Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?

Did you intend to walk out of the original debate? Because...you did. It's nice and all that you posted a very qualified (e.g. you catered to your argument to suit your purpose, I'm not posting on your merit or lack of) essay, but it really isn't that relating to the topic at hand. Please qualify the question 'Are Mormons Christian' instead of qualifying your intended agenda.

Cheers.

Dal

I think Mr Card should be running for the presidency because for the life of me he talks but never says anything relevant to the issue at hand. I agree with Dal---Mr Card---start by saying what it is your Gospel is and where in the Bible it is supported. Humanism and decency and all of that is fine but none of that according to Jesus will leave us in good standing in front of a Holy God. What is it you are trying to say???? tim

Thought you may enjoy this take on this issue from Salon.com. The fact is, we must unite. In the end, we both believe in the same Jesus that was born in a stable over 2,000 years ago, and we have the same values. That should be enough. Here is Camille Paglia's take on it:

"Many thanks to you and to the other Salon readers who sent detailed, indignant letters about Mormonism. It is true that I am perhaps excessively hypersensitive (given that I'm a professed atheist) to the arrogation to themselves by evangelical Protestants of the term "Christian."

Whatever the official ruling of the Vatican, however, it is in my view absurd to deny that Mormonism, despite the mythic claims of its founder, is a historical branch of Christianity. Assertions that belief in the divinity of Christ is a priori definitional of Christianity simply replay the theological disputes of the Middle Ages, when losers in the heresy wars were burned at the stake.

In the map of world religions, Mormonism is indisputably a subset of Christianity. It is perhaps futile to appeal to believers to overlook doctrinal differences, so I'm scarcely optimistic about convincing anyone. But my passionate interest in and commitment to religious study (which I have long argued should be integrated into primary and secondary education) is on the record. One example is my essay, "Religion and the Arts in America" (a lecture I gave at Colorado College in February), which has just been published by Arion and should be posted on its Web site by next week."

There is no doubt that Governor Romney would make a great neighbor. There is a bit of confusion, however, in Mr. Card's understanding of Christ-likeness. Good works for good works' sake is not Christ-likeness. A Hindu could be as morally upstanding as Governor Romney, but would we call him Christ-like? Buddhists also make great neighbors. True Christ-likeness is found in the intentions, the heart. Any good work without the glory of Christ as it's goal should not be considered Christ-like. Christ had a goal in doing the works he did:
"'But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,' he said to the paralytic-'I say to you, get up, and pick up your strecher and go home.'" Luke 5:24
Christ did his works on earth to glorify his Father and to show the world that he was God incarnate. Christ-like works would do the same. Perhaps at this point I need to clarify the Christ of which I speak:
-He is the eternal Word become flesh (John 1:1, 1:18)
-He is the one who Thomas called "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28)
-He is "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)
-He is the one of whom the Pslamist and the author of Hebrews says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..." (Hebrews 1:8)
-Luke describes his ministers as those who "shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood."
-He is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6)
This must be the Jesus that is emulated and glorified. Not the Jesus created by another gospel (expressly condemned in Galatians 1) If Mormons are to be called Christians and act Christ-like, they must deny the Book of Mormon (in obedience to Gal. 1 and Rev. 22:18-19), and declare Jesus Christ as God overall forever to be praised. Mere good-neighborliness will not cut it.
Romney's presidency would neither thwart nor expand the gospel of Jesus Christ. God will call his sheep in his time, and they will come. (John 10) The true gospel of Jesus Christ is not threatened.

Sorry, anything good is Christ-like including Budhists or even Aethists. They may recognize it but goodness is Christ-like. If the definition is that one must correctly or fully understand Christ to be Christ-like then none of us will qualify.

No, if the question is whether we will be on the right hand of Jesus when we are judged that is a different story.

Dal:Why are people trying to assimilate Mormonism into Christianity?

GB:Why are you trying to exclude it?

Daniel:
-He is the eternal Word become flesh (John 1:1, 1:18)
-He is the one who Thomas called "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28)
-He is "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)
-He is the one of whom the Pslamist and the author of Hebrews says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..." (Hebrews 1:8)
-Luke describes his ministers as those who "shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood."
-He is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6)
This must be the Jesus that is emulated and glorified. Not the Jesus created by another gospel

GB:Mormons believe all that.

Daniel:If Mormons are to be called Christians and act Christ-like, they must deny the Book of Mormon

GB:You are entitled to your opinion however wrong you may be. The Book of Mormon and "act Christ-like" are not mutually exclusive. I doubt you have even read the book.

Daniel:God will call his sheep in his time, and they will come. (John 10) The true gospel of Jesus Christ is not threatened.

GB: Very true.

Brady

Your post is soo loonngg aannddd IIII ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

As a Mormon, I do not want to be considered a modern-day Christian, nor have I ever attempted to do so. However, I am a Christian in the truest sense because I love my God, His Son and attempt to live my life in such a manner that I might receive Eternal Life and through Christ, I may "be perfect even as [my] Father in Heaven is perfect."

This blog only demonstrates that modern-day "Orthodox Christians" or whatever you want to call yourselves (a right I will grant you) are similar to Jews during the days of Christ. Their tongues speak of Christ, but their hearts are far from Him. They profess to believe His gospel and written word, yet they have been tainted by the oral traditions of their fathers (or pagan emperors). If the Savior appeared today and taught the things that He taught Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah or Peter, modern-day Christians would disimiss Him even as the Jews of old.

I have commented numerous times on this blog and not one modern-day Christian has answered why they do not believe or practice the things taught by Jesus, His Propets or Apostles?

Ex: Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, eternal marriage, temples, baptism for the dead, the priesthood, priesthood ordinances, Prophets and Apostles, a quorum of Seventy to preach thte gospel, eternal life, godhood (John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6), the truth regarding the Godhood.

Without a living Prophet, the Bible says that God would be doing nothing for man. (Amos 3:7).

God lives, He loves us, He sent His Only Begotten Son to save us, and He does more for man that man credits him.

And because God is the same yesteerday, today and forever, God has continued His plan practiced for thousands of years: Speak to Man through living Prophets.

Daniel since you are getting nit picky

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Sorry but the word "eternal" doesn't appear there. So your supposed conflict doesn't exist.

So instead of talking about the issue, Mr. Card pulls out his Rodney King theology..."Can't we all just get along?" This is not meant to be a conversation about Mitt Romney. It is not meant to be a discussion on nice people, or family values, or humanitarian aid. It is not meant to be a conversation about how the Mormons and Catholics held hands, gave hugs, and spent money together. This is meant to be a discussion on whether or not Mormonism is Christian based upon the clear teachings of the Bible.

Mr. Card states in his conclusion, "I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard" Dr. Mohler has no obligation to concede anything to the Mormons. He has no obligation to give any validity whatsoever to the false righteousness of a false faith. His job, as a man called by God to preach the gospel, and in this forum, is to give an honest representation of the truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ and to compare it alongside Mormon religion.

And besides, for all your talk about the nice things Mormons do, so-called "good" people die and go to Hell every day. Just because Mormons are nice, helpful, family oriented, or anything else doesnt qualify them as Christian. Salvation is found only through Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible.

Mr. Card, you do a great deal of neglecting the logos of your argument. None of us are convinced, nor is the discussion advanced, by mere anecdotes and appeals to pathos.

You believe in Muhammad, no? But you do not believe in the same Muhammad that a Sunni Muslim does. You could tell a Muslim that you both believe in the same Muhammad and that you both agree on who he is, but you would be lying. You do not believe he was the seal of the prophets, nor do you believe he was even a prophet to begin with (I'm making an assumption here). So your appeals to Muslims that you both believe in the same person would sound empty and hollow.

That is how your appeals to evangelicals sound when you speak of Christ. You do it and every single LDS "elder" I've ever met does it. It's insincere. You do not hold the same view of Jesus Christ as a Christian who holds to the "traditional Christian orthodox" view of the person of Christ.

Mr. Card, please confront the issue without all the faff. This thesis is imbalanced and rides completely on the hopes that peope are not looking for any substantive debate.

"It was Dr. Mohler who brought up the Romney issue, not Mr. Card. The only reason why this blog debate is occurring is because Romeny may have a chance at the Presidency. "

No, it was Card. Sorry. :(

Apparently many of the people commenting would exclude not only Mormons from "Christianity", but also Catholics, Orthodox, and any Protestant who comes from a more Arminian tradition of belief in the need for the Christian to engage his free will and express his or her faith through attempting to live righteously. There are a lot of Evangelical Christians who don't believe in what they call "cheap grace", James Dobson among them. Are they also excludced from being "Christians"?

In pure historical terms, the relationship between Protestant churches and the Catholic Church is the same as that between the LDS Church and the various Protestant churches of the American frontier in 1830 Upstate New York. Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the dominant Cahtolic views of their day on many issues, including who had authority to interpret the Bible, and formed what were really new churches, but which nevertheless attracted people like themselves who had formerly been official members of the Catholic church and its priesthood. There were both discontinuities and continuities, but the discontinuities that made them "not Catholic" did not make them less Christian. They themselves clearly believed that the discontinuities made them MORE Christian than they had been before as Catholics.

Just so for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the members of the LDS Church were previously "Christians" in a sense generally accepted at the time. Many were affiliated with specific Protestant denominations of the day, while others were "seekers" who studied the Bible, believed what it said, and prayed to God, but did not think that any contemporary church had either authority or a sufficiently clear understanding of scripture that made it a necessary conduit to receiving grace and salvation. Even though there were discontinuities from existing Christian churches and their doctrines, there were also many continuities, including belief in the truth of the Bible and the reality of what it teaches about Christ as the only savior of mankind. In the life story of individual "Mormons", there were those threads of continuity with Christianity as then taught and practiced. And like Luther and Calvin, the Latter-day Saints believed that their version of Christianity, with both its continuities with Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, and Baptist beliefs, and its discontinuity with some of them, was in fact MORE Christian than what they had experienced before as members of those churches or as unaffiliated Christian "seekers".

To say that the discontinuities between Mormons and Methodists demarcate a threshold between "Christians" and "non-Christians" is just as silly as claiming that the discontinuities between Catholics and Lutherans rendered the Lutherans "non-Christians". In pure historical terms, Mormons clearly had roots in the existing Protestant Christianity of the the 19th Century. They grew up nurtured in those various Protestant traditions, reading the same bible used by those churches, believing in baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, believing in prayer, sermons, and missionary teaching.

If only the differences and changes count in classifying religious movements, then no one other than Catholics or certain Orthodox churches, which have historical claims to continuity with the original apostles, has a right to claim the title of "Christian". that specifically excludes all Protestants, including Baptists.

If, however, a Protestant can claim to be Christian despite the discontinuities of his beliefs with those of Catholics, then Mormons have just as much right to the title on purely historical grounds. The break between Protestantism and Catholicism was just as definitive as the break between Protestantism and Mormonism. Dr. Mohler seems tho think he can look to the continuities between Protestants and Catholics to make his church "Christian", but he can ignore the continuities between Protestantism and Mormonism in trying to exclude Mormons from the historical tree of Christianity, which has grown hundreds of branches upon branches.

Mohler focuses on the early creeds of the Catholic Church as being touchstones for the definition of Christianity, but he does not address the rejection of later creeds and Catholic doctrines as a distinction. With respect to Catholics, Mohler has "defined Christianity down" to not need things that many Catholics (apparently including Benedict XVI, according to today's news) believe are essential elements of Christianity. Mohler doesn't think they are essential. He has conveniently defined what Baptists share with Catholics as defining Christianity, even though a Catholic might disagree.

On the other hand, Mormons like Orson Scott Card define what THEY share with Baptists AND Catholics as defining Christianity!. That includes the Bible as being true in a very literal way (more than many Episcopalians might admit), in the nature of Christ as the literal Son of God, who performed miracles, and suffered to atone for mankind's sins, and after dying on the cross, was resurrected, and ascended to the Father, from which He will return to judge the world. Whether other people believe that is the core of Christianity or not, it is a simply arbitrary choice when they claim that the core ALSO has to include SOME catholic doctrine, but NOT too much of it (like the importance of works in salvation).

The truth is that any honest history of religion shows that many of the so-called "core" doctrines of many people in modern Evangelical Christianity (especially what others call "cheap grace") are innovations of the last two hundred years, and have NO continuity with prior Christian beliefs, Catholic or Protestant! Up until twenty years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention had official diversity on many of the points which they now claim are essential Christian beliefs. The definition of Christianity that Mohler uses is a moving target that has shifted historically as his own denomination has changed and evolved over two centuries.

As to the centrality of the Hellenic content of the creeds, there are modern Evangelical theologians who specifically reject them precisely because they are inconsistent with and have no root in the Bible itself. The Apostles Creed did not carry them, but the Nicene Creed did. These theologians believe the Nicene Creed went down the wrong path and only the Apostles Creed is legitimate and biblical.

And that is exactly what Mormons believe on the subject. They think it is strange that so many Protestants insist on the Bible as the sole authority in religion, but then elevate post-Biblical creeds that do not even claim to be inspired on the same level as the Bible as being primary OVER the Bible in defining the nature of God.

Mormons also believe it is strange that so many Southern Baptists will insist that the prerequisites to salvation are simply to accept Christ as one's savior and (maybe) be baptized by anybody, without any requirement for study of the Bible or living any of the commandments of the Old or New Testaments (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount), and yet claim that Mormons, who do all of that AND MORE, are somehow outside the zone of salvation. When you insist the threshold for entering heaven is so low, HOW can you claim to exclude other people from heaven based on the very things that you proclaim are NOT essential to salvation? No person who insists on "cheap grace" (absolutely no role for works in salvation) has any right to exclude ANYONE who claims to have accepted Christ.

As to Dr. Mohler's sdtatement that the Book of Mormon does not teach Christ--I have no idea how he can say he has studied the Book of Mormons and not found Christ there. Anyone can go to www.lds.org, open the Book of Mormon to Mosiah Chapter 3, and find there a beautiful sermon about the identity of Christ and how we come to Him and become His children. Then read 3 Nephi Chapter 11 describing Christ's visit to the New World after his resurrection and ascension, and see if this is not recognizably the glorified Christ of the New Testament witness. If Dr. Mohler cannot recognize Christ in the Book of Mormon, I have to seriously question his ability to see Christ in the Bible. I can understand the imperative that he feels to steer people away from the LDS Church, but he should not allow it to lead him to misrepresent the simple truth about what the Book of Mormon says. The writers of the Book of Mormon preached Christ and salvation through faith in Him for a thousand years. If you love Christ, you will recognize His voice there.

The Book of Mormon does not say that all Protestants are the Church of the Devil. What it does say is that, prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, there would be both true Christians and false Christians on the earth, and that the true Christians would be reading the Bible and trying to live by its precepts. What makes you a Christian in the eyes of the Book of Mormon is your sincerity in worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings. NO one else can tell you where you stand, only yourself and God.

It is ironic that the insistence of some Christians on the omnipresence and omnipotence of God does not allow them to contemplate that maybe God has a few things to say to mankind that were not written before 100 AD. God in their eyes is infinite, except he is mute. He is omnipresent, but cannot call a prophet. He is omniscient, but does not know how to communicate directly as He did for a thousand years to Abraham and John. Anyone who rejects the possibility of new prophets and new words from God does not really believe in the infiinite God of the Nicene Creed.

Sorry, Ila Jane, that's a nice, warm sentiment, but I'm afraid falls well short of God's desire for us. Truth matters, if we are to "worship in spirit and in truth", if "the truth will set us free", if we are to be "lovers of truth", if "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." God surely does not want us to turn our minds off and "all get along"...that's Rodney King, not Jesus.

Yes, we treat every person with respect!!! But respect and truth are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, I respect our Mormon friends who, though I am not prepared to call them "Christian" in the same sense I understand "Christian" to mean, believe that truth matters; we just honestly disagree on what that truth entails. It's about more, much more, than "love"...it's about truth, holiness, and God's glory (and those who talk about God's love, but never about His glory and His holiness, have mistaken the gospel for some self-help psychological fix or something). I want to show people God's love in the worst kind of way---but only after, and predicated upon, the Bible's continual, beginning-to-end emphasis upon God's glory, His sovereignty, and His holiness.

Stuart,

I'll consider it if a.) you'll tell me which challenge particularly you're referring to (one of our friends left a post the size of a novel, and it takes 5 minutes to scroll thru!), b.) you'll agree to discuss in a spirit in which you don't feel it necessary to call names, and c.) you allow appropriate time for the exchange to play out (since I'm not going to sit by the computer for hours going back and forth).

With those "ground rules" in place, perhaps we can have a conversation. I do think that there's value in some good give-and-take, in an atmosphere of respect, instead of a game of "gotcha", as so many folks on these type sites seem to want to play.

P. Nielson,

At the root of your question, no room is left for the major points of departure between Mormonism and Evangelicalism. If we're discussing mere semantics, then we might both agree that salvation comes through faith alone in our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, the only son of God, whose death on the cross paid the price for our sin in whole and subsequent resurrection defeated death.

However if two people are discussing apples and one of them fancies baseballs to be apples, then they're not really discussing the same thing are they?

