A friend, still cross at the Mormon Glenn Beck for telling Christians to leave their churches, wrote last night asking if Mormonism is a form of Christianity or another religion, and I would be grateful for your thoughts.
There are a couple of tests, it seems to me. One is the teaching of the major Christian traditions on Mormon baptism, which as far as I know is universally negative. See Why Mormon Baptism is Invalid for the Catholic position. If the baptisms are not Christian baptisms, the baptized are not Christians.
That settles the matter for me, but there’s a second test to which the answer is also no. That is whether Mormonism can be considered a Christian heresy. We know it’s not orthodox Christianity, but is it close enough to count as a form of Christianity? A Lutheran friend suggested that it is, but I don’t think so.
A rough test is that heresies 1) begin with a man of some weight and authority in an obviously orthodox or mainstream form of Christianity; 2) tend to go bad in one direction and at one point, that is, they take one doctrine and deny it or exaggerate one aspect or try to improve it in some other way; and 3) argue with some plausibility from Scripture and tradition. Arius was a churchman, for example, and left the Faith alone except for his assertion that Jesus was a creature, which he insisted (and not without reason) was what Scripture says.
Mormonism is not a heresy. It did not begin with a man of authority nor in a mainstream form of Christianity, it did not twist an existing doctrine but invent a whole bunch of them, and it argued from personal revelation rather than Scripture and tradition, which it treated with some creativity. It is not a heresy, it is a different religion.
What the Christian does with that, and where in the array of interfaith relations we place Mormonism, is another question.
April 14th, 2010 | 4:34 pm
I guess it depends on what one means by the term “Christianity”. To me, the term “orthodox Christianity” is a tautology. Put another way, “heterodox Christianity” is an oxymoron. That, of course, begs the question of what is orthodoxy. The test seems to me to be the Nicene Creed and the definition and Chalcedon. If one believes the substance of the Nicene Cree and the definition of Chalcedon, even if he is not a confessional Christian, then he is orthodox in his belief and, therefore, Christian. If he does not, he is heterodox and not a Christian. Whether he is saved is another issue, but one is not a Christian if he does not believe the essentials of the Faith.
April 14th, 2010 | 4:48 pm
I would agree with Greg, but slightly modify his criteria to say that agreement Nicene Creed and the meaning or understanding of the Chalcedonian definition are the de minima criteria. The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, while never having received the Council of Chalcedon, nonetheless profess a Christology firmly in line with the substance of Chalcedon, even if expressed in different theological terms. Several “Joint Christological Statements” between the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and the two Chalcedonian Churches, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, have resolved long misunderstanding at last.
April 14th, 2010 | 5:05 pm
We wind up at the same point, but I’m not sure Gregory Laughlin and Stuart Koehl’s way of getting there is really so helpful a one. One can assert a definition of Christianity, and “Chalcedonian” is a good one to assert, but doing so does not address the fact that common Christian usage doesn’t draw the line so tightly.
You can find, for example, older Catholic manuals and apologetic works that refer to Luther and Calvin as “heresiarchs,” but none of the writers denied that they were Christians. They were not Buddhists or Muslims or atheists, who could be treated by the same writers even more harshly.
They were errant or rebellious brothers, or maybe cousins — still family, even if they had been tossed out of the family home. You may find the rebellious cousin a greater problem than someone from another family, but he’s still a cousin.
April 14th, 2010 | 5:17 pm
We probably need an new all-purpose term to use where “heresy” is inaccurate. Remember the Worldwide Church of God? They were commonly thought of as a heresy that slowly evolved into something resembling orthodox Protestantism, but they weren’t even technically a heresy from their very beginning. Were the gnostics heretics? Or were they something other than Christianity that assumed a parasitic relationship with Christianity? Unlike the heretics of old, Mormons these days want to become more like Christians, not less so. Perhaps we should coin a neologism that means “almost Christians.”
April 14th, 2010 | 5:50 pm
Bill, Arius (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius ) was much closer to Christianity than the Mormons, and many Arians were truly sincere in their beliefs. In fact, if things had gone differently at the council of Nicea, we’d all be Arians. But Arius was consided to be a heretic, and so are the Mormons. I know it’s not PC to draw such distinctions, but people died for such distinctions but Christians died for much smaller distinctions. Remember, Chesterton’s quote, “[The modern man] holding no form of creed…[sinks] slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.”[see Footnote 1 for the full quote]
That being said, many Arians did ultimately repent their heresy. The same can be said for Mormons.
— Footnotes
[1] From G. K. Chesterton, Heretics “Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded. “
April 14th, 2010 | 6:11 pm
Some years ago I learned a “theological” definition of cults which, for a Christian cult, would include the claim to be Christian or the restoration of the Christian church which required historic Christian teachings and the Holy Scriptures to be re-interpreted and read through a grid provided by the leader or the leader’s writings.
For Mormons, this would be the early leadership of Jospeph Smith and Brigham Young. The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants – these are the additional “Scriptures” through which Christian teaching must be re-interpreted and the Holy Scriptures re-translated.
Similarly, Christian Scientists would follow Mary Baker Eddy and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. For Jehovah’s Witnesses it would be Charles Taze Rusell and the publications of Zion’s Watchtower and Tract Society.
Kamilla
April 14th, 2010 | 6:15 pm
Those of us who are Mormons consider ourselves Christians because we believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as our Savior and Redeemer. And that’s pretty close to the dictionary definition of “Christian” and the meaning that most people give to the term.
The answer to the question really depends on how you define “Christian.” I have no objection if you want to define a Christian denomination as one that believes/teaches the Nicene Creed, and if that’s the definition you want to use, then of course we’re not (although we’d probably agree with 95 percent of it). In fairness, though, that definition would also exclude an awful lot of folks who also consider themselves Christian — how many mainline Protestants these days teach that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven in any meaningful sense? And, of course, “Christian” TV these days is full of modalists who teach something other than the Nicene Creed as well.
I suppose that if I were a Nicene Creed-believing Christian and understood Mormon theology as well as I do, I’d probably use the term “heretical” rather than “non-Christian.” Obviously, many of our beliefs are outside of mainstream Christianity, yet we’re close enough that we sing Protestant hymns and quote C.S. Lewis and even agree with the teachings of the Apostles Creed (with the understanding that Christ was the agent of creation for the Heavenly Father and that the “holy catholic church” refers refers to what we see as the restored church).
Believers in “orthodox” Christianity we’re most definitely not. But we’re certainly not a different religion in the sense that Buddhism and Scientology are different religions.
April 14th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
As a Mormon, or member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find the above article and comments a little ridiculous. The definitions given of what does or doesn’t make a religion Christian are missing the very essence of what Christianity should be defined by: believing Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, worshiping the Father in His name, turning to Him as the one & only source of salvation, and living according to His example and teachings.
Also the idea of Mormons becoming “more” Christian is also absurd when viewed in light of the teachings of the Church from its very beginnings to the present; in other words, the teachings of the Church have consistently taught the same Gospel principles and doctrines about Christ from the prophet Joseph Smith, who restored the fullness of Christ’s church to the earth, to our prophet today, Thomas S. Monson.
Also, we believe, study, teach and use the King James version of the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, which we believe to be indeed another testament of Jesus Christ that helps those who read it to exercise greater faith in Him. These books compliment each other in every way, which is something that is easy to see for anyone who has ever studied both books seriously.
One thing that causes some friction is the fact that we believe that God continues to call prophets to guide and direct His people just as He always has since the very beginning of time, and that revelation continues today in Christ’s Church collectively and individually. But these are not new ideas, just modern-day examples of God’s pattern of teaching as demonstrated in the Bible.
The idea that creeds and councils somehow hold more authority on what is considered “Christian” than the Scriptures do is about the most heretical thing I have ever heard. I invite you to search your own scriptures as a measuring rod for true Christianity, not the philosophies of men and councils.
April 14th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
Indeed, David, Luther and Calvin were considered heretics by the Catholic Church (and, I assume, Protestants are still considered heretics by the Catholic Church today), but also still considered Christian by the Catholic Church. Of course, Luther and Calvin and their followers held (and hold) to the beliefs proclaimed in the Nicene Creed and the definition of Chalcedon. I concede the point that some orthodox Christians apply the label Christian to those whom they believe to be heterodox. I do not. I do, however, have broader definition of orthodoxy than those Christians do, the one I gave above. That definition would include many (probably most) Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and (accepting the position expressed by Stuart Koehl in his comments) Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.
I suspect (but do not know) that the definition I use for orthodoxy is identical or nearly identical to the criteria which the Catholic Church uses to decide whose baptisms are valid and whose are not. If so, we are merely using different nomenclature to describe the same concept and have different understandings as to what the word “orthodox” means.
April 14th, 2010 | 6:24 pm
Mormons = New Testament Christians
April 14th, 2010 | 6:34 pm
The critical issue is whether Mormon doctrine so departs from orthodox Christianity as to cease being Christian. John Damascene and many other Christians in the 7th century assumed that Islam was a Christian heresy, but as more of its doctrine became known, it also became clear that this assumption was false–even though Muslims venerated Jesus.
Mormons undoubtedly venerate Jesus, but their concept of Jesus and of the economy of salvation is so detached from the Christian Tradition (not to mention wildly incoherent and internally inconsistent), that I think we are on safe ground in saying that Mormonism is definitely a heresy, and probably an entirely distinct religion from Christianity.
April 14th, 2010 | 6:37 pm
What does the Nicene creed have to do with qualifying to be a Christian or not? The only criteria should be Jesus’ own words.
Basically, a Christian is one who follows Christ; his words and commandments.
A document that church leaders voted on has nothing to do with what’s in someone’s thoughts, let alone believes and actions.
April 14th, 2010 | 6:38 pm
First, I thought you were giving this all up Greg :)
Second I’ll have to disagree with your criteria. For example Arians were admitted to communion after pennence without baptism. As such the church de facto held that they were Christian (however application was all over the place).
David, I think, correctly notes that a distinction must exist. The problem comes in where the limit of the distinction occurs. I also concur that revelation, as opposed to argument from existing texts, is a good starting point. I would simply add that the revelation need also seek to overturn and not just append to the existing traditions. Therefore a Catholic could see a Pentecostal as a heretic. Islam and Mormonism which posit corrupted texts would be new religions.
April 14th, 2010 | 7:02 pm
The first part of 1) is clearly invalid. E.g. Arius and Eutyches were both only presbyters, not bishops. They became prominent because of the heresies they championed, not vice-versa.
