Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[ERayR]

I find that people who are not seeking after exultation are far more open to what the Bible has to say as oppose to what Mormonism says. Say what you will about getting your own planet and the rest. As a Christian, I really don't care. I just want to see the Lord and praise him. An eternity of just being with the Lord would be more than enough joy for me.

 

I am not much on harps and need something to do or I lose interest. 

[halconero]

And this is exactly why I could never accept protestantism.  That sounds like absolute hell to me.

 

Actually, it's a pretty good description of the Terrestrial Kingdom. Be with Jesus, who mainstream Christians think is God anyways, praise him and his goodness, and chill.

[danielwoods]

The Father presides in the Celestial, the Son presides in the Terestial, and authorized representatives preside in the Telestial.

 

I think I see where you are a bit confused. Nobody says the Father and Son are separated.

As you can see it is not the Father and Son that are separated but individuals based on their judgment.

Confused? Yes I guess I am. You stated the above which I was relying on (my bad).

The point still remains that this concept isn't taught in the NT.

[LittleNipper]

Anyone who imagines that being with the Lord for eternity would be hell, and whose only concern is with what he or she will get out of heaven, doesn't sound at all like a believer, let alone a Christian. But perhaps such would be considered an excellent Mormon!  One may actually wish to pray about such an attitude that the Lord will soften such a heart and reveal that God is love and not Santa.

[Flyonthewall]

Confused? Yes I guess I am. You stated the above which I was relying on (my bad).

The point still remains that this concept isn't taught in the NT.

"Preside" does not mean "reside and cannot go anywhere else". I can preside at a meeting but that does not mean I am permanently affixed to that meeting and can never leave.

You cannot see this concept in the NT but it is reflected there. It is very plain to me.

[Vance]

The point still remains that this concept isn't taught in the NT.

Apparently, the NT is missing a lot of stuff.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

And doesn't it make you wonder what Jesus taught those 40 days?

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

[HappyJackWagon]

"If I accept Christ as my savior, can I be a Christian? If I accept the Christ of the Bible as my Savior. If I have a personal relationship with him, know that I am a sinner, and know that it is by his grace that I am saved."

I once met with a ministerial alliance to inquire about participating with them in some service projects. I knew these people well. I went to Rotary, Chamber events etc. so I was very shocked when they told me "No, we don't accept you as part of the Ministerial Alliance."

It wasn't personal. They made sure to make this clear.

They didn't want me to participate because...

1- I believe in a different Jesus

2- They couldn't pray with me because I pray to a different God

3- They didn't want there people associating with our people. They didn't want their people to be corrupted.

Thus the conclusion...Mormons are not Christians and we want NOTHING to do with you. See you next week at Rotary.

[Tacenda]

And this is exactly why I could never accept protestantism.  That sounds like absolute hell to me.

This is the crux of the matter.  The EV's or I'm assuming Protestants, believe we (LDS) don't praise Him enough or have that "relationship".  I think they hit the nail on the head now, if going by your statement here.  A relationship is where you live with or are with someone right?  I guess in your mind, that's hell?  Geez, that took me back quite a bit.  It's no wonder people don't believe LDS are Christian.  Unless I'm misinterpreting your reply to Little Nipper.   

[JLHPROF]

This is the crux of the matter.  The EV's or I'm assuming Protestants, believe we (LDS) don't praise Him enough or have that "relationship".  I think they hit the nail on the head now, if going by your statement here.  A relationship is where you live with or are with someone right?  I guess in your mind, that's hell?  Geez, that took me back quite a bit.  It's no wonder people don't believe LDS are Christian.  Unless I'm misinterpreting your reply to Little Nipper.   

 

Slightly misinterpreting.

Dwelling with God and Christ in a relationship isn't hell.  Doing nothing but sitting around on a cloud all day praising God and Christ as Little Nipper described for eons without end is hell.  Doing ANYTHING for all eternity without variety, progression, learning, work, growth would be hell.

Now, living with Heavenly Father and Christ and being instructed in the principles and practices of Godliness and Godhood until we are ready to do what they have done - that's my idea of heaven.

[danielwoods]

"Preside" does not mean "reside and cannot go anywhere else". I can preside at a meeting but that does not mean I am permanently affixed to that meeting and can never leave.

You cannot see this concept in the NT but it is reflected there. It is very plain to me.