When I'm talking about mankind, I'm talking about a creature that can never become like God - the lie that Satan used in Genesis. I'm talking about a creature fully depraved and rotten with a sinful nature. When I'm talking about Jesus Christ, I'm talking about - and only about - the Jesus Christ portrayed by the entirety of the Bible. That Jesus was fully God and fully man. I'm talking about one part of the holy Trinity. I'm talking about a different Jesus. But this merely scratches the surface because many of these key words are defined differently by the LDS church.

Two men may hold what appears to be the same box, but one has a gift and the other is empty. You can't tell the difference until you open them up.

Let's not amuse ourselves by staring at the boxes Mr. Nielson.

Respectfully,
Tyler

Stuart,

Thanks. Reading your list, I find, if I count correctly, 12 items that you believe were "taught by Jesus, His prophets, (and) apostles". I understand, of course, that you are using them in a representative way, that in fact you consider there to be other things that "orthodox Christians" have left behind, effectively. I will speak only of evangelical Christians; there are others who would wear that name, but whose beliefs would differ significantly enough from mine that I wouldn't presume to speak for them.

Here is the short answer (which for the moment will have to suffice; working through 12 separate issues would take considerable time): you have concluded, via your Mormon understanding of faith, that these practices are the things taught by Christ for our obedience, binding upon us as His followers. We do not understand that to be the case. I will briefly mention one, and perhaps we can tackle others if you can be so kind as to give me Scripture references for them (some I can find easily; others you'd have to help me with, candidly): baptism for the dead. This is mentioned once in Scripture, I Corinthians 15:29. The Book of Mormon, of course, doesn't mention it. There is no other record in the New Testament of this practice.

In the I Corinthians verse, baptism for the dead is mentioned; it evidently was something that somebody was doing. Interestingly enough, it is not taught, though, as something that we are to do. Nothing in the rest of I Corinthians, nor the rest of the Bible, commends this practice as something which we should follow, nor for that matter does it develop it in any way. The other references to baptism in I Corinthians (and in the rest of the Bible) make no mention at all of this. The immediate context of the reference here is the resurrection of Christ; it is not "baptism", per se. Further, Paul is referencing false teachers in this passage ("some among you" were denying the resurrection of Christ). Paul says that there exists a "they" (not "we" or "you", but "they") who are involved in this practice, and in no way commends it, but states it as a matter of fact that it was going on by some "they". That's interesting, given the fact that he immediately reverts to "we" language---one would think that he'd use "we" language were he interested in supporting this practice. Rather, it seems possible, and perhaps likely, that he is using the "they" to refer to this group that he considers false teachers within the Corinthian church (a messed-up church if ever there was one, right?).

I could go further, but I use this to illustrate this point: though you might consider evangelical Christians to be just downright leaving out some of the teaching of the Bible, maybe selectively picking parts we like and leaving off the ones we don't, I assure you that that isn't the case (I'll qualify that, by the way, by saying that we ALL are by nature sinners, and regardless of our faith choice, we're prone to the temptation to pick and choose, wouldn't you agree? It's one we need to fight.). We consider the evidence for a doctrine of "baptism for the dead" to be Scripturally uncompelling at best, and the practice of false teachers at worst.

Now, I've tackled one of the twelve, hopefully gaining your respect as at least one Christ-follower who is willing to respectfully have an interchange.

Your friend,

Byron

IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE SOME SHORT VIDEOS THAT COMPARE THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE TEACHINGS OF JOSEPH SMITH YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT SOME OF THE VIDEOS FOUND HERE. OFFICIAL LDS SOURCES ARE USED AS WELL AS THE BIBLE.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+christ%2F+joseph+smith&search=Search

Dear Tyler W,

I have no wish to argue semantics. But I am intrigued when you say "At the root of your question, no room is left for the major points of departure between Mormonism and Evangelicalism." I asked what you believe would be necessary for me to do to be saved (i.e. be a true Christian, as some seem to use the term) so that I might cut to the heart of this exact issue. I apologize if you thought otherwise.

It seems to me you believe there is quite a lot to be said about the major points of departure between our doctrines in answering my questions. If I am not mistaken, in fact, you deny that Mormons (in general) are saved because we believe (according to you and others) in a different Jesus (or as I would put it, so as not to confuse readers about the fact that we do in fact worship Jesus of Nazareth, Mormons believe in a different Christology).

So let me try again, and please feel free to point out the "major points of departure" if you feel they add to the discussion.

Please answer the following questions: If you met someone on the street who asked "In your understanding, if I am not already saved what must I do to be saved?" how would you respond? I am asking this in sincerity, no trickery on my part. This is only a place to start.

Second question: if you found out this person was Mormon, expand on what you feel that person must do to be saved.

Best,
P. Nielsen

P.S. Not that it is important, but it's Nielsen with an 'e' at the end--I have Danish descent. :)

Read these and then tell us how do they relate to Marriage sanctioned by God's promise?

Gal. 3: 7-9, 26-29
Gen. 26: 1-4, 24
Gen. 35: 9-13
Gen. 22: 15-18
Gen. 17: 2, 21
Gen. 48: 3-4
John 8: 33, 39
1 Ne. 15: 14, 18
2 Ne. 29: 1, 14
3 Ne. 20: 25, 27
Gen. 12: 3
Gen. 15: 18
Gen. 18: 18
Gen. 21: 12
Gen. 28: 14
Ex. 19: 5
Deut. 14: 2
Judg. 2: 1
Isa. 49: 6
Isa. 50: 1
Isa. 54: 5
Jer. 3: 14
Jer. 31: 31
Hosea 2: 19
Matt. 3: 9
Luke 3: 8
Acts 3: 25
Rom. 9: 4
Rom. 11: 27
Heb. 6: 14
Heb. 11: 18
1 Ne. 17: 40
1 Ne. 19: 15
1 Ne. 22: 9
2 Ne. 6: 12
2 Ne. 9: 1
2 Ne. 10: 7
2 Ne. 11: 5
2 Ne. 30: 2
3 Ne. 21: 4
Morm. 5: 20
Ether 3: 11
Ether 13: 11

Does anyone else get the feeling that Creedal Evangelicals treat Mormons the same way that the Jews treated the Samaritans? They both claimed to be covenant people, but the different beliefs of the Samaritans made them as pariahs to the Jews.

It is interesting, then, to see how Christ treated Samaritans (the woman at the well), and even used an outcast Samaritan in the Bible's most poignant parable of Christian service.

Let us do as Christ did, and treat everyone with acceptance, love, and respect, and recognize the contribution that even a non-traditional follower can make.

Need to correct an error posted at the top of the thread by Orson Scott. Mr. Scott said:

"Let's not forget, after all, that Catholics have an even older "mainstream Christian tradition" than any Protestants, and good Catholics are convinced that all those Protestants are going to Hell. And to Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial — we're all Pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying menaces to the salvation of souls."

As a Catholic, I can assure you that our church does not teach that "all those Protestants are going to Hell". The Catholic Church describes non-Catholic Christians as "our seperated bretheren". We accept most Christian baptisms and most Christian marriages as valid. We do believe that the salvation of Christ flows through the Catholic Church, but God's saving grace does not stop at the door of the Catholic Church. It continues to flow into other believers in other denominations. In other words, Catholics claim Christains as brothers in Christ. Not in full communion, but certainly their salvation is not in question.

By the way, I will have no problems voting for Mitt Romney if he is nominated. I agree with Mr. Scott that a successful Romney presidency will bring many nominal Christians back to their own denominations.

Matt and the rest:

Mormons "do not" want to be considered as "traditional" Christians. We do not accept the artifacts of the Ecumenical Councils as completely valid positions. We do not hold the Nicene Creed as an acceptable statement of our beliefs. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

Mormons "do" want to be considered as disciples of Christ as presented in the Bible. We accept Christ as our God and Savior, and strive to follow His teachings, commandments, and example. We believe that Jesus is the Great God Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah, and Redeemer of mankind. We believe that He will come again in power and glory at His Second Coming. We believe that He died for the sins and afflictions of every person who has or will live on this earth, and that everyone, regardless of their faith is blessed by the grace of Christ.

Does that mean we are Christians? I think so.

There is a fundamental flaw with the many posts which say, "the Bible says this" or "the Bible says that". That is because even though those who wrote the Bible were unquestionably recording the pure word of God, it is not possible, with any written document, for all those who read it to come away with a pure or exact understanding of its original meaning. This is because of the fallibility of language in general, the imperfections of translations, the changing context of society, and mostly, the myriad biases and paradigms of readers.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States of America were so aware of this fact that they formed an entire branch of government to deal with it. It was clear to them that even though the authors of a particular document (like the Constitution) may have a crystal clear image of their message, it is impossible for all readers in all settings to uniformly and accurately grasp all facets of that image. Hence the need for the Judicial branch of our government which exists, by definition, to interpret or define the Constitution, etc.

Unfortunately, for most of the Christian world, there is no “interpretive” system. The result is that after many centuries and much discourse, there are thousands of different denominations and theologies which all point to the Bible as “the source”. Some are quite similar and others are far apart but even the Mormon church can be included here as its adherants find support for their theology in its pages.

The distinction however, is that the LDS church lays claim to having access to accurate interpretation through a modern-day prophet who, they believe, receives communication directly from God. For them, revelation trumps scripture (including their additional canon) and brings the obtaining of truth full circle back to where the great meanings of the Bible originated in the first place; namely God.

Even though Protestants may reject the LDS church as being the restored original church of Jesus Christ or even being a “Christian” church, they must accept that, as manifest by the numerous and diverse opinions expressed here, referencing the Bible or any written volume as the “gold standard,” will always fall short.

Nowandlater,

One more thing...I have previously been to the website that you posted in response to my posting and it is NOT an LDS website and the things on the website are NOT supported or endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!

The videos on the following link use sources that are official LDS sources and the videos show (using official LDS sources) some of the many deceptions and inaccuracies that are taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+christ%2F+joseph+smith&search=Search

Sincerely,
-Brady

I took the Belief-O-Matic test found elsewhere on Beliefnet a few days ago. In light of the fevered debate the results were ironic.

Latter-Day Saint 100%.
Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant 98%.
Eastern Orthodox 83%
Roman Catholic 83%
Orthodox Judaism 77%
Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants 74%

According to the "test" my beliefs line up more closely with Mainline Conservative Protestant Christians than any other religion besides my own.

This captures the essence of why this debate is so vexing. Its as if people were denying that the sun was shining at full noon.

My witness to the world as a Christian is that:

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior (2 Ne. 25: 19-20)*See below

Jesus suffered and died for my sins--and yours too (Alma 42: 15)**

Without His grace everyone would be sent to hell for eternity (2 Ne. 33: 6, 2 Ne. 25: 23)***

He died and rose again on the third day (Mosiah 3: 8-10)****

He is capable of any Miracle, including taking me, an imperfect man, and making it possible to become perfect, as He commanded in the Sermon on the Mount "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) It's going to take a miracle, a miracle of forgiveness--but if at the end of this life I'm not a better person than when I started then I must not have really had faith in him. If this means that some people are going to accuse me in believing that I am saved by works then they have missed the point.

After all, as Jesus made clear in the Sermon on the Mount, doing that greatest of all miracles -- and making fallen, imperfect, sinful humans into righteous perfect beings -- is the entire point of his mortal life, suffering on the cross and resurection. (Matt 5: 20-48) It is the greatest of all miracles, and it is within his power. By grace we are saved FROM sin and hell and death. The Sermon on the Mount tells us what we are saved FOR. Remember the parable of the talents.

That said, Jesus Christ is the judge and jury on this issue, and at the end of the day, His opinion is the only one that matters as to whether or not I'm a Christian.

Footnotes:
(I've used elipses to shorten what would otherwise be long quotes. Those seeking the full text can look it up based on references above.)

*
19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh...his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
20 ...And as the Lord God liveth that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt...there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.

**
15 ...therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice...

***
33:6 ...I glory in my Jesus, for he hath credeemed my soul from hell.

25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

****
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
10 And he shall arise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.

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.

No 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.

That was over on the "Church of the Devil" thread.
Mike

As to Brady's assertion that there is no giving in marriage in heaven.

Mormons agree. Marriage, and Baptism and The gift of the Holy Ghost, and Priesthood ordinations are all physical ordincances that must be performed ON THIS EARTH. That is why Mormons accept the principle of vicarious work for the dead. In line with the concept of the vicarious sacrifice of the Son of God for our sins.

1st Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also hath once asuffered for sins, the just for the bunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to cdeath in the flesh, but quickened by the dSpirit:
19 By which also he went and apreached unto the bspirits in cprison;
20 aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1st Peter 4:6 6 aFor for this cause was the bgospel cpreached also to them that are ddead, that they might be ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

1st Corinthians 15:29 29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead?

And since the first Marriage was performed by God, who is eternal, Marriage is menat to last eternally.

Genesis 2:18, 20-24 18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be aalone; I will make him ban help meet for him.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a awoman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and aflesh of my flesh: she shall be called bWoman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a aman leave his bfather and his mother, and shall ccleave unto his dwife: and they shall be eone flesh.

Mike

What a luxury it is for Christians to throw rocks at each other over which of them has the best version of what Jesus must have taught and meant.

To the rest of this, it is sheer silliness on stilts.

Jesus contrasted those who believe with those who didn't.
He told his disciples, if they loved him, to keep his commandments.
He said that not everyone who cries, "Lord, Lord" would enter into the Kingdom but those who did the will of his father, and even threatened that if his hearers' righteousness didn't surpass that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, they wouldn't make it.

Jesus said a lot about action, as opposed to mere belief. Yet these fanatics want to argue about who has signed on to the best rendition of the message.

In the meantime, the Catholic Church denounces all Protestants, officially dis-acknowledging their churches as "communities" not "churches."

If you can't trace yourself back, through the line of bishops, you're nothing. On that basis, the Catholics only recognize the Orthodox Church - meaning the Greek Orthodox and its progeny. The Reformed Churches - including the Baptists - are rootless heretics.

So much for Dr. Mohr, standing in front of his own glass house, admiring his collection of rocks.

It used to be the Mormons who were criticized for being elitist, telling themselves that theirs was "the one true church of Jesus Christ." Who'd have imagined Protestants would show up and use that same lame line on them?

And for what? Is there nothing pettier than a Christian imagining his sect is okay while someone else's is garbage?

Also, does Card or anyone on the comment section really care to share with us other "Christians" how we are in the "Church of the Devil" yet you all want to be lumped in with us. As a serious follower, I try to flee from things of the devil whilst thinking only of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement.

It's hard to believe that the person writing this blog is an educated - or well read - individual.

Note the following from the blog:

Right now, Mormons are as unwelcome among evangelical Christians as I, a science-fiction-writing Democratic Mormon was unwelcome among Republican normal-job-holding Mormons in Utah.

But that's because evangelicals have a majoritarian attitude that is really not appropriate any more.

America is the most religious Western nation — but surely Dr. Mohler sees that our children can hardly get a college degree without being indoctrinated, not just in atheism, but in hostility to all organized religions, Christianity in particular.

\\\

Interesting.

Not only was Joseph Smith (THE Founder of Mormon faith) going his own way on religion, HE WAS HOSTILE towards ALL "Christian" denominations and wrote as much in his preamble to his new religion. He was told by some angel not to join ANY denominations because they ALL have been led astray. C'mon Mormons stand stronmg in your hostile denouncement of "Evangelical Christianity." Which of course is "what" the Gospel is all about. That at least IS understood by the missionary stance of Mormonism.

Mormons started the hate debate when Joseph Smith attacked every Christian in every Denomination on earth..

Mormons are not Christians.

Why not be proud about that Mormons? Your doctrines and writings are wierd and heretical in just about the most bizaare way found in the history since the beginning of the Apostles Church of Christ Jesus.

It is Mormons that use "indoctrination" techniques to assure that the brains of their youth are firmly rooted in Mormon ideology and theology.

No matter what attempts are made by the Mormons to cast doubt about the veracity of the Biblical writings, Mormom "ism" is teaching such incompatible beliefs with ANY form of Bible-based faith systems as to show what it is to any person with the ability to still think for themself.

A simple or in-depth reading of Doctrine and Covenance, or the Pearl of Great Price will show any honest person the immutable seperation between Mormon "ism" and the "Faith delivered ONLY ONCE to the Saints." And those "Saints" were the Apostles and NOT Joseph Smith followers.

You are nice people Mr. and Ms. Mormon, for the most part. When you clean the immensly huge logs out of your OWN eyes . . . then you can reject the false teachings of Joseph Smith and the men leading you astray in Mormon "ism" and see what is and what isn't being a Christian.

Bill,

I'm afraid you miss the point. What you say would be wonderful---if truth didn't matter. But it does matter. Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." If He'd said, "you shall know some stuff, it might be true or it might not, it really doesn't matter, and once you know this stuff, you might be free, sorta, more or less", then I'd agree with you.

But the fact is, one isn't a Christian merely by believing just any old thing about Jesus; the Bible itself says that the demons believe and tremble. Is there no such thing, in your framework, as heresy? For if there is no heresy, then there can be no "truth". That is what this discussion (not necessarily "rock-throwing", though some seem to have to stoop to that level, on both sides) is about; what constitutes the framework of orthodoxy, and what is heresy; what falls outside the pale of essential truth?

