Are Mormons Christians? Witherington Says No.

[wayfarer]

That is the first time anyone has every accused me of being too nice! I must really be getting old.

But you make an excellent point.

Not only were you nice, but I appreciated your post immensely, and agree completely.

I personally don't think it is reasonable to accuse LDS of not being Christian, especially based upon our nonadherence to creedal orthodoxy.

But when we look at what Witherington and other Christian apologists intend by accusing LDS as being non-Christian is to hijack the label "Christian" as meaning "orthodox", and therefore Mormons, being heterodox, are therefore "anti-Christian", and from there, a very short trip to "antichrist". And these are "fightin' words".

Ironically, some of us who claim the label "mormon" may not be orthodox with respect to what some declare as Mormon Doctrine, and therefore are anathematized by the "pure defenders of the faith", that we are somehow less than "mormon" -- "marginal mormons", perhaps.

Quibbling over labels is often less than useful to ascertain truth of a position. Yes, we are christian AND we have divergent views. So rather than fighting, lets sit meaningfully together and celebrate what we share in common with our christian brethren.

[zerinus]

So "Apostate Christianity" is a term you invented. Is this your personal belief or is this what the majority of Mormons believe - that so-called mainstream Christianity is an apostate form of Christianity?

And if this is the case, why on earth would Mr. Hamblin be arguing to be a part of this apostate form of Christianity?

Hamblin will have to answer for himself. My answer to that is that I am not seeking to be identified as part of the Apostate form of Christianity. My argument is that Mormonism is the true (Restored) form of Christianity. My self-identification as a Christian does not translate into identification as part of Apostate Christendom. Please tell me why you are finding that hard to understand, and I will try to see if I can explain it better.

[The Grimace]

Let's try this - Explain the difference between the Mormon concept of trinity and the Christian (or non-LDS, if you prefer) concept of trinity. Because it seems that some of you are kind of saying they are the same thing.

What do you see as differences?

[The Grimace]

Hamblin will have to answer for himself. My answer to that is that I am not seeking to be identified as part of the Apostate form of Christianity. My argument is that Mormonism is the true (Restored) form of Christianity. My self-identification as a Christian does not translate into identification as part of Apostate Christendom. Please tell me why you are finding that hard to understand, and I will try to see if I can explain it better.

No, I understand what you are saying, and I think you are honest above many others in declaring what most LDS try to subdue: Restored Christianity is the only true form of Christianity, and what is commonly referred to as mainstream Christianity is actually the apostate form of Christianity.

What I don't get is why any Mormon would want to claim they are Christian if the label is associated with an apostate form of Christianity. Why not try reforming the label and then laying claim to it?

Edited August 29, 2012 by The Grimace

[zerinus]

Grimace, it is true, mormonism believes that mainstream christianity is an apostate form of christianity, and thus the need for the restoration.

And zerinus, I think that you and I are confusing the moderm, commonly accepted terminology of "christian" with the ancient use of the term. Yes, I understand that it it's most primitive usage, a christian is simply a follower of christ. As a mormon, I always considered myself a christian, and to this day, I still consider mormons christians in that primitive, most basic sense of the word.

Over twenty or so centuries, however, the term "christian" has taken on new meanings, and particulalry, the idea of "mainstream christianity" has become almost a subset of christianity itself; this is the terminology that I am referencing in my questioning the LDS need to be embraced by the mainstream christian community.

You are trying to redefine Christianity to suit your purpose. The problem with that argument is that those who accuse Mormons of not being Christians (mainly Evangelical Protestants) claim to rely exclusively on the Bible to derive their theology from, and the definition of a Christian is a theological issue that from their point of view (and ours) must have a biblical basis. Therefore the ancient and Biblical meaning of Christian becomes very relevant in this debate.

Edited August 29, 2012 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I have responded on the Religious Researcher blog to your blog post critiquing Witherington. The article is entitled "Mormonism and Christianity: Evangelical Witherington versus Mormon Hamblin."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not another one of these threads. ugh.

And yet I post after I made this comment. I must be insane.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's try this - Explain the difference between the Mormon concept of trinity and the Christian (or non-LDS, if you prefer) concept of trinity. Because it seems that some of you are kind of saying they are the same thing.

What do you see as differences?

