Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Vance]

Vance, I have been an evangelical Christian for 37 years. I have been to evangelical churches all over the United States and know evangelicals in several other countries. I have NEVER met an evangelical who thought it is a sin to try to do good. I can only conclude that your statement reflects a misunderstanding on your part.

I have been condemned as a sinner by some EVs for believing Jesus when he says righteousness is an important element for eternal life. Granted, they were of the anti-Mormon stripe with their own anti-Mormon web site.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter.

That is not what Paul is saying in this passage. He is saying that God saved us by his kindness and love and not by our works of righteousness. I see how you misread the KJV here, and its rendering is fine though perhaps a bit awkward for modern readers. The phrase "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy" modifies the words that follow, "he saved us." They do not modify the words "but after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared."

I understand perfectly what Paul is saying and I agree with him. Your (and Evangelicals in general) problem is that you neglect large swaths of the Bible which clearly show that good works/righteousness are important to gaining eternal life.

No, I never said any such thing.

Perhaps you didn't. But that doesn't change the fact that that is the typical Evangelical misrepresentation of Mormon doctrine.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been condemned as a sinner by some EVs for believing Jesus when he says righteousness is an important element for eternal life. Granted, they were of the anti-Mormon stripe with their own anti-Mormon web site.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter.

We all have. In fact Paul's comment on works is the most misunderstood scripture in all the Bible. I have been told so many times that there is nothing I can do to please God...I' ve stop trying.

[Vance]

Evangelicals do abhor works-righteousness (righteousness or salvation by works), in other words, they believe that "it is a sin to try to do good" in order to receive eternal life. This could be heard by Vance as "it is a sin to try to do good."

A distinction without much of a difference. The scriptures are clear that good works/righteousness are a requirement to receiving eternal life.

Vance, given the above, obviously there are crazy people in the world that call good "bad" and bad "good". So I admit you might have accurately heard, processed, and remembered other people's crazy talk. I just doubt it; it's easier to believe that you misunderstood these people's point of view based on a few statements than that even random evangelicals actually believe such. It's nothing against you, just the numbers - large mass of people so awesomely wrong about something otherwise so obviously intuitive (good is good, bad is bad) and completely foreign to any official theology or one person's misunderstanding even if repeated throughout multiple interactions with different people.

What ever. Even Paul made it clear,

Rom 2:6 (God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

[zerinus]

Strange, it seems totally understandable to me.

Then you must be luckier than I am.

[wenglund]

Since I can't see that this has been addressed, I will repost it:

Perhaps my definition could be amended to say that a Mormon is anyone who affirms the Book of Mormon to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identifies as a Mormon.

Consistency, then, would demand that you amend your definition of "Christian" to: anyone [or group] who affirms the New Testament to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identify as a Christian. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

The LDS definition of "eternal life" does seem to be admittance into the Celestial Kingdom (whatever that is exactly) and "becoming like Heavenly Father" (which seems to mean being able to have spirit babies and having "living" descendants "eternally", spiritual generation after spiritual generation).

Now there is an anti-Mormon shibboleth I haven't heard for a few hours.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Consistency, then, would demand that you amend your definition of "Christian" to: anyone [or group] who affirms the New Testament to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identify as a Christian. Right?

No, it would not. I am not claiming and do not agree that the terms Mormon and Christian should be defined in parallel ways.

[wenglund]

No, it would not. I am not claiming and do not agree that the terms Mormon and Christian should be defined in parallel ways.

What is the reasoning behind your double standard? In other words, why do you believe the term Mormon may be defined as: "anyone who affirms the Book of Mormon to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identifies as a Mormon," yet the term Christian cannot be defined as: "anyone [or group] who affirms the New Testament to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identify as a Christian"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I was aware of the connection, but I would like to think that Rob was eventually kicked out by Hanegraff due to Rob's objections to the lies and distortions he had to deal with there. From what I have read here, Rob doesn't seem to employ the sort of nonsense Walter Martin did.