The understanding that Mormons have about the nature of Christ, the nature of God, and what God requires of man, differ fundamentally from what evangelicals understand, so much so that the different understandings are mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other is wrong, and vice-versa (and, of course, humility dictates that I mention that we could both be wrong). The truth is worth defending (and my Mormon friends, with whom I differ significantly, surely agree). It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

I'm trying to follow Jesus, not Rodney King.

If you define "Christian" using the artifacts of the Ecumenical Councils instead of using the doctrines explained in the Bible, are you not doing the same thing that you accuse Mormons of doing--adding to the Bible to define our faith?

Matt:

My last comment was made before I read your new post. You are right. If the only definition of Christian is that you hold to the Creed, then Mormons are not. We believe that the definition of Christian is one who is a disciple of Christ, and tries to live their lives as such.

Accordingly, Mormons believe that Evangelicals, and Catholics, and Mormons are Christian. We do not believe that you are the "church of the devil". The church of the devil is anyone who fights against Christ, and we can find those individuals in any denomination (or non-denomination) including amongst the Mormons.

I believe that while we have different interpretations, and have doctrines that the other believe are not completely true, by this definition of accepting Christ as our Savior, and trying to live according to His teachings, we CAN both be Christians.

"And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (1 Corinthians 12:5-6)"

I believe, because I have many evangelical friends that prove this, that we can believe in the same Lord, living lives of charity and goodness, praying together, and rejoicing in Christ, and still maintain our differing beliefs. Let us unite in Christ, and glory in the power for good that we can be in this country because it is Him that unites us.

Nathan:

Thanks for your response. I think if you would provide an answer to the following question, it might help to clarify our differences. Please excuse the elementary nature of this question:

"When you stand before God on judgment day and he asks why he should let you into heaven, how will you answer Him?"

Matt:

My response to God will be one that also happens to be found in the Book of Mormon: "Oh have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that I may receive forgiveness of my sins."

If I, or any other Mormon claim to be able to face God, and say "my works have been sufficient to save me", then we are wrong.

Thanks for the question.

Matt:

According to the LDS Bible Dictionary, atonement: "describes the setting 'at one' of those who have been estranged, and denotes the reconcilliation of man to God." By my own definition, to atone is to pay a price, or make a sacrifice to lift a creature from a low state to a higher one--one that the creature could not otherwise attain. Again from the Book of Mormon, we believe that "there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit."

Byron...I appreciate someone who can discuss theology without the names. Thank you.

My biggest difficulty lies with the concept that if something is not always stated, then it is not required. Using similar logic, then Faith is not essential to be saved because when Chirst spoke of repentence (or any other doctrine), He did not also add the caveat that Faith was essential. One must remember that the scriptures were written generally to those who were members of Christ's church and knew of the doctrines.

Instead of attempting to discuss each point you made, I would like to address only two. First, the comment by Paul. If you continue to read beyond that scripture, you will gain the context of Paul's comments. As predicted by the prophets, there was already the beginningsof the apostacy. People had begun to represent themselves as followers of Paul or of other teachers. Paul was happy that he had only baptized a single family so that they wouldn't place him above the Savior. Remember the Savior didn't baptize anyone himself.

Second concerns the thief. Paradise is not heaven. That is supported by the fact that Christ himself did not go to heaven that day. Remember Christ told Mary Magdalene after his ressurrection that he had not yet ascended to his father. If you want to know where Christ went then you should look to 1 Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6.

And just to end, if baptism was not essential to get into heaven, why did Christ do it? also, why did Chirst tell John the Baptist, who initially refused to baptize him, say that it was to be done to fulfill all righteousness. There must be more to baptism then remission of sins because Christ did it and he was sinless. Also, in Acts, Peter (who I hope you agree was the leder of the church after the resurrection) says it is essential to have faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Suppose a man just finished 20 years of a life term for murder and was released on parole. Would you let him come into your church? Could he be Mormon or Evangelical? Could he be saved?

What about a prostitute? Or a young woman who had a child but isn't married and doesn't know what to do?

Nowandlater,

You have still NOT answered any of the questions I presented. I again ask that you answer the questions that I posed in my posting.

In your last Posting you said,

"Again please read these references. My point is that the Abrahamic Covenant is pretty interesting. One element that is overlooked is that God promises that his people will have the same blessings as Abraham. Abraham was promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the stars or without end, and life with him. Eternal marriage and family without end is a very Biblical idea."

You did NOT answer my questions in what you wrote, but rather referred to the Abrahamic Covenant, which IS in the Bible. Please do not try to incoporate your preconceived notions into what the text of the Bible clearly says. The correction to your above claim regarding Abraham is that the Bible clearly says that Abrahams descendants will be so numerous that they cannot be counted. It never once mentions anything about eternal marriage. See the below passages...

Ge 22:17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Ge 32:12 "For You said, ‘I will surely prosper you and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which is too great to be numbered.’"

Since you cannot answer my question and show me where the Bible or the Book of Mormon mentions the New and Everlasting Covenant (which refers to the required gospel ordinance of eternal marriage) I will take your inability to answer the question to mean that Mormon doctrine is in error and should not be trusted.

Sincerely,
-Brady

Nowandlater,

I forgot to add this that you have not explained yet either.

Matthew 22:23-30

On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24 asking, "Teacher, Moses said, ‘IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.’
25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27 "Last of all, the woman died.
28 "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

AFTER YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE OTHER QUESTIONS I POSED...PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THIS PASSAGE SAYS ABOUT MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN.

Mike,

Please read (if you haven't) or reread my posting last night at 11:05 pm. What you said in your response contradicts the definition that Joseph Fielding Smith gave of the fulness of the gospel. There are several other points in what I wrote that might be helpful to read as well. I hope this helps.

-Brady

Bryan said:
"I also should point out that we have a different concept of heaven and hell. We believe that the sufferings of hell are of finite duration, and we believe heaven has "three degrees of glory": the Telestial kingdom, for the unrepentant; the Terrestrial, for the honorable; and the Celestial, for the valiant."

I would like to expand on this in the spirit of fostering understanding.

In it's most basic concept the Plan of Salvation is thus: There was a Creation. Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit resulting in death (physical death and a separation from God). Jesus Christ overcame death and hell (the separation from God) by his suffering, death and resurrection, thus opening the gates whereby we also may overcome death and hell (as judged by Jesus Christ), not of our own accord, because none of us could do it, but only through the grace of Jesus Christ. All of us who were born on this earth will be resurrected. Almost all of us will attain heaven. The only people who won't and instead will be cast out are those who deny Jesus Christ while knowing full who he is and what he has done. Like looking full into the sun and saying it does not exist. Now heaven has different levels or divisions(the scriptures sometimes call these houses or mansions). There are many, many levels just as there a myriad different kinds of people, but there are three main levels, compared to the glory of the sun, moon and stars. This is where the judgment of Jesus Christ comes in. It is only He who can decide where in heaven you belong, because it is only He who knows us infinitely by virtue of the atonement. He knows our limitations, He knows our hearts, He knows how we have applied His teachings and commands. Baptism is one of His commandments, and in order to reach the glory of the sun (Celestial), one must enter into the baptismal covenant (that does not mean that just because a person is baptized, he is guaranteed a place there, it is Jesus Christ who will judge if that person has kept their covenants). Likewise with the covenant of Eternal Marriage (since it was brought up), which is a requirement for a level within the Celestial Glory.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is not enough to know that everybody we know will go to Heaven. We desire everybody to achieve the highest glory in Heaven that they can, as judged by Jesus Christ. That is why we emphasize living the best we know how, that is why we emphasize baptism through the authority of Jesus Christ for those ready to make and keep that covenant with Him. Certainly we do not desire anybody to make covenants they cannot or will not keep. It is also why we worship Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer and focus on what we can do to be judged better by Him.

We cannot show you convincingly all of our beliefs in the Old and New Testaments. We rely on many forms of Scripture: our Standard Works and Revelation given by a living prophet. Maybe you can't prove that our version of the Gospel is true from the Holy Bible, but we can prove the truth of the Holy Bible from the Book of Mormon! If the Book of Mormon is true (and I testify it is, as the Holy Spirit has born witness to my Soul), it holds that all of the scriptures are God's word and is truth, as the Book of Mormon testifies of the Holy Bible and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

BRADY...

Using your logic, then the trinity is not a true doctrine because the word Trinity is never found in the BIBLE. And I think many people who have read the Bible would further state that the heavy majority of scriptures in the Bible do not support the trinity, but rather contradict it.

P. Nielson:

How do you normally define 'Christian'?

One who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Now, before you say that we agree on this, let me also say that our understanding of what it means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior needs to be fleshed out. For instance, what does it mean that He is Lord? Lord of what? What does it mean to confess Him as Savior? What is a savior? What does he save us from? Etc. We can discuss this if you would like, but for now, let me answer the rest of your questions.

Do most Christians you know define it this way?

Most Christians I KNOW do. Do most people who call themselves Christian define it this way? Maybe yes, but again, we would need to flesh out the details of what they mean by what they say in order to see if it reflects accurately what the Bible says about Jesus. Because that is what is important: What does the Bible say about Christ. And to the extent that I accurately “confess” and believe what the Bible says about Christ, to that extent I am confessing (to agree with) Christ.

Must one accept the creeds of traditional, orthodox Christianity?

No, one must not accept traditional creeds of traditional orthodoxy to be saved. That said, however, one must accept what the Bible teaches (and a true Christian will). And, as long as the creeds are in keeping with Scripture, one is free to accept them.
Let’s remember, though, creeds are only a tool. They are used to summarize central themes and doctrines taught throughout the entire Bible. And so, as long as the creeds are in keeping with the Bible, I can and should accept them. However, whether or not I end up accepting them has no bearing on my salvation.
I could argue that what you and others have written about Mormonism is a form of a “creed”. Must I accept what you write as authority? No. But if it is in keeping with your church’s understanding of what is true and what the Book of Mormon teaches, then I would be foolish not to.

Must one have the correct philosophical notions of God (i.e. must one correctly understand the creeds, or only accept them with limited understanding)?

See above.

I would also ask, "According to your understanding, what must one do to be saved."

One must repent from sin and plead for mercy from God.
It is God whom we have offended with our sin. We ALREADY stand condemned before Him. Our only hope of being saved from His wrath against our sin is to confess Jesus as our substitute and only hope of forgiveness. We can’t obey God because by nature we are sinful. We are unrighteous before God.

Yet, for God so loved the world, that he sent his son, not just to die in our place for our sin, but to live the righteous life we can’t live. When we believe in Him, not only do we receive forgiveness of sin, we receive the righteousness (perfect life) of Christ and adoption as sons. God now sees us as righteous (perfect) not because we possess that righteousness (perfection) in ourselves, but because we have been give Christ’s righteousness (perfection). That is why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. God no longer sees us as unrighteous (imperfect) because He sees Christ’s righteousness.
Rom 8:3-4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
And, once you believe, you are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance. (Eph 1).

To my Mormon and non-Mormon friends posting here...I think that we are getting off track. If we are trying to debate particular points of doctrine and using our interpretations of scripture to prove each other wrong, neither will succeed, and the debate will go on fruitlessly for ever.

The point we are trying to decide is if Mormons should be considered Christian.

To distill the debate, the answer depends on the definition of "Christian".

1. If being a Christian means one must agree with the results of the various Ecumenical Councils, and hold, particularly to the Nicene Creed, then the answer is "No", Mormons are not Christian.

2. If being a Christian means that one accepts Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior, and admit that without His mercy and grace we would be lost forever, then the answer is "Yes", Mormons are Christians.

Perhaps we cannot come to consensus in this forum on which definition is appropriate; but at least in each person's heart, they can decide on the definition that fits their own feelings. I feel like the second definition allows Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all to claim discipleship of Christ, even if our particular modes of worship vary from each other.

Let me state at the beginning I’m a committed, convinced member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I know I’ve prejudiced many of the readers with that statement), I’ve been reading this blog on and off now over the past several days. Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card have both written thoughtful commentary addressing the subject; I think Dr. Mohler has been more focused directly on the subject, “Are Mormons Orthodox Christians?,” (even though the blog heading is “Are Mormons Christians?”—I think there’s an important distinction to be found there). Mr. Card has taken the broader subject and its application to Mitt Romney’s candidacy, so the essays have not always appeared to address one another. It’s apparent that both agree on this, that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) are not orthodox Christians, and that they disagree whether, practically speaking, Mormons are Christians at all. Dr. Mohler with an emphatic, no!, Mr. Card with, of course Mormons are Christian.
The many, many responses have typically been just as interesting and engaging and it appears that everyone is in agreement that Mormons are not orthodox Christians, if that orthodoxy is based on the creeds as written, debated and, finally, accepted by those present some centuries following Christ’s death. Many have argued the creeds are based on truths found in the scriptures and so are scriptural, others argue that the creedal statements can be disputed by scripture and in fact, are an outgrowth of Greek philosophy and its profound influence on Christian doctrine.
It’s interesting to me that the scriptures can be interpreted to apparently support both views, the triune view of God, as well as God, Christ and the Holy Ghost being distinctly individual, but unified as one. It seems the LDS recognize and accept the idea of one-ness as taught in certain Bible passages, but the evangelicals appear to ignore those scriptures suggesting separate and distinct members of the Godhead found in other Bible scriptures.
What’s a person to think? It appears by all accounts there are doctrines and ideas taught without perfect clarity in the Bible and so are interpreted according to our own paradigm. I believe the idea of one-ness can easily co-exist with separate and distinct entities, particularly after reading John 17, but that the triune concept begins to unravel when reading the scriptures indicating God and Christ are distinct personages. And so the debate goes on, with both sides staying firmly in their camps without capitulation to the other. I believe the answer to this, “who’s Christian” question may be found in the simple declaration made by Christ at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (the Christian primer for behavior) as found in Matthew,
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I know many Christians, from different denominations, who I respect for their daily living, the way they treat their spouses and children, neighbors and co-workers, the language they use and their friendly, inclusive natures, along with a hundred other small, seemingly insignificant actions. A Christian is not known by professing his faith, who hears it? Maybe know one but himself, a Christian is known by the day-to-day acts that show he indeed has faith in Christ who taught that we follow Him. Following Christ means we do the things that Christ did, comfort the afflicted, feed the poor, love our enemies, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek, give to those in need, clothe the naked, care for the widow and fatherless, etc. etc. Those are fruits of faith. Like the vine used in allegories and parables, we can’t see what nourishes the vine, we can only see the results of the nourishment, the fruit.
Now I already now the response to this post: Nice sentiments, but what about the doctrines? Those who would answer me thus—you stand on your doctrine and hold to it dearly—I’ll continue trying to do the things God and Christ asked me to do, submit my will to God knowing that He will provide the best kind of life for me through His tender mercies and the wonderful grace that comes through Christ. That is my faith, Christ atoned, died on the cross and was raised to life eternal, for me and all God’s children, my role in the plan is to show my faith in Christ by my obedience, then rely on His grace for eternal life.
I think the faith vs. works debate has become so territorial, and “I’m right, you’re wrong” as to defy resolution. We don’t listen to one another, of course it takes faith—in fact, it first and foremost takes faith, but works, or acts, or service, or whatever term you want to use, are extremely important as well, James taught that clearly. One can’t accept the Bible without accepting all of it. We will be judged according to our works, Christ admonished us to do good, one has to act on their faith in order for faith to be legitimate. Accepting Christ takes action, it requires a desire, and the faith in the promises made by Christ requires one to step forward, kneel down or cry out. And after that the very act of praying, reading the scriptures, going to a Bible class, Sunday church meetings, service to others, really all our good acts, are works based on faith. For the true believer, the practical application of faith is to do something of our own free will. Mortals have control over just one thing, it’s the only thing we can give to God, our will, the choices we make to act in accordance to our belief. He is creator, there is nothing that is not His, except the individual will of man—that’s the test of life—will we, or won’t we, give up our own will to God? And submitting our will can only be shown by our actions, whether we decide on obedience or not is up to us. God or Christ won’t, can’t, make our decisions, “…choose you this day whom ye will serve,” declared Aaron, “…but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
There is no way around works for one who believes in Christ. And so the only criteria for whether one believes in Christ, regardless of denomination, doctrine or creed, is the standard Christ himself gave, “…by their fruits ye shall know them.”
I would suggest that we all quit these blogs, stop the contending over Christ’s name (how’s that for hypocritical anyway?) and go find someone who needs our care and succor, I believe that’s what Christ would have us do.
Regards,
BW

"Perhaps we cannot come to consensus in this forum on which definition is appropriate; but at least in each person's heart, they can decide on the definition that fits their own feelings. I feel like the second definition allows Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all to claim discipleship of Christ, even if our particular modes of worship vary from each other."

Nathan, Nathan, Nathan. Please don't fall into a "whatever feels good for you is true" trap. That is not how we resolve this. I agree that we will probably not come to a consensus on who is a true Christian on this comment board. But that doesn't mean we have to throw out reason.

We can, however, agree to disagree!

Sure, if you want to define Christian in the most simplest of terms in order to be inclusive of all, that's your prerogative.

But if you want to define a Christian by what the Bible says...

Brady,

I just quoted the scriptures.