As for whether Mormonism is a heresy, that (as noted) depends on the definition of heresy. Most broadly, it simply means wrong or false belief with respect to some doctrinal standard, in which case Mormonism could qualify. The patristic fathers referred to Gnosticism as a heresy, and Mormonism is clearly a latter-day Gnostic cult. Similarly, figures ranging from St. John of Damascus to Hilaire Belloc and Georges Florovsky considered Islam to be a Christian heresy. More narrowly, I think the second part of 1), along with 2) and 3) constitutes a good working definition
As I have argued before elsewhere, I believe that at least two different types or levels of heresy should be identified. One scheme would be to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian heresies. The former comprises errors that are sufficiently limited in scope such that the heresy is still recognizably Christian in basic form and content (e.g. Seventh-Day Adventism), whereas the latter comprises belief systems (such as Islam and Mormonism) so aberrant as to no longer qualify for consideration as being even nominally Christian.
Another scheme would be to distinguish between regarding primary level heresies that reject essential doctrines of the Christian faith as defined by the Nicene Creed and Ecumenical Councils (e.g. the orthodox understanding of the Trinity Incarnation), and secondary level heresies that deviate on doctrines that, however important, are not so critical as to absolutely imperil salvation (e.g. a false understanding of the sacraments of baptism, the Eucharist, or ordination).
For my part, I would argue that both Mormonism and Islam qualify as “heresies” only under an extremely broad definition of the word, since both reject the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Certainly, however, Mormonism is not Christianity, but another religion altogether.
April 14th, 2010 | 7:19 pm
I find using the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedon as a measuring stick for Christianity a bit short sited. After all these determinations were not formed until three to four hundred years following the life of Christ. While I concede that most contemporary Christianity finds its base in the various councils of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries to me it seems as if they are a bit late to the party. New Testament scripture and writings of first century Christian fathers would be a more accurate outline for what falls under the umbrella of Christianity. After all there were Christians before Nicene.
April 14th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Can I submit a helpful distinction? The distinction is between capital-C “Christianity” and lowercase-C “christianity”? Capital-C Christianity is another term for Protestantism and Catholicism, which Mormonism is decidedly not (nor has it ever claimed to be). Lowercase-C christianity is defined not by denomination but by one’s personal beliefs: Does this person accept Christ as their savior and redeemer? Does this person try their best to live the teachings of Christ as they understand them? Does this person believe that salvation can only be achieved through Jesus Christ? If the answer to these questions is yes, I submit that that individual is a christian, regardless of whether or not they are Christian. I also submit that even a cursory examination of those who claim to be practicing Mormons will reveal that they will emphatically answer yes to all three of those questions. They are christians, but not Christians. As a practicing Mormon, I know that Jesus Christ lives, that he is my Redeemer, that salvation is only to be found through him, and I try my very best to pattern my life after him and his teachings. If that is not good enough to qualify me as a christian, then I would suggest you reconsider your definition of that word.
April 14th, 2010 | 8:35 pm
So tired, really.
Mormons are the ones who believe Joseph Smith’s vision from the Lord that all other churches are “abominations.” Mormons are the ones who rebaptize everyone, living and dead, as Mormons. Instead of asking if Mormons are Christians, let us ask if Mormons consider any other churches as God-blessed or God-approved. That focuses the issue. We are not excluding Mormons. They separate themselves, nd then cry “Unfair!” Individual Mormons re NOT the issue, churches are. And no non-Mormon church in their official documents flatly condemns all existing churches as abominations. So the LDS posters really need to chill. No one else has secret ceremonies, or blanket condemnations. The LDS beef is with Joe Smith and Brigham Young, not the Vatican or Rick Warren. That said, they have a lot more guts on Prop. 8 than any Christians I know, so I hope we are all in Heaven.
April 14th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
In response to the several posts made by Mormon commentators:
You all seem to assert that that you ought to be considered Christians (or “christians”) based on A) your belief that Jesus is the son of God and B) your belief that Jesus is your savior.
However, I think a real understanding of how these terms are used by Mormons and Orthodox Christians actually serves to support the opposite point.
What a Mormon means by “Son of God” is very different from what an orthodox Christian means by that term. Like Arianism, Mormonism teaches that Sonship means that Jesus was not eternally coexistent with God. Furthermore, as I understand Mormon doctrine, the teaching is that, furthermore, the Sonship of Jesus to God means exactly the same thing as the sonship of me to my daddy. Jesus is literally his Father’s offspring.
This is, to put it briefly, nowhere close to what orthodox Christianity means by calling Jesus the Son of God. The two doctrines are using the same word, but they mean completely different things by it.
Moreover, to hold to either of the two doctrines requires having an understanding of the nature of God that necessarily excludes the other. Christianity holds that God, by His nature, cannot have physical descendants as the Mormons teach. Mormonism holds that God, by His nature, cannot have eternally coexistent persons as the Christians teach. The two doctrines are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.
The same goes for salvation. Christians teach that salvation is becoming Christlike through participating in union with Christ, taking on His attributes, embodying them within our finite individual beings, but forever remaining created, finite beings who are essentially different from God.Mormonism, on the other hand (again, as I understand it), teaches that salvation is literally becoming Gods like Jesus and His Father, possessing the same divine nature that They do.
Again, these are mutually exclusive positions that depend on contradictory doctrines regarding the nature of God and the nature of human beings. Mormonism holds that as we are, so God once was, and therefore as God is, so we may one day be. Christianity holds that God was always and ever shall be the same, unchangeable, and alone, and so it is impossible for anything else to ever be the same as God.
In both cases, we may be using the same words, but we mean completely different, irreconcilable things by them. And to me, this indicates that Mormonism and Christianity are different religions.
The issue is not exclusive the Mormonism. A Hindu or Buddhist may also use the word salvation, and they would also mean something completely different from either of our doctrines. The ancient Romans called their emperors the Son of God (as did many other ancient pagan empires), and they also meant something completely different from either of our doctrines. Just using the same term in no way indicates that we mean the same thing.
For the Mormon commentators, I’d like to suggest that you haven’t understood how different orthodox Christian beliefs are from your own. I think if you’ll study them more thoroughly, you’ll see just how very weird they are from your perspective, and hopefully better understand why your beliefs seem so very weird to us.
April 14th, 2010 | 9:42 pm
I am pleased to see such a sensible dialog among the posters on this site. Normally I find quite a bit of decades old (never original) anti-Mormon posting. Your intellectual treatment of such a sensitive topic is refreshing.
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 belong. 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.
April 14th, 2010 | 9:44 pm
Andrew Oviatt mentioned the Mormon use of scripture, which is actually another important ‘measuring stick’.
I think it’s safe to assume that if someone wrote another gospel these days it would not make it into the bibles used in the vast, vast majority (if any) churches and homes. Yet this is exactly what Joseph Smith did, by looking at stones in a hat nonetheless.. that is, if he did indeed write it.
However, it’s even more important to set the Book of Mormon aside (as there will never, ever be consensus there) and look at the Bible. If you’re Christian you can’t edit Christian scripture to render it something other than it was before. Alas, this is exactly what the “Joseph Smith Translation” is.
April 14th, 2010 | 9:50 pm
Sez who? The bible says that you should hold fast the traditions that were taught either by word of mouth or by letter.
April 14th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
For those who would like to find out more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, here’s a URL: http://www.mormon.org/
April 14th, 2010 | 9:59 pm
I am not a believer in mormonism; I do not consider it to be the correct church. Having said that, I would never be so presumptuous as to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. I live in salt lake city,utah, and have many friends who are LDS (i.e.,mormon), and they are kind, decent, people, who follow Jesus Christ in ways that humble me, and teach me. Not only is this refusal to consider mormons emotionally unseamly, but it has no rational basis, unless, one is prepared to conclude that all ostensible christian churches, other than one’s own, are not christian. An important distinction to make is between a religion being christian, and being wrong. One can be wrong, and still christian. For example, I believe my lutheran friends are wrong, but still christian. I believe my mormon friends are wrong, but still christian. The rational basis, I think, for determining whether a religion is christian, is whether it accepts the teachings of the new testament, paticularly, that Jesus died on a cross, for our sins, and was resurrected. These are the basic elements, or essentials, for being considered christian. Since mormons believe these things, they’re christian. They believe additional things, which makes them distinctive, but still christian. The criteria that David Mills seems to accept, which I would argue, respectfully, is too ungenerous, logically, and otherwise, is that one must accept the nicean creed, which mormons do not. Is Mr. Mills prepared to take this to its logical conclusion, and say that christian believers prior to 323 A.D., and Arian christians ”really” were not christian?
April 14th, 2010 | 10:07 pm
This whole debate is a somewhat useless exercise in semantics. Before we define Mormonism as Christian, we must define ‘Christian’ — what does ‘Christian’ mean?
A number of comments define ‘Christian’ as a religious group or person whose views are close enough to existing Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic-based religions (including Protestants — all descend from Rome). This is an in-group definition; X is Christian because X is enough like me. The other definition of ‘Christian’ is based upon adherents’ belief in Jesus Christ as a divine being (not merely a holy person as in Islam). This makes more sense, but it does miss the fact that Mormons do not consider themselves to be of the same community of believers as other so-called Christians. I think it’s safe to say that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, venerate the New Testament, and come from the same culture and worldview as Western Christianity; however, Mormons believe theirs to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth — theirs is the restored church of Jesus Christ. If outsiders will simply acknowledge their belief in Christ AND the fact that no Mormon on this planet is hoping that his/her Mormon baptism will get him into another Christian group, then I think we’ll have an honest appraisal of the status of Mormonism in relation to Orthodox and Protestant Christianity.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:20 pm
Hm. Well, personally, I would not be so presumptuous as to blow off the teaching of the major Christian traditions as “presumptuous.”
The criteria, which aren’t really mine, are only ungenerous if untrue. If the nature of Christ and of the Trinity as defined at Nicaea and later Councils are true, they are matters important to get right, which have a real effect on human happiness — in bringing lost men to know the God whose generosity extended to the sacrifice of His Son.
