Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Bart Burk]

It was a sop to please the Evangelicals, nothing more--although the LDS Church treats the Catholic Church with far more respect than the Evangelicals do.

I've listened to enough Catholic apologists through the years to believe it is more than that. Listening to the group at EWTN they are unanimously the same as the evangelicals in their delight in calling the LDS Church non-Christian. At EWTN they are clearly happy to call evangelicals their Christian brothers and sisters while excluding the LDS Church from the club.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Bart Burk

[zerinus]

I've listened to enough Catholic apologists through the years to believe it is more than that. Listening to the group at EWTN they are unanimously the same as the evangelicals in their delight in calling the LDS Church non-Christian. At EWTN they are clearly happy to call evangelicals their Christian brothers and sisters while excluding the LDS Church from the club.

That is my proof. It didn't used to be that way. In the past Evans used to be as much anti-Catholic as they were anti-Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

That is my proof. It didn't used to be that way. In the past Evans used to be as much anti-Catholic as they were anti-Mormon.

And of course her husband Roy Rogers.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Only God knows Rob. We aren't in the business of judging another mans servant.

Unlike Evangelicals... Mormons leave the Judging in Gods capable hands.... Evangelicals on the other hand pass judgment every day when they deny that others are even "Christian".

It's probably hopeless to respond when you won't listen to what I say, but here goes.

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

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

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

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

Now, I think it's time to be candid. What Mormons really find objectionable is the claim made by many evangelicals that Mormons are not really, authentically following Jesus Christ. In relation to this point, many (not all) evangelicals use the term Christian to mean someone who is really an authentic believer in Jesus Christ and as a result is assured of eternal life. And Mormons are understandably offended that any evangelical might think that Mormons are not authentic believers in Christ having the assurance of eternal life. What Mormons fail to understand is that evangelicals would say the same thing about a lot of people in their own evangelical churches. From our perspective having the correct doctrinal understanding of the gospel and of the nature of God, though critical, does not guarantee that a person will be saved. This is why in many evangelical churches it is routine for the pastor to invite members of the congregation who have not yet come into a saving relationship with Christ to do so. At the same time, we are convinced that members of religious groups that have a radically different understanding of God and the gospel are in serious jeopardy spiritually because we regard such doctrinal error as impediments to an authentic relationship with God in the gospel. We are concerned about their salvation, just as we are concerned about the salvation of bench-warmers in Baptist churches who mouth the right doctrines but have shown no seriousness about having a relationship with God based on humble trust in Christ alone. So when evangelicals say that "Mormons are not Christians" (an unqualified way of speaking that I personally avoid), they are not denying that Mormons think of themselves as Christians, or that Mormons believe in Jesus. They are expressing their conviction that Mormon theology is so far off the beam that it is unlikely that anyone who really believes it could have an authentic saving relationship with the true God. This doesn't mean evangelicals are setting themselves up as judges over Mormons. Again, evangelicals would say the same thing about a Hindu or a Buddhist, or about a liberal Methodist who denies that Jesus Christ is God. In expressing such opinions evangelicals are simply trying to be faithful to the teaching we find in the New Testament. We are not saying that we know whether Mr. Brown, the nice Mormon down the street, is going to be saved. We can't make such definitive judgments about individuals. But we can say that as nice as Mr. Brown is, he is someone with whom we should try to share the gospel, because the religion he accepts has missed what we sincerely regard as essential truths of the gospel. This makes us concerned for his salvation, which is not the same thing as imperiously judging him.

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

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

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

[Robert F. Smith]

That is my proof. It didn't used to be that way. In the past Evans used to be as much anti-Catholic as they were anti-Mormon.

I suspect that the Roman Catholic Church would be quite happy to accept into their fold any of the "separated brethren" who have gone astray -- including any sort of Protestants or other "christians." There is however a high degree of tolerance today, a time in which 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are Roman Catholic and 3 are Jewish. That would have been impossible back in the 19th century, when Roman Catholics were still considered Satanic.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Your summary of the issues for Zakuska was very well, correctly, and fairly stated. It almost seems as hopeless to come to hard and fast agreement on definitions of religious affiliation and what that means as to define correctly what some political party really believes. I guess we could have some fun with Venn diagrams, but what would be the point?

[go_utes01]

I doubt that many LDS believers would argue that we don't have differing beliefs, even vastly differing beliefs, than evangelicals. However, I take offense to evangelicals refusing to call us Christian not because I fail to recognize that our beliefs differ from evangelical beliefs, but because of the connotation (I would say intended connotation) of evangelicals refusing to call us Christian is that Mormons do not believe in Christ. I don't know how many times I have had to explain to others that Mormons do actually believe in Christ (despite what people may have heard on tv or from their pastor). So, while the semantic issue is different than the spiritual or theological issue, it is still very important. If evangelicals could come up with a more neutral way to convey their feelings regarding Mormons' differing theological beliefs (e.g. non-mainstream Christian or non-evangelical Christian), I believe there would be far less bickering and much greater chance of open, productive dialogue. Just my thoughts.