Ill tell you what grim, you explain the "christian" trinity in a way that makes any sense with out using the "It's a mystery" line and I will be happy to explain the difference.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

I find the timing of your complaint...unsettling. But perhaps it was a coincidence.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bart Burk]

Let's try this - Explain the difference between the Mormon concept of trinity and the Christian (or non-LDS, if you prefer) concept of trinity. Because it seems that some of you are kind of saying they are the same thing.

What do you see as differences?

I think the main difference is that Mormons see God and man as being of the same species. Traditional Christians see God and man as separate species. I think the differences in our understanding of the Trinity are minimal with the main difference that Mormons believe God the Father has a body. The other difference might be that Mormons have not bought into the philosophical constructs of the Nicene Creed which they do not see as essential to an understanding of the Godhead. I think Mormons and traditional Christians are unable to fully explain the oneness of God and they flounder among themselves when they try to nail it down. The reality is that it is apparent that God is three persons, but we have an impossible task when we try to explain the unity of God because we haven't experienced it. Christ does make his unity with the Father an essential theme of his ministry, and that is why I would say the Book of Mormon adds to our understanding by explicitly declaring that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God. We get into trouble when we try to explain the unexplainable. I think instead of arguing about the Trinity it would be more useful to explore how we view the differences/similarities between God and man. Even on that level I think we will find that we really don't know all that much.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I find the timing of your complaint...unsettling. But perhaps it was a coincidence.

Yeah Sorry. Wait, which comment? Oh well. I need to check out your article.

[zerinus]

Let's try this - Explain the difference between the Mormon concept of trinity and the Christian (or non-LDS, if you prefer) concept of trinity. Because it seems that some of you are kind of saying they are the same thing.

What do you see as differences?

I can only tell you what the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity is. The Apostate doctrine of the Trinity is an absurdity which defies a clear definition. The Mormon doctrine of the Trinity is that it consists of three distinct and separate Personages known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are united in mind, purpose, and will. The Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, making the Father the supreme Deity of the universe. Thus there is one God, the Father; and all other beings (and deities) being subordinate to Him.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Okay, no problem. Thanks for your willingness to see what I have to say.

Yeah Sorry. Wait, which comment? Oh well. I need to check out your article.

[The Grimace]

Ill tell you what grim, you explain the "christian" trinity in a way that makes any sense with out using the "It's a mystery" line and I will be happy to explain the difference.

I don't think the "Christian" trinity makes any sense and truthfully, I don't see much of a difference between the way Mormons explain the trinity and the rest of the Christian world explains it. I think Bart Burk touched the main difference:

Mormons = three distinct personages, two of them have bodies of flesh and bone, at least two of them are, individually gods.

Christians = three distinct personages, none of them have bodies of flesh and bone (at least I've never heard of any of them having physical bodies outside of Christ's time on earth). They are distinct yet somehow the same.

The main difference I've heard, in Sunday School lessons, in Sacrament talks, in quorum meetings, is that Mormon trinity means that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct but one in purpose, while the Christian trinity the gods are distinct but one in substance.

Where it gets confusing is when Mormons claim that Jehovah of the OT is Jesus of the NT, and that Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and both are the Father. The scriptural account in The Book of Mormon is certainly not clear and seems to make an attempt at explaining the traditional Christian notion of the Trinity.

It is all confusing.

Edited August 29, 2012 by The Grimace

[Zeta-Flux]

Thus there is one God, the Father; and all other beings (and deities) being subordinate to Him.

Or, in other words:

There are multiple persons who are called God. But there is one God (as all the persons are united, as one).

[zerinus]

No, I understand what you are saying, and I think you are honest above many others in declaring what most LDS try to subdue: Restored Christianity is the only true form of Christianity, and what is commonly referred to as mainstream Christianity is actually the apostate form of Christianity.

What I don't get is why any Mormon would want to claim they are Christian if the label is associated with an apostate form of Christianity. Why not try reforming the label and then laying claim to it?

The label is an authentic Biblical label that does not require reforming. But where its definition has been obscured by Apostate Christianity, it can be reclaimed by redefining it in according to its original biblical use, which was simply a reference to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

[Bart Burk]

Or, in other words:

There are multiple persons who are called God. But there is one God (as all the persons are united, as one).

I think that is a good way of putting it. The problem enters when we try to define how they are united. That is perhaps an unnecessary effort because we do not know entirely how they are one.