We shall see.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

Yes, I was aware of the connection, but I would like to think that Rob was eventually kicked out by Hanegraff due to Rob's objections to the lies and distortions he had to deal with there. From what I have read here, Rob doesn't seem to employ the sort of nonsense Walter Martin did.

I was officially "laid off" (fraudulently, since there was no financial problem) in early 1992. The real reason I was let go was my raising objections to the proposal that I ghost write a series of books for Hanegraaff. It had nothing to do with what was being said about Mormonism or other religions.

That having been said, in some significant ways I do handle apologetic and polemical issues in a different way than Walter Martin did.

[Bart Burk]

I wonder -- if a government suddenly decided to do away with all Christians do you think that government would include the Mormons among the Christians they would do away with based on the teachings of the LDS Church?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

There is no double standard. The two religions are structured differently and therefore differently structured definitions are in order. Now, if you want to use your suggested definition for the term Christian, I have no objection. Again, I am comfortable with different definitions of the word and am not engaged in a campaign to tell Mormons what to call themselves. At the same time, I wish to be extended the courtesy to use terms in ways consistent with my beliefs.

What is the reasoning behind your double standard? In other words, why do you believe the term Mormon may be defined as: "anyone who affirms the Book of Mormon to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identifies as a Mormon," yet the term Christian cannot be defined as: "anyone [or group] who affirms the New Testament to be a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus and who self-identify as a Christian"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[spartacus]

Now there is an anti-Mormon shibboleth I haven't heard for a few hours.

I did say "seem," as in "given what I have learned from LDS sources and those who study LDS religion (member and non-member) this is my understanding". So before you try to shut down conversation with accusations of "anti-" anything, how about we just discuss and dialogue on this discussion and dialogue board.

I have nothing against the term "spirit babies". It is not inherently derisive. My understanding is that "eternal life", or at least part of it, is the ability to "eternally" increase in progeny ("life"). It is also my understanding that this is a renewed cycle of the 1st estate where I believe it is accurate to describe us as "spirit children" born of God/Heavenly Parents. We were probably smaller then, like "spirit babies". If you have an issue with this term it is coming from you, not me. Given how some people speak of these things I can see how you might automatically react defensively. I assure you I meant no disrespect. I, however, do not appreciate the disrespect insinuated by your comment. So let us reason and not accuse.

[spartacus]

I wonder -- if a government suddenly decided to do away with all Christians do you think that government would include the Mormons among the Christians they would do away with based on the teachings of the LDS Church?

LDS universally have an issue with and do not honor the "authority" of traditional Christian organizations to determine who is not Christian, but now you want to use anti-Christians' definition of Christian in order to support LDS Christian identity? I'm sure this was just a thought experiment. It doesn't have anything strength because of the above. It would only have strength if, in fact, the anti-Christians did not include Mormons. Including them does nothing for this broader issue, because anti-Christians have even less authority, or "say" in the issue, than traditional Christians - even, I should presume, in LDS eyes.

[mfbukowski]

I wonder -- if a government suddenly decided to do away with all Christians do you think that government would include the Mormons among the Christians they would do away with based on the teachings of the LDS Church?

LOL! You bet your bippy!

We only don't qualify when it's the good stuff they are giving away!

[Bart Burk]

LDS universally have an issue with and do not honor the "authority" of traditional Christian organizations to determine who is not Christian, but now you want to use anti-Christians' definition of Christian in order to support LDS Christian identity? I'm sure this was just a thought experiment. It doesn't have anything strength because of the above. It would only have strength if, in fact, the anti-Christians did not include Mormons. Including them does nothing for this broader issue, because anti-Christians have even less authority, or "say" in the issue, than traditional Christians - even, I should presume, in LDS eyes.

I don't think there are any current LDS who deny the term Christians to other groups who accept the atonement and resurrection of Christ.

[Vance]

I did say "seem," as in "given what I have learned from LDS sources and those who study LDS religion (member and non-member) this is my understanding". So before you try to shut down conversation with accusations of "anti-" anything, how about we just discuss and dialogue on this discussion and dialogue board.