[KevinG]

"...in this same content-free definition in which anyone who claims to be a Christian is one."

Clever. Did you see what he did there?

Exclusion by special definition

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

"...in this same content-free definition in which anyone who claims to be a Christian is one."

Clever. Did you see what he did there?

Exclusion by special definition

Huh? You've got it exactly backwards. I included you by the "special definition" that some Mormons here defend, namely, that anyone who calls himself a Christian is one.

[KevinG]

KevinG,

You wrote:

Huh? You've got it exactly backwards. I included you by the "special definition" that some Mormons here defend, namely, that anyone who calls himself a Christian is one.

It was the content-free quip that was the tell.

Believe it or not Christian™ all rights reserved Rob Bowman, is not the default definition of Christian.

Read the linked article... really. It is a very good explanation of why Mormon's are Christians.

Edited September 5, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

And "we don't judge" means "I disagree/disapprove" in LDS circles.

How could you tell this is actually what it means unless they either say so (that it means the same to them) or you read their minds?

[Calm]

That decision was made even though traditionally the Catholic Church had accepted the baptism of those who used the right form and matter even when they had a differing understanding of the nature of God. To that extent I now believe the Catholic Church's decision was mean-spirited. It was meant to say that Mormons aren't Christians.

Since you are not the only Catholic that I have heard with this conclusion, my conclusion is that this is very unfortunate.

[KevinG]

On matters of authority and baptism I have no beef with anyone excluding other denominations from their recognized circle of "authorized" denominations. I never took the Catholic view that LDS baptism was not an authorized ordinance recognized by the Catholics as an insult, just a commonly held view that neither one of our denominations recognized the full authority of the other.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You have two choices here.

(1) You can agree with those Mormons that insist that Christian be defined to mean anyone who claims to be a Christian, irrespective of the content of their beliefs (hence what I called the "content-free" definition). If you make this choice, then, you are agreeing to a content-free definition of Christian and disagreeing with those Mormons who include some doctrinal content in their definitions.

(2) You can disagree with the content-free definition. Notice that if you make this choice you will be disagreeing with those Mormons who favor that definition.

Either way, you will be disagreeing with at least some of your fellow Mormons. And either way is fine by me.

It was the content-free quip that was the tell.

Believe it or not Christian™ all rights reserved Rob Bowman, is not the default definition of Christian.

Read the linked article... really. It is a very good explanation of why Mormon's are Christians.

[mfbukowski]

It was the content-free quip that was the tell.

Believe it or not Christian™ all rights reserved Rob Bowman, is not the default definition of Christian.

Read the linked article... really. It is a very good explanation of why Mormon's are Christians.

This is precisely the point.

He states that "Christian" means anything you want it to mean, and then gives us his definition which magically excludes us- even though it can mean anything you want it to mean.

[KevinG]

Kevin,

You have two choices here.

(1) You can agree with those Mormons that insist that Christian be defined to mean anyone who claims to be a Christian, irrespective of the content of their beliefs (hence what I called the "content-free" definition). If you make this choice, then, you are agreeing to a content-free definition of Christian and disagreeing with those Mormons who include some doctrinal content in their definitions.

(2) You can disagree with the content-free definition. Notice that if you make this choice you will be disagreeing with those Mormons who favor that definition.

Either way, you will be disagreeing with at least some of your fellow Mormons. And either way is fine by me.

False dichotomy. Wanna go for a fallacy hat trick?

[mfbukowski]

Kevin,

You have two choices here.

(1) You can agree with those Mormons that insist that Christian be defined to mean anyone who claims to be a Christian, irrespective of the content of their beliefs (hence what I called the "content-free" definition). If you make this choice, then, you are agreeing to a content-free definition of Christian and disagreeing with those Mormons who include some doctrinal content in their definitions.

(2) You can disagree with the content-free definition. Notice that if you make this choice you will be disagreeing with those Mormons who favor that definition.

Either way, you will be disagreeing with at least some of your fellow Mormons. And either way is fine by me.

I am sure it is. You like to think you are sowing discord. That is precisely what anyone who is "anti" any position at all does- try to sow discord by being against a position. The given position in question is wrong therefore people should be converted away from it- THAT is creating discord.

First of all, you are distorting the options. I think there are a few more than 2- but perhaps the fact that you see things as only black and white has something to do with the way you see these things.

Secondly I don't think that there ARE Mormons who specify doctrinal content for those who call themselves Christians- thereby excluding from the Christian camp anyone

I think that that is a straw man.

Thirdly, I don't think that any Mormons really care if they disagree with other Mormons on this issue - if indeed they do disagree. Why would we care? I don't! We know that Mormons really do have many different individual interpretations of Mormon "doctrine" and we are used to that- and the reason for that is that we insist on people actually receiving their own revelations on each point of doctrine.

