Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Gervin]

It is falling apart as a movement,

Could you kindly provide a reference for your pronouncement?

[zerinus]

Could you kindly provide a reference for your pronouncement?

It is little bits of news information that I have picked up here and there over time. It is hard to find and bring them all together now. the youth in particular seem to be rapidly losing interest, and feel that it is becoming irrelevant to them, not filling a spiritual void in their lives. Here are a couple of sources that I could recall:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/book-news/religion/article/53735-prescriptions-for-an-ailing-christianity.html

http://m.christianpost.com/news/author-argues-6-reasons-why-mormons-are-beating-evangelicals-in-growth--80299/

[Zeta-Flux]

What I have been saying all along, first of all, is that whether anyone (Mormons, Baptists, you name it) is a "Christian" depends on how one defines the term--and that more than one definition is possible and exists. I am not insisting on a particular definition, nor do I say that "Mormons are not Christians" in that unqualified and undefined way.

We understand and agree with all this. Of course there is more than one definition.

Our point has similarly been simple. While there is no one single definition there is a consensus on the two most common useages. From dictionary.com: "a person who believes in Jesus Christ" and "a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ".

Using an alternate definition can, and often does, confuse or misrepresent our beliefs.

Second, all of the proposed definitions that Mormons commonly say should be used are fine in and of themselves but do not end the discussion. For example, some Mormons insist that the only acceptable definition of Christian is that anyone who calls himself a Christian is a Christian. If you like this definition, fine. By this definition, Mormons are obviously Christians. No one denies the substance of this conclusion; that is, no one denies that Mormons call themselves Christians. Such a conclusion is neither controversial nor particularly informative. Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, the Moonies, the Branch Davidians, the polygamous LDS, and numerous other sects also claim to be Christians, and they are, in this same content-free definition in which anyone who claims to be a Christian is one. Why, even murderous Baptists are Christians by this definition as long as they claim to be Christians. So it is something of a Pyrrhic victory to demand to be called Christians while defending such a generic definition.

It isn't that we just like this definition. It is that it is the definition used in everyday speech. A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ. It is what most people think of when they hear the word. So clearly this definition is not content free, for in the context of human interaction it is what people think we are saying when we use the word.

Other Mormons have proposed that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that he suffered, died, and rose again to be our Savior is a Christian. In response to this proposed definition, I have asked if it matters what people think it means for Jesus to be "the Son of God." For instance, Unitarians think "the Son of God" is simply another title for Jesus as a human Messiah. They don't believe that Jesus was a divine person come to the earth, but rather think he was nothing more than a human being (albeit, for conservative Unitarians, he was a perfect human being). The question of meaning is relevant because orthodox Christians and LDS do not agree on what the title means, either. The definition is vacuous if the words can mean anything one wants. This doesn't make the definition itself a bad definition; I am simply pointing out an important limitation if the words have no particular meaning.

I personally would not limit the term Christian to exclude Unitarians, because that is not how we as a society use the word.

I would think it okay to say that they believe in Christ, but do not believe he is divine, as you have done. This clarifies, rather than confuses.

Other Mormons have argued that a Christian is someone who follows Jesus. I have not disputed this definition, but I have pressed for clarity as to what it means. If someone claims to follow Jesus but does not believe what the Bible says about Jesus, is that person's claim credible? If someone claims to follow Jesus but denies that he rose from the dead, for example, is this person really following Jesus? What about those who say they are following Jesus but who flagrantly disobey his commands? In response, some Mormons have insisted that anyone who claims to follow Jesus is a Christian; but this is just another form of the first definition discussed above (that anyone who says he is a Christian is one).

It appears that your questions involve two separate issues. First, that the definition takes no definitive position on whether one needs to be sincere in their statement of belief in Christ. Second, that the definition does not take a firm position on what a majority of people may expect of a true follower of Christ.

To the first, I would respond that if you are faking your belief, then you don't have it, so you don't satisfy the definition. On the other hand, if you really do believe but just mess up (a lot), then you do satisfy the definition.

