Who Gets to Define "Christian"?

Someone should spell out for the ignorant (waves hand) exactly what you two are disagreeing about. I sorta know, maybe, but I'm not sure.

Why is it, that the "news" media always points out that a Mormon or Amish person did this or that - yet you don't hear John Doe the Lutheran, Catholic, etc. did this or that? Is it that deep down inside we actually look up to the Mormon or Amish because we know they work at living a better life than most of us?

Hey that smith character dabbled in murder child molestation . wierd gospel and he a fraud .Get over yourselves .Your just a cult . In fact you all look like your robots.

oh just to be fair . jesus is dead . Like elvis. he never rose and he aint coming back.

Hmmmm..... I like Mitt Romney, I liked his father and I liked his cousins that I knew when I was a "good" Mormon out in Salt Lake City.
When I was on my mission in Ireland I used to tell other missionaries that "We aren't Christians-we don't act like Christians!" With their sordid violent history I'm not sure I'd want to be a Christian... pograms, forced migrations, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Burning Times, priestly child molestations, need I go on?

I left the "Mormon" Church because, as a gay man, they pretty much forced me to leave. I tried my hand at being a "Christian" but it just didn't suit me. So while I disagree with his politics I will give credit to Mitt for his sincerity.

A well written and compelling presentation. As a Christian (in the traditional historic meaning of the word) I concede that Mormons are Christians, according to common usage. But as used in Scripture, Christians are disciples of Christ and the Apostles, and I do not agree that Mormons are Christians in that sense of the word, nor do I believe the Mormon Church is a Christian Church.

I understand your perspective, relative to your experience as a Mormon, it makes good sense. But just like the claims of Mohammad and Islam, your starting point begins with a man who fancied himself a prophet of God and believed that the Church of God was in fact the Church of the devil. The insanity of that position and what it says about God are two reasons I can not vote for Mormon Politicians.

BTW, I loved your book Ender’s Game.

~ Theophilus

I won't be voting for Romney but not because he's a Mormon - and certainly not over some babble about whether he's a Christian.

Romney is the worst kind of politician, the kind who say one thing to get elected and then switch their values once in office. But his flip-flopping is not nearly as bad as where he's old his soul - not to some demon in Salt Lake City but to the golden elephant itself. Frankly, I had a higher opinion of the man when I thought he was merely an empty suit.

As for Romney's Christianity, I always find it amusing when some group decides it has a monopoly on the term. There was a time, in fact, when Mormons might have been accused of intemperate language about other Christians. Of course, they probably had good reason - having been driven, by so many "God-fearing Christians" from state to state, and having to bury sons, daughters, husbands and wives on the icy plains as a result.

Truth be told, the Southern Baptists, themselves, were once regarded as un-Christian. So were the Pilgrims who came to America seeking religious freedom. So were many Protestants in Europe. In fact, some 500 years ago, you weren't considered a "Christian" if you weren't Catholic, except for the Orthodox within the Byzantine Empire - which is part of the Crusades was the invasion of Eastern Europe.

In by book, the moment you start telling other Christians they're not Christian enough, that's precisely when you'd better start checking to make sure the cross dangling around your neck isn't dangling from something else.

If a Mormon is following his or her's religion, than according to the New Testament writers, those Mormons are not Christians, no matter what they say.

And remember, "Mormons" do not hold to the "Red Letters" of the Gospel being completely correct, any more than they do any other scripture.

Joseph Smith implanted in his religion an "Out Clause" to be used whenever it was "proven" that Mormonism is not a Christian endeavor.

This blog is about who and what is a "Christian."

This is NOT about: What a person follows they should follow in completeness.

According to Christ Jesus and His apostles, that kind of thinking leads many to hell.

Clearly, according to the New Testament writers, Mormonism is not a Christian belief system. And if we are to believe any person coming down the line saying this or that, is bringing us word from God, then anything and anybody can produce a new Christianity whenever they have a dream or vision to do so whether or not Jesus agrees with them.

That is why Mormonisn is a flase religion when compared to the writings in the New Testament. And, of course why Mormons do not agree with scripture as it is written.

No, Mormonism is not Christian. It is a Masonic, pagan, eternally polytheisitc/polygamist, cult.

As opposed to the traditional barbaric, pagan, monotheistic, and sexually repressed cult of Christianity... You're all cult members. Just because the viral expansion of one meme has had more time to bloom than another doesn't give you any more validity to your extraordinary claims to know that God exists and that you know His mind.

I was walking through NYC, and I came across a golden hotdog at my favorite lunch cart. With the help of the Angel Ted I was able to decipher the meaning of the condiments that were scrawled(God sometimes has sloppy handwriting) across this holy artifact. On that hotdog it was revealed to me that Jesus was not only a prophet, but he was also a zombie! Furthermore, God revealed to me that this hotdog I was holding was in fact the flesh of Jesus Christ made manifest, and that those crackers people have been eating are a sham. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of this hotdog because God ordered me to eat it and become a zombie myself. In order to honor my new incarnation of the Abrahamic God I am creating the Church of Latter Day Zombies. Our first order of business is to consume what little remains of Mitt Romney's gray matter.

Mormons do believe in a Jesus, but not the same Jesus as the Bible teaches.

The Jesus of Mormonism is a created being, the half-brother of Lucifer, and the literal offspring of God the Father in the flesh, and one of many Gods among God the Father, God the Spirit, and who knows how many other gods.

The Jesus of the Bible is eternal, a being unlike Satan, was conceived through the Holy Spirit, and is the one true Eternal God.

The Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of Mormonism are different. I could say I believe in Jesus too, but maybe the Jesus I believe in is my neighbor from Mexico. You must believe in the right Jesus to be Christian.

Mormons are very nice, but not Christian, though they often use the same terms, and people in discussing their beliefs.

Dear friend Orson

How Greek is this whole process of debating what we believe. It seems the church is a master at teaching argument and that goes for my Mormon friends as well. I agree with your premise that faith is not what you are against but what you are for. I believe the whole process of historical theology has sold us a Socratic bill of goods. It is time to return to the works of Christ and an unwavering commitment to the Christ we see in God's word. There is I believe a storm coming and the old methods shall be found wanting in these Last Days before the return of the King.

Love in Christ
Pastor Bill Langill jr.

According to Mr. Card, Mormons are Christians -- without quote-marks -- because of how most people define the word:

"But when we are defining words as they are used in the English language, we all get a vote. Dr. Mohler does not get to speak for all Christians. Nor does he get to speak for all English-speakers. The ordinary meaning of the word 'Christians' definitely includes Mormons; and when you say Mormons are not Christians, most would take that to mean that Mormons 'do not believe in the divinity of Christ,' which would be flat wrong."

And YET he writes this to Dr. Mohler:

"And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as 'Christians' in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as 'Christians' in exactly the same way."

So the ordinary meaning of the word "Christian" includes Mormons, but the fact that is must NECESSARILY include Baptists and Catholics doesn't stop Mr. Card from wrapping the word in quote-marks when applying it to Baptists and Catholics. How nice.

He misses one key thing about the ordinary meaning of "Christian":

Christians are MONOTHEISTS who affirm the divinity of Christ. Monotheism is taken for granted in so much of the Western world that the idea is there even if it's implicit.

Even though they may affirm the divinity of Christ, they deny monotheism, the central assumption about Judeo-Christian faith. For that reason, they are not Christian.

Evangelical Christians are just one strain of Christianity, and prominent only in America and recently, one wonders why others from the Catholic & Apostolic traditions were not also invited to offer comment .....

Mr. Orson Scott Card wrote:

"...It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today."

Dr. Mohler, I believe, is defining 'traditional Christian Orthodoxy' precisely as the faith (i.e. revelation) once [for all] delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). In essence, Mr. Card is using historical divergence from this faith - subsequent debate, political [and ecclessiastical] maneuvering, and bloodshed - as an argument against the faith itself. Furthermore, Mr. Card attempts to demote Evangelical Protestantism to a mere historical development.

I would argue, and I think Dr. Mohler would agree, that the Protestant Reformation had everything to do with revelation - or more precisely re-revelation. Luther and Calvin, by God's sovereign grace, recovered the power of the Gospel that had been waning in the Medieval Church - waning, but not completely snuffed out. This is an important point. The Mormon Church relies on the fact that the revealed faith had been completely snuffed out, hence the need for a new prophet making claims of new revelation. Claims which by any honest assessment contradict Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical claims of revelation.

This is the very point Dr. Mohler is making. After all, how is Joseph Smith really all that different from Muhammad, who also appealed to the perversion of the Bible of Jews and Christians as the basis of his own divine-given authority as a prophet? The only practical difference is that Muslims do not want to be numbered among the Christian fold.

The bottom line is that I believe it is disingenuous for Mormons to accept the 'Christian' label as applied to Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelicals. Their doing so, in my opinion, is basically a marketing scam to get more people in their doors. I take no offense if a Mormon gets honest with me and admits that they don't consider me a true Christian. So why is it so insulting for an Evangelical to say that Mormon's are not true Christians (or Catholics)?

The Enemy loves this strategy - "Hey, they accept you. Why can't you accept them? You're closed minded and bigoted." Vatican II is the perfect example of this. But the conciliatory language of inclusion and tolerance is only cosmetic, an attempt at credibility to draw Protestants back into the fold. All-the-while the anathemas of Trent still stand. In many ways this is also my critique of Mr. Orson Scott Card’s article. He’s trying to have it both ways.

Would you consider a Muslim a Christian when he calls himself as one? Since they do mentioned Jesus being a prophet in the Quran and do follow some of the teachings.

What about the Jehovah Witnesses? Moonies? etc...

Would you consider a Christian a Mormon if he calls himself as one?

If I decide to start a religion based on the Mormon theology but have a lot of changes (such as jihad, cursing those who speak against my church, eating dead human meat, believing that Satan would repent and become a god just like Jesus, etc) to it would you consider me a Mormon?

Very interesting. I like that Orson Scott Card and Harry Reid and I are the only "openly" Democrat members of the Church. There is ALOT I do not understand about the LDS church (of which I am a member). I felt a sence of peace when I read the comment posted by Pastor Bill Langill, Jr. "Why can't we all just get along?" Okay, so when I pray, I pray to God thru his son Jesus Christ, I know Jesus Christ to be a few things, The Saviour of the World, The Son of God, Redeemer of Israel, and most importantly MY FRIEND! I know Jesus, because I spend alot of time on my knees talking to him. Establishing a personal relationship with Him is so personal NO ONE on this earth has the authority to flat out tell someone they are or are not a Christian! I won't disagree there are many, many Mormons who are Clearly NOT Christians, guess what, there are many Evangelicals, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, and so who also are NOT Christians.

Mitt Romney, is a Christian; Dr. Mohler, is a Christian; Bro. Card, is a Christian; President Bush... Yup! He's a Christian too!

My other comment is this, for those of you who doubt the "Mormon People" you have not truely gotten to "know" anyone that is Mormon. As a person that struggles to put off the feelings of Same Gender Attraction (commonly refered to as GAY) you have never been in more loving accepting company as Mormons, no matter WHAT I have done, or said, or long long I have been lost, I am only greeted upon my return with cheery smiles, tear filled eyes, and hugs and kisses, and the only comments are simply "Welcome home."

Now lets stop these STUPID debates! Okay, we need to hug and kiss and hold eachother up. NOT waste time with these insainely worthless debates!

God bless you Br. Card, AND YOU Dr. Mohler

What’s the point of debating whether or not Mormons are Christians when we can’t even agree on a definition of the word “Christian”? I hope our esteemed commentators will spend more time detailing their theological differences, and their reasons for believing them (including, perhaps, a bit of cross-examination). That would at least be an enlightening discussion. If we get bogged down in defining the definition (redundancy intended) of Christianity, we will miss a golden opportunity for genuine dialogue. Mind you I think the definition of Christianity is important. I just don’t think there is any hope of settling that issue on this forum.

I do agree with Mr. Card that Dr. Mohler has, at worst, misread the Book of Mormon, the teachings of the BOM (minus the Modalism) are much closer to historic Christianity than the rest of LDS theology. It is really in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the non-canonical “King Follett Discourse” where the unique theology of Mormonism comes into play.

Mr. Card errors as well when he presents us with a false antithesis in saying “. . .(Mohler) is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering. . . . It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today.” Revelation from God always trumps the opinions of men! No theologian would argue with that point. But how do we know which group is really receiving revelation and which group is just making it up as they go along? How does Mr. Card know that those early councils weren’t receiving revelation from God? Though I would not elevate the “creeds” to the status of Scripture, I most certainly believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in their creation. Saying that the “creeds” were a result of “political maneuvering” and that LDS theology is “revelation from God” is a false antithesis. Card cannot make such a claim objectively. Card claims that his beliefs are based on “revelation from God” rather than “political maneuvering.” But political maneuvering can be found in the background of Smith’s revelations as well. For instance, Joseph Smith revised his “revelations” multiple times. (If you don’t believe me get a copy of the Book of Commandments and compare it with a copy of the D&C). Official Declarations 1 & 2 were made in the midst of a tremendous amount of political pressure from outside forces over polygamy and racial equality and there is ample reason to believe that the revelation known as the “Word of Wisdom” was made to placate Emma who was tired of cleaning up after the tobacco chewing/pipe-smoking elders who met in the room upstairs above their apartment in the Whitney Store. Not to mention the fact that over 200 groups have broken off from the LDS movement over the years each claiming to exclusively hold the authority that Card believes only his church holds.

Are all 200 + branches of the Restoration movement equal? How do we know whose right? The same goes for the “Creeds” of Christendom. If Joseph Smith Jr. was inspired by God then Athanasius wasn’t. It’s as simple as that. Gentlemen, I for one would like to read your arguments. Who was right—Athanasius or Joseph Smith Jr.?

Friends, brethren, I apologize for veering from the topic of discussion, but I would like to respond to someone's comment;

I thank you Matt for bringing up an excellent and concise point and thank you also Elizabeth for sharing your views; it is true rarity to find a Catholic who is familiar with the scriptures. I apologize for invoking your rage with my interpretation of the Word of God, but His word is clear to me and I suggest you study out Chapter 17 of the book of Revelation as well as the entirety of it. I neither hate nor judge the Catholic people who are misguided by this church, that is solely up to God; I indeed feel sorry for them and hope to show them the light of the truth of the Word of God. As a bible-believing Christian who seeks the truth and has yet to find a church that aligns perfectly with the Word of God as I understand it, though I faithfully attend churches, I am well aware of His desire that there be no division among those who follow Christ and encourage them to join me in seeking the complete truth.
Let me preface this paragraph with the fact that I am not aware of any bible-believing Christian who buys into any creedence of this purgatorial concept of the Catholic Church as much as I do. I ask you Elizabeth, what is salvation from? Is it from death? Is it from hell? Hell can be a place of eternal torment, but it was not created for the torment of men, but it was created for Satan and his angels. At the judgement death and hell deliver up the dead which are in them at which point
I wouldn't have the bible in my hands if it wasn't for the grace of God. Nothing is done but God allows it; "and we know all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28 Many things are done not by commandment but by permission. God permitted such atrocities as those of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the inquisition of the Hugenots in France, the bloody attempt at a return to Catholicism by Mary Tudor of England aka Bloody Mary, and many other inquisitional events throughout history that worked not to toward the preservation of the Word of God but the monopolization of it. The Roman Catholic Church only sought to supplant and control followers of Christ by teaching another gospel Galatians 1:6-12 which is the gospel of works and not of grace. Gal 2:16, John 5:24, Rom 4:14, Rom 11:16, Eph 2:8-9 That is the gospel taught by the Catholics with their concept of purgatory and the Mormons with their insistence upon three different kingdoms of three different levels of glory. Mormons whom I have spoken to state that "It isn't fair" that the backsliders should enter the Kingdom of God along with the faithful. Their insistence on the necessity of works and the fairness of said system detract from the gospel of grace and by it they boast.

Peace be with you all.

The post is entitled who gets to define "Christian" The reality is no one gets to define who a Christian is God has already done it in the Bible. Truth is not relative to what you believe, but grounded in the reality of God's Word (no not the Book of Mormon) Any time there is a question about what we believe we should take it to the Bible and see whether its true or not, does it agree with the Bible. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe about the Bible its either all true or none of it is true theres no middle ground. God did not leave room for middle ground.

Your statement "the more I listened, the clearer it became that with all his sophistication, this man did not actually believe in the literal existence of the God and Christ described in the New Testament" about the speaker you listened to is the clearest statement in your entire presentation that shows the deception of your claims. You based your rejection of him as a Christian (you may deny you did that) on the fact that he did not believe in the God and Christ described in the New Testament. That is the very reason Mormons are not Christians.
You say you believe that God is a man with a body who has simply progressed farther up the divine trail that the rest of us and that "he once was we are now and as he is we shall be." That is NOT the God described in the NT.
You say you believe in a Jesus Christ who is the brother of Satan and is only one of many gods who did not fully atone for the sin of the world through his death on the cross since we must accomplish certain works to attain the proper level of heaven. That is NOT the Jesus Christ described in the NT.
So your own beliefs, by your definition, define Mormons as non-christian.

I always find it humorous when one christian sect claims that another isn't *really* christian, because of this or that little point, yet as far as I'm aware they ALL use the canonized bible, which leaves out half the story.

If it's based on the bible, it's a christain sect, whether you like it or not. That includes all of the small churches, the big churches, the stanic churches, etc. They're all based on the christian bible. But I guess they're not "real" christians unless you personally agree with them, right?

First, I will reply to Matt.

Matt, I believe God's love for us is totally unconditional, albeit undeserved. You say I have a lack of understanding of this, but I understand it completely. Let me ask you a question, Matt. A man falls in love with a woman, a friend of his. He asks her out and they start dating. Things seem to be going well on his side, but the woman one day tells him that it just isn't working out for her and she wants to break up. What would be the loving thing for him to do? Would he say to her, "no, you can't do that! I was about to purpose to you and we were going to be married! Well, I love you no matter what, and I don't care what you say, but we are getting married! You will marry me because I love you so unconditionally! You have to!"
You may say that this does not apply to what you are saying, but the fact is, that love allows free will. By your willful unrepentance of some grave sin (and by grave, I mean something you intended to do and it was clearly against God's will, like having an affair, or murdering someone in cold blood, or molesting a child, etc) you can go to hell for it. God loves us so much that he will not make us come home to be with Him forever if we don't want to. It's right there in scripture: the prodigal son. The father lets the son leave. He didn't lock him in his room, he didn't tie him up in the front yard on a leash...no. He let him go. The father never disowned him either. God never disowns us...we disown God. If we, by our disobedience, choose a path other than God's, God respects that. Even if someone says "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior," I believe that they are still liable to hellfire if they stray. Not because God rejects them, but because they have rejected God and he honors us even when we dishonor Him.

