Christians are to Jews as Mormons are to Christians

[prisonchaplain]

This is not so much another "Are Mormons Christians?" thread, as a look at what it means to say such. Here's my thought process:

1. Jews reject Jesus. The Talmud says he was a false prophet. An Orthodox Jew would rather see their child be an atheist than a Christian. At least atheists don't worship multiple gods.

2. Jesus came and radically altered the Jewish faith. He said the kosher laws, and many of Moses' ritualistic practices, were no longer necessary. He changed the focus from complying with Moses commands, to loving God and one another. He raised up a sect that would reach well beyond the Jewish community.

3. The early Christians, and some today, insist they are Jews. In fact, they call themselves "completed Jews," or "Messianic Jews." Who, they ask, has the authority to deny us our Jewishness?

4. The "traditional Jews" answer, "Our rabbis. Your version of religion is such a radical shift for traditional Jewish practice...why you're not real Jews, you are just Christians pretending to be Jews, to win converts.

1. Joseph Smith comes in the early 1800s. Most Christians say he was a false prophet, and would almost rather their children become unbelievers than heretics. At least if they are away from God, they know their condition.

2. Joseph Smith radically altered Christian teaching, declaring the common understandings to all be wrong, and those who taught them to all be corrupt and wrong, also.

3. The Mormons came to insist that they are christians. Restored Christians. LDS Christians. Who has the right to deny us our Christianness--after all, we should be judged by our fruits, more than our tenets.

4. Traditional Christians answered, "Our creeds, our history, our theological development for 2000 years--ah, you are not really Christians, you are just pretending, so you can win converts from our people."

-------

Ironically, most evangelicals support the efforts of Messianic Jews, though we realize that most such groups are more Hebrew Christian, than Jewish, with some Christian underpinnings.

I just read a paper by Craig Blomberg--co-author of How Wide the Divide. In this work, written several years later, he addresses his concerns over this matter. He proposes three attempts at fitting LDS into a broad definition of Christian community, but ultimately concludes that such efforts are very difficult to make work. Perhaps my fourth way makes sense?

[Elgama]

its actually something I have been pondering recently a couple of threads I have wanted to say to Christians well the Ancient Hebrews held these views or Orthodox Jews now hold them, how can they be so ungodly.

-Charley

[Dr T]

That depends on how u are defining "so ungodly" I guess Gama.

[bytebear]

The problem I have is the terminology. "Christian" means a believer in Jesus Christ. If we called Jews "Abrahamists" then to say that Christians don't believe in the God of Abraham, then that would be false. Add to that the fact that Latter-day Saints believe the center of their faith is Jesus Christ. Now it is fair to say that Mormons are not Catholics because that term does not exclude a belief in Jesus Christ nor do they have a cultural or historical connection with Catholics, just as Christians have no cultural or historical connection to Judaism (at least not recently). If Jews started telling Christians that their God is not the same as the God of the Old Testament, then the Christians would take offense, as they should

[Heavenguard]

I don't know about that, bytebear. True, the Christian God is also the God of the Old Testament, however the Christian (LDS inclusive) understanding of God is also different than the Jewish understanding of God. In that way, the God we know is a different God than they know.

In the same way, the LDS understanding of God and Jesus is different than the non-LDS Christian understandings of God and Jesus. It's not that non-LDS Christians are saying that LDS believe in another existence of a person, or another person altogether, but that how you know them and how we know them are different. It's like saying (for example), So-and-so is a different man when he's at work and when he's with his friends. The same person or being is being referenced, but the understandings or ways in which we know him is different.

The Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, but he is vastly different than the God that you know.

[Wingnut]

Interesting observations. Definitely prompts some deep thoughts.

2. Joseph Smith radically altered Christian teaching, declaring the common understandings to all be wrong, and those who taught them to all be corrupt and wrong, also.

I don't know if Joseph Smith taught this last part -- perhaps a more well-read historian on the board can validate it (Elphie?), but I do know that President Hinckley did not teach it. While LDS do believe that Joseph Smith restored the church that Jesus Christ Himself established, we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth. President Hinckley frequently taught that there is much good to be found in many churches, and repeatedly invited people around the world to come, bring what they have, join us, and let us add to their faith.