The Church did not argue over these issues the way some people argue over the Yankees and the Red Sox. St. Nicholas decked Arius for a reason, and would probably have decked Joseph Smith. If the Christian credal tradition is right, Mr. Lythgoe’s minimalist principles would be the ungenerous ones.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:24 pm
I’m a Mormon, but I read widely in authors who come at Christianity through other traditions, because I find their thinking useful and enlightening in developing my own understanding of the Christian faith. When I do come across viewpoints that seem “off” to me, I usually turn to the Bible to try to resolve my confusions. But mainly, in the important writers of the “orthodox” faith, I find wisdom that does not seem to derive from a different spirit than I worship.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:31 pm
Theology by consensus…
How utterly inspiring.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
As for whether we Mormons are “Christians”….
A part of me doesn’t particularly care. We worship and venerate Jesus Christ. Good enough in my book.
But if you guys don’t consider us a part of your club, I’m not particularly heartbroken about it. We certainly aren’t a branch of Protestantism. We claim to be a new world religion in our own right – a restoration of the true order of religion had by Adam, Abraham, Moses, and then the Apostles.
We are Christians in a certain sense – in the same sense that Peter, Paul and John were Jews.
Which is to say they were, but there’s more to the story than that.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:37 pm
Hi David Mills: Even though you did not really answer fully my question, I’m deducing fron your comments that you would probably consider pre-nicean creed believers in Christ as ”unchristian”. I think that you’re failing to make a distinction between being ”Christian”, and being wrong. Mormonism, we can agree, is wrong. But it’s still Christian. Not fully Christian, but still Christian. It’s on a spectrum. Lutherans, in my view, are not correct, but Christian. they’re closer to full Christianity than Mormons, perhaps, but still Christian. These can be subtle distinctions, but to fail to grant them, is illogical. My guess is Mr. Mills, you dislike many of the LDS’s teachings, which is your right, but please make the necessary distinctions. As far as truth is concerned, theolgically, I would be careful there. there’s A LOT we, you, I and all, are ignorant of. at the end of the day, my guess, and it’s only a guess, is that Christ will care more about how kind and CHRISTLIKE we are, rather than whether we get all theological nuances correct.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:42 pm
Andrew and Eric,
In order to worship Jesus, the real Jesus, not just some myth that someone decided to call Jesus, you have to get the Trinity right, and you have to get the nature of the incarnation, death, and resurrection right, along with the nature of man. That’s why the first several councils focused on little else (besides this and how to run the church). It’s not just ivory tower stuff. It’s at the heart of Christianity.
If you get these right, you’re likely a Christian. If you don’t, you’re not. A Hindu could well affirm the Nicene Creed. Hindus have three gods in one, and many believe that Jesus is an avatar of Krishna. But Hindus would strongly disagree with the fundamentals of the Trinity, the nature of man, the nature of the incarnation, death, and resurrection, just as Mormons would (to a lesser extent).
Note, being a heretic doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It just means you’re not Christian (along with many liberal “Christians” who like the idea of Jesus but don’t buy into incarnation or the virgin birth or ….). Mormons have redeeming values. For one thing, they tend to be very right-to-life and very pro-marriage, which is more than can be said about many denominations which are Christian. Given the choice between having schools run by seculars who promote the current “the Culture of Death” and Mormons, I’d pick Mormons any day of the week. But that doesn’t change the facts.
April 14th, 2010 | 10:46 pm
>Christ will care more about how kind and CHRISTLIKE we are
Was Christ being “CHRISTLIKE” when he told men that they were a “brood of vipers” and “whited sepulchres full of dead men’s bones”?
April 14th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
Andrew,
You said you “believe that God continues to call prophets to guide and direct His people just as He always has since the very beginning of time, and that revelation continues today in Christ’s Church collectively and individually.” Then you said “I invite you to search your own scriptures as a measuring rod for true Christianity, not the philosophies of men and councils.”
Since God has always guided and directed His people, would that not also include the leaders of His people who assembled for the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon? Should we not then take the resulting creeds as products of “collective revelation” rather than mere “philosophies of men?” If not, how are we to know genuine revelation from man-made philosophies?
April 14th, 2010 | 11:23 pm
Nick wrote: “What does the Nicene creed have to do with qualifying to be a Christian or not? The only criteria should be Jesus’ own words.
Basically, a Christian is one who follows Christ; his words and commandments.”
Well, what did Jesus say, then? He said a lot of things, of course. One of the things He said was, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” But what is it that we must believe? Well, the gospel, of course. See Mark 16:15. And what is the gospel? It is expressed succinctly and completely in the Nicene Creed. It, or something very similar (the Nicene Creed was based on a pre-existing baptismal creed), was what early Christians had to confess in order to be baptized. That it, it was (and still is for many traditions) what a man, woman or child (or his parents or guardians and/or godparents) must confess before being baptized. So, the Nicene Creed has everything to do with it.
Is the Nicene Creed merely a man made tradition? I think not. I believe it is a succinct and accurate summary of all the Scripture teaches on the matters which it covers. At some point, being wrong ceases merely being wrong, but still within the bounds of orthodoxy, and reaches the point that the person holding the erroneous beliefs passes over the boundary lines from being of one faith and enters into another. That boundary line is marked, I believe, by the Nicene Creed and the definition of Chalcedon.
April 14th, 2010 | 11:25 pm
Ya’ll. Who cares? Mormons consider themselves Christian and most Catholics and descendants thereof don’t. Most Catholics (and descendants thereof) consider belief in a set of core doctrines to determine whether or not a group is Christian. It is, strangely enough, a set of beliefs that Catholics (and their descendants) agree upon. This isn’t a fundamentally different claim from the Mormon insistence on being the “one true and living” church. So, if you are looking for inclusion to define the high road, neither side is particularly interested in being inclusive (actually, I think Mormonism is more inclusive, but I’m Mormon and a fairly universalist one at that, so take what I say with a grain of salt).
In any case, I’m happy to accept that Mormons aren’t Christian so long as you say “Mormons aren’t Christian in the sense that they don’t subscribe to the various creeds developed used to define proper Christian belief in the centuries after Christ’s death.” Other senses, perhaps implying that Mormons don’t venerate the Bible or worship Jesus Christ (as they understand him), would be inaccurate.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:14 am
David Mills has offered an unfortunate but somewhat understandable polemic about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks have offered a more-than-comprehensive refutation to his charge that Mormons are not Christians. See their book “Offenders for a Word.” It can be read for free online here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=
It thoroughly refutes Mr. Mills’s blog post.
I’m pleased that I’ve found reasonable Catholics elsewhere who have been willing to dialog with me (a Mormon) in Christian brotherhood. I regret that I have not found such dialog here.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:15 am
After lengthy and thoughtful debate, my Mormon colleagues and I have ruled that Catholics are not homo sapiens. The reasoning is simple: rejection of the Nicene creed is part of our definition of homo sapiens, and Catholics accept that creed.
We still admire you and have much to learn from you. You’re not human (really not), but you are wonderful creatures and a blessing to humanity.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:52 am
Personally I find the whole debate pathetic. The only comeptent objections to Mormonism are essentially based on differences in 2 doctrines – the physical (or not) being of God/Christ and grace v works. Neither of these differences produce any qualitative difference in either one’s commitment to God or the godliness of their life. Truly only a pernicious God imagined by Christians would deny salvation based on such grounds.
April 15th, 2010 | 2:01 am
Really, this is such a tired, tautological argument. We’re really talking about two entirely different things here: one is membership in a club with the label Christian; one is belief in Christ. Those who would deny Mormonism status as Christians deftly toggle between the two and pretend they are the same thing, even though we continually affirm the latter while having frankly no interest in the former.
If we don’t believe in the Trinity in the way you do, that makes us non-Trinitarians, not non-Christians. If we don’t believe in the Creeds, that makes us non-Credal, not non-Christian (for goodness sakes, were the pre-Credal Christians not Christians?) It seems that, since we believe in salvation solely through Christ, any definition of Chrisitianity that extends beyond that finds its basis in something other than Christ–in other words, such a definition is itself rather un-Christian.
Here’s what really irks me about this whole issue, though: we have different definitions of salvation. Yes, we Mormons don’t believe in the complete authoritative validity of other baptisms; but we also believe that good Christians who don’t get our baptism end up in a place very much like the heaven they had been promised in their faith tradition. We just believe that our baptism and our beliefs promise a different (and, to us, better) heaven.
Meanwhile, y’all condemn us to hell because our baptisms aren’t reciprocal with yours and we don’t believe in the post-Christ Creeds.
April 15th, 2010 | 2:14 am
As myself being an Orthodox Christian, and as I understand the ancient teaching of Christianity (Orthodox, Oriental, Copts, Roman Catholicism, etc.), the last prophet that walked the earth was St. John the Prophet, Forerunner, and Baptist. The prophets of the Old Testament (St. John included) only pointed to the coming messiah, the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. For even Christ himself testified to this by saying, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John,” (Matthew 11:13) showing that the Prophets stopped at St. John. Once that messiah had come, there is no reason to have anymore Prophets because there is nothing else to point to.
Accordingly, any religion, Protestantism included, who says that they are “a restoration of the true order of religion had by Adam, Abraham, Moses, and then the Apostles,” (Seth R., from above) will immediately make me suspicious of them. Christ himself said about the Church that, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) Now if there is a need for restoration, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, Christ is a liar, and we have no salvation. And if this is true, who cares what anyone thinks because we’re all damned. But, call me crazy, I don’t believe that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church or that Christ is a liar.
That being said, I think Scripture could be a good place to start, since we all “seem” to “adhere” to it. I don’t think anyone, or any group of people, who say that they are, or that we need, a new prophet, or a restoration of the “New Testament” church, based on the little Scripture I put forth, can be considered Christian, solely from Christ’s own words.
I think a greater question, not only in the current discussion, but in the larger scheme of all Christian traditions and those who call themselves Christians is: what is Truth, based on Christ calling himself such?
April 15th, 2010 | 2:15 am
Mormons want to be considered Christian, but not for the reasons you might suppose.
We don’t want our baptisms to be interchangeable with Lutherans’; we aren’t hoping to buddy-up to the Pontiff for special favors; we’re not hoping the Anglicans will one day say Mormonism is an acceptable path to salvation. We understand that there are important theological distinctions and it’s for that reason we don’t use the symbol of the cross.
So why do we care? It’s simply because of proper taxonomy and preventing the promulgation of misconceptions.
To say, “Mormons are not Christian” is to say to 93% of the populace that Mormons do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is their Savior, Lord, and Redeemer. This is a lie. Non-academics across the globe use one standard for picking out the Christians: do they believe in and follow Jesus Christ?