 

Where do you see it reflected in the NT? (I'm specifically asking about the concept that believers won't be in direct fellowship with God 100% of the time.)

[danielwoods]

Apparently, the NT is missing a lot of stuff.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

And doesn't it make you wonder what Jesus taught those 40 days?

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

 

Missing details doesn't equal teaching opposing views. 

 

Let's say for sake of a theoretical discussion, that the LDS church changed their official doctrine, and claimed based on further revelation that God the Father actually does not have a physical body. Their argument would be based solely on their role as prophets and authority. Claiming also that the standard works are limited, and doesn't contain everything that should be written. So, now God the Father doesn't have a physical body, which is quite the opposite of their doctrinal teaching before this theoretical change. Would that be acceptable to you? 

 

My only point is speculation or "further revelation" is fine if it doesn't directly contradict previously revealed and understood doctrine. 

 

Another analogy is like building a house. We build on a foundation, and each step in the process of the build, is based on the previous step. We put the roof on the top for a reason. Each part is built on each other so that it all fits correctly together. If we had a revelation to put the roof under the foundation, we would question such "wisdom". 

[Vance]

Missing details doesn't equal teaching opposing views.

I never said that it did. And your attempt here to imply that I have, is shameful.

Let's say for sake of a theoretical discussion, that the LDS church changed their official doctrine, and claimed based on further revelation that God the Father actually does not have a physical body. Their argument would be based solely on their role as prophets and authority. Claiming also that the standard works are limited, and doesn't contain everything that should be written. So, now God the Father doesn't have a physical body, which is quite the opposite of their doctrinal teaching before this theoretical change. Would that be acceptable to you?

Ridiculous hypotheticals are a waste of time. 

 

My only point is speculation or "further revelation" is fine if it doesn't directly contradict previously revealed

I totally agree

and understood doctrine.

If it was properly understood there would be no need for further revelation. DUH!!!

 

Another analogy is like building a house. We build on a foundation, and each step in the process of the build, is based on the previous step. We put the roof on the top for a reason. Each part is built on each other so that it all fits correctly together. If we had a revelation to put the roof under the foundation, we would question such "wisdom".

Ridiculous analogies are a waste of time.

[Nosca]

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread but want to ask a couple of questions and make a statement that I’d ask readers to response to.  I’m not looking to debate the question of whether or not LDS are Christian, or as the OP put it, “…is it possible for any one Mormon to be a Christian…” but an answer to the questions below…

 

First question:  Why would you want to be called Christians?

 

I think we can all agree that the LDS faith repudiates, disagrees with, does not follow, however you want to put it, many/most of the tenants of the Christian faiths (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) in terms of the trinity, the understanding of the fall of Adam and Eve, what is considered to be sacred scripture, the role of grace, what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross really accomplished, priesthood authority, and on and on.  You follow Christ (in the LDS understanding of how to do that) as do we, but our understanding of Christology is very different.  JS, in his first vision, said the two personages told him in answer to his question of which sect he should join not to join any of them because they were all wrong, all their creeds were an abomination, their professors were all corrupt, etc.  We represent those “sects” – we call ourselves Christians.  So why would you want to join us under that label?  IMO JS, BY and many other early LDS leaders would not have wanted to be called Christian – they were LDS.

 

Second Question:  Why do you seem to care so much about this? 

 

I see this topic come up again and again with LDS getting upset when others don’t see them as Christian and I don’t get it.  Others I know who are Muslim, Buddhist and other non-Christian faiths, who see Christ as a prophet or have great respect for Him, would not call themselves Christian, or want to be called that (and yes I know LDS see Christ very differently than Muslims or Buddhists – but hopefully you see what I’m driving at).  Why don’t LDS just say “we’re LDS, here’s what we believe and why we believe it?”

 

Statement:  Only the LDS are true Christians, other faiths are not.

 

From my discussions with many LDS friends and colleagues over the years I’ve heard them say on many occasions that the underlying LDS belief, and their belief, is that LDS are the true Christians, and only the LDS.  Other so-called Christians are not really Christian because only the LDS have the true faith.  If you believe that is true, then why don’t you just say that and take the lumps that will surely come from saying it?  Is that what you truly believe?  Is that what official LDS Church teaching says?