[bytebear]

I don't know about that, bytebear. True, the Christian God is also the God of the Old Testament, however the Christian (LDS inclusive) understanding of God is also different than the Jewish understanding of God. In that way, the God we know is a different God than they know.

In the same way, the LDS understanding of God and Jesus is different than the non-LDS Christian understandings of God and Jesus. It's not that non-LDS Christians are saying that LDS believe in another existence of a person, or another person altogether, but that how you know them and how we know them are different. It's like saying (for example), So-and-so is a different man when he's at work and when he's with his friends. The same person or being is being referenced, but the understandings or ways in which we know him is different.

The Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, but he is vastly different than the God that you know.

I would agree with you except that Christianity is not monolithic. In fact, if you want to set it up like a tree, with Christians stemming from Jews, then Catholics stemmed from Christians, and protestants stemmed from Catholics, so today's Christians are far removed from the Christians of the Bible. Mormons historically stemmed from protestantism, although the claim is they are really a restoration of the early Biblical Christians. So when someone says they are a "Christian" what do they mean? Early Bible Christian? Cathoilc? Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Trinitarian? Gnostic? They all are Christians, and yet their doctrines are not all the same. Even if you lump them together with trinitarianism, there are Christians who are left out, and that isn't the original premise. It isn't based on doctrinal distinctions, but on who "really" believes in Jesus, just as who "really' believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (vs. Abraham Essau and Mohomed). But, even Muslims believe in Abraham as a prophet, in essentially the same way we do. God was just a lot more violent then.

Edited March 2, 2009 by bytebear

[Islander]

Another element to consider is that in both, orthodox and reformed Judaism, there is no longer an open theological debate. They are no longer questioning the interpretations of the ancient and post modern Rabbi. They have accepted the current teachings and interpretations and have discarded the wide range of opinion and insights offered by medieval Rabbi, for example, and sages over the last 3000 years. In that sense, Judaism is split into two broad currents Orthodox and Reformed with a significant number of Jews being "secular" for the most part.

LDS theology broke away completely from the broad Christian current. The schism would not be so wide if it was not for the bold assertion of the call to prophesy of Joseph, the claim of priesthood authority and the revelation about the nature of the Godhead. As Christian denominations and organizations go, there are some that utilize pretty extreme interpretation of the scriptures, very unorthodox liturgical practices and are led by less than upright leaders. Nobody questions those, in general. The LDS claim, in the other hand, it is just monumentally different and threatens (at least in their mind) the current tradition and status quo.

At a more basic and human level, "some folk once they make up their mind, they rather have all their teeth pulled than change it. Never mind the facts" grandma just to say.

[Justice]

One point you did not mention, either it was implied, or not part of what you intended to say, is about new scripture.

Christians separated themselves from the Jews because they felt Christ was the Messiah, and that His chosen ministers taught according to the spirit and, when written, became new and binding scripture... or a covenant or testament of Christ.

No longer were they to rely just on past prophets, but on living witnesses, or Apostles.

Mormons separated themselves from Christians because they felt Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him to be a prophet and that he taught by the spirit, and his words became binding scripture... or a covenant or testament of Christ.

No longer are we to rely just on past prophets and apostles, but on living Apostles.

Incidentally, he was given new scripture of another ancient people who saw and heard Christ's words.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't know if Joseph Smith taught this last part -- perhaps a more well-read historian on the board can validate it (Elphie?), but I do know that President Hinckley did not teach it. While LDS do believe that Joseph Smith restored the church that Jesus Christ Himself established, we do not believe that we have a monopoly on truth. President Hinckley frequently taught that there is much good to be found in many churches, and repeatedly invited people around the world to come, bring what they have, join us, and let us add to their faith.

The topic for Joseph Smith was which church to join. He was told to join one, because they were all wrong, and their professors were all corrupt. I'm not quoting exact words, but that was the gist. President Hinckley's invitation is the other side of the coin--they were all wrong, but they were not completely wrong. In other words, none of them got it right, but perhaps each had much that was praiseworthy.

