Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[zerinus]

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.

The problem with that is that a lot of the people who would thus qualify, according to your definition, to be called "Mormon," actually don't want to be, because they know that in popular culture the word Mormon is commonly associated with the members of the LDS Church; and they don't want to be confused with us.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

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.

You might have a good point here. I would be happy to know which groups (not just isolated individuals) affirm that the Book of Mormon is scripture but do not wish to be called Mormons. I suppose you could include the Community of Christ here but they view the Book of Mormon as scripture only in a very liberal sense. 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.

Regarding the Protestant minister: CFR.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

The problem is that your definition excludes those groups that self-identify as Mormons but are not members of the CJCLDS. A more inclusive definition would allow them to do so.

You wrote:

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 web page I cited in my comment contains nothing about the temple. In fact, the web site I cited contains no temple exposes. I cited the Religious Researcher blog, which is a separate web site from the IRR web site.

Your article had asserted that Witherington's six points were six reasons why Mormons are not Christians. Your whole article was premised on that understanding of Witherington's article. Yet, as I showed, this is a misrepresentation of Witherington's six points, which he stated explicitly were six basic differences between Mormons and evangelicals. What is really "typical" here is your dismissing such a basic problem with your argumentation as mere "quibbling."

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

You wrote:

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.

The argument is simple:

Premise 1: To follow Christ, one must obey his commands. (This premise was furnished by another Mormon in this thread.)

Premise 2: Christ's commands include that people are to be baptized, become members of his church, sustain the LDS prophet, perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (From LDS doctrine.)

Premise 3: Non-Mormons are not baptized, are not members of Christ's church, do not sustain the prophet, do not perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (Undisputed fact.)

Conclusion 1: Therefore, non-Mormons do not obey Christ's commands. (Follows deductively from premises 2 and 3).

Conclusion 2: Therefore, non-Mormons do not follow Christ. (Follows from premise 1 and conclusion 1).

I asked: Would you be satisfied if I said 'Mormons follow Christ but they don't follow him truly'?" You replied:

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.

It isn't a different question at all. "Do non-Mormon Christians follow Christ?" and "Do non-Mormon Christians follow Christ truly?" are the same question. They mean exactly the same thing. The addition of the word "truly" merely makes explicit what is already implicit in the question.

You wrote:

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.

If as a result of being deceived they think they are truly following Christ when they are not, then it is not a different matter at all.

You wrote:

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.

I am well aware of the fact that LDS prophets have made such statements. However, we can all agree that non-Christians do good things, too. Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and even atheists have done many good things. This is a fact and has no bearing on the issue at hand.

You wrote:

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.

Apollos was not following Christ prior to being baptized or receiving the Holy Spirit. The book of Acts reports that he was given a more accurate understanding of the faith by Priscilla and Aquila, but it says nothing about him having been a follower of Jesus and yet not having been baptized. In any case, the issue here is whether people living today who know about the LDS Church's claims and reject those claims can still be considered genuine followers of Jesus Christ. My point is that from a consistent Mormon perspective the answer would seem to be no.

As for what your own prophets have said about traditional, non-Mormon Christians, you might be shocked. They have said repeatedly that traditional Christians worship a false god and a false Christ. They have repeatedly referred to us as "so-called" Christians and "so-called" Christianity. They have attacked the evangelical view of grace and salvation as a Satanic deception. All of these statements and many more like them can be found on lds.org.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

Okay, for the sake of argument let's stipulate your exception and say that in LDS doctrine no professed Christian (who is not a Levite) outside 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

[The Grimace]

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-

No one is forcing the label "Mormon" on anyone; the same way no one is forcing the label "Christian" on anyone. The point is, one can create a definition of Mormon that is valid and inclusive of a wide range of restoration faiths that begin with the First Vision and/or consider the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture.

This would allow adoption of the label by any person or group who feel they are indeed, Mormon.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

We still accept them as Christians. It is not not up to you, or me, whom "truly follows Jesus". I sure don't, but you somehow claim the power and authority to pass that judgement on others.

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

They can call themselves a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all I care. The term Mormon is not copyrighted. But one would think that they would be proud of the fact that they are small splinter(Apostate) groups of, or never were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Zeta-Flux]

The argument is simple:

Premise 1: To follow Christ, one must obey his commands. (This premise was furnished by another Mormon in this thread.)

Premise 2: Christ's commands include that people are to be baptized, become members of his church, sustain the LDS prophet, perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (From LDS doctrine.)

Premise 3: Non-Mormons are not baptized, are not members of Christ's church, do not sustain the prophet, do not perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (Undisputed fact.)