To the second, again, you can posit that the person is not acting/believing as a Christian should in your opinion. If they are flagrantly disobeying his commands, you might correctly state that the person is not living a Christian life. But claiming they are not Christian doesn't comport with the definition we use in society. (So, for example, murderers can, and often are, called Christians, due to the belief structures of the churches they claim to belong to.)

Now, I think it's time to be candid. What Mormons really find objectionable is the claim made by many evangelicals that Mormons are not really, authentically following Jesus Christ. In relation to this point, many (not all) evangelicals use the term Christian to mean someone who is really an authentic believer in Jesus Christ and as a result is assured of eternal life. And Mormons are understandably offended that any evangelical might think that Mormons are not authentic believers in Christ having the assurance of eternal life.

I suppose many Mormons find this objectionable.

But it wasn't what I found objectionable about the article that started this and the previous thread.

What Mormons fail to understand is that evangelicals would say the same thing about a lot of people in their own evangelical churches. From our perspective having the correct doctrinal understanding of the gospel and of the nature of God, though critical, does not guarantee that a person will be saved. This is why in many evangelical churches it is routine for the pastor to invite members of the congregation who have not yet come into a saving relationship with Christ to do so. At the same time, we are convinced that members of religious groups that have a radically different understanding of God and the gospel are in serious jeopardy spiritually because we regard such doctrinal error as impediments to an authentic relationship with God in the gospel. We are concerned about their salvation, just as we are concerned about the salvation of bench-warmers in Baptist churches who mouth the right doctrines but have shown no seriousness about having a relationship with God based on humble trust in Christ alone. So when evangelicals say that "Mormons are not Christians" (an unqualified way of speaking that I personally avoid), they are not denying that Mormons think of themselves as Christians, or that Mormons believe in Jesus...

I agree with all this. However, can you agree that when they say such things, it is commonly understood (be it incorrectly) that the evangelical is claiming that we do not believe in Jesus?

...They are expressing their conviction that Mormon theology is so far off the beam that it is unlikely that anyone who really believes it could have an authentic saving relationship with the true God. This doesn't mean evangelicals are setting themselves up as judges over Mormons. Again, evangelicals would say the same thing about a Hindu or a Buddhist, or about a liberal Methodist who denies that Jesus Christ is God. In expressing such opinions evangelicals are simply trying to be faithful to the teaching we find in the New Testament. We are not saying that we know whether Mr. Brown, the nice Mormon down the street, is going to be saved. We can't make such definitive judgments about individuals. But we can say that as nice as Mr. Brown is, he is someone with whom we should try to share the gospel, because the religion he accepts has missed what we sincerely regard as essential truths of the gospel. This makes us concerned for his salvation, which is not the same thing as imperiously judging him.

This is all fine, as long as it is explained. They are making the claim that certain doctrinal beliefs preclude an authentic saving relationship with God. They are not making the claim that we don't believe in Christ. Just that we don't believe as they do, and this precludes us from correctly understanding God.

While you take offense -- sometimes over-the-top offense -- at what evangelicals say about Mormonism, the fact is that Mormonism has said some pretty harsh things about evangelicalism. The rhetoric has admittedly been softened in recent years, but the substance of Mormonism's view of evangelicalism has not really changed. It still claims that we are part of the great apostasy, that our baptisms are invalid, that we do not have the whole gospel, that we preach false doctrine, that our churches are not true churches, and on and on. Now I have a choice. I can take personal offense at such statements, or I can recognize that we have opposing viewpoints and engage the issues without taking matters personally. I prefer the second approach.

I would say you have a point with those offended by such things. But the topic here is Christianity. Many of us are not offended by the claims of evangelicals that our doctrines are false. But we find it highly offensive when it is claimed we are not Christian, often in an attempt to misrepresent our doctrines and beliefs.

Again, I realize that nothing I can say will remove the offense from our view of Mormonism. But you need to understand that you cannot refute our view by constantly obsessing over evangelicals saying that Mormons are not "Christians" in the above theological/spiritual sense. The semantic issue is a different issue than the theological or spiritual issue. Let's face it, we have different beliefs about what it takes to have an authentic, saving relationship with God in Jesus Christ. That is because we have different beliefs about God, about Jesus Christ, and about salvation. Those are the issues we need to be discussing, if any at all, not the never-ending semantic squabble over the definition of the word Christian.

