense of definition 1 then I can understand that and it is something that can be discussed and debated between all the groups who may claim to that definition of themselves.

However if you are talking about definition 2 then to be honest I can’t understand why the LDS Church wants itself to be seen in that group. Irrespective of which view of God is true an honest look at the difference between the Trinity and the LDS God surely would have to conclude that they are talking about different Gods.

As an evangelical I believe the person of God the Father is God and has always existed as God in the exact same way he is God today. I believe the person of Jesus is also God and that he created (from nothing) all things including human spirits.

My understanding of Mormon beliefs is that your Heavenly Father is ‘The God’ of this planet/universe but that he was once a man who has been exulted to his position of Godhood. You also believe that whilst Jesus is a God he isn’t ‘The God’ and that he is a spirit brother of humans (not creator in the sense of Trinitarian creator).

So even though we use the same names; God, Jesus...who we are actually talking about are different beings/persons. I therefore find it surprising that if you are all talking about the second definition that you would want to be seen in this ‘Christian’ group.

If I was to convert to the LDS church I imagine I would never want to be associated with the term ‘Christian.’ (even as an evangelical I hesitate to use the word as there have been a lot of wacky beliefs held by ‘Christians’ who did believe in the trinity).

Think about Islam for a second. They believe Allah (Arabic word for God) is the God of the OT; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They believe Jesus existed and that he was a prophet sent by Allah to the Jews. However I think we all would be very quick to distinguish our God and Jesus we believe in from the God and Jesus of Islam.

Given the differences between the Trinitarian God and the LDS God I would just have assumed that you would want to make the same distinctions. If the situations were reversed and the term Christian was mainly used to refer to the LDS beliefs then I would have no problem saying I’m not a Christian as the word is currently defined in our language.

Do no Mormons see things this clear cut? Doesn’t wanting to have the name Christian not lead to more confusion that benefit?

[Calm]

Whatever the beliefs of ‘NT Christians’ the word Christian as it has been used in recent history and in modern times at its simplest has referred to the religion focused on the Trinitarian God.

CFR please that this is how it has been used in modern times consistently and widely enough to merit being considered the most common definition as opposed to what is most often found in dictionaries which are often used to record and demonstrate what common language terms are used and how....

a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent ofChristianity.

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

http://dictionary.re...e/christian?s=t

In fact in the entire page of the above reference I didn't find one reference to the Triune God (kind of how like the term "Trinity" can't be found in the Bible).

Irrespective of which view of God is true an honest look at the difference between the Trinity and the LDS God surely would have to conclude that they are talking about different Gods.

OTOH, one could look at it that we are talking about the same God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit and the only thing different is our understanding about them. They are who they are no matter what we imagine they might be. Our belief doesn't change them anymore than if you had a belief I was a young boy with red hair and green eyes and a wicked fast ball would turn me into that young boy....even if you convinced every last person in the world to think of me that way.

However I think we all would be very quick to distinguish our God and Jesus we believe in from the God and Jesus of Islam.

Why? Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Given the differences between the Trinitarian God and the LDS God I would just have assumed that you would want to make the same distinctions. If the situations were reversed and the term Christian was mainly used to refer to the LDS beliefs then I would have no problem saying I’m not a Christian as the word is currently defined in our language.

How about Evangelicals take the name of "Modern Christians" both due to their appearance on the scene and their use of modern interpretations of the Bible (since Catholics rate the "Historical Christian" label having been around the longest plus depending a great deal on the historic and traditional interpretation of the Bible, Protestants can be labeled "Protestant Christian" since they more or less had chosen to define themselves by "protesting" the Catholics) and we LDS can call ourselves "Word of God Christians" because we based our beliefs on that which comes from God through revelation, whether it is in scripture form or through modern revelation.

Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[tyler90az]

Hi,

I'm an evangelical Christian (first post) – encountered some Mormon missionaries lately and have been looking into your beliefs.

I found this topic interesting.

As I see it there are really two potential definitions of ‘Christian’ we could be talking about.

1) Christian as it was defined in the times of the NT when applied to believers/disciples of Jesus. So if you are calling yourself a Christian meaning ‘I hold to the religion/beliefs of the first Christians’ then that’s one thing. To do so you would have to demonstrate what NT Christians believed and show that you agree.