Also you posted: "If you don't believe that salvation is final and definite, you will never live with the freedom in Christ that enables you to live a life honoring to Him. Instead you will be living in despair as you worry about trying to please Him in order to escape eternal condemnation."

I DO believe salvation is final and definite. Jesus died once for all (Romans 6:10). It is our choice, at any given moment, about whether or not we are living in accord with God's plan for our lives, and if we repent of our sins. I believe the grace from the cross working in our souls as God intended is how we are saved. Believe me my friend, I do not live in despair or worry about trying to please God. Jesus told us not to worry (Matthew 6:25), so I pray and lift up my anxieties to him. I am not trying to rack up brownie points to I can cross some moral finish line at the end of my life to get into heaven. I have freedom in Christ...freedom from the sins that once marred my soul, freedom from worry because I repent of my sins, freedom to grow in the love, mercy and grace of Christ.

Second, Thank you Douglas for this bit of genius:
The overused and spurious idea that the Christian creeds are simply based on Greek philosophy is seriously flawed as a critique. The Mormons or any other group can be shown to do the same thing. "Greek philosophy" cannot be avoided by anyone since the Greeks pretty much thought of everything first. So using this criticism is really just a matter of pointing out the particular Greek idea that matches some group's claims and then blaming them for that "reliance".

Paul was Greek and Christian. How can that be? I mean, he thought like Aristotle and Socrates and Plato...but accepted Christ as the Son of God whose death undid death's chains? AND he helped the cause of christianity with his letters to different churches in different cities, and did used much Greek philosophy and argument? WOW!

What I really don't understand is how a "born-again, bible believing Christian" (and this is with all sincerity and no attempt to ridicule or degrade anyone) can accept scriptures that are 2,000 years old (I accept them too), but then give the impression that they believe any cultural tradition with regards to Christianity during those 2,000 years must be evil because it is cultural or traditional and not in the bible (the bible being in total and complete canon form around the year 400 A.D)? What did the early Christians do? How did they worship if they didn't have the bible in all its entirety?

Third, once again to Clayon E. Bennet:
A bit of trivia. Look up the word "Christianity" in the world Almanac. Look up the founders of the different denominations. What denomination does it say was founded by Christ? Please, for your own soul's sake, be careful what you call the Catholic Church. She is not the whore of Babylon, but the Bride of Christ.

Also, good works are commanded by God:
Ephesians 2:10:
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Ephesians 4:11-13:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

I want to be mature and fully in Christ. I don't do good works in order to be saved, but I do them because I am saved and I act accordingly to God's will, because God gives me the grace to do good works, and it would be a sin to let that grace be wasted. I don't think that doing good works, once again, will earn me Heaven. I know I can't earn Heaven because it is a gift. I can better this world though through works, and I plan to do so, to spread the gospel of truth. If people see my good example instead of just hearing how much I love God and have faith in God and trust God (which I do), then that witness speaks louder than any sermon from a person's lips.

Another thing. The books of the bible, just like any other books, must be considered in the historical context in which they were written. When Paul talks about works in Galatians and Romans, he is speaking of works of the law, the Mosaic law. The false gospel he is referring to is being preached by converts from Judaism, who are trying to tell the pagans that, in order to be saved, the former pagans must be circumcised and follow other Jewish customs. These Jewish converts would accuse Paul of not preaching the full gospel since he "left out" the parts about Jewish custom which weren't even there in the first place.

In Romans 4, Paul is laying out an argument (yes, Greek in nature ;) . He talks of Abraham not being justified on the basis of his works. He talks of forgiveness of unjust works, of sins, and God crediting righteousness to them that believe. Then, in verses 9-12, Paul says "Does this blessedness apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well? Now we assert that 'faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.' Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believed, so that to them [also] righteousness might be credited, as well as the father of the circumcized who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of fiath that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised." That is what precedes Romans 4:14, setting up the historical context, letting any readers know that Paul is refering to Jewish custom, not good deeds.

Read a little further in John 5, and you will see the words, in verses 28-29, "the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation." Christ is saying that those who have done good deeds will be resurrected to eternal life. As for those who don't do good or evil deeds, that is, don't choose good or evil by their deeds, look at Revelation 3:15-17: "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked." So, the obvious choice for any true Christian, would be to do good deeds, lest he/she be spit out of God's mouth or awake to the resurrection of eternal condemnation.

As for Romans 11:16, I gather that you are trying to say that the first fruits of Catholicism are unholy, that the root is unholy. Well, the early Catholic Church formed Councils in which the doctrine of the trinity (the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God in three persons) was established. They gathered the letters that would later become known as the holy scriptures of the bible, they passed on the words of Christ, they performed miracles and healed in Christ's name, cast out demons, etc. What do you mean that the first fruits of the Catholic (which by the way means universal) Church are unholy?

Ephesians 2:8-9 states that we have been saved through grace, not by our own doing so that we cannot boast because of works. But then in verse 10, "we are His handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance that we should live in them". Works are a part of the Christian walk. We cannot earn heaven, but works are a sign of a true Christian because of God's grace and providence.

And let me address your references to Revelation 17, the harlot you insist represents the Church. Once again, let us take into account historical context. At the time Revelation was written, Rome was known for every kind of sin, especially hedonism. They persisted in paganism and indulgence, even as the Word of God became flesh and showed a better way to happiness. The rulers of Rome were corrupt and abused their power. Kings having intercourse with the harlot represents the kings of the earth adopting the cults of the emperors, who were treated as gods by their subjects. The blasphemous names on the beast are the names of the emperors who gave themselves divine titles. The harlot leads people to the idolatry of the beast, just as the hedonist culture and exuberance of Rome led people to the idolatry and paganism of worshiping the Roman emperors.

Funny enough, as I was compiling this argument, I ran across (seriously, perhaps through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) Revelation 14:13: "I heard a voice from heaven say, 'Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' 'Yes,' said the Spirit, 'let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them." Works accompanying the dead who die in the Lord. Works don't justify, but they do follow us in death.

1 Peter 3:14-16: But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

The passage above is what I hope to do here, is to give an answer, an explanation, a defense of the hope that I have in Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and I hope I have done it with gentleness and respect.

The peace of Christ be with all of you.

By any concise definition of Christianity, mormons are Christians.

Belief that Christ is their personal Savior?

This is from the Book of Mormon:

"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." (2 Nephi 2:26)

Belief that Christ is the only means of Salvation?

Also from the Book of Mormon:

"And moreover, I say unto you, that 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." (Mosiah 3:17)

Using the same bible as other Christians?

If you go here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/nt/contents

You can see that Mormons use the King James version of the New Testament (and Old Testament, but I thought I'd use the New Testament as an example.) The edition of the bible the church publishes is the King James version, word for word. The church only ads footnotes. In most foriegn countries (Including Brazil, where I served my mission) the church doesn't even publish a bible, but selects an existing translation they encourage church members to use in their daily study.

Belief that, if the Church of Christ were on the earth today, it would have the same structure as the church of Christ in his day, with apsotles and seventy and . . .

Wait, some people in this group are arguing that one makes Mormons LESS Christian.

Belief that true religion is visiting the sick and afflicted and the widows?

Belief that without charity we are nothing?

Belief that the way you can tell a true disciple is by the love they have for each other, that the greatest is the one who is humble and the servant of all?

Mormons and Protestants agree on all of these.

Prist said: Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer. Without His amazing sacrifice, there is no way we could return to the Father.

You list this as a common belief so can you clarify what you mean in returning to the Father? Is it your belief that we all were somehow with the father before our bodily lives? Thanks in advance for the clarification.

I'm a devout Christian, who has no problem voting for non-Christians. While I agree that Mormons are not Christian, what does that have to do with voting for a candidate?

Mr. Bush claims to be a Christian, yet he was the biggest mistake of this generation; Nixon was a QUAKER, and he turned out to be a war-mongering crook. Clinton was a lapsed, lying, non-practicing Baptist, but one the best Presidents in the last 100 years.

What does this prove: There is no direct correlation between claimed faith and character, morals, or Presidential acumen. Vote based on record not religion.

Hi MattB! *waves*

As far as your question goes - yes, we believe that our spirits existed before our earth life, but that we could only progress so far without coming to Earth and learning right from wrong and being given the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. We believe that we came to Earth to gain a body, to gain experience and learn, and believe that if we do our best in our time here we can be saved, through Christ's atonement. So we acknowledge the necessity of Christ's atonement. We also think that we need to do our best as well, to live Christ-centered and Christian lives.

If we do those things, we believe we can return to God (the Father, in my previous post) and live with Him again.

I hope that made sense. Sometimes it's hard to cut through the jargon of a religion to what the terms really mean and express them in a way that is true and understandable as well. Hope that clarified a little for you! :)

I read through many comments. A great deal of emotion was expressed but not many good arguments. I do not wish to argue with anyone, hence my reluctance to enter a post to begin with, but a few ideas kept repeating in my mind.
The written text which we are able to base our Christian history on sums itself up, Revelation 22:18-20. We may not add nor take away from the text as it is written. Also, so many refer only to the New Testament. I must say I find the Old Testament to be the primer to the new, as well as stock full of valuable information for leading a "Christian" life, and other data necessary for our spiritual growth.
Although raised Roman Catholic I had a difficcult time digesting ideologies that were not supported by the Word, hence the notion of purgetory, hell, etc... led me to do actual research. I found the church had made many changes, I guess, to maintain cohesivness among the masses. Another words changing the Word to keep their power by giving the people what they want.
As far as the Morman religion, they are not true Christians. They do not believe in Jesus as stated in the Bible, thus they do not profess the WORD as did the Apostles. This was the start of the movement called Christians, 1st century AD. It wasn't until the third century AD the Roman Catholic Church came to be, 300 years later. If the Mormans do not believe in Jesus as the Christ, Messiah, Savior, Son of the living God, why do they want to be called Christians? As so many of you noted previously, The Muslim religion recognizes Jesus as a prophet but they certainly don't want to be related to the Christian faith!

Mr. Card never actually defines Christianity of Mormonism. He simply argues for a broad view, which, of course, Jesus Christ Himself condemned.

Bottom line: What happens when you die and how do you know?

Answer that and I'll know, based on how ir agrees with the Bible, exactly where you stand.

After all this I am glad beyond measure that God checks the books at out time of judgment and reward. Men seem only to have the propensity to cook the books given enough time and circular reasoning. Owe no man,except to love him as Christ loved you.

Pastor Bill Langill jr.

Since everyone else is posting more than one post I shall too. I know I am young and unexperienced, and I was even told due to my struggle with some personal issues I wouldn't be able to "speak" clearly or my words would not be understood. But here goes, My Dad's family goes back to the founding of Kirtland Ohio, and were some of the First members of the church, many or them have remained in either the LDS Church or The Reorganized Church of LDS(Community of Christ). With that said, I was brought up in a DOCTRINE soaked home, and the only things that I can wrap my finder around, isn't Brigham Young's discourses, or Joseph Smith III's (CofC) reunifying of the Saints, the Trek west, where the BoM "REALLY" came from, or many other D&C POGP, JST Matthew, BLAH BLAH BLAH! I havent even received a testimony as to weather we did really have a pre-existance, weather Jesus and Lucifer are "literal" brothers, or that God really was once a "man" or if he is described that way to make him more approachable. WHO CARES!

As for myself, I believe IN Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, born of the Vrigin Mary, as it is thus written in the New Testiment, word by word line by line precept upon precept!

Prist, those two BoM quotes you posted are two of my favorite, I personally believe that I find my strength in Christ as it were. Not in any "bizzaire doctrine" Most Mormons are not Doctrine freaks. If we say we have a personal relationship with Christ, the only two "beings" that know that for sure are the two involved.

Now, one of my favorite verses will explain why petty bickering is a waste of time:

Book of Mormon (AV)

Ether 12:37

"And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father."

The Lord knows each of us and our hearts. Be faithful, and be true to him where ever you find him.

Note: the AV is owned by the Community of Christ (RLDS) it is one of the very first print copies of the Book of Mormon, the verse has remained unchanged in both the LDS BoM and the RLDS BoM.

The essence of Christianity is:
To have a personal relationship with the Now Today, living Christ, yes He is Alive and wants to be involved in the details of our lives, but only comes when invited.

Anyone in any Christian church can have this relationship if they are seeking to know Christ and have given their hearts to him.

Christianity although organized is not defined through the various organizations, but through the relationship of the various individuals who have this relationship with Christ Himself, now, in this day and age.
The basic belief is that Christ has been born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life while tempted in all ways that we are; And so loved us that He willingly gave up His life for us so that we might
again have a relationship with HIS Father in Heaven. Because He died for us the barrier between God and man was bridged.
Then God raised HIM from the dead. So...Christ lived,died for us and was raised again. There is no mediator between man and God other than Christ Jesus.

Those people who scoff at this don't realize that the reason they are scoffing is because they have never had the Experience of meeting with
this Risen Christ. Once you have.............you will never scoff!

Very compelling arguement. Personally, I am think that as far as our understanding of the Bible goes, its pretty lousy. For any denomination. As long as someone lives a good life as best they know how, I think that the Lord will accept them into the Knigdom of Heaven.

One of the major foundations of Christianity is The Word of God that was written for instruction and teaching and inspiration for mankind. Christianity has determined that there are 66 "God-Breathed" Books of the Christian Bible. The book of Revelation in Chapter 22 states that woe to someone who would add to or take away from The Words of this Book. Some might say those words are applicable only to the singular book of Revelation; however, I believe and know that because God has protected His Word throughout 6000 years, that it is not a coincident that the last book of the Christian bible was Revelation (because it was written last) and I would maintain that those words are not only applicable to the book of Revelation but applicable to the Christian Bible and its 66 books in entirety! While Catholics are indeed Christians, the additional 5 or 6 books used in the Catholic bible were in existence at the time that it was determined which books met the requirement of "God breathed" and those 5 or 6 were excluded as meeting all of the standards.
The Book of Morman written almot 1800 years later than Revelation clearly states in its introduction that it was written for the peoples of the new continent i.e. North and South America.
To believe this, would be to believe that the Creator of the Universe did not believe the original 66 books of the Bible (last written in I believe 93-97 A.D.?) covered North and South America because he didn't know it would be discovered. That is ludicrous to think He didn't know America was in the future of the world! There is no need for the words in The Book of Morman, which is the foundation of the Mormon Church, because the 66 Books in the Christian Bible is sufficient for all mankind on the face of the earth for entirety! The God I serve knew and planned for the existence and eventual discovery of North and South America and knew America would be the Christian light of the world. He even knew that Christopher Columbus, who it is believed to have Jewish roots, would be inspired by God to discover America and we are the Remnant of Israel!

So to believe in Mormonism as a Christian faith and based on The Book of Mormon would be to believe that God's Original Word (last believed to be written 93A.D.-97A.D.) was not sufficient which would imply He i.e. God is not omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Which He clearly is and even gave warning to anyone that would add to or delete the Word of God.

Mormonism is not a Christian faith because it teaches from The Book of Mormon!

the only thing i dont understand or believe is joseph smith if they sent a profit to america then why not all the other continants? and if he had the commandments on real gold how could you lose them i dont believe in more than one wife.I read a life story on him and he was a cruel man to his wives two tried to leave the church and he shot them one lived but her baby died ,I have been told this is false but if thats false then isnt having the commandments on gold wrong or false when he sent to his chosen man moses the commandments in stone.I have friends that are morman and they are great people but i have JESUS as my personal saviorand i feel no matter what church you go to as long as you have christ in your heart you are a member of GODS church and as long as you asked for forgiveness then thats all you need to do to be forgiven and you need to make it right with the person you have wronged.I love the LORD with all my heart but to put a morman in the white house i would question that because of his belief in multiple wives.even if that is only in eternityI dont believe we are married in heaven but all live as good friends it says nothing in the bible about marrage in heaven thart i know of. thanks for reading my opinion GOD BLESS each of you marlene

"You see, all Americans are Yankee baseball fans."

"Um excuse me but I am an American, I was born here, I vote, I pay taxes, and I served in the Armed Forces. I am an American, but I like the Seattle Mariners."

"You are most certainly not an American. True Americans root for the Yankees. You see, outside the United States, Americans are called 'yankees', and also baseball is America's game. The nickname, the game, it all goes together! It really is so obvious, I don't know why you are delaying the inevitable. You are not an American unless you decide to think like me and root for the Yankees."

"I don't understand. I already told you that I was born in America. I try to obey all the laws. I love this country and its Constitution and took an oath to defend it, doesn't that count for something?"

"No, not really. You have to accept the Yankees and forget your silly little expansion team. Then, and only then can you be a true American."

I was going to limit this post to talking about the article written by Mr. Card. Unfortunately, I was sucked into reading the other postings, and from what I saw, few people fully stucked to the article.

I have a few opinions I feel the need to express. The "Mormon" religion is greatly misunderstood, and greatly misrepresented. I have an analogy. 1+1+1+1=4, 2+2=4, 1+3=4, 5-1=4, 5-2+1=4. Now which one of these statements is true? Which on is the best way to arrive at the answer? Doctines in the Lds church have been misconstrued in this way. In one instance, an equation in scriptures will emphasize grace, where in another it will emphasize works. Which is correct? They both are, because underlying is the other half of the equation. Thoughts lead to actions, actions lead to habits, habits lead to character, character leads to destiny. I think Jesus would agree to that. The importance of works leads to the development of self. The development of self is what we are judged on. Of course, we'll never fully live up. That's Jesus's grace. But even if you're in a saved condition, you'll never live up. But if you are saved, you'll be doing the works, as I've understood it. And if you're doing the works, unless you're so hardened that the works have no changing effect on your person, you'll find the answers of salvation. Can you do good and not feel good? and if you feel that goodness then you understand that "ah this is what christ is talking about, I think I'll accept him and then act as he would want a saved person to act." the misunderstanding between Mormons and other christians is just which equation we wanted to state our grace+works+faith=salvation. of course, then comes in the slew of doctrines defining each of those words... oh my, i guess you don't really agree on anything, but then again, that's not what mormons were accused of anyway. Oh philosophy... stirring up dust then complaining that it's too dusty. so who's got the next topic to scrutinize?

Forgive my spelling errors and other grammer mistakes, and written reasoning errors. I swear it made a lot more sense in my head than what I am capable of transmitting. I just don't feel like editting this. Just consider it a mistake in translation. If it works for the mormons, it ought to work in my benefit as well...