If some Mormon wants to say that Presbyterians are not Christian but everyone else is- who cares? I cannot imagine any Mormon saying that- simply because who are we to exclude others who think they are Christian.

We know what it is like to be excluded from the club insofar as it matters at all- why in the world would any Mormon say that another denomination who thinks they are Christian really are not??

I'd like to see an example of that.

[mfbukowski]

False dichotomy. Wanna go for a fallacy hat trick?

Now see how you are? I post this big old long post and you say the same thing in 9 words and make it funny besides.

I really do hate you you know.

[KevinG]

Now see how you are? I post this big old long post and you say the same thing in 9 words and make it funny besides.

I really do hate you you know.

That means Love in Christian speak.

[Bart Burk]

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

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

Edited September 5, 2012 by Bart Burk

[zerinus]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

It's probably hopeless to respond when you won't listen to what I say, but here goes.

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

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

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

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

Now, I think it's time to be candid. What Mormons really find objectionable is the claim made by many evangelicals that Mormons are not really, authentically following Jesus Christ. In relation to this point, many (not all) evangelicals use the term Christian to mean someone who is really an authentic believer in Jesus Christ and as a result is assured of eternal life. And Mormons are understandably offended that any evangelical might think that Mormons are not authentic believers in Christ having the assurance of eternal life. What Mormons fail to understand is that evangelicals would say the same thing about a lot of people in their own evangelical churches. From our perspective having the correct doctrinal understanding of the gospel and of the nature of God, though critical, does not guarantee that a person will be saved. This is why in many evangelical churches it is routine for the pastor to invite members of the congregation who have not yet come into a saving relationship with Christ to do so. At the same time, we are convinced that members of religious groups that have a radically different understanding of God and the gospel are in serious jeopardy spiritually because we regard such doctrinal error as impediments to an authentic relationship with God in the gospel. We are concerned about their salvation, just as we are concerned about the salvation of bench-warmers in Baptist churches who mouth the right doctrines but have shown no seriousness about having a relationship with God based on humble trust in Christ alone. So when evangelicals say that "Mormons are not Christians" (an unqualified way of speaking that I personally avoid), they are not denying that Mormons think of themselves as Christians, or that Mormons believe in Jesus. They are expressing their conviction that Mormon theology is so far off the beam that it is unlikely that anyone who really believes it could have an authentic saving relationship with the true God. This doesn't mean evangelicals are setting themselves up as judges over Mormons. Again, evangelicals would say the same thing about a Hindu or a Buddhist, or about a liberal Methodist who denies that Jesus Christ is God. In expressing such opinions evangelicals are simply trying to be faithful to the teaching we find in the New Testament. We are not saying that we know whether Mr. Brown, the nice Mormon down the street, is going to be saved. We can't make such definitive judgments about individuals. But we can say that as nice as Mr. Brown is, he is someone with whom we should try to share the gospel, because the religion he accepts has missed what we sincerely regard as essential truths of the gospel. This makes us concerned for his salvation, which is not the same thing as imperiously judging him.

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

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

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

In other words, you are determined to create as big a divide between Mormonism and your brand of "Christianity" at all hazards (presumably thinking that it is a way of isolating Mormonism). You think that is going to be a winning tactic for you. Well you are welcome to try; but I think it is going to backfire in the long run. Evangelicalism was always fragmented anyway; and now it is in disarray. It is falling apart as a movement, while Mormonism is going from strength to strength. When Senator Reed Smoot was elected Utah Senator in 1903, he initially was not allowed a seat in the house because he was a Mormon. He had to fight a four year battle before he could get in. Who would have guessed then that a hundred years later a Mormon could successfully run for the Whitehouse? Like it or not, this is the day of Mormonism, not Evangelicalism. You can fight against it, but you will not prevail against it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While I understand Mr. Hamblin had the right to lock his discussion thread, I disagree that the topic had run it's course. A few conversations were happening that were interesting. Please use this thread to continue.

Too quote GBH...if there be Christians, we are they". This is not true of course. Edited September 6, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

False dichotomy. Wanna go for a fallacy hat trick?

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

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

A dazzling display of misdirection and irrelevancy.

In other words, you are determined to create as big a divide between Mormonism and your brand of "Christianity" at all hazards (presumably thinking that it is a way of isolating Mormonism). You think that is going to be a winning tactic for you. Well you are welcome to try; but I think it is going to backfire in the long run. Evangelicalism was always fragmented anyway; and now it is in disarray. It is falling apart as a movement, while Mormonism is going from strength to strength. When Senator Reed Smoot was elected Utah Senator in 1903, he initially was not allowed a seat in the house because he was a Mormon. He had to fight a four year battle before he could get in. Who would have guessed then that a hundred years later a Mormon could successfully run for the Whitehouse? Like it or not, this is the day of Mormonism, not Evangelicalism. You can fight against it, but you will not prevail against it.

[zerinus]

A dazzling display of misdirection and irrelevancy.

Not so. Spot on, I would say.