Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

Robert F. Smith · September 3, 2012

You are not perceived as bashing the LDS Church; please don't worry about it at all. Fundamentally the LDS understanding may be summed up as follows: we believe that it is impossible for someone to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and not be committed to keeping his commandments, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" was how the Savior stated it. We believe that there is no other gateway into heaven except through Jesus Christ. His atonement paid the price of all sin, that those who choose to follow him can be forgiven of their sins. This forgiveness of sins is not a perpetual, constant forgiveness i.e. you don't get to sin and it is instantly forgiven without any thought from the sinner. To be a disciple is a process of learning to emulate the example that Jesus gave us, to strive to become like him, and knowing that we can never achieve it on our own. Jesus becomes our Master and Lord. It is living in communion with the Holy Spirit daily that our hearts learn to hunger for righteousness in all that we do. We hunger for the good word of the Lord to both strengthen us and lead us in righteousness.
We believe the scripture in John 3:3-5 that tells us that we must be born of the spirit and of baptism to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. If Jesus needed baptism, then we do not argue, but we gladly accept it as fact that all need to be baptized. There were several ordinances that Jesus taught and used. We do likewise. Is it Jesus' ordinances that save or Jesus himself? We see no difference between the two; his word is enough for LDS.
Our church exists because Jesus caused it to exist. Not a single Protestant church, not one, can claim a restoration of truth and fullness of the gospel and authority. They all protested against the teachings of the Catholic Church; they all started by men creating their own churches, but not one looked to God and by his hand restored the Church of Jesus Christ that was lost. Every Protestant church is the result of man's hand, well-meaning to be certain, but all are the work of man. The LDS Church proclaims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ; restored by the Lord's hand, maintains the same organization that he instituted while on earth, with full authority to act in his name.
The LDS Church teaches that man is saved by Grace. He cannot "win" or "work" his way into salvation. However, God tells us that there is a judgment day. If there is a judgment day then works have value because both good works and sins will be accounted for on judgment day. Jesus told us that in his Father's house are many mansions; differing rewards, different houses. The LDS Church teaches and provides a path that can lead each individual into God the Father's presence for all eternity. Are works important? Only for those that love Jesus Christ.

EXACTLY. Well said, Storm Rider.

Rob Bowman · September 3, 2012

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

There is only one way to define a Christian without getting into sectarian differences. That is the use of the dictionary. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christianity is all those whom are followers of Christ.

Okay, let's run with this definition. What does it mean to follow Christ? Who is actually doing so? According to LDS teaching, Christ has established his one true and living church on earth in the latter days, given it the priesthood authority, and is working through that one and only true and living church on earth to bring people into the fullness of the gospel. Surely a Mormon must affirm that to follow Christ truly one must, for example, be validly baptized. But one can only do this today by joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely, to be consistent with the above claims, a Mormon must affirm that the only way to follow Christ today is to be a Mormon. Therefore, by your preferred dictionary definition, if Mormonism is true, then only Mormons are Christians.

Oops.

Your mistake is in reading the dictionary definition you cited as meaning that a Christian is anyone who professes to follow Christ. That is not the same thing as saying that a Christian is anyone who follows Christ.

You wrote:

We readily accept you into Christianity without agreeing with your sects' particular beliefs. You are attempting an exclusion of Mormons by your idiosyncratic definition. I am merely calling you on it.

Several comments and questions here:

1. I didn't know I needed Mormons to accept me into Christianity; I thought I was already there. You know, I am part of the community that has been calling itself Christianity centuries before Mormonism came along.

2. From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you? What do you mean by "exclusion of Mormons"? Exclusion of Mormons from what? I'm not trying to keep Mormons out of anything they're not already outside by their own choice. You don't want to be part of "Christendom," right? You're not trying to get into the World Council of Churches or the World Evangelical Alliance, I assume. Are you lobbying for the LDS Church to be listed under "Christianity" in reference works dealing with different world religions and their various sects? No problem--you're already there, and I agree that's where you should be listed.

3. Just what harm do you perceive me as inflicting on you? How have I wronged or hurt you, exactly?

4. What is this "idiosyncratic definition" you claim I have? Again, you are simply ignoring what I said, which is that I am not pushing one particular definition at all, let alone one "idiosyncratic" definition. So, please cite for me this definition you say I am using.

Rob Bowman · September 3, 2012

zerinus,

You wrote:

I didn’t ignore your “exegetical argument”. I sidestepped it because it was not an argument at all. Your argument was basically that Jesus’ declaration that the disciples should be one with themselves, as well as with the Father and the Son, had no other significance besides that they should have love for one another, so that the world might know that they are His true disciples.

No, that is not my argument. That is my conclusion. You did indeed sidestep my argument, and you've done it again. By your own choice, this exchange has come to an end.

