Are Mormons Christians? Witherington Says No.

[Bill Hamblin]

See link and my response here:

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/670/

[Zeta-Flux]

I really liked the response. I would be very interested to know how he doesn't reject the Christianity of all of the groups you mentioned. (I also liked how you brought up one of the creeds that he likely rejects.)

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Good stuff. Favorite line: "If Witherington wants to call me a heretic, that’s fine. But I’m a Christian heretic." Amen! I've said nearly the exact same thing many times.

[volgadon]

What a shame, as I rather like Witherington and his work.

[Robert F. Smith]

Good response, but you are being entirely too charitable in this matter, and maybe we all should, even though we are the only actual Christians.

I read all of Witherington's article, the blog comments following, and his responses to various bloggers. He clearly does not understand Mormon theology, and is not capable of presenting it accurately. He really ought to consult with someone like Pres. Richard J. Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary or with Professor Martin Mary of the Univ. of Chicago before stubbing his toe so badly in this misadventure with Mormons.

Here is Witherington's comment on Aug 28, 2012, at 9:10pm, on the Paheos blog:

All translations, including the King James which Joseph Smith used again and again, are already interpretations. I don’t use translations most of the time.

I read the Greek and Hebrew originals

. Anyone who relies on translations is already one step removed from the original form of God’s Word. I don’t need to re-read the Mormon sources any more than I already have done to know how very often they are at variance with the Bible, and for that matter with

the actual history of America and it’s Indians

, who BTW, have their own story to tell, and it

doesn’t comport or agree with the Mormon version

. Blessings anyway, BW3

The only problem is that the Greek and Hebrew originals don't exist. We have copies of copies of copies, etc., with many alterations and changes -- both accidental and deliberate. As for the interpretation of text: We need prophetic oracles and inspiration today just as they needed it in ancient times. Moreover, he clearly doesn't understand which American tribes are centrally involved in Book of Mormon history, apparently buying into the ridiculous folk-belief that all Amerinds are involved.

I have followed Witherington's column in Bible Review for years, but this is the first time I have found him so exclusive and doctrinaire. Very odd.

Here is a book Witherington wrote with an unsaved Jew:

Shanks, Hershel, and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus (N.Y.: HarperCollins/ HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

What was he thinking? After all, Jews consider Ben and his fellow "christians" as polytheists.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[altersteve]

I enjoyed your response, although I must point out one minor inconsistency that stuck out at me:

There are several questions to unpack here. First, what is the Bible? Is it the Protestant Bible? Are the Catholics and Greek Orthodox not Christians because they accept the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament? What of the Ethiopian Bible, which includes the Book of Enoch and Jubilees? Are the Ethiopians therefore not Christians? And what of the Bible of Jesus? It included only the Old Testament–the earliest Christians could not affirm the New Testament as scripture because it did not exist at the time; it was probably not formally compiled until a century after Jesus and not canonized until the late fourth century. Obviously, then, one can be a Christian without even believing in the New Testament.

(emphasis mine)

The earliest Christians may not have had the New Testament during the first few century after Christ, but surely they still believed in the teachings contained within it. So in my opinion, it may be better for you to change "without even believing in the New Testament" to "without even having the New Testament."

Other than that, excellent article.

[Storm Rider]

This entire question of LDS being Christian has reached the absurd. The same reasoning used by all of the critics would also condemn the early apostles and all of the followers of Jesus. It is impossible for them to create a definition that does not also condemn the early church. I tire of their ignorance and their inability to apply the same standards to their own beliefs.

[teddyaware]

It really all depends on how one defines what a 'Christian' is. If your definition of what constitutes genuine Christianity is a belief system that, while believing Christ is the Savior, rejects the need for living apostles and prophets and direct-line priesthood authority; rejects the doctrine that there is a need for additional scripture and prophetic revelation beyond that which is recorded in the Bible; rejects the need for the sealing power confered upon Peter by the Lord, claiming it is no longer needed in the church; rejects that there is a continued need for the church to be organized and function as it did during the Apostolic Era: rejects the belief that God intended men and women to be sealed as husband and wife to each other for eternity, in the likeness of the union of Adam and Eve before the fall; rejects the claim of divine autheticity of the Book of Mormon; and so on. and so on through the list. Then, the Latter Day Saints are not Christian according to that definition.