I'm sure there is more than I could and should say, but I hope this at least redirects the discussion in a more illuminating direction.

This is all fine and good. I agree that many here should not be offended by others view of Mormonism as apostate (and, frankly, vice versa).

But there is the second issue is misrepresentation. To claim we do not believe in Christ or that we don't live according to Christian principles (love, peace, charity, forgiveness, etc...) is simply false. Thus, the terminology needs to change, especially when a noted biblical scholar tries to write an article about how we are not Christian.

In other words, if the article had been about how we do not believe in the creeds, or that we believe non-classical things about God and Christ, I would have no problem with it. I would be in your camp, criticizing those who would take umbrage at such an article. But it didn't do that. It co-opted the term "Christian" using a specialized definition that was exclusionary and potentially deceiving.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Gervin]

It is little bits of news information that I have picked up here and there over time. It is hard to find and bring them all together now. the youth in particular seem to be rapidly losing interest, and feel that it is becoming irrelevant to them, not filling a spiritual void in their lives. Here are a couple of sources that I could recall:

http://www.publisher...ristianity.html

http://m.christianpo...-growth--80299/

Your two articles about US Churches don't show that the evangelical church is falling apart. One simply says that the LDS Church is outpacing Protestants in growth.

It might surprise you to learn that the evangelical church is not in disarray and not falling apart. Examples:

Canada: http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/2012/08/canada-evangelicals-are-growing.html

Brazil: http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/07/the-recent-rise-of-evangelical.html

France: http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=5465

South Korea: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-27-2012/worlds-biggest-congregation/10162/

while giving to evangelical foundations doesn't seem to be falling apart, either: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/march/foundation-donations-surge.html

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

I found your post quite refreshing. Thank you for your thoughtful and civil approach to this discussion.

You wrote:

Our point has similarly been simple. While there is no one single definition there is a consensus on the two most common useages. From dictionary.com: "a person who believes in Jesus Christ" and "a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ".

Yes, which is why I prefer to avoid the unqualified, unvarnished statement "Mormons are not Christians" as this might suggest I am denying that Mormons believe in Christ or suggesting that they do not exhibit high values in the way they live. But you should understand that evangelicalism, like Mormonism, can function as a kind of subculture in which the more theologically nuanced definition of Christian is a given, so that within evangelicalism such a statement would not be misunderstood in the way you fear. But I grant that it might be so misunderstood by non-evangelicals.

Using an alternate definition can, and often does, confuse or misrepresent our beliefs.

Yes. However, the confusion can work both ways. For example, if a Mormon states without explanation, "We Mormons are Christians, because we believe in Jesus Christ," that can potentially be understood to mean that Mormons believe what most Christians historically and today believe about Jesus Christ. So both sides need to explain their statements. I certainly think we evangelicals should do so, and I have tried to model that in my own handling of the subject. When a Mormon says, "We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," she is likely to be understood to mean that Mormons share the traditional Christian view of what it means to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God. Again, I agree with your point that when terms are used in other than standard ways some explanation is in order.

Regarding the definition that anyone who calls himself a Christian is a Christian, you wrote:

It isn't that we just like this definition. It is that it is the definition used in everyday speech. A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ.

That's actually a slightly different definition. You are reframing the definition with some belief content, which is fine, but that is a different way of defining the word than the definition that says anyone who claims to be a Christian is one.

I'm going to pose an extreme example (not parallel to the situation with Mormonism) to illustrate why the definition you favor might need to be tightened. There are religious kooks out there who claim to be Jesus Christ; one of them, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, has garnered thousands of enthusiastic followers throughout Latin America. If one of these followers says that he believes in Jesus Christ, does he really, if he thinks Jose Miranda is Jesus Christ?

You wrote:

I personally would not limit the term Christian to exclude Unitarians, because that is not how we as a society use the word. I would think it okay to say that they believe in Christ, but do not believe he is divine, as you have done. This clarifies, rather than confuses.