Storm Rider · September 3, 2012

thesometimesaint,
You wrote:
Okay, let's run with this definition. What does it mean to follow Christ? Who is actually doing so? According to LDS teaching, Christ has established his one true and living church on earth in the latter days, given it the priesthood authority, and is working through that one and only true and living church on earth to bring people into the fullness of the gospel. Surely a Mormon must affirm that to follow Christ truly one must, for example, be validly baptized. But one can only do this today by joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely, to be consistent with the above claims, a Mormon must affirm that the only way to follow Christ today is to be a Mormon. Therefore, by your preferred dictionary definition, if Mormonism is true, then only Mormons are Christians.
Rob, it is frustrating to correct you on a point multiple times and you never seem to change your perception of LDS Teachings or doctrine. I apologize, it is quite tiresome. First, the LDS Church teaches that it is the restored church of Jesus Christ; that it has sole authority to act in God's name on the earth. HOWEVER, it does not teach that others do not have truth, are not walking with Jesus Christ, are not his disciples, or even that the LDS Church and its members cannot learn from the religious traditions of others. in fact, it has been stated clearly, to bring what truth you have and we will add to it. NO, ABSOUTELY NOT! It is not appropriate or acceptable to put words in our mouth. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to follow Christ. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." What is so difficult about knowing or understanding these simple words? You know this about our teachings and our doctrine; however, you persist in twisting our beliefs and teachings into that which we reject completely as false teachings. You know better and yet persist. Why? STOP IT.
Oops.
Your mistake is in reading the dictionary definition you cited as meaning that a Christian is anyone who professes to follow Christ. That is not the same thing as saying that a Christian is anyone who follows Christ.
You wrote:
Several comments and questions here:
1. I didn't know I needed Mormons to accept me into Christianity; I thought I was already there. You know, I am part of the community that has been calling itself Christianity centuries before Mormonism came along.
I was not aware that EV could claim centuries of history. They are as new as the last EV preacher that opens his own church. However, the LDS Church no more needs to recognize you as Christian as we need your recognition of our Christianity.
2. From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you? What do you mean by "exclusion of Mormons"? Exclusion of Mormons from what? I'm not trying to keep Mormons out of anything they're not already outside by their own choice. You don't want to be part of "Christendom," right? You're not trying to get into the World Council of Churches or the World Evangelical Alliance, I assume. Are you lobbying for the LDS Church to be listed under "Christianity" in reference works dealing with different world religions and their various sects? No problem--you're already there, and I agree that's where you should be listed.
This is just plain obfuscation and deceit and you know it. You exclude the LDS Church and LDS from Christianity. The Church and many of its members could not care less about your thoughts about us or our church; however, we feel strongly about Jesus as the Savior of all humanity. To have others deny our belief in the Savior can be offensive to some. I personally and learning to look the other way.
3. Just what harm do you perceive me as inflicting on you? How have I wronged or hurt you, exactly?
It gets quickly to the point of not being worthwhile to entering a discussion with you. You are like an ostrich with his head in the sand. It matters not what others do or say; you are in your own little world and refuse to acknowledge anything but your own thoughts.
4. What is this "idiosyncratic definition" you claim I have? Again, you are simply ignoring what I said, which is that I am not pushing one particular definition at all, let alone one "idiosyncratic" definition. So, please cite for me this definition you say I am using.

zerinus · September 3, 2012

No, that is not my argument. That is my conclusion. You did indeed sidestep my argument, and you've done it again. By your own choice, this exchange has come to an end.

LOL! Would you like to be a politician? You are not having a lot of luck as a theologian; you might have better luck in politics.

thesometimesaint · September 3, 2012

thesometimesaint,
You wrote:
Okay, let's run with this definition. What does it mean to follow Christ? Who is actually doing so? According to LDS teaching, Christ has established his one true and living church on earth in the latter days, given it the priesthood authority, and is working through that one and only true and living church on earth to bring people into the fullness of the gospel. Surely a Mormon must affirm that to follow Christ truly one must, for example, be validly baptized. But one can only do this today by joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely, to be consistent with the above claims, a Mormon must affirm that the only way to follow Christ today is to be a Mormon. Therefore, by your preferred dictionary definition, if Mormonism is true, then only Mormons are Christians.
Oops.
Your mistake is in reading the dictionary definition you cited as meaning that a Christian is anyone who professes to follow Christ. That is not the same thing as saying that a Christian is anyone who follows Christ.
You wrote:
Several comments and questions here:
1. I didn't know I needed Mormons to accept me into Christianity; I thought I was already there. You know, I am part of the community that has been calling itself Christianity centuries before Mormonism came along.
2. From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you? What do you mean by "exclusion of Mormons"? Exclusion of Mormons from what? I'm not trying to keep Mormons out of anything they're not already outside by their own choice. You don't want to be part of "Christendom," right? You're not trying to get into the World Council of Churches or the World Evangelical Alliance, I assume. Are you lobbying for the LDS Church to be listed under "Christianity" in reference works dealing with different world religions and their various sects? No problem--you're already there, and I agree that's where you should be listed.
3. Just what harm do you perceive me as inflicting on you? How have I wronged or hurt you, exactly?
4. What is this "idiosyncratic definition" you claim I have? Again, you are simply ignoring what I said, which is that I am not pushing one particular definition at all, let alone one "idiosyncratic" definition. So, please cite for me this definition you say I am using.