I would turn the question around and ask the follwing one instead: Can Christian churches and belief systems still be called "Christian" if they reject the above listed tenants? Another way of framing the question would be to ask if during the Apostolic period, while Peter was the President of the Twelve Apostles, could an individual who believed in Christ, but rejected Peter as the leader of the Church, still be called a Christian? Interesting thought, eh? If the answer is that our theoretical 'rejector' of Peter's authority could still called a Christian, even though he denied and refused to submit to church leadership, then most any sort of follower of Christ should fairly be called a Christian.

Edited August 29, 2012 by teddyaware

[The Grimace]

Why does it matter if Mormons are though of as Christian? And, while browsing other blog articles on the same website, I came across this, by the same author:

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/minimal-beliefs-to-be-considered-a-mormon/

How is exclusivity in claiming the appellation "Mormon" different than than the exclusivity of claiming the use of the appellation "Christian"? It seems an inconsistent standard is applied.

[Zeta-Flux]

Robert F. Smith,

I couldn't stomach any more comments. I'm glad you were able to get through them all. I went to bed with a sick stomach (emotionally) because all I could think about as I read the different responses by Witherington is how he misunderstands us so badly and yet feels he understands us so well he can reject us from the brotherhood of Christ.

As one example, he claims that what he is doing is no different from how missionaries come to his door and tell him there is more; that he is not "fully Christian". I may not be able to account for every missionary, but I'm pretty sure they did not think in terms of fully Christian or not. Even if they had, Witherington isn't claiming we are not fully Christian, but that we are not Christian at all.

On the flip side, I was surprised that there were not more refutations of (5) by Mormons: we do believe that Christ's atonement and death are sufficient for salvation from death and hell. It is exaltation that requires more.

----------

The Grimace,

Our standard for defining "Christian" and "Mormon" is the following: "What do most people mean by the words?"

Most people mean by "Christian" that one believes in Christ. It is the common usage.

Most people mean by "Mormon" a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the common usage.

There is another word for other churches which share some common traits with us: Restorationists.

There is no inconsistency. We are all for clarity and understanding, which is easiest to obtain by using the standard meaning of words.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[rameumptom]

Witherington not only stirs up the Mormon/Christian pot, but also recently wrote regarding the concept of Mother in Heaven and God's masculinity/femininity. April DeConick of Rice University responded to him in BAR:

http://members.bib-a...e=5&ArticleID=8

Edited August 29, 2012 by rameumptom

[The Grimace]

The Grimace,

Our standard for defining "Christian" and "Mormon" is the following: "What do most people mean by the words?"

Most people mean by "Christian" that one believes in Christ. It is the common usage.

Most people mean by "Mormon" a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the common usage.

There is another word for other churches which share some common traits with us: Restorationists.

There is no inconsistency. We are all for clarity and understanding, which is easiest to obtain by using the standard meaning of words.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

Zeta, with due respect to the author, I would suggest Mr. Hamblin has a tighter definition of Mormon than simply "a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Mr. Hamblin sets out a minimal list of beliefs ascribed to the label "Mormon". Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this seems very close to the same tact used by Worthington.

[Walden]

I agree with Grimace; what is the LDS obsession with being classified as "christian?"

Why the longing to be included in a group who's members do not have the full truth or the full gospel, in the eye's of the LDS church?

Is this a tactic to make the LDS church more appealing to outsiders?

Is it an LDS strategy in the fight against mainstream christianities attempt to marginalize the LDS church?

Honestly, why the LDS obsession with being classified as "christian?" The LDS church used to take pride in being "peculiar", and honestly, that peculiarity played a part in the LDS church's attraction to converts from the mainstream christian community. Now, the church, or rather, it's apologists, seem to be almost begging the mainstream christian community for admission into their "exclusive" club. Why?

