Next, for what Mormons are, are we Christians or not? Well, I have read the many posts on this blog and others trying to debate this point and my conclusion is simply: Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament of the King James Version of The Holy Bible. Other churches can try to discredit Mormonism, but since our Church has further light and knowledge regarding Christ other churches feel the need to distinguish us from them (except when they need the Mormon vote or campaign contributions). To point to facts like the rejection of baptism by the Catholic Church as evidence that Mormons are not Christian is reframing the discussion. Mormon beliefs fundamentally disagree with the Catholic version of baptism and correctly point out the flaws of infant baptism. In fact, there is a chapter in the Book of Mormon condemning the practice of infant baptism. I seriously doubt anyone in the LDS/Mormon community was holding their breathe for the Vatican’s approval of our beliefs in baptism.

If the “Christian” community would get over themselves and focus on the similarities between us they would recognize a significant force for truth, and righteousness to aid against the battle of evil, satan and secularism. I do not see how insisting that Mormons are not Christian simply because there is a difference in scripture interpretation. We all believe Jesus Christ is Deity, the Son of God, the Savior of mankind. In a world full of skeptics, cynics, and doubters why wouldn’t the “Christian” community welcome support from Mormons in defending and upholding true principles? The overwhelming support of many “Christian” leaders after the Proposition 8 issue in CA towards the LDS Church was inspiring to me. See here:

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons

There are many other articles linked on this site worth reading.

In a world of declining morality and increasing attacks on families and living according to Christian principles I believe it is time to stop quibbling amongst ourselves and focus on the true enemies to God. We think of ourselves as believers in Christ (and sorry I cannot compare my Savior to a German Shepherd – how disrespectful).

You may disagree with our doctrine, but you cannot deny the fruits of our beliefs – strong families, healthy moral lifestyles, etc. I only ask you to please allow me to worship Christ according to the light and knowledge I have received from His Holy Spirit, without ridiculing me or telling me that I really don’t believe in Christ.

God Bless.

At 21 I was introduced to the Mormons. The teachings were vastly different than those I had known. Even so, they seemed familiar. They answered my questions.
I felt the spirit. I went to Church and I felt like I had come home. I prayed and received an undeniable answer to my prayers. It didn’t matter that the teachings were different, or that my friends and family told me I was foolish, or that the pastor I had known in my teens told me I was making the biggest mistake of my life. The Spirit bore witness to me that the Book of Mormon and the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-Day Saints were true and that was all that mattered then and all that matters now. It doesn’t matter to us what Protestant Conferences or leaders of any kind say or think, or what has been orthodox or tradition for centuries. All that matters is what Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have told our Prophets and what the Spirit bears witness to us. That is what matters.

“Saying our beliefs differ enough to require rebaptism is a far cry from saying “they’re not Christian”.”

[Deep breathing... trying to remain calm and charitable...]

Yes, breathing is good, I’m appreciating it now more than ever… but that’s off topic…

YES, IT DOES!!! Did you even read the excerpts?

Here’s the first again:

Delegates to the United Methodists’ national convention meeting in Cleveland on Wednesday said the LDS Church “DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE HISTORIC, APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF CHRISTIAN FAITH,” and [THEREFORE] that Mormons who convert to Methodism need to be re-baptized.

The second, in its entirety, says the exact same thing. Rusty, perhaps you are truly ignorant of this, not growing up in (orthodox) Christian circles. Let me help you out. I grew up in a Christian home and have attended church at several different Protestant denominations. Without exception, ALL reject Mormonism as a Christian denomination; ALL use the ugly “C-word” to describe your faith. ALL. This is not open for argument. No Christian denomination considers Mormons to be Christians. Only Mormons consider themselves Christians. Again, I’m not trying to be mean. This is reality.

Breathing…

P.S. I am truly ignorant of much of this, my childhood (pre-adoption, 11 yrs old) was religion-less, but I was aware that you’re not the only one to make this claim, even on this blog, it frequently surfaces in the comments.

The reason the Roman Catholic rejection of Mormon baptism was a “setback”, is because Rome typically accepts baptisms from other Christian denominations. Rome’s rejection of Mormon baptism was an EXPLICIT REJECTION OF MORMONISM!

That is too bad. It’s not surprising though, especially given the commercialization of religion. Fortunately, we haven’t noticed any difference (“No weapon formed against thee shall prosper”). Still, it’s too bad.