And it is clear that the "fulness of the gospe;" and the "fulness of my scripture" are mutually exclusive terms according to the Doctrine & Covenants.

Also, Since both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach us to "ask God" when questions arise, the answers can become additional concepts and truth that we did not previously have, thus the seed planted in the injunction to "ask God" can bear the fruit of the "fulness of the Gospel, without every word, teaching or concept being originally listed in toto.

I have given ample citations about family and marriage. If you can't see what is there then I can not help.

:(

"You mentioned I don't know how many times that there was nothing for you to DO in the church. That would be an incredibly difficult situation because the salvation of Mormons is based on the things that you DO...good works or bad works. "

That's not true, and that's a flat misrepresentation of what Card said. Card was talking about how Mormons assimilate into their own communities, and that is by action.

You on the other hand wish to excommunicate us from Christ based on what you pretend that we believe.

Jesus said that you would know our beliefs, through our works. "By this shall men know, ye are my disciples, if you have love one for another." That's not about whether God will save us. That's about how Christians should recognize each other.

How about you stop playing God, and follow Jesus' actual directions, to determine who is Christian?

You kept all the commandments??? Wow I don't know anyone that can do that, except Jesus. You never told a lie during that time, not even one?

Just found that statement to be amazing.

Ummmm....

Shall we list all traditional hymns which sing about prophets? What a desperate accussation!

"God doesn't just make it POSSIBLE to "participate with Christ in the salvation process". No!!! He actually DOES SAVE people. And guess what He saves us from? His own wrath. You see, God's justice and mercy converge at the cross. His justice is satisfied because Christ absorbs the wrath of God (His hatred for sin)! God's mercy is put on display at the cross precisely because He provides a substitute."

Ok, so when Christ says "Come follow me", you advocate not following him, but to standstill and declare how mighty Christ is to save. That's fine for you to believe, but I believe in active faith in actually following Jesus Christ.

Matt,

You seem to be taking a Calvinistic view, whereby the saved were already saved at the moment Christ atoned for sin. In this view, man doesn't participate in salvation at all, it is only the work of the Son.

I take a universalistic position, that Christ payed the price for all sin to His Father, buying *all* mankind (if you will). But I also believe that we must then covenant with Christ to do His will, and repent when we fall short, otherwise Christ will not own us (i.e. we will not "abide in Him" 1 John 2) and He will allow all the effects of justice to rest upon us. Christ's atonement and resurrection save all mankind from the effects of Adam's fall (physical and spiritual death). At the same time, Christ's atonement makes it *possible* for all mankind to repent and be saved from their own sins, and receive eternal life, if they do what Christ asks (have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end).

Your view, while common among many Protestant denominations, is not universal. Do you really think it separates true Christians from non-Christians? Many denominations reject Calvinism and his TULIP doctrines.

Best,
P. Nielsen

Nowandlater:

I do not advocate not following Him. In fact Christ commands ALL men to follow Him. And I also believe in active faith. In fact, as James wrote, faith without works is dead. Right! So to say you have faith and NOT act is really not faith at all.

But ask yourself this: Who are those who follow Christ? Who are the one's who respond to God in faith and follow Him?

Why does person "A", who is dead in his sins, one day decide to follow Jesus and person "B", equally dead in his sins, not follow Jesus?

(BTW: I recognize this is WAY off topic, and I know I am partly to blame. But I hope others see these discussions providing some definitions to terms both Mormons and Christians use.)

The Bible clearly states that, even when we were dead in our sins, God made us alive together with Him. So my answer to my own question above is: those who truly respond to the call to follow him are one's whom God has made alive in Him! (Ephesians 2). First God makes alive, then we respond in faith. Dead men can't walk neither can they express faith in God until they have been made alive!

BRADY: I did giv you a scripture, its called genesis where God makes Adam and Eve one in marriage for eternity (what God [the Eternal] puts together let not man put asunder)

I give you a scripture and you continue to not deal with it.

Regarding the trinity: Was Jesus crazy in that he prayed to Himself? Does Jesus know how to throw his voice so that it appears to come from the heavens, while he is physically in the water? Same thing regarding on the Mount of Transfiguration? Does that mean that Peter is also part of God, why limit it to the Trinity, Christ told the Apsotles that they could become one with Him as He is with the Father. Ohh an d by the way, there is only one God to whom LDS people worship, that is the Eternal Father.

Come on guys...give me a better explanation other than the Father and I are one scripture...

And by the way, BRADY, had you been a Jew at the time of Christ, are you sure you would have followed Him, He did teach things that were NEW and expounded on things that Isaiah and other prophets had only alluded too. The JEWS too said give me a scripture.

LDS Boy

You are obviously NOT a Mormon. But an Anti-Mormon trying to deceive people about what we believe as is their trade craft. But your ignorance of real Mormon Doctrine gives you away.

BRADY...do you know how to read. I responded to that question earlier, but let me do it again just in case.

The scripture in matthew is correct! For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. LDS people do not believe in performing eternal marriages after the resurrection, the same goes with any of the ordinances (baptism, laying on of hands for gift of holy ghost, etc.)

Why do you think Jesus was asked the question by those who did not follow or believe in Jesus? It was an attempt to get Jesus to contradict His teachings with those of the OT.

Curious,

I suspect you think Catholics aren't Christians because of their hymns about Mary. Hmmm...I can go to many other denominations; there is a lot more. This could get interesting.
--------------------------------

Daily Daily Sing to Mary

Sing my soul her praises due

All her feasts her actions worship

With the heart's devotion true

Lost in wond'ring contemplation

Be her Majesty confess'd

Call her Mother, call her Virgin

Happy Mother Virgin Blest

She is mighty to deliver

Call her trust her lovingly

When the tempest rages round thee

She will calm the troubled sea

Gifts of heaven she has given

Noble Lady to our race

She the Queen who decks her subject

With the light of God's own grace.

LDSboy said:
Mormons, I invite all of you to state what we believe in before all these people:

Mike: The tone of your post makes it clear that you are not currently LDS. So don't be disingenuous about it. Maybe you are a disgruntled ex-Mormon or claim to be one, but you are not a current active Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So you are a liar. So why should I believe your statements about what Mormons believe. And I really admire your courage in not stating your real name, as I have here.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that ALL churches founded between 100 AD and 1820 AD were corrupt and abominations to God. We believe that Joseph Smith, our prophet, restored the true church of the God of Mormon.

Mike: We believe that there was an apostasy from the truth and that many plain and precious things were lsot including the ordinances of the gospel. Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the eeverlasting fcovenant."

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that God was once a man. We believe that we have to learn how to be Gods ourselves as all Gods have done before us.

Mike: John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he aseeth the bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise

John 17:20-24 20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall bbelieve on me through their word;
21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be aone, even as we are bone:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made aperfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast bloved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Romans 8, 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the cchildren of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Revelations 3:20-22 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will bcome in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

We believe that Jesus followed God the Father's example by taking upon him a mortal body, and since you mostly believe in the trinity and thus cannot separate the three personages, God in the form of Christ became a man and we can become like him. We can be one with him as he is one with the Father, be joint heirs with him and sit down with him on Father's throne. The Bible says so.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that our purpose is to join the Mormon Church and to earn our way to Godhood by following Mormon rights and privileges.

Mike: We believe Jesus when he says that Baptism and other ordinances are necessary, and overcome to be like him and be one with him and be joint heirs with him and sit on his throne by keeping His commandments.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the God of Mormon is procreating with his retinue of wives in heaven and is sending down spirit babies, which are us.

Mike: Be believe that we are children of God. See Romans 8.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Jesus was the first spirit baby and that his brother, Lucifer, the devil, was the second spirit baby.

We do believe that Jesus was the firstborn in the Spirit and the only begotten in the flesh.

There is no doctrine in the LDS church that Lucifer was the "second spirit baby" I dare you to show me a direct quote anywhere in LDS sources on this. This is an untruth. If you were really LDS you would know this.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that there are three heavens. A lower heaven for unbelievers. A middle heaven for unworthy Mormons. And finally, a celestial heaven where Mormon men are given a planet just like our God of Mormon.

Mike: Apparently so did the Apostle Paul:

1st Corinthians 15:40-42 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

2nd Cor 12:1-4 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third dheaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

We believe that the telestial kingdom is mainly for those who actively do evil mommon and non-mormon alike.
The terrestrial is mainly for those who failed to do good, mormon and non-mormon alike
The celestial is for those who ebntered into sacred covenants with God and kept them, the gateway is baptism as the Bible teaches in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the highest calling for a Mormon woman is to be eternally pregnant so she can populate a planet with spirit babies.

Mike: Since God's highest calling is to bring us into being and save us, and since Jesus said "come follw me" and since we are to become like him and be prefected in him, We would naturally want to do what he does and what his Father does. There is no specific way revealed about how this creative process works in heaven. I dare you to show me a passage in canonized LDS doctrine that says otherwise.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that NO ONE can go to heaven without the consent of Jospeh Smith, who reigns supreme.

We believe that Jesus is the keeper of the gate, that no man comes to the father but by Him. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses or Isaiah and an apostle like Peter or John, but he never claimed perfection and He likewise will not enter Heaven except through Christ. Again if you were really LDS you would know this.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that we can baptise in the name of the dead.

And so does the Bible teach:
1st Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead?

1st Peter 3:18-21 18 For Christ also hath once asuffered for sins, the just for the bunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to cdeath in the flesh, but quickened by the dSpirit:
19 By which also he went and apreached unto the bspirits in cprison;
20 aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1st Peter 4:6 6 aFor for this cause was the bgospel cpreached also to them that are ddead, that they might be ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the Bible to be the word of God, BUT that a correct translation of the Bible is impossible to acquire. Therefore...

Mike: I have been quoting to you out of the Bible. I use both the KJV and the NIV, but I challenge you to discuss any of these doctrines and prove that they are not so from the scriptures.

We have no original text of the Bible, even the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant texts of portions of the Bible are only copies or copies of copies, and there are thousands of translations containing millions of variations

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of the God of Mormon.

Mike: We believe that the Book of Mormon is another true testament of Jesus Christ as is the Bible. These are the words of the God of the Bible and the God of the New Testament, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We co not use the term "God of Mormon" If you were really LDS you would know that.

So calledLDSboy: We believe that, according to our prophet Joseph Smith, the Jews will not return to their land until they have all received Christ.

Mike: We believe no such doctrine. Document your allegation.

So calledLDSboy: We believe that the Jewish temple will be rebuilt not in Jerusalem but in Jackson Country, Missouri.

Mike: We believe that the Jewish Temple will be built in Jerusalem.
We also believe that a temple will be built in Jackson County Missouri.
We currently have over 120 operating temples, one currently in Missouri. If you were really LDS you would know this.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.

Mike: Yes we do. We also believe that Peter received a revelation allowing the gospel to be taught to the gentiles in New Testament times: See Acts 10:1-31

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Joseph Smith shot and killed at least two men when he was attacked in Illinois in 1836.

Mike: We know that Joseph acted in self defense against a mob that had already killed his brother. A mob numbering in the hundreds.
Does not SocalledLDSboy believe in self defense?

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Joseph Smith was arrested in 1826 and convicted of fraud for glass-looking and fraud.

We believe what is written at this link:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that any non-Mormon church is an abomination to the God of Mormon.

Mike: We believe that God will give all men and women an opportunity to accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ in this life or in the Spirit world. Show me what organization, doctrine or mechanism any other Christian church has that will save those who never even heard of Christ. show me a church that has a specific, organized missionary program to teach as many people as can be reached.

Article of Faith #11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may

SocalledLDSboy: Let's show everyone what we REALLY believe in, Mormons!

Mike: Yes. Let's. But let us tell the truth and not try to foist a pack of lies upon the uninformed public. and let us own up to who we really are.

Mike

LDS Boy

See Mikes post of 6:19 pm

Although there is a minor correction to his post.

SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.

GB: "blacks" have always been able to "join the Mormon Church". But yes we believe that the 1978 revelation allowed "blacks" access to the Priesthood. We also believe that Peter received a revelation allowing the gospel to be taught to the gentiles in New Testament times: See Acts 10:1-31

Thanks GB you caught it before I did.
And if LDSboy is really a Mormon then i'm Napoleon.

I am a Converted Mormon and have been in this Church for some years and the reason's why I baptized in this Church is because I Pray and search for a Church that would fill my life and Soul. However, it is sad that someone would say that because it was a Democrat vice a Republican no callings were given,etc.

If you are a true religious person, the reason why you attend a church us to worship Our Heavenly Father and not to critize or post emails that would hurt others. If we are religious or not, we should at least have the love to towards others even if they don't love us. If not then take a look at Jesus Example and see if he return a slap with a slap.

Yes we at The Church of Latter Saints of Jesus Christ consider to be Christians since we follow the teachings of Christ and for our youth there is a wonderful support system. Let's teach our kids to love and be kind and avoid to point fingers at anyone.

I feel sad to read only critics on a report, we already have enought hate in other places around the world, we do not need to write things to hurt others.

I am very sorry and apologize to the Brother who was not treated properly, but remember we need to go to Church for God and not just for the people. We are humans and make mistakes and at the End we will individually pay for our own sins.

Love,

Zio

Why did Joseph Smith practice Polygamy before he "got a revelation from God" that it was alright?

Why was the later "revelation from God" for Mormons to stop polygamy right after the United States made it officially illegal?

Why did Joseph Smith marry women who were still married to their living husbands?

Why did Joseph Smith marry several 14 and 16 year old girls?

Why did Joseph Smith have approximately 30 wives?

ETC,

ETC.

One thing that I would like to see in this debate is textual examples. Both men are very eloquent; however, concrete examples of what they are talking about are sparse. Also it doesn’t matter what each person thinks will happen if Romney is elected president. Yes that will have an effect on the world, but it does not change the question at hand: is Mormonism compatible with Christianity as taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Dr. Mohler:
You made the following statements regarding Mormonism:
“The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.”
Can you point to the Mormon literature that leads you to believe these things?

Mr. Card:
Similar question, are Dr. Mohler’s statements false and if not then why would that not disqualify Mormonism from inclusion under the banner of legitimate Christianity?