As long as the definition of ‘Christian’ is well-elaborated, we have no problem with making the distinction. You might say we’re ‘not trinitarian Christians,’ or ‘not creed-based Christians,’ or ‘not in the body of saved Christians,’ but please acknowledge the reason you’re excluding us isn’t because we reject the humble Nazareth carpenter.
Also, please be aware that every excuse for exclusion of Mormons has been carefully analyzed and rebutted in Are Mormons Christians?, by Dr. Stephen Robinson. If you intend to pursue this debate much further, I insist you read that book first.
April 15th, 2010 | 2:17 am
Any criteria that excludes Jesus and the first century of Christians from being “Christians” is eo ipso nonsenical. The definitions of Christianity by the so-called orthodox “christians” presented exclude Jesus and his apostles. They didn’t accept or promulgate any of the creeds or criteria for orthodoxy promulgated by David Mills and others arguing the point here. What is essential to be a Christian is to believe in the divinity of Christ, his resurrection and that he is the basis of salvation. Mormons meet that test with flying colors. So my challenge is to present criteria that Christ and his apostles could clearly meet without begging the question of what they would have taught 300-400 years later if they just had a chance and degree in neo-Platonic philosophy.
The suggestion that Mormons are not Christians is not merely insulting and divisive, but simply special pleading that won’t withstand scrutiny. Mills assumes a definition of “orthodox” and of heresy without asking whether he is just defining a christian in his own image. In other words, his special pleading and self-serving definitions are like engaging in the worst kind of self-worship.
April 15th, 2010 | 2:19 am
Forgive me, Jeremy, but if you are non-Trinitarian, you are non-Christian.
Christian Theology is not a buffet.
April 15th, 2010 | 2:42 am
Guys, guys, listen — I recently stumbled across this wonderful invention called a “dictionary”. Apparently these things can be used to learn definitions of words. There are reportedly a lot of them out there and some are even available online for FREE!
Anyway, here is a standard definition of “Christian” from one of these so-called “dictionaries”:
–noun
1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ
2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ
So there you have it. Mystery solved! A practicing Mormon is indeed officially a Christian. And we have this new-fangled “dictionary” to thank. What will they think of next??
April 15th, 2010 | 2:52 am
If you’d like to read what living apostles have said regarding this topic:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=d2552bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
And a recent address at Harvard University
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school
April 15th, 2010 | 2:53 am
Jeremiah: Pay attention. Jesus didn’t promulgate a theory of the trinity, didn’t use the word and as far as I can tell didn’t care much for doing that type of thing. Was he Christian?
April 15th, 2010 | 3:04 am
Geoff J., I think most would agree that those are essential to being a Christian, but not the only thing.
Can there not be people that believe Christ to be real and live according to His teachings but want nothing to do with Christians?
Also, many “Christians” can live according to his teachings and implement pagan or newage thoughts or practices into their lives. Can this negate the Christianity they claim?
What about those that live a “good life”. Bettter than any of us! But doesn’t even know who Christ is (contrary to some of my Protestant friends beliefs).
You can believe in Christ, practice what he taught but not believe He is God as well. Are these people Christians?
I’m basically just saying that two sentance long descriptions of 2000 years of Christianity are probably not the best source for what sect, cult, denomination is truly Christian. Most believed if the nicene creed was agreed with, you were Christian. If it wasn’t, you’re outside of the faith.
April 15th, 2010 | 6:04 am
ARE MORMONS CHRISTIAN?
.
I offer some excerpts from The Book of Mormon in answer:
.
Alma 7:
9 But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying—Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth.
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem [citing the nearest major city, Bethlehem is 6 miles away] which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.
.
Ether 3: 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
.
3 Nephi 9:15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.
.
Moroni 7: 38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name
.
Alma 38:9 […] there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ.
.
2 Nephi 25:26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
.
Helaman 5: 9 […] remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,
.
Omni 1: 26 […] come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption.
.
Mosiah 3:17 […] there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
.
Alma 34: 8 […] I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
.
Mosiah 5: 8 […] There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ,
.
Jacob 4: 11 […] be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God,
.
Alma 5: 48 […] I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.
.
Jacob 1: 7 Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest,
.
Alma 39: 15 […] concerning the coming of Christ. Behold, I say unto you, that it is he that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world;
.
Mosiah 15: 23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.
.
Helaman 3: 28 Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
.
Mosiah 4: 2 […] O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
.
Alma 4: 14 […] thus retaining a remission of their sins; being filled with great joy because of the resurrection of the dead, according to the will and power and deliverance of Jesus Christ from the bands of death.
.
Alma 22:13 […] the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ, for all whosoever would believe on his name.
14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins,
.
Title Page
[…] Written by way of commandment, and also by way of prophecy and of revelation […]Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever – And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.
[capitalization in original]
April 15th, 2010 | 8:34 am
Perhaps we can next get quotes from the Koran or the Tibetan Book of the Dead?
April 15th, 2010 | 9:08 am
As a former Episcopalian, I understand exactly what Beck was talking about. A church which has, in all but formal vote, replaced the Decalogue with the Millennium Development Goals has ceased to be a church, and has become a liberal political group with Roman collars.
As to your question. I have had this arguments with Mormon friends. They have their own book, prophet, and views which make them as separate from mainstream Christianity as Jews and Muslims. Good people, with much in common, but not within the widest definition of Christian, ranging from Baptist snake handlers to Rome. I always say Mormon Christianity, both to show respect, but also gently stress the difference.
April 15th, 2010 | 9:51 am
Forgive me, I haven’t read the last batch of comments so it’s possible that this has already been said, but I just wanted to quickly say that the point of Church councils wasn’t to create doctrine, but to define what it is that the Church has always believed. Tradition is a wonderful thing, but it’s easy to forget it’s meaning after a few hundred years. Councils occur to look back and get to the heart of particular practices. They are acts of interpretation wherein we ask God to guide our hearts and our minds, and then we look honestly at the way things are and the way things have been and try to figure out what they all mean.
My point is that the Nicene Creed wasn’t something entirely new. It was just that it was decided that these things had always been at the heart of the Church, and it had gotten to a point where they needed to be stated.
Not being a theologian, I don’t believe that I’m at all qualified to weigh in on whether or not Mormons are Christians.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:26 am
As a Mormon I actually don’t mind the perpetuation of this tautological argument, because calling members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints non-Christian flies so squarely in the face of common sense to most people (including most of my Christian non-Mormon friends). The more that people try to define Christianity beyond “Belief in salvation through Christ only” the more such definitions begin to sound like Swiftian egg-peeling doctrines.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:41 am
My living in Utah hardly makes me more of an expert on Mormonism than anyone else. But in discussing this issue with Mormons i hear the same thing every time: Non-Mormons do not truly understand Mormonism and a christian is someone who follows Christ. The first defense is circular and is used mainly to end an otherwise endless argument, the second defense is a cliche and untrue. Mormons do not follow Christ, they follow their Church whose word they take as equal authority as Christ’s. If we use the dictionary definition of a Christian helpfully given above, a Christian is simply a follower of Christ and no one, or nothing else. This is not the case with Mormons.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:52 am
The original article raised the question of baptism, which none of the comments has addressed. I find it interesting that the New Testament is full of references to “baptism by immersion,” which is to say “buried” in water–Matt. 3:16 (KJV); Acts 8:37-39; Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12. The very word “baptism” is from the Greek, meaning to “dip or immerse.”
Luther, Calvin, and other early Protestants insisted that baptism be by immersion.
Perhaps it is merely semantic, but if we want to discuss a departure from the pre-Nicean Christianity, then we must also consider the departure from the way Christ Himself was baptized and how His disciples taught baptism.
As Mormons, we don’t necessarily believe that any other baptism is “wrong,” we believe it is just done without the proper authority, that is, authorization by Jesus Christ Himself.
Probably not a lot of convincing going on from either side of this debate in the current posting and comments, but it is a refreshing discussion when reasonable people make reasonable arguments without assaulting one another. Blessings to all of you!
April 15th, 2010 | 10:56 am
@Geoff J.
A dictionary definition is not necessarily a very good source to understand what a term means. I’m sorry if Mormons want to be considered Christian. I simply cannot agree that they are simply because they desire it. Only those who believe the gospel and are baptized are Christians and the gospel is succinctly and correctly summarized in the Nicene Creed. What it states is what the Jesus taught and what the Apostles believed and spread.
Boundaries must be drawn and distinctions made or words cease to have meaning. Gay couples wish their relationships to be called “marriages”. Even if all the world agrees that such relationships can be solemnized as “marriages” that does not make them marriages. Redefining the meaning of words does not remove the distinctions which they formally represented. It merely leaves us poorer for lacking words with which to label those distinctions. Defending the meaning of words is defending what those words represent.
No, Christianity has always been defined as belief in the gospel and baptism and the gospel has always been what is confessed in the Nicene Creed, even before it was adopted and even for those who believe its substance, but do not confess it. Anything else is not Christianity. Defending the meaning of the word “Christianity” is defending Christianity itself.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:59 am
The arguments about the Christianity of Mormons are so old and tired and serve the Catholic community of Christians so poorly that I won’t participate except to register an online sigh.
The ball in this game hasn’t moved in 100 years. Mormons are christian by their definition and in the colloquial sense. They aren’t Christian by the Pope’s definition, with all his hangers-on and offshoots. No one in any leadership authority has changed his mind.
Is this what Jesus wants from us?
April 15th, 2010 | 11:02 am
Ethan C.
Just thought I’d respond to one of your comments.
You claimed that Christ is not co-eternal with God the Father in Mormon doctrine, but is rather a created being.
There is no such thing as a created being in Mormon theology. All beings are eternal in Mormon theology – obviously, that includes Christ.
Therefore, Christ is not a created being in Mormon theology.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:29 am
Christian traditions? Not orthodox Christianity? Plausibility from Scripture and tradition? Argued from Scripture and tradition and not personal revelation?
Is this how true religion is determined? I don’t think this is how Moses and Jesus did it.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:32 am
As a Mormon I have no problem with any group that wants to calling Mormons ‘heretics’ or rejecting our baptisms. I could care less.
The syntactic and historical contortions that these groups have to go through to justify what they’re doing is comical, though. We would all be better off with a little honesty:
“Mormons aren’t Christians because being Christian is a good thing and I don’t think Mormons are a good thing.”
“Mormons aren’t Christians because I’m a Christian, being a Christian is important to me, and I think Mormons are weird and stupid.”
“Mormons are Christians because I’m Mormon and I want to call myself a Christian.”
Etc.