And regarding your one-sentence definitions of “Christian”:

Those weren’t my definitions, that’s the dictionary.

Which Jesus? Which teachings? This just brings us back to the beginning: the LDS faith teaches a different Jesus and a different “Christianity” than those taught for two millennia of Church history.

What if I told you I worshiped “Jesus”, but the Jesus in my mind was my German Shepherd? The mere profession of a name does not a Christian make. The “Jesus” of Mormonism is radically different than the Jesus embraced by orthodox Christians for the last two millennia. Thus, Mormons are definitionally not Christians.

I may call myself a German Shepherd, but I can’t lick my nether-regions.

**sigh**

“What he’s saying is that we rely on the Holy Spirit, that it is sufficiently capable (as a divine being) to communicate to us, that we rely on the Lord, and His sufficient willingness and capability to communicate to us.”

Re-reading my comment to Tim, I realize I should have been clearer. I did not mean to say that Mormons rely on “intuition”. What I meant to say was that Mormons – according to Tim’s comment – rely on a supposed inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I agree the Holy Spirit is wholly capable of speaking to His people. I believe He has done so through the inspired words of Scripture. I also believe the Holy Spirit works today in applying the Word to save sinners and sanctify saints.

“He [Tim] doesn’t suggest we abandon scripture, or the voice of the Lord from the past, but rather we supplement that with the voice of the Lord in the present.”

Tim said, “The fact is that the scriptures take SECOND place in our beliefs and talking to the Lord is always number 1.” While I never said Tim believed we should “abandon scripture”, this clearly places the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit above Scripture. My point above, therefore, stands. If man is, as Scripture clearly defines him, in bondage to sin – every aspect and dimension of his being tainted – than no inner testimony can be 100% trustworthy. This is why the infallible Word of God is so important to the Christian. All of my inner promptings and testimonies must be submitted to the inerrant Word of God. I err. Scripture does not.

When he says “the scriptures take second place”, he’s not saying they take second place to our inner testimony (that was your invention). He meant that they take second place to communication we receive from him today.

Regarding “inner testimony”, that’s not quite what Tim was talking about. He was talking about current and personal communication with the Lord, not testimony, or some inner sense of belief. He’s saying that if the Lord tells me to do something today, that’s what matters most to me. The fact of the matter is that that communication will be reinforced by scripture, and illustrated in scripture. Very often, the communication we receive from the Lord is simply through scripture (and so by our dedication to diligent scripture study, we either let him communicate, or prevent it). Often, his communication will be in helping us see scripture, but understand meaning – very specific meaning to our unique and specific circumstances. But there are times, when he will communicate to you directly, and when he does, it’s not like you have to say “hang on, let me go re-read the Bible to see if I can accept that” (as we discuss in “An open canon”). As you say, the infallible word of God is just that, infallible, whether it be communicated today, or 2000 years ago.

“On your comment up above, you ask “Wasn’t destroying Christianity (the apostate church) Joseph Smith’s aim?”

No, restoring Christianity was Joseph Smith’s aim…”

Splitting hairs now, aren’t we? If the Christianity of Smith’s time (a Christianity identical to my own) was an abominable apostasy, and Smith’s new Church was to restore true Christian faith, how does it not follow that Smith’s aim was to essentially destroy (non-Mormon) Christianity?

This is why unconventional definitions make communication difficult. In your definition of Christianity, yes, this is true – the goal is to correct all incorrect doctrine, that all might know the truth (but still, and more on point to what Ross was saying), this wasn’t an overt endeavor, going around to various sects to refute their people or leaders). But in the social definition of Christianity, or the belief in Jesus Christ, his intent wasn’t to destroy, but to build, and build we have.

“But that’s beside Ross’s point, which was that it’s strange how members of other Christian faiths seem so bent on refutation (destruction for destruction sake), and not on simply teaching the truth…”

Does not truth-teaching necessarily entail some refutation of error? Again, the hypocrisy here is egregious. Smith and his early followers assembled together precisely because they believed they had REFUTED 18 centuries of apostasy! And please Rusty, don’t malign folks like me with “destroying for destruction’s sake”. You know full well that I and others spend a great deal of time and energy refuting Mormon error, because we believe eternity hangs in the balance. Believe it or not, Rusty, I love you and all the other Mormons reading this blog, and I pray specifically for you and your family regularly. (You have a lovely-looking family, BTW! I love big families!)

