Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Storm Rider]

When traditional Christians are bent on using the word Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormonism from Christianity, one way (and maybe even the most effective way) of dealing with that is to turn the tables on them by informing then that Christianity as a whole is apostate, and therefore what they call Christianity is in fact an apostate version of the original Christianity (which surely is true in some sense at least), whereas Mormonism is a restoration of the original (and hence true) form of Christianity. In the final analysis this may indeed imply that Mormons are the only true Christians around, whereas others are apostate Christians (or not Christians at all); and I don't see a serious problem with that. If it is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of who is a Christian and who is not, or whether Mormons are Christians or not, then so be it. Let Mormonism be true, and all other Christians not be Christians at all, if they really want to play it that way. So no, I don't have a serious problem with the stance that zerinus is taking.

I reject this entire concept of the LDS Church teaching "true" Christianity and all other Christianity is apostate. First, you are painting a picture in such broad brush strokes that the resulting picture has no substance. For example, there are a great number of truths found within each Christian (for that matter non-Christian) church or religion. Second, the most significant symbol of the apostasy is the loss of the authority to act in the name of God. Losing authority does not equate to losing truth; it equates to not being able to perform the ordinances that Jesus taught were required to enter the Kingdom of God.

These word games about who is and who is not a Christian become meaningless very quickly when those making the claim someone is not a Christian define why they mean by the term. All those definitions that exclude the LDS people is devoid of a scriptural basis and completely excludes the importance of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. They all create some mumbo-jumbo doctrinal requirement that would also exclude all of the original disciples and apostles of Jesus.

As Latter-day Saints we may and we should proclaim the truthfulness of the Restoration; however, we should never put ourselves in the position of excluding anyone or denying them their wonderful testimony of Jesus or the truths they have learned or possess. We are truth-seekers and we claim all truth as our own regardless of where it is found. In other words, when we find it, we should be able to recognize it and we hope to live it.

[Calm]

When traditional Christians are bent on using the word Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormonism from Christianity, one way (and maybe even the most effective way) of dealing with that is to turn the tables on them by informing then that Christianity as a whole is apostate, and therefore what they call Christianity is in fact an apostate version of the original Christianity (which surely is true in some sense at least), whereas Mormonism is a restoration of the original (and hence true) form of Christianity. In the final analysis this may indeed imply that Mormons are the only true Christians around, whereas others are apostate Christians (or not Christians at all); and I don't see a serious problem with that. If it is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of who is a Christian and who is not, or whether Mormons are Christians or not, then so be it. Let Mormonism be true, and all other Christians not be Christians at all, if they really want to play it that way. So no, I don't have a serious problem with the stance that zerinus is taking.

But do you believe that nonLDS who claim they are Christians actually are Christians if the word game is not involved? If some nonLDS was perfectly happy to call LDS Christian, do you have any problem with calling them Christian?

[Calm]

These word games about who is and who is not a Christian become meaningless very quickly when those making the claim someone is not a Christian define why they mean by the term. All those definitions that exclude the LDS people is devoid of a scriptural basis and completely excludes the importance of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. They all create some mumbo-jumbo doctrinal requirement that would also exclude all of the original disciples and apostles of Jesus.

Which is why as long as those saying it take the time to include in the conversation their personal definition of "Christian" so that all others are aware of how they are using it and therefore won't hopefully make inaccurate assumptions about what LDS actually believe, I have no problem with someone arguing I am not a Christian.

I know I am. That is what matters to me...that and people understanding what I actually believe and not being led astray by misrepresentations.

[Storm Rider]

Which is why as long as those saying it take the time to include in the conversation their personal definition of "Christian" so that all others are aware of how they are using it and therefore won't hopefully make inaccurate assumptions about what LDS actually believe, I have no problem with someone arguing I am not a Christian.

I know I am. That is what matters to me...that and people understanding what I actually believe and not being led astray by misrepresentations.

It is interesting how some people talk about the Church. Over the last several years some groups have attempted to draw comparisons between the LDS Church and Islam. People who have heard the comparison, but obviously not understood anything that was said, then come to the conclusion that LDS don't believe in Jesus Christ as divine, the Savior, Son of God, etc. We can all be incredibly stupid at times, but religion seems to bring out the silliest and the ignorance in people more often than expected or desired.