Good Morning Bob:

Again you are getting into sectarian differences. Being baptized into a particular sect of Christianity doesn't make you a Christian. There are many different sects within Christianity.

No, That makes me a Mormon Christian. If someone is baptized as a Baptist that makes them a Baptist Christian. If someone is baptized as a Catholic that makes them a Catholic Christian, etc., etc., etc.. We are all followers of Christ though we have differing ideas as to what that entails.

Here is what the dictionary says whom is a Christian

Chris·tian

[kris-chuhn] Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.

of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.

of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.

exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5.

decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

1. Neither I nor my Church has excluded you from Christianity. We accept at face value that you are a Christian. It is you that is trying to exclude us from Christianity. Good for you. Are Greek Orthodox not Christan because they came along centuries after the Roman Catholic church? Are Baptists not Christian because they came along over a millenia after those?

2. You are trying to exclude the Mormons from Christianity, because we are not YOUR type of Christian. We've always been Christian. There has never been a time when we weren't Christian.

http://www.lds.org/s.../25.26?lang=eng

We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we ^bprophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our ^cchildren may know to what source they may look for a ^dremission of their sins.

I sure don't see being a member of those clubs in the definition of a Christian. I didn't know we had to belong to some other club in order to be a Christian. Christ and his original Apostles didn't belong to those clubs you named. They must not have been Christians either.

Thank you, but as you say we don't need your permission to be Christians.

3. Your entire "ministry" by your own admission is the lead people out of the Church. Your claiming we are not Christian is an attempt to dissuade others from listening to our Missionaries.

4. id·i·o·syn·cra·sy (d--sngkr-s)

n. pl. id·i·o·syn·cra·sies

1. A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group.

2. A physiological or temperamental peculiarity.

3. An unusual individual reaction to food or a drug.

That Mormons are not Christian.

Edited September 3, 2012 by thesometimesaint

urroner · September 3, 2012

t1. I didn't know I needed Mormons to accept me into Christianity; I thought I was already there. You know, I am part of the community that has been calling itself Christianity centuries before Mormonism came along.

Sorry Rob, but this is a rather fallacious argument to decide who is or who isn't a Christian. Exactly how long does a group have to call itself "Christian" before it's considered to be a Christian group. Can groups which formed after 1833 still be considered Christian? How about groups that are three hundred years old, can they be considered Christian?

I don't think your argument about time has anything to do with nothing.

Also, if your group hasn't been around since, let's say the resurrection of Christ, then where did your group come from and why was it formed? Was the group your group splintered off from a Christian group? What caused the splinter? Was it a matter of doctrine and, if so, what was the doctrine(s) that caused the splintering? If it was doctrine, why was a splintering necessary?

2. From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you? What do you mean by "exclusion of Mormons"? Exclusion of Mormons from what? I'm not trying to keep Mormons out of anything they're not already outside by their own choice. You don't want to be part of "Christendom," right? You're not trying to get into the World Council of Churches or the World Evangelical Alliance, I assume. Are you lobbying for the LDS Church to be listed under "Christianity" in reference works dealing with different world religions and their various sects? No problem--you're already there, and I agree that's where you should be listed.

Rob, again, like I said earlier, you drew a circle for those who are Christians and you drew us out, but Christ drew a circle of those whom he loves and consider to be his and he drew us in. Honestly Rob, it pleases me to no end that you are attempting to push Christ out of the Judgement Seat in order to plant your butt in it. I think that you can do a so much better job than Christ is doing. Christ seems to be taking too long at his job, but you are doing that jog in a much timelier manner, It is definitely time, right now, even as we speak, to separate the wheat, which you are, from those malignant, cancerous tares, which I am. As least that is one thing we can agree upon.

Anyway, why would we ever want to become part of the World Council of Churches or the World Evangelical Alliance? There's enough bickering and infighting in those groups already. From what I have heard, those groups can occasionally be compared to the several of the first Councils held in the first several centuries after the death of the Apostles.

Zeta-Flux · September 3, 2012

Okay, let's run with this definition. What does it mean to follow Christ? Who is actually doing so? According to LDS teaching, Christ has established his one true and living church on earth in the latter days, given it the priesthood authority, and is working through that one and only true and living church on earth to bring people into the fullness of the gospel. Surely a Mormon must affirm that to follow Christ truly one must, for example, be validly baptized.