[The Grimace]

The label is an authentic Biblical label that does not require reforming. But where its definition has been obscured by Apostate Christianity, it can be reclaimed by redefining it in according to its original biblical use, which was simply a reference to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

OK, but I think you are opening up a can of worms. Because the disciples that followed Jesus are not necessarily the disciples who followed Paul's re-imagining of Jesus's Christianity. In fact, if we are true disciples of Jesus, we'd be Jewish.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think the "Christian" trinity makes any sense and truthfully, I don't see much of a difference between the way Mormons explain the trinity and the rest of the Christian world explains it. I think Bart Burk touched the main difference:

Mormons = three distinct personages, two of them have bodies of flesh and bone, at least two of them are, individually gods.

Christians = three distinct personages, none of them have bodies of flesh and bone (at least I've never heard of any of them having physical bodies outside of Christ's time on earth). They are distinct yet somehow the same.

The main difference I've heard, in Sunday School lessons, in Sacrament talks, in quorum meetings, is that Mormon trinity means that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct but one in purpose, while the Christian trinity the gods are distinct but one in substance.

. Well we would say that the LDS are social trinitarians. I guess I really wont try to offer up any opinions right now

Where it gets confusing is when Mormons claim that Jehovah of the OT is Jesus of the NT, and that Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and both are the Father. The scriptural account in The Book of Mormon is certainly not clear and seems to make an attempt at explaining the traditional Christian notion of the Trinity.

It is all confusing.

Interesting. Well, unfortunately that is what teh scriptures say. And for some reason they are not as clear as I think they could be. And it seems to be that way on purpose so we can understand them in several different ways. For instance in what ways is Jesus the Father. In what ways is God the Father the Father. In the mainstream view of things the 3 people of the Godhead seem to be metaphysically the same, at least in the way they all take about "God". But when you get in a deep conversation about God all of the sudden he is 3 separate people but one being. I mean you cannot even make real sense because you are trying to use the number 1 to describe 3.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Or, in other words:

There are multiple persons who are called God. But there is one God (as all the persons are united, as one).

Correct. This is the easiest way to understand God or the term "One God".

[Vance]

I think that is a good way of putting it. The problem enters when we try to define how they are united. That is perhaps an unnecessary effort because we do not know entirely how they are one.

No, we don't know ENTIRELY how they are one. BUT we do know that they are one in purpose and will.

And that is enough.

[Bart Burk]

The main difference I've heard, in Sunday School lessons, in Sacrament talks, in quorum meetings, is that Mormon trinity means that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct but one in purpose, while the Christian trinity the gods are distinct but one in substance.

Where it gets confusing is when Mormons claim that Jehovah of the OT is Jesus of the NT, and that Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and both are the Father. The scriptural account in The Book of Mormon is certainly not clear and seems to make an attempt at explaining the traditional Christian notion of the Trinity.

It is all confusing.

Mormons don't understand the meaning of substance. I don't think "orthodox" Christians completely understand it either. I don't claim to understand it. It's a philosophical term which has nothing to do with the physical nature of anyone in the Godhead -- I think most Mormons understand the term substance as having to do with something physical when it doesn't. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity does not deal with whether or not God the Father has a body. As for the Mormon understanding of the references to the Son being the Father, etc. the First Presidency of the LDS Church tried to clarify the Mormon view with this doctrinal exposition:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son

It is a reasonable document and I think it makes it clear that it is not something we should get hung up on.

[zerinus]

Or, in other words:

There are multiple persons who are called God. But there is one God (as all the persons are united, as one).

The question was about the Trinity, which consists of the three personages of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

[Vance]

Christians = three distinct personages, none of them have bodies of flesh and bone (at least I've never heard of any of them having physical bodies outside of Christ's time on earth). They are distinct yet somehow the same.

This should read,

SOME Christians = three distinct personages, none of them have bodies of flesh and bone (at least I've never heard of any of them having physical bodies outside of Christ's time on earth).

BTW, can you tell me when Christ died (shed his body of flesh) the second time. I am unable to find that in the Bible.

[Bart Burk]

The label is an authentic Biblical label that does not require reforming. But where its definition has been obscured by Apostate Christianity, it can be reclaimed by redefining it in according to its original biblical use, which was simply a reference to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

But then you have to deal with the LDS scriptural declarations regarding the Oneness of the Godhead. I think it is more than just a reference to the disciples of Jesus Christ, but also declares the essential unity of the Father and the Son which the disciples are encouraged to imitate. Since the essential unity of the Godhead is beyond our current understanding, it is perhaps something which we can never totally obtain in this life, but something we can approach as we keep the precepts Jesus taught us in the moral law and to the extent we allow the Holy Ghost to rule our lives.