[Calm]

It is a tossup for me which is worse, religion or politics, for bringing out the ignorance in people. At least religion also brings out the best in many, many people. I fear in politics the best shows up at a much lower frequency.

[harfad]

I reject this entire concept of the LDS Church teaching "true" Christianity and all other Christianity is apostate. First, you are painting a picture in such broad brush strokes that the resulting picture has no substance. For example, there are a great number of truths found within each Christian (for that matter non-Christian) church or religion. Second, the most significant symbol of the apostasy is the loss of the authority to act in the name of God. Losing authority does not equate to losing truth; it equates to not being able to perform the ordinances that Jesus taught were required to enter the Kingdom of God.

These word games about who is and who is not a Christian become meaningless very quickly when those making the claim someone is not a Christian define why they mean by the term. All those definitions that exclude the LDS people is devoid of a scriptural basis and completely excludes the importance of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. They all create some mumbo-jumbo doctrinal requirement that would also exclude all of the original disciples and apostles of Jesus.

As Latter-day Saints we may and we should proclaim the truthfulness of the Restoration; however, we should never put ourselves in the position of excluding anyone or denying them their wonderful testimony of Jesus or the truths they have learned or possess. We are truth-seekers and we claim all truth as our own regardless of where it is found. In other words, when we find it, we should be able to recognize it and we hope to live it.

I agree with everything you have said except your main point stated in the first two sentences of your post. This is a rhetorical argument, not logical or rational one; and the best way to answer a rhetorical argument is with another rhetorical argument. Logic and reason in such situations will not yield the expected result.

[harfad]

But do you believe that nonLDS who claim they are Christians actually are Christians if the word game is not involved? If some nonLDS was perfectly happy to call LDS Christian, do you have any problem with calling them Christian?

A word game is involved! That is the point. You answer a word game with a word game. The other factors do not play into it.

[harfad]

Which is why as long as those saying it take the time to include in the conversation their personal definition of "Christian" so that all others are aware of how they are using it and therefore won't hopefully make inaccurate assumptions about what LDS actually believe, I have no problem with someone arguing I am not a Christian.

I know I am. That is what matters to me...that and people understanding what I actually believe and not being led astray by misrepresentations.

The argument is not rational, it is polemic. You answer a polemic argument with another polemic argument.

[Saints Alive]

How many times can we go around the "mormons are / are not christians" circle? Looks like 27 times so far.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How many times can we go around the "mormons are / are not christians" circle? Looks like 27 times so far.

Until we no longer have to defend that position by those who have appointed themselves the caretakers of the very definition of the word Christian.

[mfbukowski]

Except I don't know any LDS who would have a problem being called an apostate or heretical Christian by a nonLDS in the same way they are offended about being called nonChristian....at least if the nonLDS Christian were using the term as zerinus is doing so. There is a big difference in my view in saying someone is mistaken in their worship of Christ and someone doesn't worship Christ at all.

They are not equivalent statements. zerinus was not saying or implying that nonLDS Christians were not actually Christians. If any nonLDS Christian justified their label of nonChristian with the reverse of zerinus' statement, it would be a misinterpretation of what he was saying, I believe, much like the quotes from lds.org that I posted that used "apostate Christianity" to refer to traditional Christianity but in no way suggested that such weren't Christian faiths.

Perhaps I am missing your point though.

Since traditional Christians did not originally come from faiths whose original source was the LDS faith, this comment makes no sense.

I don't think there would be any big issue if we just decided to call each other "apostate Christians" though I prefer "heretical Christian" more, just rolls off the tongue so nicely.

I use and have heard the term "sectarian Christians" and "Creedal Christians" but have never heard or thought to use the term "apostate Christians" to describe non-LDS Christians.

Sometimes you hear "the Sectarians" or "sectarian strife" used to describe other churches also.

I really like the term "Creedal Christians" because I think it is very descriptive and appropriate. We have no creeds, and for the most part, the Nicene Creed is really what separates us from them.

Besides Rob Bowman hates the term so that in itself is a good reason to use it.

