Christian, adjective: of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings : the Christian Church.
informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.[1]
A few weeks ago CNN published an interview with Tricia Erickson, a dedicated Evangelical critic of Mormonism, wherein it was repeatedly affirmed that neither Mitt Romney nor the Church he belongs to is authentically Christian. On Sunday, July 17, 2011 the Deseret News printed an article that reported how “‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Mitt Romney was not a Christian during her program this morning.” The pertinent statement by Ms. Earhardt, as reported by the Deseret News, is as follows:
“Can (Gov. Rick Perry) get in and raise money with Mitt Romney? That I don’t know,” said host Dave Briggs.
“There are a lot of Republicans who think he can’t,” replied co-host Clayton Morris.
“Well the Christian coalition — I think (Perry) can get a lot of money from that base because (of) Romney obviously not being a Christian,” said co-host Earhardt. “Rick Perry, he’s always on talk shows — on Christian talk shows — he has days of prayer in Texas.”
I am puzzled by this statement. What is it that is so “obvious” that proves Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Presumably Ms. Earhardt has in mind the fact that Romney is a Latter-day Saint and because Latter-day Saints are not Christians ergo Mitt Romney is not a Christian.
This of course brings up the question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians. As Professor Stephen E. Robinson has written[2], there are typically six categories that the arguments of excluding Mormons from being Christian fall under, viz.,
1. The Exclusion by Definition (Mormons are excluded from being Christian because of ad hoc idiosyncratic definitions of “Christian” and “Christianity” offered by sectarians who deviate from the standard English lexical definition.)
2. The Exclusion by Misrepresentation (“Latter-day Saints… [are] judged to be non-Christian for things they do not believe, whether these things are fabrications, distortions, or anomalies.”[3])
3. The Exclusion by Name-Calling (Hurling unsavory epithets such as “cult” at the Church in an attempt to alienate or estrange outsiders and shock members. As with the “Exclusion by Definition”, in most cases the epithets are idiosyncratic definitions that go beyond the accepted standard English definition.)
4. The Historical or Traditional Exclusion (Mormons do not accept certain “historical” or “traditional” Christian beliefs or practices, and thus are not Christian.)
5. The Canonical or Biblical Exclusion (Mormons have an open canon of scripture, and accept additional books as canonical which are not accepted by other Christian denominations. Thus, Mormons are not Christian.)
6. The Doctrinal Exclusion (Mormons do not accept “orthodox” Christian doctrines, and hold to “heretical” views of the nature of God and scripture, to name only two. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian.)
The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is a horse that has been beaten mercilessly in recent years, and so I do not wish to launch into a full exploration at this point. Suffice it to say that the Latter-day Saints are positively appalled at this accusation, and have responded vigorously to critical arguments[4]. However, I do wish to ask a few questions for discussion that I feel are pertinent to this debate.
1. First and foremost, what is “Christianity” and who therefore can rightly be called “Christian”? On what basis/criteria does one define these terms?
1. Who is allowed to define who is Christian and who isn’t? By what authority or on what grounds does this individual/group/Church, etc., claim the right to be the final arbiters in deciding who and who isn’t Christian?
2. Mormons are accused of not being Christian because they do not accept “orthodox” beliefs. What is “orthodoxy” and who is allowed to define “orthodoxy”? On what basis was this definition of “orthodoxy” established?
3. Mormon doctrine is often alleged to be contrary to “biblical teaching”. Who has the right to establish what “biblical doctrine” is? By what authority is such established? What methodological and/or exegetical tools were employed to establish this standard?
4. Is doctrinal difference enough to exclude Mormons from being Christians? What about Jesus’ teaching that his true disciples [i.e. Christians] are those who keep his commandments and love their neighbors (John 13:34-35)? In other words, is any weight to be given to Jesus’ criteria for true and false prophets (or, in this case, disciples) as found in Matthew 7:15-20 when it comes to evaluating who is a Christian and who isn’t?