[JLHPROF]

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread but want to ask a couple of questions and make a statement that I’d ask readers to response to.  I’m not looking to debate the question of whether or not LDS are Christian, or as the OP put it, “…is it possible for any one Mormon to be a Christian…” but an answer to the questions below…

 

First question:  Why would you want to be called Christians?

 

I think we can all agree that the LDS faith repudiates, disagrees with, does not follow, however you want to put it, many/most of the tenants of the Christian faiths (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) in terms of the trinity, the understanding of the fall of Adam and Eve, what is considered to be sacred scripture, the role of grace, what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross really accomplished, priesthood authority, and on and on.  You follow Christ (in the LDS understanding of how to do that) as do we, but our understanding of Christology is very different.  JS, in his first vision, said the two personages told him in answer to his question of which sect he should join not to join any of them because they were all wrong, all their creeds were an abomination, their professors were all corrupt, etc.  We represent those “sects” – we call ourselves Christians.  So why would you want to join us under that label?  IMO JS, BY and many other early LDS leaders would not have wanted to be called Christian – they were LDS.

 

Second Question:  Why do you seem to care so much about this? 

 

I see this topic come up again and again with LDS getting upset when others don’t see them as Christian and I don’t get it.  Others I know who are Muslim, Buddhist and other non-Christian faiths, who see Christ as a prophet or have great respect for Him, would not call themselves Christian, or want to be called that (and yes I know LDS see Christ very differently than Muslims or Buddhists – but hopefully you see what I’m driving at).  Why don’t LDS just say “we’re LDS, here’s what we believe and why we believe it?”

 

Statement:  Only the LDS are true Christians, other faiths are not.

 

From my discussions with many LDS friends and colleagues over the years I’ve heard them say on many occasions that the underlying LDS belief, and their belief, is that LDS are the true Christians, and only the LDS.  Other so-called Christians are not really Christian because only the LDS have the true faith.  If you believe that is true, then why don’t you just say that and take the lumps that will surely come from saying it?  Is that what you truly believe?  Is that what official LDS Church teaching says?

 

 

"First question:  Why would you want to be called Christians?"

ANSWER - Because when we are baptized we take upon ourselves the name of Christ.  This makes us Christians.

 

"Second Question:  Why do you seem to care so much about this?" 

ANSWER - Because Christ gave everything for us and asked only that we follow him (believe on his name and keep his commandments).  To deny our own Christianity would be to deny Christ.

 

"Statement:  Only the LDS are true Christians, other faiths are not."

RESPONSE - Other faiths may believe in Christ and accept him as Savior, but only the LDS Church follow the teachings and structure that Christ himself established.  At least, that is our belief.  Others disagree.

[Flyonthewall]

Where do you see it reflected in the NT? (I'm specifically asking about the concept that believers won't be in direct fellowship with God 100% of the time.)

Matthew 7:21-22. All those told to depart from him were believers - they prophesied in His name, and in His name have cast out devils, and in His name done many wonderful works.

Plain and straight forward.

Actually the whole of Matthew 7 would be good for Evangelicals to understand.

Parable of the House built on the sand is a good analogy for belief sans works.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[Nosca]

"First question:  Why would you want to be called Christians?"

ANSWER - Because when we are baptized we take upon ourselves the name of Christ.  This makes us Christians.

 

"Second Question:  Why do you seem to care so much about this?" 

ANSWER - Because Christ gave everything for us and asked only that we follow him (believe on his name and keep his commandments).  To deny our own Christianity would be to deny Christ.

 

It seems you could accomplish both under the name of LDS.  So why add the name Christian which then links you (I would think automatically) to other faiths with which you have core, irreconcilable differences? 

 

I've found that we often have rather different definitions for the same word (i.e. salvation, exaltation, etc) and wonder if that's part of the issue here.  It seems that your desire to be called a Christian is in large part based on your devotion to Christ and recognition of what He's done for you regardless of whether that links you with others with whose faith you don't agree.  Would that be accurate?

 

Regarding the statement and your response of - "Other faiths may believe in Christ and accept him as Savior, but only the LDS Church follow the teachings and structure that Christ himself established.  At least, that is our belief.  Others disagree.  It seems you agree with the first part of the statement that only the LDS are true Christians.  Correct?  Would you go so far as to say that anyone outside the LDS faith is not Christian?

[JLHPROF]

It seems you could accomplish both under the name of LDS.  So why add the name Christian which then links you (I would think automatically) to other faiths with which you have core, irreconcilable differences? 