Conclusion 1: Therefore, non-Mormons do not obey Christ's commands. (Follows deductively from premises 2 and 3).

Conclusion 2: Therefore, non-Mormons do not follow Christ. (Follows from premise 1 and conclusion 1).

While the argument is simple, you know that our leaders do not assert Conclusion 2. (And I gave a few quotations above, among many many more.)

The simple answer is that Premise 1 is not complete. Mormons believe in many levels of following Christ. One can be diligent in following Christ. One might not have access to some of his commands. etc... Eventually all will bow the knee. Even the telestial will receive some glory.

It isn't a different question at all. "Do non-Mormon Christians follow Christ?" and "Do non-Mormon Christians follow Christ truly?" are the same question. They mean exactly the same thing. The addition of the word "truly" merely makes explicit what is already implicit in the question.

....

If as a result of being deceived they think they are truly following Christ when they are not, then it is not a different matter at all.

Not according to Mormon thought. We believe that many people are blinded by the craftiness of men. The serve Christ according to the best of their light and knowledge.

In one sense they serve Christ truly. In another sense, they don't know what Christ wants of them. But God judges them according to the light and knowledge they have.

It is similar to what C. S. Lewis said at the end of the Chronicles of Narnia.

I am well aware of the fact that LDS prophets have made such statements. However, we can all agree that non-Christians do good things, too. Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and even atheists have done many good things. This is a fact and has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Good point. Fortunately, I found quotations from our leaders not only asserting that there were others in the world who do good, but that there are other denominations which are Christian. So the point is moot. Our leaders have repeatedly affirmed the Christianity of other religions, denominations and peoples.

Apollos was not following Christ prior to being baptized or receiving the Holy Spirit. The book of Acts reports that he was given a more accurate understanding of the faith by Priscilla and Aquila, but it says nothing about him having been a follower of Jesus and yet not having been baptized. In any case, the issue here is whether people living today who know about the LDS Church's claims and reject those claims can still be considered genuine followers of Jesus Christ. My point is that from a consistent Mormon perspective the answer would seem to be no.

As for what your own prophets have said about traditional, non-Mormon Christians, you might be shocked. They have said repeatedly that traditional Christians worship a false god and a false Christ. They have repeatedly referred to us as "so-called" Christians and "so-called" Christianity. They have attacked the evangelical view of grace and salvation as a Satanic deception. All of these statements and many more like them can be found on lds.org.

Shocked, no. Would I interpret their words differently than you. Almost certainly.

It is clear that on many occasions our leaders and prophets have taught that traditional Christians worship a true God and his Christ. It is true that you can find quotes talking about how others have wrong beliefs about God. But you can find many, many other quotations talking about how there are many in other denominations working under the best light and knowledge they have available. Our doctrine is consistent, that they will be judged on the light and knowledge they have available. (zerinus makes this point above very well.)

Now, to your point. You assert that those who reject our claims cannot still be considered genuine followers of Jesus Christ. First, the Holy Ghost would have had to bear witness to them of our message. And second, even in that case the most you could assert is that they are not celestial servants. We believe, even in the millennium, there will be many churches other than our own (at least for a while). Those people living a terrestrial life will not be destroyed.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

Edited September 4, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

No one is forcing the label "Mormon" on anyone; the same way no one is forcing the label "Christian" on anyone. The point is, one can create a definition of Mormon that is valid and inclusive of a wide range of restoration faiths that begin with the First Vision and/or consider the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture.

This would allow adoption of the label by any person or group who feel they are indeed, Mormon.

The Grimace,

What you say is true. We could make definitions even more inclusive.

However, it would come at the cost of understanding. The standard meaning in society, and the standard dictionary definition of "Mormon", is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Using any other definition (at least currently) leads to confusion.

It is, in that sense, that I think Bill's page should have been about what it takes to be a believing Mormon.

[zerinus]

You might have a good point here. I would be happy to know which groups (not just isolated individuals) affirm that the Book of Mormon is scripture but do not wish to be called Mormons. I suppose you could include the Community of Christ here but they view the Book of Mormon as scripture only in a very liberal sense.