5. If Mormons are to be excluded from being Christian because they do not conform to “traditional” or “historic” Christianity, then what of those disciples of Christ who antedate the arrival of these “traditional” doctrines (eg. Nicene Trinitarianism, creatio ex nihilo, etc.)? Are they likewise not Christian? [Hint: This is a question about maintaining consistent standards in evaluating who is and who isn’t a Christian]
These are some questions that I put forth for discussion. Those who wish to exclude the Latter-day Saints as being Christian must, I contend, first adequately answer these questions.
Notes:
[1]: Oxford American Dictionary, s.v. Christian.
[2] Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991).
[3]: Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, 21, emphasis in original.
[4]: See especially Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Words Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992). This wonderful text is available online at the website of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. See here.
Thank you Stephen for a well written article.
Very interesting post. I can remember being asked to fill out a form that asked about my religions affiliation the choices were Catholic, Protestant and other. Christian was not on the list so other was the only choice. Since the ecumenical movement the international and national council of churches are the bodies that their members recognize as definitional experts. The Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptisms as Christian because Mormons do not believe the doctrines which all of those in the ecumenical movement share. The most important doctrine being that of the Trinity.
Historically, they would have called us heretical Christians, and certainly our deviations from “traditional Christianity” are less than say, the Arians. But I guess all the fun of calling someone a heretic went away when they weren’t able to burn them anymore.
Pete –
Thanks for your comments.
I do not deny that Latter-day Saints are not “traditional” or “mainstream” Christians. What I do deny is the conclusion that because we are not “traditional” or “mainstream” Christian we therefore cannot be considered Christian in any sense of the word. That is the fallacy that Stephen Robinson has pointed out as going beyond the standards of logic and the basic definition of the word “Christian”.
When the first 5 prophets of the Mormon church openly denounced the entire Christian community as a whole and Mormon Doctrine written by a member of the 12 Apostles, (Bruce R.), defines the”gerat whore of the earth” as the Cathplic faith, and any other faith other than LDS, ……….what other response would you expect. Moral of this: If you are to reap what you sow……then try to pratice being nice to Christianity if you want to be part of their group. It doesnt take a mainstream Christian more than 20 minutes on google searching mormon doctrine to see an overwhelming amount of hatefull and dispariging remarks by LDS Prophets claiming that all other churches an their members are ignorant and going to Hell.
I suggest that the more important question here is why in the world does any Mormon want to be associated with a christian organization when our doctrine and cannonized scripture identifies christians as spawn of the devil and deceived and wicked in belief. It makes abbot as much sense as wanting to be called Muslim just because we believe polygamy is the true doctrine of marriage (New and Everlasting Covenant) D&C 132
Agree. Why do we want to be called Christian. Our doctrine tells us we are different and unique, not mainsteeam christian.
thank you..
What I can surmise from John Rasimas account is: Christians cannot accept Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints as Christian because some Church leaders denounced some of their beliefs and practices. Therefore they cannot turn the other cheek and must rant and rail at the LDS church.
I, being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints have no problem accepting other people of being Christian if they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and King, and try daily to obey the commandments. I would accept them even though they do not believe exactly the same as I do, and make mistakes (the same as I often also do) I cannot expect them to know what I do and believe exactly what I do believe.
What bothers me about some of the Leaders and members of other Christian Faiths: They act the simular to the professional clergy and members of Christ’s time who had no problem denouncing Him and his disciples of not following Jewish Custom and beliefs and commandments. Then when Christ says when asked whether he is the Christ, “I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” Then they rent their clothes and scream “What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” The same happened to Stephen when “he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
Joseph Smith, when he likewise saw a vision of Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of God the Father was murdered for his beliefs.
Don’t you see that the Jewish clergy at the time of Christ condemned their fathers for stoning and killing the prophets are any different from the paid clergy of our time of condemning the Jews for the last hundreds of years. When a prophet comes before present day Christendom now, after he seeing the Son of God on the right hand of the Father they also murder him in cold blood and then dance on his grave for the last 150+ years with lies and slander.