There are a few things that should be clarified. There is an immense amount of mystery about how Christ redeems us. According to much of Christianity (including Catholicism), Christ died for the whole world. Mormon's and others of non-Christian faiths may benefit from the redemption of Christ's blood. A well established understanding in Christianity is that of Christ's profound mercy--Mormon's may be saved by Christ.

There is some mystery regarding who belongs to Christ. Even with incorrect teaching about Christ, it may be possible that a Mormon belongs to Christ in a special way. Even though he follows a non-Christian faith, he may be a Christian of sorts at heart. (As a Christian, I am forbidden to judge the hearts of men. Only God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has that authority, so I can only speculate.)

Inasmuch as Mormon's follow Truth (and there is some truth in them), they follow the Universal (Catholic) Church of Christ. God is Truth. Again - there is a lot of mystery to that.

So making a judgment on the essence of Christianity, and determining that Mormonism as a religion is not within that catagory is one thing. Judging individual Mormons is a completely different proposition.

My hope is that Mormons and Christians will rejoice in the Truth in heaven where we will reconcile all of these things.

T don't care what your religion is. Religion is not what is going to get you into heaven in the first place. Religion per say,can actually separate you from God. God is not religion. He is Love Truth,and Grace. w/o these things,religion is useless. Spend your times trying to bring people who don't know Christ into the church for worship. Not religion!.Remember what it say's in the book Of James...Faith w/o works is dead. So do what God say's...Man is not you Savior...Man cannot get you into heaven...Amen & Amen...Oke'

"What is there so much indecision in what the truth in Christ Jesus is."

The Great Deceiver spreads confusion. Why should that surprise you? He has separated fervent Christians from their true authority, and with the authority compromised, they split up in many disagreeing doctrines.

"Let everyone believe what they may and leave them alone to worship the way they see fit,and leave the rest of us alone..."

If someone insists that they believe that Jesus Christ is a sprinkle doughnut, and they worship him thus, they are not Christian, and they compromise and confuse true Christianity if the true Christians let them get away with it. A corruption of Truth is a legitimate thing to protest, and it has far-reaching consequences.

"I harm no one for what he believes..."

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread has advocated harming others in any way. Rectifying truth and clearing away confusion does nothing to harm anyone. It is, in fact, a *charitable* thing to do.

"I WILL LIVE IN THE PROMISE OF THE TRIUNE GOD"

God bless you.

"Religion is not what is going to get you into heaven in the first place."

Without religion, you would know nothing of the Triune God under whose promise you live.

"Religion per say,can actually separate you from God."

"Can" does not mean "will." And the ability of religion to separate you does not change the fact that religion was *necessary* to get you the message of the Triune God.

"God is not religion."

God started the Church. The Church is largely a religion. (If you want to refine your understanding of "religion," we might find some agreement here. But in general, a religion is understood to consist of a Church. Which means God mandates religion.)

"He is Love Truth,and Grace. w/o these things,religion is useless."

Without a "religious" authority, there is nothing to convey that Love, Truth, and Grace.

"Spend your times trying to bring people who don't know Christ into the church for worship. Not religion!"

If the churches are not built by a people of religion--by whom are they built?

"You cannot have a relationship with God if you yourself don't have one."

Interesting how you tell people it does not matter what they believe, but then you follow by telling them they cannot have this relationship unless they believe certain things.

I think you are very, very confused.

Thank you, Anon, for your clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity. I agree with you.

Have you read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"? It is one of my favorite books, and from the sound of it when you were talking about Christ dying for all humanity and how Mormons, even if they are mistaken about core Christian beliefs, might still be saved because of God's mercy, it sounds like you may have read it too. Lewis says (and I don't remember exactly where) that even those who are not Christian on the surface-not professing the Christian faith-may belong to Christ in their hearts, a much deeper level.

If you haven't read it, I think you should. You would probably enjoy it.

Actually, this whole Mormons Christian thing isn't really about doctrinal differences.

It's actually more about a bunch of Protestant ministers who are afraid this upstart religion with an aggressive proselyting program is going to lure away their parishoners.

The average Christian in America honestly doesn't know or care about the theological arguments the Protestant elites are making. Heck, I've met plenty of devout Protestants who are under the impression that God does have a physical body (a supposedly uniquely Mormon thing) and are surprised to find out that their pastor probably feels differently. In short, the average church-goer in America has no clue what the doctrinal disagreements are.

But they all know they love Jesus.

So why not tell them Mormons don't believe in Jesus? If anyone calls us out on it, we'll just blame it on obscure doctrinal squabbles.

The "Christian?" debate is nothing more than a superficial scare campaign from an entrenched Protestant American establishment worried that maybe those Mormons are a little too successful.

I think the Bible gets to define the faith that comes from belief in Jesus Christ. (Christian) Kind of a no-brainer IMHO.

Mormonism is indeed a different form of Christianity due to the additional beliefs they tag onto the Bible. (in the prophets ongoing teachings as well as the book of mormon, D & C, and pearl of great price)

I see Biblical Christianity and Mormon Christianity as different. I've practiced both in-depth and decided upon one of them. But they ARE different faiths.

I think the Bible gets to define the faith that comes from belief in Jesus Christ. (Christian) Kind of a no-brainer IMHO.

It would be nice if it could. However, there are any number of reasonable interpretations of the Bible. A reasonable interpretation of the Bible might be that there is not a Triune God. So you have to have something more than scripture alone to interpret it as it was originally intended.

Also, I think there is a big difference between saying that Mormonism contains some errors and saying it is not Christian. Adding to the Bible or believing in some fictional tribe of Israel does not disqualify them as Christians. So it does us no good to beat them up for that. You must understand the essential nature of Christianity to make the judgment. Either Mormonism fits into the essentials of Christianity, or it doesn't. (It clearly doesn't.)

Why is it that the only sin Jesus won't forgive is having an imperfect view of him?

When people say that Mormons are not Christians what they mean is they aren't trinitarians. I can't seem to find the word trinity in the bible. (At least the 2 KJV's I've read, one of which was the red letter version)

The only one with any right to say who is and who is not a Christian is Christ himself.

Folks, we have really confused doctrine, dogma, and faith. The first two, at best assist in the third, but they are never the source of the third. Lets look to scripture, someplace we are less likly to go when there are whole libraries fo Church History to argue instead. But, just for fun lets take a look.

What did Jesus expect of his disciples? To love one another as he loved them. O' and to love their neighbors. Sadly, I am not feeling the love in most of these postings. There is too much "Survivor:Heaven" going on with everyone trying to vote everyone else out. All of this other stuff is proof that Christianity, universal and particular, has yet to get it right. My own brand is flawed, but at least we honor it, confess it, and accept God's grace because of it. We are not more graceful or gracious, just grateful.

OK, the basic rules are these:
Treat everyone as honored guests, especially travelers, widows and children.
Love God with your whole heart mind and body
Love justice, do kindness and walk humbly with God (Ooh, the hardest thing to do)
Love your neighbor as yourself
Love one another as Jesus loved you.

Notice, lots of the use of "love" and absolutely no use of "exclude". If the Christians, the Budhists. the Hindus, the Moslems, and anyone else does this - they are good. Mormons are no more or less an exception.

Nail the above list and the rest of the stuff will simply be ornamentation and organization.

By the way, the Enders/Bean books work this theme over an over. A most excellent story. So is the Hatrack River saga. Worth your time.

What is it that makes so many people angered to hear one say their religion falls under the category of Christian? Why would it anger someone say that they were a "follower of Christ" just because other details of their religion do not follow suit with their own?
I as a young person in today's society am glad to hear such proclamations. Arguing over semantics is almost always a distraction from subjects of real importance. These arguments lead to further division.
As Christians it is our job to shine. There are enough divisions between those who do and those who don't believe in Jesus Christ, lets not create any more division amongst our own ranks than we must. What does a Jew think a Catholic man is? Wrong! What does he think a Mormon man is? Wrong! What is he likely to think about them bickering over their right to the title of Christian? The rules of conduct for this blog restrict me from commenting on that.
There are enough people in this world who do not believe in our God and our Christ. Lets not make ourselves look like bickering fools in front of them. Let us try to do what is most important, get everyone to believe in God and Jesus. I know it's a long shot, but I believe it is only then that we should waste our time arguing semantics.
And now, if you start asking “which God and Jesus?” you are again missing the point of what I write. Be proud that you are one who has realized life is not a thing of chance or coincidence and share that knowledge, don’t create walls with it.

This is my response to Joie's statement "I was a mormon, and all the doctrine states that Jesus was a great teacher, not the Son of God, God Himself, part of the Trinity."

If you were a Mormon, you're making things up it seems because perhaps you have some axe to grind against your old faith. Members of the LDS church certainly do believe that Jesus was the Son of God and God Himself and not just a great teacher as you misled us to believe, intentionally or ignorantly.

Jubal Quote: "Members of the LDS church certainly do believe that Jesus was the Son of God and God Himself and not just a great teacher as you misled us to believe, intentionally or ignorantly."

So Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father? In other words the Son and Father have always existed as 1 God and will forever continue to exist as the only God. Jesus Christ never had to become God neither did the Father or the Holy Spirit, rather the 3 have always been the 1 true God. No other god has ever existed and there has never been a time when Jesus Christ was not God. There has never ever existed a god before this 1 Triune God and there never ever will exist another god after Him. (Isaiah 43:10) Jesus Christ, Himself being God, is the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Collosians 1:16-17) whether visible or invisible including the angels, devil, and hell. Is this what Mormons believe about the nature of God?

The only one with any right to say who is and who is not a Christian is Christ himself.

What you are saying, then, is that the word can have no meaning unless Jesus Christ himself clarifies it. Two things.

1) This basically leaves us in a situation where the word can have no meaning at all. The word, then, becomes useless.

2) Jesus Christ himself did clarify it with the establishment of His Church.

Notice, lots of the use of "love" and absolutely no use of "exclude".

Again, the only way you can maintain that this means Mormon's (and Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims) are Christians is if the word "Christianity" has no meaning at all. It seems that some of the Mormon's fighting to be categorized as Christians are actually fighting to make Christianity **meaningless**.

Additionally, God made the world with distinctions and categories. I am not going to categorize a clump of dirt in the subset of sprinkled donuts no matter how much someone insists that sprinkled donuts should include clumps of dirt.

Arguing over semantics is almost always a distraction from subjects of real importance. These arguments lead to further division.

Jesus said that He would divide us. It is also an amazing proposition to me that someone would say that ignoring falsehoods is a good thing. Satan leads us astray with falsehood. You ignore it at your own peril.

Yes, we should treat each other charitably. (I don't believe I have written a single uncharitable word, but I am open to correction.) But that doesn't mean we should allow a falsehood to be accepted.

It is further ridiculous to me for someone to complain that people are making distinctions in the comments, when it was the subject of OSC's title. His whole purpose for the article was to explore these distinctions. If you didn't want to see that discussed--why are you here?

There was no Traditional Christian Orthodoxy until they themselves started bickering over what was right and wrong, and even then, the early christians still split up over the situation...

That is a complete denial of reality. Orthodoxy, even today, is largely intact. The schismatic issues among Orthodoxy are *miniscule* compared to the chasms between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. (Catholicism considers the Orthodox Churches to have valid Orders and valid Sacraments.) The differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism are much bigger, but still relatively small compared to the differences between Christianity and Mormonism.

All Churches have to protect themselves against heresy. The fact that the early Church did so is not a sign that there was no Orthodoxy. It is testament to the fact that there *was* already an Orthodoxy and an Authority. The entire Christian world was united in condemning those heresies, and the problems with schism came much, much later. (Centuries, in fact.) There are many more details showing this continuity that are available in the texts of the early Church Fathers. I would recommend that you read them.

AC How lawyer like of you! Let me ask a few counter questions: 1) Is Jesus Christ the One true God?
1) Is the Father the one true God? Is the Holy Spirit one true God?

2) Is Jesus Christ eternal (no beginning and no end)?
2. Is the Father Eternal? Is the Holy Spirit Eternal?

3) Do you believe that there are more than 1 God in existance?
3) Do you believe that the Father is God? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?

4) Has there ever existed a god before Jesus Christ?
4) Does Jesus proceed from the Father?

5) Will Mormons one day become Gods?
5) Do you believe Romans chapter 8, John 17, and Revelations 3:22?

6) Was the Father once a man who went on to become God?
6) Is Jesus God? Is he one with the Father? Did Jesus become a man?
Is Jesus God?

7) If God the Father was once a man who went on to become God, who was God before Him?
7) If Jesus was a man, and if he is God and if he is One with the Father, was the Father God before him?

8) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
8) Did God create the Devil?

9) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
9) Did God create all things Ex Nihilo? (out of nothing)?

How devoutly silly of you all.

To tell me, or anybody in any religion (with the possible exception of atheism) what they believe from outside that religion is utter hypocrisy of the primal order.

I am unquestionably silly. I am most likely a hypocrit, too. But that has little to do with the question of **meaning** that we have before us. Why are you complaining (and calling people names) about the resolution of this problem, when the whole purpose of the OSC article is to resolve this problem? Is OSC a silly hypocrit, too?

Either Mormonism consists of the essentials of Christianity, or it does not. So far, we have a lot of claims being made that can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. (What do Mormons actually mean when they say Christ is God?)

It is also a bit disingenuous to tell us that we cannot learn what Mormon doctrine is. We have studied it through the texts of the Mormonism and through discussions with Mormons, and the essence of what we learn from them makes it clear that Mormonism does not believe in the co-eternal Triune God. But when it comes to the question of Mormonism fitting into the Christian category, it seems the Mormon interlocutors generally avoid the question and say that Jesus is God, but then don't elaborate on what that means.

If it turns out that Mormon doctrine actually does include the Triune God of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (all co-eternal with the Father) then I might be persuaded to reconsider my evaluation of the categorization of Mormonism. But the refusal to clarify this tells me that you are hiding the ball.

"In the beginning was the Word the Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God. He was present to God in the beginning. Through him all things came to being, and apart from him nothing came to be." Jn 1:1-3

This tells us that the Word is co-eternal with God the Father.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory; the glory of an only Son coming from the Father, filled with enduring love." Jn 1:14

From Jn 1:14, the Word is *obviously* Jesus Christ. This is the belief--One of the core essential beliefs--of Christianity since the beginning of Christianity, and it included the Holy Spirit since the beginning of Christianity.

If I have it wrong, and LDS doctrine includes the Traditional co-eternal Trinity (In the *beginning* was the Word--The Word *was* God), then I would welcome you into Christianity. (I welcome you to Christ in any case.)

Question: 1) Is Jesus Christ the One true God?
Counter Question: 1) Is the Father the one true God? Is the Holy Spirit one true God?

The fact that you are making issue with this in a counter question shows 1) evasion, and 2) a clear indication that you do not believe in the essential Traditional doctrine of Chirstianity.
The answer to counter question number one is yes. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all three persons in the One true God. That is basic, essential Christian belief. If you reject it, you reject Christianity.

Question: 2) Is Jesus Christ eternal (no beginning and no end)?
Counter Question: 2. Is the Father Eternal? Is the Holy Spirit Eternal?

Yes. You should have read several times in the posts above that a point of contention is the *co-eternal* nature of the Trinity.
(See - so far there is no evasion here by asking counter questions. Will you follow up by facing the questions? We shall see.)

Question: 3) Do you believe that there are more than 1 God in existance?
Counter Question: 3) Do you believe that the Father is God? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?

We believe the three are one. So, yes, we believe they are one God, and that there is only one God. It is one of the great mysteries of God, and one of the essential parts of Christian doctrine.

(By the way, I have no problem if you say this is very irrational. You would be wrong, but you can do that, if you want. But you would then be saying that *Christianity* is irrational, and you would be rejecting Christianity.

Question: 4) Has there ever existed a god before Jesus Christ?
4) Does Jesus proceed from the Father?

This is a great mystery that exists within eternity before time even existed. Since it is outside of time, it is eternal. Christ and the Holy Spirit proceeding from God the Father is part of the eternal nature of their existence. Thinking it in terms of an event is not thinking in eternal terms. There is no "before" and "after" in eternity. There is simply the eternal procession of the Son and the Spirit. So, yes, he proceeds from the Father in His eternal existence.

5) Will Mormons one day become Gods?
5) Do you believe Romans chapter 8, John 17, and Revelations 3:22?

I believe the Traditional Orthodox interpretations of those texts, yes. Do you believe yourself to be an authority on interpreting Scripture? If so, where did that authority come from?

Question:6) Was the Father once a man who went on to become God?
Counter Question: 6)Is Jesus God? Is he one with the Father? Did Jesus become a man?
Is Jesus God?

This time you are simply blatantly avoiding the question. Your questions have been answered above. Remember, the doctrine of the Trinity is One Eternal God in Three Persons. If you believe God was once a man (other than the incarnation of Jesus), you do not believe in the essential Christian doctrine.

Question: 7) If God the Father was once a man who went on to become God, who was God before Him?
Counter Question: 7) If Jesus was a man, and if he is God and if he is One with the Father, was the Father God before him?

This is just another example of you *resisting* the essential doctrine of the Trinity.

Question: 8) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
Counter Question: 8) Did God create the Devil?

In fact, Jesus created Lucifer along with all other angels. Remember John 1:3? "Through him all things came into being, and apart from him nothing came to be." That refers to the Word, and we know that the Word was co-eternal with God, and we know that the Word was Jesus Christ.

Lucifer is a created being. Jesus is not. According to the Christian Creed, Jesus was **begotten, not made**. Basic, essential doctrine for Christianity, which LDS *rejects*.

Question: 9) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
Counter Question: 9) Did God create all things Ex Nihilo? (out of nothing)?

This question is answered in numbers 4 and 8 above. By asking the question, you demonstrate that you reject the doctrine, and thus you reject Christianity.

I would really encourage you not to take this approach. It does nothing to forward your position, and it only encourages the belief (expressed several times in this thread) that Mormons avoid the discussion instead of facing it.

If the Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as their savior...then they are Christians as they believe in CHRIST!! (By the way I am Lutheran)

Ah. Then you must believe my Atheist friend, who believes in Jesus, is a Christian.

Are you saying, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential to Christianity? Although I am no fan of him, I am pretty certain Luther would disagree.

"Christianity was one of several sects within Judaism - even today, there are sects within Judaism. Christianity was still Judaism UNTIL the material they added, which parted with established Judaic theology, caused the Jews to expel them."

That's not precisely true. The idea of the Messiah was not a new one within Judaism. Judaism didn't reject a sect so much as they rejected the *person* of Jesus Christ, and they rejected his authority. I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity had become an issue at that point.