Saves on all the cant.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:34 am
For my part, I’m willing to admit that Catholics and even evangelicals are Christians, despite their multiple accretions and subtractions from true Christianity.
Why? Because I like to think of myself as broad-minded, and it saves stupid arguments.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:36 am
“Was Christ being “CHRISTLIKE” when he told men that they were a “brood of vipers” and “whited sepulchres full of dead men’s bones”?”
By definition. Also, uh, licet jovi non licet bovi.
Moo.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:45 am
As to Mark’s comments on baptism, I did mention it, but not the issue of immersion.
I personally believe that baptism by immersion is the preferred mode, but not the only licit one. I see no evidence from Scripture that, in fact, baptism requires immersion. Indeed, I see indirect evidence from Scripture that other modes are licit and such a view is also expressed in the Didache (that is, that immersion (in running water) is preferred, but pouring is licit if immersion is not possible).
You are correct, however, that Luther himself expressed a preference for immersion (though he didn’t insist upon it). “On this account (as a symbol of death and resurrection), I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ.” (Luther’s Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76). I am ignorant of Calvin’s views, but would welcome a cite which supports your assertion that he also preferred immersion.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also expresses such a preference. See paragraph 1239:
“The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.”
April 15th, 2010 | 11:50 am
“For my part, I’m willing to admit that Catholics and even evangelicals are Christians, despite their multiple accretions and subtractions from true Christianity.
Why? Because I like to think of myself as broad-minded, and it saves stupid arguments.”
That’s a dangerous approach to serious matters. Its how all sorts of false teachings entered the church and how all sorts of evil has entered our laws. One should be neither overly narrow-minded or broad-minded.
I don’t think ill of Mormons. I’ve had several friends who are Mormon and find them to often be more moral in their behavior and values than many orthodox Christians I know. I have good friends who are Jewish and are also people of the highest character. They don’t expect me to consider them Christian. In fact, they would be appalled if I did. The issue is not whether I like or approve of you. The question is merely one of what Christianity is.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:59 am
Taking word games seriously is even more dangerous, both legally and spiritually.
Whether Mormons are Christians by some definition is a word game. It is not a theological question. It is a semantical one.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
“Taking word games seriously is even more dangerous, both legally and spiritually.
Whether Mormons are Christians by some definition is a word game. It is not a theological question. It is a semantical one.”
With all due respect, this is the reasoning of Humpty Dumpty. Whether Mormons are Christians is most definitely a theological one. Theology is the study of God and what Mormons believe about God is not what Christians believe about Him.
I am now retiring from the field. Have at it.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
I did not read all the replies, no time this morning, so someone else may have made this same observation. It seems to me that the tests of Christianity mentioned would also exclude the Savior himself. In fact the comments in the original posting remind of the comments of those in religious authority at the time of Christ.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
One should be neither overly narrow-minded or broad-minded.
One should not care about the width of one’s mind; one should care about the truth.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:30 pm
As opposed to your own accretation: namely that when Jesus said He was with us always, even to the end of the world, He meant He was going to drop them like a hot potato and let them apostatize and then restart it over a millennium later?
April 15th, 2010 | 12:33 pm
How wonderful. Not only are Mormons Christian — so are Muslims. They believe in him, just as a prophet.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:37 pm
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God…”
It matters little whether a person, group, or a church thinks I am a Christian. What matters most is whether Christ thinks I am Christian.
“And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”
Am I Christian? I know how to find out. If I am willing to believe the answer, He will tell me.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:54 pm
In response to the thoughtful post of Ethan C.
As a Mormon and a believer that we are Christians, I found Ethan’s comments enlightening. That statements such as “the Son of God” and that “Jesus is the Savior” could be misinterpreted and misunderstood so broadly was an IQ test for me which I failed. Thanks to Ethan I better understand this issue more clearly and have a better understanding why others view us erroneously as non christian.
In my mind I still feel Mormonism belongs under the Christian designation using the capital C.
Phil
April 15th, 2010 | 12:54 pm
I’m happy with the “Mormon Christianity” solution. Can we do that and just move on? The rest of this discussion is just silly.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:18 pm
Is it what the Creeds or Dictionary says or what the Bible says that is important? The Bible says that the disciples of Christ were called Christians. Acts 11:26. And who are Christ’s disciples? John 13:35 Where in the Bible does it say anything about having to believe Creeds or traditions to be called a Christian?
April 15th, 2010 | 1:29 pm
“Would a Christian judge another by saying that they are not a Christian? Matthew 7:1
April 15th, 2010 | 1:35 pm
I’ve been hesitant to jump into this thread but a few of the comments made me think of an interesting thought experiment.
What if a new religious sect (say, former Scientologists) were to claim to be followers of both Christ and Joseph Smith. Although this group’s beliefs clearly differ from historical orthodox Christianity and historical orthodox Mormonism, they choose to refer to themselves as both Christians and Mormons.
Now I have no doubt that the orthodox Christians will object to the use of the Christian label. But would Mormons deny them the use of the term Mormon? If so, why?
April 15th, 2010 | 1:42 pm
That happens. I’m still boggled by the Mormon ability to declare that Jesus’s promise to be with us always until the end of the world means — well, nothing, as far as I can tell.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:43 pm
BTW, everyone, please remember before you insist that it’s all the Bible — that the Bible itself instruct you that no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:44 pm
Professor W. D. Davies at Duke University writes: Mormonism asserts its continuity with Israel even genealogically. It returns to the roots of Judaism and Christianity in Israel. It also restores the forms of Israel that it regards as having been corrupted by both religions through a kind of “ecclesiastical” fall. Its substructure and its structures are in the Old Testament and the New Testament. But it also reinterprets and accommodates or transfers ancient forms, in a very remarkable way, to an American setting and mode. Mormonsim is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key.
http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php
Professor Davies is not a member in LDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Davies
April 15th, 2010 | 3:04 pm
What this conversation has so far failed to cover is why Mills and other Christians are so concerned with showing that Mormons are not Christian. What do they possibly gain from this, even if they are right?
I understand that there is a value to stating that Mormons are not Christians for administrative reasons — to tell local leaders that Mormons must be baptized to join their congregations.
But that hardly justifies the incessant need to make clear this difference of opinion about how to define Christianity and who is Christian.
Would it be so horrible to simply let Mormons say they are Christian, even if you they are not?
Instead, this emphasis seems to allow people like Charles Colson to justify excluding Mormons from events where their presence could be helpful, such as the recent civility covenant spoken of on CNN (see http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/christian.civility.covenant/index.html )
April 15th, 2010 | 3:31 pm
“Would it be so horrible to simply let Mormons say they are Christian, even if you they are not?”
Yes. If orthodox Christianity is true, then it would be a terrible thing to allow Mormons to believe they are Christians when they are not. If a man has a cancer, it is not a kindness to tell him he does not. It would be a horrible thing to simply let him say he was healthy when, in fact, he has a condition that will kill him if not treated.
Further, it would be a terrible thing to remain silent while Mormons told others that they are Christians, just as it would be a terrible thing to allow cigarette companies tell the public that their products are safe and promote good health when, in fact, the opposite is true.
If you don’t believe what orthodox Christians believe is true, it doesn’t matter. If you do, it matters a great deal. A “live-and-let-live attitude on the matter is really live-and-let-die” if orthodox Christianity is true. The martyrs died defending the faith. If it doesn’t matter, their deaths were in vain.
The end-all-be-all is not including Mormons in events where their support my be helpful in advancing a political agenda (though I welcome their support so long as I do not have to gain it by embracing their faith as Christianity). The end-all-be-all is Christ. Orthodox Christianity proclaims who He really is. Mormonism does not.
April 15th, 2010 | 4:04 pm
I was already writing something answering the question Kent Larsen asks, though I would have thought the answer would be clear to either a Christian or a Mormon, as Joe Carter’s thought experiment suggests. But thinking baptism merely an “administrative” matter suggests the reason it isn’t for some.
But for now, let me suggest a parallel example. I have talked to missionaries to Muslim countries who argued that Christians ought to claim to be Muslims — devout, obedient Muslims — in order to have access to the Muslims they want to evangelize. The Muslims, understandably enough, think this is deceptive, not least since part of being a Christian is to believe that Muhammad was not the prophet Muslims believe he was.
If some Christian evangelistic group decided to evangelize Mormons and to do so by claiming to be Mormons, Mormons themselves would object. They would object because the Christian message does not include all of, and in some places contradicts parts of, the Mormon gospel, its declaration of the good news for man. And they would be right to do so.
They would be right to do so for the good of the people who might be deceived by the imposture, who would, they think, be deprived of something that would bring them greater happiness in this world and the next.
April 15th, 2010 | 4:05 pm
“St. Nicholas decked Arius for a reason, and would probably have decked Joseph Smith.”
He’d have TRIED, you mean. But were I a gambling man, in a one-on-one between a well-built, hard-working American frontier farmer (with a fondness for wrestling) and a man from a wealthy family, groomed from his childhood for an ecclesiastical career, my money would be on the farmer.
April 15th, 2010 | 5:01 pm
The simple truth is this. Mainstream Christianity relies on established traditions as agreed upon by men, over time. Reminds me of Generally Accepted Account Practices.
Mormons reject some important part of those generally accepted traditions because they (I) believe man – not God – is the source.
Mormons believe in continuing revelation which is a scary thought for most Christians. It’s understandable. Does not make it not true.
April 15th, 2010 | 5:02 pm
“Meanwhile, y’all condemn us to hell because our baptisms aren’t reciprocal with yours and we don’t believe in the post-Christ Creeds.”
Again, we “condemn” you because you condemn us, plain and simple. God the Father “told” Joseph Smith all other churches were abominations. Mormons bar Christians from their Temples, rebaptize everyone living and dead, and claim their leader can dictate revelation as inspired as every word in the Bible. Mormons teach Protestants and Catholics alike live in “The Great Apostasy,” to quote LDS authority James E. Talmage. And you have the chutzpah to play the Victim Card?
April 15th, 2010 | 6:00 pm
Mormons and Catholic/Protestant Christianity have a history of bad blood and mutual exclusion. For that matter, there are real theological differences that should not be glossed over. Those differences do not include devotion to Jesus Christ (as each group understands them) nor do they include veneration of the Bible.
It is interesting to me that both sides in this argument seem to operate from a position wherein the other has “done them wrong.” This is particularly interesting to me in light of the actual relative world and national influence of Mormonism in comparison to Protestant/Catholic Christianity. Clearly, ya’ll are more powerful; I often wonder whence the animosity?