Even with President Hinckley's admonition, we see implied the difference--bring what you have that is good, leave behind the unrestored gospel, and join us, so we may be even better.

[prisonchaplain]

I would agree with you except that Christianity is not monolithic. In fact, if you want to set it up like a tree, with Christians stemming from Jews, then Catholics stemmed from Christians, and protestants stemmed from Catholics, so today's Christians are far removed from the Christians of the Bible. Mormons historically stemmed from protestantism, although the claim is they are really a restoration of the early Biblical Christians. So when someone says they are a "Christian" what do they mean? Early Bible Christian? Cathoilc? Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Trinitarian? Gnostic? They all are Christians, and yet their doctrines are not all the same. Even if you lump them together with trinitarianism, there are Christians who are left out, and that isn't the original premise. It isn't based on doctrinal distinctions, but on who "really" believes in Jesus, just as who "really' believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (vs. Abraham Essau and Mohomed). But, even Muslims believe in Abraham as a prophet, in essentially the same way we do. God was just a lot more violent then.

Byte, you capture my point well. Protestants and Catholics, while not monolithic, do believe that our core doctrines are the same, and that they stem from a two-thousand year history of God's moving amongst his people. In other words, your doctrine of the Great Apostasy is a key departure from Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism...it truly is a new religion, though with the same central figures. Even the most demonstrative pentecostal ultimately traces his roots back to the through the Catholic church, to the New Testament. Joseph Smith claims to have bypassed 1800 years of apostasy. So, we may worship the same God, but, as we differ from Jews and Muslims, so you differ from the two millenia of Christian tradition.

[Maxel]

Byte, you capture my point well. Protestants and Catholics, while not monolithic, do believe that our core doctrines are the same, and that they stem from a two-thousand year history of God's moving amongst his people. In other words, your doctrine of the Great Apostasy is a key departure from Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism...it truly is a new religion, though with the same central figures. Even the most demonstrative pentecostal ultimately traces his roots back to the through the Catholic church, to the New Testament. Joseph Smith claims to have bypassed 1800 years of apostasy. So, we may worship the same God, but, as we differ from Jews and Muslims, so you differ from the two millenia of Christian tradition.

I don't see a problem with this idea. In fact, I emphatically agree with it. The real question is, does one believe Joseph was telling the truth and was a prophet of God? If the answer is 'yes', then one believes Joseph's work was righteous (not merely 'good' in an ecumenical sense, but truly righteous). If the answer is 'no', then one believes Joseph's work was not righteous (and may or may not have been 'good'). I've never had a problem of understanding the situation in those terms, and I agree to disagree with anyone who, through Christian charity and practice, have come to believe the opposite of what I do. In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, anyone on either side of the question who can understand the situation as stated above and still call those on both sides of the 'traditionalism' line Christian truly understands the meaning and message of Christ.

BTW, PC, which article of Blomberg's were you studying that prompted this observation? After reading How Wide the Divide?, Blomberg won my favor as my favorite Evangelical scholar of all time. I like his work.

[Faded]

This is not so much another "Are Mormons Christians?" thread, as a look at what it means to say such. Here's my thought process:

1. Jews reject Jesus. The Talmud says he was a false prophet. An Orthodox Jew would rather see their child be an atheist than a Christian. At least atheists don't worship multiple gods.

2. Jesus came and radically altered the Jewish faith. He said the kosher laws, and many of Moses' ritualistic practices, were no longer necessary. He changed the focus from complying with Moses commands, to loving God and one another. He raised up a sect that would reach well beyond the Jewish community.

3. The early Christians, and some today, insist they are Jews. In fact, they call themselves "completed Jews," or "Messianic Jews." Who, they ask, has the authority to deny us our Jewishness?

4. The "traditional Jews" answer, "Our rabbis. Your version of religion is such a radical shift for traditional Jewish practice...why you're not real Jews, you are just Christians pretending to be Jews, to win converts.

The majority of the earliest Christians were Jews by birth. It it certainly true that the Jews did everything they could to show just how "un-Jewish" the Christians really were. The term "Christian" was originally intended to be an insult of sorts.