"Then the followers of what had until then been referred to as "The Way" ceased to be Jews and became Christians - A brand new religion, …"

Not quite. Orthodox Christianity retained much of Judaism and grew from Judaism. Even the coming of the Messiah wasn't brand new. The Jews expected it. Christianity retained the God Yahweh of the Jews, however, Christianity received greater Revelation about the nature of the God of Abraham. This additional Revelation (the Trinity) was rejected by some of the Jews, but this Revelation was in complete harmony with Jewish belief. In this respect, Orthodox Christians sometimes call themselves "completed Jews," or similar things. All the same, it was a big departure of *new* thought, and it does seem to fit into your model somewhat. But the model doesn't hold for new thought in general.

You see, the Jews themselves did not have any kind of "locked in" canon. (A small group tried to lock it in after Christianity started, but until then, there was no such thing.) They also had a long tradition of Revelation. Over many, many centuries new scriptures and new ideas were added to the Jewish Tradition. So does the new Revelation of Christianity really constitute a faith that was broken off from Judaism? Or is the new faith the intended result of Judaism?

It doesn't really matter to me. You obviously don't see a lot of Christians going around insisting that they be called Jews. Orthodox Christianity obviously did make some radical additions. (Though Roslyn Moss, a Catholic convert who was a Jew, was amazed at how much Catholicism resembles Judaism.) Christianity is fine for us to capture the essence of this "New Judaism," and we don't want to impose ourselves upon those Jews who are not Christian. Nor do we want to sow confusion. (These attempts to equate Mormonism to Christianity obviously sows confusion.)

"It's spread into Europe and the influence of the cultures there simply made it even more "un-jewish" as it developed over time."

Well, Judaism itself probably went through a much more radical change. Their Temple was destroyed, and some of their defining things were done away with. The whole practice of sacrificing the lamb in the Temple is gone. They did, however, retain much of the cultural heritage, while Christianity accepted in many new cultures.

Islam, on the other hand, did not start from within any religion. They pieced together fragments of a number of religions and built something entirely new. Most of the sources were Gnostic, as I understand it, and the Gnostics were considered heretics by the Christians. Mohammed knitted these things together and thought up a brand new way of thinking about all of them without benefit of interpretation from any other religion. It's difficult to say it is "brand" new, because a car built of used parts is not brand new. But Mohammed took the used parts of different automobiles and built himself a new tree house with them. It wasn't brand new, but it was something completely different.

"Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all have the same core source material, though protestants have disregarded parts of it."

I don't agree with this, though it is not surprising that non-Christians would perceive it this way. The "core source material" of Orthodoxy is not just the Old and New Testaments. It includes a wealth of Tradition and it includes the Authority of the Majesterium. It also includes the work of many Councils of the Church. So, from the beginning, the Protestants reject much more than just the books they ripped out of the Bible.

"Again, they ADDED nothing."

I would also disagree with this. They added plenty. They added the doctrine of sola scriptura as well as many, many other new doctrines. They reinterpreted the Bible in many new ways, and the came up with hundreds and hundreds of innovations in Christianity. However, the vast majority of them have retained some of the most essential parts of Christianity. One of them being the doctrine of the Trinity.

"Mormonism on the other hand, has added new material - they've added the book of Mormon to the Christian bible, the way the Christians added the New Testement to the Old and Mohammad added the Koran on top of that."

Mormonism did far more than just add materials. They completely rejected much of the essential beliefs of Christianity. They interpreted the old sources in ways that completely departed from the body of Christianity. They completely ignore the 2000 years of Christian Tradition that is in full agreement about these things, and they produced new ideas that describe something that is completely unrecognizable as Christianity--regardless of the use of Christian names.

"I think this relates Mormonism to Christianity the same way Christianity relates to Judaism and Islam relates to both Judaism and Christianity: A brand new religion, albeit originating from another."

I think your idea has some merit, but it needs development and refinement. There is more here than just the simple adding and subtracting of scripture. Much, much more.

The analogy doesn't quite work in that Judaism means you derive from Israel, specifically the tribe of Judah. This is true of Jews but not true of Christians, at least not in the literal sense. But Christianity means derived from Jesus Christ. This makes Mormons Christian because their teachings, although rejecting the 2000 years of tradition, do not reject Jesus Christ or his teachings. Now, you may call them non-Trinitarians, which they will quickly agree to, but to call them non-Christian is to misrpresent their faith. There are many branches of Christianity and many branches of Judaism but both fall back to their roots. For Mormons it is Christ, and that makes them Christian.

MormonMommy,

The whole intention of the article was to explore these distinctions. I have done nothing to imply that Mormon's are evil. I have only been exploring the proper understanding of Christianity, and whether or not Mormonism fits into it. That, my dear, is an exercise in discerning *Truth*. If you are not interested in discerning Truth, I'm not sure why you are here. But you should certainly not count yourself against those who are interested in discerning Truth.

I'm not interested in discerning "truth", as a matter of fact, if "truth" is something that could be discovered by arguing semantics. I'm simply saying that Christian is not something you ARE, it's something you DO. Anyone, no matter their religion or creed, who is doing their best to serve others and make themselves more like our Savior IS a Christian, and it doesn't really matter what you or I or anyone else says about it. The point of this life is to become the sort of person Christ is. The kind of person He will be happy to welcome into His kingdom. And are we accomplishing that by beating each other with our respective sticks of "truth" as we see it, or would we do best to work together and strengthen each other?

MormonMommy
p.s. I really wasn't speaking specifically to you. I don't want you to think I was singling you out; I was just responding to the postings as a whole.

A few of you have it about right, Rally Miner, Mike Bennion, Jestrfyl are good examples. I hope I am within the rules of conduct in the following statements. But the following goes to the very heart of this question, Are Mormons Christians?

What I mostly see here is unsubstantiated musings. Like those stating that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints don't believe Jesus is God, are dead in their tracks wrong. This is indicative of people who merely listen to others without getting their facts straight. I dare say few of those ranting against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have ever bothered to set foot in a "Mormon Chapel" or attend our Sunday Sacrament Services. If they had, and they continued to espouse such falsehoods, they would be deceivers of men, plain and simple! I have on many, many occasions attended many Christian churches of differing denominations for extended periods of time, as I am of a very curious and learning nature.

I had lunch last week with a business acquaintance whom has become a good friend. I asked him his view of the Trinity. We had a lengthy conversation, in which he made several very interesting remarks. I am not certain but I believe he attends a Lutheran or other protestant denomination church. He explained that his church taught the historically accepted view of the Trinity, three in one? Then when I shared my understanding of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, he said, paraphrasing “that’s what I have always believed the bible said, regardless of what they tried to teach me”. He told me his pastor had severely chastised him for even speaking to a “Mormon” let alone befriending one. He said he has not been back to his church since that conversation. He said he has had business and personal relationships with many “Mormons” and every single one, has been the kindest, most honest people he knows.

The question here seems to come down Dr. Mohlers accepted definition of Christian, especially as it pertains to the Trinity. I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, since my baptism at 8 years of age. I honestly can't conceive of Dr. Mohlers understanding of the Trinity.

I believe the bible clearly indicates that God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate entities. I don’t understand how one believes that Christ came to earth to do His own will and not that of His Fathers, or that he prayed to Himself and not to His Father as the Holy Scriptures state in Matt. 26:39, “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

There are way too many scriptures wherein Jesus refers to his Father as a separate being, from himself.
John 5:
[23] That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
[30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[36] But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Can the scriptures be any clearer about this question? Jesus Christ says his Father sent him here. Why would he state that if he came of his own accord? Why would a large percentage of professed Christians go against the very teachings they profess and proclaim? I can only surmise they choose to be deceived not by what they read in the Holy Bible, but by the cunning craftiness of men who took it upon themselves to narrowly define Christianity as it fits their political and personal aspirations, I am speaking historically here. Christ saw this day when he warned in Eph.4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

I choose to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit tells me that God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ are two separate beings.

A recent poster wrote: There was no Traditional Christian Orthodoxy until they themselves started bickering over what was right and wrong, and even then, the early Christians still split up over the situation...

Adding to this, Paul spent most of his time trying to correct the Saints in Corinth as they were found straying from Christ’s teachings. And this was immediately after Christ’s Resurrection.
Obviously, some things will never change!!!

"Christianity was one of several sects within Judaism - even today, there are sects within Judaism. Christianity was still Judaism UNTIL the material they added, which parted with established Judaic theology, caused the Jews to expel them."

That's not precisely true. The idea of the Messiah was not a new one within Judaism. Judaism didn't reject a sect so much as they rejected the *person* of Jesus Christ, and they rejected his authority. I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity had become an issue at that point.

Yes, the idea of the messiah was not new, but the idea that the messiah was basically the incarnation of God in physical form was COMPLETELY new, and considered blasphemy by most.

"Then the followers of what had until then been referred to as "The Way" ceased to be Jews and became Christians - A brand new religion, …"

Not quite. Orthodox Christianity retained much of Judaism and grew from Judaism.

My point is that it grew into something else, no longer a sect but a separate religion.

Even the coming of the Messiah wasn't brand new. The Jews expected it.

Yes, but their idea of what exactly the messiah was bore little resemblance to what Christianity made of it. That was THE radical difference that caused the latter to sheer off of the former.

Christianity retained the God Yahweh of the Jews, however, Christianity received greater Revelation about the nature of the God of Abraham. This additional Revelation (the Trinity) was rejected by some of the Jews, but this Revelation was in complete harmony with Jewish belief.

They apparently didn't share that opinon. ;)

In this respect, Orthodox Christians sometimes call themselves "completed Jews," or similar things.

Yeah, I know - Ask a Jew about that! lol (I have discussed that with some Jewish folks on another board).

Does the new Revelation of Christianity really constitute a faith that was broken off from Judaism? Or is the new faith the intended result of Judaism?

That is only a question if you're a believer, I think. In terms of classifying things, in a sort of anthropological sense, it constitutes a change radical enough that the product of it is considered something separate from it's origin.

"It's spread into Europe and the influence of the cultures there simply made it even more "un-jewish" as it developed over time."

Islam, on the other hand, did not start from within any religion. They pieced together fragments of a number of religions and built something entirely new. Most of the sources were Gnostic, as I understand it, and the Gnostics were considered heretics by the Christians. Mohammed knitted these things together and thought up a brand new way of thinking about all of them without benefit of interpretation from any other religion. It's difficult to say it is "brand" new, because a car built of used parts is not brand new. But Mohammed took the used parts of different automobiles and built himself a new tree house with them. It wasn't brand new, but it was something completely different.

Well, now we're splitting hairs. It's the difference between building a new car on a chassy you already had or welding a chassy together from spare parts. Neither one is the car(s) it was made out of - it's a "new" car.

"Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all have the same core source material, though protestants have disregarded parts of it."

I don't agree with this, though it is not surprising that non-Christians would perceive it this way. The "core source material" of Orthodoxy is not just the Old and New Testaments. It includes a wealth of Tradition and it includes the Authority of the Majesterium. It also includes the work of many Councils of the Church. So, from the beginning, the Protestants reject much more than just the books they ripped out of the Bible.

I was raised Catholic, I have studied history and theology and I know there is alot of tradition, with both the small case and capital "t". (The Christian version of the Talmud, basically). Yes, that was all thrown away, but still the end product is a stripped down version of the original, not a new thing.

"Again, they ADDED nothing."

I would also disagree with this. They added plenty. They added the doctrine of sola scriptura as well as many, many other new doctrines. They reinterpreted the Bible in many new ways, and the came up with hundreds and hundreds of innovations in Christianity. However, the vast majority of them have retained some of the most essential parts of Christianity. One of them being the doctrine of the Trinity.

The key word is "reinterpeted". The doctrine of sola scriptura, (or Sola Fide, or Sola Gratia) is a new interpretation of the original - not a new thing.

"Mormonism on the other hand, has added new material - they've added the book of Mormon to the Christian bible, the way the Christians added the New Testement to the Old and Mohammad added the Koran on top of that."

Mormonism did far more than just add materials. They completely rejected much of the essential beliefs of Christianity. They interpreted the old sources in ways that completely departed from the body of Christianity. They completely ignore the 2000 years of Christian Tradition that is in full agreement about these things, and they produced new ideas that describe something that is completely unrecognizable as Christianity--regardless of the use of Christian names.

Yes, but the Book of Mormon is enough to illustrate my point.

"I think this relates Mormonism to Christianity the same way Christianity relates to Judaism and Islam relates to both Judaism and Christianity: A brand new religion, albeit originating from another."

I think your idea has some merit, but it needs development and refinement. There is more here than just the simple adding and subtracting of scripture. Much, much more.

I know there's a mountain of differences, but one doesn't need to sift through the mountain - a few huge, glaring issues are enough to classify it as something different.

Minor doctrinal differences or rejection of some, even many tenants aren't enough to thrust something beyond sects or denominations. The addition of material, especially if it parts dramatically from the common source material on which the original religion revolves around, moves things into the realm of a new, seperate religion.

IMO.

If the Church I belonged to was like the church that Adelle described, I would run screaming from it. That Church is not the Church I belong to. I am sorry that Adelle had a horrible experience. My experience growing up Mormon could not be further from her experience. I grew up in a warm, loving, wonderful family environment. I was cared for. loved and taught the concept that I could know for myself if the Church was true. I was encouraged to do my own asking. I was supported in my quest to receive an answer. God did indeed answer me. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is truth restored.

If Adelle's story is true then a special kind of hell awaits her parents, and after 45 years as a member they are in the minority of those who I have known who are members of the Church.

One other thing. the Book, the Godmakers has even been discredited by other people critical of the Mormons. It was also singled out by the Anti-defamation league. (non-Mormon) as an embarrasment and as full of untruths.

One question for all of you who claim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has, "reinterpreted the Bible".

What one earth do you call, this. Wyclif, Tyndale, Coverdale,Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, King James Version (1611),Douay-Rheims, New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation, New International Version, New King James Version, English Standard Version and this list only begins to cover the number of interpretive translations available. So, just take your pick, or pick and choose. Surely you can find whatever it is you want to believe in one of them.

Even if Joseph Smith wasn't a Prophet, what gives the writers of these translations anymore authority than him.

Come on people, lets get real. Christ taught there is only one way to heaven. And is wasn't doing whatever you want in this life, it was following Him, His teachings, and the Apostolic authorities he established upon the earth. Either the Catholic Church retains that authority or it has been re-established by Christ in these latter days. You can't have it both ways, a good fruit cannot grow from dead trees.

I agree with Mike. I am sorry for Adelle's experiences growing up. I was not raised in the Latter Day Faith but found it as an adult, after years of searching and praying to the God of Abraham and the Christ of the New Testament. I am an educated and Christian person. I raised my family with an understanding of the gospel in a loving, caring, home environment. And yes, I protected them from any who might want to hurt them. The evil she described is not limited to any faith, or club, or family. However, one cannot assume all people are bad because one is bad or that all families are horrid because their own was. I have been to several Latter Day Saint Temples, I have worshiped there. And the things I have read here are untrue. They are superstitious rantings of the worst kind. If you were to worship there you would not make signs of slitting your throat or any of the many other things I have heard from people who do not know, but only guess. I am glad for Adelle that she has found her way out of what she sees as a miserable faith. I pray for her scars to be healed and that she find peace. I fear she may not have found peace yet, because of her rage and I know that healing comes through Christ so that is my prayer for her. My prayer for everyone else is that you will not go to enemies to ask about any faith but go to that faith and ask them. If you want to know about being a Catholic, go to the Catholics. If you want to know about Judiasm talk to a Rabi. Protestants? Seek out a reverend, pastor, minister, whoever is in a position to tell you the truth. If you want to know about Mormons then go to A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (EVERYONE IS WELCOME), call a mormon friend, talk to our Missionaries, or visit our website. Just don't go to someone who is not a member or who thinks they remember things from childhood accurately. Every person has their own memories of events. No two are alike even though they were at the same place and the same time. I will not proclaim to anyone what the churches I attended as a child believe even though I was quite active in several before I found my faith. Please give this same consideration to others. For those of you who have found your faith, I say good, well done. If you are happy, then I am happy for you. If you are searching then please search well so you can make an informed decision. And for any, of any faith, who have been hurt I am truly sorry and hope that you will also find peace for your soul and joy in your hearts through Christ Jesus. Amen

I enjoyed the article. I am not a Mormon, so I kept waiting for this article to explain what exactly are the great differences. I'm still waiting! Will anyone enlighten me?

Heaven is NOT !!!

Anyone from any denomination, or no denomination;

may become a Christian.

GOD - Almighty, creator & sustainor of ALL the worlds

sent His only begotten son to die a cruel death on the cross to pay

for folks's sins. Acceptance of this gift and repenting of our/your

sins will make us a Christian. It is our duty after that, to live like

the example Jesus Christ gave us, while he lived here on earth.

May GOD be with you !!!

Fundamentalism and its by product extremism, whether it be in the form of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any other religion or even when it is disguised as nationalism or patriotism, is the most divisive force on our planet and the biggest obstacle to peace and understanding among all peoples.

It is not my place or anyone else's place to impose our religious, social, moral, ethical or political beliefs on anyone else, It is the duty and responsibility of each of us to live according to our beliefs and by doing so to demonstrate the rightness of those beliefs to everyone we encounter. It is also incumbent upon each of us to accept and respect the beliefs of others and to honor them for standing in their truth. We do not have to necessarily agree with them or embrace their beliefs, but through acceptance and understanding we can create a dialogue of peace and brotherhood and equality.

Hey Brian,

I would like to challenge this statement by you:

"If you ask someone if they are Christian you are asking 'Do you believe in Christ?'"

Muslims believe in Christ. Are Muslims Christians?

oh and I spell my name with a "Y" thankyou very much. ;)

Warren Jeffs

Crimeny. I thought I was done, but this is an important point.

However, to most people, if you ask "Are you Christian?" then to them (whether they are mormon or not) you are asking "Do you believe in Jesus Christ."

Behind the question, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" is a depth of understanding of just *who* He is, and what kind of Being He is.

The average person may not explicitly state the understanding of Jesus as One of the Persons in One God, but they carry that tacit knowledge, and the vast majority of Christians will tell you that if you delve in deeper.

They do NOT think that they are saying they believe in "Jesus Christ who is a sprinkled donut."

They do NOT think they are saying they believe in "Jesus Christ" who was not God in the beginning with God the Father.

They do NOT think they are saying they believe in "Jesus Christ" who is a separate god from God the Father.