Why would we have to affirm that in your view?

Further, when did the question turn from "following Christ" to "following Christ truly"? And even if we ask that new question, I wouldn't say that one has to be a member of our church to worship Christ "truly". We believe there are many outside the church who already do so.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

wenglund · September 3, 2012

The Grace of Jesus Christ Vs. the acts of a follower of Christ. The true power of the sacrifice of Jesus on for mankind.
Or
HOW ARE WE SAVED??!

This question is actually a bit premature. Before one can determine how we are saved, one needs to first determine what all we are being saved from and/or saved to.

Those of us who are believing members of Christ's latter-day church and the restored gospel, believe we are saved from the fall and saved unto godliness, which includes not only remission of sins, but a change in our nature from natural to spiritual man, culminating in the resurrection.

Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 4, 2012 by wenglund

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, it is frustrating to correct you on a point multiple times and you never seem to change your perception of LDS Teachings or doctrine. I apologize, it is quite tiresome.

Whatever happened in the past to fuel your frustration, I can tell you that in this instance your attempt to "correct" me fails for the simple reason that you criticize me for claiming something about Mormonism I never said, as I will explain below.

You wrote:

First, the LDS Church teaches that it is the restored church of Jesus Christ; that it has sole authority to act in God's name on the earth. HOWEVER, it does not teach that others do not have truth, are not walking with Jesus Christ, are not his disciples, or even that the LDS Church and its members cannot learn from the religious traditions of others. in fact, it has been stated clearly, to bring what truth you have and we will add to it. NO, ABSOUTELY NOT! It is not appropriate or acceptable to put words in our mouth. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to follow Christ. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." What is so difficult about knowing or understanding these simple words? You know this about our teachings and our doctrine; however, you persist in twisting our beliefs and teachings into that which we reject completely as false teachings. You know better and yet persist. Why? STOP IT.

Most of what you said is absolutely beside the point. I never claimed that LDS teaching denies that non-Mormons have any truth at all. What I said is that the LDS Church claims that Jesus Christ is leading his people on earth today through the LDS Church, which would seem to imply that anyone who really follows Christ would join the LDS Church. How can anyone follow Christ and not get baptized? How can anyone follow Christ and not become part of his Church? You haven't addressed these questions at all. Instead you are simply ignoring the whole point of my comments. You quote Jesus' saying "If you love me, keep my commandments." How does this not support my argument? If Christ has commanded people to join the LDS Church, then anyone who chooses not to join the LDS Church is failing to keep Christ's commandments, aren't they? Aren't getting baptized, receiving the priesthood, sustaining the prophet, etc., commandments? You just don't seem to be engaging my point at all.

I had asked, "From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you?" You replied:

This is just plain obfuscation and deceit and you know it.

Please desist from accusing me of deceit. I absolutely do not know what you claim I know. I know in fact that my question is not obfuscation or deceit. You wrote:

You exclude the LDS Church and LDS from Christianity.

This proves you just didn't understand my question. Let me ask you this: Just what exactly is "Christianity"? Please, you define it for us. What is this "Christianity" from which you claim I exclude the LDS?

I had asked: "Just what harm do you perceive me as inflicting on you? How have I wronged or hurt you, exactly?" You commented:

It gets quickly to the point of not being worthwhile to entering a discussion with you. You are like an ostrich with his head in the sand. It matters not what others do or say; you are in your own little world and refuse to acknowledge anything but your own thoughts.

No answer there.

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

zerinus,

You wrote:

LOL! Would you like to be a politician? You are not having a lot of luck as a theologian; you might have better luck in politics.

You wouldn't have much luck as either, I'm afraid.

Bill Hamblin · September 4, 2012

I'm simply suggesting that it is odd to be so inclusive about Christianity's definition while being so exclusive regarding Mormonisms's.

Good grief, both of my definitions are inclusive

Christian Mormon

Belief in God Belief in God

Belief in Jesus Belief in Jesus

Belief in JS as authentic prophet

Belief in Monson as prophet (to distinguish from RLDS and FLDS, etc.)

I simply can't imagine a meaningful definition that is more inclusive than this.

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Good Morning Bob:

Ironic. You are not only ignoring what I say, now you can't even remember my name.

Your comments about baptism went sailing off in a wildly irrelevant direction. Please answer these questions and stick to what your own religion actually teaches about it:

Is it not true that LDS doctrine maintains that no one can be validly baptized who is not baptized by someone holding the priesthood?
And is it not true that LDS doctrine maintains that no one living on earth today who is not a part of the LDS Church holds the priesthood?
Does it not follow from these two LDS claims that Baptists (such as I) and members of other non-LDS churches are not validly baptized?