I have no problem with that. But saying that Unitarians are not Christians and explaining that this statement is meant in a theological sense, not as a denial that Unitarians profess a belief in Jesus, does the same thing.

You wrote:

To the second, again, you can posit that the person is not acting/believing as a Christian should in your opinion. If they are flagrantly disobeying his commands, you might correctly state that the person is not living a Christian life. But claiming they are not Christian doesn't comport with the definition we use in society. (So, for example, murderers can, and often are, called Christians, due to the belief structures of the churches they claim to belong to.)

Here's where I think I would go a different direction. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to disavow someone who claims to be a Christian but is an unrepentant murderer. I think Mormons would be within their rights to disavow a person who claims to be a Latter-day Saint but is practicing plural marriage (even if the polygamist has an argument of his own!). Likewise, even though it is a matter of doctrine rather than practice, I think orthodox Christians have reasonable grounds to deny that a religious group is Christian if it teaches, for example, that God was a mortal man who became God by a process of exaltation, as long as those orthodox Christians make clear the reasons for their assessment. Mormons, of course, are free to disagree. No worries.

I agree with all this. However, can you agree that when they say such things, it is commonly understood (be it incorrectly) that the evangelical is claiming that we do not believe in Jesus?

I know that Mormons commonly complain that this is what the evangelical is claiming or at least implying. However, I'm sure most evangelicals don't misunderstand the statement in this way. As for what those who are neither evangelical nor Mormon might understand by it, I don't really have a guess as to how commonly they might misunderstand such statements.

This is all fine, as long as it is explained. They are making the claim that certain doctrinal beliefs preclude an authentic saving relationship with God. They are not making the claim that we don't believe in Christ. Just that we don't believe as they do, and this precludes us from correctly understanding God.

Terrific. Yes, I agree that the explanation is necessary. My perception is that such an explanation is usually given.

This is all fine and good. I agree that many here should not be offended by others view of Mormonism as apostate (and, frankly, vice versa).

But there is the second issue is misrepresentation. To claim we do not believe in Christ or that we don't live according to Christian principles (love, peace, charity, forgiveness, etc...) is simply false. Thus, the terminology needs to change, especially when a noted biblical scholar tries to write an article about how we are not Christian.

In other words, if the article had been about how we do not believe in the creeds, or that we believe non-classical things about God and Christ, I would have no problem with it. I would be in your camp, criticizing those who would take umbrage at such an article. But it didn't do that. It co-opted the term "Christian" using a specialized definition that was exclusionary and potentially deceiving.

I'm confused now. Witherington did exactly what you are saying you would not find problematic. He asserted that Mormonism was not Christianity, and he detailed several ways in which Mormonism differed more specifically from evangelicalism (though many of his points also pertained more broadly to Christianity as a whole). He made it clear that his concerns were theological (the very sorts of theological concerns you mention). He made it clear that Mormons do believe in Jesus. He even stated that some Mormons could be Christians so that he was not generalizing about all members of the LDS community. I think Witherington's statements could stand to be tweaked here and there, but overall I don't see the problem.

[Rob Bowman]

It's worth mentioning, perhaps, with regard to comparisons of evangelical and LDS growth, that a religion with 10-15 million members worldwide has lots more potential room for growth than a religious movement with 300-400 million members worldwide.

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes, which is why I prefer to avoid the unqualified, unvarnished statement "Mormons are not Christians" as this might suggest I am denying that Mormons believe in Christ or suggesting that they do not exhibit high values in the way they live. But you should understand that evangelicalism, like Mormonism, can function as a kind of subculture in which the more theologically nuanced definition of Christian is a given, so that within evangelicalism such a statement would not be misunderstood in the way you fear. But I grant that it might be so misunderstood by non-evangelicals.

And by evangelicals.