It's right here in your timeline that you need to add a couple steps:

1.) The Great Schism that split Eastern Orthodx from Roman Cathlic. This represents the first large-scale division between "True Christians and False Christians."

2.) The Protestant Reformation. Catholics view Protestants as heretics who have strayed from the true body of Christ, and it represents a second signficant division between "True Christians vs False Christians" especially from the Catholic point of view. The Protestant Reformation was "guilty" of exactly the same thing as Joseph Smith: Protestants radically altered Christian teaching, declaring the common understandings to all be wrong, and those who taught them to all be corrupt and wrong, also.

Everything that, as you put it, "Christians" are accusing "Mormons" of -- corrupting the truth, leading people astray, perpetuating false doctrines, defying the true authority of God, dooming their adherents to be punished by God, etc. From the Catholic perspective, Protestants did all these things long before Joseph Smith was born. Catholic Christians answered, "Our creeds, our history, our theological development for 1400 years--ah, you are not really Christians, you are just pretending, so you can win converts from our people." The Catholic Church went to great lengths to stop the Protestant Reformation -- in their view, a Great Apostacy from the true Church of God.

1. Joseph Smith comes in the early 1800s. Most Christians say he was a false prophet, and would almost rather their children become unbelievers than heretics. At least if they are away from God, they know their condition.

2. Joseph Smith radically altered Christian teaching, declaring the common understandings to all be wrong, and those who taught them to all be corrupt and wrong, also.

3. The Mormons came to insist that they are christians. Restored Christians. LDS Christians. Who has the right to deny us our Christianness--after all, we should be judged by our fruits, more than our tenets.

4. Traditional Christians answered, "Our creeds, our history, our theological development for 2000 years--ah, you are not really Christians, you are just pretending, so you can win converts from our people."

-------

Ironically, most evangelicals support the efforts of Messianic Jews, though we realize that most such groups are more Hebrew Christian, than Jewish, with some Christian underpinnings.

I just read a paper by Craig Blomberg--co-author of How Wide the Divide. In this work, written several years later, he addresses his concerns over this matter. He proposes three attempts at fitting LDS into a broad definition of Christian community, but ultimately concludes that such efforts are very difficult to make work. Perhaps my fourth way makes sense?

So along comes Joseph Smith. On the whole, his actions and the religion he organized would not be much more of a significant departure from Christianity than the Protestant Reformation was. The hypocritical thing in my mind is this: After being so mistreated and abused by the Catholic Church, Protestant faiths have enmasse engaged in perpetuating the same kinds of prejudices and crimes against the Latter-Day Saints.

I don't like the title of the thread for a few reasons: "Mormons" is a nickname that was handed to us, it is NOT the name of our church. It's a slang word commonly used for members of our faith. It's usage often perpetuates incorrect assumptions about what we believe in. Easy enough to say, "Mormons don't believe in Jesus Christ", but saying, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn't believe in Jesus Christ" -- well that just sounds silly, don't you think?

So I suppose my question would be: Do Protestants have any right to call themselves Christians? Christians? What about Eastern Orthodox? Assyrians? Coptics? Nestorians? Gnostics? Why or why not?

Nonbelievers who know very little about Jesus Christ do not know or care about disagreements over doctrine, claims of false prophets and false scripture, claims to legitimacy, claims to proper authority, etc. They will see it in a much more simplified manner:

Christians are followers of Jesus Christ.

Muslims are followers of Mohammed.

Buddists are followers of Budda.

Jews are followers of Moses.

They aren't going to add a complex set of rules to "qualify to be Christian, Buddist, Muslim, or Jewish." I don't understand why so many Christian religions are so determined to do so.

[Faded]

Wanted to add some things.

I would rather be referred to as, "Christian" than "Mormon." Why? I do not worship Mormon. I do worship Christ.