You claim that I am "trying to exclude the Mormons from Christianity." What do you mean by "Christianity"? Please define this term for us.

I had asked how exactly I was harming you. You replied:

Your entire "ministry" by your own admission is the lead people out of the Church. Your claiming we are not Christian is an attempt to dissuade others from listening to our Missionaries.

Now we're getting somewhere. You fear that what I say about Mormonism will discourage people from becoming Mormons. But if I am right about Joseph Smith being a false prophet and the LDS Church teaching heretical doctrine, shouldn't I try to discourage people from becoming Mormons?

Let me point out that it does not harm you if someone else does not become a Mormon. If Mary, who is a Lutheran, does not become a Mormon, this does no harm to Fred, who is a Mormon. If I convince Mary not to become a Mormon, this does not harm those who are already Mormons.

In any case, as I have said repeatedly, I don't deny that Mormons are Christians if the term Christian is defined in a doctrine-free way. Why won't any of you address that simple point? I asked you what is the "idiosyncratic definition" of the term Christian that you claim I have? You replied: "That Mormons are not Christian." But (1) that's not a definition at all, and (2) I have explicitly said that if the term Christian is defined in a doctrine-free way then Mormons can be called Christians. So, why is it that you and others here keep avoiding addressing this point? I think it's because you are so stuck in your template that all Christian critics of the LDS religion say "Mormons are not Christians" that you are unable to process statements that don't fit that template.

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

Bill,

You wrote:

Good grief, both of my definitions are inclusive
Christian Mormon
Belief in God Belief in God
Belief in Jesus Belief in Jesus
Belief in JS as authentic prophet
Belief in Monson as prophet (to distinguish from RLDS and FLDS, etc.)
I simply can't imagine a meaningful definition that is more inclusive than this.

You seem to be suffering from a lack of imagination. I'll help you out here. A more inclusive and yet still meaningful definition of Mormon is that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon as a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus is a Mormon. Not only is this definition more inclusive than yours, it has an obvious connection to the term Mormon itself. It allows people in LDS sects outside the SLC-based LDS Church to call themselves Mormons if they wish, and it does so on the clearly relevant criterion that belief in the Book of Mormon is fundamental to being a Mormon.

While I've got you on the line here so to speak, I am disappointed that you did not allow my comment to your blog noting my response to your blog article about Witherington, and I am also disappointed that you have so far not responded to anything I said about it. The fact is that you misrepresented Witherington's article on Patheos, as I showed.

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

urroner,

The significance of my questions to thesometimesaint appears to have eluded you. I was not using how long a group has been around as a criterion for being Christian.

You wrote:

Rob, again, like I said earlier, you drew a circle for those who are Christians and you drew us out, but Christ drew a circle of those whom he loves and consider to be his and he drew us in.

This comment completely ignores what I have been saying. I am not arguing about whether Mormons are Christians or not. The Mormons here want to make this the subject, not I.

Rob Bowman · September 4, 2012

Zeta-Flux,

Regarding my observation that according to Mormon doctrine non-Mormons have not been validly baptized, you wrote:

Why would we have to affirm that in your view?

I have explained this in my response to "thesometimesaint" above.

You wrote:

Further, when did the question turn from "following Christ" to "following Christ truly"?

Really? Would you be satisfied if I said "Mormons follow Christ but they don't follow him truly"?

You wrote:

And even if we ask that new question, I wouldn't say that one has to be a member of our church to worship Christ "truly". We believe there are many outside the church who already do so.

Here's my problem. As an outsider, I try to understand LDS doctrine based on authoritative sources like the LDS scriptures, statements of LDS prophets, LDS Church publications such as curriculum manuals, and the like. I recognize that not all members of the LDS Church will agree on what these things mean, but I do the best I can to grasp what is LDS doctrine based on such authoritative sources. I cannot base my understanding of LDS doctrine on what individual Mormons say, especially individual Mormons whose real names I don't even know! How silly would I look if I went around saying, "The actual LDS doctrinal position, according to Zeta-Flux, Storm Rider, zerinus, thesometimesaint, and urroner is...."

wenglund · September 4, 2012

You seem to be suffering from a lack of imagination. I'll help you out here. A more inclusive and yet still meaningful definition of Mormon is that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon as a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus is a Mormon. Not only is this definition more inclusive than yours, it has an obvious connection to the term Mormon itself. It allows people in LDS sects outside the SLC-based LDS Church to call themselves Mormons if they wish, and it does so on the clearly relevant criterion that belief in the Book of Mormon is fundamental to being a Mormon.