 

Because we ARE Christian.  We may differ from other sects calling themselves such, but we are Christian.  We have just as much right to the name as anyone.  Asking us to use ONLY the name LDS would be like asking the Christian sects to only refer to themselves as Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc and forbidding them from using the term Christian.  Our claim is just as valid.

 

 

I've found that we often have rather different definitions for the same word (i.e. salvation, exaltation, etc) and wonder if that's part of the issue here.  It seems that your desire to be called a Christian is in large part based on your devotion to Christ and recognition of what He's done for you regardless of whether that links you with others with whose faith you don't agree.  Would that be accurate?

 

Yes, we define Christian slightly differently (based on doctrinal beliefs), and yes we call ourselves Christian because we've taken on ourselves the name of Christ through Baptism.  Whether another religion likes that we call ourselves Christian really isn't our problem, except they don't seem to want to let us.  We let them use the term even though we don't think it applies correctly in many cases to their faiths either.

 

 

Regarding the statement and your response of - "Other faiths may believe in Christ and accept him as Savior, but only the LDS Church follow the teachings and structure that Christ himself established.  At least, that is our belief.  Others disagree.  It seems you agree with the first part of the statement that only the LDS are true Christians.  Correct?  Would you go so far as to say that anyone outside the LDS faith is not Christian?

 

It seems harsh to say that, mostly because people outside the LDS faith really are trying their very best to being Christian and I wouldn't want to diminish that.  So we don't usually have any issue with their claiming the term.  I would hesitate to say 100% they AREN'T Christian. 

But if it comes right down to Christians following Christ and the teachings and Church structure he established, then I would say that the LDS Church are the only ones with Christ's authority and the closest followers of his established religion.

[danielwoods]

Matthew 7:21-22. All those told to depart from him were believers - they prophesied in His name, and in His name have cast out devils, and in His name done many wonderful works.

Plain and straight forward.

Actually the whole of Matthew 7 would be good for Evangelicals to understand.

Parable of the House built on the sand is a good analogy for belief sans works.

 

It's interesting that you see a separation of believers reflected in these passages. Jesus calls them evil doers. And specifically says, "I never knew you!" Notice the crux of the issue is relationship. So they certainly aren't believers. 

 

The question then is if Heaven is based on Knowing him (eternal life is knowing him), and here he said "I never knew you" (to evil doers) then how do you see the doctrine of separate kindoms in heaven reflected in this passage, when these are evil people who aren't even going to heaven (according to the NT)?

[Vance]

It's interesting that you see a separation of believers reflected in these passages. Jesus calls them evil doers. And specifically says, "I never knew you!" Notice the crux of the issue is relationship. So they certainly aren't believers.

Really????

So, people who can honestly say, "have we not prophesied in thy name" and "and in thy name have cast out devils" and "in thy name done many wonderful works" were UNbelievers?

It looks like you are living in a bizarreO world.

[Nosca]

Because we ARE Christian.  We may differ from other sects calling themselves such, but we are Christian.  We have just as much right to the name as anyone.  Asking us to use ONLY the name LDS would be like asking the Christian sects to only refer to themselves as Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc and forbidding them from using the term Christian.  Our claim is just as valid.

 

Yes, we define Christian slightly differently (based on doctrinal beliefs), and yes we call ourselves Christian because we've taken on ourselves the name of Christ through Baptism.  Whether another religion likes that we call ourselves Christian really isn't our problem, except they don't seem to want to let us.  We let them use the term even though we don't think it applies correctly in many cases to their faiths either.

 

 

It seems harsh to say that, mostly because people outside the LDS faith really are trying their very best to being Christian and I wouldn't want to diminish that.  So we don't usually have any issue with their claiming the term.  I would hesitate to say 100% they AREN'T Christian. 

But if it comes right down to Christians following Christ and the teachings and Church structure he established, then I would say that the LDS Church are the only ones with Christ's authority and the closest followers of his established religion.

Sorry, I don't know how to separate out the quotes and reply to them individually.

 

Pt #1 - I think the other sects would disagree with your judgment that, using your rationale, they could only use the name of their sect (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc) because even though they differ on some, sometimes many, theological aspects amongst themselves, they share the commonality of believing in the Trinity, original sin and other theological doctrines. I would speculate that It is these beliefs plus their devotion to Christ, that makes them Christian.  If we limit the term Christian to only meaning "I see Christ as my savior" then yes, we're all Christians.  I don't think many in these other sects would limit their understanding of the label that much. So saying LDS are Christians because we say we are, or that we have as much right as anyone to that label, even though we disagree with almost every doctrine these sects believe is where the disagreement lies.