To John Rasimus –
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your participation. Here are a few of my thoughts regarding your comments:
1. It is true that 19th century leaders of the Church had some harsh things to say about contemporary Christians. However, I believe it is important to read these statements in their proper Sitz im Leben, as it were. Michael Ash has discussed this here:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSattack.pdf
The fiery rhetoric of leaders such as Brigham Young or John Taylor were not unusual for their time. Furthermore, given the fact that these men had first hand experienced persecution at the hands of these professed Christians I can understand how they might be a bit sour.
Furthermore, as Professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks note in their phenomenal book “Offenders for a Word” (see note 4 above) LDS leaders have likewise maintained since the beginning of the Church that we are in fact Christians and have in fact had many complimentary things to say about other Christian sects. See especially pages 158-172 of “Offenders for a Word”.
2. Bruce R. McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote “Mormon Doctrine”. It was first published in 1958, when McConkie was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. In 1959 President David O. McKay assigned Elders Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Peterson to review “Mormon Doctrine”. They critiqued McConkie on numerous points wherein his ideas were too blunt/harsh for their ecumenical taste, speculative, questionable, or contrary to their own understanding of certain Gospel subjects. It was recommended by these Apostles, and approved by President McKay, that the book NOT be republished. Later, when Elder McConkie had made several revisions, President McKay allowed Elder McConkie to re-publish “Mormon Doctrine” with Bookcraft, not an official press of the Church. Further revisions were made after 1978 when President Kimball received the revelation on priesthood.
My point is this: Mormon Doctrine has never been an official publication of the Church. President McKay made this clear in his January 1960 meeting with Joseph Fielding Smith (Elder McConkie’s father-in-law). The views therein are solely those of Bruce R. McConkie. It is not necessarily official doctrine of the Church. It is true that “Mormon Doctrine” has been a very popular book amongst Latter-day Saints. I myself enjoy many of Elder McConkie’s writings, including “Mormon Doctrine”, although I do not agree with him 100% of the time on certain subjects. However, despite his popularity Bruce R. McConkie is not the final arbiter of deciding what is and what isn’t official Church doctrine. That includes what is the “great whore” described by Nephi.
I believe that Professor Stephen E. Robinson has some strong points in his exegesis of Nephi’s vision of the “great whore” or “great and abominable Church” that run contrary to what Elder McConkie has written. You can read his paper online here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=168
Also, the above details about the history surrounding “Mormon Doctrine” can be found in Gregory M. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2005), 49-53.
I think many valid points have been made. We do not pretend to belong to the current orthodoxy, which changes with social trends. We are a peculiar people because we practice an older form of Christianity (Hugh Nibley illustrates this well) that the current orthodoxy does not totally buy into. I believe, that gap will likely only become larger over the years to come. However, I find it hurtful when people try to take the title of Christian away from us. Reflecting on the article, I don’t know who feels they have the definitive right to declare who is and who is not Christian. Our practices and some of our beliefs differ from the current mainstream, but so did the pre-Nicene creed Christians’. There are many variations in present day Christianity. Should we arbitrarily create a new taxonomy and potentially steal the Christian identity from other faiths? Will that change what they believe? The only just thing is to allow people to classify there own beliefs. I know in whom I have trusted and what I believe. I also know that I am a Christian and a Mormon. That will not change no matter how hard professors of religion may try to take that from me.
To John Rasimus –
You ask: “Why in the world does any Mormon want to be associated with a christian organization when our doctrine and cannonized scripture identifies christians as spawn of the devil and deceived and wicked in belief.”
I am unaware of any canonized scripture that describes contemporary Christian organizations as “spawn of the devil”. I do believe that there was an apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ, and that modern non-Mormon Christian sects are a part of that apostasy, but that is a far cry from saying they are the “spawn of the devil”. I do know of scriptures that speak of this apostasy, including Joseph Smith’s description of his First Vision, wherein The Savior is said to have called Christian creeds an “abomination”. But that is not the same as what you seem to be suggesting. In short, I believe you are exaggerating a bit with your over the top language and putting words in the mouth of the scriptures that aren’t there.
To Maria Hardy –
You asked: “Why do we want to be called Christian?”
Because we Latter-day Saints for the past 180 years or so have identified ourselves as such. Furthermore, we want to be called Christians because we are Christians by the standard English definition of the word. See the above definition from the Oxford American Dictionary for just one example.