There are people who consider the Book of Mormon to be scriptural (and I am not just talking about former members who still view the BoM as scriptural, there is also a protestant minister who believes the same), who don't consider themselves to be Mormon. So, while your definition is more inclusive, it is inclusive beyond a rational mark. It is comparable to saying that anyone who believes in the New Testament as scriptural revelation about God and Jesus, is Christian.

In short, the point isn't just about inclusiveness. It is about inclusiveness within a rational mark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

shalamabobbi · September 4, 2012

zerinus,
You wrote:
LOL! Would you like to be a politician? You are not having a lot of luck as a theologian; you might have better luck in politics.
You wouldn't have much luck as either, I'm afraid.

When did Rob start handing out compliments?

Edited September 4, 2012 by shalamabobbi

Bill Hamblin · September 4, 2012

Bill,
You wrote:
You seem to be suffering from a lack of imagination. I'll help you out here. A more inclusive and yet still meaningful definition of Mormon is that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon as a scriptural revelation about God and Jesus is a Mormon. Not only is this definition more inclusive than yours, it has an obvious connection to the term Mormon itself. It allows people in LDS sects outside the SLC-based LDS Church to call themselves Mormons if they wish, and it does so on the clearly relevant criterion that belief in the Book of Mormon is fundamental to being a Mormon.
While I've got you on the line here so to speak, I am disappointed that you did not allow my comment to your blog noting my response to your blog article about Witherington, and I am also disappointed that you have so far not responded to anything I said about it. The fact is that you misrepresented Witherington's article on Patheos, as I showed.

Well, in my original version, I implied that belief in the BOM was necessary to accept JS as a prophet. I'm talking about the CJCLDS; there are obviously other splinter groups that could be called Mormon, but we need something to distinguish them from the CJCLDS, hence the acceptance of Monson as #4.

As to your second point, I'm disappointed that you post temple eposes on your web page. And I don't link to web pages with temple exposes. I also found your response to be typical quibbling, while ignoring the essential issues. And I'm busy. Etc.

The Grimace · September 4, 2012

Well, in my original version, I implied that belief in the BOM was necessary to accept JS as a prophet. I'm talking about the CJCLDS; there are obviously other splinter groups that could be called Mormon, but we need something to distinguish them from the CJCLDS, hence the acceptance of Monson as #4.

There's already a name for members of the CoJCoLDS: Latter-day Saints. Broadening the definition of Mormon to any individual who accepts the Book of Mormon as scriptural revelation, or even as any individual or group who claims beliefs originating from Joseph Smith's First Vision, makes the term Mormon much more inclusive than what you have offered.

Zeta-Flux · September 4, 2012

Regarding my observation that according to Mormon doctrine non-Mormons have not been validly baptized, you wrote:

No, you misunderstood my point. Let me be more clear.

I agree that our doctrine is that only baptism done by proper priesthood authority is valid. What I disagreed with was the assertion that for one to follow Christ one must be presently baptized by authority. I do not agree with that. My question was why you think that I need to assert such a thing.

Really? Would you be satisfied if I said "Mormons follow Christ but they don't follow him truly"?

Of course I wouldn't. But my question here was not whether this new question was satisfactory. But, rather, why you were asking it instead of the other question.

In other words, it seems to me that the question we are trying to answer is whether Mormon's are Christians (that is, believers in Christ). The question of whether they are deceived or not is another matter.

Here's my problem. As an outsider, I try to understand LDS doctrine based on authoritative sources like the LDS scriptures, statements of LDS prophets, LDS Church publications such as curriculum manuals, and the like. I recognize that not all members of the LDS Church will agree on what these things mean, but I do the best I can to grasp what is LDS doctrine based on such authoritative sources. I cannot base my understanding of LDS doctrine on what individual Mormons say, especially individual Mormons whose real names I don't even know! How silly would I look if I went around saying, "The actual LDS doctrinal position, according to Zeta-Flux, Storm Rider, zerinus, thesometimesaint, and urroner is...."

I understand that. If you are unaware of our doctrine that there are those outside our Church who truly follow Christ, I'll look up the words of our prophets speaking of the good people outside our Church do. In the words of Moroni 7:11: "For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil." I can look up scriptures explaining how some follow Christ previous to their baptism in Christ's name, or receiving the Holy Ghost. (I'm sure you are aware of the ministry of Apollos, as one example.) Just let me know if that is what you need.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

Zeta-Flux · September 4, 2012

Just for fun I looked for a few quotations on the subject of whether our leaders refer to other denominations as Christian.

Elder Uchtdorf
When my own family contemplates the phrase “faith of our fathers,” often it is the Lutheran faith that comes to mind. For generations our ancestors belonged to that denomination. In fact, my son recently discovered that one of our family lines connects back to Martin Luther himself.
We honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fulness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father.
We believe that it is a fundamental human right to worship “Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”⁴
There Are Many Faiths and Traditions of Our Fathers
As the restored Church of Jesus Christ blossoms throughout the globe—now with more than 13 million members—“the faith of our fathers” has an expanded meaning. For some, it could refer to their family’s heritage in one of the hundreds of Christian faiths; for others, it could refer to Middle-Eastern, Asian, or African faiths and traditions.