I am looking forward to reading future essays by both of you.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my LDS friends. It is refreshing to be around people who live their convictions. So, it is not with malice, but with deep love and respect that I point out a few of the numerous scientific problems in the Book of Mormon.
LANGUAGE PROBLEMS
1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:4 assert that the native language of the Hebrews in 600-91 BC was Egyptian. Mormon 9:32 differs in saying that it was Reformed Egyptian around 400 AD. However, it is well established that in 600 BC the Hebrews spoke Hebrew. As a result of the Babylonian Captivity (560-538 BC) Hebrew was reduced to the language of the scribes, priests and rabbis. Aramaic became the language of the Hebrews. Then, in 70 AD, Titus forced the Hebrews out of Palestine, and they acquired the languages of the nations to which they were scattered. The Hebrews had not spoken Egyptian since Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt many centuries earlier.
In consulting with professors of Semitic languages at the University of California and elsewhere, I could find no evidence of the existence of "Reformed Egyptian", nor for the claim that the following words are Egyptian or Semitic at all: Shazar (1 Nephi 16:13-14), Irreantum (1 Nephi 17:5), deseret (for "bee' in Ether 2:3), Liahona (Alma 37:38), or other names that are unique to the Book of Mormon.
GEOGRAPHICAL PROBLEMS
2 Nephi 5:15:16 is self-contradictory about the presence of minerals.
1 Nephi 17:5 is a description of Arabia which is "called Bountiful because of its much fruit and also wild honey." Arabia is bountiful in sunshine, petroleum, sand, heat and fresh air, but certainly not in "much fruit and also wild honey", nor has it been since creation times. 1 Nephi 18:1 indicates that the Jews made a ship from ample timber of Arabia. The same objection above applies here.
1 Nephi 2:6-9 speaks of an Arabian river named Laman that flows continually into the Red Sea! There has been no river whatever in Arabia in recorded history!
The numerous descriptions of the Nephite's new land cannot be correlated with any distinct geographic features of Meso-America such as lakes or rivers.
BOTANICAL PROBLEMS
In 1 Nephi 18:24 (591 BC) we read that upon arrival, the Nephi and his followers planted the numerous seeds they had brought, and that the seeds "did grow exceedingly, wherefore we were blessed in abundance."
As is well known, the dominant crops of the Near East were grapes, olives, wheat, barley, figs, dates, flax, onions, leeks, garlic, beans, pomegranates, and sycamore figs, certain melons, various oranges, lemons and peaches. American crops such as potatoes, tobacco, blueberries, cranberries, eggplants and maize (our "corn") were unknown in the Old World until modern times.
There is no evidence whatever that the Near Eastern crops ever "did grow exceedingly ... in abundance" until modern Europeans brought them to the Americas. Admittedly, while modern European colonists did find grapes in the Americas, they are an entirely distinct species from that of the Old World.
Other problems are when 3 Nephi 18:18 speaks of wheat in the Americas in 34 AD. 1 Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29, and 4:6, Helaman 6:13 and Ether 10:4 speak of linen (flax cloth). Barley is mentioned in Mosiah 9:9, figs in 3 Nephi 14:16 and olives in Jacob 5, 1 Nephi l7: 14, 15:7-16. None of these existed here at that time. "Neas" and "sheum" are mentioned in Mosiah 9:9 as two prominent and abundant plants. Yet, if they were so prominent and important, why are there no references to them in Old World literature, and why have they not survived?
Plant grafting is mentioned in 1 Nephi 15:16 and Jacob 5, yet there is no evidence that the Indians practiced this in 600 BC - 421 AD. Pruning is mentioned in 2 Nephi 15:6 and faces a similar problem. To describe seed and plant growth as "swelling" (Alma 32:28-34 and 33:23) is naive and grossly inaccurate. It reflects the error of preformationism (a discredited scientific hypothesis which held that the entire totality of the mature organism is contained in miniature in the seed).
ZOOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Contrary to what 1 Nephi 18:25 asserts, North America had no cows, oxen, asses, horses or goats "for the use of man" between 600 BC and the time European colonists brought them.
2 Nephi 21:6-8 plagiarizes the KJV of Isaiah 11:6-8 and applies it to North America (see also 2 Nephi 30:12-14). But North America had no sheep, lions, leopards, or the two snakes (asps and cockatrices) mentioned at that time.
Ether 2:2-3 and 5:4 explain that Jared and his family captured the birds, fish and bees, and gathered seeds with which they populated North America. But American birds and fish are distinctly different from Old World species. Honeybees were first introduced by Europeans. Ether 6:1 claims that Jared and his small family kept alive all of the species of fish that now inhabit the Americas for 344 days in their aquaria!
Ether 9:18-19 contains several problems:
• First, it lists domestic cattle, oxen and cows as separate species!
• Second, these did not exist in the Americas at that time.
• Third, domestic swine did not exist here then.
• Fourth, horses, asses and elephants did not exist in America at that time. Prehistoric forms became extinct centuries earlier and were not "useful to man."
• Fifth, "cureloms" and "cumons!' are not identified by LIDS scholars. Yet, it would be most unlikely for such supposedly useful and common domestic animals to go extinct.
There are serious problems in the description of the behavior of poisonous snakes, etc. in Ether 9:30-34:
• First, the notion that snakes increase as a drought increases is contradicted by the fact that reptiles are particularly sensitive to heat and lack of water, and would die off faster than other animals.
• Second, even with the large population of modem America, only about twenty people die yearly by snakebite. It is certainly not realistic for Ether to claim that numerous people and animals were exterminated by snakes.
• Third, it is totally unlike sheep for all of them to flee in one direction.
• Fourth, it would not be realistic for sheep to be driven to the south by poisonous snakes, as there are many fewer snakes in the north.
• Fifth, snakes have never cooperated with one another in driving animals in any direction.
• Sixth, it would have been impossible for people to have eaten in such few days the countless animals that had been killed by the snakes.
• Seventh, Ether 10:21ff tells us that the land was densely covered with people, while Ether 10: 19 says that "the land was covered with animals of the forests." Ether 10: 12 speaks of raising much grain. All of this simply does not square with the idea of an epidemic of poisonous snakes. People, farming, and predatory animals will not allow snakes to become numerous.
Satyrs (2 Nephi 23:21) and dragons (2 Nephi 23:22,8:9) are mentioned as literal creatures. Chickens (3 Nephi 10:4-6) and dogs (Alma 16:10, Mosiah 12:2, and 3 Nephi 7:8) were non-existent here at the time. In 3 Nephi 20:16 and 21:12, lions are described as 'beasts of the forests." Contrary to popular opinion and the Book of Mormon, lions do not live in forests or jungles. They live in savannas and veldts (few scattered trees) and lions never inhabited the Americas.
Silk is erroneously mentioned as being produced in the Americas at that time (1 Nephi 13:7, Alma 4:6 and Ether 9:1 7 and 10:24). But silkworm moths had not yet been introduced from Asia. Clothes moths are mentioned in 3 Nephi 13:19-20 and 27:32, yet there were no woolen garments for moths to attack, as sheep had not yet been introduced. Needless to say, clothes moths had not yet been introduced to North America.
2 Nephi 17:15 lists two foods at that time; butter and honey. But Indians had no milk animals nor honeybees. Candies are made either of beeswax, beef tallow or paraffin, so that a reference to candies in 3 Nephi 8:21 is unacceptable.
MICRO-BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Alma 46:40 attributes "the cause of disease to ... the nature of the climate," instead of to fifth, poor diet, or germs. Alma 16:1 tells us that the stench of those killed in one battle was so strong that "the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years ... and their lands remained desolate." Action of bacteria, fungi, worms, insects, vultures etc., would require no more than a few weeks at the very most to disposes of these carcasses and their odors-not "many years!" 3 Nephi 17:7 mentions leprosy in 34 AD, yet the first known case in the Americas was in 1758.
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Ether 15:30:31 says that Shiz was beheaded and that "Shiz raised upon his hands and fell, and after that he had struggled for breath, he died." Obviously, without the brain to control the arms, legs, and breathing, all of this was totally impossible. Ether 14:2 specifically says that "every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand," and yet a distinct minority of Indians, and people in general, for that matter, are left-handed. Alma 57:25 asserts that all in an army of 2,060 received many wounds, yet none died.
The implied reproduction rate in the Book of Mormon is astronomical! The story starts in 600 BC and ends in 421 AD. It involves a handful of people who travel from "the land of Jerusalem" [sic] to the Promised Land of America. Every four or five years or so there are devastating wars that kill many thousands of people (Alma 28:2, etc.), or as Ether 15:2 says, "nearly two millions of mighty men" in addition to their wives and children. For this to be so, it would be necessary for each couple to have scores of children, and for them to reach maturity in three or so years throughout the supposed period between 600 BC and 421 AD.
The description of the resurrection body in Alma 40:23 is astounding to say the least. It says that nothing shall be lost, not even a hair. In light of the fact that we shed a few score body and head hairs every week, and we "decommission" countless blood, skin, and other cells weekly, it is unrealistic to assert that all of these lost parts will be restored to us.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROBLEMS
Ether 2:20 says that the Lord instructed Jared to make a hole in the top and one "in the bottom" of each barge. What was the hole "in the bottom" for-to let water and wastes out? Ether 2:23 explains that if windows were put in the barges, the barges would be dashed to pieces.
In describing Christ's crucifixion, 3 Nephi 8:20-23 says that the darkness was so great for three days that candles and torches could not give off light. Why not?
Alma 24:16 speaks of burying swords in the earth to keep them bright. On the contrary, this would speed their rusting. Even stainless steel would rust eventually under those conditions. Steel was unknown in the Americas prior to its being introduced by the Europeans, contrary to 1 Nephi 4:9; 16:18; 2 Nephi 5:15; Ether 7:9.
TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
It is erroneous for a book supposedly written in North America at that time to mention bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), fine steel bow, (1 Nephi 16:18) swords (2 Nephi 1:1 8, etc.), scimitars (Alma 2:12), sackcloth (2 Nephi 13:24, carts (2 Nephi 15:18,28) chariots (Alma 18:12; 20:6; 3 Nephi 21:14), numerous large buildings (Ether 10:5, etc.), many highways (Helaman 14:24), cement (Helaman 3:7-9), forts (Alma 48:8), a javelin (Alma 51:34), bushel (3 Nephi 12:15), breastplates (Mosiah 8:10), head plate and armor for the loins (Alma 46:13), compass (Alma 37:38, 44), spindles and spinning (Alma 37:40), sickles (Alma 26:5), yoke (1 Nephi 13:5), strong cords (Alma 26:29) a trumpet (3 Nephi 13:2), street corners (3 Nephi 13:5), chains (2 Nephi 1: 13, etc.), hoe (Ether 10:25), harp, tabret and viol (2 Nephi 15:12), plow (Ether 10:25), fuller's soap (3 Nephi 24:2), barns (3 Nephi 13:26) and candles (3 Nephi 8:21).
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
The Book of Mormon was supposedly written during the period in question, but there is no evidence that the Indians had anything other than simply pictorial writing at that time. They wrote no books. It is not appropriate to find references to many official records (Helaman 3:15), jot and tittle (3 Nephi 12:18), scrolls (Mormon 5:23, 9:2) and Alpha and Omega (3 Nephi 9:18); especially since Joseph Smith declared that there was no Greek in the Book of Mormon!
Other cultural problems include references to mammon (a Greek god of wealth3 Nephi 13:24), lawyers and judges (Alma 10: 14-15 and 3 Nephi 6: 1), acre (an Anglo-Saxon word-2 Nephi 15:10), "south-southeast direction" (1 Nephi 16:13), synagogues (a Greek word not in use until during and after the Babylonian exile in 586 BC, twenty years too late to be in the Nephite writings-3 Nephi 24:2), Gentiles (a term also unknown until after 538 BC- 1 Nephi 13:19), etc.
The Book of Mormon consistently refers to the "heart' in the sense of soul, yet Indians varied in their terminology from lungs, kidneys, liver, intestines, to heart.
The Book of Mormon divides humanity into "black and white" and "Jew and Gentile" -most unrealistic for the Americas at the time-especially since the term "Jew" was never used of the Israelite people until after the Babylonian captivity (cf. Ezra 4:12 in the Old Testament, c.538 BC) about 63 years after Lehi's family hopped the boat to the New World. The Mongoloid race is totally ignored, even though there were no black people in America until the coming of the European slave trade and the Indian people are Mongoloid!
The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from Hebrew settlers in the Americas that wandered away from the Lord. 1 Nephi 12:11 says that as they wandered away in unbelief, "they became a dark, loathsome and filthy people." 1 Nephi 13:15 praises future Americans as being "white, exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." But Palestinian Semites do not have pale skin like the Anglo-Saxon settlers of America. 1 Nephi 5:21, Jacob 3:3-9, and Mormon 5:15-17 say that God cursed the Indians with a dark skin. 2 Nephi 5:23 and Alma 3:6-10 say that anyone who marries an Indian "shall be cursed with the same cursing." If this were true, why do people who are only part Indian not look full Indian?
2 Nephi 30:5-7 predicts that when Indians accept the LDS gospel that they will again become a "white and delightsome people." 3 Nephi 2:15 gives supposed examples of this. 2 Nephi 13:4 says that punishment from sin shall include "instead of well set hair, baldness," yet baldness is much more common among Caucasians. In 1981, the LDS altered the Book of Mormon to read that the Indians will become "pure and delightsome." However, in its many contexts, the Book of Mormon is highly explicit about the curse of a dark skin.
Instead of Semitic origin, Indians are distinctly Mongoloid, having straight and black hair, brown eyes, little facial or body hair among men, high cheekbones, skin pigmentation, occasional Mongoloid blue spot, certain blood traits, etc. Most of these racial traits are utterly unlike the characteristics of Semitic people, who do not possess the Mongoloid blue spot or features, and who have copious facial hair among the men and wavy head hair. Dark skin, instead of being a curse, is a protection against skin cancer. And Indians are certainly not innately more filthy, loathsome, or ugly than any other people!
OTHER PROBLEMS
Numerous historical and archaeological problems exist. The first edition of the Book of Mormon contained numerous grammatical and spelling errors. There are many contradictions between the Book of Mormon and other Mormon writings. And the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in many places. Lack of space prohibits a listing of examples of the above problems.
CONCLUSION
It is hoped that this paper will help my LDS friends and other seekers after truth, for as Moroni 10:4 well says:
"And when ye shall receive these things I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost."
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SALVATION
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 6:23
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
- John 3:16
"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house." - Acts 1 6:31

John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," BYU Speeches (5 May 2004) Dr. John Clark, director of the New World Archaeological Foundation, discusses some of the evidences that place the Book of Mormon into the real world context of ancient Mesoamerica. (MP3)

http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Clark_John_052004.mp3

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23

We believe that too.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 6:23

We believe that too.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
- John 3:16

We believe that too.

"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." - Acts 1 6:31

We believe that too.

Wow! So many people with soo much to say ... soo much to comment on.

A. Card mentioned the fact that Mormons follow the New Testament.
Which tells a whole lot about what Mormons believe & why they are Christian. He did not avoid the question , although there are many other points he could have made as to why they are.

B. I liked the comment that was posted as to why Mormons want to be called Christians or lumped in with them when they are the church of the Devil. That made me laugh. Good point.

C. Mormons might also be called Christians because of the name of their church. "The church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S." it's not Lutheran's church or anyone else's (Although Mormons are most grateful to Martin Luther for his faithfulness & sacrifices in making the scriptures accessible to everyone & in their own tongue.)

Mormons are also Christians because as listed previously by someone else they are the ONLY church set up as Christ originally set up his church with Apostles and Prophets , 70's , proselyting , baptism ,etc.

D. Mormons serve a more just God than other Christians because we don't believe that a sincere person of any faith who is trying to live to the best of their understanding of what is right will "go to hell."
There are MANY places prepared for God's children & he will bless them to the greatest degree they are able to stand based on how valient they were for his truth. Like that girl at columbine who would not deny her belief in the savior even when a gun was placed to her head. She was valient . People are not simply EVIL or RIGHTEOUS but are a whole varying range of places in between. Therefore there is not simply a heaven or a hell. But a loving God makes appropriate groupings for his children where they will be most happy & comfortable.
1 Corinthians Chap. 15 vs.40-42 also earlier in this chapter vs.29 speaks of baptism for the dead which is something that the Jews practiced in the Temple , & is another Biblical reason why Mormons are Christian. The Russian Orthodox church also continues to perform baptisms for the dead today , albeit selectively.

E. As to that whole faith/works stuff: 1 Corinthians chap. 13 the whole thing! most particularly vs. 2 "though I have all faith , so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

**** If ONE who possessed ALL FAITH , would be NOTHING without Charity how then can we be saved by FAITH alone?****

Let me explain to you how Mormons understand the whole faith/works thing: Christ brought forth the ressurrection of the dead for ALL mankind. The wicked as well as the righteous , it is a free gift to ALL. All will be ressurrected & live again in their bodies, to stand before their God to be judged of their WORKS. As mentioned above with the varying degrees of glory , there are MANY places prepared based on our individual works. However ALL are saved : that is ressurrected & receive a degree of glory whatever it may be.
It is by Grace that we are saved AFTER , ALL that WE can do.

That's about all that I can chew for now. This was an interesting rant though . Mary

Eggzactly!

"**** If ONE who possessed ALL FAITH , would be NOTHING without Charity how then can we be saved by FAITH alone?****"

Oooh! I found another version of this!

Come, Thou Font of Every Blessing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2jJubwQew

I will be thoroughly interested when this conversation turns to 1st and 2nd century Christian beliefs. :)

Robert L. Millet, "What We Believe," BYU Speeches (3 February 1998) Robert Millet examines some of the uniquely LDS beliefs that seem to cause concern among other Christians. (PDF files; also available in PDF format.)

http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Millet_Robert_021998.mp3

SocalledLDSboy:
Thank you for reiterating my point that ALL Christian churches erected between 100 AD and 1820 AD were abominations to God. Whether they were Catholic, Presbyterian, Bapist, Unitarian, Methodist, etc. It doesn't matter. NO ONE was saved during that period of apostasy.

Mike: I know that you aren't Mormon so why the pretense?

As usual, for those of your ilk, you pouce on items that you think you "scored points" on.

Unfortunately for you, since Mormon theology, through baptism for the Dead, As documented in the Bible in my first response to you. 1st Cor 15:28, 1st Peter 3:10-22, 1st Peter 4:6, allows that all men may be saved if they choose it. So there you go again lying about LDS doctrine.

Now how are you going to account for those people who never heard of Christ again?

Dear Mike Bennion, you, my friend, seem to disregard the infallible word of Brigham Young, our succesor to Joseph Smith.

"SocalledLDSboy: We believe that NO ONE can go to heaven without the consent of Jospeh Smith, who reigns supreme.

Mike: We believe that Jesus is the keeper of the gate, that no man comes to the father but by Him. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses or Isaiah and an apostle like Peter or John, but he never claimed perfection and He likewise will not enter Heaven except through Christ. Again if you were really LDS you would know this."

READ:

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith... He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity and calling, as God does in Heaven" - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7

Mike's Three observations:

1. "In his sphere"
2. If you were really a Mormon you would know that the Journal of Discourses is not canonized scripture.
3. I noticed that you gave an incomplete citation only listing volume 7 so that people will have a difficult time tracing the statement to read for context, since there are 58 separate discourses recorded in vol 7, (23 attributed to Brigham Young) So if you really want to discuss this quote I require The speech date and page number.

Boy, you need to do better than that.

To the person fraudulently calling himself "LDS Boy," and to anyone listening to him.

The church has never said that Brigham Young was "infallible."

Was Moses "infallible" when he took credit for God's miracle? Was the apostle Peter "infallible" when he denied Christ, or when he refused to eat with Gentiles even after God commanded him to not treat them as unclean?

Brigham Young was wrong about a number of things. D&C 50 gives us the process for approving doctrine through common consent, before it rises to the level of "scripture." The process is not that different in essence from how the books now unified as the "New Testament" were identified. Not every word that the prophet speaks is prophesy, but God manifests the truthfulness to the listeners.

"If those foundation stones are false, contradicted by the ultimate source...i.e., the Bible, then they are in serious trouble."

That's a very strange thing to say. You think that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth?