And they do NOT think a whole lot of other things. They think specific things about Him, including his One Godhood with the Father and Holy Spirit.

You are playing with meaning. You are pretending that it doesn't matter what "Jesus Christ" means when you speak of Him. You are making the name of "Jesus Christ" **meaningless** by engaging in this exercise of double-speak. In the long run, this practice of destroying meaning will hurt Mormonism very severely--much more than it will gain in its converts of confusion.

By this practice of the destruction of meaning, you are inviting Satan into the meaning. You bring your own destruction upon yourself.

Well define christian? Its a person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. They have accepted him as there Lord and savior. They pray to him alone and not to any other person or God, By that I mean some Catholics still pray to Mary. And believe that they cannot pray to the Lord. Christians do not have confession, as do Catholics. We ask God to forgive our sins, not a priest. We read the bible. And they are not allowed to. They do not even go to church with one. I know some
Catholics and I about fell down when they told me that.

Very well said, Bryan! Wish I had the command of our language you do. I think you hit the nail on the head. The elite religious leaders want to discredit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in an attempt to sway the lemmings to follow them and give no heed to the truth, or even talk to someone who may share it with them. It is a huge threat to their livelihood.

But, we have to remember, there are probably some on this blog who believe it is okay to perform abortions, live in an alternative lifestyle relationship, etc. as there are certainly other churches that openly embrace these sins, and still label themselves Christians.

I would like to add for those who know no better, that there is no paid clergy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at a local, regional or international level. It is my understanding that some who are called to serve full time only have their expenses reimbursed, excepting missionaries who serve at their own expense.

Chuck: I enjoyed the article. I am not a Mormon, so I kept waiting for this article to explain what exactly are the great differences. I'm still waiting! Will anyone enlighten me?

I wish I had time. I'm off to work. Back later tonight.
www.mormon.org

That link is a good start.

Mike

Bottom line is that a Christian is one that is trying to be Christ-like.

One that believes and professes the fact that the Trinity - God, Jesus, and the Spirit (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is one in the same.

One that believes that Jesus, born of a moman, was and is the Son of the Living God who created the Heavens and Earth, and not just another prophet. That he walked this earth for some 33 years teaching the Word of God. He was persecuted and sentenced to death - all part of God's plan. Died on the cross, was buried, went to the depths of Hell and, on the third day, rose again to be with our Heavenly Father. His death was God's gift to all who hear and accept that we may be saved from the slavery of sin, and through Christ, we are able to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Our Faith (belief in Jesus, the Son of God, who died for our sins) and God's Mercy and Grace are what enables us to enter into Heaven.

Christianity was and is the original "religion" of the New Testament in the days when Christ walked this earth. The Apostles were trying to be like Christ in His teachings and His actions, and therefore were called Christians. Their Faith in the Living Christ, before and after His death and ressurection, kept the Christian name going.

It is every Christians responsibility and right to proclaim the truth in our Living Christ, The Son of God the Father, as part of the Trinity, and our Messiah.

There are no works or words other than our testimony of The Living Christ, that will Bless us with the name Christian.

"Who gets to define "Christian?" Last time I checked it was the Bible. Not Creeds, not history, not personal experience (as valuable as those can be at times). Therefore, this debate should center on what the Bible teaches regarding the identification of true Christians. Since Mormons at least give a nod to the Bible, and orthodox Christians reject the Book of Mormon, the Bible seems to be the only common ground between Mohler and Olson. Forget the extra-Biblical sources. Forget personal experience. Forget creeds. Let's get to some Scripture!!!

I'm thinking of how the Pharisees charged Jesus with blasphemy for saying He was God. The Pharisees did not die with the supplanting of Judaism: their spirit lives on in the Christian church, and is alive and well, thank you.

Is Christ divided? Apparently. In fact, it looks like we've carved him up into denominational mince-meat: and that is not just the endless array of Protestants, it is true of the Catholic and Orthodox who split over incidentals.

All of this must give the Devil a great deal of satisfaction. He has managed to persuade all of us to focus on our traditions to spoil the unity of the faith and to make us the laughing-stock of the world with our endless theological bickering.

I think it is weak or immature faith that we are exporting to the world. We can't love our brothers whom we have seen, and we thus mock our God who has received all who believe in His Son into His fold. He is no respecter of persons or human doctrines.

We bind our converts with heavy burdens, imprisoning them in exclusive clubs. Then we snipe at all the competition. It's a sorry state that we have come to, and we are sure to be disciplined, until the glorious bride of Christ learns to love.

Theology is important, and wonderful to explore and discuss. But we tend to think of ourselves and our opinions more highly than we ought.
We can transcend these differences. Just like the Jewish believers learned to transcend their cherished approach to God in order to embrace the Gentiles. Now we Gentiles promote the same sectarianism toward one another.

As I've heard others mention, this era of the church is on its way out.
We will return to the understanding of the one Lord, one faith, one baptism that is not dependent on our private interpretations.

"Who gets to define "Christian?" Last time I checked it was the Bible.

Matt, that would be nice if it were possible. There are numerous reasonable ways to interpret any given line of scripture. How do you determine who has the right one? Even good faithful Bible Christians who ask for guidance of the Holy Spirit disagree with each other on different interpretations. So how do you get to the *intended* meaning? Without some Traditional authority, no one has any better claim over the other. That is the strength of Orthodoxy.

The Bible is a great tool for teaching, but without an authority to guide that teaching, you can wind up anywhere--including in Mormonism.

Good Lord, non-Mormons are mean and nasty. Are you sure you are Christians? Why are you so afraid of the Mormons? Is it because your own religion makes no sense to you and you don't understand it, and the Mormons actually understand theirs? Don't know, but I do care, because we should all be getting along. If only those Mormons could be real Christians like us. We should be rounding them up and tar and feather and kill their leader ... oh yeah... we already did that. I guess that didn't work. Now what? Hey, let's lie about them and say bad and ignorant things about them on the internet. Let's see how that will work.

Dr. Mohler discusses theology and beliefs and the definition of Christian, as the topic suggests. Orson Card discusses Mitt Romney and legitimacy. While he does say that he believes Jesus is the savior, he doesn't say if God was once a human, or that I can become a God. He neglects the Holy Spirit completely. He also says that I am not a Christian unless I am baptized by a Mormon. So the question for him is, are others Christian?

Error by others has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of my beliefs. Just because Protestants did wrong doesn't mean that Protestantism is wrong.

I wish Dr. Mohler had not used ORTHODOXY and stuff like that to show that Mormons are different. The basics of Christianity are easy to list. Not because we are orthodox, but because the Bible is our only authority.

Why do we care if the Mormons are Christians?

Why do we care about meaning?

Mormonism is a cult, plain and simple. Case in point:

I had a friend who had joined a polygamous sect in Manti, Utah. I corresponded with him via email and we discussed various topics.

Several weeks after the discussions, I was asked to meet with the Stake President. When I went in, I saw a copy of my email on his desk, along with a letter from Glen L. Pace asking him to find out my sympathies with polygamists. My personal email had been intercepted (the group was hosted on a domain in Utah-the mail server maintainer had made comments in the margins prior to his sending it on to Salt Lake City).

It was a chilling moment, and one I could hardly believe. That my personal correspondance could be intercepted and used as the basis for an investigation of my beliefs continues to strike me as - well, the image it conjures up in my mind is that of the SS or the Communist Party of the old USSR using whatever tactics justify its ends. The ends justify the means.

BTW, the Stake President who did this is still in office after about five years.

If that's not cultic behaviour on the part of the leaders, then what is?

Your "prophet" Joseph Smith wrote, "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthoodif any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

One can see how Joseph Smith was darkened in his understanding. Judging from his word, he was corrupt and deluded by lusts.

I would recommend that any Mormon should seriously consider the following passages:

"Little children, keep yourself from idols." - 1 John 5:21

Mr. Card, that you judged a fellow believer and tried to discredit his faith reveals your character.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." - James 3:1

At the same time, Paul exhorts us to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," and I pray that the Lord will guide us all in this issue.

Anon,

Any religion has its ample share of followers who will disown their children if they leave the faith, as Mormon converts have often found out first hand.

David,

Pointing out the bad actions of isolated individuals within a religion is a sad excuse for real argument against a religion. You can find jerks in any segment of human society. What's your point?

POCC7,

We have an angel because it symbolizes the joyous news of the Restored Gospel. Additionally, most Mormons regard the cross as a morbid symbol of Christ's death. They prefer to remember His life instead.

I think this misinterprets what the cross means to many Christians. But it is how many Mormons feel just the same.

As a Mormon who hasn't attended church in over 10 years, and having an atheist brother, I can tell you first hand, there is no "shunning" in Mormonism. Sure, family gatherings were a bit awkward when the brother would go outside to smoke and come in and mom would pretend that she didn't smell it, but now she just rolls her eyes at him still trying to get away with something even after 30 years. Maybe she is more liberal than most, but I don't think so. I think she is typical of Latter-day Saint mothers (and every other mother), just wanting happiness for her children.

The problem is this , if the non-Mormons can't even get the basic social practices of the church down, how can we expect you to understand the intricacies of the doctrine.

The problem is this , if the non-Mormons can't even get the basic social practices of the church down, how can we expect you to understand the intricacies of the doctrine.

I think you have it backwards. Social practices are much more complex and difficult to understand than intricacies of doctrine. However, I already concede the point about ostracism. It was ill-stated in spite of my good intentions, and I apologize.

Anon,

Thank you for your mostly even handed approach in speaking of my LDS Faith. I have read much of the Early Catholic Missionaries to California and have visited almost all of the California Missions.
In addition I read the accounts of the Journeys of Fathers Dominguez and Escalante through parts of what is now New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. I count these brave men as some of my heros.

They truly walked the walk.

Mike

I do not believe that Joseph Smith saw a angel of God. I don't believe that any Hebrews migrated to North or South America prior to European discovery. I do not believe that as man is God once was nor how God is man can be. I do not believe in celestial marriage.
Can I call myself a Mormon?
Mr. Card please post your answer to this question.
Thank You.

HEAR HEAR! you touched on some very important points every Christian should consider, Lesa!

being "Christian" is to be "Christ-like". it is foolish to argue over which church is the true Christian church, for they are ALL wrong to some extent!

i have been told i'm not a Christian because i don't believe in the "Doctrine of Trinity", created by the Roman Catholic Church. i've been told i'm not a Christian because i observe the weekly 7th day Sabbath and the annual Holy Days of God, rather than the "traditional orthodox" observances and practices. i've been told i'm not a Christian because i have long hair.

people who make such accusations are missing the boat, IMHO. however, if i were to believe i'm a Christian for any of these, i'd also be missing that boat! 8-)

as Christians, let us personally strive to observe, as best as we possibly can, the Greatest Commandments in the forefront of our minds, exemplified and taught to us all by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, YHWH (or by whichever name you understand Him by):

1. LOVE THY GOD
2. LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR
3. LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS CHRIST LOVES YOU

there is often much debate regarding numbers 1 & 2. i'm just beginning to learn how to avoid such debate by better putting #3 into practice more often. it's not easy, and i fail often, but i believe it is Christ within me driving me onward to continue trying.

Godbless...

8-)

bernard baruch carman
•••

As Orson Scott Card seems to point out, the Book of Mormon paints a picture of Christ that is pretty close to that of traditional Christian orthodoxy. What he fails to mention, however, at least in his opening section, is that Mormon doctrine regarding God and Christ is really more determined by their other scriptures--Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. These are the texts that take them far, far away from historical Christianity and, in my opinion, are contradictory to the Book of Mormon, not just the Bible.

Probably the best way to see how far the Mormons have moved away from historic Christianity is to compare them to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (which I think is now called the Community of Christ, or something similar). While the people who would eventually become the Mormons followed Brigham Young to Utah, the people who would become the Community of Christ followed Joseph Smith's son to Missouri. While the latter accepted the Book of Mormon and parts of the D&C, they reject almost all of the Mormon scripture that took their Utah cousins into a wonderland of theology.

As for Mitt Romney, I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs. I just look at where candidates stand on the issues.

My familly history with the Mormons goes back to the original/first 12 with Joseph Smith - by "religious" profession I am a Catholic - by pracitce I am a "beliver" - That being said - the Mormons were the ones that furnished the rebuilt Christian Community Concern (Christian relief center)after Katrina. Everything about a "Mormon" reflects the gifts of the sprit and the pracitce of love thy neighbor - They saw only the need and not the name. As a Catholic I would tell you -
One of the messages from the Blessed Mother Mary in Medjagoria was: We hear ALL prayers - there is no prayer from a Mormon, a Catholic, a Chritian, a Muslum - only prayers from our children - we hear them all and we love them all". In a time when our religious freedom and civil rights to practice openly have been taken away slowly and our country is falling apart - All of us should consider falling on our knees and pray for unity and guidance and if the person next to you is a Mormon or a "Christian" grab their hand and PRAY!! We need God's help as a country not as a bunch of arrogant "religious" dictionaries!!

Anon says: "I don't think the passages you read necessarily support the idea that Joseph Smith was corrupt and deluded by his lusts. I think it is misguided, but that is another thing. Nor do I think this kind of thing is productive in a discussion about doctrine and eligibility for office."

I find it interesting that in the Old Testament, anyone who claimed to be a prophet of God but prophecied incorrectly (falsely) was to be put to death immediately for blasphemy against God and anything they had taught was to be disregarded. A true prophet of God ALWAYS spoke the absolutle truth of God WITHOUT ERROR. In your own words, you are saying that you believe Joseph Smith was "misguided." I think that means you believe he was wrong. And in fact, as is made obvious by the countless revisions and adjustments in Mormon history and doctrine, leaders of the mainstream Mormon church also believe him to have been wrong on a number of issues. But if he was wrong on even the smallest of issues, using the Bible as a test, which you claim to beleive, wouldnt that mean that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who should have been put to death and that his teachings should be disregarded as complete falsehood??? If we want to stand with God's true Word as found in the Old Testament, then yes! Joseph Smith MUST be labeled as a false prophet and all of his teaching regarded as wicked, blasphemous heresy.

Another anonymous poster said, "The problem is this , if the non-Mormons can't even get the basic social practices of the church down, how can we expect you to understand the intricacies of the doctrine."

I don't think we're having a debate here over social practices. I think we understand the issue of abstaining from caffiene, alcohol, and tobacco. I think we understand the missionary efforts. I think we understand the emphasis on family. I don't see those as having been the point of this discussion. Our discussion has, in fact, been about doctrine. Besides, how else can we understand whether or not a faith system is truly Christian without a discussion on doctrine. Dr. Mohler tried to make this clear, but Mr. Card seemed to completely ignore it.

So let's talk about doctrine! Let's talk about how Mormons reject one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, the trinity. Let's talk about how Mormons believe in many gods, not the one true God. Let's talk about how you think you can achieve god-hood through your good works and obedience to the teachings of the church. And while we're at it, let's talk about some of the more bizarre doctrines like baptism for the dead and blood atonement. So...let's talk doctrine! We're waiting!

I have been a Christian since about age 5 and I have friends/relatives that are mormons. I do believe that mormons live a good lifestyle, but living good is not the requirement to being a Christian or to be born again. You MUST believe by faith that Jesus Christ is the ONLY living son of God and that only through accepting Him through His shed blood are we truly saved and forgiven of our sins. (Not through works alone should any man boast.)

I have had numerous conversations with mormon believing people and I have found that according to what you are saying in your explanation, that is not what the book of mormon teaches. The book of mormon teaches that Jesus was a great prophet and teacher, but not the true living son of God. You look to John Smith as being on the same level as Moses, Abraham & Jesus. How can that be right?

I do agree with the comments from "Joie" and everything that needed to be said was stated quite well and to the point.

I believe you are trying to hide behind words like doctrine and orthodoxy to make the Christian view-point to sound out-dated and irrelevant. I also believe the Dr. Mohler needs to speak and write on the Human level instead of hiding behind words that could have many meanings. Just come right out and say what you believe in plain old-fashioned words that everyone can understand.

(Hypothetical dialog)so they came up with a definition of Christianity that excluded mormons.

Bryan, no one "came up with" a definition. If Christianity means something, we define it by what it actually *is*. I notice how you completely avoid the discussion about meaning. *Meaning* must be just a little too inconvenient to you.

You are the one who wants to "come up with" a definition that will blow away the meaning that reflects reality.

This has nothing to do with discrediting anyone. It has to do with respecting meaning and being honest about the meaning.

I think I remember someone mentioning that when mormons claim they are christian they are complicating things... this way seems a bit more complicated if you ask me...

I would much rather have to deal with complication and be honest than sow confusion and be destructive to meaning. I would much rather be concerned with Truth, than my own convenience. I would much rather be an ally to Truth and meaning than be an ally of Deception and Evil.

What would you rather do?

So what would you propose for an authority?

(Paraphrased from my earlier quote of Zippy)

I propose the Rock of authority Jesus established in the Catholic Church, which includes text written by inspired human beings, traditions passed on by human beings, and a magisterium that remains quite fallen and human yet bears the protection of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal and sacramental matters.

Brett: "I do not believe that Joseph Smith saw a angel of God. I don't believe that any Hebrews migrated to North or South America prior to European discovery. I do not believe that as man is God once was nor how God is man can be. I do not believe in celestial marriage."

Mike: I know that Joseph Smith saw many angels of God. Amos 3:7 I know that At least three groups of Believers in Christ came fromthe old world to the new prior to European discovery. (See the Book of Mormon, www.lds.org under gospel library, scriptures. I do believe that men can, 1. Be like God. 1st John 2. Be one with God, John 17. 3. Be joint heirs of God. Romans 8. 4. Sit with God on his throne. Rev 3:22. I know that families can be together forever.

I also know that Brett is an ex-Moemon with a large ax to grind. We have spoken previously.

Mike: I will teach the doctrines of Christ for the sake of all those who are seeking the truth. I will continue to my last breath.

I don't fault you for that. I am not fighting against Mormon's teaching about the figure they call Christ. I am fighting against their claims that their beliefs are aligned with the essential beliefs in Christianity. Do you have an objection to clarity and Truth?

As for criticisms that people have had throughout these postings of the faults of the Catholic Church, I ask anyone to show me a church without faults. Not only that, but the Catholic Church has been around for over 2000 years. How many organizations can say that they are still around after all that time?

Additionally, the Catholic Church has apologized for participations in corruption throughout history.
One of such apologies (addressed to the members of other Christian churches) can be found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical "UT UNUM SINT", On Commitment to Ecumenism.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not created by man, but by Christ, as Anon corrected me in when I misspoke. There are many times in the Gospels which Christ mentioned that He and the Father are one, and the passages are the ones referred to many times in the postings above.