On the Mormon Channel Questions and Answers, Elder Dallin H. Oaks answers the question: "I understand that your faith believes in three heavens one like the stars, one like the moon, and one like the sun. Where do you believe Christians of other denominations will go?" It is found at http://mormonchannel.org/qa/11 The beginning sentence of Elder Oaks is "Like other Christians..."

Another quotation from Elder Oaks:
Many church denominations or philosophies that exist in the world today contain, in greater or lesser measure, truths revealed by God in earlier days, along with a mixture of the philosophies or manipulations of men. We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve Him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. We want all who investigate our church from other churches or systems of belief to retain everything they have that is good and to come and see how we can add to their understanding of truth and to their happiness as they follow it.

Robert D. Hales
Paul reminded the Corinthians that his preaching was “not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:4). Because that power resides in the Spirit of the Lord, we must never become contentious when we are discussing our faith. As almost every missionary learns, Bible bashing always drives the Spirit away. The Savior has said, “He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me” (3 Nephi 11:29). More regrettable than the Church being accused of not being Christian is when Church members react to such accusations in an un-Christlike way! May our conversations with others always be marked by the fruits of the Spirit—“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperance” (Galatians 5:22–23). To be meek, as defined in Webster’s dictionary, is “manifesting patience and longsuffering: enduring injury without resentment.”² Meekness is not weakness. It is a badge of Christian courage.
This is especially important in our interactions with members of other Christian denominations. Surely our Heavenly Father is saddened—and the devil laughs—when we contentiously debate doctrinal differences with our Christian neighbors.

And there are many, many more like this.

Robert F. Smith · September 4, 2012

thesometimesaint,
And is it not true that LDS doctrine maintains that no one living on earth today who is not a part of the LDS Church holds the priesthood?

Hi Rob,

Just wanted to comment on this question you asked of thesometimesaint, and say that it is not completely true. The reason I say this is twofold:

(1) LDS Article of Faith #10 clearly privileges the 12 tribes of Israel, and their eschatological gathering in these latter-days. In fact, Apostle Orson Hyde formally dedicated the Land of Israel to that gathering in 1841, his prayer now being on a commemorative plaque in English and Hebrew on the Mount of Olives.

(2) D&C 68:15-21, 84:18-31, 107:16-17, 69-76, and Malachi 3:3 make clear the right of the tribe of Levi and of the kohens among them to the priesthood of Aaron by direct lineal descent. In my opinion, when the kohen holds up his hands over the Jewish congregation on Yom Kippur and pronounces the formal blessing, God takes careful note of each such blessing. Mormons do not believe in supercession, even if few of them know what that means.

Bob

Edited September 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

zerinus · September 4, 2012

Most of what you said is absolutely beside the point. I never claimed that LDS teaching denies that non-Mormons have any truth at all. What I said is that the LDS Church claims that Jesus Christ is leading his people on earth today through the LDS Church, which would seem to imply that anyone who really follows Christ would join the LDS Church. How can anyone follow Christ and not get baptized? How can anyone follow Christ and not become part of his Church? You haven't addressed these questions at all. . . . If Christ has commanded people to join the LDS Church, then anyone who chooses not to join the LDS Church is failing to keep Christ's commandments, aren't they? Aren't getting baptized, receiving the priesthood, sustaining the prophet, etc., commandments? You just don't seem to be engaging my point at all.

That question has been answered for you, but you turn a blind eye. So I will try again. The answer to that question is embedded in this revelation:

D&C 137:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

God judges people according to their hearts, not their immediate reactions. Nobody joins the LDS Church the minute they hear of it. It takes time. That length of time could be anything from a couple of weeks to a lifetime. It all depends on individual circumstance. But God knows what is in their hearts, and whether they are potential converts or not, and judges them as though they had already accepted the Restored gospel, even though for the time being they might not have. So in a spiritual sense, God's true Church has a much bigger membership than those who are card carrying members of the LDS Church. We may not know who those people are, but God knows, and counts them as members of His spiritual Church. Let me quote you another scripture that ties into the one given above:

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the enter.