“Our doctrine tells us we are different and unique, not mainsteeam christian.”
You are right. We are different and unique. But the fact that we are not “mainstream Christian” does not mean we are not Christian at all. See categories 1 (“The Exclusion by Definition”) and 4 (“The Historical or Traditional Exclusion”) above.
P.S. Thanks to both John and Maria for your participation. 🙂
We are not Christian? In my early religion classes I learned that the word “Christian” means a Christ-follower, or a follower, a disciple if you will, of Christ. Now, I believe that one of the main reasons the Evangelical ministers say we are not Christian is because we don’t believe that Jesus Christ is what they believe Him to be: A member of the Triune God, or the Trinity. What they don’t realize is that the Trinity is not a biblical teaching, but a teaching of the Counsel of Nicaea.
But rather than expounding on that, I ask myself what does the KJV version of the Bible say? Many times Jesus prayed. For instance at His Baptism in Luke 3:21-23, He was praying after His baptism and the heavens opened and a voice from heaven said “Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.” Then the Holy Ghost appeared in a bodily shape, like a dove upon Him.
In this beautiful account of the beginning of the Savior’s ministry, the Bible specifically demonstrates the individuality of the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in purpose, in thought and action, but they are not one and the same person.
In many instances in the Bible the Savior prays to His Father. The belief in the Trinity indicates He must have been praying to Himself because the Trinity is one God. It simply does not make sense. The Bible as a whole testifies of the individuality of the Father from the Son as well as the Holy Ghost. This is a fact which is in the Bible, the Book that many Evangelicals consider as complete truth. So then, why do they deny the Bible and condone the Nicene Creed?
One of the questions that we often have as LDS is, “Why the world, (christians, jew, muslim, buddist) dont see us as christians”? After all, we do see ourselves as christians and have identified ourselves as disciples, latter-day saints, and believe that Jesus Christ restored his only true and living church to the earth.
I think that one of the issues that we LDS will always have with the other sects and demoniations
throughout the world is the isolationist philosophy and exclusivity and absolute knowledge that we catagorize ourselves as “the one true church upon the face of the earth” That statement itself says to all other churches that they are wrong and we are right. Why are we right? …….because we have the priesthood restored and know the true nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith revealed that God “was not pleased woth any other church and they were an abomination to Him.”
I believe that a portion of this question of why doesnt the LDS church find acceptance in the christian community must be answered by looking at your audience. Not just at a dictionary definition of christianity. Because like it or not that audience is the made up of the people who will deciede what type of organization will be included in their community. The christian community is always going to recognize the MAJOR theological differences and focus on those. The fact is.that most religions in the christian community do believe in differing ways of baptism, repentance, being saved, etc., but they mostly agree on the godhead and Gods nature/spirit. We dont……it has been revealed that way and every prophet of our church has pointed to this as our unique knowledge of the truth. So my point is that Mormons are different in theology and that includes our definition of God and Jesus…..why not celebrate that……but in a much more classy, and compassionate way than the way our past prophets have preached. Less condemnation and more honesty seems like a good start toward acceptance in the christian community. Why keep working at changing who defines the term christian, and asking for proof that we are not christians from that community unless we want them to pull out hundreds of references (not just one or two) that show the teachings and thus the culture and philosophy that we as LDS have traditionally identified ourselves as.
Many Christians reject Mormons because we do not accept the Trinity. The concept of Trinity was made-up by men in the 4th century. It says that God is a being without body parts and passion, and that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are the same being. These men came to one correct conclusion: the godhead is united in purpose, but they are 3 distinct personages. A cult is defined as a man-made creed. Those who claim that Mormonism is a cult are often the same people who claim that the Nicean creed accurately represents the bible. The Nicean creed is truly a man-made doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon is likewise. Say what you want, but as a convert to the LDS church, I have been able to come closer to my Savior Jesus Christ, and know Him, better than in any other faith to which I belonged. In my mind, I have settled the issue intellectually via the argument above. More importantly, I have settled the issue spiritually because I know Him and I know that He knows me.