Of course, defining doctrinal differences doesn’t equate to animosity and we can certainly work together as individuals and religions to achieve goals that are laudable no matter whose version of deity is true. There is no need to alienate one another in a pluralistic society.
April 15th, 2010 | 6:05 pm
Father Neuhaus once remarked that he did not understand why Mormons would want to be called Christians since the Christian church supposedly veered into apostasy about 1900 years ago. I think Ethan C. has it right. Most Mormons don’t really see how different their belief system is. Father Neuhaus also loved the story about changing the banner that read, “God is other people” to “God is other, people”. Do Mormons think that is funny?
April 15th, 2010 | 7:03 pm
I find it interesting that Merriam Webster, the most commonly accepted English source for definitions, lists the following as their primary or first definitions of “cult”:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents…
Has any religion been left out?
April 15th, 2010 | 8:10 pm
What I fail to understand is that Mormons are condemned as non-Christian because they believe in prophets, who were prominent throughout the Old and New Testaments–and whom the Orthodox Christians said died out at the end of the New Testament era, because God no longer needed such to guide His people. God, therefore, must have changed the way He’d operated for thousands of years because no more was needed from Him–and He is still an unchangeable Being? Yet several hundred years later, mere mortal men (weren’t they mostly what would be called Catholics today?), not claiming to be prophets of God, since there wasn’t to be anymore of them (how about the Book of Revelation which prophesies that two prophets will be killed in Jerusalem some time in the future?), gathered and decided what God was really like, since the Bible and its prophets hadn’t been clear enough about it.
Now the Protestants say the Catholics are going to hell, and it goes the other way, too–few will say that out loud, when they are talking about the Mormons. And yet, they all consider themselves Christians because they believe the conclusions of men hundreds of years after the Bible was closed, which conclusions are accepted to be at least as important as the Biblical scripture! (Does that seem the least bit inconsistent to anyone?) However, the one thing they seem to agree on is that the Mormons are all going to hell, while their own individual, chosen groups will go to heaven by themselves. Just suppose for a moment that the Mormons are right. What will it be like when you cross over to the Other Side? Will the Mormons let you in after all the vitriol and Final Judgment condemnations you have spewed out against them?
Is it possible that the main reason Orthodox Christians are so adamant about Mormons not being Christian, is that if Mormons were acknowledged as such, it would give them credibility and more people would pay attention to them, which just might cut down the cash-flow into the coffers of Orthodox Christianity?
April 15th, 2010 | 8:40 pm
Ethan C. (I guess) and Robert Moody,
It is precisely because we don’t equate the term Christianity with membership in a particular ecclesiastical group that renders definitions grounded in the traditions of the Catholic/Protestant family of faiths fairly meaningless for most Mormons. Of course, the status of God in Mormonism remains fairly debatable. We think we can become like him, but what that means differs with the commentator (and I am familiar with Mormons who don’t believe we can be like him in any case).
I’ve heard people describe the process of defining Mormon theology as the process of nailing jello to a wall. As a Mormon, I can only repeat that judicial phrase, “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.” There is quite a bit above that doesn’t fit with how I understand Mormonism and see it practiced/preached. But perhaps I am being too hard on outsiders, as I have to approach everything I say about it with nuance and consideration even though I’ve been a member all my life. And, as I noted above, it’s not like outsiders take Mormonism seriously (as this thread demonstrates) so who cares about real understanding, right?
April 15th, 2010 | 8:58 pm
Gregory K. Laughlin: “A dictionary definition is not necessarily a very good source to understand what a term means.”
HAR! I love it.
Okey dokey. So dictionaries are not good sources to understand the meaning of words in English. Classic.
I suppose you think the best way to understand the meaning of words in English is to invent your own definitions to suit your agenda… That is admittedly a pretty convenient way to deal with those pesky actual definitions of words.
April 15th, 2010 | 9:00 pm
First there are two Nick’s afoot with one (not me) probably being a Mormon.
As to the question, “does it matter?” if you take your religion seriously it -has- to matter. We aren’t humpty-dumpty; words matter. The faith it expresses matters.
If you are Christian then that says something very important about us.
PS – Good to “see” you again Seth.
April 15th, 2010 | 9:20 pm
Surprisingly mature conversation here.
I think it’s odd that there are basically two arguments to exclude Mormons from Christianity. Protestants tend to argue that because of their appeal to authority outside of the Bible, the are not Christian. Catholics tend to argue that the not accepting the Nicean creed excludes Mormons from Christianity. (of course, the creed itself isn’t exactly in the Bible either, but we’ll leave that for another time).
For all the talk about the if the Mormons accept the creed, no one has brought up what it actually says. I think this is worth looking at, since as it’s been pointed out, simply saying, I believe in Christ probably is too broad, as many Muslims may agree with this.
What are the basic Christian doctrines?
From the Nicean creed:
1. Belief in God (Mormons believe this)
2. Belief that God created the world (Mormons believe this)
3. Belief that Christ is the son of God (Mormons believe this)
4. Belief that the son is of one “substance” with the father (depends what you mean by substance. Mormons believe they are one in purpose)
5. Belief Christ was born of the Virgin Mary (Mormons believe this)
6. Belief that Christ was crucified and resurrected (Mormons believe this)
7. Belief that Christ ascended to heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father (not only do Mormons believe this, they even believe the Father has a right hand to sit by!)
8. Belief that Christ shall judge us (Mormons believe this)
9. Belief in the Holy Ghost (Mormons believe this)
10. Belief in the Catholic Church (Can’t say Mormons believe this)
11. Belief in baptism for the remission of sins (Mormons believe this).
12. Belief in the resurrection of the dead and life in the world to come (Mormons believe this)
Most Muslims would have a hard time answering yes to 3 or 4 of those. Mormons answer yes to 10 and a half.
Other than the exactly what the writers of creed meant when they said the Son is of the same essence with the father (and belief in the Catholic church) Mormons have no problem with the general doctrines of the Nicean Creed. The church does not officially accept it as an inspired text, but I think if you read the text to a Mormon, they would agree with most of it.
Mormon interpretation may differ on those doctrines, but that’s why there are different churches.
Mormons may distinguish themselves from other branches of Christianity. We are not insulted if you don’t accept our baptisms. We don’t accept yours. We are insulted when you say we aren’t Christian, as it is often used as an attack and to say that Latter-day Saints don’t believe in Christ or believe in a different Christ.
Mormons aren’t Catholic.
Mormons aren’t Orthodox.
Mormons aren’t Protestant.
But Mormons are Christian.
April 15th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
>Okey dokey. So dictionaries are not good sources to understand the meaning of words in English. Classic.
At an elementary level the dictionary is probably adequate. At a theological level clearly it is not. Additionally as Mormons worship a very different Christ than do Christians in order to apply the dictionary definition we would have to determine which Christ is being worshiped.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:01 pm
At the risk of sounding provocative, I’m going to advance the thesis that much of this nonsense, of whether mormons ”really” are christian, has more to do with historical and political factors. That is, mormonism has been remarkably successful in converting people to its church. This is, understandably, distressing to members of other (yes,I said other, since mormons are christian too) christian faiths. What a great way to trip them up, say it’s ”really” not christian! After all, this has to be the worst of put downs. My guess is that, if some of you honestly reflected on this, you would realize that this is a motivator. As far as history goes, the recent (and to my mind, very fortunate) alliance and frienship between protestant and catholic christians, can misled us into thinking that this is natural. However, even a cursory glimpse of history is enough to show that these two groups threw the ”not really christian” charge around to each other. My hope is that, say, one hundred years from now, mormons and other christians will have a comparable religious alliance, and we will shudder at how unenlightened we are now.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
It seems instructive, as I read this discussion, to look to the life and example of Jesus. He came into an orthodox Jewish setting, and completely upset the apple cart, so to speak. Against the traditions of his time, he openly consorted with Samaritans, gentiles, women, and sinners, and seemed to suggest by his actions that he welcomed them all into his circle of friends. He taught the Pharisees that many of their presumptions were incorrect, even wicked. He completely did away with their laws of religion. He taught to all the sin of hypocrisy, and the value of unity. He rebuked his own disciples when they seemed to be displaying a spirit of exclusiveness or unrighteous judgment or just plain obtuseness.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not pointing fingers at any particular side in this discussion, but at all sides. Frail, imperfect, fallen humans that we are, we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. When or if we stand before the judgment bar of God, all of us who consider ourselves Christian, be we Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, or what-have-you, will be surprised, shocked and astonished at all that we did not know or understand in this life.
If we truly desire to follow Jesus Christ, I suspect that our emphasis should be on inclusion, unity, reaching out to those who suffer, humbly acknowledging our lack of knowledge, and patiently seeking for more. And on extending a hand of friendship, regardless of our faith traditions.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:09 pm
David Gray,
If I can get you allowing that Mormons worship a Christ, I feel like we are making progress in this conversation. I would have phrased it “Mormons worship invokes very different conception of Christ when compared to the Catholic/Protestant conception of Christ.” Certainly, we all lay claim to worshipping the fellow who wandered around Palestine in the 1st century, healing, teaching, dying on the cross, and resurrecting. Unless he had a secret twin (Thomas?) we seem to argue that we worship the same guy. However, how we understand who he was (and is) is radically different.
Howsabout you call us “Different Christians” if “Mormon Christian” won’t roll off your tongue?
April 15th, 2010 | 10:15 pm
David Gray: At an elementary level the dictionary is probably adequate.
Yes, well if by “at an elementary level” you mean “in actual English” I completely agree.
It is pretty funny though when individual Christian sects try to co-opt the term “Christian” for themselves. I know lots of Evangelicals who insist that the terms refers only to Evangelicals (to the exclusion of Catholics of course).
April 16th, 2010 | 12:15 am
To Joseph Stanko,
I suppose the distinction we (Mormons) make in regards to revelation has to do with prayer and direct revelation from God. We tend to believe that logic, a tremendous amount of debate, and majority voting brought about the Nicean and other creeds and this can take you far, but not to revelation. (We also believe all this happened during the great apostacy.) However, for Mormons when doctrinal issues are at stake, nothing is done until a unanimous conclusion has been brought about by the Holy Ghost – often through fasting and prayer (and debate). If Mormons have a message that is sometimes neglected, it is – don’t take our word for it, study it out and ask God. When you know something from God – the philosophies of man can be exposed.