LOL, thanks, they’re simply awesome.

And by the way, I don’t hold you to that definition (destroying for destruction sake), you’re far more of a builder, providing scripture, interpretation, and voice of opinion, and usually respectfully, but that is not often true. As in the case above, “the pilgrim” and his link were not aimed to build, but to tear down.

Still, I couldn’t agree more (which is why my statements are not hypocritical), and as I said above, you DO have to correct error – that’s one of the primary purposes of this blog. But my point again is in the approach. In this endeavor to correct error, I could have sought out all blogs belonging to orthodox Christians, and gone to their comments and said how wrong they are, and that their mislead, and all the other kinds of insults that so frequently surface on Mormon blogs. But instead, I chose to start my own blog, teach the truth, and let people decide as they will, allowing all opinions and voices, along with discussion, so long as they are respectful. That’s what Ross was talking about, and I agree with him.

That’s the approach of Joseph Smith, that was the approach of Jesus Christ.

“Additionally, we live in an age of high sensitivity to “political correctness”. These words are strong, but I’d bet their style and nature, wasn’t any different than what was being spoken by other religious leaders at that day.”

I wonder what softer 21st Century words you would use to communicate “abomination”, “apostasy”, “whore of Babylon”, etc. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I have no problem with this language. I do have a problem with 21st Century Mormons playing the victim when critiqued, whilst the foundation of the LDS faith is a damning critique of orthodox Christianity. I long for the honest and clear language of men like Smith and Young.

I agree. 1 Peter, 3:15 “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh.”

Which is why I started allowing anyone to ask questions on my blog (some of which I still need to get to), not because of some groteque, self-absorbed confidence in my own abilities, but because I trust in the Lord, have access to the fullness of the Gospel and direct revelation, and know that “no weapon formed against thee shall prosper” (Isaiah 54:17).

I like what the late prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley said on the matter… “Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom and inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint.

Still, as Paul suggests, we should be engaged in “speaking the truth in love”. which is why I appreciate your comments above – just because you disagree with Mormons, doesn’t mean you don’t love them. But that’s rare. That’s the kind of people I like to have dialogue with, and that results in the kind of constructive discussion Pres. Hinckley spoke of.

God Bless

“FYI – Mormons are Christian. It matters not what you’re personal definition of what being Christian is, the socially acceptable term defining Christianity is that one believes in Jesus Christ.”

So, it does not matter what MY personal definition is, but it does matter what YOUR personal definition is? I don’t get to define what Christianity is, but YOU do? You’re undercutting your own argument here, Rusty. Your problem seems not to be with my act of defining, but with the content of my definition. Certainly you’re aware, Rusty, that your rejection of numerous orthodox Christian doctrines, and your simultaneous insistence on being recognized as orthodox, is itself a definition?

According to your above definition, Muslims, Baha’i, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. are all Christians. All these groups (and more) ascribe some kind of deity or supernatural-ness to Christ.

Christianity has NEVER defined itself in such broad terms. Christianity has ALWAYS excluded those who fail to adhere to certain essential doctrines (e.g. Deity of Christ, Trinity, Resurrection, Salvation by Grace through Faith, etc.).

Not exactly, my argument was that the definition of Christian is set by society, and while it’s each of our perogatives to disagree with that definition, to post your belief as socially normal (as in simply stating, and restating, that Mormons aren’t Christian), is misleading.

http://www.dictionary.com – Christian: “A person who believes in Jesus Christ”

Merriam-Webster – Christian: “One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ”
etc…

Christians reserve the right to define their faith, just as Mormons have the right to define theirs.

OK, “I’m Christian”.

Two news items from 2000 and 2001 should suffice to demonstrate that my definition of Christianity vis a vis Mormonism is not unique:

(Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 2000)

Delegates to the United Methodists’ national convention meeting in Cleveland on Wednesday said the LDS Church “does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith,” and that Mormons who convert to Methodism need to be re-baptized.

…

The Presbyterian Church (USA) and Southern Baptist Convention have issued similar assessments of Mormon doctrine.

(Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2001)

The Roman Catholic Church declared Thursday that Mormon converts must be rebaptized, a setback to the Mormon Church’s effort to characterize itself as a Christian denomination.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared that baptisms in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “not the baptism that Christ instituted.”

