blog roundtable discussing: "Are Mormon's Christian?"

[MrShorty]

“Are Mormons Christians?”: A Blog Round Table

I saw this a week or two ago. As near as I can tell, this blog entry is going to be kind of the entry portal to the other entries. Thought it might be of some interest to some in this group. I don't expect a ragtag bunch of bloggers to resolve a question that almost 200 years of others have not been able to resolve to the satisfaction of all parties, but you might still find it an interesting discussion.

[prisonchaplain]

Patheos is pretty well respected, and my quick overview of the discourse at the link impressed me. OP is certainly correct that there will be no definitive conclusions there. Nevertheless, it is a worthy discussion.

I won't attempt to answer the question posed here. However, I can definitively say that LDS would not qualify as Assemblies of God and Assemblies of God would not qualify as LDS. One poster at the site stated that LDS believe just about everything in the Apostles' Creed, and most that is in the Nicene as well. I found that surprising. When I compared the Articles of Faith to my church's Statement of Fundamental Truths I could not find one doctrine that we would agree on. Overlapping ideas? Absolutely. Similarities? Yes. Not one doctrine that we could just say, "Oh yeah, we agree with that whole-heatedly."

Interestingly, I do not believe the Jehovah's Witnesses care to be called Christians--though they insist they are Christ-like.

[Vort]

Blah, blah, blah. I am often amazed at how much so-called "Christian" discussions resemble a sociological conference rather than a General Conference.

I am a Christian, and I'm comfortable with that self-identification. If some yahoo anti-Mormon wants to claim I'm not, then whatever.

[Windseeker]

My question

Are "Christians" christian?

[prisonchaplain]

My question

Are "Christians" christian?

Yes and no.

[bytebear]

When I compared the Articles of Faith to my church's Statement of Fundamental Truths I could not find one doctrine that we would agree on.

Are you sure? I am pretty sure you believe in AofF #1, #7, #9, #11, #12 and #13. Certainly if I reverse the statement, "I do not believe..." then I can't imagine you making such statements.

[prisonchaplain]

Bytebear, to use more precise words, not one of our doctrines directly and completely coincides. Yes, we could take aspects and find much agreement. However, a thorough examination of key doctrines would require, "Yeah-buts" on both sides.

Example...free to worship according to conscience? Yeah, but, apart from Christ there is the danger of eternal punishment. No Terrestial or Telestial kingdom options.

[Gretchen]

My question

Are "Christians" christian?

My roommate read something in an article once (in the review section), and it was basically someone asking why Mormons are so charitable, to which someone said "because someone has to be"

Christ taught love and acceptance. I say the sooner the religious sects stop arguing about whether or not we are Christian, the better. I mean, don't we have more important stuff to discuss? Like how we are going to get the crime rate down, for instance?

[Traveler]

We tend to see things through our own perspective. However, I think we can understand other religions better but understanding our own doctrine and how that may be seen by others. I would point out at this point that it is a paramount point in our doctrine that all other religions are false! Think about that for a moment. Before our church was established Joseph Smith asked if and what church should he or for that manner anyone else should join. The answer to that question we believe came from G-d directly through Jesus Christ.

The response was that no other church should be joined. The reason from Jesus is that their creeds are an abomination and that they teach for doctrine the commandments of men. I would submit that the criticism that we "Mormons" are not Christian is mild in comparison to what we believe of them. Not only do we believe this doctrine but we believe that it was pronounced by the very mouth of Jesus Christ himself. This means that no person has ever been led to join another church by any divine being associated with G-d and Christ of purposes of covenants of salvation. In essence we do not believe that any other church is a Christian church actually associated with Jesus.

I submit that any devout member of any other religion is more offended by our doctrine that their religion is an abomination to G-d and Christ than we are offended that they may perceive us and our doctrine of all other churches being false as "Not Christian". As much as I personally honor and respect various non-LDS that post on this forum and as much as I encourage them on point of doctrine upon which we agree - there is that one caveat that I know must offend them concerning our understanding of their church and their doctrines concerning G-d.