On the flipside, there is another group of people who prefers to not call us "Christians". That would be the Muslims. As so many of them have put it, their experiences and relations with the LDS Church are SIGNIFICANTLY different from their relations with the rest of Christian religions. The associate Christianity with the Crusades and centuries of violence. "Christian" is generally a reference to their ancient enemies and oppressors. So when Muslims move the LDS faith into a category separate from Christians, they mean it as a compliment. Right or wrong, I do find it very interesting.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

I don't see a problem with this idea. In fact, I emphatically agree with it. The real question is, does one believe Joseph was telling the truth and was a prophet of God? If the answer is 'yes', then one believes Joseph's work was righteous (not merely 'good' in an ecumenical sense, but truly righteous). If the answer is 'no', then one believes Joseph's work was not righteous (and may or may not have been 'good'). I've never had a problem of understanding the situation in those terms, and I agree to disagree with anyone who, through Christian charity and practice, have come to believe the opposite of what I do. In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, anyone on either side of the question who can understand the situation as stated above and still call those on both sides of the 'traditionalism' line Christian truly understands the meaning and message of Christ.

You highlight another matter--it is possible that Joseph Smith did not receive visions from God or his messengers, and yet, that at least many of the followers of his faith may yet have a saving faith. I mentioned the parallels with Judaism. Orthodox Jewish rabbis that I speak with tend to encourage me and other Christians (and likely Mormons too) to be the best person of our faith we can be. No need to convert. After all, we succeed in six of the seven Laws of Noah (God's expectations for Gentiles). The one we fail, from their perspective, is the command against worshipping false gods. Christian teaching is not so broad...but it might be that folk who believe in Jesus but differ from me in a multitude of serious ways may yet earn God's favor.

BTW, PC, which article of Blomberg's were you studying that prompted this observation? After reading How Wide the Divide?, Blomberg won my favor as my favorite Evangelical scholar of all time. I like his work.

He has a chapter in the book, The New Mormon Challenge. It's a compilation of evangelical academic chapters, written by professors, that proclaims the evangelical gospel, offers criticism of LDS teachings that differ, and yet challenges evangelicals to discard the vapid and inflammatory attacks of the past, and to realize that LDS scholarship must be addressed with respect and academic rigor, not with tabloid cliches and from-the-hip pot shots, as has been standard in the past.

For interfaith discussions I prefer to recommend the How Wide the Divide book, but for serious LDS thinkers, the book could prove useful. FAIR and FARMS have reviewed it.

[prisonchaplain]

Quick note on the use of "Mormons" in the title: I'm aware of the official and common preference for the shortened "LDS," and for the desire as often as possible to use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the other hand, the term is still so common place, still is used often in interfaith conversations, including by members of your church, and, most often, does not have an implied perjorative sense to it.

Perhaps Heather (this site's founder) has the right idea? She embraces the term, and uses it to explain to those who throw it her way that yes, she is, and the term implies beliefs that are Christian and are the heart and soul of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In other words, she makes the term a bridge to a quality dialogue, rather than reacting to it based on a history that many non-LDS are oblivious to.

[bytebear]

It would be far easier for classification if the term "Christian" didn't hold exclusivity to the worship of Jesus Christ. How about we call those who want to exclude Mormom from the Christian club something else. I think they should be "Creedalists." So now we have Mormons and Credalists. And Mormons would be perfectly happy being excluded from the Creedalists. but not from Christianity.

[Elgama]

Wanted to add some things.

I would rather be referred to as, "Christian" than "Mormon." Why? I do not worship Mormon. I do worship Christ.

On the flipside, there is another group of people who prefers to not call us "Christians". That would be the Muslims. As so many of them have put it, their experiences and relations with the LDS Church are SIGNIFICANTLY different from their relations with the rest of Christian religions. The associate Christianity with the Crusades and centuries of violence. "Christian" is generally a reference to their ancient enemies and oppressors. So when Muslims move the LDS faith into a category separate from Christians, they mean it as a compliment. Right or wrong, I do find it very interesting.

actually I am follower of Christ and a Latter Day Saint BUT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. Entirely with our Muslim friends on this one I do believe we are in a very different category.