The Bible an anthology of God's word. Jehovah, also known as Jesus Christ our Savior and our God, is the ultimate source of the Bible. John's statement that "in the beginning was the Word" was not intented to give license to bibliolatry. The Bible is the Good Book -- an anthology of Good Books, to be precise, but it is not God; it is not the "Ultimate Source."

We revere the Bible, but brethren, let's not let that reference lead us to bibliolatry.

Mike,

I am sorry but all that work you did to answer my question did not answer it. I commend the effort, but you did not show any place where God commands, condones, or approves of polygamy.

Hey LDS Boy, what was Jospeh's Smith's testimony, how about you read the beginning of D&C 76. Thanks buddy!

LDS Boy, honest? Katie, um, hate to tell you this but....whisper...whisper...whisper.... Um, yep it is true LDS Boy is definetly NOT LDS BOY!

He is actually LDS GAY VEGAN COMMUNIST TRANGENDERED. Sorry, I had to break it to you, but it is the truth. {Snicker}

One of the basic teachings of the LDS faith is, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may someday be."

Now, I don't know how mormons define God, but my definition of God prohibits me (or my husband) from ever being gods to anyone because there is only one God, and He doesn't need me being a sub-god for Him. He's got it all under control.

A second issue for me is the idea that we must be "sealed" to each other for all eternity in a temple ceremony. What? God's not smart enough to know that Steve and I want to be together in the afterlife? We need some secret code word to identify each other in the beyond? Steve could choose to not "pull me through" and gets to decide my afterlife? He could pull our daughter through and leave me on the other side to spend all of eternity without my only child? I don't think so. As a Christian, I will trust God, and God alone, to decide my afterlife. My current life, too, by the way.

But the real kicker is that I believe that Jesus the Christ has the power to remit my sins, no matter the political or social situation. There is no sin, no matter what, that will not be forgiven in The Christ's name, regardless of the imposition of an LDS theocracy. No blood need be spilled to send up a pleasing odor to God. Just true repentence and the Grace and Mercy of Jesus the Christ. (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p?? somwhere in the 90s in my edition).

Mormons can be, and frequently are, great people (my brother's one, so I ought to know), but until they accept that ONLY the Grace and Mercy of Jesus the Christ is their salvation and all the works and ceremonies and restrictions are just window dressing, they cannot really be Christians, regardless of what they call themselves - just as I will always be a human, no matter how insistently I tell you I am a wombat.
Susan

what kind of deviant LDS Church are you part of? You reject the D&C?

Of course I do not reject the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). The D&C is scripture. "Mormon Doctrine" and "Doctrines of Salvation" are not part of the D&C. I carried the D&C everywhere as a missionary, along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As a missionary in the 1980s, I was specifically forbidden to own a copy of "Mormon Doctrine." That's the difference between modern scripture, and the private interpretation of church leaders.

To all my fellow christians, being defined as followers of Christ and his teachings as defined in the Bible with the understanding that God is the final judge of all mankind, not "Brady" or "Nathan" or "Billy Bob"...

I am not a lawyer. And this grows tiresome.

I'm heading out to Kansas tomorrow to help clean up the flood victims.

I'm not doing it so that God will save me.
I'm doing it because I want to help.

However, I do care what God thinks of me.
I want him to be proud of me.
He is my father in heaven.

And although I fall far short of being perfect, he loves me anyway.
He loves me so much that he sent his perfect son, Jesus Christ, who came willingly and traded his life for mine.

Why would he do that?

And He came anyway, knowing many would reject his teachings, throwing mud at his gift of atonement and go on to do horrible things to their fellow human beings.

He would have come if the only person he could have saved was me.

He is MY Lord and Savior.

Say what you want.

I stand before you as the blind man who can now see.

My heart is full.

My heart...the same organ that burst with joy as my children were brought into the world.

The same organ that overflowed with joy when I married my husband.

The same organ that nearly broke when one of my children was taken back home, but was comforted with peace as I prayed for understanding.

The same organ that glows when I speak of my Savior.

Someone quoted a scripture earlier trying to prove that the heart cannot be trusted.

I am no stranger to joy. I trust my heart because I gave it long ago to my Savior. I listen and I am patient when I pray for understanding and He has never let me down. He always hears and answers my prayers. He requires me to humble myself and stay close so that I will hear His will, not someone else's will masquerading as His.

I raise my voice with all others who love Christ and rejoice in His Atonement and Resurrection.

I love the Savior Jesus Christ with all my heart!

And I am a mormon.

For some, that proclamation is the death nell of my salvation.
And perhaps one day you and I will stand together at my judgment and will wish to put in your two cents worth on where I should go.

I highly suspect the Lord's response will be, "I didn't ask you".

- Liz

P.S. I agree with the previous writer-let's all disbar the Sanhedrin council of circular, un-Christlike debates and go do something productive. My time is precious.

I only read the first couple of comments after the article itself, so forgive me if this is redundant.

The debate was over long ago. The question posed was a bad one. Mohler defines himself as an "Orthodox" Christian and therefore, according to the text of the question, whatever he says goes, because it is him saying it. So Mormons are not Christians according to Orthodox Christianity, simply because Orthodox Christians say they are not. Silly.

Better questions would have been, "Are Mormons Christians?" or "Do Mormons follow Christ?" or "Are Mormon beliefs about Christ orthodox?" even "Do Mormons believe in Christ?"

Mohler and Card would have disagreed just as fundamentally on the answers to all those questions without the unfortunate presupposition in the question itself that one party was the final indisputable authority.

OSC is the greatest living fiction author and a real hero of mine in that realm.

Al Mohler is a champion of the actual Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it's rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth.

And the last post from OSC was incredible. Not credible.

Ender:Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it's rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth.

GB:Can you say "naked assertion"?

Stuart:
>>1. The Bible only speaks of the Jewish people, God is the God of all people! Is it impossible with a PERFECT God that he wanted to speak to all of his children?

False: Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (non-Jews. Read Galatians for a case-in-point.

>>2. The world has changed since 100 A.D. and scriptures are suppose to help people through their life on earth. I imagine that the Apostles had to answer similar questions after they began writing "new scripture" beyond those taught in the OT, and why did they? Because the times changed.

Sure, times change, but man's problem has never changed. He is and always will be born into sin, a slave to sin, until he is saved!

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

>>3. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. For thousands of years, God has spoken through His chosen prophets to procalim His word, why would he suddenly change His methods?

You are confusing the character of God with the means God uses. His character never changes, but His means do. Christ was the final "prophet":

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (2) in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Where once God used prophet, in these last days He has spoken through His son! That's a change, isn't it?

It appears that Orson Scott Card is reading this, because he just changed the title of his post from" Other Mormon's Didn't Accept Me either" to "Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?"

What's your point, Mr Card?

Quoted from Carey: "Suppose a man just finished 20 years of a life term for murder and was released on parole. Would you let him come into your church? Could he be Mormon or Evangelical? Could he be saved? What about a prostitute? Or a young woman who had a child but isn't married and doesn't know what to do?"

Absolutely! Send them my way! They will absolutely be welcome in my church, my home, and my life! Can they be saved??? The Bible makes it clear that all who are drawn by the Holy Spirit and who trust in Christ alone for salvation will be saved, regardless of the things they have done! Love covers a multitude of sins!

The Mormon/Evangelical question is a tricky one. Of course, anyone can associate with a group. There are lots of so-called mormons, so-called evangelicals, so-called catholics, or so-called whatever else you want people out there, who do not actually conform to the teachings of their faith.

Salvation is much different than religion. Religion is dead works. Salvation is a changed life through the sacrifice of Christ that is empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Look to the truth of Jesus Christ as found in the Holy Bible alone...no false documents from false prophets required.

MATT...

Again you miss the point...Why was there a need for additional scriptures after the first few books of the OT, written down by Moses?? If the scriptures are to resolve the similar problems, why did we need more? Isaiah speaks of these problems more than any other man in the Bible, otehr than the Savior himself.

Why did God continue to call Prophets after Moses, who did not preach a new law, but rather were inspired by God to preach the principles.

The NT is exactly that...a NEW TESTAMENT. Christ restored the gospel that had been taught from Adam until Moses. If you have read the BIBLE you will see that the ten commandments and the Mosaic law were given on Moses second trip to the mountain, what was written on the tablets the first time?? HUH?

If Jesus Christ is the last prophet, why do you cite the words of His Apostles, especially those books that do not attempt to speak of Christ's life. Why is the book of revelations concern itself with the prophecies of a latter day? Why does Peter speak of a restoration of all things? Why would we need one, if everything was taught?

If God's means change then the Bible must be wrong, see Amos 3:7.

Wasn't it Christ who said it was not His calling to preach to the Gentiles, but that He was commanded by the Father to only preach to the house of Israel? Or is the NT wrong about that?

Who are the "other sheep" that will hear Christ's voice? They can't be the Gentiles for the previous reason. So who are they? Maybe it was other members of the House of Israel that had been scattered, you can read the OT to find out that the House of Israel was scattered!

Mr. Card's defense of Mormonism as part of Christianity is terrible and is only based on relevance to other religions, politics, countries, people groups, etc.

Adam,

Is arguing religious differences really pointless?

Would you say that the Apostle Paul was achieving nothing when he wrote say, the letter to the Galatians? This entire letter was written in defense of the Gospel he had taught the Gentile believers. Others were perverting the Gospel he had taught the Gentiles, which was leading them away from the purity of the Gospel! So he starts off by saying that if anyone is teaching a Gospel other than what he had taught the Gentiles, let them be accursed! Read:

"Gal 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (9) As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Paul also warned the elders of the churches in Ephesus of false teachers when he wrote to them:

Act 20:28-31 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (29) "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; (30) and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (31) "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Paul was obviously concerned and wanted to make sure that men would not just sit back and let false teaching go unchallenged.

The call by Paul to be on guard for false teaching and false teachers presumes that we have the means and ability to identify them.

So if even Christ warns of this when he said: (Mat 24:24) "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect...

then these conversations are not pointless! We are called to be on guard and fight for the truth. I know not all will take up that call. But don't look down on those who do and call it folly. It only shows that you haven't realized the seriousness of some of these things.

Blessings to you.

I think this is a great scripture, that goes along with those spoken of by MATT.

2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, aor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the cday of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: afor that day shall not come, except there come a bfalling away first, and that cman of dsin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who aopposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know awhat withholdeth that he might be brevealed in his time.
7 aFor the bmystery of ciniquity doth already work: only dhe who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that aWicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his bcoming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all apower and bsigns and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be adamned who bbelieved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

MATT.. nice post. I agree, and you may want to read this scripture which compliments those you posted. 2 Thes. 2:3

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know awhat withholdeth that he might be brevealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all apower and bsigns and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The "falling away" or apostacy was already beginning during the times of the Apostles. Yet, I love how some are attempting to attribute such comments to the LDS Church. Verse 11 is really nice!

The LDS Church is the restoration of Christ's church after the falling away, as proclaimed by Peter that in the latter days there would need be a restoration of all things.

Well Pride.... I hope you never say you are proud of your children or anyone! I love when people take things out of context! How does this one discourse go with all of his other comments.

And the truth is...that Joseph was right!

Sorry it should read "Was it audible enough to get an accurate transcription?"

"Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it's rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth."

We aren't interested in tying ourselves to what you call your shredded orthodoxy. We're only interested in Christianity, and the Biblical truths. You have no right to go redefining words such as "Christian," which are terms from the Bible, or turning the savior's name into your own personal country club.

Keep your shredded Orthodoxy. The opposite of "orthodox" is "heretical." That's the traditional term for people who reject the traditions and philosophies of men.

Thank you all for your comments

There have been some great posts and discussion. When Latter-Day Saints say that we are Christians we do not claim that other great Christian faiths are not Christian. We recognize and appreciate the great faith in Christ that other church members have.

Build bridges. Both in the academic world and the religious world, you will find there is more that unites than that divides. Face-to-face and where
possible heart-to-heart discussion is better than throwing rocks from a distance. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up" (Teachings, p. 316). He further taught and lived the principle: If you will not accept our religion accept our hospitalities (Words of Joseph Smith, 1843, p. 162).
--Truman G. Madsen, "Sacred Treasures," New Era, Aug. 1994, 46

Are Mormons Christians?
by Stephen E. Robinson, "Are Mormons Christians?" New Era, May 1998, 41
Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise? Here are the facts.

If you live in Utah, you may be surprised. If you live where Latter-day Saints are a minority, you've probably heard it before—perhaps many times. But there are sincere people out there who believe the Latter-day Saints aren't Christians. In fact, the accusation that we are not Christians is probably the most commonly heard criticism of the LDS Church and its doctrines today.
Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn't the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
The purpose of this article is to help you understand why some people make this accusation. Knowing that, perhaps you can be more comfortable and knowledgeable in dealing with such views when you hear them expressed. But remember that the spirit of contention is always un-Christian (see D&C 10:63). This article is meant to provide information and understanding rather than ammunition for disputes.
There are a number of arguments used supposedly to "prove" that we 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. Their 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. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so. 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.
(This article is largely adapted from the book Are Mormons Christians? Bookcraft, 1991.)

Elder Neal A. Maxwell: "There is today more ecumenicism, but there is also more shared doubt. More and more people believe less and less—but they do believe it together. The fewer the issues, the easier it is to get agreements. The fewer standards there are, the less there is for congregations to rebel against. Since knowing is tied to doing, and doing to knowing, there is an awful cycle in all of this. Jesus said we can know of the divinity of his doctrines by keeping his commandments and by doing the will of the Father. Therefore, a slackening of behavioral standards brings more doubt. (John 7:16-17.) Such doubters will not want to be reminded of the strong, true doctrines pertaining to human behavior. Standards will grow even more slack, and true teachings will dwindle even further." (Things As They Really Are, p48-49)

The book I was reading is called The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter, and it is a classic of creedal Christian ecclesiastical literature. Written in 1656, just a few years after the Reformation, the book is a guide to pastors in the then very new reformed faith as to the demands and expectations on their lives and work. From its pages a couple of passages jumped out at me in light of this blog.

And it is not ourselves only that are scorched in this flame, but we have drawn our people into it, and cherished them in it, so that most of the godly in the nation are fallen into parties, and have turned much of their ancient piety into vain opinions and disputes and envyings and animosities. Yea, whereas it was wont to be made the certain mark of a graceless wretch to deride the godly, how few are there now that stick at secretly deriding and slandering those that are not of their opinions! A pious Prelatical man can reverently scorn and slander a Presbyterian; and a Presbyterian an Independent; and an Independent both. And, what is the worst of all, the common ignorant people take notice of all this, and do not only deride us, but are hardened by us against religion; and when we go about to persuade them to be religious, they see so many parties, that they know not which to join; and think that it is as good to be of none at all, as of any, since they are uncertain which is the right; and thus thousands are grown into a contempt of all religion, by our divisions; and many poor carnal wretches begin to think themselves in the better case of the two, because they hold to their old formalities, when we hold to nothing. [Emphasis added.]

And then a few pages later:

Besides, consider what a disadvantage you cast upon your cause, in all your disputations with men of different views. If your principles be better than theirs, and their practice be better than yours, the people will suppose that the question is whether the name or the thing, the shadow or the substance, be more desirable, and they will take your way to be a mere delusive formality, because they see you but formal in the use of it, yea, that you use it not at all.

Christian Interfaith Relationships
Christian Interfaith Relationships

Christian Interfaith Relationships
by Richard P. Lindsay

The Church has never existed in isolation or insulation from other Christian faiths. Its roots and its nurture are in, and remain in, the Christian heritage. But its claim that the heavens have opened anew, that a restoration of the lost radiance and power of the full gospel of Jesus Christ is under way at divine initiative, and its rejection of many long-standing traditions have generated misunderstanding and ill will. In the first generation in the United States, the solidarity of the Latter-day Saints was thought to be inimical to pluralism and at the same time aroused the ire of sectarians. Missionary efforts through personal contact more than through mass media and image making sometimes compounded the problem. In certain times and circumstances, there has been no will, or at least no lasting resolve by either side, for outreach and cooperation.

In three ways these tensions are being reduced:

1. Institutionally. Church officers now participate with leaders of other faiths in Christian interchange. LDS leaders in many countries are welcomed to interfaith devotionals with their Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox counterparts. This has been in keeping with the precept and example of early Church authorities (see Tolerance). For mutual support, they likewise meet and organize, across varied lines and programs, for example, the chaplaincies of many nations of the free world, the Boy Scout movement, the National Council of Christians and Jews, and local and international service clubs concerned with social, ethical, and moral issues.

2. Educationally. The Church fosters the largest adult education curriculum in the world. Many of the courses are Bible-related, and some focus on Christian history and institutions. For high school and college-age students, who now exceed half a million, the Church provides similar courses in its seminaries and institutes adjacent to high schools and major universities. Teachers in the Church Educational System are given financial supplements to visit the Holy Land, to study the origins of the three great monotheistic religions, to become familiar with the vocabularies and worldviews of alternative Christian institutions, and to understand and recognize common ground in the lives of the youth they teach. LDS scholars of many disciplines are increasingly involved in the religious studies programs of academic and professional organizations.

The Church has opened its extensive broadcasting facilities to representative programming across the spectrum of Christian groups (see Bonneville International; KSL, Radio). It has also been a major participant in religious broadcasts in the VISN Religious Interfaith Cable Television Network, which represents most major denominations in the United States.