The word Christian appears just three places in the KJV Bible: in Acts 11, Acts 26, and 1 Peter 4. Although the word is not explicitly defined, those chapters do describe some of the beliefs and practices of the early Christians. To summarize:
1. Christians were disciples—followers—of Jesus Christ.
2. Christians met together to teach others.
3. Christians enjoyed the gift of prophecy.
4. Christians did good works for their brethren in a foreign land.
5. Christians testified of Jesus Christ.
6. Christians taught repentance and good works.
7. Christians believed the scriptures.
9. Christians were willing to suffer persecution, even death, for their beliefs.
Latter-day Saints fit the Biblical description of Christians as well as any other group I know. Therefore, we have as much right to call ourselves Christians as anyone else.
The name of the Church says it all: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I make no apologies for the statements of the early church leaders; I also am in complete agreement with the current leaders’ efforts to cooperate with (not join with) other Christian churches in doing good to all people. And, this is the only church with which the Lord is well pleased (collectively – not individually). Let others rant all they please – we allow them that privilege; we expect others to allow us the same priviliges. And when you come right down to it, every church claims to be the only or the best way to return to Christ; otherwise, why do they exist?
It’s always so hilarious transparent when Anti-mormons pop into these discussions pretending to be LDS.
We call ourselves Christians, because that’s the name that the Bible and the Book of Mormon call us.
We called the other Christian churches abominations while they practiced abominations. But in case you haven’t noticed, since Joseph Smith had the 1st vision, most Christians in the world have abandoned the two main doctrines which the Book of Mormon identified as “abominations.”
1. As of the early 1990s, the Catholic Church, the last main holdout on the “children go to hell if they aren’t baptized” doctrine, changed its catechism and repudiated that doctrine. Do you think it’s pure coincidence that the very same year the catechism changed, that the church started announcing every General Conference that we were sending tithe monies to Catholic Charities?
2. All but a handful of Calvinist cults such as the Westboro Baptist Church have abandoned the doctrine identified as abomination in the Book of Mormon story of the Zoramites — the idea that some people are elected to salvation while others are predestined to damnation.
Why should we apologize that Joseph Smith called them abominations back when they WERE abominations?
Why should we not want fellowship with them now that they have repented?
Think about it.
I think that the point is not wether we “have the right to be called christians” but rather, “Does the LDS Church membership and Leadership want to be called christians?”
Historically our church has not wanted anything to do with the christian organizations of the world. Don’t believe me…..read Journal of Discourses and you will see it very clearly stated, often with a degree of contempt, (not unlike the tone of some of the responses in this thread)that the LDS Church’s view of christianity was that they were misguided. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, and Wilford Woodruf set the tone in the culture and were at odds with christianity and the US govt. for many issues. They taught the membership of the church that the LDS church didn’t want any thing to do with christianity or be associated with it. They got their wish and we became a self proclaimed “peculiar people” who had their own ideas of polygamist marriage, ability to become as God and have our own planets and eternal procreation with many wives in heaven, and built temples to do ordinances that are not any more a part of christianity (as the world understands christianity) than it is a part of Islam or Buddahism or Jewish faiths. Our most closely related beliefs and doctrine are shared by fundamentalist mormons and the RLDS church neither of which want to be a part of modern christianity.
So my point is that for the last hundred plus years the prophet and the quorum of the twelve have kept us very clearly notified of the idea that we are not to believe in any of the false teachings of christianity. Why now, with Mitt entering politics do we want to pretend like it didn’t ever happen like that? The deepest symbolism in our teachings and culture are in the temple. Christians can freely access the ceremony all over the internet and watch the temple video with the very prejudice portrayal of a sneaky and manipulating christian minister in the video.
Question for anyone who wants to give it a shot:
1. Why do we expect any different reaction about our faith from christianity, when we have taught in our temples this culture of mocking their faith?
2. Why would we as a church want to be called christians when we don’t want anything to do with them?
3.Why not “Latter-Day Saints” (as we have always identified with thus the significance of the name of the church)as Joseph called the body of the church? After all we are not “The Church of Jesus Christ of the origional Christian Church” we are different and we have always tried to be known for our stance on being the “only true Church”.