To be honest I am amazed that anyone of any other church would accept us LDS as Christians. I believe that says a lot about them and I believe that in these last days prior to that day when Christ will return that such a person is indeed unique and stands in a rather awkward place.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler's point has been made by LDS critics multiple times over many decades. My guess is that many/most LDS would be apalled to see their beliefs framed this way. Consider that the Talmud states that Jesus is a false prophet. Many Jews would recoil at that phrasing, and would say something like, "We just don't believe in him the way Christians do." Likewise, Muslims honor Jesus highly, but their doctrine is that anyone who says God has a son is an unbeliever. Do "Spirit-filled" Christians believe that non-charismatics are not Spirit-filled? Do "full gospel" Pentecostals believe other Christians don't have the full gospel?

In other words, by joining a particular religion am I not implying that all others are lacking? Yes, this is especially true for restorationist movements, but we all do this to some extent.

BTW, the LDS accusation that traditional Christian doctrines are an abomination is greatly mitigated by the belief that most religious people of sincere conviction will spend eternity in the Terrestial Kingdom.

[Guest]

BTW, the LDS accusation that traditional Christian doctrines are an abomination is greatly mitigated by the belief that most religious people of sincere conviction will spend eternity in the Terrestial Kingdom.

I'm actually offended by Traveler's post. And I'm not one to take offense easily.

We don't go about saying "your church is an abomination". That's not what we do. What I really love about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that they do not believe that any other religion, Christian or non-Christian, is competely false. The LDS believe they have truths but not the complete truth.

[Dravin]

BTW, the LDS accusation that traditional Christian doctrines are an abomination is greatly mitigated by the belief that most religious people of sincere conviction will spend eternity in the Terrestial Kingdom.

Actually, I suspect a fair number of people of sincere religious conviction will accept the Gospel when it is taught to them in the spirit world and, after the necessary ordinances by proxy, be just as eligible for the Celestial Kingdom as any Latter-day Saint.

[prisonchaplain]

Few people "go around sayin'." However, whenever we believe something we imply that other/opposite things are not true. Mature discussion/dialogue--even debate--can happen when we look beyond the apparent implications of doctrines and practices.

Jesus disagreed with the behavior of the woman caught in adultery. He said the woman at the well was wrong (as were her people) about where they worshipped. He called Peter 'Satan.' He told his followers to go out and make disciples (i.e. leave their faith traditions and follow Jesus).

LDS don't go around calling traditional Christians 'false.' The missionaries have never told me that my beliefs were an abomination. That's rude, and yes offensive.

BUT ultimately any faith that takes itself seriously will offer an offense. I grew up hearing much about "the offense of the cross." Were we really saying that people were so sinful that the Son of God had to die to make up for them?

The world, the nation, interfaith conversations, and yes Capitol Hill, would all be a lot more peaceful if we would choose to hear beyond offense, and get to the core message.

[Traveler]

I'm actually offended by Traveler's post. And I'm not one to take offense easily.

We don't go about saying "your church is an abomination". That's not what we do. What I really love about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that they do not believe that any other religion, Christian or non-Christian, is competely false. The LDS believe they have truths but not the complete truth.

Thank you for your post. I did not intend to offend anyone, especially you. But I did intend to shake things up a bit and your post is an excellent example. I hope you will not mind my taking advantage of your post in efforts to captolize on points I intended to make with the post that offended you.

#1. The Statement I made was almost a direct quote from Jesus in addressing Joseph Smith in the first vision. That the creeds of all other churches are an abomination to G-d. The fact that you read that as a claim that other churches are an abomination is exactly what most devout members of other churches understand from that doctrine given to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove. You are correct in realizing that for political reasons we do not go about touting this poignant doctrine as we converse with other faiths - and if we listen to criticism we discover the claim that many members tend to hide various doctrines from the public to avoid criticism and do not even teach certain doctrines to our new or investigating members. PrisonChap is correct in pointing out that it is possible to mitigate this doctrine and he did so quite well. However, what I had hoped to do is create a platform of understanding so that apologist for LDS doctrine might realize that in arguing as we do concerning certain points of doctrine there is no win - because the truth that we believe concerning other churches is offensive to them.