To establish two-way interchange, the Richard L. Evans Chair of Christian Understanding was established at Brigham Young University. Funded and advised by a variety of Christian groups (the initial commitment came from a Presbyterian), this Endowment fosters religious studies symposia, lectures, forums, exchange programs, and visiting professorships. It also sponsors interfaith meetings where common as well as controversial theological issues are presented by representatives of each tradition, and where workshops help resolve tensions in an atmosphere of goodwill.

The Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University produces distinguished volumes utilizing scholars of many faiths who represent interdisciplinary and comparative expertise. Although a literature of disparagement continues both from the left and from the right (see Anti-Mormonism), Church leaders continually remind the membership that whatever may be said of those who make a religion of anti-Mormonism, a retaliatory response is neither wise nor Christian.

3. Practically in Christian Humanitarianism. At its best the pattern of LDS life, institutionally and individually, has not been to demand rights but to merit them, not to clamor for fellowship and goodwill but to manifest them and to give energy and time beyond rhetoric. In a major address to regional Church leaders, former President Spencer W. Kimball set the tone:

We urge members to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.

With our wide ranging mission, so far as mankind is concerned, Church members cannot ignore the many practical problems that require solution if our families are to live in an environment conducive to spirituality.

Where solutions to these practical problems require cooperative action with those not of our faith, members should not be reticent in doing their part in joining and leading in those efforts where they can make an individual contribution to those causes which are consistent with the standards of the Church [Kimball, Ensign 8 (May 1978):100].

Examples of recent Church-encouraged projects that reach across different affiliations include cooperative emergency assistance, support for homeless shelters in many cities, and linkage with the work of the Salvation Army. At BYU, students of other faiths are often elected to student offices, and various service clubs strive against intolerance and clannishness. In the same spirit, the Church was among the first to give aid, with other Christian bodies, to disaster areas in such places as China, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Los Angeles, Peru, Armenia, Japan, Iran, Chile, and Greece. Through two special fasts, the Church raised $11 million for the hungry in Africa and Ethiopia, and utilized Catholic services as a delivery system (see Humanitarian Service ).

Because so much in contemporary society is dissonant, centrifugal, and divisive, interfaith understanding and mutuality seem indispensable. LDS history suggests that what appear to be intractable political, social, and economic clashes are often, at root, religious. To overcome needless divisions and to heal the wounds of modern life, including the religious life, are not just the commission of Latter-day Saints but of all who take seriously the message and ministry of Jesus Christ. Unless in some there is Christlike concern for all, there is little hope for any.

(See Daily Living home page; Interfaith Relationships home page)

Bibliography

Arrington, Leonard. "Historical Development of International Mormonism." University of Alberta, Religious Studies and Theology 7 (1) Jan. 1987.

Keller, Roger R. Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians: Let's Talk. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1986.

Madsen, Truman G. "Are Christians Mormon?" BYU Studies 15 (Autumn 1974):73-94.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Interfaith Relationships

Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News
With Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints sitting together in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for an "Evening of Friendship," internationally renowned Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias told them Sunday night that Jesus Christ's unique claim upon humanity is that he embodied truth and sacrificed himself for a world that often does not recognize him.
Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias speaks at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, in an event organized by Standing Together Ministries. (Jason Olson, Deseret Morning News)
Jason Olson, Deseret Morning News
Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias speaks at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, in an event organized by Standing Together Ministries.
But what many Utahns may remember most distinctly is the sermon that came before it.
Taking the pulpit to speak of the event's historic nature, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw addressed a capacity crowd of several thousand, offering a stunningly candid apology to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and noting that "friendship has not come easily between our communities." He dubbed the evening "historic" and apologized that Evangelicals "have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints."
"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," he said, adding both camps have tended to marginalize and simplify the others' beliefs.
Historical animosity dating back to the founding of the LDS Church by Joseph Smith in 1830 has heightened in recent years between the two groups, particularly in the 1990s, when several high-profile evangelical leaders asserted that "Mormons are not Christians."
Mouw noted the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birthday next December and several scholarly events planned to celebrate during the coming year. "I hope many in the evangelical community will take part in those events," he said.
The Tabernacle was filled to capacity 10 minutes before the 6 p.m. service began. More than 7,000 tickets had been distributed shortly after plans for the event became known in September.
The fact that the LDS Church opened its signature pulpit to Zacharias — the first such invitation in more than a century — has had some in both faith camps talking about the motives of Standing Together Ministries and the Richard L. Evans Chair of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University, who organized the event.
Zacharias shared the dais with both evangelical preachers and Latter-day Saint scholars and moved widely beyond the pulpit as he weaved biblical parables with modern tales of those who encounter Christ and recognize truth, often in the context of major human heartache and suffering that no political maneuvering can solve.
He spoke of the "exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ," noting that he asserted an exclusive truth claim in his declaration as "the way, the truth and the life." While he acknowledged that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ in many of their views from historic Christianity, he emphasized much of what they share in reverence for a being both consider the divine Savior of mankind.
Christ as Lord offered the perfect "description of the human condition," he said, noting that when surveying the world's major religious traditions, "no where is the doctrine of sin so clearly enunciated as in the Christian faith." Without such a definition, relativism makes almost any behavior acceptable because it can simply be called some kind of sickness.
He related a conversation with a woman who had dedicated her life to freeing children from sexual slavery in an Asian nation, and how she had snatched an 18-month-old girl out of the hands of a man who was defiling her. "You tell me there is no such thing as evil. You want to call it deviance, aberrant, a slip of judgment? Jesus looked at it and called it what it was.
"Psychologists are coming to the realization that in taking away that word (sin), they've taken away that which was needed to identify what was real."
Richard Mouw
Richard Mouw
The Bible says all people commit sin, and thus "come short before the glory of God. Have you seen your own heart before Jesus Christ?"
Christianity is the one faith that offers true forgiveness, he said, recalling his own suicide attempt as a young boy in India. Someone brought a Bible into his hospital room, and he can now relive the "moment knowing what it was to hear the Lord say, 'neither do I condemn thee. Go they way and sin no more.' "
The Christian gospel offers the one true chance at lasting peace, he said, noting a conversation last March with one of the founders of Hamas, whose members regularly take responsibility for suicide bombings among Israelis. Reminding the leader of the biblical account both Islam and Christianity share of Abraham offering his son on the altar, he told the man that God stayed the execution.
"Until we receive the Son that has been provided, we'll be offering our own sons" up to the killing fields of warfare.
He said Jesus is the "embodiment of the ideal" of purity, and as such, evil will seek to besmirch his character. Singling out the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," as a great "gasp of human skepticism," he said, "what better way to nail in the coffin of Christendom than to attack the purity of Christ." The book presumes a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Christ's triumph over the grave will outlast such speculation, he said, quoting evangelist Billy Graham's answer to the chancellor of Germany in the wake of World War II. "Outside the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I know of no other hope for mankind." The 45-minute sermon was greeted with a warm standing ovation.
Best-selling Christian musician Michael Card provided music for the service, performing piano and vocal music and asking the audience to join in on the chorus of several numbers.
One pastor who concluded the service said several times he didn't want the meeting to end, noting he was excited to have met in the Tabernacle and suggesting the meeting become an annual event. Then with a smile, he added, "Don't you all have a bigger place right across the street?"

E-mail: carrie@desnews.com

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they are the only Christians?

W. John Walsh
Robert L. Millet
Joseph Fielding McConkie
Van Hale and Bill Forrest

by W. John Walsh

Those from competing religions often attempt to convince the public that Latter-day Saints are intolerant and hostile to people who are not members of their Church. In reality, Latter-day Saints are encouraged to reach out and befriend nonmembers of our Church, regardless of differences between our belief systems. President Gordon B. Hinckley has said:

"We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive.

For instance, there recently came to my office a Protestant minister who is a most effective leader in the unending battle against pornography. We are grateful for him. We join with him and his associates. We give financial support to his organization.

We can and do work with those of other religions in various undertakings in the everlasting fight against social evils which threaten the treasured values which are so important to all of us. These people are not of our faith, but they are our friends, neighbors, and co-workers in a variety of causes. We are pleased to lend our strength to their efforts.

But in all of this there is no doctrinal compromise. There need not be and must not be on our part. But there is a degree of fellowship as we labor together." (See We Bear Witness of Him for President Hinckley's full comments)

One of the favorite techniques critics use to sponsor the misrepresentation that Latter-day Saints are hostile to nonmembers is to distort LDS views on salvation. This distortion is normally accomplished by either twisting an actual LDS belief into something we don't believe or accurately quoting a real LDS belief, but leaving out the other LDS doctrines which give context to that belief.

Now let's answer your specific questions:

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they are the only Christians? Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin noted:

"A dictionary defines a Christian as 'one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus,' and 'one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.' Thus two characteristics identify Christians: First, they profess belief in the Savior, and second, they act in harmony with the Savior's teachings. Faithful members of the Church called Saints or Latter-day Saints, qualify clearly in both characteristics. In our belief and our action, we demonstrate that ' Jesus Christ Himself (is) the chief corner stone' of our faith." (See Christians in Belief and Action for Elder Wirthlin's full comments)

Unlike some competing denominations, Latter-day Saints don't try and play word games with this definition. For us to recognize a nonmember of our Church as a Christian, we don't demand that they hold all the same views of Jesus as we do. For example, some other Christian denominations teach that Jesus discarded his resurrected body at some point and now only exists as a spirit. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus presently has a resurrected physical body, the same physical body he had during his mortal sojourn. (See Resurrection of Jesus Christ) Our difference of belief on this fundamental doctrine does not cause us to say that those who hold different --and we believe false-- views are not Christians. Despite their false views on this issue, we still consider them Christians. If you say you believe in Jesus Christ and say you try to follow his teachings, and want to be called a Christian, then Latter-day Saints are happy to acknowledge you as such. (For discussions of related issues, see "Mormonism" and Christendom )

by Robert L. Millet

Latter-day Saints believe that truth is to be found throughout the earth--among men and women in all walks of life, among sages and philosophers, and among people of differing religious persuasions. But they do claim that through the call of Joseph Smith and his successors, and through the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to earth. They value the truths had among the children of God everywhere but believe that theirs is the "only true church" in the sense that the same divine authority and the same doctrines of salvation had from the beginning are now to be found in their fullness in the LDS faith. It is odd that Protestant Christianity should be so offended with Joseph Smith's statement that 19th-century Christianity was off course; is that not exactly what those protesters like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli said in regard to the Roman Catholic Church?

The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity
Copyright by Deseret Book

by Joseph Fielding McConkie

The essence of Christianity centers on the idea that salvation is in Christ. That being the case, everyone who truly embraces the Christian faith must at the same time embrace the idea that it is only in and through Christ that salvation comes. Christ himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Thus the doctrine of all the holy prophets has been that there is "none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12; see also D&C 18:23; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21). Within the ranks of those professing to be Christians there may be differences on the requirements of salvation, but all must agree on the acceptance of Christ as the source of salvation. At issue here is not whether a line must be drawn between the believer and the nonbeliever but simply where that line should be drawn. Latter-day Saints have marked a narrow path; the Protestant world endorses a broad one. For us there is but "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and thus one true Church. For Protestants the point of unity is the saving grace of Christ, beyond which is an immense doctrinal and denominational diversity. They hold it to be unchristian for us to suppose that they are not on the path of salvation while rejecting as outrageous any notion that we could possibly be on that path.

Answers: Straightforward Answers To Tough Gospel Questions
Copyright by Deseret Books

by Van Hale and Bill Forrest

From the beginning a basic LDS claim declares that the church originally established by Jesus Christ through his apostles and prophets eventually apostatized, and was restored by Jesus through Joseph Smith in 1830, and the years that followed. (See Restoration of the Gospel home page)

It has become popular among opponents of the LDS faith to distort and misrepresent this LDS belief by claiming that Mormons despise all of the beliefs and advocates of all non-LDS Christian churches. A typical example of this is Walter Martin:

"With one dogmatic assertion Joseph pronounced everybody wrong, all Christian theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt-all in the name of God'" (Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana: Vision House, 1978), p. 31:)

A tract widely circulated by the anti-Mormon group, Saints Alive in Jesus, begins:

"Mormon missionaries, young fellows, neatly dressed, polite, ringing doorbells-two by two! Telling you that: Your church is all wrong; Your creed is an abomination; Your pastors are corrupt." (Here They Come . . 30,000 of Them)

The following article was first published in the Deseret News and is reproduced here from Millennial Star 63 (August 22, 1901), p. 549-551. This article represents LDS attitudes toward other Christian churches much more accurately than do the statements of Mormonism's opponents generally.

"MORMONISM" AND CHRISTENDOM
Attitude of the Former Towards the Latter Clearly Defined--Its True Position

A gentleman who has taken much interest in the articles in the Deseret News in reply to the attacks by the Presbyterian convention upon the "Mormon" Church, writes to us expressing his opinion that the News has "the best of the argument," but wants to know whether the Latter-day Saints "reject Christianity in all its branches, with all its doctrines, despising the whole system and the gospel it proclaims."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take the position set forth in this query. It accepts Christianity, that is the Christianity of Jesus Christ, in all its branches and with all its doctrines. But it regards modern Christendom, with its multifarious sects and denominations and preachers, and many of its contradictory notions, as entirely different from that Christianity which Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles promulgated. There is, however, some measure of truth in every religion extant; that we certainly do not reject. There are good people in all the religious organizations both in Christendom and in heathendom; they, we certainly do not condemn.

The systems of religion which men have invented are human, and therefore are not to be regarded as authorized of God. Whatever good there may be in any of them is divine. That which is erroneous is from mortal man or from the Evil One. None of them could continue in existence but for the measure of truth therein contained. But they all embody errors that stamp them as man-made and therefore unreliable. The Church of Christ must come from Christ, and its doctrines must be such as He reveals, not merely "the commandments of men." The good which some men and women associated with those systems are able to accomplish, we recognize and believe it is acceptable to God. But when men administer ordinances and ceremonies in the name of Deity which they have not been authorized by the Lord to perform, they assume a position which is displeasing to the Almighty, and their official acts in His name are utterly empty and void.

We do not despise or repudiate any principle of truth that is to be found in any system of religion, no matter by what name it may be called. Anything that is true in theology, philosophy, literature, science or art; in any discovery, invention or project, we accept and it blends into the truths of religion which the Lord has revealed in these latter-days, just as separate drops of water unite in one mass as soon as they coalesce. For "Truth is truth where'er 'tis found, on Christian or on heathen ground." There are some great truths in oriental non-Christian religions as well as in the sects that call themselves "Christian." None of these comes into repulsion with the system now revealed from heaven, and which is commonly dubbed " Mormonism."

This idea is clearly set forth in simple language in the Book of Mormon as follows:

Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God, and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God, inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, everything which inviteth and enticeth to do good and to love God and to serve Him is inspired of God.

We do not interfere, or wish to interfere, with the promulgation of anything that is true and beneficial to mankind, no matter from whence it proceeds. We do not desire to belittle the efforts of good men and women to elevate and improve humanity. On the contrary we wish them Godspeed. If they have anything better or more advanced than that which we have received, we stand ready to accept it. But we know this: God has opened up a new dispensation, "the dispensation of the fullness of times, in which He will gather in one all things that are in Christ." He has set up His Church again on earth, and committed authority to chosen men to administer in His name and teach the truths which He reveals. As There can be but one true Church of Christ no matter how many branches it may have in different nations, we do not regard any of the conflicting sects as divine or authoritative.

Our mission is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every creature, both in Christendom and in heathendom, and call upon all people, everywhere, to repent of their sins believing in Christ, and to be baptized by one having authority, for the remission of sins which comes through the atonement; with the promise that they who obey shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which teacheth all things, guides into all truth, shows things to come and reveals the Father and the Son. It is the everlasting Gospel proclaimed by Christ Himself when on earth, and by the Apostles whom he sent into the world for that purpose~ and is the only way of salvation. The Church which he has set up today is organized after the pattern of the early Christian Church, and its ministers hold the same authority, power, keys and inspiration that were given to holy men of old.

This is our position as to the Church of the true and living God, and its attitude toward other religious creeds and societies. While we take this stand, and claim the right to worship God according to His revealed will, and the dictates of our own consciences, we accord the same right to all people upon the face of the earth let them worship what, or whom, or when they may. (See Articles of Faith)

JOSEPH SMITH'S VIEW OF THE CREEDS

Those who claim that Mormons deny the existence of any truth or goodness in any other Christian church usually cite this verse from Joseph Smith's account of his first vision (Joseph Smith 2:19) as their source:

. . . The Personage [Jesus Christ] who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

However, the following statement of Joseph Smith, which explains and tempers this, is never quoted:

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth; I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to. (History of the Church 6:57).

To understand Joseph Smith's position the following statement must also be considered:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." (History of the Church 5:517).

Here Joseph Smith acknowledged truth in other churches, even truths not then found in Mormonism, and declares that true Mormons must gather these and treasure them up. On another occasion he said:

The inquiry is frequently made of me, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?" In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. (History of the Church 5:499)-

The only thing that Joseph Smith condemned in other churches was that which was less than divine, that which was man-made. In a letter he wrote while in Liberty Jail he acknowledged the sincerity of those of other churches:

For there are yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. (D&C 123:12).