Edited September 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bart Burk]

I use and have heard the term "sectarian Christians" and "Creedal Christians" but have never heard or thought to use the term "apostate Christians" to describe non-LDS Christians.

Sometimes you hear "the Sectarians" or "sectarian strife" used to describe other churches also.

I really like the term "Creedal Christians" because I think it is very descriptive and appropriate. We have no creeds, and for the most part, the Nicene Creed is really what separates us from them.

Besides Rob Bowman hates the term so that in itself is a good reason to use it.

There are Baptists who claim not to believe in creeds either, but they'll still fall all over themselves to defend the tradition of the Trinity. Even the Catholic Church would probably say that is more tradition than scripture since the definition of the Trinity falls outside the bounds of scripture.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Saints Alive]

Creedal Christian... I like it! I'd even go as far as gladly accepting the title of non-creedal Christian. Problem solved, we can all go home now.

[blueadept]

Creedal Christian... I like it! I'd even go as far as gladly accepting the title of non-creedal Christian. Problem solved, we can all go home now.

I think I'll use this definition the next time I get into a debate with another non-LDS person and they want to throw in a comment that LDS are not Christians.

[Vance]

The term "creedal Christianity" is used by a Baptist here,

http://www.article6blog.com/2011/10/31/to-a-thoughtful-critic-a-plea-for-justice/#more-3874

I concede that the term “cult” can mean a group that deviating so far from creedal Christianity that it is no longer theologically orthodox.

And by another "Creedal Christian" here,

http://www.article6blog.com/2011/10/19/in-which-schroeder-rants/

The humility born of this acknowledgement of insufficient understanding is the unifying factor between Presbyterian and Episcopalian, Protestant and Catholic,…Mormon and creedal Christian.

And here,

http://www.article6blog.com/2011/10/15/the-mormonchristian-thing-a-deeply-personal-perspective/

The theological chasm between Mormonism and traditional creedal Christianity is indeed wide.

And here,

http://www.article6blog.com/2011/05/20/here-we-go-again-2/

Clearly, Evangelicals and creedal Christians generally are learning about this stuff and growing wiser.

And some of these are over a year ago.

[Calm]

A word game is involved! That is the point. You answer a word game with a word game. The other factors do not play into it.

But this is not a word game now. I am sincerely interested in your personal POV.

[DH]

Wow, this is a long thread!

To me, if someone calls themselves a Christian, or says they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God or the Savior, then I accept that they're a Christian. I don't feel the need to administer an orthodoxy test to see if they believe all the exact "right" things about Jesus and everything else in order to call them a Christian (or a "real Christian"). It's enough that they believe in Jesus and try to follow him.

I really don't get why some people don't accept that Mormons are Christians. (shaking my head in bemusement)

[harfad]

But this is not a word game now.

To you it may not be, but to those whom we are confronting, it is.

I am sincerely interested in your personal POV.

Okay:

But do you believe that nonLDS who claim they are Christians actually are Christians if the word game is not involved?

Yes they are; but they are not the ones whom we are confronting. We are confronting those who claim that Mormons are not Christians; and with them a word game is involved.

If some nonLDS was perfectly happy to call LDS Christian, do you have any problem with calling them Christian?

No; but they are not the ones we are confronting. We are responding to those who claim that Mormons are not Christians, not those that say that they are.

Edited September 12, 2012 by harfad

[Calm]

Yes they are

All I wanted to know, thanks.

[mfbukowski]

The term "creedal Christianity" is used by a Baptist here,....

And some of these are over a year ago.

Heck yeah. I'm not smart enough to have made that one up. It's been around a long time!

[spartacus]

A few points (hopefully quickly):

1) Personally, as I think I have mentioned before on this thread, I think adjective precision is best, both for accuracy and as compromise. So "LDS christian" - ohp! but this brings up a subpoint, so...

1a) In these latest posts it seems that you all are coming to an agreement about what to call traditional Christians - "creedal Christians", but I have experienced,

and I am reminded of it by this turn in the thread, that LDS tend not to appreciate adjective equivocation. I've heard "LDS Christian" shot down by LDS

because they didn't want to be seen by outsiders as "just another denomination of (apostate, or heretical to calmoriah, I think it rolls well too)

Christianity."