To David, who claims that Mormonism is an attempt to invent authority-like the Catholics do-simply read your bible, and you will find evidence that Jesus Christ instituted this authority. Jesus told built his Church on Simon Peter, "Peter" being the english translation of the Greek word "Petros", and also in syriac "Kefa", all meaning "stone":
Matthew 16:18
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Jesus never babbled nonsense, for He is God Almighty. What was Jesus' intended meaning if it wasn't to give the apostles, specifically Peter, authority?

Once again, another passage that shows Jesus entrusted authority to His church on earth, is
Matthew 16:19:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Keys of the Kingdom? Jesus literally gave the very keys of the kingdom of heaven to the apostles, who had authority to forgive sin as Jesus did: "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." -John 20:23

Man did not "make up" authority. God gave it to the apostles to found a Church, a universal, or "catholic", church: "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."-John 17:21.

The idea that Mormons deny the grace of Jesus Christ is only told by non-Mormons. I also have heard that the Book of Mormon describes Jesus Christ merely as a prophet. Obviously this person never read the book.

I also read that "The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the core essential attributes of Christianity, and it has been so since the beginning."

The problem is, the trinity was solidified in the 4th century. FOUR HUNDRED YEARS after the term Christianity was coined. Clearly it was noc since the beginning.

"There are a number of arguments used supposedly to “prove” that we [LDS/aka Mormons] are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of them have anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this: Latter-day Saints are different from the other Christian churches... [The] arguments against the Latter-day Saints being Christian generally fall into six basic categories:

Exclusion by special definition

1 What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.”

Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians. However, if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. Excluding us in this way by inventing a special definition for the word Christian is like defining a duck as an aquatic bird with a broad, flat bill, webbed feet, and white feathers, and then concluding that mallards aren’t ducks because their feathers are the wrong color.

If the term Christian is used, as it is in standard English, to mean someone who accepts Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, then the charge that we aren’t Christians is false. However, if the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians. No one “owns” the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God.

Exclusion by misrepresentation

2 Some people insist on condemning Latter-day Saints for doctrines the Saints don’t even believe. They say, in effect, “This is what you Mormons believe.” Then they recite something that is certainly not taught by the Latter-day Saints. It’s easy to make LDS beliefs seem absurd if critics can make up whatever they want and pass it off as LDS doctrine.

A good example of this kind of misrepresentation took place when the subject of the Latter-day Saint pioneers came up in my daughter Sarah’s school classroom a few years ago. One of her classmates said, “My daddy says Mormons are people who live in Utah and worship idols.” Sarah quickly answered back, “Well, I’m a Mormon, and we don’t worship idols.” But many of her classmates never did believe her, largely because they had already accepted the misrepresentation.

Another form of misrepresentation is to claim something is official LDS doctrine when it may merely be an individual opinion or even speculation. The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all... Other churches claim the right to define and interpret their own doctrines and policies and to distinguish between official church teachings and the opinions of individual members. Surely the Latter-day Saints must be allowed the same privilege.

Name calling

3 Name calling has often been used in religious controversies. At one time, Catholics called Protestants “heretics,” and Protestants called Catholics “papists.” But this sort of tactic amounts to nothing more than saying, “Boo for your religion, and hurrah for mine.”

The negative term most frequently flung at the LDS is “cult,” a term which can suggest images of pagan priests and rituals. But the truth is there is no objective distinction by which a cult may be distinguished from a religion. Use of the term cult does not tell us what a religion is, only how it is regarded by the person using the term. It simply means “a religion I don’t like.”

Though non-LDS scholars have made many attempts to define a “cult” in a way that would distinguish it from a “religion,” to date every such attempt has failed. So far the major difficulty has been that any definition of “cult” that fits the LDS Church also fits New Testament Christianity! But that’s not bad company to be in.

Exclusion by tradition

4 It is sometimes argued that to be truly Christian, modern churches must accept both biblical Christianity and the traditional Christianity of later history. In other words, one must accept not just biblical doctrines, but also the centuries of historical development—the councils, creeds, customs, theologians, and philosophers—that came along after New Testament times. Since the Latter-day Saints do not accept doctrines originating in the early Church after the death of the apostles and prophets, we are accused of not being “historical” or “traditional” Christians.

In fact, we believe that revelation to the early Church stopped because of the death of the Apostles and the growing apostasy, or falling away, from the truth. In the absence of Apostles, the church eventually turned to councils of philosophers and theologians, for guidance. These councils, after lengthy debates, in turn interpreted the gospel according to their best understanding. Often they drew upon the philosophies of respected men (like Plato), concluding, for example, that God has no body or physical nature; or that the three separate persons of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are only one being. The declarations of these councils are still generally accepted today by traditional Christian churches as official doctrines. Yet these creeds were formulated centuries after the deaths of the Apostles and the close of the New Testament.

Were the Twelve Apostles Christians? Of course. But if it were true that one must accept the whole package of historical Christianity in order to be a Christian, then it would be impossible for early Christians, including Jesus and his disciples, to qualify—since they lived centuries before these traditions came to be. On the other hand, if the New Testament Saints can be considered Christians without accepting all the traditions of men that came later, then so can the Latter-day Saints, and the historical exclusion is invalid.

The canonical or biblical exclusion

5 The term “canon of scripture” refers to the collection of books accepted by any group as the authoritative word of God. For most Christians the canon of scripture is limited to the Bible. But Latter-day Saints have a larger canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The canonical exclusion, in its simplest form, says that since Latter-day Saints have books of scripture in addition to the “traditional” Christian Bible, they cannot be Christians.

One of the problems with this canonical exclusion lies in the assumption that there is only one “traditional” Christian Bible. Over the centuries, there have been a number of different versions of the Bible, and many Christian churches and individuals have disagreed about which books should be included. Even today, the Bible used by Catholics contains a number of different books than the Bible used by Protestants. Yet Catholics and Protestants continue to call each other Christians—even though they have different canons of scripture.

When revelation stopped after the death of the early Apostles, people were forced to draw one of two conclusions: (1) either revelation had stopped because God had already said everything they would ever need, or (2) revelation had stopped because the church lacked apostles and prophets to speak for him. Traditional Christians accept the first explanation; Latter-day Saints accept the second.

Sometimes critics cite Revelation 22:18–19 [Rev. 22:18–19] as evidence that the Bible forbids adding to or taking away from the canon of scripture. In these verses, John curses those who would add to or take away from “this book.” But when John wrote Revelation, the Bible in its present form did not yet exist. He was simply referring to his own book, the Book of Revelation, rather than to the whole Bible.

The truth is that prophets have usually added to the scriptures—almost all the biblical apostles and prophets did this. There is, in fact, no biblical statement whatever closing the canon of scripture or prohibiting additional revelation or additional scripture after the New Testament.

Some non-LDS Christians believe that the Bible contains all religious truth. However, the Bible itself says nothing of the sort. The word Bible never appears in the Bible—for the Bible never refers to itself. Thus all these claims about the Bible are unbiblical. The Bible itself never claims to be perfect, never claims to be sufficient for salvation, and never claims to grant its readers authority to speak or act for God. Rather, such claims are made by those who have lost priesthood authority and have lost direct revelation and, instead of trying to find them again, are trying desperately to maintain that their loss doesn’t matter.

The doctrinal exclusion

6 This type of argument claims that since the Latter-day Saints do not always interpret the Bible as other Christians do, we must not be Christians. But, in fact, other denominations also differ among themselves doctrinally, and it is unreasonable to demand that Latter-day Saints conform to a single standard of “Christian” doctrine when no such single standard exists.

For example, the Latter-day Saints are accused of worshiping a “different god” because we do not believe in the traditional Trinity. “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1) as taught in the New Testament. What Latter-day Saints do not believe is the non-Biblical doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) centuries after the time of Jesus—the doctrine that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence. We do not believe it because it is not scriptural. As Harper’s Bible Dictionary states: “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

Jesus didn’t teach the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament writers didn’t have any idea of it. The doctrine itself wasn’t invented until centuries later. So one can’t say the Latter-day Saints are not true Christians for not accepting it, unless one also excludes Jesus, his disciples, and the New Testament Church, who similarly did not know or teach it.

Latter-day Saints do believe that God the Father has a physical body. This view is attacked as “non-Christian” by critics who often cite John 4:24, which states in the King James version that “God is a spirit.” However, since there is no indefinite article (a, or an) in the Greek language from which this verse is translated, the consensus among biblical scholars is that there should not be an indefinite article at John 4:24. It should simply read “God is spirit.” In other words, this scripture does not limit God to being only a spirit, but merely includes spirit as one of his attributes. After all, we also read that “God is light” (1 Jn. 1:5) and “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and yet no one interprets these verses to mean that God is only light, or God is only love. Certainly, the member of the Godhead called the Holy Ghost is spirit, but that fact tells us nothing about whether or not God the Father has a physical body.

Finally, quite often we hear that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because true Christians believe in salvation by grace, while the Latter-day Saints believe in salvation through our own good works. But this is a misunderstanding. Yes, Latter-day Saints do believe we must serve God with all our “heart, might, mind, and strength” (D&C 4:2). But the Book of Mormon makes perfectly clear that it is impossible for us to completely earn or deserve our blessings from God (Mosiah 2:21, 24); that redemption can never come through individual effort alone, but only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 2:3, 5–8); and that—after all we can do (Alma 24:11)—we are saved by grace (2 Ne. 10:24; 2 Ne. 25:23).

Conclusion

We have discussed arguments some people use for claiming that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. Notice that not one of these addresses the question of whether we accept Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior. Our critics don’t address this—the only issue that really matters—for the LDS position here is an unassailable matter of record. Our first article of faith [A of F 1:1] declares our belief in Jesus Christ. We meet every Sunday and partake of the sacrament to renew our faith in and our commitment to Him as the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

I have frequently asked non-LDS critics exactly which Book of Mormon teachings about Jesus Christ they disagree with. Invariably the response has been that it isn’t what the Book of Mormon says that is offensive to them—it is the Book of Mormon itself. Most anti-Mormons reject the LDS scriptures without knowing or caring what those scriptures actually teach about Christ. You see, it isn’t really the LDS doctrine of Christ that is objectionable; rather, it is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is God’s word, and that the gospel has been restored to the earth in the latter days.

Both the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a prophet bear witness to Jesus Christ as Savior. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price bear that same great witness, as do all of the modern prophets and apostles. Though all the world may say that Latter-day Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, the truth is that we do. If this is not enough to be counted as Christian, then that word has lost its meaning."

(http://tinyurl.com/mjmfc)

I really, really wish that religious beliefs played absolutely no part in elections at all, period. Because, as you can see from the posts on this thread, it can bring out the worst in people. There are so many people posting here, sincerely convinced of the "rightness" of their own beliefs and interpretations of god and religion. I dare say, each of them also sincerely believes the majority of the others are damned and doomed for all of eternity for not believing as they do. All of them have their prophets and groups of wisemen who have claimed revelations from god and deliberated countless times over their exact meanings. Is Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith really any more valid than any other prophet? Is any ones holy book any more credible than any other? So does it really matter if Mormons are really christians or not? The election of the President of the United States of America shouldn't be about which particlar religious cult you belong to, it needs to be about the best man or woman possible to lead our country in these very trying times. I personally would rather it wasn't someone who thinks their god talks to them. Or someone who uses their religious beliefs to make decisions about important issues such as birth control, global warming, abortion, war, stem cell research, education, and alot of other things. These issues require brains, not prophets.

There are so many people posting here, sincerely convinced of the "rightness" of their own beliefs and interpretations of god and religion.

For the record--almost none of my arguments have been about the "rightness" of Christianity or the "wrongness" of Mormonism. My arguments have focused on the meaning of them both, and the destruction of meaning that many are trying to accomplish.

If you'll pardon my changing the subject for a moment-this is, as Mr. Card emphasized, about whether we should be voting for Mitt Romney. The fact that it's become a 200+ comment argument about whether Mormonism is Christianity is an indicator of how sensitive the issue is. But I digress.

I'm an atheist who's made only a light study of Christianity and none of Mormonism, so I'm not even entering that argument. Rather, I'd like to debate Mr. Card's point that he'd rather have someone who's known for following his beliefs than an atheist someone else who is, essentially, a wild card. (I'm not even going to touch on his arguments regarding the 'vigorous atheist movement,' better known as the 'worldwide atheist conspiracy.')

Please understand that I'm not insulted by any of this, although I do have a healthy and functioning sense of pride. I got past being generally disliked or distrusted by those who are devoutly religious a while back. However, I do find Mr. Card's argument somewhat... curious.

Mr. Card has himself made the point in the past that (loosely paraphrased) 'even atheists have religion, they just don't know it.' He then goes on to define religion as simply a set of rules governing ones behavior and actions. So, Mr. Card, which is it? Do we have beliefs, or don't we? And if we don't-well, this may seem silly, but if the atheist without strictly outlined religious beliefs still does the right thing, then hasn't he had to fight harder to discover the difference between right and wrong? Romney's been told by his religion. But how does an atheist who doesn't cheat on his wife, drink (to excess, at least), and turns the other cheek know what to do?

One last point, and then a quick question. "The Relation of Science and Religion" by Feynman is worth reading, if only as a reminder that a lot of atheists are not baby-eating soulless sharks.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/02/Religion.htm

My question, and please pardon me if it comes off sarcastically; it's a question born of honest curiosity that I've asked of a handful of my Mormon friends and that none of them have been able to answer. Can you drink teas, such as Rooibos (a rare red tea), which are not naturally caffeinated? (Actually, come to think of it, I'm not entirely certain that Rooibos isn't naturally caffeinated. I don't particularly like the stuff and so haven't made a great study of it. But the premise of the question still stands.)

This is ignorance. In the Catholic Church, not one Bible was in the pews.

Denice Marie, that is either an excessively ignorant statement yourself, or a deliberate distortion.

Since you were Catholic, you know that the readings from Scripture are readily available in the Missals. You also know that the Mass is a liturgy that has prayers and participation. When we are not reading Scripture, we are doing other things, including witnessing the consecration of the Eucharist, so having additional Bibles is superfluous. Catholics do Bible study outside of the Mass.

Shame on you for distorting the truth.

I don't have time for other issues in your tyrade, right now, but I will handle them later.

It is strange that the Morman church says that they are the one true way, when they change the Scriptures to satisfy their ways when the Holy Bible says that we are not to do that.

For example,the Mormon Bible says that Adam came with his wives, when the Holy Bible says that God created Adam and Eve.

Makes you wonder what else is changed.

Russ, can you give reference to the "Mormon Bible" and all those wives. Didn't think so. Run along and belive your lies.

I loved "Ender's Game". This article, not so much.

I am so appreciative of the comments I have read from Orson Scott Card over the past year - especially in clarifying Mormonism to many people.

I joined the Church 38 years ago and it still amazes me how many people do not believe we are Christian. Especially the person who said he was raised "Mormon" and was taught Jesus was a great teacher, but not the Son of God or that Mormons do not profess Jesus Christ as Savior. I fear he may have been napping in the back during Sunday School class.

I went from Church to Church searching for the truth. I loved them all. They were filled with many good people following the example and teachings of Jesus Christ. As part of an area Interfaith group - together with Hindu's, Muslim's, Sikh's and a numerous variety of Christian denominations, we strive to use "the faith community to better the entire community". We do not try to convert each other or argue points of doctrine.

It is so unclear to me why many people who claim to believe in the Bible and to follow Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, spend so much time tearing down other religions (including other Christian denominations). Or worse, are so antagonist as to define who is a Christian and who isn't. If, as one person commented, 'Mormon's are not Christians because Christianity quite simply is following the teachings of Christ Jesus' - then they themselves are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ when He stated, "Judge not according to the appearance..." (John 7;24)

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would never have joined any church that did not believe or teach that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God. He is my Savior and Redeemer. I love Him and do my best to follow Him in faith.

I have no desire to judge others or tear them down or speak to what they believe or don't believe. I only know that as a Mormon, I am most definitely a follower of Christ. I love Him and try to love others because that is what He expects of me.

If any person has a true desire to know what Mormons believe - PLEASE - ask a Mormon. Don't get your information from an inaccurate PBS documentary, or blog or an "unofficial" LDS website. And most of all, please don't ask an "ex-Mormon". It's ironic how some people can leave the Mormon Church, but they can't leave it alone.

The most important message I hope to leave with anyone willing to listen with an open mind and heart is that "contention is of the devil". Satan wants us to contend with one another - over politics, social issues, religion - whatever!! If we do nothing else, we should come together as "followers of Christ" no matter which Church we attend, and do our best to overcome evil, and serve and love each other. That's certainly what Jesus has already done and what Jesus would do if He walked the earth today.

And here in the United States of America, where we believe that "united we stand - divided we fall" that is even more reason to love one another with all of our might, mind, heart and soul.

God Bless You and God Bless America!

Whoops. Right after posting this I noticed the brilliant irony here:

"This is where the Feynman essay I linked to comes in. He says-and I personally believe this-that religion is a matter of belief and science is a matter of doubt. Where in religion, you say, "I believe," in science, you say, "I doubt very little.""

This should read:

"This is where the Feynman essay I linked to comes in. He says-and I personally doubt this very little-that religion is a matter of belief and science is a matter of doubt. Where in religion, you say, "I believe," in science, you say, "I doubt very little.""

Read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelations - starting on Chapter 2.

True followers of Christ may be in any church denomination claiming to be a Christian church, as well as those who claim to be but are not. Whether we as humans / man or woman try to define Christianity and what it takes to be a Christian, only God knows our true heart.

This leaves little to argue / discuss as to what we think. If we read the Bible and follow and obey the teachings as are written, either through Gods word written by man (Old Testiment mostly) or as written by the Apsostles who walked with Jesus, we should be able to discern what it means to be a Christian.

Anonymous Atheist -

I don't understand how you knowing Christians exhonerates or accuses you of not liking Christians. I never claimed Atheists did either.

I appreciate your sincerity in not thinking that you claim to be a god, but I would ask you, what is the basis of you not believing in a diety? If it's based on evidence, I would enjoy hearing what you have to say.

It seems to me that an illogicial deduction has occured when you claim the moral code of Jesus was incredible and that he followed it so strictly. How could you be so willing to respect Jesus if he claimed to be God and yet you deny the existence of a God?

This Denice Marie is so far gone, I probably should just ignore her. But I am not a wise man, and there were many things she said about Catholicism that just plain weren't true. So here are my corrections:

Shame on you who call yourself Christians yet judge.

For those who would judge the hearts of Mormons and the eternal destination of Mormons--I am with you.