It seems clear that the only ones whom Joseph Smith condemned were those professors of religion who sought by craftiness to deceive.

Editor's Note: Joseph Smith also made the following statement:

"The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." (Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498.)

STATEMENTS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG

Brigham Young also expressed views similar to those of Joseph Smith:

"Mormonism" so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to "Mormonism." The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom. (Journal of Discourses 11:375).

It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation . . . (JD 7:283).

(See Do Only Mormons Go to Heaven?; Daily Living home page; Interfaith Relationships home page; Response to Criticism home page; Accusatory Questions home page)

Are Christians Mormon?
by Truman G. Madsen, Edited by Kerry A. Shirts

For a hundred and fifty years the question has been repeatedly asked worldwide, "Are Mormons Christian?" We have struggled through the semantic tangles to answer that with an unqualified "yes." In his heart every Mormon knows that this question is much like asking, "Is Hamlet Shakespearian?" It might be said, "After all, Hamlet is a manifestation of Shakespeare. In fact, Hamlet is Shakespeare." Precisely. And so, the Mormon knows that Mormonism is the most vital twentieth century manifestation of Christ. Unlike Hamlet, it is alive. If it is less than that it is nothing.

Here the plan is to reverse the question and ask, "Are Christians Mormon?" This is not mere word play. In our time there are renowned and influential spokesmen and writers in all the major wings of Christendom--and they are not on the periphery but at the center--who are defending and teaching what, a century ago, Joseph Smith almost alone taught. For teaching it he, and his immediate heirs, gave their lives. No one of these spokesmen has pulled it all together, but there are pieces and fragments everywhere.

Before we outline these in a way that must be at best, a beginning, may I offer just four cautions:

First, tracing trends and movements and shifts is always a selective affair. Just as powerful as the movements I am going to chronicle are counter movements equally influential that could lead one to the conclusion that Christianity today has never been farther away from its original moorings. Moreover, those who have swung towards us have sometimes swung pendulum-like too far the other way.

Second, terminology is deceptive. Men may speak similarly but mean and feel differently. And, as you know, the theological vocabulary is notoriously vague.

Third, the focus on belief--it involves values, commitments, kinds of loyalty, and cultures.

Finally, there is--as our missionaries more than anyone in the world may know--a tremendous chasm between what professional writers may say theologically, philosophically, and what actually penetrates to the grass roots. Between the theoretician and the layman there is an ocean.

But after those precautions, let us proceed with boldness.

The Nature of God (See Teachings About the Godhead home page)

When the Boy Prophet emerged from the grove now called Sacred, he announced an unqualified testimony that God is a person. In doing so he offended the traditional sensitivities of every official Christian church. They had used the word "person"--and still do--but only in a most attenuated form, ascribing to the Eternal, consciousness, will, some kind of individuality, but denying the full-bodied characteristics of personality that we associate with the word.

Today that has remarkably changed. There are many who are saying that either the God of the Christian heritage is a person--a God like Jesus the Christ--or Christianity is simply false. Nels F. S. Ferre, for one, has said, "We must return to the categories of the New Testament and abandon the categories of the philosophers." ["The Christian faith, we have said, needs to develop its own framework for expressing its universal message. Too long has it been limited by being couched within the thought stance of substance philosophy, while the newer process metaphysics is also unable to do full justice to the universal nature of the Christian faith.. . . The three categories of the New Testament which fundamentally define God, the Ultimate, are spirit, personal purpose, and love. We turn, therefore, to. . . these categories as the substrates from which the Christian framework can be formulated without recourse to alien, limiting, and distorting philosophies." Nels F. S. Ferre, The Universal Word (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 91.] Three recent articles have almost identical titles, "Is the God of the Philosophers the Same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?" [Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is Not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review 65 (January 1972): 1-27; Robin Atfield, "The God of Religion and the God of Philosophy," Religious Studies, vol. 9, no.1 (March 1973):1-9. Catholic Karl Rahner also makes the distinction in "Visions and Prophecies": "Out of the infinite possibilities of his freedom (who is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, not that of the philosophers) God could reveal this or that.. . . " Rahner, Inquiries (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964), p. 106.] And their answer is "no". Judah Halevi, Pascal, and Martin Buber, to name three recent philosophers, have said so.

A new interest in the question of whether we must delimit the word "being" and add the word "becoming" in our understanding of God is widespread. [One of the classic systematic presentations of the strength of "finitism" in theology is William Pepperell Montague's Belief Unbound (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930). The "process philosophy" movement, involving such men as William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne and others, is particularly concerned with the subject. Cf. Hartshorne's Man's Vision of God (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1941): Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese, eds., Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953); and Paul Tillich, "Tillich's Doctrine of God," in The Theology of Paaul Tillich, ed. Charles W. Kegley and Robert W. Bretall (New York: Macmillan, 1961).] Having studied under two well-known theologians, I can report a like instinct in them. One, still alive, has written in summary, "The Mormons are right." This is Charles Hartshorne of the University of Texas who has said that God is in some senses perfect but in other and important senses not; that there is yet process in God; that we must avoid, as Whitehead once said, "paying metaphysical compliments to God" which turn out to be insults. [In a personal letter dated 31 December 1972, Hartshorne, speaking of "tendencies in modern thought with affinities to Mormonism," also referred to Fechner, Leguier, Bergson, W. E. Hocking, Varisco, James Ward, and John Elof Boodin.]

The other, dead, is Paul Tillich. And I happen to know, as few do, that shortly before his death, having written three volumes identifying God with "Being Itself," with the Ground of Being, and denying all personal attributes, he keenly and tragically regretted it and fervently said, "If only I could do it over I would rewrite my book in terms of 'Spirit.'" [This according to conversations in his last months with Nels F. S. Ferre and John Dillenberger. See Tillich"s volume, Biblical Religions and the Search for Ultimate Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955). This book has been called a "brilliant compromise" between Being and personality. Careful reading will show it retains the word "person" only as an unavoidable human projection.] The next step would have been "person."

Robert McAffee Brown, [In Brown's response to Sterling McMurrin's Theological Foundations of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965), he speaks of tendencies on contemporary theology toward a positive estimate of personality. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1966), especially pp. 112-13.] John Cobb, Jr., and many others are taking similar ground. We are no longer alone. [John B. Cobb, Jr., A Christian Natural Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). See my review in BYU Studies, 6 (Spring-Summer 1965), pp. 186-88.]

Related to this is a comment of a prominent philosopher of education who has gone through, one by one, the traditional theistic categories like immutability, self-fulfilledness, absolute happiness, and then said, "I see no evidence in the scriptures nor any reasons discovered in logical analysis to believe that Jesus attributed any of these mythological traits to God." [Dean E. Turner, "The Careful Heart," (unpublished manuscript). Professor Turner's work also contains a complimentary section on the Mormon defiance of the traditional reading of "omnipotence," "omniscience," and "omnipresence."] Jesus spoke of God as "Father."

The Nature of Man (See Mankind)

Intertwined with this is the remarkable testimony we have struggled to bear as to the nature of man, the witness that there is something, even now, divine in mankind. This was offensive to anti-religionists and humanists for on their view man is much less than a superman and has only this life to work out his folly; offensive to the traditional Catholics because in their view there is a chasm between the nature of man and God and man only has dignity to the degree that he receives what they call "salvific grace." It was offensive to Fundamentalists and Calvinists because in their view man is afflicted with pride and in the worst view utterly depraved--a worm. The doctrine has seemed even more out of step with the mental weather of our time, for national and world catastrophe in the last fifty years has so shaken our confidence in man, so undercut the foundations of assurance, that today nihilism is popular and it is as if writers have chosen up sides to see who can declare the most sophisticated despair.

Out of step with all this, we have gone on saying that these writers are not describing all of real life, but only life without God; not being honest, but only morbid; not being true to experience, but only to a projected face of experience; and not undercutting genuine faith in God, but only their disillusioned false faiths.

Today others are seeing man's potential. Rufus Jones, the Quaker mystic, has written in nearly thirty books, "The old dualism must go"--the dualism that absolutely separates man and God. ["The two-world theory has become impossible to those who think in the terms of this generation. It is a dead conception. We have come back, by the help of psychology and modern philosophy, to the position of the first apostle of Christianity that every person lives and moves and has this real being in God." Rufus Jones, The Radiant Life (New York: Macmillan, 1944), p. 150.] Henri Bergson closes his book, Two Sources of Religion and Mortality, saying, "The universe is a machine for the making of Gods." [Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality in Religion (New York: Henry Holt, 1935). Bergson's concluding lines read: "Mankind lies groaning, half crushed beneath the weight of its own progress. Men do not sufficiently realize that the future is in their own hands. Theirs is the task of determining first of all whether they want to go on living or not. Theirs is the responsibility, then, for deciding if they want merely to live, or intend to make just the extra effort required for fulfilling, even on their refractory planet, the essential function of the universe, which is a machine for the making of gods" (p. 306).] Elton Trueblood has recently written, "Christianity is palatable not only because Jesus is like God, but because God is like Jesus." ["The deepest conviction of all Christian theology is the affirmation that the God of all the world is like Jesus Christ. Because the logical development is from the relatively known to the relatively unknown, the procedure is not from God to Christ, but from Christ to God." Elton Trueblood, The Humor of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 32.] And so may man be.

The Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin, in The Phenomenon of Man cited evidence that the ultimate purpose undergirding even the cells and matter-in-motion of the cosmos is to produce Christs--Christogenesis, the emerging of a great and glorious personality. ["Though frightened for a moment by evolution, the Christian now perceives that what it offers him is nothing but a magnificent means of feeling more at one with God and of giving himself more to him. In a pluralistic and static Nature, the universal domination of Christ could, strictly speaking, still be regarded as an extrinsic and super-imposed power. In a spiritually converging world this 'Christic' energy acquires an urgency and intensity of another order altogether. If the world is convergent and if Christ occupies its center, then the Christogenesis of St. Paul and St. John is nothing else and nothing less than the extension. . . of the noogenesis in which cosmogenesis--as regards our experience--culminates. Christ invests himself organically with the very majesty of his creation.. . . Evolution has come to infuse new blood, so to speak, into the perspectives and aspirations of Christianity. In return, is not the Christian faith destined, is it not preparing, to save and even to take the place of evolution?" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), pp. 269-97. See also "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: The Christianization of Evolution," Critical Issues in Modern Religion, Roger Johnson and Ernest Wallwork, eds. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), pp. 122-33. See also Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The image of Jesus Christ impresses itself into daily communion on the image of the disciple.. . . That image has the power to transform our lives, and if we surrender ourselves utterly to him, we cannot help bearing his image ourselves. We become the sons of God, we stand side by side with Christ, our unseen Brother, bearing like him the image of God." Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Macmillan, 1937), p. 337. The concluding chapter, "The Image of Christ," pp. 337-44, is devoted to this subject.] Karl Rahner, certainly the most influential and also the most officially renowned Catholic theologian, has written, "It is not possible to speak theologically about God without at the same time saying something about man and vice versa." [See Rahner's Spirit in the World (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), p. xvii.] Exactly.

Third, there was the claim that caused all to wince, of continual revelation. The Christian churches, in the absence of revelation, had tightened their views protectively, defensively, either around a holy man, the pope and hierarchy, or around a holy book, the Bible, which was alleged to be all-sufficient and only-sufficient. Religious knowing came only through that word and all other claims were treated as emotional extravagance.

Of Continual Revelation (See Prayer, Fasting, and Revelation home page)

Today it is different. Again the Quakers, George Fox, Rufus Jones, Elton Trueblood, speak (in these exact words) of continual revelation, by which they mean the cultivation of the inner light. [See, for example, George Fox, The Journal of George Fox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911); Rufus Jones, The Inner Life (New York: 1922), The Testimony of the Soul (New York: Maclmillan, 1937), Spirit in Man (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1941), New Eyes for Invisibles (New York: Macmillan, 1943); and David Elton Trueblood, The Common Ventures of Life (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), The Essence of Spiritual Religion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1936), and The Knowledge of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1939).] And they have abandoned the more extreme forms of mysticism--its world-hating, its denying of the subject-object distinction, its plea that one day we may be, in a metaphysical sense, one with the Ultimate. Instead, they are talking very intimately about what we would mean by the present influence of the light of Christ.

Among the Catholics, theologian Avery Dulles (son of John Foster Dulles) has argued there cannot be a Christian church without prophets. [Through documents such as those just mentioned ["The Decree on Ecumenism," nos. 4, 6, 7; and "The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," nos. 4, 11, 33, 44, of Vatican II} Vatican II expressed the Church's need for prophetic guidance and in so doing faced up to the needs of our day.. . . The current demand for prophets in the Church is due in part to the revolutionary changes in our time.. . . The rapidly evolving secular culture of our day puts questions to the Church for which there are no ready-made solutions. Scrutinizing the signs of the times, Christianity must re-interpret its own doctrine and goals in relation to the world today. To effect this transposition without loss of substance is a task calling for prophetic insight."

"Churchmen are always tempted to suppress prophecy, for it is a disturbing element. By upsetting men's settled views and destroying their complacencies, it continually threatens the unity and stability of the institutional Church. Yet the Church needs prophecy." Avery Dulles, S. J., The Survival of Dogma (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 131, 132 and the entire chapter, "The Permanence of Prophecy in the Church," pp. 125-33; see also Dulles' Revelation Theology (New York: Herder & Herder, c1969), Revealtion and the Quest for Unity (Washington: Corpus Books, [1968]), and "The Succession of Prophets in the Church," in Apostolic Succession: Rethinking a Barrier to Unity, vol. 34 of Concilium--Theology in the Age of Renewal (New York: Paulist Press, 1968).] Among the Protestants the traditional approach to mystery has slowly collapsed. Karl Barth had insisted that one could only speak dogmatically of what had been written; ["Where it happens that the biblical authority authenticates itself by actually obtaining a hearing and obedience, there it has evidently spoken understandably and been understood; there, evidently, exposition of the Bible has taken place. . . ."

"Who is it that expounds the Bible? We answer with the ancient axiom which must be the axiom of all hermeneutics: Scriptura Scriptuae interpres. With respect to the Holy Scriptures, that means: These writings, as God's Word in human words, expound themselves, are in themselves. . . everywhere perfectly clear and transparent." Karl Barth, God Here and Now ([New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), 2:237-41.] Bultmann, that one could speak only of its so-called existential impact, [Rudolph Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," reprinted in Kerygma and Myth, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), 2:237-41. ] Emil Brunner, that a revelation comprehended would not be one, ["The first and most important fact that we can know about God is ever this: we know nothing of Him, except what He Himself has revealed to us. God's revelation of Himself always occurs in such a way as to manifest more deeply His inaccessibility to our thought and imagination. All that we can know is the world. God is not the world. Therefore He is also exalted above all our knowledge. He is Mystery." Emil Brunner, Our Faith (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), pp. 11-12.] Martin Luther, that God is hidden (deus abs conditus); [Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will," in Martin Luther, ed. John Dillenberger (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), especially pp. 190-92. See also John Dillenberger, God Hidden and Revealed (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953). For further sources, Dillenberger's bibliography and footnotes include referenced for Barth, Boehme, Brunner, Harnack, Heim, Hendry, Hermann, Luther, Otto (especially), Ritschl, and Watson.] and the mystics, that God is known, if at all, "in a cloud of unknowing." [See the expressions of this view in Thomas S. Kepler, comp., The Fellowship of the Saints (New York: Abingdon Cokesbury, 1948).] Tillich likewise insisted that God is essential mystery not simply the not-yet-known, but an in-principle-unknowable. One comes away from the encounter with two things: 1) the knowledge that he has had the encounter with the mystery, and 2) that the mystery is mysterious. ["Knowledge of revelation is knowledge about the revelation of the mystery of being to us, not information about the nature of beings and their relation to one another."

". . . the ground of revelation is neither a cause which keeps itself at a distance from the revelatory effect nor a substance which effuses itself into the effect, but rather the mystery which appears in revelation and which remains a mystery in its appearance." Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 129, 156.]

All that has changed.

There is new recognition that the word "mysteries" as it appears in the New Testament and in its background literature means something more, something one can reach through with knowledge or gnosis--not simply on the ground of faith (which was the Protestant claim), but with knowledge. [Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term "Mystery" in the New Testament. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968).] All together more susceptible now to the claim of revelation, even the pope speaks frequently of it, uses the word, and prays for a restoration or renewal." [See passages cited in Hugh Nibley's Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970), chapter 1.]

It has been terrifying to men in charge of men's souls to be so bereft. They now recognize that while damning prophets, they themselves have been cast in the role. For any man at any time to say, "If you will do so and so, you will be saved," is to make prophecy. It is either true or false. And suddenly the recognition comes that Christ did not say there would be no prophets (that would have been a categorical way of enabling Christians to avoid deception). Instead he gave tests for distinguishing the true from the false. ["Since, then, all this is possible, it becomes a matter of great importance to recognize what it is in a particular case that answers the cry of the tormented heart: the empty echo in which, all unawares, one hears only oneself, or the answer in which God is perceived. Hence the problem of a criterion for the discerning of prophets, their voices and visions, w