————–

Saying our beliefs differ enough to require rebaptism is a far cry from saying “they’re not Christian”. We too, believe that Methodists and others who become Mormons must be rebaptized, but that doesn’t mean Methodists aren’t Christian.

I am neither a Methodist nor a Roman Catholic. And while I have differences with both denominations (fairly serious differences with Rome), both doctrinally fall within the scope of orthodox Christianity.

It’s strange that within what you call “orthodox Christianity” denominations can differ in their definition of Christ’s very nature (how they define the trinity), but still be Christian, yet somehow we’re not”.

My intention in insisting on this point is not to offend. I sincerely believe the most important component of fruitful inter-faith dialogue is honesty. It helps no one to blur legitimate lines of distinction. Clarity is more important than superficial agreement. Once clarity is established, we can work toward agreement.

I agree, honesty is best, but honesty and accuracy are distinguishable. You’ve been clear on what you accept as Christian (that’s honesty), I’m just asking that you don’t represent that as the socially acceptable answer (that’s accuracy), because that just causes confusion. When people ask “Are Mormons Christian”, what they mean is “Do Mormons believe in Jesus Christ”, and not “Are Mormon views of Jesus Christ identical to all other self-proclaimed Christian denominations?”

Toward that end…
God Bless

FYI – Mormons are Christian. It matters not what you’re personal definition of what being Christian is, the socially acceptable term defining Christianity is that one believes in Jesus Christ. It’s this sweeping social acceptance of definitions that allows humans to communicate and understand each other. If everybody simply decided to create their own definitions of widely used terms, we’d get nowhere. But what’s more, it’s inaccurate and dishonest to represent Mormons as not being Christians simply because your personal definition of Christianity is something other than what everybody else accepts – or the socially accepted definition of Christianity.

That aside, you’re misunderstanding what Tim is saying. He’s not suggesting we “trust our inner voice” or “listen to our conscience”, for indeed, that is fallible. What he’s saying is that we rely on the Holy Spirit, that it is sufficiently capable (as a divine being) to communicate to us, that we rely on the Lord, and His sufficient willingness and capability to communicate to us.

I don’t think that any Christian, regardless of the denomination, would assume either the Holy Ghost or the Lord is incapable and unwilling to communicate to us. So what Tim is saying, and what Mormons believe, is that we must “seek the Lord always”, and constantly endeavor to let his voice be our guide.

He doesn’t suggest we abandon scripture, or the voice of the Lord from the past, but rather we supplement that with the voice of the Lord in the present.

Also, realizing I was way behind on this particular thread, I read from the top down, and realized I had failed to comment where I should have.

On your comment up above, you ask “Wasn’t destroying Christianity (the apostate church) Joseph Smith’s aim?”

No, restoring Christianity was Joseph Smith’s aim, and to do that, he had to be particularly clear about the truthfulness of the current Christian religions of that day. But that’s beside Ross’s point, which was that it’s strange how members of other Christian faiths seem so bent on refutation (destruction for destruction sake), and not on simply teaching the truth wherever possible so that men could hear the truth, and falsehoods could die on their own. Look at the life of Joseph Smith and tell me if you see a life of a man going around looking for opportunities to argue with preachers and other Christians. That’s not what he did. He wasn’t shy when someone sought him out to refute him, but he didn’t go looking for opportunities to argue doctrine. It was the same way with Christ. He would say it as it was, but he didn’t go around to the synagogs arguing doctrine, rather, he taught the truth whenever possible, wherever possible.

So it’s inaccurate, and untruthful, to attempt to use these quotes to imply otherwise.

Additionally, we live in an age of high sensitivity to “political correctness”. These words are strong, but I’d bet their style and nature, wasn’t any different than what was being spoken by other religious leaders at that day. Remember, it was the heated debate and strong words amongst other Christian leaders at that time that caused him such confusion to begin with, and led him to ask of God which of those religions were right.

So to pluck these quotes out of history and attempt to represent them as you have is inaccurate and misleading.

Regards,

“The fact is that the scriptures take second place in our beliefs and talking to the Lord is always number 1.”

This seems one more difference between Mormons and Christians. Because of our inherited sin nature (Total Depravity), we cannot trust our intuition or “inner voice” alone. This is why the sufficiency of Scripture is so important. We submit our fallen minds and wills to the infallible Word of God.

Heb. 1:1-2a
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”

2 Tim. 3:16-17
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

God Bless