-Charley

[Traveler]

This is not so much another "Are Mormons Christians?" thread, as a look at what it means to say such. Here's my thought process:

1. Jews reject Jesus. The Talmud says he was a false prophet. An Orthodox Jew would rather see their child be an atheist than a Christian. At least atheists don't worship multiple gods.

2. Jesus came and radically altered the Jewish faith. He said the kosher laws, and many of Moses' ritualistic practices, were no longer necessary. He changed the focus from complying with Moses commands, to loving God and one another. He raised up a sect that would reach well beyond the Jewish community.

3. The early Christians, and some today, insist they are Jews. In fact, they call themselves "completed Jews," or "Messianic Jews." Who, they ask, has the authority to deny us our Jewishness?

4. The "traditional Jews" answer, "Our rabbis. Your version of religion is such a radical shift for traditional Jewish practice...why you're not real Jews, you are just Christians pretending to be Jews, to win converts.

1. Joseph Smith comes in the early 1800s. Most Christians say he was a false prophet, and would almost rather their children become unbelievers than heretics. At least if they are away from God, they know their condition.

2. Joseph Smith radically altered Christian teaching, declaring the common understandings to all be wrong, and those who taught them to all be corrupt and wrong, also.

3. The Mormons came to insist that they are christians. Restored Christians. LDS Christians. Who has the right to deny us our Christianness--after all, we should be judged by our fruits, more than our tenets.

4. Traditional Christians answered, "Our creeds, our history, our theological development for 2000 years--ah, you are not really Christians, you are just pretending, so you can win converts from our people."

-------

Ironically, most evangelicals support the efforts of Messianic Jews, though we realize that most such groups are more Hebrew Christian, than Jewish, with some Christian underpinnings.

I just read a paper by Craig Blomberg--co-author of How Wide the Divide. In this work, written several years later, he addresses his concerns over this matter. He proposes three attempts at fitting LDS into a broad definition of Christian community, but ultimately concludes that such efforts are very difficult to make work. Perhaps my fourth way makes sense?

I believe you are correct in understanding the “great” divide between Mormons like me and Christians like yourself. I have been rather “hard” with you concerning doctrines I feel to be important. I think you have been gentler but still it is difficult to find adequate common ground to stand together with some doctrines while other doctrines are more common despite our insistence that there must be difference.

Despite all our differences if it should ever come to pass that I have place to speak in your behalf before G-d the Father and his Son Jesus Christ – I will without any reservation speak to your benefit as an advocate even if it would turn to my eternal detriment. I prefer to live in a kingdom or society that has place for someone like you than to live in a society of fellow “perfected” saints that would not make place for someone like you. This sediment is also in my current prayers.

As far as I am concerned the gap has been bridged.

The Traveler

Edited March 2, 2009 by Traveler

[Maxel]

You highlight another matter--it is possible that Joseph Smith did not receive visions from God or his messengers, and yet, that at least many of the followers of his faith may yet have a saving faith. I mentioned the parallels with Judaism. Orthodox Jewish rabbis that I speak with tend to encourage me and other Christians (and likely Mormons too) to be the best person of our faith we can be. No need to convert. After all, we succeed in six of the seven Laws of Noah (God's expectations for Gentiles). The one we fail, from their perspective, is the command against worshipping false gods. Christian teaching is not so broad...but it might be that folk who believe in Jesus but differ from me in a multitude of serious ways may yet earn God's favor.

And I am happy to agree with anyone who feels this way. The central message of Christ's teachings are to partake and eat- not partake and understand the metaphysical truths behind My existence or you're going to burn.

I was unaware of the interesting parallels between the Jewish/Christian relationship and the Christian/LDS relationship until you posted this. I appreciate your posting this.

[Islander]

However, we DO try to spread the Gospel abroad and convert all people. Jews actual try to dissuade you to convert. They do not proselyte not do they seek converts in any way. I think in that sense the comparison does not work well.

Although we do not criticize anyone, we invite all and entice to partake of the greater truth and knowledge we posses of the ordinances of salvation and the insights into the nature and mission of Christ.