#2. What is the concept of false verses true church. There was a conference talk sometime ago where the speaker talked of his daughters. He pointed out that if he called one smart and the other pretty that the pretty one heard that she was stupid and the smart one heard that she was ugly. When we encourage our children to stand before our congregation on fast Sunday and say our church is the true church - others hear that we are calling their churches false. It is our doctrine that we are the only "true church". In essence it is required that we believe we are the only true church to honestly obtain a temple recommend. If a church is the not the true church - what then is it? Very few hear that as an almost true church. Most correctly understand that an almost truth is in essence false because there is no degree of truth even thought there are all kinds of variances of what is false. Thus a little false with a lot of truth is still false even though it is not "completely" false.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we cannot win against someone arguing that we are not Christian. If we express our beliefs honestly that that believe we are not Christian will only believe it more. What I think we need to realize is that to be understood - we need to change the conversation. We need to communicated that we believe that G-d has restored this church to be different. Maybe not different in everything being taught but by the very nature that the LDS church is established through covenants by G-d himself - that we alone make such a claim and are not in competition to prove something. That prof is in the hand of G-d and not in any apologist arguments.

The Traveler

[Praetorian_Brow]

I think its an odd thing to proclaim us as having more proof of God or more divine right than anyone else, considering that all churches have claimed such legitimacy, which is ironic because no one can refute the claims as divine right seems applicable only to the one proclaiming their faith.

There is a foreign film called Agora, which I thought was a good demonstration of who labels who. The Pagans controlled the Great Library of Alexandria, but attacked the Christians because the Pagans believed they were correct, then the Christians attacked the Pagans and over time, took over, then the Jews were attacked by the Christians, just like the Pagans had attacked them.

The real tragedy is that everyone is looking for an external enemy, or a scapegoat while ignoring their own internal rot. We share more in common with other religions than not, regardless of whether or not they are Christian. Mutual understanding will encourage more spirituality than a concentrated effort to identify what is lacking from another perspective.

[prisonchaplain]

Must it be "either/or." Can we not respect others, believe our own faith is 'closest to God,' share our faith, our distinctives, our 'superior points,' while being respectful hearers of the other?

[Irishcolleen]

I'm actually offended by Traveler's post. And I'm not one to take offense easily.

We don't go about saying "your church is an abomination". That's not what we do. What I really love about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that they do not believe that any other religion, Christian or non-Christian, is competely false. The LDS believe they have truths but not the complete truth.

I'm not LDS and I am NOT offended by Traveler's post. From what I understand, Smith was told not to join any other church because their creeds were an abomination. For someone who is LDS to believe otherwise would make them at best believe in a watered down version of their religion.

There are significant differences between the LDS and most non-Catholic Christian faiths. It doesn't make sense to pretend there isn't. Trying to create a more Ecumenical view of religion has just led people into beliefs that are so watered down they are meaningless.

I don't believe that the differences in beliefs means that polite dialogue can't be had; that friendships can't exist; and political and social cooperation can't occur. We can't truly know and understand each other if we aren't open and honest about what we believe.

[Praetorian_Brow]

It is possible, but rare, given human history and tendencies a negative result is more often achieved. Dalai Lama epitomizes this.

[Guest]

I'm not LDS and I am NOT offended by Traveler's post. From what I understand, Smith was told not to join any other church because their creeds were an abomination. For someone who is LDS to believe otherwise would make them at best believe in a watered down version of their religion.

There are significant differences between the LDS and most non-Catholic Christian faiths. It doesn't make sense to pretend there isn't. Trying to create a more Ecumenical view of religion has just led people into beliefs that are so watered down they are meaningless.

I don't believe that the differences in beliefs means that polite dialogue can't be had; that friendships can't exist; and political and social cooperation can't occur. We can't truly know and understand each other if we aren't open and honest about what we believe.

Nobody's pretending here.

But, like I told the JW's that knocked on my door 2 days ago who got a lesson on Pre-mortal Existence... Let's not concentrate on things I believe that you don't believe or things you believe that I don't believe. Let's concentrate on the 80% that we both believe.

It's like this stupid American politics. This is not sports. We're not trying to win trophies here with fan bases settled on each side of the field cheering for their guy. We're trying to achieve the exact same objective. To be with God.

[Traveler]

I really enjoy reading the posts of this thread. Especially those that are not LDS that have responded to my posts. Thanks.

There seems to be an attitude in discussions that things that are said - responses are given in kind. Sometime I have said in discussion that there is a similarity to a tennis match - if you hit the ball into my side of the court do not be surprised if I attempt to return it to your side. But on the other hand the objective in a discussion is not always to "win" or at least it should not be.

One purpose of a discussion is to better understand the other's point of view. My high school debate coach said that if you do not believe that you can take your opponents point of view and argue it better then them - you do not understand their view and should not argue against it.

To my fault I will sometimes listen to a particular point of view and find great difficulty in that I wonder how such a conclusion was ever drawn. In mathematics when a wrong answer is concluded it is because necessary logical steps were wavered to gain the answer. Sometime it appears to me that individuals have come to the right conclusion on sheer luck without any due process. Paul said to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. But it appears to me that often devout believers hold fast to what they want to be true rather than take on the stress of proving. Thus the logic is not to discover but to protect.

I learned as a mathematician that I can make mistakes and that I should be open to someone pointing out where I have been inadequate in my analysis . In my consulting business often millions of dollars ride on my analysis being 100% correct to the very last detail. With so much at stake I have learned to appreciate the suveriest of scrutiny - even if it is wrong - I must be careful not to ignore any part that improves my understanding.

I like to think I have the same attitude about religion. That I can learn from others and improve my own point of view. But truth has a way of making enemies and historically seeking "Truth" is more likely to get one killed than just finding a way to get along with the powers that be. I remember so well a plant manager for DuPont taking the pleasure of having me escorted from the facility by security. But then receiving a call several months later from the same manager asking for me to come back ASAP - saying that everything I said would happen has happened and that their facility (that produces 2 million a day in profit) was down and not functioning.

Many times the L-rd has had to allow me to fail badly before I will listen to things that I had not wanted to hear. For me the LDS faith is not a perfect fit for me - there are many teachings that I really do not like - But I have learned by sad experience that many truths are not likeable at first. That truth has to grow one you and sometimes we must fail to appreciate truth and like a prodigal son swallow our pride and learn the hard way. But sadly some are unwilling to budge - and arguing even pure logic will not help - the trick of life and religion (and politics) is not being that one unwilling to budge.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Actually, I suspect a fair number of people of sincere religious conviction will accept the Gospel when it is taught to them in the spirit world and, after the necessary ordinances by proxy, be just as eligible for the Celestial Kingdom as any Latter-day Saint.

That is indeed the whole theory behind our proxy temple work.

[Zeitgeist]

My question: Are "Christians" christian?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day: "Jesus called. He wants his religion back."

[AnthonyB]

I think that maybe some historical context needs to be added around calling creeds an "abomination". At the time Smith used the phrase in the early 1800's, from my reading of history they were often used very differently then today. It was not uncommon for them to be used as heartless means of breaking people with questions and excluding them, churches were splitting over ever finer points of doctrine and anathemizing each other.

Alexander Campbell: "Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 765)

Thomas Jefferson: "You ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate on a specific creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another." (Cousins, p. 158)

[prisonchaplain]

Anthony, neither Thomas Jefferson, nor Alexander Campbell were loyalists to traditional Christianity. Jefferson is sometimes labeled as a Deist, rather than a Christian. He is reported to have been anti-cleric (clergy). Campbell believed the church had strayed from "New Testament Christianity," and was a restorationist. So, I'm not sure that citing them helps lessen the impact of Joseph Smith's statements about traditional doctrines and creeds.

[AnthonyB]

PC,

Alexander Campbell was a strong supporter of TC but not "creedal" TC, restoration (for him) was removing newer traditons to return to as near as he could to the original tradition.

Anyway my point was more that the creeds were used abonimably in that era in a way that they tend not to be used today. I am not a follower Joseph Smith, but i could well imagine Jesus describing creeds as an abomination, not for the content but for the use they were put to. The pain and suffering caused by people enforcing words and meanings, outside of any NT mandate, on other believers as mandatory was horrid.

We both view ourselves as TC's but although I grew up in a tradition that chose to ignore the creeds in favour of the bible (well actually more our covenant book, the NT.) Thinking creeds are bad is not uncommon among CoC'ers etc but many Baptists as well. As we have discussed previously I have no problem with anything in the Nicene creed but I know that is at least one line of it that you (and most evanglelicals outside Lutherans and RM'ers) would disagree with. (ie I believe in one baptism for the remssion of sins.)