This revelation was received before the Book of Mormon had been translated, and the LDS Church officially organized. The “church” mentioned in verses 54 and 55 does not refer to the LDS Church, because it hadn't been organized yet. It does not refer to any particular denominational church either, like Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist etc. It refers to all those people collectively who sincerely believe in Him (and who are potential converts to the future LDS Church) regardless of which particular denomination they belong to. God knows what is in their hearts, and knows whether, given time (which may extend beyond this life), they would join His true Restored Church, or harden their hearts against it. He knows who those people are (even though we don't), and regards them as His true Church—regardless of which particular denomination they happen to belong to for the time being. He treats them as though they already were members of His Restored Church, even though on paper they may not be (yet). Here is another scripture which ties into what was quoted above:

3 Nephi 16:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles— ...

So according to all that God has revealed, He regards the true believers in Him as being part of His Church. They are the “wheat” if you like, while the rest are the “tares”. Most of the time we don’t know which is which; but God knows; and judges us accordingly. So to summarise, one does not have to be a card carrying member of the LDS Church in order to be a part of God's collective, greater, spiritual Church. God's true Church is ultimately spiritual, and has a much larger membership than those who are a card carrying members of the LDS Church.

I had asked, "From what exactly is it you think I am trying to exclude you?"

When you, or your Evangelical colleagues, accuse Mormons of not being Christians, it is a way of excluding them from the community of those who believe in Jesus Christ, because that is what the word “Christian” means to most people. It is a deliberate assault on Mormonism, and indeed against God; because Mormonism is God's true Restored Church on earth.

This proves you just didn't understand my question. Let me ask you this: Just what exactly is "Christianity"? Please, you define it for us. What is this "Christianity" from which you claim I exclude the LDS?

Christian according to the Bible means the disciples of Jesus Christ. When you say that Mormons are not Christians, that means that they are not disciples (followers) of Jesus Christ. You are excluding them from the discipleship of Jesus Christ.

I had asked: "Just what harm do you perceive me as inflicting on you? How have I wronged or hurt you, exactly?" You commented:

You don't hurt me personally; but when you attack the Church I believe in and know to be of God, I have an obligation to defend it. As a member of the Church, I have both an obligation to spread it and preach it, as well as to defend it, which are two sides of the same coin. Preaching it and spreading it necessitates defending it against those who may be misrepresenting it.

Edited September 4, 2012 by zerinus

zerinus · September 4, 2012

Your comments about baptism went sailing off in a wildly irrelevant direction. Please answer these questions and stick to what your own religion actually teaches about it:
Is it not true that LDS doctrine maintains that no one can be validly baptized who is not baptized by someone holding the priesthood?
And is it not true that LDS doctrine maintains that no one living on earth today who is not a part of the LDS Church holds the priesthood?
Does it not follow from these two LDS claims that Baptists (such as I) and members of other non-LDS churches are not validly baptized?
You claim that I am "trying to exclude the Mormons from Christianity." What do you mean by "Christianity"? Please define this term for us.

Already answered in my previous post.

I had asked how exactly I was harming you. You replied:

You are not harming me personally at all. I haven't read all the posts, and I don't know what was said, but I don't think anyone here thinks that you are harming them personally.

Now we're getting somewhere. You fear that what I say about Mormonism will discourage people from becoming Mormons. But if I am right about Joseph Smith being a false prophet and the LDS Church teaching heretical doctrine, shouldn't I try to discourage people from becoming Mormons?

You have every right to believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and I have every right to defend him as a true prophet and counter your allegations. It is not a matter of being personally "hurt" by anything.

Let me point out that it does not harm you if someone else does not become a Mormon. If Mary, who is a Lutheran, does not become a Mormon, this does no harm to Fred, who is a Mormon. If I convince Mary not to become a Mormon, this does not harm those who are already Mormons.

Well it does harm the cause of the truth as we know it, and we are as much entitled to defend that cause from assault and misrepresentation as you are to attack it.

In any case, as I have said repeatedly, I don't deny that Mormons are Christians if the term Christian is defined in a doctrine-free way. Why won't any of you address that simple point? I asked you what is the "idiosyncratic definition" of the term Christian that you claim I have? You replied: "That Mormons are not Christian." But (1) that's not a definition at all, and (2) I have explicitly said that if the term Christian is defined in a doctrine-free way then Mormons can be called Christians. So, why is it that you and others here keep avoiding addressing this point? I think it's because you are so stuck in your template that all Christian critics of the LDS religion say "Mormons are not Christians" that you are unable to process statements that don't fit that template.

If you want to define "Christian" doctrineally, then you have to decide whose "doctrine" you want to apply as the test, because there are as many such "tests" as there are Christians; and in that sense I don't think that you have the right to define what "Christian" means for everyvbody else at all. Who gave you the right to define what "Christian" should mean for everyone else out there who likes to be called a Christian?

Sign In

Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

Recommended Posts

Robert F. Smith

Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

Storm Rider

zerinus

thesometimesaint

urroner

Zeta-Flux

wenglund

Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

Bill Hamblin

Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

wenglund

shalamabobbi

Bill Hamblin

The Grimace

Zeta-Flux

Zeta-Flux

Robert F. Smith

zerinus

zerinus

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse