Are Mormons Christian?
Jonathan Rowe on Dec 9th 2006
Some Mormons get very offended when you assert they aren’t Christians. Reader Doug Davidson, a Mormon, posted a comment of reprimand directed at me. It’s reproduced below:
Mr. Rowe,
I realize that it was not your intention, in writing this article, to falsely represent the “Mormon” religion as being “non-Christian”. In fact, the correct title of the “Mormon” church is, “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints”.
Now, what person, driving down the street, reading that sign on the side of a building could come to any other conclusion but that they were looking at a CHRISTIAN house of worship. The primary book of the religion is the very same Bible that is read and studied throughout Christianity. No doubt, your false conception (and that of the “evangelical Protestant and Catholic” critics [who, of course, are completely objective observers] arises from the fact that “Mormons” also hold as sacred another volume of Scripture entitled, “The Book of Mormon”. Have you ever taken the opportunity to open up the pages of this book? If so, you either have a significant deficiency in your powers of observation and/or your ability to read and comprehend the simplest of phrases. If you have not, I ask you what right (morally or scholarly) you have to make such a demonstrably false assertion in a publicly circulated article in which you purport to be learned and scholarly on the subject of religion. If you’d bother to take the time to educate yourself, you’d notice, that the full title of the book is, “The Book of Mormon; Another Testament of Jesus Christ” and on the TITLE PAGE of the Book of Mormon, the purpose of that book is clearly stated. Is it to glorify a personage by the name of “Mormon”? Is it to to deify Joseph Smith, the ‘earthly founder’ of the religion? Let me quote, ..
..”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…” That is the stated purpose of the book, and, upon reading it, you would find the divinity of Jesus Christ to be its central theme, cover to cover. Its sole purpose is to promote Faith in and Obedience to Jesus Christ and the principles he taught. It testifies that He is the Savior of all Mankind, on all continents, all lands, and even the isles of the sea, not just the Jews in Israel. It fulfills the prohecy uttered from His own lips, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16) It tells of how, after His resurrection, he appeared to His disciples on the American continent,showed them the wounds in his hands and feet, taught them His Gospel, healed the sick, and basically re-enacted the same things He did during His ministry in Isreal. So, if the Protestants and Catholics have one book that teaches and testifies of Christ, and that qualifies them as “Christians”, then you might be able to argue that Mormons have TWICE the reason to call themselves Christians as others who profess to be, but you would have a difficult time supporting the argument that “Mormons” are not Christians !!!You may have guessed, that I AM a “Mormon”, and I testify to you, that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God; that He was concieved as the son of Mary and the Son of God; that He lived a perfect life, as an example to us and to qualify as the one and only worthy to take away my sins; that He suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross to pay for my sins; that, as the mortal son of Mary, He had the ability to die, and as the immortal Son of God, He had the ability to resurrect himself, breaking the bonds of Death and making the ressurection of my corrupt body into an eternal and incorruptible one, possible.
I testify that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior; that there is NONE OTHER through whom I can receive eternal salvation and exaltation. I testify of these things IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.
If you still have any lingering doubts, please go to and do some more research.
Please, in the future, should you have the opportunity, make it clear to your readers, listeners, etc., that “Mormons” are members of the Church of Jesus Christ, and are, in fact and in deed, Christians.
Thank you for your time.
Doug Davidson
Though I am a baptized Catholic and not an atheist, I don’t consider myself “Christian,” hence I’m an “outsider” to this theological debate. I’ve dealt with this issue before. I’m not trying to insult Mormons, but rather give a very specific understanding to the term “Christian.”
My particular interest is religion and the Founding, specifically the “Christian Nation” (or “Christian America”) claim. America is demographically strongly Christian and almost all of the Founders had some sort of at least formal or nominal connection to a “Christian” Church (for instance, Jefferson, Madison and Washington were all Episcopalian/Anglican). In a very broad sense, they were “Christian” as is anyone who identifies as Christian (as Jefferson and Adams did) or is nominally connected to a Christian Church. Given that I’m baptized Catholic (my final stop in that Church), one could plausibly categorize me as a Christian. John Shelby Spong, who is not only pro-gay, but like our key Founders denies much of the theology of the Bible (the miracles and prophesies), is likewise a “Christian Bishop” under this broad understanding.
Since I reject, on historical grounds, the “Christian Nation” claim, I am obviously dealing with a much narrower definition of the term “Christian,” indeed one defined by the orthodox Trinitarians who put forth such claim. And according to such historically defined standards one much accept certain basic creeds — most notably the Nicene Creed — to qualify as a “Christian.” I was simply noting if that is how one defines “Christian,” then our key Founders like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin weren’t “Christians,” just as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are similarly disqualified under this narrow historical understanding.
That is the perspective from which I am looking when I make such a claim. Of course, it’s possible to look at this issue from different perspectives and define Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and our key Founders (even though they were theological unitarians and universalists) as “Christians,” just as it’s possible to define theological and social liberals like Gene Robinson and John Shelbly Spong as “Christians.” Certainly, to an outsider to Western-Christian culture looking in, like one from the Islamic nations, all of these qualify as “Christian” because all have evolved out of historic Christian Churches and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Filed in The Belfry
You’re quite clear about your use of the term Christian in this context, Jon, even though it was obvious in the original post that you were talking about how typical Protestants and Catholics react to LDS. Doug Davidson, perhaps because he’s tired of that reaction, seems to have had a bit of a knee jerk response.
But, let’s face it, to most everyone outside the LDS church, the LDS beliefs are downright wacky. We all know of cults that hold strange beliefs — Scientology leaps to mind. Yet the LDS church, with 12 million members worldwide (4 million active by some counts) and pretty much a whole US state of its own, is hardly a common cult. I think that’s one reason most of us sort of step back in surprise when we learn what LDS teaches.
It’s one thing to read in the Bible the story of how Moses got the Ten Commandments from God millenia ago. It’s quite another to read the story of how the angel Moroni quided Joseph Smith Jr to gold plates buried in upstate New York which Smith translated into the Book of Mormon — all this less than 200 years ago. Only recently (1970s?) were African Americans accepted as equals in the LDS church. In the 1800s polygamy was practiced. They baptize the dead. There is sacred underwear to be worn at all times. And that’s just the beginning and not even the strangest beliefs.
What’s most telling are the Ex-Mormon support groups, the tales of “disfellowship” and excommunication. Just search the web to get more details.
Of course LDS members are entitled to their beliefs and have the right to practice their religion. And other religions hold some odd beliefs too. But it comes as no surprise to this atheist that many Protestants and Catholics think LDS is too strange to be Christian as they define the term.
Of course they are Christians. Just because protestants often use their sect as a synonym for Christianity at large doesn’t mean we should accept their centric point of view. Too often this is allowed, and the point of views of unpopular Christian sects in the west (Orthodox church is the best examples) completely gets left out because the doctrine is different. There are more interesting questions of this variety, I think, such as “are Christians Jews” or “Are Buddhists Hindus”.
Jon,
A fairly standard litmus test for Christian vs not, is whether a person (or sect) affirms the Nicene Creed. It is my understanding that the LDS, Spong, and perhaps the founders as well do not. As the Nicene creed was specifically developed as a statement made for the purpose of distinguishing Christian from non-Christian there is historical precedent for its use for that purpose.
I think the best response to Mr Davidson is to ask him point-blank whether he affirms the creed or not. If not then he is not, by the standards set by the historical Church, Christian.
Mark, the Nicene Creed is accepted as a litmus test by those who, not so surprisingly, believe in it. It’s rather like a liberal saying if you don’t believe in the goodness of the ACLU you are not a “real” American, or a conservative saying if you don’t support the Iraqi war you are a traitor.
I doubt most Christians could tell you what the Nicene Creed is or how it came to be.
‘It’s one thing to read in the Bible the story of how Moses got the Ten Commandments from God millenia ago. It’s quite another to read the story of how the angel Moroni quided Joseph Smith Jr to gold plates buried in upstate New York which Smith translated into the Book of Mormon — all this less than 200 years ago.’
There is no difference in these two ideas at all.
In response to AndyS:
I found a few of your comments thoughtful (esp. regarding the Nicene Creed) but a few were beyond the pale.
First, can we all have a good-natured laugh (we’re laughing with you Andy) at the above comment regarding excommunication, ” Just search the web to get more details.” Seriously Andy? Citing the web as a source of any reliability on something as important as religious faith is ridiculous. Nuff said.
The comment that I found more egregious is the following, “let’s face it, to most everyone outside the LDS church, the LDS beliefs are downright wacky.” I believe this is what a serious debate scholar would call “dicto simpliciter” or a sweeping generalization. As neither of us has hold of any hard or objective data on the matter (an unbiased opinion poll or example) we’ll have to disagree on this point. Imagine the poll question; Are Mormons wacky? Yes/No
But something as sweeping as that statement is extremely unlikely to ever be true. It’s hard to find unanimity on the subject of gravity in a large group let alone the supposed “wackiness” of a generally benign religious faith. A completely subjective source I could offer are my many acquaintances who have professed respect for my beliefs. A slightly more objective source I could offer would be a non-Mormon scholar such as Jan Schipps or others.
But rather that simply being dismissive of your thoughts, let me respond to a misconception. We don’t baptize the dead (imagine the mess). We baptize others on behalf of the dead much as Christ died on behalf of the living, dead, and unborn. You may still consider this concept wacky but at least it is a correct statement of Mormon beliefs. I find this belief to be the obvious result of a loving God who offers salvation to all regardless of when or where they lived (it’s mentioned in the New Testament 1 Corinth. 15:29).
You also mentioned the position of Blacks in the church. On this point you are right and I have found it hard to accept this sad fact of history. But to be fair, if I were to only seek out Christian denominations who have always warmly accepted blacks many would be disqualified. I’m speaking specifically of churches that were present during the Civil Rights struggle.
You also mention polygamy and underwear. I only say that both have strong precedent in biblical history and canon.
Finally let me state that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Because of this belief I joined a church bearing his name and teaching his word. I became a Mormon because I was, and still am, a Christian.
Thanks!
And just one question for Mark Olson, doesn’t the existence of a Creed prove that the definition of what it means to be a Christian has always (even far back in history) been a matter of debate?
And to which Nicean Creed would you be referring? The original creed or the one more commonly used today or the Armenian version. If you think the differences are insignificant, history would beg to differ. Serious debate and infighting is what brought about the changes to the creed. There was a great deal of disagreement at the time. My point is simply that you hold up the Nicean Creed as some monolithic standard of Christianity when it is not. It was politicaly motivated and influenced by non-believers in an effort to settle dificult questions. I actually could abide by the words of the creed. I believe them, but I don’t think it is necessary to accept the Creeds of man to be a Christian. The Nicean creed is not accpeted by many Christian congregations including the Church of Christ and some Pentecostal groups.
Thanks!
AndyS,
It may be that
… the Nicene Creed is accepted as a litmus test by those who, not so surprisingly, believe in it
But it has been used that way for some 16 centuries. There is a lot of history in its use for that method. Many if not most Christians recite the creed (or the an abbreviation) every Sunday. There may be other ways you might choose to use to define what the term “is a Christian” means, but that is the one that the Church as a whole has used more than any other. Indeed holding fast to the creed binds the Protestant, the Catholic, and the Orthodox in some idea of fellowship as Christian and is why the LDS is excluded from that “club”.
Dave,
I think you have it backwards. The existence, survival, and acceptance of the creed and its use as a method to decide whether doctrine is “in” or “out” in light of the constant struggle against heresy validates its use. I think you are right when you say that the creeds “of man” don’t really matter, in that they won’t help determine who is ultimately receives salvation. All I’m saying actually is that they are the historical method used to determine which groups are Christian and which are not. If the LDS chose to affirm the creed, then the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and mainstream protestant denominations would view them differently than they do now.
At the same time, smaller variations in the creed (e.g., the filioque) matter less than larger discrepancies which do violence to the trinity (e.g., arianist) or tradition (e.g., gnosticism).
Arius and Athanasius argument (as argued by Rowan Williams in the late 80s) was not just about Arius interpretations but about how theological disputes and teachings were to be approached. Athanasius defended the collegial and more formal/hierarchical method, while Arius was a proponent (and member) of the charismatic “small study group” method. While I think there is a place for both types of methodologies, its not so clear that if Arius had won that particular dispute whether the Church would have survived through the ensuing 17 centuries. It’s also less clear to me, how the various smaller denominational splits that have occurred especially in the 20th century are not very similar to Arius’ study groups built up around a charismatic leader (and then going on from there).
One can also well ask what there is in the Nicene Creed that Mormons can’t accept? I can’t think of too much. Check out this Mormon blog thread on the subject. I think most Mormons reject the Nicene creed simply as a way of rejecting Protestantism without really having any idea of what’s in the creed. By the same measure I doubt most Protestants could tell you anything about the creed. Further many lay Protestants clearly have beliefs contrary to the creed in my experience. But no one goes around saying they aren’t Christian.
Mark et al, let me call what I believe is a bluff. If being Christian is all about the Nicean Creed in your book, I Dave Adams (a practicing Mormon) do hereby accept the Nicean Creed. I recited it just now (you’ll have to take my word for it). So am I Dave Adams, a Mormon, now also a Christian in your view? If not we sure wasted a lot of bandwidth on what was nothing more than Mark’s Red Herring. And remember you can’t lie, I believe that’s still a part of Christianity.
Thanks!
Dave,
I’m not bluffing. If you profess/confess the Creed and say you believe what it contains, I’ll call you Christian (and if Pentacostals and Spong for that matter do not, I’ll say they are not).
It’s my understanding that your Church does not. In that case then, why remain Mormon if your beliefs are different? How much theological leeway does the LDS permit?
When I was learning about Roman Catholicism in my high school religion classes, we did not specifically use the Nicean Creed as the test of “Christianity.” Rather, according to the nuns and priests who taught me, to be considered a Christian church the denomination had to have an unbreakable line back to the early apostles. Clearly the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations meet that challenge, as do most mainline Protestant churches (Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans), because they broke off directly from the Roman church. However, we were taught that Southern Baptists, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, and most, if not all, nondenominational evangelical or fundamentalist churches are cults (but not in the Moonie, programmed, “give me all your money” definition), and not truly Christian, because they arose from other sources well after the founding of the “true” churches. Of course, the Protestant denominations were all considered heretics anyway, so we had a limited view of what were acceptable theologies.
There was one point of theological contention, however, that I always considered key to separating Mormons from other “Christians,” (aside from the need to have faith in the testimony of Joseph Smith, that is; there are significant historical reasons to doubt Mr. Smith’s veracity - but then again, I doubt the worthiness of Paul’s epistles to be considered scripture) - the question of the number of gods. As I understand it, all good Mormon men, after death, will be granted their own world to govern, with their wives around them as support. Thus, the “god” of our world would be one of any number of gods, making Mormonism polytheistic, and therefore outside the realm of Christianity. I may be wrong on this point, but assuming I am not, that might be a more definitive point on which to make distinctions.
Mark, I’ll repeat my question. Where in the Nicene Creed do you think Mormons are problematic? I don’t see it. The big divide between traditional Christians and Mormons is over creation ex nihilo not the nature of the Godhead that I can see.
And, to be fair, we still have to deal with the fact that most lay Christians don’t know the creed and espouse beliefs about God that run counter to it. (At least based upon my experience discussing beliefs while on my mission) It seems unfair to hold Mormons to a different standard.
Mark,
You’ll excuse my scepticism but I spent two years as a missionary having (primarily) Evangelicals throw this charge at me daily (Mormons aren’t Christian). It bothered me as it would someone who ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN CHRIST (why else would I care).
When I asked why I wasn’t a Christian they said it was because ‘I didn’t believe in Jesus Christ’. They said I needed to accept him as my Lord and Savior. They also told me this was simply done by stating it verbally. When I obliged them to do so they would still then reject me as a Christian saying something like, ‘well you didn’t mean it’, or ‘you were professing faith to your ‘Mormon Jesus’ (whatever on earth that meant). I had to laugh at this arguement. It sounded so poorly formulated and weak a way to deny someones faith in Christ. It seemed (and still does) that other Christians would offer a litmus test (no one in 2 years ever mentioned the Nicean Creed) and as soon as I accepted their test they’d simply move the mark. It was just a bluff. And I’d guess that only one in thousands ever would accept my Christian profession. They always assumed I was being insincere. I wonder if they scrutinize their own church members professions with such vehemence?
You asked why I still belong to the Mormon Church if I accept the Nicean Creed? Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. I don’t believe any Mormons would take issue with the creed except that it is a creed and we don’t believe extra-scriptural creeds are necessary. Additionally, I find the Mormon teachings (continuing revelation, the Book of Mormon, a church organized with Prophets and Apostles, etc.) to be superior to other denominations. You may take this claim as arrogance. But why would someone become a Baptist if they felt the Presbyterians had it right. I think we all choose to follow our faith because we believe it best represents the truth about Christ. It doesn’t mean I consider myself or even Mormons generally to be superior. But I think we’re all responsible to God to select that denomination that we believe will best teach us about Christ. Otherwise we’re just following social custom or tradition or the crowd instead of followng Him.
One more thought. What about judging someones Christianity “by their works”. Personally (speaking only of myself), I consider someone a Christian when they act one and do so because they are following Christ’s example. So the folks at my office who talk all churchy but make lewd jokes or lie (wheter hey be LDS or other), I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that they’re Christian. I’m not expecting perfection from someone claiming to be Christian but I do hope to see a little effort.
To CPT Doom,
You have it almost right. Mormons do believe we can ‘Inherit all he hath’. In other words we can obtain a kingdom like those promised in numerous places in the New Testament. Mormons do not in any way however, believe that we will be equal to or greater than God. This is something even found in the teachings of CS Lewis. I think it’s simle logic. Kittens don’t grow up to be chickens, they grow up to be cats. children of God grow up to be like God. Not God himself mind you. A child can’t become his Dad’s father. Why is that so complicated or controversial? The way you have stated this belief is a common mischaracterization. If you are a Catholic it would be like me claiming you worhip Mary instead of God. It would be incorrect and would mischaracterize your teachings.
Clark,
I haven’t studied the matter in any depth, but it had been my understanding that the LDS rejection of the creed implied a different Trinitarian theology.
Dave,
This article implies that the LDS rejection of the Creed is disingenuous. But, it also points out flaws in my position of holding the Creed (alone) as a “litmus” test for a particular cultic group being named Christian or not. Part of the problem with deciding whether doctrine is Christian and what is not stems from the original East/West split (ostensibly) over the filioque. For until the 11th century the Ecumenical councils of bishops could decide, discuss, and settle larger doctrinal disputes. Since then however, there is no possibility for a collegial body to do the same function.
The question is not “Are Mormons Christian?” The questions are these: Will Mormons succeed in reaping the cultural benefits of being accepted as Christian? Will anti-Mormons succeed in arrogating to themselves the cultural benefits of the “Christian” brand?
Many of the responses above seem to think that we’re talking about accuracy of definition rather than cultural contestation. If “Christian” were a registered trademark the question could be settled in a court of law. But the question will be settled instead in the court of public opinion. If the LDS Church can make its claim stick, that will tell us nothing about the “true meaning” of Christianity (there is no such “true meaning”), but it will tell us a good deal about the Church’s increasing cultural authority.
Dave,
I don’t mean to pick on LDS beliefs to the exclusion of others. Lots of faiths have wacky beliefs — at least “wacky” to some outside the group. Jains may go naked and sweep the ground to avoid stepping on insects, Catholics have a notion of a mortal sin, Christian Scientists think only God heals the sick, the Amish don’t use modern technology, some Baptists handle snakes, Pentacostals speak in tongues, etc. Still, LDS beliefs standout among large Christian sects in America; the LDS church is so big, so powerful, so secretive, and so odd.
See http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm which is just one of many websites devoted to organizations of ex-Mormoms. Face it, you don’t find ex-Catholic or ex-Presbyterian organizations, but you do find ex-JehovaWitnesses and ex-Scientology. Which category is more supicious, the one that has fostered organziations of ex-members or the one which has not?
The Mormon family I’ve been closest to speaks of the pressure to participate in church and social LDS activities and the ostracism that can occur if you neglect that participation. The people I’ve known who have worked in areas like Provo which are majority LDS talk of the pressure to convert coming from every direction: coworkers, friends, social contacts, sports, etc. That’s just not healthy in my book.
But you start by saying you find the Mormon teaching to be superior. Argh! Make up your mind.
I, for one, would be happy as a clam if all “Christians” (even those that don’t need the scare quotes) just tried to follow the “love your neighbor” bit and kept the Sermon on the Mount in mind rather than putting stock in various creeds and forms of worship. Mostly what you are all doing is creating a lot of us-versus-them groupthink and forgeting the notion of all being one in Christ. Jesus wasn’t a Christian. Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist. They just tried to live good lives. If they didn’t need the labels why does anyone else?
AndyS, you ask, “If they didn’t need the labels why does anyone else?”
Simple. Buddha and Jesus weren’t trying to sell anything. Christians ARE trying to sell something, and therefore have a stake in maintaining the exclusivity of their brand.
Mark, my experience is that LDS who reject the Nicene Creed do so either because it seems incomprehensible (i.e. meaningless) or else because they misinterpret it (typically reading it as an espousal of modalism) Of course it’s also been my experience that a tremendous number of Protestants read it as espousing modalism so that’s not that unreasonable a position to take.
But when one gets into the formal beliefs it seems that there is far less of an issue. And I’d add that the LDS Church has never taken a formal position on the matter one way or an other.
The places where LDS thought differs from Protestant thought simply aren’t found in Nicene creed. Those differences are a rejection of creation ex nihilo in favor of pre-existent “matter” and a believe in the embodiment of the Father in a manner akin to the Son.
It seems to me that unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding by Protestants of Mormonism which leads to erroneous approaches to differentiating the two. Don’t get me wrong, LDS thought is pretty incompatible with Protestant and Catholic theology. And if one wishes to create a divide between the two over those points that’s fair. But the Nicene Creed just isn’t it.
Andy there are plenty of ex-Christians many of whom are just a angry and upset in their writings as narrower groups. Part of the issue is that sects don’t quite matter as much within Protestantism. So the switch from say being Anglican to being Baptist really isn’t that huge for the average lay person. Also associations are pretty loose. But I was able to find a lot of ex-Catholic and ex-Christian sites with just a quick google - many of which were pretty mean spirited.
AndyS
I realize that YOU find LDS beliefs wacky, but previously you claimed EVERYONE finds LDS beliefs wacky. This is impossible to know and unlikely to be correct. I wan’t trying to change your mind, only highlighting your incorrect assumption.
Also, re-read the following carefully:
Additionally, I find the Mormon teachings … to be superior to other denominations. You may take this claim as arrogance. But why would someone become a Baptist if they felt the Presbyterians had it right. … It doesn’t mean I consider myself or even Mormons generally to be superior.
I said I find LDS TEACHINGS superior, not LDS PEOPLE. I didn’t contradict myself.
And finally, using the web to gauge negative response to the LDS faith is rediculous. If an alien landed on earth (the proverbial objective observer) and all that was left to judge our culture was the web, they would assume we were a culture obsessed with porn.
Dave, are you suggesting our culture ISN’T obsessed with porn?
to Dave Mazel:
I really can’t say. I can’t imagine that a majority of men use porn. But that’s my bias as a guy who doesn’t. There is probably a survey out there but I sure hope less than 50% of the population views/uses porn regularly. I’d say we’re sex obsessed but I sure hope we’re not porn obsessed. We may be someday.
And I guess that was my point. The web is not a true reflection of our society. If it was, the world would be 90% english speaking white people who care only about porn and what someone said about them on my space. I just don’t think the web can accurately reflect the world when so few people in the world have internet access (as f 2004 only approx. 15% of the world).
I agree that the web is not a “true reflection” of our “the world,” because, as you say, such a small percentage of people worldwide are wired. But a much greater percentage of “our society” is connected, and I think for that reason the web can tell us a lot about “our society,” if by that term we mean the U.S., or the First World, or whatever. My own sense is that the Web, with its resistance to effective regulation, is showing us one of the downsides of freedom (along with many of freedom’s considerable upsides). The Web provides a combination of anonymity and freedom from censorship that liberates people from many of the traditional constraints on their behavior. And one result, whether we like it or not, is the discovery of just how much “we,” that is, how great a percentage of the wired population, like porn.
I think we may be arguing apples and oranges a little bit, because I think some on this thread are using “not at all Christian” talking points while others are using “heretical Christian” talking points.