Yes. However, the confusion can work both ways. For example, if a Mormon states without explanation, "We Mormons are Christians, because we believe in Jesus Christ," that can potentially be understood to mean that Mormons believe what most Christians historically and today believe about Jesus Christ. So both sides need to explain their statements. I certainly think we evangelicals should do so, and I have tried to model that in my own handling of the subject. When a Mormon says, "We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," she is likely to be understood to mean that Mormons share the traditional Christian view of what it means to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God. Again, I agree with your point that when terms are used in other than standard ways some explanation is in order.

I agree with the first few sentences. I'm not so sure that when a Mormon says "We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" she is likely to be interpreted as saying much, if anything, about philosophical ideas about God.

It might be fun to construct an experiment where someone says "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Then, turn to the hearer and ask "Do this person believe that God is ..." (and fill in the blank with some creed or philosophical doctrine).

That's actually a slightly different definition. You are reframing the definition with some belief content, which is fine, but that is a different way of defining the word than the definition that says anyone who claims to be a Christian is one.

I'm going to pose an extreme example (not parallel to the situation with Mormonism) to illustrate why the definition you favor might need to be tightened. There are religious kooks out there who claim to be Jesus Christ; one of them, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, has garnered thousands of enthusiastic followers throughout Latin America. If one of these followers says that he believes in Jesus Christ, does he really, if he thinks Jose Miranda is Jesus Christ?

Fair enough. (I think this gets back into the sincerity issue, which I don't want to get into.)

I have no problem with that. But saying that Unitarians are not Christians and explaining that this statement is meant in a theological sense, not as a denial that Unitarians profess a belief in Jesus, does the same thing.

Here I would disagree, to a point.

It is true that now the explainer is not at fault for any misunderstanding (if they make the "theological sense" very explicit). But, as "Christian" is a common word with a common meaning, using it in a non-common way will, by the very nature of language, lead to confusion. Why use the word in a specialized way when it isn't necessary to do so? It also begs the question what is motivating the use of the non-standard definition.

Here's where I think I would go a different direction. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to disavow someone who claims to be a Christian but is an unrepentant murderer. I think Mormons would be within their rights to disavow a person who claims to be a Latter-day Saint but is practicing plural marriage (even if the polygamist has an argument of his own!). Likewise, even though it is a matter of doctrine rather than practice, I think orthodox Christians have reasonable grounds to deny that a religious group is Christian if it teaches, for example, that God was a mortal man who became God by a process of exaltation, as long as those orthodox Christians make clear the reasons for their assessment. Mormons, of course, are free to disagree. No worries.

It seems to me that there are a couple of issues. First, to say it once again, denying Christianity for unorthodoxy leads to the confusion I mentioned previously. Second, while sincerity is certainly grounds for questioning whether one truly has any belief at all, orthodoxy is not.

I know that Mormons commonly complain that this is what the evangelical is claiming or at least implying. However, I'm sure most evangelicals don't misunderstand the statement in this way. As for what those who are neither evangelical nor Mormon might understand by it, I don't really have a guess as to how commonly they might misunderstand such statements.

I lack your surety, but I appreciate your perspective.

I'm confused now. Witherington did exactly what you are saying you would not find problematic. He asserted that Mormonism was not Christianity, and he detailed several ways in which Mormonism differed more specifically from evangelicalism (though many of his points also pertained more broadly to Christianity as a whole). He made it clear that his concerns were theological (the very sorts of theological concerns you mention). He made it clear that Mormons do believe in Jesus. He even stated that some Mormons could be Christians so that he was not generalizing about all members of the LDS community. I think Witherington's statements could stand to be tweaked here and there, but overall I don't see the problem.

It was my impression that Witherington was speaking as a Biblical scholar, not as an evangelical to an evangelical audience.

Thus, he should have used the standard definition of Christian, not the special one he created in order to exclude Mormonism. Even though, as you say, he was clear about the theological differences, and specifically made disclaimers, this non-standard definition seemed created in order to co-opt the power behind the word "Christian". Thus, disclaimers or not, it was still a potentially misleading claim. He should have used other, clearer, words, such as: Mormons believe damnable heresies. That would be a theological claim, and move his statements outside Biblical scholarship to the realm of his beliefs about what it takes to be a genuine follower of Christ. [And yet, from his disclaimers, it appears that these heresies are not necessarily damnable. So maybe it would just be "Mormons believe heretical doctrines such as...". But you get the picture.]