I propose that we be honest and say it just how it is said in every sacrament talk and testimony borne from the pulpit, instead of chasing after the latest buzzword and wanting to be part of the group know as christianity?
By the way I am NOT an anti mormon. I served in SLC North Mission and have been a member my entire life. Born and raised in San Diego and graduated from BYU. Do you want my ward and stake too? Come on brethren, get off the anti mormon retoric…..this is a discussion of ideas and not a place to call unfounded names to distract from the conversation. And that is not how to blend into christianity…by having a constant defensive name calling cliche like “anti-mormon” An average christian outside of the LDS church wouldn’t even know what that means. It is a cultural word known only in mormon society. Would you think there is an anti-quaker because someone doesn’t think they should try to be worried about being called “christian” in the political or media world.?
John,
You wrote,
I think that the point is not wether we “have the right to be called christians” but rather, “Does the LDS Church membership and Leadership want to be called christians?”
Stephen Smoot started off this conversation by addressing the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians. I think that question has been
As for your question, the obvious answer is that Latter-day Saints do want to be called Christians. That’s what we call ourselves.
I
Well, that didn’t turn out quite as expected. Let me try again.
You wrote,
I think that the point is not wether we “have the right to be called christians” but rather, “Does the LDS Church membership and Leadership want to be called christians?”
Stephen Smoot started off this conversation by addressing the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians. I think that question has been answered: By any reasonable criterion, Mormons are Christians.
As for your question, the obvious answer is that Latter-day Saints do want to be called Christians. That’s what we call ourselves.
What I find puzzling is your insistence that we are somehow wrong to do so.
I do NOT “insist” that we are wrong to want to be called Christians as LDS. I believe that there is a desire to be called “Christian” and “Christians” within the Latter Day Saint community. This is not wrong…….but it is most likely confusing to the Christian community. Try to put yourself, as a Latter Day Saint, in the shoes of a Christian (non-denominational Christian or Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, etc…) Now as you are imagining that you are a Christian and associate with others who call themselves Christians, believers, or whatever they want to call themselves try to think of how you would feel if another group such as the LDS who have made it very clear for hundred plus years that they are not Christians in the “traditional definition of Christianity”. Would you want to welcome the group into your group? Or would you wonder why the LDS Church who has made fun of Christianity suddenly wants to be known as a part of mainstream Christianity.
It has only been during the last decade that this desire to be known as Christians (mainstream Christianity) has come to be within our culture. The LDS leadership (prophet & 12 Apostles) have asked us as members not to call ourselves “Mormons” in official statements read in congregations. They have also put on a media marketing campaign to try to get the LDS community to change the culture of thinking within the church. We are now calling ourselves Christians within our own social circles……but the Christian community does not want to offer the LDS Church that same title of Christian that we would like to use.
The fact that the LDS church believes in a different Jesus Christ was confirmed by LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley in a speech in Paris, France when he stated that those outside the Church who say that Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ” were correct. He further stated:
“The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.” (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)
The “traditional Christ” of whom Hinckley spoke is the Jesus Christ (the one that modern day Christianity believes in) proclaimed in the New Testament and who biblical Christians have believed in and accepted as their Savior, the very Son of God, for the past 2000 years. Hinckley stated He is not the Christ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but that the Mormons believe in a Christ that was revealed to Joseph Smith in 1820. Clearly, Hinckley stated and confirmed that the LDS Jesus Christ and the Jesus Christ of the Bible are not the same.
That is the main reason that Modern Day Christianity doesn’t think that we fit into their group……we have said it ourselves through our prophets over and over. It seems silly to want to be known as Christians when our prophet insists that we believe in another Jesus Christ. I believe that is why Mormons have always wanted to be known by the terms, “Latter-Day Saints” or just “Saints”. We like it to be known that we belong to the “only true church” we like to sing songs that celebrate our beliefs as distinct and different.