I apologize if this tangent is too off topic, but I wanted to attempt to address that question.
Also, even when Christ was telling wicked people off, he was, in fact, being “Christlike” although it’s not the kind of behavior anyone wants to prevail in general. But he has the authority.
As for the question at hand, without Jesus Christ, we have no church – period. Everything else is just bonus material.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:17 am
A few thoughts
**First**
I must say feel the need to point out that the term “Mormons” is a term applied to members of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” by others. We never declared that we were “Mormons”, it’s simply a term used by non-LDS that stuck, and for convenience and understanding we have all joined the social convention of using it. I will admit it is a lot easier to type so I will use the term “Mormons” from this point forward.
As for wanting to be called Christians, and as one poster fallaciously asserted wanting to be more like main stream Christians I have this to say.
1. We are simply seeking to use the proper term for one whom accepts Jesus Christ as their savior and follows his gospel. That proper term is “Christian”.
a. What is Jesus Christ’s Gospel, the one we Mormons teach and believe? It is not hard to pin down, It is very clearly stated in The Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 11:20+ in particular verses 33, 37, 38 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11
b. Please, also check out: (it should clarify what Mormons believe)
i. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/8,12-14,17-18,21#8
ii. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/19/9,13,20-22#9
iii. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/27/20#20
iv. http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/
2. We don’t want to be more like mainstream, we think we are right where we are supposed to be. We are not changing Christ’s Living and Revealed Gospel to fit in or masquerade as something we are not. We still teach that Jesus Christ is alive and well, restored his Gospel through Joseph Smith and continues to guide his people through prophets and revelation just as he did with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah… We still believe the windows of heaven are open and Jesus being a real Live Savior is Active in the world today, giving us guidance, revelations and scriptures as he sees fit.
3. As for our other practices and beliefs, they are not unfounded, they are seeded throughout the Bible and have been brought forth in a fullness of understanding in these days.
a. Temples and Prophets are not new and God does not Change
b. Jesus himself talks about the power to seal on earth http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/16/19#19
c. Baptism for the dead is in the new testament http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29
d. As are the kingdoms of heaven.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/12/2-3#2
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/40-41#40
e. Personally I think a pure mind unbiased by the Nicene Creed and Greek mysticism would upon reading the Bible conclude as has been revealed to Joseph Smith that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate personages, being one in unified purpose.
**Second**
Just to clarify a point about baptism that seems to be entirely missed here, and explains why the LDS baptize everyone.
Joe Snuffy can’t just walk up to Billy and declare him to be a mayor or a judge (or police, lawyer, Dr., Soldier…) and presto Billy is now a Judge. In order for Billy to become a judge he must be sworn in by one in authority in a properly recognized ceremony established by the law.
God’s house is a house of order, and being such baptism must be performed by one with proper authority in a manner established by God. In Acts 19:2-5 you encounter men who were re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by an apostle who had been given authority by Jesus Christ. This was done for a reason, and that reason is that Gods house is a house of order.
The laws we follow in this world are can be an example, after all it would be quite un-orderly for Billy to wake up on Monday, decide he is a police officer and try to write his neighbor a ticket for jay walking.
When we baptize “everyone” (new members and those beyond the vale) we are not making them “mormons”, we are providing everyone the opportunity to enter in by the gate as Disciples of Jesus Christ having been baptized by one having authority from Jesus Christ.
**Third**
Please considered the possibility that it is not the Mormon’s but in fact those who prescribe to the Nicene Creed whom are the heretic’s having departed from Jesus Christ’s Gospel. That they are standing on the outside just as the Scribes and Pharisees were, guarding their man made traditions and priest crafts, fighting to stay inside the confines of a box contrived by men all the while rejecting the true continuing works of a Real Living God, which were actually happening 2000 years ago and are really happening right now.
Look at it this way, what if Abraham had lived 200 years ago and his descendants were living all around you. You have been raised in a tradition that was in place before Abraham. Would Abraham appear to be the monumental man of God that he truly is to those living a mere 200 years after his death as neighbors to his descendants? He might seem like a cook to you, but what you think does not change what is, the truth is the truth independent man’s interpretation. Are you missing out on the real thing because you are afraid to go against the wisdom and understanding of the world and listen to the truth that is inside you calling you to Living Gospel, real prophets, revelation, a Real God who continues to bring forth His works in the Latter Days?
April 16th, 2010 | 2:05 am
Basically, what you are saying is, “a Christian is anyone who believes the same way I do, or the way I think they should”.
The Dictionary defines “Christian” as “A follower of Jesus and his teachings. Christian is also a descriptive term for the institutions and practices of Christianity.”
Easton’s Bible dictionary says “the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).”
I’ll leave it up to everyone to determine who is or isn’t a Christian. But in the end, it’s up to God. Personally, I’m not worried about it.
April 16th, 2010 | 9:35 am
So, basically what we’re sayin’ is…
David Mills and the traditional creed-based Christians in this debate are defining “Christianity” theologically. That is, they are attempting to identify the boundaries of Christendom that God sees and accepts.
Mormons are more concerned with the colloquial meaning of “Christian” that identifies a person as a follower of Jesus. This is the definition that journalists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and just about everyone uses, and it doesn’t have to do with salvation. It’s simply a classification. It isn’t about finding the ‘right’ definition, it’s about setting useful distinctions in taxonomy.
When traditional Christians discuss it in the first sense and their audience interprets it in the second sense, confusion erupts.
Mills: “Mormon doctrine is too far out for us to hope for their salvation.”
Listener: “Mormons hate Jesus?”
April 16th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Better question: If a Mormon prays in the forest and there’s no traditional Christian there to hear it, is it still an offensive blasphemy? :)
April 16th, 2010 | 11:01 am
So far no one has attempted to respond to one of the strongest arguments against Mills. Blake pointed out that by Mills’s definition, Jesus Christ is not a Christian. The apostles of the New Testament by his definition are not Christian.
April 16th, 2010 | 11:43 am
To BHodges: Actually, I, and I assume others, didn’t respond to that argument because . . . it’s a really silly argument. The Christian contention is that the Councils’ formulations describe, as guided by the Holy Spirit Jesus gave to the Church, who Jesus is.
Jesus and the Apostles and the Christians who followed the Lord before the Councils all knew who he is, though they didn’t know that particular way of putting it (though the Nicene Creed itself grew from very ancient statements). The belief is that were St. Paul presented with the Nicene Creed in its final form, he would have said, “Yes, that’s it, exactly.”
One may not believe this, of course, but it does explain why arguments like the above don’t apply. Christians who insist on the authority of the Creeds aren’t stupid enough to insist on something that would unchurch the Apostles. I mean, really.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:10 pm
David,
As long as you’re responding, I wouldn’t mind to hear your thoughts on the 12 points contained in the Nicean creed and how Mormons probably agree with 10 or 11 (depending on what meaning of the word substance or essence means) of them.
Also, it’s interesting you note that the Creed grew from older statements … one of those ancient documents is the Apostles’ Creed, which incidentally, doesn’t contain any reference to the Catholic Church, or the Father and the Son being of the same substance, the two points Mormons (or even perhaps Apostolic Christians) might have some questions about.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
Art Director: The conversation has been very helpful to me, and that particular post one of the most helpful. I’m writing a follow-up post, but not now, since I have to finish editing a manuscript and get to a plane.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:41 pm
“The belief is that were St. Paul presented with the Nicene Creed in its final form, he would have said, ‘Yes, that’s it, exactly.’”
But that is a *belief* as opposed to a fact. Frankly, I think Paul would have called it nonsense. But you and I have to agree to disagree on that fact, and our disagreement marks neither of us as “non-Christian.”
The link I provided earlier confounds your “Mormons aren’t Christians” argument. For example:
“The great creeds and the ecumenical councils of mainstream Christendom—while they can clearly be used to demonstrate that Mormonism is out of step with the evolution of “historic Christianity,” a proposition no informed Latter-day Saint would care to dispute—furnish very weak grounds upon which to deny that Mormons are Christian. This is so for at least three reasons: (1) the creeds do not include all the groups generally viewed as Christian; (2) they are themselves innovative, and of a nature foreign to the Bible; and (3) the ecumenical councils that generated the creeds have never been viewed as consigning those whom they anathematized to ‘non-Christianity.’”
This is right on. You disagree with the second premise, which is debatable. Point three isn’t as debatable, however. The authors go on to substantiate these reasons citing the relevant historical information.
Your “Mormons aren’t Christians” argument seems to be more of a reaction to Glenn Beck’s nonsense than anything else. An eye for an eye via theology. Regardless, I’m a Mormon, I’m a Christian.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:58 pm
Sounds good.
If it is helpful, here is the text of the Old Roman Apostles’ Creed:
1. I believe in God The Father Almighty.
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
3. Who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary;
4. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried;
5. The third day he rose from the dead;
6. He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
8. And in the Holy Ghost;
9. The Holy Church;
10. The forgiveness of sins;
11. The resurrection of the body
I think you would hard-pressed to find a Mormon who would not agree with every single word contained in it.
You said two things that were very interesting to me:
1- “Nicene Creed itself grew from very ancient statements”
I won’t post the text of the Nicean creed, but if you read it, you will notice it’s much longer. So I agree whole-heartedly that it GREW out of the old documents. It added things like the Father and the Son are of the same substance. It added words like Catholic and Very Light of Very Light. These additions are exactly the kinds of things Mormons point to when they say the church slowly wandered away from inspired teaching found in the bible and was replaced by philosophers. That is the Mormon interpretation and others may interpret it differently, but there’s not doubt things were added to creeds by 400 AD that weren’t there in 200 AD.
2- You also said “One may not believe this”.
Well, it sounds to me in your original post that I do need to believe this if I want to be considered a Christian by you.
Looking forward to your post. Good luck on your flight.
April 16th, 2010 | 2:57 pm
In other words, they believe the Gates of Hell not only can but did prevail over the Church that Jesus founded on Peter. They also disbelieve that Jesus gave Peter the keys to heavenly kingdom. And that Peter, and the apostles collectively, were given the power to bind and loose not only on earth but in heaven.
As for that “I”, it gives the whole ballgame away. Peter warned you: no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Since Scripture also instructs you to hold fast to the traditions you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter, using personal interpretation to discredit those traditions is doubly wrong.
April 16th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
Incidentally, given that the canon of the New Testament was fixed long after apostasy had to have occurred — if all the doctrines you wish to reject are indeed apostasy — how on earth can you justify citing the sacred scripture according to apostates? Surely you should regard it as equivalent to citing the Gospel of Judas?