(I should also mention that I found one of his six points to simply be incorrect, and many of the others to have major flaws. But that is for another thread.)

Edited September 6, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[JarMan]

The question of whether Mormons are Christians is only a diversion from the real issue. The real issue is why it matters. There are reasons people want to paint Mormons as not Christain. Now what could those reasons possibly be?

[zerinus]

Your two articles about US Churches don't show that the evangelical church is falling apart. One simply says that the LDS Church is outpacing Protestants in growth.

It might surprise you to learn that the evangelical church is not in disarray and not falling apart. Examples:

Canada: http://churchintoron...re-growing.html

Brazil: http://www.edstetzer...vangelical.html

France: http://www.eni.ch/fe...cle.php?id=5465

South Korea: http://www.pbs.org/w...regation/10162/

while giving to evangelical foundations doesn't seem to be falling apart, either: http://www.christian...ions-surge.html

I was focusing on the United States rather than worldwide. The US has always been a very religious country. According to a recent survey, 80% of the population identify with a religious denomination. The figure is much smaller in Europe and Canada. 26.3% of the population are Evangelicals, and 16% other Protestant. In Canada around 2% are Evangelicals, and in Europe the figure is even smaller. In other countries the situation is different still. In Latin America religious expression appears to be very shallow and superficial. You can see mass conversion one minute, and mass defections next. I was talking about that US in particular where religion has always played the strongest role of any major industrialised country, and Evangelicals have always been the strongest. The statistical survey for the US was derived from this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Edited September 6, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

The question of whether Mormons are Christians is only a diversion from the real issue. The real issue is why it matters. There are reasons people want to paint Mormons as not Christain. Now what could those reasons possibly be?

The answer to that is simple: jealousy, enmity, and fear.

[Bart Burk]

Let us imagine a Mormon is watching a rerun of a Billy Graham crusade and the message touches him. He dials the phone number, sincerely says the sinner's prayer trusting in Jesus for his salvation, but continues to also believe in the LDS Church and follows its teachings. He gets to Heaven's gate trusting in Jesus, but believing Thomas S. Monson was a prophet. Will God disappoint that person?

And let me be clear -- I believe most Mormons do put their faith in Jesus as paramount in their lives. Will God give them a theology test before He lets them in?

No one seems to want to touch this one ... By the way, in many evangelical circles you could substitute Catholic for Mormon and ask the same question.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Bart Burk

[DBMormon]

since when does being Christian mean something other then to believe and follow Christ

[Bart Burk]

since when does being Christian mean something other then to believe and follow Christ

Romans 10:9 seems to sum it up rather well.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I suspect that is about all of the theology that is required. I can't imagine God is going to condemn someone because they couldn't figure out what "consubstantial" means in the Nicene Creed.

[Storm Rider]

Romans 10:9 seems to sum it up rather well.

I suspect that is about all of the theology that is required. I can't imagine God is going to condemn someone because they couldn't figure out what "consubstantial" means in the Nicene Creed.

Heart being the operative term. It is not how well we confess Jesus Christ with our lips, but how we express our devotion to him; how we live with Christ. If our actions are not in keeping with a follower of Jesus Christ, then the it is understandable that we will hear, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

How is a follower of Jesus to be found lukewarm? We either are committed to living for Jesus or not; but those of us who really cannot decide; they are they ones who are spewed from Jesus' mouth. We either love the Lord and keep his commandments or we do not.

We are all sinners so it cannot be a perfect obedience that is required, but that those who follow Christ feel Godly sorrow for our sins and seek forgiveness for them. The mercy of God is infinite for those who penitently seek after him. However, for those who hearts are hardened, who are not really interested in being his disciple, his mercy ends and we stand condemned.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It's worth mentioning, perhaps, with regard to comparisons of evangelical and LDS growth, that a religion with 10-15 million members worldwide has lots more potential room for growth than a religious movement with 300-400 million members worldwide.