In summary I don’t think we are wrong to want to be called Christians…..that seems to be a natural thing because we love Jesus Christ. However, I do not think that anyone in the Christian community or the world will ever think that we are part of “traditional Christianity” when our own prophets as recent as Hinckley points out that we don’t believe in the same Jesus Christ that the “Christians” do.
I’m just trying to make a point from their perspective, I get it. Regardless, I consider myself Christian because I desire to live as Christ did, the very biblical Christ that I know from the New Testament which is exactly how most Mormons probably interpret being a Christian. But that isn’t what we were talking about, we were discussing why traditional Christians can’t accept us in their circle.
And in regards to this statement:
3. The Exclusion by Name-Calling (Hurling unsavory epithets such as “cult” at the Church in an attempt to alienate or estrange outsiders and shock members. As with the “Exclusion by Definition”, in most cases the epithets are idiosyncratic definitions that go beyond the accepted standard English definition.)
When LDS members stop “hurling unsavory epithets” such as “anit-mormon” and other negative, derogatory words to anyone that may think differently than the LDS and starts acting in more Christ like ways to those of other faiths instead of the arrogant fashion that tends to happen because we are members of the “only true church” then the traditional Christians might very well start viewing as actual Christians.
Regardless of My Mormon faith or anyone elses faith/denomination in modern Christainity I would like to post this link to an excellent article describing what it really means to be a Christian in our hearts and can unite us all regardless of our doctrine or theology:
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/what2bxn.html
John,
You wrote, “Clearly, Hinckley stated and confirmed that the LDS Jesus Christ and the Jesus Christ of the Bible are not the same.”
Not so fast.
I went back and read the Church News article you cite. Nowhere in it does President Hinckley say that the “LDS Jesus Christ” and the “Jesus Christ of the Bible” are different.
Why would he? The Jesus we follow is the Jesus of the Bible.
President Hinckley did draw a distinction between revelation and tradition. Where the two conflict, he preferred revelation over tradition. That has been a good LDS doctrine since Joseph Smith’s day.
(By the way, when President Hinckley said, “The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak,” he was using a common figure of speech. He was not saying that there are literally two persons called Jesus Christ, one followed by Mormons, one followed by other Christians. No doubt you understand this; but it seems to elude some critics of Mormonism.)
President Hinckley went on to say,
“Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.”
That is a good summary of what it means to be a Christian.
John, if you’re not an anti-, then you’ve confused past tense with present tense. If you’re a former missionary, then it boggles the mind why you bypass the Book of Mormon usage of the word ‘Christian’ (which, surprise, actually relates to Jesus Christ) in favor of a usage which favors organizations of the world.
If we accept the world’s definition of our core religious concepts, what a pathetic surrender that would be.
Regarding the responses to my posts above.
1. If the questions were, Who is a Christian? And how is that defined?, ……. Then just do like my grandpa used to always say and try to”walk a mile in another mans shoes” None of the responses address how the Christian world sees mormonism. (except mine). : )
I agree that LDS love and worship Jesus Christ ….I am LDS and I know that I and many others I have worshiped with love him. However, we have a unique and unprecedented view of Christ (in this century), that is NOT how Christianity has viewed Christ, or defined themselves as Christians. Then we LDS show up on the scene of Christianity some two thousands years later and proclaim that we understand the “true nature of God and Jesus” and in the process of doing so our prophets have taken a very abrupt and often attacking form of speech. If we are a “voice of warning to the world” And we have a different understanding of Christ, His mission, His birth, His conception, His atonement, His resureuction, His role with the Father, His appearance to an entire continent, and His role throughout eternity as a God that will now peogress toward a higher form of Godhood like his Father. Then, my question is still “Why would we LDS as the Johnny come latelys, of Christianity expect the same Christians (2000 yrs of apostasy and living in darkness and false traditions) who we have boldly proclaimed this new revealed version of Jesus Christ by Jesus Christ Himself want or need to be part of or viewed as part of Christianity?
What is confusing to me is; why the LDS church to want to, jump their train by grabbing a word like Christian that has been defined by others for centuries?