However, God did not forbid us to think, and along that line there is no shame in making judgments (a very different kind of judgment than the previous example) about meaning and morality. (After all, you make that kind of judgment yourself when you say "Shame on you…")

I am Mormon and a former Catholic. I investigated the church from 1996. Why? One, I polled my own family and they not only could name the Gospels and their message, but could noy even say what order they came in.

There are a few issues here. First, you shouldn't base your judgment on Catholicism based upon the ignorant or the unfaithful. I don't judge Quantum Physics based on the knowledge of the average 5th grade school teacher.

Second, the order of the Gospels doesn't tell us much about the message within them. A Catholic is constantly fed Scripture in the Mass, and over time the Gospel is explored deeply and comprehensively. It is excessively…ahem...judgmental to criticize the faith of others based upon irrelevant data. After all, can you--without looking--list the order of all the books of both the Old and New Testament? Should I judge your faith based upon the result? How extremely petty that is.

Third, Catholicism consists of far more than just the Bible. Catholicism is a loving response to our King and Redeemer by doing what he commands. It is about receiving the Sacraments that he commanded. It is about immersing ourselves in prayer and being in His presence in as many ways as possible, and as often as possible. It is about joining with the prayers of heaven by participating in the prayer of the Mass. We join our voices with the Angels of heaven in the book of Revelation who continuously sing, "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord!"

The Bible is our Holy Scripture, but it is not our tabernacle. We do not worship the Bible as some denominations seem to. We worship and seek the love of our God through obedience.

You should not speak of what you do not understand. This is ignorance.
In the Catholic Church, not one Bible was in the pews.

I have already dealt with this tersely, but let me add some detail.

The Mass consists of two liturgies. The longer of those two liturgies is the Liturgy of the Word. In this liturgy we always have at least two readings from Scripture, and on Sunday we have three. One of those readings is always from one of the Gospels. During the Liturgy of the Word, we also have Psalm readings. We participate in prayer as we read the Psalms. The Bible is profusely integrated into our Mass.

In the second liturgy of the Mass, words from the Bible are also continuously spoken.

You may have missed my post earlier that told of a study that was done that surveyed the amount of Scripture read in the services different denominations. The Catholic Church came out way ahead of almost all other denominations. To distort the Truth--the Truth that you must know if you were Catholic, is shameful.

Another thing is that Catholicism does not stop worshipping outside of the Mass. We do study the Bible outside of Mass. (Although I dare say we get a better study of it in Mass than many Protestants get. The Mass covers the Bible comprehensively as it cycles through, and I am often aware of Scriptures I heard and read in Mass that Protestants knew nothing about.) We also have a lot of prayer that is Scripturally based. The Rosary is a meditation upon Christ's life in the Gospels, and the prayers within it are almost entirely Biblically based.

Catholics may not generally be Bible scholars--but they are immersed in Scripture and ever present in its *meaning*.

Family is first and foremost in everything and church does not stop when the doors close.

If you mean family comes first after God, sure. I don't think you would find disagreement from any faithful Catholic that "…church does not stop when the doors close."

I investigated all faiths…

I doubt you know all of the faiths, but I will accept that you did some investigation. Still--your investigation of Catholicism was obviously not well done.

…and if it was not for the Relief Soiety and the Church, I would have lost my home long ago. I am divorced, my husband left me, and my Bishop and the church helped me an today, I still have my home.
The missionaries have come to ask "What can we do for you?" They have raked my yard, helped me with anything and everything I needed and the members of the Church are there for me 24/7. When I was sick and could not swallow solid food, three times a day, a member of the church went to shop and make me food I could eat, bought me groceries when I fell on hard times and did not want any thanks in return. They came around the clock to see me in the hospital everyday.

God bless them all. I must say that pretty much every Mormon I have ever met in person has been a right fine person. I know that they do good works, and I think Christ--whether He is the Person of Christianity or the figure of Mormonism--will smile upon them for it. Keep in mind, Denice Marie, that I have not made any judgments about Mormonism in general in this discussion. I am making judgments about *meaning*.

I cannot say this of any other Church.

Well, this is a pretty silly thing to say. To imply that other churches do not do charitable work and help people is outrageous and excessively uncharitable of *you*. I give the Mormons credit for helping you. Let's give the other denominations credit for their good works, too.

The Book of Mormon is another Testament to Jesus Christ who we love as our Lord and Saviour and live it everyday. I have a strong Testimony to this. Children are taught early on how to be young men and young ladies. We are clean cut in dress and these children are some of the most well mannered children you would ever meet. I cannot say this of what I have seen consistantly of any other faith.

I respect that to a degree. However, you must understand that the Catholic Church reaches into the most hopeless of places to bring the grace of God, and we will teach the Hope and Glory of Christ to them no matter how they dress and no matter how their culture has formed them. We do not exclude them from the Graces of God due to their upbringing or their haircuts.

No Priest, or Pastor has come close in doing any of the above, especially when I was in need. When I was Catholic or belonged to a Protestant Christian Church, I was lucky if a Priest or Pastor came by at all or maybe one or two times at best.

I'm sure there are a million anecdotes out there from people who didn't get the attention they wanted. Priests, in general, get no rest at all. They are constantly visiting the sick and the poor. They are constantly working in venues to spread the word of God. They are constantly administering the Sacraments of marriage and attending funerals. It is a bit disingenuous to judge them all by your one isolated experience.

I investigated many faiths, and never found such love and love for Christ, our Heavenly Father, and an outpouring for others.

Then you didn't "investigate" very hard. I know of many faiths that have very loving people in them. Mormons are not the only people with love in the world. I praise them for treating you well, and if there were any Catholics or others who treated you badly, I rebuke them. But this attempt to paint the Mormons as the only charitable people and that they never, ever fall short is nothing short of delusional. Give credit where credit is due.

Finally, the Vatican sets forth doctrine, does it not?

That depends upon what you mean by "set forth." The Vatican protects the doctrinal knowledge in the Deposit of Faith that Jesus Christ gave directly to the Church. And with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it mostly clarifies and preserves what is already there. But the Vatican does not make doctrine.

The Pope lives like a King in a palace when he should exemplify how Jesus lived.

The Pope's life is not his own. The Pope serves 24/7. He does not live like a King. The demands upon him are *endless*. I would not trade my blue collar place for his in a million years. I know that isn't a convenient description for you since you are obviously looking for reasons to condemn him, but that is the truth.

All that money in the massive Palace the Pope resides in could go to the needy. He should live in the utmost of modest means if he is to be an example of our Heavenly Father on Earth.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly have no clue what goes on in the Vatican and what its purpose is. You are looking for reasons to condemn Catholicism by chasing made-up images in your head.

He is not "The Heavenly Father" on Earth. There is only one and that is God, and to call the Pope "The Heavenly Father" is contradictory to what is taught. We have one Heavenly Father, and again that is God.

Catholics neither call him "Heavenly Father" nor consider him the Heavenly Father on Earth. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The Pope is the successor of Peter the Apostle to whom Christ explicitly handed the Keys to the Kingdom. His Seat, the Seat of Peter, is a Holy Seat, and he is in a holy role as commanded by Christ. But he is not the Heavenly Father, and as a former Catholic, you should know that. If you are deliberately distorting the truth, you should be ashamed of yourself. If, on the other hand, you are just ignorant of these things, then you are a hypocrite for criticizing your parents' ignorance. These are very basic things in Catholicism.

and He is everywhere. The Pope is treated like a King, a Monarch, his hand kissed as if royalty and lives like royalty, Christ did not. So I say to the Pope, "Leave and give up all and sell all of your belongings and come follow me." As Jesus said to a very wealthy man. You should know the Scripture I speak of if you are a Christian.

I find it quite interesting that such a self-righteous person as yourself thinks you are in a position to tell the Pope what Christ would have him do. You are not Christ, and you do not have his authority. You have no place telling the Pope what he must do.

{Snipped out a bunch of similar "Mormons are better than everybody" tripe.}

Do this for many months as if you were studying for college. otherwise, do not speak of what you do not know and have not sought out to educate yourself (yourselves) before damning us as non Christians.

I am not damning you at all. It is *reality* that makes you not Christian, not me, and I never once claimed that part of that reality was your damnation. I'm just articulating the truth of that reality.

Today, everytime I pick up the paper or wath the news, another Priest molested a boy. It is well known that many in the Priesthood are not heterosexual. This is not opinion, but a fact. We frown on that highly, and you will not find that desacration in one Mormon.

Catholicism frowns on these things, too. Catholicism rejects sin even if it is the sin of its own members. Satan does everything he can to hurt us.

But we are not alone in fighting sin among our members. I have seen pedophilia charges placed against Mormons, as well as other sexual abuse problems. Do you really want to play that game? These are *saddening* things for all of us, and I do not judge Mormonism by those cases.

As a Christian, I must forgive and love those who will persecute me for my posting and my Christianity as a Latter Day Saint.

You consider the condemning and vitriolic language that you used **loving**? This tirade of cheap shots and deception is **loving**? You vilify Catholics with dripping spite, yet you say we should not cast stones? Your hypocrisy is so utterly profound that you reduce your writing to self-parody, and you completely destroy any credibility you might have had.

Of all the people who have posted on this list, you, Denice Marie, are the one I pity most. Only a very injured and miserable person could have written these deceptions with the acid and spite that you did.

By the way, natural law is one kind of God's revelation. It is worth exploring Divine Revelation, as well.

That's easy. In spite of not believing that God exists, you still live in His created world. And in His created world there exists natural law. Atheists can perceive the Good in natural law, and they can respond to it. And it is the hope of Catholicism that God will have mercy upon them when they die and face judgment. (Even if you die an atheist, you will be judged by what you were dealt. And if, through no fault of your own, you have missed the teaching of Christ--even if that means you rejected it because of an irrational or uncharitable representation of it--then you might be saved.)

That's somewhat reassuring, and would be more so if I believed in an afterlife. But my point was rather badly made, and I'm afraid was missed-my question was of Mr. Card, how he can purport that he'd rather have the specific case 'Mitt Romney' for president than the general case 'atheist,' even if the specific case of the atheist was just as good as Romney, and without his religion to guide him. My point was more of a complaint about generalization than anything else.

As far as the perspective of science is concerned, I think you should examine the fact that every scientific idea has its roots in ideas that are unprovable leaps of faith. There is no more proof in science than there is in theology. You may not be able to "prove" anything, but you can certainly *know* all kinds of things that you cannot prove.

A fair point and a large part of the reason that I treat more with math than with science. Math, I hope we can all agree, is, in fact, provable. We can show absolutely that x^r + y^r = z^r has no solutions for r>2 such that xyz!=0. (Fermat's last theorem.)

At the same time, the fact that I don't like making massively unprovable generalizations in science doesn't mean that I like making the same sorts of generalizations in religion.

(And there is evidence for many things which are generally referred to as leaps of faith. For example, there was a science paper not too long ago which measured energy levels that corresponded to how the universe should be if the Big Bang had occurred. The paper had residuals too small to even graph, which is rather incredible. And, if we'd like to argue creationism, there is copious visible evidence for evolution. Tuberculosis, for example. If we begin to argue intelligent design, we start to get back into a "he said-she said" situation.)

"To All Atheists - You say there is no God. In essence you claim to have "all knowledge" elevating yourself to be like a god. You could say that those who believe in God also are claiming to have "all knowledge" and I would agree, but the difference is, those who claim Jesus Christ to be God lean upon evidence. Your claim that there is no God is like claiming there are no white rocks with black dots anywhere in the world. You can't make that claim without having all knowledge.

Posted by: summathetes | July 5, 2007 1:40 PM"

You think because atheists don't take your word that there is a god, that they think they are a god? Very funny, LOL. Exactly what proof do you have that you are right? A collection of books written for wildly different reasons, by wildly different men, over 2700 yrs. The fact that so many people have believed in them over the intervening years doesn't make them any kind of empirical evidence. For many generations, many people also believed the world was flat. For many years people believed the planets and stars revolved around the earth. For many years seemingly intelligent people believed Native Americans were the Lost Tribes of Isreal. Some people still believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and Nazis living at the center of the hollow earth. Some people still believe Native Americans are Isrealites. I'm sure they all have faith in their opinions. But that doesn't make it true. Exactly what proof do you have other than your faith? Won't heaven be a very lonely place if only the people who believed like you are there? Exactly what is the tolerance margin you have to believe in to get into your heaven? The "Rightness of Christianity" or the "Wrongness of Mormonism" is really moot, in my opinion. It's like 2 children trying to convince me their imaginary friend is "Cooler" than the others. It still doesn't prove either one is anything other than a figment of their imagination. And endlessly arguing over it doesn't get anyone anwhere, nor does it prove you are correct. People have been arguing, killing, ostracizing each other, depriving each other of liberty and property, and innumerabe other things in the name of gods and religion for all of recorded history. Is it really all that misguided of me to think that maybe religion in general hasn't worked so well, and maybe we need something else? Maybe all of the energy used on these arguments should be put toward making the world a better place, instead of worrying about whose imaginary friend is bigger. I do not consider myself a god, but I also do not believe anyone knows anything more about the subject than anyone else. Because no ones evidence can be proven. By quoting someone elses book, your merely relying on someone elses imagination, not proving your correct. Arguing religion is just mental masturbation, ultimately fruitless in the end.

I would like to apologize to Denice Marie. I should have been more gentle with you. I intended to simply correct the falsehoods about Catholicism you presented, but as I got rolling, I got a little worked up. I do hope that you can lose some of the anger inside you, and I am sorry if I worsened it. I also hope you can learn from the substance of what I said and get a better perspective of our differences.

Please accept my apologies.

God bless you.

Oh, my apologies. My friend who generally knows a lot more about the whole thing than I do tends to use the word deist. I did think that deist/atheist was a bit odd, but I always assumed that it was just an instance of English being badly designed.

So yes. I indeed mean theist rather than deist. My apologies again.

Well, AA, we are, of course getting way off topic here, but that hasn't stopped anyone else. Besides--at least we aren't condemning each other to hell.

A fair point and a large part of the reason that I treat more with math than with science. Math, I hope we can all agree, is, in fact, provable. We can show absolutely that x^r + y^r = z^r has no solutions for r>2 such that xyz!=0. (Fermat's last theorem.)

Not really. Your statement about math is based upon things we *know*, but are not provable. You have a consistent system that you can demonstrate works in one way according to the rules--but those rules are *known* not proven.

Knowledge is a mysterious thing, and all knowledge is really just an approximation of reality. This is also true when dealing with abstract symbols.

What materialists and positivists generally underestimate is our ability to *know* things about spirit. We know that we are aware, yet there is no possible way this immaterial awareness can be explained or produced by materialism. And that is only the start. (It is also probably articulated poorly, but it's a start.)

At the same time, the fact that I don't like making massively unprovable generalizations in science doesn't mean that I like making the same sorts of generalizations in religion.

I'm not sure what you mean there.

(And there is evidence for many things which are generally referred to as leaps of faith. For example, there was a science paper not too long ago which measured energy levels that corresponded to how the universe should be if the Big Bang had occurred. The paper had residuals too small to even graph, which is rather incredible.

I like the Big Bang theory because it theorizes that before material was formed, there was no time. The Big Bang theory is *scientific evidence of timeless eternity*, and it also leads to philosophical questions about what started it. If could not be a physical cause, because a physical cause in eternity would have to be an eternal thing--and a physical cause is a discrete thing. It must have been something that was not physical, like maybe a spiritual mind? It must have been a very powerful cause. And when you look at the balance of the universe, it must have had an intelligence. All these things point to God--thanks to science!

And, if we'd like to argue creationism, there is copious visible evidence for evolution.

Maybe. Depends on what you mean. Evolution is grossly insufficient to explain the irreducibly complexities of the molecular machines in our bodies. Looking at these machines, we may not have a scientific reason that we know they are created-- but they obviously are created. (There is no *scientific* reason that we know that a Leer Jet was created--but we would know it was obviously created if we found something like it on another world. And the Leer Jet is simple compared to the fantastic complexity of life.)

Francis Crick was an atheist, and when he discovered the amazing complexity of the machines involved with DNA and cellular biology, he was convinced that life on earth was designed. (He sought other wild speculations than God to explain it, but he came to the design conclusion nonetheless.)

I also think that Evolution is very dogmatic. They don't have near the evidence they pretend to, and much of the evidence has been discredited. Science has never once shown us natural speciation.

Tuberculosis, for example. If we begin to argue intelligent design, we start to get back into a "he said-she said" situation.)

Don't know quite what you mean by "he said-she said" in this context.

Leroy Morte wrote: The fact that so many people have believed in them over the intervening years doesn't make them any kind of empirical evidence.

Most of us are not materialists because we have found the thinking behind materialism flawed. It begins with false assumptions about knowledge, and it disregards the ability to know things without "proof," even though materialism, itself, does not provide "proof" for anything.

But we can *know* many things that are not provable. (Science, in fact, depends upon that fact. Without that fact, science would not be able to exist.) There are many ways we can know things about faith and God. One of them is Divine Revelation. Another is our spiritual experience. (And there is much cause and effect in that experience.)

But let's take Divine Revelation as one factor.

Divine Revelation includes the Revelation given to us by Jesus Christ. Hundreds of eye-witnesses observed His death on the cross, and then witnessed Him alive after the fact. Many of them were tortured and martyred for their testimony. Keep in mind that people die for what they believe, not for what they know is false. For their witness to be false, it would have meant that they *knew* they died for a lie. This is very dramatic testimony.

Divine Revelation includes the prophecies. The life and death of Jesus Christ was prophecied in great detail. There were many very unlikely aspects of those prophecies--but they all came true. With almost two hundred different variables in the prophecies, it is mathematically implausible to think that these prophetic books were not true and Divinely inspired books.

There are other examples of Divine Revelation, but there are also examples of private revelation. Less than 100 years ago, there was the apparition of Mary at Fatima. After revealing herself to three individuals, she promised great signs for others. The sign was a miraculous movement of the sun that sort of spun like a pinwheel. (Probably a very inadequate description.) Over 60,000 people showed up for the sign, and some of them were journalists and atheists who had the intention of being witnesses that it didn't happen. But it did happen, and those journalists and atheists gave testimony to that fact. This extremely dramatic sign is why there are so many "Our Lady of Fatima" churches in Europe.

Then there is the revelation of natural law. Eventually, if you realize there is a natural law and an absolute Good, you have to ask where it comes from. God is Good. It is one of his eternal and endless attributes.

These are, of course, very cursory and inadequate examples. Each of them deserves far more time and study. By studying them with a rational mind, you will discover the most amazing things--and it will be amazing what you can *know*, just as if they were rules of mathematics.