I have nothing against the term "spirit babies". It is not inherently derisive. My understanding is that "eternal life", or at least part of it, is the ability to "eternally" increase in progeny ("life"). It is also my understanding that this is a renewed cycle of the 1st estate where I believe it is accurate to describe us as "spirit children" born of God/Heavenly Parents. We were probably smaller then, like "spirit babies". If you have an issue with this term it is coming from you, not me. Given how some people speak of these things I can see how you might automatically react defensively. I assure you I meant no disrespect. I, however, do not appreciate the disrespect insinuated by your comment. So let us reason and not accuse.

I said nothing about your motives. I simply stated a fact. "Spirit babies" is an anti-Mormon created phrase for use in anti-Mormon polemics. Your usage of it simply indicates the qualities of some of your sources.

If you are interested in discussion and dialogue I recommend that you use better sources of information for LDS doctrine and beliefs.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Vance

[Thinking]

Why do LDS care if evangelicals consider LDS to be Christian? After all, according to LDS scriptures, "they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

It's ironic that the LDS Church rejects the Christianity of the world, then is puzzled when that same Christianity rejects the LDS Church.

[thesometimesaint]

You're not thinking enough. We readily accept their Christianity even if we have sectarian differences.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

I find it humorous that critics have to try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession in order to justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments.

Take that back... its not humorous its dishonest and crass.

[Bart Burk]

I find it humorous that critics have to try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession in order to justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments.

Take that back... its not humorous its dishonest and crass.

I've always believed that critics mis-characterized. God would have been talking about the Christian ministers at the revivals Joseph was attending, not Christian ministers in general. And he certainly wasn't talking about all of the Christians in other denominations. Sometimes non-Mormons make the claim that God wasn't just talking about the ministers, but the members of the churches as well. Professors means ministers from what I understand, not the members of their churches.

[KevinG]

I've always believed that critics mis-characterized. God would have been talking about the Christian ministers at the revivals Joseph was attending, not Christian ministers in general. And he certainly wasn't talking about all of the Christians in other denominations. Sometimes non-Mormons make the claim that God wasn't just talking about the ministers, but the members of the churches as well. Professors means ministers from what I understand, not the members of their churches.

Even if it was (as I interpret it) a rebuke of apostate Christianity in general, it condemns the non-biblical creeds and those professors who tell a good story but whose hearts are far from God. Understandable if as we believe there was a general falling away from God's authorized gospel and a need for restoration.

Many churches believe in the exclusivity of their authority. The distinction that matters is what do you do with those differences? For many evangelicals their response is to say "convert or go to everlasting torture." Our response has been historically come and get more revelation, and if you don't receive a witness now we can always provide an open door through our temple for the eternities.

[Pahoran]

Incidentally, this article has some interesting and pertinent insights to this topic.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

I find it humorous that critics have to try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession in order to justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments.

If the statement was a peripheral forgotten utterance that was, perhaps, some obscure GA's opinion, you would have a point. However, this is an oft-repeated foundational statement.

By the way, I was not justifying entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments. I was simply pointing out the irony in the desire of so many LDS to be accepted by the mainstream Christians.

I'll try to help you understand the irony with a question. Suppose a member of another Christian church desires to join the LDS Church. Are any of the ordinances that he/she received in that other Church valid?

[Pahoran]

If the statement was a peripheral forgotten utterance that was, perhaps, some obscure GA's opinion, you would have a point. However, this is an oft-repeated foundational statement.

By the way, I was not justifying entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments. I was simply pointing out the irony in the desire of so many LDS to be accepted by the mainstream Christians.

You are seeing irony in a desire that does not exist.

We're not asking "mainstream Christians" to "accept" us. We're claiming our rightful place as people who have covenanted to take upon us the name of Christ. Those who define themselves by who they exclude (because they haven't got any positive attributes to define themselves by) can go right on insisting that we are somehow "other." But if they are honest, they will admit that we are other Christians.

Regards,

Pahoran