Numbers do not make a case for who is Christian...also CFR your numbers please.

[DBMormon]

Rob Bowman, on 06 September 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

It's worth mentioning, perhaps, with regard to comparisons of evangelical and LDS growth, that a religion with 10-15 million members worldwide has lots more potential room for growth than a religious movement with 300-400 million members worldwide.

Rob I disagree as well. I would think in a world of 6-7 billion, that the influence the 300-400 million sect has would be greater and more conducive to bringing people to your viewpoint. I also think the value others perceive in that belief system has more to do with it then the numbers.

I would agree with your assumption if the number rises to a much larger total say somewhere in the neighborhood of 750 million to 1 billion... then you may have exhausted your potential.

Edited September 6, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bart Burk]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Oh, good, we're going to use reason. Cool. In your opinion, what other option is there besides agreeing, or disagreeing, with a particular definition of a word? Can you agree and disagree with it at the same time? Or are both definitions okay?

I would suggest to you that maybe non-Christians are better at defining the word than sectarians. The followers of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch -- it seems to imply that it was the non-believers who began to label them as Christians. Would an atheist look at the LDS and call them non-Christian based on who the LDS claim to follow? The label "Christian" in Antioch had nothing to do with whether they were Trinitarians, Tritheists or Unitarians. It was about who they claimed to follow.

[KevinG]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Oh, good, we're going to use reason. Cool. In your opinion, what other option is there besides agreeing, or disagreeing, with a particular definition of a word? Can you agree and disagree with it at the same time? Or are both definitions okay?

You may want to leave the defining to the adherents and not presume to know more about their religion then they do. Logic!

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Numbers do not make a case for who is Christian...

Of course they don't, and I never suggested they did. I was responding to the comment about Mormonism (supposedly) growing faster than evangelicalism.

also CFR your numbers please.

I was mistaken...the number of evangelicals is actually larger than I stated:

"World Evangelical Alliance is a global ministry working with local churches around the world to join in common concern to live and proclaim the Good News of Jesus in their communities. WEA is a network of churches in 129 nations that have each formed an evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a world-wide identity, voice, and platform to more than 600 million evangelical Christians."--World Evangelical Alliance website, "Who We Are"

As of the end of 2011, the LDS Church reported 14,441,346 members. This number should be downgraded because it counts everyone living who has ever been baptized into the LDS Church and fails to account for the large number of former Mormons who have left the LDS fold. See the article by Joanna Brooks from earlier this year, "Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up," and the important study "Mormons in the United States 1990-2008."

[Rob Bowman]

DBMormon,

Hi there. Well, it turns out I was using figures that were a few years old. The number is now over 600 million. There is a strong case for thinking that evangelicalism is approaching a natural saturation point with regard to the percentage of the world's population it represents, though of course that is speaking from a purely human, limited perspective. None of us knows how such numbers will change in the future.

Also, evangelicalism is by no plausible definition a sect, though one might argue for using that term with reference to specific groups within evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a broad movement that includes numerous denominations and other types of cooperative groups of churches, as well as many institutionally independent congregations.

Rob I disagree as well. I would think in a world of 6-7 billion, that the influence the 300-400 million sect has would be greater and more conducive to bringing people to your viewpoint. I also think the value others perceive in that belief system has more to do with it then the numbers.

I would agree with your assumption if the number rises to a much larger total say somewhere in the neighborhood of 750 million to 1 billion... then you may have exhausted your potential.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Hi again. Okay, you don't want to answer my question, no problem. Have a nice day.

You may want to leave the defining to the adherents and not presume to know more about their religion then they do. Logic!

[shalamabobbi]

Of course they don't, and I never suggested they did. I was responding to the comment about Mormonism (supposedly) growing faster than evangelicalism.

"growing faster" is the mathematical equivalent of "rate of change" or the derivative with respect to time.

We can get an average for this with the LDS faith in going from essentially zip to our current numbers in about 180 years and then compare that to evagelism if you have some similar figures to calculate an average rate of growth from.

more than 600 million evangelical Christians

Not that it is significant of anything. We might also compare the relative numbers of students who get C's with those who get A's. Or the number of Olympic world record holders with those who don't exercise on a regular basis.