[Bill Hamblin]

Good response, but you are being entirely too charitable in this matter, and maybe we all should, even though we are the only actual Christians.

I read all of Witherington's article, the blog comments following, and his responses to various bloggers. He clearly does not understand Mormon theology, and is not capable of presenting it accurately. He really ought to consult with someone like Pres. Richard J. Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary or with Professor Martin Mary of the Univ. of Chicago before stubbing his toe so badly in this misadventure with Mormons.

Here is Witherington's comment on Aug 28, 2012, at 9:10pm, on the Paheos blog:

All translations, including the King James which Joseph Smith used again and again, are already interpretations. I don’t use translations most of the time.

I read the Greek and Hebrew originals

. Anyone who relies on translations is already one step removed from the original form of God’s Word. I don’t need to re-read the Mormon sources any more than I already have done to know how very often they are at variance with the Bible, and for that matter with

the actual history of America and it’s Indians

, who BTW, have their own story to tell, and it

doesn’t comport or agree with the Mormon version

. Blessings anyway, BW3

The only problem is that the Greek and Hebrew originals don't exist. We have copies of copies of copies, etc., with many alterations and changes -- both accidental and deliberate. As for the interpretation of text: We need prophetic oracles and inspiration today just as they needed it in ancient times. Moreover, he clearly doesn't understand which American tribes are centrally involved in Book of Mormon history, apparently buying into the ridiculous folk-belief that all Amerinds are involved.

I have followed Witherington's column in Bible Review for years, but this is the first time I have found him so exclusive and doctrinaire. Very odd.

Here is a book Witherington wrote with an unsaved Jew:

Shanks, Hershel, and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus (N.Y.: HarperCollins/ HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

What was he thinking? After all, Jews consider Ben and his fellow "christians" as polytheists.

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

I agree with Grimace; what is the LDS obsession with being classified as "christian?"

Why the longing to be included in a group who's members do not have the full truth or the full gospel, in the eye's of the LDS church?

Let me clarify something for you and Grimace.

First, it is not an "obsession".

Second, we don't care if we are included in the "group" of protestant Christianity.

What we do care about is misinformation. By claiming we are not "Christian" the impression left with people is that we don't believe in Christ. This we care about because Christ is our God. We want people to have a correct understanding of us.

I hope that helps.

[The Grimace]

Let me clarify something for you and Grimace.

First, it is not an "obsession".

Second, we don't care if we are included in the "group" of protestant Christianity.

What we do care about is misinformation. By claiming we are not "Christian" the impression left with people is that we don't believe in Christ. This we care about because Christ is our God. We want people to have a correct understanding of us.

I hope that helps.

I don't think the issue is belief in Christ. I think the issue is redefinition of Christ - Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus as mainstream Christians (whatever that means). And perhaps it is not an obsession; maybe the rhetoric should center on, "We do not care either way if we are labeled Christians, here is what we do believe. We acknowledge that we have different beliefs than mainstream Christianity"

[Vance]

He clearly does not understand Mormon theology, and is not capable of presenting it accurately.

That is a very good summary of the situation.

[Walden]

Let me clarify something for you and Grimace.

First, it is not an "obsession".

Second, we don't care if we are included in the "group" of protestant Christianity.

What we do care about is misinformation. By claiming we are not "Christian" the impression left with people is that we don't believe in Christ. This we care about because Christ is our God. We want people to have a correct understanding of us.

I hope that helps.

"because Christ is our God".....wait, now maybe I am misunderstanding the LDS theology on which I was raised. I was taught to believe that God is god, and christ is his son, they are two distinct beings, and that we worship god through christ. How then can christ be the LDS god? No wonder this trinity thing gets so confusing.

And maybe "obsession" is too strong a word, but there certainly seems to be a mormon preoccupation with being accepted as a member of the mainstream christian movement.....just take a look at the discussion board here on any given day and there are generally three or so links discussing why mormons are christians.