I think most mainline denomination Christians would concede that if the sole criterion for defining a Christian was a belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior, Mormons would probably qualify. But because Mormons believe that salvation is achieved through a different understanding of the nature of Christ and God and their relationship to Christ and God than almost all other professing Christians (IIRC and based on the comments on this thread), I think that’s where the “not really Christian” categorization comes in.
For instance: 1) Mormons accept as scripture The Book of Mormon, which no other Christians accept as scripture.
2) They accept Joseph Smith as a prophet (IIRC), whom no other Christians accept as even an inspired teacher.
3) They believe that Jesus did not stay up in Heaven after the Ascension, which directly contradicts most other Christian teaching.
4) As far as I can tell from what Mormon friends have told me, they believe in salvation by works.
Those are the main ones I can think of - I’m sure there are others. Just my two cents.
I’ve been reading all the comments this Forum has and I just wanted to say that many of you take the words of other LDS members but the sad truth is that some members may say they’re LDS but they do not follow it or have not obtained on their own a firm testimony. That is why they may feel like the members are pressuring them or criticize what they don’t understand. For example some people say they are Catholic because they have been baptised in that religion but they probably only show up to the church once a month. Of course LDS members aren’t perfect but we do believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect in every way. There is conflict in every religion even though there shouldn’t be but what I think Mr. Adams meant by saying that the LDS teaching are superior, is really that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is superior. LDS teachings are based on what Jesus taught. I honestly think that we shouldn’t waste time pointing fingers at each other in who’s right and who ’s wrong, if were Christians or if were not. To be a Christian means a person who has recieved Christian baptism OR is a believer in Christ and his teachings. Therefore The church of Jesus Christ is a Christian church and every other religion which believes in Jesus Christ. People should just accept LDS for who they are just like they would accept anyone else. They try to reach out to people about the gospel but if they reject it it’s not like they are going to break your door.
I don’t know why people would argue so much about the beliefs of someone. And many LDS may get upset when you point accusations at them because as soon as they say they are LDS people start to accuse that what they belief is false. If anyone wants a more clear view what LDS teachings are than you should watch the General Conference which is a direct reference and better than the internet.
I have enjoyed reading this debate. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and know my religion.
I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I Love him with all my heart and completely understand that it is only through him that I can be saved. I have a responsibiltity to be the best person I can be, and if I “endure to the end”, I will qualify for the Saviors saving grace.
I have read and studied the creeds you hold so dear, and quite frankly find very few people in other denominitation who understand them and believe them. They are man made teachings and are not inspired by God. They contradict the personality of God that the Bible is very clear on.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints bears the Saviors name. Some of the points that have been made are like saying the Baptists don’t believe in Christ because they name their church after a man - well they must worship John the Baptist.
To be honest, I find it insuting when other tell me what I believe in. You can keep your thoughts and opinions, however I can assure you that the truth will be made perfectly clear in the end.
God bless you all
Les
Although for several hundred years it arguably contributed to lots of bloodshed, I am glad that Christianity split into all these different squabling denominations because from where I stand it appears that this persisting multiplicity of Christian denominations, such that all Christians are in a minority, continues to contribute to securing the secular principles of equality before the law and civil rights for dissenting minorities.
Original Lee,
You’re absolutely right on your first two points, but as a Mormon, I just want to explain our beliefs in relation to the last two.
3) They believe that Jesus did not stay up in Heaven after the Ascension, which directly contradicts most other Christian teaching.
After Christ ascended into heaven in the beginning of Acts, he continued to visit the earth, such as his visit with Saul of Tarsus and John the Revelator. We believe that he also visited his “other sheep” after his resurrection, as mentioned in John 10:16.
4) As far as I can tell from what Mormon friends have told me, they believe in salvation by works.
We believe in salvation by grace and works. It seems to me that saying that you can be saved without grace is like saying that you can be saved without grace is like saying that you can be saved without Christ. However, we are expected to exercise our faith in Christ by keeping his commandments. Then, if we fall short and sin, by his grace we may repent. But of course, our slight contribution, even if it’s all we can give, is virtually nothing compared to the difference that is covered by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
For the person that asserted that there aren’t any ex-catholic or ex-protestant organizations or groups, perhaps you should google “ex-catholic” or ex-Baptist sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.