 

Pt #2 - This is also problematic at a core level because many/most other sects do not see LDS baptism as valid - just as LDS do not see the baptism of other sects as valid.  So saying that LDS are Christian because we've taken on His name through Baptism is, to a Catholic for instance, like saying "I performed this ritual that has no meaning/power/significance (however you want to say it) and that then makes me like you, a Christian.  Ah no, it doesn't.  It's not a matter of "...they don't seem to want to let us."  It's a matter of LDS making a claim to a label that doesn't adhere to traditional Christianity (mainly the Trinity) and saying/believing that is actually does.  Or, re framing the meaning of the label and saying "being a Christian used to mean X, but now it means Y."  It's also not a matter of LDS letting us use the term Christian as if LDS had some type of original claim to it because, in the understanding of the sects you refer to, you can't exercise that claim because you've created a new definition of the term. 

 

Pt #3 - I would agree that I also would not want to hinder anyone in the LDS faith from seeking Christ.  But your statement that "...the LDS Church are the only ones with Christ's authority and the closest followers of his established religion" to me, under girds my point that in the mind of the LDS, you are the only true Christians and other sects are not, but you're OK with them using the label anyway.  For me, I don't get that unless you want to limit the label to meaning "we all follow Christ and see Him as our savior."  Again, I think the sects would agree with you on that point, but would disagree the term is restricted to that meaning.

 

BTW - I appreciate your responses JLHPROF - it helps me understand how you see this issue.

[danielwoods]

Really????

So, people who can honestly say, "have we not prophesied in thy name" and "and in thy name have cast out devils" and "in thy name done many wonderful works" were UNbelievers?

It looks like you are living in a bizarreO world.

 

I realize that I'm probably wasting your time, but if you are interested, the whole passage makes it clear that their fate was not heaven, which means they aren't believers. 

 

 

Matt 7:²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’^(Q) will enter the kingdom of heaven,^(R) but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.^(S) 22 Many will say to me on that day,^(T)‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’^(U) 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I realize that I'm probably wasting your time, but if you are interested, the whole passage makes it clear that their fate was not heaven, which means they aren't believers. 

 

 

Matt 7:²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’^(Q) will enter the kingdom of heaven,^(R) but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.^(S) 22 Many will say to me on that day,^(T)‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’^(U) 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

No, what it means is they the did not do the will of the Father. They were believers, clearly they were, this just goes to show you that more is required than a mere mental acceptance of Jesus. More is required than just "Accepting Jesus into your heart".  You have to actually have works. That is what makes your faith a saving faith is when you actually act and do the things God has commanded.  You would think this would be painfully obvious when you quote this verse. I have no idea how you could not see this.

[Anakin7]

    According to many Evangelical Christians to enter the Kingdom of God after claiming/stating they are " Born Again"  you must/must not ... -

 

    http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

 

    In His Debt/Grace

          Anakin7

Edited September 18, 2014 by Anakin7

[Vance]

I realize that I'm probably wasting your time, but if you are interested, the whole passage makes it clear that their fate was not heaven, which means they aren't believers.

LOL!!!!

Yes, you are wasting my time with your circular logic. 

 

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me on that day,‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So, those that claim to be Christians, and who go about preaching Christ, and prophesying Christ, and casting out demons using the name of Christ don't get to heaven. Only those that DO God's will (you know, His commandments do reflect His will).

So, belief and confession are not enough (Necessary but not sufficient). Obedience is required.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

No, what it means is they the did not do the will of the Father. They were believers, clearly they were, this just goes to show you that more is required than a mere mental acceptance of Jesus. More is required than just "Accepting Jesus into your heart". You have to actually have works. That is what makes your faith a saving faith is when you actually act and do the things God has commanded. You would think this would be painfully obvious when you quote this verse. I have no idea how you could not see this.

The last statement, "I never knew you" demonstrates two points. One, these people were never believers. Two, entrance to heaven is based on knowing him, not doing things. Clearly these people did things they thought were Gods will otherwise they wouldn't have thought it a valid defense.

Gods will is to know him.