If you truly don't care to be "included in the "group" of protestant Christianity", then why do some apologists go to such lengths to try to prove to mainstream christianity (which itself is a completely man-made construct) that the LDS church is in fact christian? I mean, really, the classifications and constraints of mainstream christianity are a man-made construct that is utilized to more easily classify and categorize relgious affiliations, as well as provide a basis for the "us and them" arguments that are used as a wedge by all religions. Why do some LDS apologists care so much to be part of this construct?

And if all of the arguments for "mormons are christians" are simply to clear up any misinformation, then why not simply hand out and espouse the articles of faith, which I think rather simply, succintly and clearly lay out the basic beliefs of the general LDS population, and then just let the mainstream christians quibble over that?

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

The term "not Christian" when used against members of the Church is a pejorative to end discussion not to promote it. At best it is a Red Herring.

[thesometimesaint]

Waldon:

One American lives in California, and another lives in Alabama. The one in Alabama does not get to decide that they are Americans while the one in California is not.

[Walden]

Waldon:

One American lives in California, and another lives in Alabama. The one in Alabama does not get to decide that they are Americans while the one in California is not.

I think that your example oversimplifies the issue and is not a proper comparison (and besides, I am sure there are many Alabamans who consider us Californians to not be American ) .

To me, it is more like an immigrant from Mexico who comes to the United States and argues that the US recognize him as a citizen because he now lives in the United States, now works in the United States, now spends his money in the Unted States, adheres to the laws of the United States and thus he should be recognized as a citizen....those things do not make him a citizen of the United States; the United States gets to determine who it's citizens are.

For a religion that was based on the premise that all the christian churches are incomplete and do not contain the fullness of christ, I just find the LDS church's desire to now be included in their fold to be humorously ironic.

[Walden]

The Grimace:

The term "not Christian" when used against members of the Church is a pejorative to end discussion not to promote it. At best it is a Red Herring.

One could say the exact same thing about the LDS church's belief that they are god's one, true church on earth.

See:

The term "not true" or "only partially true" when used against members of religions outside of Mormonism is a pejorative to end discussion not to promote it. At best it is a Red Herring.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Walden

[volgadon]

For a religion that was based on the premise that all the christian churches are incomplete and do not contain the fullness of christ, I just find the LDS church's desire to now be included in their fold to be humorously ironic.

If anything, your quote here is is deeply ironic. If we consider ourselves a truer, fuller form of Christianity than other denominations, wouldn't we find it annoying if other denominations said we aren't Christian?

[Zakuska]

For a religion that was based on the premise that all the christian churches are incomplete and do not contain the fullness of christ, I just find the LDS church's desire to now be included in their fold to be humorously ironic.

And here I thought we as LDS never left their "fold".

"Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God."

-- Brigham Young, Deseret News Weekly 15/109 (4 March 1866); cited in Eldon Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 5:32.

"We want no religion but pure Christianity."

-- [Parley P. Pratt, Plain Facts (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840)

“the great Christian city of Nauvoo”

-- Cited by Helen Mar Whitney, Woman's Exponent 10 no. 13 (1 December 1881), 97–99. Available in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997), 149. ISBN 1570083576. ISBN 978-1570083570. GospeLink (requires subscrip.)

Mormons “are Christians in the fullest sense of the term, believing in the Old and New Testaments.”

-- (The New York Herald, vol. 7, no. 419, 16 May 1842).

"We are a Christian community; we believe in God and in Jesus Christ"

-- Editorial on citizens of Beaver Dam, Virginia removing Mormon Elders by force to another part of the state, Deseret News Weekly 45/13 (17 September 1892): 396.

Mormons not being Christians is a rather late developed defense mechanism invented by Evangelical Christians to poison the well, schorch the earth, and stop dialogue.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Zakuska

[The Grimace]

The Grimace:

The term "not Christian" when used against members of the Church is a pejorative to end discussion not to promote it. At best it is a Red Herring.

Sometimes. Not all times.