April 16th, 2010 | 3:06 pm
Joe, you comment that “God the Father “told” Joseph Smith all other churches were abominations. Mormons bar Christians from their Temples, rebaptize everyone living and dead, and claim their leader can dictate revelation as inspired as every word in the Bible.” Exodus 20:16 Your statement is far form the truth. God the Father did not tell Joseph Smith that all other churches were abominations. He did say that the creeds were an abomination. Mormons do not bar Christians from the Temples, we all go in regularly. And yes we do believe that God still has the right to speak to His Prophets. Amos 3:7
April 16th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
The Mormon acceptance of the Nicene Creed is more of the same. You accept the words, but deny the meaning which the words have ALWAYS been taken to convey by orthodox Christians, including those who drafted those words, fought over them (literally, St. Nicholas punched Arius) and ratified them and those who upheld and confessed them from the fourth century to the twenty-first.
The bishops at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were not innovators; they were resisting the innovators. They simply used the ancient baptismal creeds of the Church to articulate what Jesus taught (as recorded in the Gospels) and what the Apostle believed and spread.
Either Mormons are not Christians at all or they are heretics. It’s that simple. If you prefer being labeled heretics, then so be it.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Mary, Latter-day Saints will point out that you are conflating the gates of hell, ie Hades, death, the grave, the realm of departed spirits, etc. with an apostasy of the Church on earth. Important elements of Christianity obviously remained on the earth throughout what Latter-day Saints refer to as the apostasy. Belief in Jesus Christ being one of those absolutely crucial elements. When they speak of apostasy generally Latter-day Saints are thinking in terms of authority and direct revelation from God to mortals. This is somewhat similar to the Catholic view that the apostolic authority has continued from Peter to the present time. Latter-day Saints believe that authority was lost and then restored, although individually Christian communities and believers still had elements of the faith. The “gates of hell” scripture does not conflict with the LDS doctrine of an apostasy.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:43 pm
I also found the debate interesting along with the original article.
It’s very easy to consider someone a heretic when they believe something different from you.
I’m LDS and personal do not strive to fit in with the title of “Christian” because I do not believe the Nicene Creed, nor the Trinity, nor do I believe they are Biblical doctrines when the words of Christ Himself are critically examined.
Christ referred to His follows as Saints, so I am very happy with the term “Latter-Day ‘Saint’” over the modernized term “Christian.”
I also find it interesting that the Catholic Church would condemn LDS baptism while validating other sects when let’s all be intellectually honest here: if everyone thought that we were all correct then there wouldn’t be the different sects and doctrines. Catholics believe they’re the only correct church, Mormon’s believe they’re the only correct church, etc. etc. etc.. Saying that a bunch of different churches that preach some very different things are all unified in Christ is a cop out and a politically correct excuse. Is it really so bad to disagree respectfully? I have friends who believe I’m going to Hell and I’m still okay with being their friend, I believe they’re completely misguided and their argument is full of holes but that doesn’t devalue his/her faith or mine.
Also, comparing Mormonism to Islam is a mute point. Completely different doctrines.
I also agree with Art Director, Old Roman Apostles’ Creed is pretty straight forward and would be hard pressed finding a Mormon who doesn’t agree with all of the statements.
It’s easy to validate someone’s beliefs against another by dismissing anyone with a dissenting view as a heretic. It’s typically the majority that establishes public opinions and social norms. So if the majority is crying heretic at the minority and the minority is crying heretic at the majority at the same time, who is going to be considered the heretic in the long run right or wrong? Think about it.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:50 pm
Like Muslims who will tell you that they believe in Jesus, only as a prophet.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:53 pm
“In other words, they believe the Gates of Hell not only can but did prevail over the Church that Jesus founded on Peter.”
They don’t necessarily believe the gates of hell prevailed over the church. The Bible survived. Christian ideas survived. Simply believing authority was lost some time after the apostles died doesn’t mean the Mormons wake up every day looking for ways to deny the words of Christ.
“They also disbelieve that Jesus gave Peter the keys to heavenly kingdom. And that Peter, and the apostles collectively, were given the power to bind and loose not only on earth but in heaven.”
Mormons most certainly do believe that Jesus gave Peter the keys of authority. Mormons believe that Peter, James and John appeared as resurrected beings and restored the authority of church to Joseph Smith (kind of like how Moses and others appeared on the mount of transfiguration). It’s certainly not what others believe, but that’s why Mormon doctrine is unique. It’s a church of restoration, not reformation.
“How on earth can you justify citing the sacred scripture according to apostates? ”
Mormon cannon is not determined by a scholarly counsel that was held long ago. Mormon cannon is open and determined by the living prophet. There is a living prophet today who can say, just like Paul said in his day, “follow me, like I follow the Lord.”
Again, the LDS Church is a church of restoration. The Bible is in their cannon because when the church was established (after the authority had been given from Peter) they said “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
If the living prophets say they are going to add a newly discovered text to the cannon, the church would be prepared for that, but it has yet to happen. Until then, Mormons will continue to site the Bible as the word of God because that’s the church’s foundational beliefs state.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:54 pm
I’m not conflating it. You are disserving it. If the Church teaches falsehood, Hell has prevailed over it.
And only unimportant elements did not? then what’s the fuss?
If important elements were removed, then, yes, Hell prevailed.
April 16th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
that do not teach what you do: that baptism we practice did not originate with Christ but with Adam, despite clear distinctions drawn between the baptism for Christians and the mere baptism of John.
Yes! The dreadful sin of schism would end! Jesus’s prayer that we all would be one would be fulfilled! How glorious!
April 16th, 2010 | 4:39 pm
“Yes! The dreadful sin of schism would end! Jesus’s prayer that we all would be one would be fulfilled! How glorious!”
That would be lovely. I’m sure the Lord does not smile upon doctrinal bickering about if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three in substance, or are three in essence, or are three separate beings but one in purpose, or what exactly those words could be understood to mean.
I don’t think the Nicean creed is the most problematic. Look at the creeds form the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. They were long twisting documents that not only stated what you could believe, but what you could not believe. They split hairs between every branch and denomination. That fighting is what I think was an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
While some people may say accuse Mormons of not being Christian out of love of pure doctrine, other seem to do it out of an attack and fear, sometimes trying to put down and distort LDS belief … and that kind of behavior probably it’s exactly smiled upon the Lord, either.
April 16th, 2010 | 4:44 pm
“that do not teach what you do: that baptism we practice did not originate with Christ but with Adam, despite clear distinctions drawn between the baptism for Christians and the mere baptism of John.”
The Catholic Church does not validate outside itself, be intellectually honest.
When you say “we,” who are you speaking on behalf of exactly?
“Yes! The dreadful sin of schism would end! Jesus’s prayer that we all would be one would be fulfilled! How glorious!”
Naivity mixed with pias “wit” isn’t how you win arguments.
The argument against Mormons by using Catholic points to validate non-Catholic Christian doctrines is naive at best. Also claiming that all of the Christian churches, so long as they believe in the Trinity, are united through Christ; even though many of the pastors out there are condeming more than simply the Mormons or Catholics to Hell in their sermons, is a completely silly attempt to justify the schisms. I’ve been to many churches and heard the condemnations personally.
Like I said, let’s be intellectually honest here. Admitting the differences within the Christian community and the mutual condemnation many of these sects towards one another is merely a step in actual discourse in either doctrine or relationship building.
April 16th, 2010 | 6:25 pm
Geoff J, let’s go by your dictionary definition that a Christian is a follower of Christ.
Suppose I say I respect “Geoff J”, but I define “Geoff J” as being that woman in Calcutta who started the “Kalighat Home for the Dying”, would I *really* respect you or Mother Teresa by another name?
Similarly, Jesus isn’t just an abstract concept like “beautiful” or “excellence” which we can all agree on as being good, even if we define them differently. He’s something concrete. To worship Jesus, you have to worship someone with specific attributes.
So who is Jesus? Jesus is God. Great, we’re making progress….but what is God? God is the Creator of all things, the Universe, and Time itself. God is also a Trinity. Great, more progress. But what’s a Trinity? The early councils spent a lot of time coming up with a definition that corresponded to what everyone already knew to be true but didn’t have a word for. This is at the heart of Christianity and cannot be put aside. Without it, a Hindu who thinks that Jesus is another incarnation of Krishna can legitimately call himself a Christian.
It’s also critical because it has a direct impact on our lives and how we live. We’re talking about the nature of reality, so it’s not surprising.
So Mormons are not Christian by your dictionary definition and no amount of hurt feelings can change that.
April 16th, 2010 | 6:30 pm
“And only unimportant elements did not? then what’s the fuss?”
Mary, forgive me for saying so, but I am sensing a little aggression coming from your direction. If you would exercise a little more patience and charity in my direction I am more than happy to help you understand my Mormon view. If you’d like to debate who is right and who is wrong we might just be wasting our time. If you’d like to understand how a Mormon understands the problems you raise I hope you’ll stop trying to put words in my mouth.
April 16th, 2010 | 6:32 pm
Mary,
You seem incensed. It’s okay. Stop a take a breath. Count to 10. Go for a walk. We’ll still be here.
Re: Christ, I believe he is the Son of God who sits on the Right Hand of the Father; I believe that he atoned for the sins of the world; I believe he lived; I believe that he was conceived of Mary via the Holy Ghost; I believe he was crucified, that he died, and that he rose on the third day. If that strikes you as approaching Christ as a prophet, then I am deeply interested in how you approach prophets.
Regarding the apostasy, Mormons certainly aren’t alone in calling the Catholic church apostate (Protestants have been doing it a lot longer). I’m curious regarding the animosity directed specifically at us. Are you equally defensive regarding Protestant claims?
But perhaps you are more incensed by the idea that Satan’s influence might overwhelm Christs. I mean, it is not like Lucifer is called the Prince of this World or anything. Fear not, Mary, that’s why God restored his Gospel. ;)
More seriously, Mormons can and will point to many religious folk as being inspired of God during the period of what we consider the great apostasy. It is inaccurate to portray us as believing that Hell prevailed; it is more accurate to portray us as saying that Hell was prevailing. Also, Mormons tend to see the Apostasy as occurring primarily in the 1st and 2nd century, so we’ve got the letters of Paul and all of the Gospels. So don’t fret about our feelings regarding the Christian canon. We tend to like it.
April 16th, 2010 | 7:00 pm