The knowledge of God and the understanding of God can be found in many different ways. Some of those ways are experiential, but many of those ways are quite rational and accessible.

Materialism does nothing to refute that knowledge, either.

I accept that 1=1, and you can extrapolate a lot from that. Don't you?

Sure. But what does "1" mean, and how do you know? What does "=" mean, and how do you know? How can you be sure your mind truly understands what "1" is? (By the way, another remarkable thing that points to a Creator is that we can trust what our minds think at all. The survival of the fittest does not provide for the immaterial things that we know, and that what we perceive and think is anything close to reality. We know that we are thinking rational thoughts that go way beyond survival. And we trust it. Why? It's a huge leap of faith, and it is really a leap that accompanies the Creator who made it work.)

Just that science's leaps of faith don't excuse religion's.

But without leaps of faith, we literally cannot think about anything. We either rely upon those leaps of faith to have knowledge of the world and of God, or we give up to complete futility.

Again, you're misinterpreting my point slightly. My point was simply that there is provable evidence that many things that are held to be 'leaps of faith' actually occurred. (I believe Mr. Card actually said that of the Big Bang, but I couldn't point to precisely when.) What caused that event-well, that's a matter of faith for now.

Actually, I didn't so much misinterpret you as go off on my own tangent. It's sort of like you held up a snap dragon to study its anatomy, and I said, "Ooooh! Pretty!"

Exactly that. We don't know whether we were made by God or aliens or flying spaghetti monsters or good luck or what. So it's a bit impossible to argue about it.

You make it sound like it is futile to explore. Knowledge of something isn't necessarily gained by math. Sometimes we get to understand something better by continuous observation and exploration. *Most* of the time, the depth of understanding we have come to is nearly impossible to articulate in any complete fashion. It is a great mystery why we perceive that knowledge. But we can still be confident in what we know about things. This is true of material things and spiritual things. We can't know anything absolutely with all explanations for it (we aren't God)--but we can know an immeasurable amount about a lot of things. We shouldn't discount that knowledge just because we haven't "figured out the math."

That way my tuberculosis example. But, in any instance, I'd agree that the public face of evolution could use some work. Mr. Card wrote an essay on the same premise, I believe. The fact of the matter is, though, there's more evidence that some degree of evolution occurs than that we were created by God/aliens/FSM.

I completely disagree. You cannot make such a statement without making radical and completely blind leaps of faith. Evolution has not been observed *at all* or *in any way*. But there are many, many things with which I have direct experience that gives me evidence of God.

What started the process is arguable, but that it continues to occur is much less so.

Oh? When have we ever observed the process of evolution?

I know. Isn't it wonderful? It's certainly a nice change of pace from most of the online discussions about religion I've had.

I hope so. I'm really getting close to running out of gas, though. I've been hitting it pretty hard for several days. I may "conk out" on you for a few days, but I'm enjoying the exchange, so maybe I'll come back to it. I will probably be much more coherent with some rest, anyway.

I'm also now amused by that my initials also spell out 'Alcoholics Anonymous.'

;)

The Laws of Logic state: "Where there exists any two diametrically opposing propositions; they may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right."

The question is WHAT is a "Christian", and who may claim right to that descriptor?
And the answer will only be rightly arrived at when the source of the term (the Bible) is consulted.
Mormons would have us forsake the historic & grammatical context into which the term was born in favor of their own re-definitions of it.
According to the record of Luke in Acts 11:26; the followers of the historic Christ were first called "Christians" in 1st Century Antioch.
Well known, or available to be known were the FACTS concerning the real Jesus. They had Paul & Barnabas right there in Antioch at that time, as well as many surviving eye-witnesses who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus and his teachings.
And while there were those foolish enough to try, NONE got away with passing off a different Gospel, a different Jesus, and a different Spirit whilst these folk survived.

And throughout the centuries we have seen the repeated attempts of others who would do so, yet the testimony of these same eye-witnesses ever lives on to testify against them.
THIS is why it is key to the Mormon, or any other cultists to first discredit the reliability of the Bible, and in the process transfer an individual's trust to their own proposed source authorities.
NEVER, in their wildest dreams could they ever measure up to the historical, Biblical definition of what it means to be a "Christian"!

Facts are what is so, and not what we "vote" them to be.

Is it Christian to believe that skin color indicates spiritual worthiness?

Mormon doctrine states that humans existed in Heaven before they were born. In a War in Heaven, before being born, spirits (meaning humans) who were not as valiant are now punished by being born with brown or dark skin color. If true, how is that not spiritual racism?

Ilove pissing matches between religions. You people are all nuts.

Leroy Morte -

By definition, God is Omnicient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. No human could exert any one of the three. One who claims to know that there is no such thing, whatever it may be, claims to have "all knowledge".

By reason, one can read the Bible and understand, if he seeks understanding, that it is coherent, written for the purpose of proclaiming God (who He is), who man is (a created being who defied the obligations of his Creator), man's need for reconciliation to his Crerator, and God's provision for man's reconciliation.

I would venture to claim, as I have read a few things you have stated, that you have entrusted from learning what you have written, which we all have done, otherwise, what do we really have to say apart from learning and understanding?

I agree with you that faith alone does not make one thing true over another. I suppose your beliefs are based on evidence as our mine. The proof that I have other than my faith are the writing's not only of the New Testament accounts of what men, not only Jews, Jews who followed Christ, Pharisees who became Jews, Roman Emperors, Jewish Historians, and Philosophers who, could have at any time sought to elevate themselves for their own benefit, or at any time could have publicly denounced what the NT promulgates, but never did.

What is the tolerance margin to get into heaven? I think one must first ask, what's the standard by which the tolerance you are seeking is measured? Next, ask yourselve, who has the authority to obligate a person to uphold that standard? These questions are the reason why the rightness of one thing over another is not moot, if, in this life one wants to ensure for himself a place in heaven for eternity. Once that standard is discovered, than one can either choose to obligate themselves to it or not.

I don't think heaven will be a lonely place, because I don't think anyone will be there who is exactly like me. Besides, I don't think heaven is about me at all. Heaven is about the Creator reconciling his creation to himself. It is a place without pain, suffering, death, sorrow or hate. It is perfect life. Heaven is for all people. Murderers, liars, cheats, rapists, thieves, etc... However, without the forgiveness that can only be given through Jesus Christ, imperfect beings cannever reside with a perfect Creator.

The problem that often distorts one's understanding of God and heaven and those who profess faith in the work of Christ is that man often compares his life to the life of other men. So one man says well I'm not as bad as that guy and so forth. But the Bible calls man to evaluate his present condition to the perfect Creator. So regardless of whether your an axe murderer or a child who has stolen a piece of gum, compared to perfection, we are all imperfect. That is why only a perfect savior could pay the debt of imperfection we owe to God as his creation.

I agree with you, religion in general isn't the solution. That is why you have people who are trying to follow Christianity in its purity. Christianity is about the relationship of a person and the Creator. Creation's response to the Creator was given in the Bible and specifically, Jesus Christ, who proclaimed to be God in the flesh. Religion is man's distortion of what God has given.

Your last sentence was very disheartening. I consider those, like yourselve to be worthy of respect. Matter of fact, I enjoy the conversations I have with everyone, regardless of what they make believe. I would hope that we could seek the truth and learn together without argumentum ad hominem.

Take Care.

I once encountered an elderly fellow in Taipei, Taiwan -- he asked this question of me (an ordained ministered of the Lord Jesus Christ):

"How can you claim that 'God so loved the world' when you deny everlasting life to those who fail to 'believeth in Him'".

He really thought it was a telling point that there seemed to be a contradiction between universal love and conditional salvation!!

God really does love all of us perfectly, and no matter when or where we may have been born, He will grant us a full and fair opportunity to earn salvation as defined by the Lord in John 3:15.

Not matter how much we do, it is ultimately grace that saves -- I thank God that He invites all.

Some may doubt God's omnipotence, thinking that grace will not cover those who (as Mormons) accept Jesus as their personal Savior, the promised Messiah, and Lord.

I'm thankful to trust that He is not so limited.

Orson Scott Card's anti-atheist bigotry

Intellectualism is a very troubling thing. The brain squeezes the love right out of the discussion. It seems to me antithema to "debate" Jesus Christ, or discuss the Gospel of Jesus Christ with hate and anger in our hearts. The very nature of the "debate" makes of us judges while it exposes the tremendous beam hanging from our eye as we wield the hatchet to remove the mote from our lost brothers eye. What I know of the Christ is this ... He gave his life (all of it)to mend the broken, heal the sick, and deliver the captive. May we do likewise. The question for us all might be, "Am I more like Jesus or the Pharasee?"

Wow, from the length and energy indicated by these postings I can see why the LDS folks feel a bit outside of things. Many electrons were sacrificed just in the couple of days over this one. Here's a thought...

My wife has a theory - in response to name droppers everywhere - It is not very interesting to hear about who you know or with whom you say you are associated. It is much more impressive to have that famous person or renowned group say they know or are associated with you. So to answer the question, Who decides is aperson or group is Christian - ask the one whose title is being tossed around so lightly. Short of doing that, our own answers are just sneezes in a hurricane.

Dear achristian,

Do you really want to know or are you just asking so you can argue about what I tell you?

I would like to dicuss this question in a calm and reasoned, kindly way. I find this works better when we can have a quiet two way conversation. If you are interested in what I have to say, (and I will support my statements with Bible scripture), my email is paisme@hotmail.com

Mike

Re: Orson Scott Card's anti-atheist bigotry

Anon wrote:

For something to be bigotry, it requires hate.

Says you. A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. It doesn't require hate. It usually does accompany hate, but it's not required.

I saw nothing in Mr. Card's article that showed hate.

You can't easily fear that much without also hating. The fact that he pumps up a threat that doesn't exist is lying and using us as a scapegoat. Seems hateful to me.

You might say he has a "prejudice," but there is not a soul on earth who doesn't have prejudices.

Yes, Mr. Card has a "prejudice," but he is also a bigot who lies, making atheists out as a threat when they are not.

I have read so many of your writings with great interest. I would not be afraid to vote for Romney because I think he is a moral man. Most of the differences in my church www.cofchrist.org and the Mormon church take place in the hereafter, so if they are wrong about some of those beliefs, it doesn't matter anyway. I do believe that all scripture can be plenary (direct from God) or conceptual(what the writer thinks God is saying). Our church, though a part of the original church, cannot believe in polygamy, celestial marriage, Adam/god (all men can become like God), Jesus being the brother of Satan, only white priesthood, only men priesthood, and some other differences. The Mormons finally decided polygamy was wrong and they finally said, "let the black man become priesthood". They have not allowed woman to become priesthood, as yet.

I do think Joseph Smith saw and heard the instructions of the angel Moroni(one of the writers in the Book of Mormon) in his bedroom. I do think Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the grove. I do believe Joseph went through all of that "hell" in his life to bring that book to life. Because Joseph Smith is a man, I believe he may have taught some things contrary to God OR others said he taught them. There's not much proof in many wives, but there is some proof of adultery.(And who has not sinned, even Peter and David, throw the first stone.)

Anyway, all scripture is subject to some error through "conception" of men and through translation of men. Our church has taken out the documents in D&C that we believe to be in error, and placed them in the back of our D&C. We also do not accept the Pearl of Great Price. We do believe that from time to time our Prophet/President receives spiritual direction from God for our people all over the world. We just received Document # D&C 163.(It is on our church site.) And it was through a document #D&C 156 that I was, a woman, ordained to the office of priest. (Apostles, Seventy, elders, priests, teachers, deacons are some of the offices).

All of the above is by way of explanation of some of the differences. Now---with that said, what is our real purpose in life? It is to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and to be His servant, to accept Him as our Savior, to know we can have a personal relationship with our God, to trust Him, and to move out into the world and accomplish God's purposes of caring for the sick, clothing the hungry, etc.---all of the things Christ said we should do to inherit the Kingdom. We are saved by Grace, and our good works are just a by-product of that salvation.

I cannot be critical of anyone's faith. I have all I can do to try to be like Christ. I do believe that like the Bible (which is a history of the Jews, the coming of our Savior,etc) the Book of Mormon is a religious history of three different groups of people who were led to America. The name "Mormon" comes from one of the writers in the book, a righteous man named Mormon, who did some abridging of all the records he received, before he gave them to Moroni to hide in the earth. (Isaiah 29--"...they will speak low out of the dust.") There was no one left of their civilization who was righteous, and the people were killing each other off, and Mormon knew the records must be kept safe. It is in this book that we read of Christ's visit to the people in America after his crucifixion and ascension to the Father---and he preaches the same things he preached that we read about in the Bible.(And he did say in the Bible, "There are other sheep who are not of this fold, and they too shall HEAR MY VOICE.) The Book of Mormon does not teach polygamy, Adam/God/,celestial marriage, or anything contrary to the Bible. It does make very clear that little children do not need to be baptised until the age of accountability, that they are "saved in Christ" until then. The Book of Mormon also teaches that the person in the world, who dies, who never knew the law will not be held accountable for the law of Christ.(This probably includes a lot of prisoners today) It also is specific as to the method of baptism---to go down into the water and be submersed. So---do I think everyone is going to hell who does not belong to my faith or believe as I believe? NO, I DO NOT!
Our Heavenly Father loves us, will be fair with us, will answer our prayers, will be with us---if we make the effort to have a relationship with him, and to trust Him.
Now--about my priesthood. I was ordained in 1986 to the office of priest. I do not feel that I am taking the place of any man. I have not always been as valiant in this office as I should have been, but since I have not had children since the age of 42, it has given me much good work to do. I have helped families, asked God to heal the sick, stood by during administration for the sick, taught adult classes, and preached sermons. And always,when I have made the effort, I have felt the Spirit of God there, just as many of you have.
I have learned to buy fewer things that I might share what I have with the world's poor and destitute. I pay my tithing, but I make the decision as to what amount I will pay. I also decide on what amount my contributions will be for the sick and hungry.

I am 81 years of age now, getting a sermon ready for tomorrow on "Jesus, the Rock of our Salvation" And I am quoting scriptures from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. They all agree---Jesus is the rock---the only means by which we can have salvation. We all just want to be in the Kingdom where Christ will reign, where there will be no more sorrow and pain, where there will be love, and work to do (I hope). Let's live here on earth with lots of love for each other so that all of us can be there. Im counting on "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, the things the Lord has in store for those who love Him."

Anon wrote:

You are clearly intolerant of my opinion.

Oh really? Is thinking you're wrong intolerant. Is pointing out why you are wrong intolerant? What have I done to keep you from expressing your opinion? Have I told lies about your intentions? Mr. Card has lied about atheist intentions. Have I claimed that there are no Mormons in foxholes? People are always saying there are no atheists in foxholes even after they've heard about Pat Tillman. Have I accused you of trying to suppress others? Is disagreement intolerance?

You are clearly intolerant of a lifestyle that includes the rejection of atheism.

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't know anything about your lifestyle nor do I care to.

If that is the case, we really have no way to truly distinguish bigotry from pejudice,

Not true. Prejudice, to pre-judge, doesn't necessarily imply active measures against people, Bigotry is more active.

and since everyone without exception has prejudices,

Yes.

(which include intolerance of ideas, lifestyles, and "identities"),

No, prejudice doesn't automatically include intolerance. You can pre-judge something as silly and then not fear and act against it.

That is an excessively prejudice thing to say.

Let's look at the evidence you ignored. My first post was a link to my blog where I laid out the evidence. It's becoming clear you never realized the statement was a link to the evidence. This is what Mr. Card wrote:

I hope we all agree with each other about this: In a time when a vigorous atheist movement is trying to exclude religious people from participating in American public life unless they promise never to mention or think about their religion while in office, why are we arguing with each other?

It's a blatant lie and I'm sure that Mr. Mohler does agree. I don't think Mr. Card does really believe it (because he is claiming to be a Democrat but I don't really know - if he does believe then he's really ignorant). Mr. Card, I think, is merely feeding Mohler's bigotry with what he knows are lies and using a minority as a scapegoat because he knows Mr. Mohler is a bigot.

We atheists are only about 3 percent of the American population, 9 percent if you include everyone called "non-religious." That cannot be called a vigorous atheist movement. That's Mr. Card's first lie. We're the least trusted group of Americans according the polls. At best only 45 percent of the population would vote for an atheist, and that's the bigotry Mr. Card wants to plug into and he knows Mr. Mohler buys that crap. We are the real victims of the prejudice and bigotry Mr. Card talks about.

Sure, some atheist books are selling well but no where near the way the "Left Behind" books which have sold more than 62 million copies are. According to Mr. Card this atheist movement is "trying to exclude religious people from participating in American public life unless they promise never to mention or think about their religion while in office."

Please explain exactly how we are trying to exclude religious people or silence them? By pointing out how crazy their statements are? By pointing out the lies they tell?

If you can't present evidence for that you're probably lying. Will you and Mr. Card start accusing the ACLU now?

I'm disgusted by all the god-blathering politicians have to do to get elected but all I do is point out how crazy and false it is. I cannot nor would I silence you.

If pointing out lies is intolerant - then, yea, I'm intolerant. If fighting for your rights is intolerant, than yes, I'm intolerant. You can't be tolerant of the intolerant can you?

Lots of reading, good stuff...spent the last hour plus here...but I must say the debate is moot. Let me state one thing, although I would never speak for all Latter Day Saints. I do not seek, nor desire to be numbered among mainstream Christian churches. Some here, and others elsewhere state that Mormons are "seeking" for this acceptance. The only acceptance I seek is that of MY SAVIOR.

I am not offended that you dont consider me Christian.

Additionally, its my observation that Mitt Romney does not bring up his religion. Its only a matter of public discourse because media types, perhaps driven by others, has sought make it so. You'll note that he has the same response whenever it is brought up...that its values and outcomes that people should use to measure the man, not the words on the paper of their religious texts.

Noone can define my relationship with Christ but Him. That is what makes me a Christian. If He accepts me as a disciple, that is all that has or ever will matter. Peace in Christ.

What is so shocking about people who belong to any organized religion being anti-atheist?

For the vast majority of people who claim to be religious, it is impossible to comprehend that an atheist can be moral. Maybe this is because religious leaders instill this fear into them to keep them under their yoke.

I've found that most religious leaders would rather chance getting their flocks to Heaven ignorant and blind, or out of habit, versus a follower actually questioning the dogma for him/her self to become a stronger follower. I would think that most people who honestly and deeply question their religion end up quitting religion altogether. And, doesn't this show that they had no religious faith to start?