1 continued) so "LDS Christian" (maybe not), or even worse "Mormon Christian" or perhaps "Joseph Smith Restoration Christian" (I'm sure some would dispute this as sounding like JS did it, taking away from Christ - but I think it could work as being the "restoration through Joseph Smith", or maybe not). Traditional Christians can be that, or "creedal" or "Bible Christians" (not that LDS don't claim the Bible but that they don't claim only the Bible as Bible Christians do). In the end I am for either "Only True Christians" for LDS that are of that view and "LDS Christian" for all others - there's the "just another denomination" issue but I find that "Latter Day Saint Christian" shows how following Christ is the basic element (possibly) shared between LDS and non-LDS-Christians and still gives a sense of the "more" that LDS claim to have by adding "LDS" or better "Latter Day Saint" to that basic element. So, yeah, I like "Only True Christian" or "Latter Day Saint Christian", and, obviously "Traditional Christian" (traditional in the sense of what the non-believers are familiar with, not any claim to original or authentic).

2) I don't know if this has been discussed on this thread yet, but it may be helpful to try to discuss why traditional Christians make such an issue of this. People here are speaking of "word games" and while that may be just as an outside description of the events, I don't believe that it explains the motives of either group. From my experience I observe that:

- Traditionals make this an issue based on the Bible's content promoting "contending for the faith" and warnings against "false gospels" and "false Christs". (I'm

not making any claims here, just describing their position.) I don't see how LDS could begrudge this motivation (think it is directed at LDS in error, sure, but

not begrudge it) since I don't think LDS want to say the Word of God is incorrect in these instances, and since a similar motivation is used in the LDS

differentiation and exclusion and distancing themselves from FLDS. (mfbukowski, I'll have to respond to your response to me about FLDS and LDS later)

- In the extreme, traditionals deny "christian" in any form to LDS, but moderate traditionals want to have LDS not simply claim just "christian". They (the moderates) do this because, and this is an important point, it is not just keeping a name for themselves, but keeping things as reasonably clear for non-LDS-non-traditionals as possible. I've heard many traditionals speak out of concern that people will hear LDS claim to be "christian" and believe that they are "equally" christian as traditionals. Now hold on! Without going into a thing over "equally", all I mean is that traditionals don't want complete outsiders to equate LDS and Non-LDS christian groups. This seems like it should be understandable to LDS, especially those that don't want to be thought of as "just another denomination of Christianity". And, again, because of the Biblical motivations described above they want to make clear that there is a difference between the two. Obviously for those who want to deny "christian" from LDS altogether its pretty clear. But I would say that moderates, who would compromise to a qualifier added on to "christian" for LDS, actually put a higher value on a qualifier of differentiation than on a qualifier of truth. For these people I also suggest "Only True Christians" and "Latter Day Saint Christians".

Perhaps it could go like this:

Man 1) "Are you a Christian?"

Man 2) "Yes I am Christian. I'm a Latter Day Saint." Or simply "Yes, I'm a Latter Day Saint Christian".

Man 1) "What's a Latter Day Saint Christian?"

Reporter "Is the LDS Church Christian?"

LDS Representative "Yes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Christian. We are Latter Day Saint Christians."

I know its more words and I know there would still be many who would complain (on both sides), but it would be a differentiation and clarification for non-believers of either that I think benefits both sides. And it would make the love/hate relationship with the term "mormon" obsolete.

[mfbukowski]

dude, who cares already? I certainly don't.

just don't call me late for dinner.

[Flyonthewall]

We don't have to attach "christian" to Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc..., to identify them as christian. Why would anyone need to attach "christian" to LDS? It is right there in the acutal name of our church...The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

We never claimed to be Catholic christian, or Protestant christian in any of its forms. We are LDS christian.

I see this whole issue similar to those in the time of Christ that accused him of performing miracles by Beelzubub. The same way they were wrong about Jesus, those who claim we are not Christian are wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

flyonthewall:

There is an actual The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and it isn't ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29

[Vance]

2) I don't know if this has been discussed on this thread yet, but it may be helpful to try to discuss why traditional Christians make such an issue of this.

I am not sure what good it would do. Those that LIE about our being Christian would also LIE about their motives for doing so.

That leaves us with speculating about their nefarious motives.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Vance