I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of groups who believe in the BoM and self-identify as "Mormons". The CoC (the largest group) have already stated that they don't want to be so idedntified; and I don't know of any other groups that do. I looked up "Mormon" in the Wikipedia, and it gave the following information:

The word "Mormons" most often refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because of their belief in the Book of Mormon, though members often refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints or sometimes just Saints.^[2] The term has been embraced by most adherents of Mormonism, most notably Mormon fundamentalists, while other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ, have rejected it.^[3] Both LDS Church members (or Latter-day Saints) and members of fundamentalist groups commonly use the word Mormon in reference to themselves.^[4] The LDS Church, however, disagrees with this self-characterization, and encourages the use of the word Mormon only in reference to LDS Church members.^[5] Church leaders also encourage members to use the church's full name to emphasize its focus on Jesus Christ.^[6]

Yet it provides no references or evidence for its claim. I looked up ref. #4, and it provides no information or evidence. It is true that anti-Mormons and a biased media have tried to use the word Mormon broadly so as to include FLDS in order to generate negative publicity for the LDS Church (over the poligamy issue), but there is no evidence that the FLDS themselves have tried to self-identify as "Mormons".

Edited September 5, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Your article had asserted that Witherington's six points were six reasons why Mormons are not Christians. Your whole article was premised on that understanding of Witherington's article. Yet, as I showed, this is a misrepresentation of Witherington's six points, which he stated explicitly were six basic differences between Mormons and evangelicals. What is really "typical" here is your dismissing such a basic problem with your argumentation as mere "quibbling."

That makes his article deceptive and misleading. There is a big dirrerence between saying that Mormons are not Christians, and saying that they are not Evangelicals. Since when did all Christians became Evangelicals—except Mormons?

[zerinus]

The argument is simple:

Premise 1: To follow Christ, one must obey his commands. (This premise was furnished by another Mormon in this thread.)

Premise 2: Christ's commands include that people are to be baptized, become members of his church, sustain the LDS prophet, perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (From LDS doctrine.)

Premise 3: Non-Mormons are not baptized, are not members of Christ's church, do not sustain the prophet, do not perform LDS ordinances in the temple, etc. (Undisputed fact.)

Conclusion 1: Therefore, non-Mormons do not obey Christ's commands. (Follows deductively from premises 2 and 3).

Conclusion 2: Therefore, non-Mormons do not follow Christ. (Follows from premise 1 and conclusion 1).

Already answered in my post #149.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

We still accept them as Christians. It is not not up to you, or me, whom "truly follows Jesus". I sure don't, but you somehow claim the power and authority to pass that judgement on others.

I don't claim it is up to me, either. My point is simply that not everyone who claims to follow Christ really does so. Therefore, if one defines Christian as a person who follows Christ, then not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is one. This is so regardless of which group of people is more likely to consist of such follows of Christ and despite the fact that we are not competent to make definitive judgments about where individuals stand in this regard. Remember, I didn't propose this definition of Christians as followers of Christ; I am simply offering some clarifying observations about the implications of that definition.

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

You wrote:

While the argument is simple, you know that our leaders do not assert Conclusion 2. (And I gave a few quotations above, among many many more.)

I have not seen any quotations from you that contradict Conclusion 2. The quotations you provided do refer to non-Mormon believers in Christ as Christians, but they do not affirm that such people are genuine followers of Christ. Again, I am simply pointing out a problem that arises if one defines Christian as a follower of Christ. You don't have to accept that definition if you disagree with it.

You wrote:

The simple answer is that Premise 1 is not complete. Mormons believe in many levels of following Christ. One can be diligent in following Christ. One might not have access to some of his commands. etc... Eventually all will bow the knee. Even the telestial will receive some glory.

By this reasoning, atheists and Buddhists are just on lower levels of following Christ, which is meaningless.

You wrote:

In one sense they serve Christ truly. In another sense, they don't know what Christ wants of them. But God judges them according to the light and knowledge they have.

Again, one could say the same about atheists and Buddhists. That doesn't mean they are serving Christ truly.

You wrote:

Now, to your point. You assert that those who reject our claims cannot still be considered genuine followers of Jesus Christ. First, the Holy Ghost would have had to bear witness to them of our message.

Does he not do this for everyone who has heard your message?

You wrote:

And second, even in that case the most you could assert is that they are not celestial servants. We believe, even in the millennium, there will be many churches other than our own (at least for a while). Those people living a terrestrial life will not be destroyed.

CFR (from an official or authoritative LDS source) that a person could hear the LDS message, have the Holy Ghost bear witness to him of the truth of that message, reject the message, and still make it to the terrestrial kingdom.

[Saints Alive]

Here's a thought on a topic that has been beaten like a dead dinosaur: Instead of saying that mormons (or any other group you happen to disagree with) aren't Christians, focus on what makes one a follower of Christ (i.e. Christian). I guess Rob and all those other "Christians" would be out of a job but then they could focus on building their vision for Christianity.