2) Christian as it is used in today’s language. Whatever the beliefs of ‘NT Christians’ the word Christian as it has been used in recent history and in modern times at its simplest has referred to the religion focused on the Trinitarian God. (although obviously that’s not just what it refers too)

If you are talking about Mormons being Christian in the sense of definition 1 then I can understand that and it is something that can be discussed and debated between all the groups who may claim to that definition of themselves.

However if you are talking about definition 2 then to be honest I can’t understand why the LDS Church wants itself to be seen in that group. Irrespective of which view of God is true an honest look at the difference between the Trinity and the LDS God surely would have to conclude that they are talking about different Gods.

As an evangelical I believe the person of God the Father is God and has always existed as God in the exact same way he is God today. I believe the person of Jesus is also God and that he created (from nothing) all things including human spirits.

My understanding of Mormon beliefs is that your Heavenly Father is ‘The God’ of this planet/universe but that he was once a man who has been exulted to his position of Godhood. You also believe that whilst Jesus is a God he isn’t ‘The God’ and that he is a spirit brother of humans (not creator in the sense of Trinitarian creator).

So even though we use the same names; God, Jesus...who we are actually talking about are different beings/persons. I therefore find it surprising that if you are all talking about the second definition that you would want to be seen in this ‘Christian’ group.

If I was to convert to the LDS church I imagine I would never want to be associated with the term ‘Christian.’ (even as an evangelical I hesitate to use the word as there have been a lot of wacky beliefs held by ‘Christians’ who did believe in the trinity).

Think about Islam for a second. They believe Allah (Arabic word for God) is the God of the OT; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They believe Jesus existed and that he was a prophet sent by Allah to the Jews. However I think we all would be very quick to distinguish our God and Jesus we believe in from the God and Jesus of Islam.

Given the differences between the Trinitarian God and the LDS God I would just have assumed that you would want to make the same distinctions. If the situations were reversed and the term Christian was mainly used to refer to the LDS beliefs then I would have no problem saying I’m not a Christian as the word is currently defined in our language.

Do no Mormons see things this clear cut? Doesn’t wanting to have the name Christian not lead to more confusion that benefit?

You are right, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not fit into your definition of a Christian religion. The Church fits into the only definition that matters, which would be Jesus Christ's definition. Jesus Christ said, "know them by their fruits." He did not say, "know them by what a 1000 year old council decides." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is united, a missionary church, charitable church, revelation, love and all those other choice features of Christ's church. Even with all that, the distinguishing feature that makes a church Christian or not is if they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[djholmess]

How about Evangelicals take the name of "Modern Christians" both due to their appearance on the scene and their use of modern interpretations of the Bible (since Catholics rate the "Historical Christian" label having been around the longest plus depending a great deal on the historic and traditional interpretation of the Bible, Protestants can be labeled "Protestant Christian" since they more or less had chosen to define themselves by "protesting" the Catholics) and we LDS can call ourselves "Word of God Christians" because we based our beliefs on that which comes from God through revelation, whether it is in scripture form or through modern revelation.

That's exactly my point. The term Christian is so far reaching in today’s usage that it largely holds no meaning. Personally I feel no need to claim to be Christian because to do so puts me within such a grand sphere (Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholicism etc) as to make such a statement meaningless. I was just surprised that LDS folks were so concerned to have the title. Now if someone was to say that I didn’t hold the beliefs of the NT Christians that would be something I would be concerned about.

Regarding the definition I know the word Christian has no direct link to the Triune God in any dictionary. However ‘Christianity’ can be defined

‘the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.’

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christianity

If you were to compare all 3 of these branches of Christianity one of the only common tangible beliefs traditionally held would be the doctrine of the trinity.

Regarding different or same God: If we both just realised we have a friend in common from Alaska called Richard we may initially think we know the same person. But if you begin to explain that he has two sisters and a brother whilst at the same time I explain that he is an only child we would quickly come the conclusion that we are talking about different Richards.

Now if instead we were to say ‘I think’ before our assertions about his siblings we may still hold out the possibility that we are talking about the same Richard and that one or both of us is confused about the details of who Richard is.

Back to our context. I would strongly assert that God the Father was never a man and that he is Spirit not flesh and bones. Just as strongly (I presume) you would assert that he does have a physical body of flesh and bones.

It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude that we are indeed talking about different Gods.

Why be quick to distance myself from the God of Islam; well to put it simply the character and nature of Allah is very different from the character and nature of the Triune God of the Bible in my view. So whilst Muslims claim that the God who sent the OT prophets also sent their prophet Mohammed I would want to ensure no one thought I believed the biblical God sent Mohammed.