We have always seperated ourselves. It is only giong to create resistance and critism of the LDS church to try to say, “Hey, were just like ya’ll now! How the heck bout that!” Espically if we continue to ignorantly name call anyone with a original thought an “Anti-mormon”. It will take much more tact and class to be accepted into the definition of Christian, by those with the power and ability to recognize us as one of themselves (christians).
May we start with being an example in word and deed.
To be a Christian is to love the savior and desire to follow in his footsteps. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we are Christians in the purest sense. To call ourselves anything else is to take Christ out of our lives. Mr. Rasimas, why would you want to not be called a Christian? If we allow the foolish, jealousy of the rest of the Christian world to take that title from us, then we are not being true to who we innately are. We are The Christian religion. Those who delight to call us non-christians remind me so much of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. These people profess to read the Bible and know it so well and yet they are blind to the realization that they are acting toward us just as the Pharisees acted toward Jesus. We are perfectly willing to call any person a Christian who believes with us that Jesus Christ is our Savior. Christ said that if ‘they’ were not against Him, then they were with Him. Protestant Christians do not follow Christ’s teaching in this regard. As the LDS church continues to grow, as the stone cut out of the mountain filling the whole earth, these other churches are dwindling. They are jealous and this is their way of striking back. It is hurtful to us but it is more telling of them that they are petty and not true followers of Christ.
Well written article.
I have used something similar to question 5 as a response to Nicene type doctrinal exclusion arguments in discussion with evangelical friends with mixed results.
If the person you are discussing with works under the assumption (ultimately unprovable by research alone either way) that the councils delineating ex nihlo creation and the all in one trinity as official doctrines were not creating new doctrine but affirming long standing belief in the face of recent heresy, then that approach doesn’t work.
That brings the discussion back to what do the scriptures actually teach? Now my reading of the scriptures indicates three distinct beings, but a reasonable person working with a completely different set of assumptions can come right back to the trinity.
The only thing I know to do at that point is cut back to the bedrock of personal revelation and testimony.
John,
You wrote,
And exactly how does the Christian world see us?
Estimates vary, but there are probably more than 2 billion Christians in the world. It is unlikely that they all view Mormonism the same way.
My impression is that most Christians do not care what we call ourselves. Those who do care are often vociferous, but it is not clear that they represent a large segment of the Christian world.
Nor is it clear that our critics can offer good reasons to exclude Latter-day Saints from Christianity.
Consider, for example, CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry), which declares in no uncertain terms that Mormonism is not Christian.
Strangely, CARM also states that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church. (CARM holds similar views of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists.)
If we are to stop calling ourselves Christians to placate some religious bigots, should we also stop referring to Catholics as Christians? (What about Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists?)
I think “Christian” is typically not used in a deeply theological sense. Christian often means “Protestant” to most people. That’s what I think the Fox person meant, and therefore am not troubled by her reference.
Catholics aren’t usually called Christian (they’re called Catholics), but usually only Evangelicals in a technical theological way would question whether they’re Christian. Some of the evangelical writers seem to think that protestant believers have a trademark on the term. The trouble comes when not being a trademarked Christian (by evangelical protestant standards) leads someone to believe that you don’t believe in Christ as the Savior.
I wrote a series recently: Mormonism as Hermetic Christianity which tries to address the Mormon Christian question. I actually think using the term Hermetic Christian makes it clear what the root argument is. There are supra-sects: Catholic (Eastern and Western rite), Protestant, Gnostic Christians, Unitarians, Adventists and Hermetic Christians. Those supra-sects are all Christians and fundamentally disagree about most other things.
The churches that have objectively strongest claims are the Catholic churches. They have the numbers and they have the history. The Catholic church rejects as Christian anyone who has not had a trinitarian baptism (which would include Mormons under their definition). That’s a reasonable definition, and one can make a good case for it… but it rests on the authority of the church not on the bible. The sola scriptura crowd IMHO can’t use it.
Further from an objective standpoint the trinitarian baptism formula excludes groups like Quaker, Unitarian, Jehovah’s Witnesses which are considered by most objective observers to be Christian though borderline. I don’t see any reason that a similar status shouldn’t hold for Mormons.