[shalamabobbi]

I guess the reasons some choose to go to war can be justified but are mercenaries ever justified?

[Zeta-Flux]

I have not seen any quotations from you that contradict Conclusion 2. The quotations you provided do refer to non-Mormon believers in Christ as Christians, but they do not affirm that such people are genuine followers of Christ. Again, I am simply pointing out a problem that arises if one defines Christian as a follower of Christ. You don't have to accept that definition if you disagree with it.

Let me rectify this short-coming then.

Here is a link to a talk by Elder Holland on "Standing Together for the Cause of Christ". He speaks of "our shared devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ." He says "urely there is a way for people of goodwill who love God and have taken upon themselves the name of Christ to stand together for the cause of Christ and against the forces of sin."

There are many, many other similar quotations. Our leaders have repeatedly affirmed that there are those outside our religion who are not only Christian in name, but genuine disciples of Christ.

By this reasoning, atheists and Buddhists are just on lower levels of following Christ, which is meaningless.

Perhaps in your mind. But not to the Mormon mind. We believe we are judged according to our light and knowledge. That is not to say, such lower levels should be termed "Christian denominations". Which is another reason why I didn't like how you changed the question from "Do they claim to follow Christ?" to "Do they *truly* and *genuinely* follow Christ?"

Does he not do this for everyone who has heard your message?

I don't know.

CFR (from an official or authoritative LDS source) that a person could hear the LDS message, have the Holy Ghost bear witness to him of the truth of that message, reject the message, and still make it to the terrestrial kingdom.

This is so obvious it hardly bears a CFR. Someone can easily repent of rejecting the message and make it to even the celestial kingdom.

But here is the scripture: D&C 76:74-75: "Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men."

[zerinus]

I don't claim it is up to me, either. My point is simply that not everyone who claims to follow Christ really does so. Therefore, if one defines Christian as a person who follows Christ, then not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is one. This is so regardless of which group of people is more likely to consist of such follows of Christ and despite the fact that we are not competent to make definitive judgments about where individuals stand in this regard. Remember, I didn't propose this definition of Christians as followers of Christ; I am simply offering some clarifying observations about the implications of that definition.

A man is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. When someone tells me that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, I assume he is telling the truth unless his actions belie his words. The test that the Lord gave was, "by their fruits ye shall know them".

Edited September 5, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I have not seen any quotations from you that contradict Conclusion 2. The quotations you provided do refer to non-Mormon believers in Christ as Christians, but they do not affirm that such people are genuine followers of Christ. Again, I am simply pointing out a problem that arises if one defines Christian as a follower of Christ. You don't have to accept that definition if you disagree with it.

We do not judge their sincerety, God does. We take their word on face value to be what they claim to be, and treat them accordingly.

[Zakuska]

Isn't it funny how Evangelicals call others "non-Christians" and miss all these verses?

Acts 10:35

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Romans 14

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Hmmm... nothing about "beleiving" this that or the other. Just a bunch of "DOING" things to be acceptable to God. It's intresting that Evangelicals take the stance that even Good people in China who have never heard of Christ will go to hell. Not according to these verses.

Why in the world did Paul and the saints "DO" things for salvation?

2 Corinthians 5:9

9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

We do not judge their sincerety, God does. We take their word on face value to be what they claim to be, and treat them accordingly.

That's pretty funny, considering that you have judged my sincerity and refused to take my word on face value. I am referring to earlier posts in this thread in which you accused me repeatedly of deliberate obfuscation and the like.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Isn't it funny how Evangelicals call others "non-Christians" and miss all these verses?

Oh, to find even one Mormon on this forum who will actually listen to this evangelical!

[mfbukowski]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Oh, to find even one Mormon on this forum who will actually listen to this evangelical!

And why should anyone considering you have admitted your only purpose here is to find positions critical to our Faith?

Hmm. On the one hand, if I don't read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism, you will condemn me for failing to do due diligence in engaging what Mormons say they believe and the reasons Mormons give in support of their beliefs.

On the other hand, if I do read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism that engages what Mormons say they believe and the reasons they give in support of their beliefs, you will condemn me for doing this due diligence only so that my criticisms of Mormonism will be improved.

Obviously, nothing I do can possibly please you, short of shutting up.

Don't hold your breath.

Note that the choices were to criticize with some information or criticize without any information- the thought to NOT criticize was not even an option.

Poor Rob. No one will listen. Life is tough.

Edited September 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited September 4, 2012 by mfbukowski