[Faded]

Quick note on the use of "Mormons" in the title: I'm aware of the official and common preference for the shortened "LDS," and for the desire as often as possible to use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the other hand, the term is still so common place, still is used often in interfaith conversations, including by members of your church, and, most often, does not have an implied perjorative sense to it.

Perhaps Heather (this site's founder) has the right idea? She embraces the term, and uses it to explain to those who throw it her way that yes, she is, and the term implies beliefs that are Christian and are the heart and soul of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In other words, she makes the term a bridge to a quality dialogue, rather than reacting to it based on a history that many non-LDS are oblivious to.

Any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints eventually has to concede the point and accept that most of the world only knows them as "Mormons." It's just a fact of life. It's also just a case of history repeating itself -- the Jews and others came up with the term "Christians" largely as a means to separate off this "new blasphemous sect started by Jesus of Nazareth." And so the traditional Christians did exactly what the Jews did -- snatch up one item that significantly separates the "heretics" from "truth" -- and the Book of Mormon would be the obvious choice. They make a catch phrase of it and insist upon using it as a continual reminder that, "They're not a part of us, they're different. They're wrong. We do not wish to be associated with people like them and all their false teachings."

I do find it absolutely fascinating how similar it all is and how history has repeated itself yet again. And yes I do get that this was your whole point from the start of this thread, and it's a very interesting one. It's something that had certainly occurred to me many times before. I think it's the same repeating reaction that humankind has whenever the true religion of God is restored. Why else would there be so much hostility against us? Why else would the histories and reactions be so very similar? It's a sign of the true religion of God. That's always been my take on it.

I think that if you were to explain all the reasoning that goes into, "Mormons cannot be allowed to call themselves Christians" to a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist, he would find all the quibbling over the right to be called Christians completely nonsensical. He would just ask a few short questions, confirm that all parties involved believe in Jesus Christ and seek to follow him, and he would throw the rest out as "internal religious politics and bickering" and would simply disregard it. The world outside of Christianity doesn't care about these nit-picky little squabbles, but they do find it to be a good reason to disregard Christian teachings. What good is a religion is so obsessed with fights within itself and attacking each others' beliefs? The truth is, it makes all of Christianity look pretty stupid.

[lilered]

The topic for Joseph Smith was which church to join. He was told to join one, because they were all wrong, and their professors were all corrupt. I'm not quoting exact words, but that was the gist. President Hinckley's invitation is the other side of the coin--they were all wrong, but they were not completely wrong. In other words, none of them got it right, but perhaps each had much that was praiseworthy.

Even with President Hinckley's admonition, we see implied the difference--bring what you have that is good, leave behind the unrestored gospel, and join us, so we may be even better.

P.C.

The Second sentence in the quote is wrong. He waa told to join none, because they were all wrong ----.

We believe that a great apostacy occurred which over hundred of years introducted many errors and into the original church. These conditions, merited the reestablishment of the original church. Much of the same gospel doctorine remains the same as originally appeared, there are however some differences which include the way we view the trinity. This difference sets us apart. We do however believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as our savior, and his teachings, so it puzzling to me that somehow we are viewed as non-christian.

It always boils down to whose definition of Christians is to be used when the evaluation takes place.

[bytebear]

A side note about apostacy. They weren't ALL wrong in their teachings, although they did teach some things that were incorrect. The reason they were ALL wrong is because they did not receive authority through the laying on of hands by one having authority. I can start a church tomorrow that is exactly like the LDS Church, with the same scriptures, hymns, Sunday school lessons, ordinances and rituals, but unless I have recieved authority correctly, my church is false. So, the LDS claim isn't a corner on the market of truth (since we make no claims to know it all), but we do claim sole rights to God's authority. Thomas S. Monson was ordained by apostles who were ordained by apostles who were ordained by apostles, who were ultimately ordained by Joseph Smith who was ordained by apostles (Peter, James and John) who were ordained by Jesus Christ. That is the meaning behind what God told Smith about why he should not join those "corrupt" churches. That chain of authority was broken some hundred or so years after the death of Christ.

[Elgama]

I do agree that its not so much the teachings that mark the church out as true - its the priesthood and the current prophet

-Charley