As of the end of 2011, the LDS Church reported 14,441,346 members. This number should be downgraded because it counts everyone living who has ever been baptized into the LDS Church and fails to account for the large number of former Mormons who have left the LDS fold. See the article by Joanna Brooks from earlier this year, "Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up," and the important study "Mormons in the United States 1990-2008."

And we might take into consideration what it takes to be counted an evangelical - parrot a few words about Jesus and you're in! And check your brain at the door where it comes to any sort of rational thinking about geology..

[Bart Burk]

And we might take into consideration what it takes to be counted an evangelical - parrot a few words about Jesus and you're in! And check your brain at the door where it comes to any sort of rational thinking about geology..

I think that's an unfair stereotype ... I know too many faithful evangelicals to accept that idea. The ones I know may not feel works are necessary for salvation, but they sure seem to be good at living a moral life and helping their fellow humans. I live in what would best be described as the Bible Belt North -- I see a lot of good work being done by the faithful Christians of all denominations in my area.

[Rob Bowman]

Bart,

You wrote:

I would suggest to you that maybe non-Christians are better at defining the word than sectarians. The followers of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch -- it seems to imply that it was the non-believers who began to label them as Christians. Would an atheist look at the LDS and call them non-Christian based on who the LDS claim to follow? The label "Christian" in Antioch had nothing to do with whether they were Trinitarians, Tritheists or Unitarians. It was about who they claimed to follow.

It is actually very common for religions and other types of belief systems to acquire popular names by the same sort of process, i.e., in which the name is first used by outsiders and soon insiders embrace the term and use it for themselves. This happened with such religious names as Christian, Methodist, Calvinist, Arminian, fundamentalist, Mormon, Hindu, and even Marxist. As this natural historical process develops, it is common for the group so identified by what was originally an outsider's nickname to want to maintain some group cohesion by articulating what the group so named believes. It is also common for subsets or variant groups to emerge that accept some but not all of what the group historically believed. So, for example, members of the LDS Church often maintain that the term Mormon -- a term that not so long ago members commonly found objectionable -- should be reserved for people who accept not only Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon but also are members of the LDS Church. Calvinists often argue that someone who denies infant baptism cannot be a Calvinist--though other self-identifying Calvinists (notably those called Reformed Baptists) disagree. This kind of give-and-take with regard to group labels is common.

I agree that atheists are unlikely to attach the label "non-Christian" to Mormons, but then, I don't think that's the most helpful term either, even from my staunch evangelical perspective. Again, for the umpteenth time, there are familiar senses of the word Christian that I agree apply to Mormons.

[Bart Burk]

Bart,

You wrote:

It is actually very common for religions and other types of belief systems to acquire popular names by the same sort of process, i.e., in which the name is first used by outsiders and soon insiders embrace the term and use it for themselves. This happened with such religious names as Christian, Methodist, Calvinist, Arminian, fundamentalist, Mormon, Hindu, and even Marxist. As this natural historical process develops, it is common for the group so identified by what was originally an outsider's nickname to want to maintain some group cohesion by articulating what the group so named believes. It is also common for subsets or variant groups to emerge that accept some but not all of what the group historically believed. So, for example, members of the LDS Church often maintain that the term Mormon -- a term that not so long ago members commonly found objectionable -- should be reserved for people who accept not only Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon but also are members of the LDS Church. Calvinists often argue that someone who denies infant baptism cannot be a Calvinist--though other self-identifying Calvinists (notably those called Reformed Baptists) disagree. This kind of give-and-take with regard to group labels is common.

I agree that atheists are unlikely to attach the label "non-Christian" to Mormons, but then, I don't think that's the most helpful term either, even from my staunch evangelical perspective. Again, for the umpteenth time, there are familiar senses of the word Christian that I agree apply to Mormons.

I'm just curious -- how do you view the Oneness Pentecostals? They are definitely not Trinitarians. Which is closer to traditional Christianity -- a Tritheist or a Oneness Pentecostal?